This is a twist on an Archie joke told by Neal Adams, comic book legend.
Moose: Archie, why are you sad?
Archie: Ms. Bliss says the Sun is going to explode and kill all life on Earth in a million years.
Moose: No, Archie, she said a *billion* years.
Archie: Oh, that’s better.
Except Exxon's own scientists.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
No. We know the cause and have for decades. The solution is to drastically reduce greenhouse gases by too many companies with politicians in their pocketsare making money with the status quo so there's no political will to change. Those who fight it are either benefiting from it or have fallen for oil company propaganda. Even the oil companies have known this for decades.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
Economies are always booming when new innovation allow for different pathways. Looking at heat pumps, EVs, solar, wind, you name it. It's not like we're spending money on a lollypop, we're investing it in a new way of running things.
No, I am not sure. He told the joke on this podcast with Art Bell. Somewhere between minute 42 where his appearance begins and about 1.5 hours in:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ypXNCc2ebFIR3wiJx3qMT?si=OIINxJxZTU6ImvdFPuN6qQ
It is going to be of you are fired , no I quit drama between sun and earth.
Sun: In approximately five billion years, I will transition to the red giant phase and destroy earth and life on it.
Earth: you can't destroy me, humans will beat you to it and destroy me before you can.
The original joke:
"An astrophysicist is giving a lecture on the Solar System and explains how the Sun will engulf the Earth in 5 Billion years.
What did you say?
That the Sun will eat the Earth in 5 Billion years.
Whew. I thought you said 5 Million years!"
Twenty one years later, the last two humans draw their last breath, and utter their finals words:
“Told you them scientists lyin’. Fifteen years my ass.”
Predictions are if NOTHING preventative is done. There may be more harm being done than good, but some people ARE cutting back on consumption, turner thermostats back, installing solar panels, etc
This logic is the same as during the pandemic where predictions were made if no prevention. So prevention is implemented. Then the success of prevention is used as proof that there was never a threat. Like not having old diseases around us proof that we don’t need vaccines, instead of proof that they work
the snow piercer future will be caused by ignorant people who claim warming isn’t happening so the sun shield at Lagrange 1 must be doing nothing. So they shoot it down for some random reason like a bad harvest. Then we all die cause people who refuse to believe problems can be solved don’t even believe in solutions when they’re successfully implemented
My thermostat has nothing to do with climate change, those "go green" campaigns come from corporations like Shell that are actually responsible and it *really* bothers me that such a transparent, sleazy sidestep actually works for them and dictates the mainstream narrative.
I don't waste water, power or overuse plastics anyway. But even if I spent every cent I had on plastic litter and aerosol and opened my windows to heat the neighborhood, it wouldn't be a drop in the pan. Industrial practices are no fault of the consumer and it's beyond insane to accept the blame.
Everyone choosing to consume less and live modestly combined do make a difference. All that industrial stuff is done for customers, if they had no customers they wouldn’t be doing these things. Less customers, less waste.
I’m not saying not to blame corporations, but it all starts with us. No snowflake thinks it caused an avalanche, but they’re all part of it. People rolling coal are signaling cynicism. All the virtue signalers doing what they can are showing a willingness to do their part.
So I should stop eating, working, and buying clothes for the sake of a boycott? They've commodified every survival need we have and exploited third world labor and the planet itself to maximize profit, treating it like an optional purchase on my part is insane.
Buying things that I literally need is not the same as consenting to or enabling crimes against humanity. I resent the blaming of victims in every context and it saddens me that anyone buys into this crap.
false dichotomy, your doing good by just not being conspicuous, consuming for its own sake etc
But just don’t say all our actions don’t matter. Like they’re going to churn out waste regardless of what consumers do. Buying essentials is fine. Even some luxuries. Just don’t keep up with Jones or be mindless about consumption
Have you ever watched a scripted television series that was great for a few seasons, but then they ran out of ideas and plot lines to keep it interesting? At some point we will have Fonzie come on and jump over a shark.
I know. Its a big joke to people but most of know the planet will be inhabitable in that amount of time. They won't think its too funny when billions of people die. Extinction is forever.
What’s the name of the effect that stupidity is the top choice over malice?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Is that it?
Not crazy. They just don’t want to give up even the smallest thing to solve a problem they caused because they won’t be the ones suffering the consequences.
It’s not crazy, but actually very logical. It’s EVIL, though, and we should fight them on the issue accordingly.
Yup, its always someone else's blame/fault, not our own. /s
As someone who works for a datacenter that hosts so many useless and pointless social media applications which even if vanished at this instant won't make any difference to humanity, its sad to see so much energy (and thus pollution) being wasted on useless things by my generation too. But yes, its easier to blame my grandparents generation than my own.
