my friend asked me to pretend to be her boyfriend because her parents are homophobic af but they ended up hating me so much that they were glad when she said she was gay task failed successfully
congrats on being so awful a boyfriend you destroyed homophobia
“Is it possible to turn things around by 2050? The answer is absolutely yes,” says Kai Chan, a professor at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia.
Many scientists have been telling us how the world will look like, if we don’t act now. However, others, like Chan, are tracking what success might look like.
They are not simply day-dreamers either. They aren’t being too optimistic. They are putting together road maps for how to safely get to the planet envisioned in the 2015 Paris Agreement, where temperatures hold at 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than before we started burning fossil fuels, this article from July states.
“Three decades is enough to do a lot of important things. In the next few years—if we get started on them—they will pay dividends in the coming decades,” says Chan, the lead author of the chapter on achieving a sustainable future in a recent UN report that predicted the possible extinction of a million species.
Making these changes won’t mean years of being poor, cold and hungry before things get comfortable again, the scientists insist. They say that if we start acting seriously NOW, we stand a decent chance of transforming society without huge disruption.
No doubt, it will take a massive switch in society’s energy use. But without us noticing, that’s already happening. Not fast enough, maybe, but it is. Solar panels and offshore wind power plummet in price.
Iceland and Paraguay have stripped the carbon from their grids, according to a new energy outlook report from Bloomberg. Europe is on track to be 90 per cent carbon-free by 2040. And Ottawa says that Canada is already at 81 per cent, thanks to hydro, nuclear, wind and solar.
Decarbonizing the whole economy is within grasp. We can do this.
“If we have five years of really sustained efforts, making sure we reorient our businesses and our governments toward sustainability, then from that point on, this transition will seem quite seamless. Because it will just be this gradual reshaping of options,” Chan says, adding: “All these things seem very natural when the system is changing around you.”
Hoping people with more relevant knowledge and science parsing skills than I do might comment on this …
I think it is absolutely vital that people be able to picture The Healed World. Honestly I think it’s one of the most important things we can do.
Look at how many different apocalypses people can visualise. Our brains can freely feast on unlimited scenes of scarcity, competition and fear. Everywhere we turn we can consume endless content about killing our neighbors for scraps, about hurting children, about bleak planets and extinction, and lots and lots of guns. It is easy, accessible and cheap. Our minds gobble up as much of this content as the market generates and the market gleefully generates more. We feed and feed upon a future of suffering and loss. We feast on images of brown children being hurt, unnecessarily, and say smugly that “that’s just what humanity is like.” Our brains are programmed away from the natural human responses to crises (fix it, help each other, rebuild and hope) and TOWARDS the mindsets of fictional apocalypse (cause it, turn on each other [it’s just what humans do! We’ve all seen the same stories!], collapse, fight each other for crumbs, the world is doomed anyway.)
It’s pretty unnecessary. And frankly pretty cringe. Imagine being part of some of the most prosperous, empowered, educated, connected group of humans to ever exist, and having a brain that can only picture the future as apocalypse-movie.
And where is the food of abundance, equality, beauty, hope, diversity? Where is the actual food of the future? Oh. It’s in, like, three solarpunk anthologies, huh?
Huh.
Anyway not to get all Amitav Ghosh on main but we have GOT to address this unnecessary and EMBARRASSING failure of imagination. Because we are the generation currently failing in our responsibilities as caretakers of the earth, because of this deranged inability to picture the world as being a real place, and the future being a place where people will live.
So, basically, yes, let’s just say it and start saying it regularly. The work is now and we have to do it. It isn’t impossible. Yes there is hope. Yes it can all be done. Yes there is a future for fucksake. It’s within our grasp. that is what futures are.
👆 Not sure if I’ve already reblogged this, but @elodieunderglass is 100% right here. We find it so easy to picture doom, but we find it so hard to picture healing.
Also, giving up on a future that is still possible means not only giving up on your own life, but the lives of your loved ones, on the poor and disadvantaged people who will face the worst impacts of the climate crisis, and giving up on nature itself.
