We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

This is really clever if you’re okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe… Otherwise it’s a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.

That’s totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.

I’m primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I’m thus unwilling to take a “we don’t have to worry about human extinction because it’s statistically unlikely” stance. I’m also not attempting to assert that that’s your stance, either. I don’t know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.

I really appreciate your reply, and I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I’m coming off as an ass.

I have no horse in this race, topically speaking, but your continual return to name-calling (“Cheney Dems”, “Blue MAGA”) belies your attempt to come across as a good-faith participant in this discussion. There are people out there that think differently than you, and there always will be. Using pejoratives, reducing people you don’t know to mere “thought-terminating cliches”, is not conducive to civil discussion or persuasive dialectics.

Alright. I’m sorry to have annoyed you. I was just hoping for a discussion.

We have a difference of opinion and that’s alright. My concerns surrounding the Holocene extinction event triggering total ecosystem collapse need not be yours.

I’m a human behind a screen, just like you. It’s free to be kind to people, even when you disagree with them.

Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.

I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7

Don’t miss this bit:

The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I wiped my ass with a wadded up ball of 25 toilet paper squares for years because no one wanted to tell me about more efficient and effective ways to do it. Bathroom knowledge is like your paycheck. They say you shouldn’t talk about it with your peers, but it needs to be talked about.

These days I can clean my whole ass, even on the most explosive days, with less than 10 squares, and I’m saving so much money.

It takes a big person to cop to things like that, instead of doubling down. Whatever his reasons, we should all strive to be as open to admitting when we were wrong as Coolio was.

There’s also the issue that after the moon landing we didn’t really improve that much and much of the knowledge faded

I know, right? It really sucks. They’re honestly one of the tastier bars I’d had. I’ve taken a bit of a step back from chocolate in general, these days. I probably got enough lead exposure as a kid… no need to add any more than is absolutely unavoidable.

Too bad about all the lead in them. They’re not as bad as some brands, though.

since English isn’t something you’re comfortable reading

I’m having a hard time figuring out what they said that merited this level of hostility. They weren’t even arguing with you!?

Not quite as simple as checkboxes, but the ability is there to some degree!

Cities: Skylines II Found a Solution for High Rents: Get Rid of Landlords

For months, players have been complaining about the high rents in the city-building sim. This week, developer Colossal Order fixed the problem by doing something real cities can’t: removing landlords.

The rent is too damn high, even in video games. For months, players of Colossal Order’s 2023 city-building sim, Cities: Skylines II, have been battling with exorbitant housing costs. Subreddits filled with users frustrated that the cost of living was too high in their burgeoning metropolises and complained there was no way to fix it. This week, the developer finally announced a solution: tossing the game’s landlords to the curb.

“First of all, we removed the virtual landlord so a building’s upkeep is now paid equally by all renters,” the developer posted in a blog on the game’s Steam page. “Second, we changed the way rent is calculated.” Now, Colossal Order says, it will be based on a household’s income: “Even if they currently don’t have enough money in their balance to pay rent, they won’t complain and will instead spend less money on resource consumption.”

The rent problem in the city sim is almost a little too on the nose. Over the last few years real-world rents have skyrocketed—in some cases, rising faster than wages. In cities like New York, advocates and tenants alike are fighting against the fees making housing less and less affordable; in the UK, rent is almost 10 percent higher than it was a year ago. From Hawaii to Berlin the cost of living is exorbitant. Landlords aren’t always to blame, but for renters they’re often the easiest targets.

From this perspective, perhaps Cities’ simulator is too good. Prior to this week’s fix, players found themselves getting tripped up on some of the same problems government officials and city planners are facing. “For the love of god I can not fix high rent,” wrote one player in April. “Anything I do re-zone, de-zone, more jobs, less jobs, taxes high or low, wait time in game. Increased education, decreased education. City services does nothing. It seems anything I try does nothing.”

On the game’s subreddit, players have also criticised “how the game’s logic around ‘high rent’ contrasts reality,” with one player conceding that centralized locations with amenities will inevitably have higher land values. “But this game makes the assumption of a hyper-capitalist hellscape where all land is owned by speculative rent-seeking landlord classes who automatically make every effort to make people homeless over provisioning housing as it is needed,” the player continued. “In the real world, socialised housing can exist centrally.”

This is true. It exists in Vienna, which the New York Times last year dubbed “a renters’ utopia.” Except, in Vienna the landlord is the city itself (it owns about 220,000 apartments). In Cities: Skylines II, the devs just got rid of landlords completely.

The change in-game will have “a transition period as the simulation adapts to the changes,” and the developer “can’t make any guarantees” with how it will impact games with mods. Although the update aims to fix most of the problems at hand, that doesn’t mean players should never expect to see rent complaints again. When household incomes are too low to pay, tenants will be loud about it. “Only when their income is too low to be able to pay rent will they complain about ‘High Rent’ and look for cheaper housing or move out of the city.” Maybe it’s time players had a few in-game tenant groups of their own.

What would you have me do?

What do you suggest we Americans do? I can vouch for the fact that spending my entire life feeling ashamed of my country has not helped to make it better, despite doing my best to be an outspoken critic of American policy… so I’m hoping you can provide a suggestion for a viable path to redemption.

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-afd-on-tiktok-the-political-battle-for-the-youth/a-68690661

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}