Few things before I get down talked

  • I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
  • I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.

You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.

  • Invest more money into Fusion Power.
  • Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
  • Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
  • Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
  • 2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
  • Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
  • Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
  • Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
  • Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
  • Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
  • War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.

This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.

🥺

  • Okay, yeah, I don’t mean this antagonistically, I really do mean how do you think you’d get any world governments to agree to

    • Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it. [What would the timeline for this look like? What about nations like Nigeria and India that are still industrializing and without cheap energy like coal will not be able to keep pace with the rest of the world, effectively locking over a billion people in just those two countries off from industrial society]
    • 2 humans only policy. [This penalizes the only countries that are still growing at more than 1 child per person which are overwhelmingly third world nations. How would you get their governments to agree to doing this?]
    • Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things. [The United States is able to enjoy a world currency monopoly because it has the military backing to say “if you don’t play by our rules we will crush you”. You can’t convince the United States to disarm because their empire and economy straight up depends on it, and you can’t convince non-US-Aligned countries to disarm because then they will just get invaded by the United States (Google Libya giving up their nukes)]
    • War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all. [Refer to above]

    That’s what I mean, many of these solutions are not realistic long term, and additionally saying

    I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society.

    shows a lack of imagination for what’s possible. Planes are awful, period, every part of their use as mass-transit is inefficient and subsidized no matter how cool it all is. Trains are cheaper and more efficient for mass transportation. Wherever you may live there are no trains, but there’s a reason people in China and Japan use them so often.

    For more of what I’m talking about refer to this.

    • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago
      • Govt gets their data from energy industry who typically pay for so-called research, Microsoft for example is pro nuclear. So the govt typically tend to listen to them much more.
      • I am not interested in guessing, or time, as said its a game about semantics, does not matter if we talk 10, 20 100 years the end result is my point. India plans new power plants, recently announced. My research from Nigeria is thin, as I am not interested that much in the country, I know people from India so my interest is higher here.
      • The child policy is something I am willingly to debate, 3 kids maybe but no more. There could be a compromise for cities and housing. I do agree that e.g. in africa this might be critical but overall there should be done. Its about resource management.The govt could give a reward, money for example to encourage it.
      • Your US example lacks as US gives so far less about renewables than EU, already linked + mentioned. Again Microsoft - US + China - supports pro nuclear. And presidents in US history are not known to be the smartest in general, hands down. #dontlookup
      • If everyone gets rid of all weapons I do not see why this is not a nice long term goal, we should start the process better now than later.

      shows a lack of imagination for what’s possible. Planes are awful, period, every part of their use as mass-transit is inefficient and subsidized no matter how cool it all is. Trains are cheaper and more efficient for mass transportation. Wherever you may live there are no trains, but there’s a reason people in China and Japan use them so often.

      AHH no I am with you on this one, I am also pro tech. Not getting rid of everything and back to stone age policy.

      I take almost no YouPoop video serious in serious discussion, as you find millions of - opinions - not research or something for and against everything. Irrelevant especially then when no timestamps, scientific research or sources are mentioned in those videos.

      • He actually cites sources in the comments, I also don’t think dismissing youtubers period is a good policy, there’s some good ones even though I admit and this one is especially exemplary because he is a scientific marxist

        • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          Does not change underlying thing that those YouTubers are very often not the actual scientists and you find to every paper counter papers claiming the world is wrong and they are right.

          Does not scale, I can counter your video with 100 other videos, leads to nothing … The discussion is here about fundamentals not what X says because the topic is my solution and not solution from youtuber z.

          • Bruh that’s not very productive then 💀

            You’re not the only person that’s thought about this, this is different from the usual youtubers we’re both aware of, if you just discount saying NOTABUG - WONTFIX to anyone that’s already thought hard about it you’re not going to have any useful or realistic framework in place. Many people have already created solutions, we just need to hear them out and debating between each other in this way isn’t productive for anything other than internet masturbation.

            If you had applied the same logic to mathematical works, say you don’t even begin to listen to mathematical novels from a specific area because they’re “not trustworthy” how would the collaboration be reached to finally attain calculus, Fourier Series, etc? Not everything can be figured out by one person, if you refuse to hear what an entire platform says period you’re not going to be sitting on the shoulders of any giants, you’re just going to be sitting at their feet. All this to mean, dismissing Second Thought because he’s a youtuber is not productive.

            • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              Point is that I am pro tech and I see tech as possible compromise in my proposal. Undermining my opinion based on what xyx says would only result that my proposal becomes less efficient. My framework is more realistic than storing trash under your kids table, backup up by scientists not sponsored by Microsoft.

              I trust scientists that they do their homework, not youtubers cherry picking what they think is reality.

              • Yeah but what I’m saying is that there’s failings with a purely technochratic solution that already present themself; because we have the technology but not the actual political will. Ignoring the political issues is literally useless, it feeds into the climate issues you say you care about. If you’d rather a blog post by a similar marxist that explains the same points if text helps your brain, then I can oblige, but the points are still fr.

                • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  It is a team effort sure thing, mentioned already. I care more than most people here cause I have solar, wind and other stuff on my roof since 25 years.

                  • Yeah but by not sufficiently looking into the political causes for why we’re in the situation we’re in now you’re accidentally enabling further climate catastrophe. That’s very good you’ve had solar and wind on your roof for 25 years, but that’s certainly not a reasonable solution for the single mother of 3 in the city. What I’m saying is that your framework is fundamentally built around liberal thinking, and you should expand it by seeing what scientific marxists have to say. Because they’ve had the solutions for a long time, they’re just not at the steering wheel. One scientific marxist I enjoy is Second Thought on Youtube, but I know the blog red sail is pretty swell as well.