For some people, climate disaster is already here. There are millions of people already fighting for survival. They don’t have the privilege of sitting back, giving up, and waiting for the apocalypse to come.
They don’t have the privilege of saying “Oh well, the world’s doomed anyway so why should we bother?” And neither should anyone else.
unfortunately my thoughts on tone indicators are somewhat nuanced. fortunately, this is tumblr not twitter, so I can just write out my full thoughts in one post and be as verbose about it as feels necessary.
speaking as an autistic person (and I know there are other autistic people who don’t hold this same view, this is just my perspective), I think as an accessibility tool, the extended set tone indicators in current popular use is fundamentally misguided.
the oldest ones, /s for sarcasm and /j for jokes, make sense. their notation isn’t the most intuitive thing (“does /s mean sarcastic or serious?”) but it’s not too difficult to explain what they mean. I’ve had to spend my whole life learning by brute force what different tones of voice mean and what they change about how I’m supposed to interpret something, so I already know what “read this in a sarcastic voice” and “read this as a joke” are supposed to mean. my existing skills can be translated into the new form without too much effort.
the same thing applies to emoji and emoticons. I know what facial expressions mean, because I had to learn what they mean. figuring out if :) is sincere or not from context is a skill I’ve already needed to develop. it doesn’t come naturally for me, but it’s something I already at least somewhat know how to do.
most of the tone indicators in current use uh. don’t work like this.
tone indicators like /ref or /nbh don’t correspond to specific tones of voice. I don’t have a “I’m making a reference” voice or a “I’m not talking about a person who’s here” voice that I can picture the sentence being read in. these do not indicate tones, they’re purely disambiguators. they clarify what something means without necessarily changing how it would be read out loud.
and on paper, that’s fine, right? like, it’s theoretically a good thing to take an otherwise ambiguous statement and add something to it that clarifies what you meant by it. the problem is that these non-tone tone indicators are not even remotely self-explanatory. it’s up to me, the person who is being clarified to, to know what all these acronyms are supposed to mean, and how they change the way I’m supposed to interpret what something means.
it’s, quite literally, a newly-invented second set of social cues that I’m expected to learn separately from the set that I’ve already spent my whole life figuring out, and it works completely differently.
sure, these rules are (in principle) less arbitrary than the rules of facial expressions and tones of voice and how long you’re supposed to wait before it’s your turn to speak, but they’re also fully artificial and recently invented, which means they’re currently in a constant state of flux. tone indicators go in and out of fashion all the time, and the “comprehensive lists” are never helpful.
in theory, I appreciate the idea of people going out of their way to clarify what they mean by potentially ambiguous things they post online. if it worked, that would be a really nice thing to do.
however, sometimes I imagine what the internet would be like without them. what if instead of using /s, the expectation was that if you’re sarcastic online there’s no guarantee that strangers reading your post will know what you meant? what if instead of inventing more and more acronyms to cover every possible potentially confusing situation, we just… expected one another to speak less ambiguously in the first place?
so, I on paper like the idea of tone indicators. I think it’s good that some people are trying to be considerate by being extra clear about what they mean by things. but if tone indicators didn’t exist, and people who wanted to be considerate in this way instead just made a point of phrasing things more clearly to begin with, I think that would be vastly preferable to even the most well-implemented tone indicator system.
also /pos sucks because there’s something deeply and profoundly wrong for an abbreviation that means “I don’t mean this as an insult, don’t worry” to be spelled the same way as an acronym that’s an insult
Hemitite is an iron ore material that is incredibly brittle since it’s iron rock.
It breaks because it is made thin as a ring and any decent pressure on it snaps it.
Not because of negative vibes
In other words:
The guy that made ‘em
I work at a rock shop, we have had these boys forever but due to some tik tok trend last week we have been getting people just comming in and rushing for the bands. Not to mention when they are like “man i hope yours does not break” and I tell them they are fragile and you should be careful with them they get angry with me since the only way the can possibly break is by vibes alone and not jusy throwing your hand down on a table too hard.
