I’m no expert either but I never got the idea of a new universe popping up everytime. Do other universes also cause popups of new universes or just ours? That’d escalate quickly :-)

I thought it goes that there’s already infinite universes existing from the big bang on. Otherwise universes would be created without big bang. (The new universe would just pop up and you’d still believe it was created by the big bang but there never was one)

Also I’m not sure if laws of thermodynamics had to span accross universes. Take two theoretical perfect vacuum/radiation sealed boxes you put an energy source into. There’s no way to communicate between boxes. Each box had it’s own entropy and state of energy. Both would obey the laws of physics while being separate “systems”.

That thought experiment wouldn’t work, if new boxes had to pop up if one of the boxes wanted to.

why would alternative universes share a single source of energy? couldn’t each have their own?

your own fault. get a nuclear reactor next time d’uh…

lock 'im up already…

imagine microsoft promoting guides to use the terminal which was deemed outdated, slow and complicated legacy in the past.

Give it two or three more major teleases, then windows will be a DE runnining on some *nix-ish kernel. Microsoft is really learning the hard way.

wouldn’t make that consent even harder? or imply wars?

e.g. Brazil. Imagine they got the last lumber on earth, they’d have to choose between preserving their last trees and incredible wealth by selling it. I can’t imagine a poor country to choose the former.

I don’t believe a CEO or King is necessary for short sighted action. Humans are just very bad at sustainable long-term decisions.

I know a guy who owns a small forrest and when wood prices were skyrocketing due to supply chain disruption, he was tempted to sell more wood than planned. So he couldn’t sell as much in the following years. He has no boss, is not rich and makes his own decisions.

It’s a simple mechanism of supply and demand. I can’t see a reason why people wouldn’t cut down more trees than can grow back when demand is ultra high, other than force/legislation. And then people get angry because they won’t realize that they’d destroy their own business in the long run. A worldwide life-threatening situation won’t change that.

That’s exactly one of the premises in this paper: Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis.

Some say, the easter island model doesn’t scale worldwide but I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.

get in touch once again with an old friend

we all had this moment but at this time, it’s unlikely any old friends will join FB/Instagram that haven’t already.

not sure why you’re downvoted. of course member states enforce it.

Question is: How much does spontaneous interaction contribute to your life.

For me I found, it’s not much more than a regular, short dopamine rush and lock-in in a certain bubble. Do I know a lot less about people? Sure. Do I miss something in my life? Hell no. That added peace is invaluable and a telephone call from time to time is much better.

was first to report about israel’s nukes, exposed journalists on CIA payroll and various other great pieces of journalism.

It is a music magazine but I see far worse news sources on social media.

So you are saying

“The belief that climate change is unstoppable”

is the same thing as

“a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity”

Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright… I’m the one who’s illiterate.

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”

Then he’s wrong. But it’s more likely you misread the study since that’s not the conclusion.

100.0 TiB(anana)

there will be a ‘bastards up against the wall’ moment for the ones responsible.

i can’t see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without “state of emergency”) lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.

But first the environmental conditions must allow such activities to have the impacts they have.

Exactly. There might even be the same amount of arsonists/stupid people as in the 80s but it just burns better now. Incidents were no fire developed in the 80s can now spread to huge wildfires with a much higher chance.

Still the claim is true and probably has consequences for hikers, people who live in the woods, settlements near to forrests etc.

climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences

Those are two entirely different narratives.

(And I didn’t get past the paywall.)

because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.

That’s the thing I don’t get. How to come to such a conclusion?

If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.

It’s totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.

How is it stupid? It’s true and not even contradicting OPs experience.