also, it has been known for quite some time how damaging the near total reliance on cars and the associated infrastructure at that scale is. If you do absolutely nothing about climate change when you have the most resources to do so, then I cannot feel sorry about anything that's happening.
I feel like being forced to spend 40+ hours at any/every job has to create more work to justify that amount of time (an "agreement" that people died for when they were working in factories, not that its based on anything realistic or 'scientific'), and that's not very inspiring and takes SO MUCH ENERGY, at least for me.
On top of that you then are faced with this constant increase in "tech" that is supposed to do so much amazing stuff / make everyone more efficient, so now you are forced to do even more work in those 40 hours or get squeezed by wealth inequality? The new AIM chatbots coming out now can do so much! wowee! now I can be in 4 meetings at once?
Then on top of THAT you also have to wake up each morning facing global climate change where there is no real effort to change the course (you can say all you want about renewables, but as long as these graphs keep going up we're all going down https://www.climate.gov/).
People do get value and meaning from their work, whatever it is, it just feels like this mindset and social structure of the industrial age doesn't match up with any of the challenges we face nor does it feel like it fits with all the knowledge and technology that has been developed. What's the point if what we're doing on a day to day basis takes so much of our energy and then just gets us closer to human caused environmental destruction no matter what it is?
I'm less pessimistic. I'm convinced that technology will at least considerably decrease the amount of trouble caused by climate change. There are a lot of options, and we will converge to a 'golden' combination of strategies to deal with the effects of climate change. Today we can make huge rockets that can land themselves vertically. What will tomorrow bring?
This sounds like a fallacy. Just because technology is helping humanity achieve incredible things (for profit), it doesn't mean it will be employed to make advancements in climate change prevention strategies (until it's too late?). It hasn't been until now, anyways.
I don't think we will be in time to prevent climate chznge to a large degree. However I'm quite hopeful that technology will seriously decrease the cost of the consequences of climate change.
I'm not saying everybody should be an entrepreneur, far from it, but a decrease in entrepreneurship at a societal level hurts everyone. You can see that too, right?
the extreme excess and total neglect of the end of the lifecycle / negative externalities that every god damn company on earth likes to push onto people and the environment is the problem. Nobody said plastics aren't useful, why is that so hard to understand?
"Netflix does contribute financially to the FreeBSD Foundation and has done so since 2012. Last year they engaged at the "platinum" level with contributing more than $50,000+ USD to the foundation." (2019)
Took about five seconds to Google, it's the first result for "netflix donations to freebsd".
it's interesting seeing our intentional or subconscious goal of "dominating" nature disconnect us further from the planetary systems that we are a part of. The economy and money was invented by us. Putting the economy's well-being in front of the human's or the earth's was very plainly a mistake.
I remember his religion and morality coming up in more than one occasion in his videos, only to then learn that he worked for a weapons manufacturer. It was really jarring and made so much come off as disingenuous that I just can't watch his content anymore, not that promoting weapons on his channel was good on its own anyway.
Can you give a specific example of something that he said that you felt was disingenuous? Or even just elaborate further why you feel that is disingenuous?
It seems like you are implying that someone who works for the military cannot be religious or have morals. But even if your religious beliefs or morals prevent you from working for the military, surely you must recognize that there many people whose morals and religious beliefs do not conflict with military service. And that’s not being disingenuous, that’s just having a different point of view.
I'm not the poster that you replied to, but I feel the same way that this15testing does. I was turned off from all future videos by a specific line in one of this recent videos, specifically #242 "World's Fastest Pitch - Supersonic Baseball Cannon" (see starting approximately one minute into that video) because of just how unexpected him mentioning his work as a "developmental weapons tester" jarred with his supposed piety and his aw-shucks folksiness.
Couple that with a grinning photo of him sitting on top of an industrially-produced cannon-type weapon in that same video just made me uneasy. The end of every video on that channel has a bible verse citation so it's especially mind boggling. Isn't the fifth commandment "do not kill"? I believe if you're a religious person working in weapons development and choose to compartmentalize your beliefs for a paycheck then you are either naive or malicious, I don't know which is worse.
The commandment is more accurately translated as “though shalt not murder”, or commit unjustified killing. The bible provides many examples where killing is justified, such as punishment for a crime, defending ones’ self or property, and - especially relevant here - warfare. [1] So no compartmentalization of beliefs is necessary to work in defense.
I see this a lot where people try to use christians’ beliefs against them to try pigeonhole them into thinking and acting a certain way, or call them hypocrites for not acting the way they believe christians should act. But religion is open to many different interpretations - just look at the number sects within every religion - and we shouldn’t really assume anything about a person’s beliefs just because they are “religious”.
the drop in emissions we need to not pass 1.5C of warming is not within the time frame of construction/operation of full nuclear power (for the entire world, not just the US).
Electric cars exist to (temporarily?) save the auto industry. The decrease we get in purely tailpipe emissions does not offset the supporting infrastructure, their construction, and the sprawl that they demand.
Even Exxon is not putting 1.5C targets (where even then a lot of real people die) in their "sustainability" reports anymore. Everything needs to stop at 2030 at the latest, and I personally have no hope that that is possible.