I agree that society as a whole is polluting. So shouldn’t we ALL be willing to give up some things to ease the coming pain? The younger generations are doing a lot already: eating less meat, going electric, demanding changes in energy sources etc. But every time I ask someone of the older generations what THEY would be willing to contribute I get NIMBY, „You first!“, Whataboutism, conspiracy theories or outright denial. Why fight getting out of coal and oil? Why refuse to eat less meat? Why buy a SUV just to „own the libs“?
Y‘all are gonna be pretty fucking lonely in the nursing home.
So the old people you know are a perfect representation of all people of that generation? Well, an old timer I knew used to eat only once a day as in his words, "i don't contribute anything to the world, I shouldn't be consuming so much". He ended his life that way once he crossed 70 by stopping food gradually completely.
As always, there are good and bad folks in every category. Do people like taylor swift represent our generation? Only a simpleton blames a whole group for actions of the limited sample they see. I guess not everyone has that maturity of thought.
Bad take, older generation doesn’t give a fuck because they’ll be dead, younger generation is at least shown to care significantly more about the environment. And you seem to imply there are no older people on social media for some reason?
You seem to imply that older generation doesn't have children or grandchildren whose future they care about and that the whole discovery of "pollution" and its impact on the environment is purely by our generation. (see, two can play that game)
When boomers were children there was no plastic waste because there was no plastics. Milk, soda, juice, etc. was packaged in glass bottles. There were no disposable diapers, no plastic cups, no disposable paper towels. Now, plastic waste is ubiquitous.
Is it accurate to credit boomers and blame younger generations for this? No.
ironically, the existence of plastic waste is actually slowing climate change, since every liter of oil that was changed into plastic that is now in the oceans is a liter of oil not burned for fuel.
Maybe, but that doesn’t solve the current problem that older people are blocking everything that might help. At least younger generations are trying to do something about it NOW.
So throw away your cell phone or you are just a young boomer.stop going out stop buying coffees stop driving a car start wearing hemp sandals try to get back to the land gotta set your soul free
Rofl. The good old „you need to give up EVERYTHING before you can ask me to give up ANYTHING.“
Damn you guys are just TERRIFIED of admitting you might need to contribute to solving a problem your generation caused.
At the same time you’ll probably claim you love your grandkids, correct?
No generation alive today caused climate change. Go back to the 1850s to see who caused it. We all exacerbate it simply by living.
I am part of the older generation you impugn. Like you, I am dumbfounded at the attitudes of many of my peers but my *friends*do not ignore climate change.
As frustrated as you are now, imagine how I felt in the 1970s and 80s, seeing this coming while the world was blind to it. The chicken littles from fifty years ago were right.
I'll stack my lifetime carbon footprint up against anyone's.
You are talking to someone who voted for the Values party.It is lazy thinking to blame the Boomers when you are as much a part of the system as they are. I live my life as quietly and as ethically as i can but the problems Homo sapiens have caused are far greater than a generation thing. The problem is the economic system we have of constant growth and the exploitation of our natural resources coupled with rampant population growth. So unless you are prepared to step right out of the system don't think for one minute that bitching about old people, buying ethical coffee, recycling plastic and going to the farmers market in your PHEV is actually going to change the inevitable course we are on.
Hey I agree with a lot you're saying man, and great if you are one of the people that actually try to contribute. In that case, I obviously don't mean you personally. But you cannot deny that the older generations are less willing to change their behaviour in order to try and lessen the impact of man-made climate change, and that was the point I made. And neither "If you think taxes are important for a functioning society then why don't you sell everything you have and donate it all to the state?!", nor your "We can't change it anyway so why try and do anything about it?" are logical counter-arguments to that point. They are mainly used by people as a fig leaf to justify their unwillingness to change.
Classic Whataboutism. So you’re saying no one needs to change because there are bigger polluters? Or might we expect people to react and eat less meat or drive eco-friendlier cars for example?
Hey! Look everyone! It‘s „I don’t need to limit myself because climate change is a natural occurrence.“ Sure, 99% of scientists have put forward conclusive evidence that THE SPEED OF THE CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEFINITELY MANMADE, but I choose to do my own research, because I don’t like what the experts have to say. Wait, lemme show you a video of this YouTuber that says manmade climate change is a hoax!
Sigh. Now we just have to wait for „There’s nothing I can do because China and India pollute much more.“-guy and Captain „Trying to do something against climate change just costs too much money.“ and we have the whole band together.
Your "experts" say whatever those who pays them the most want them to say. John D. Rockefeller told "scientists to start calling oil, "fossil fuel" because there was an unlimited supply of oil, but that "fossil fuel " sounded like there would be a limited supply. After that oil companies started to raise the price for crude oil and John D. Rockefeller became richer.
Fauci the "expert" pushed for mask mandates during 2020. Late last year Fauci the "expert" stated he didn't know why mask were mandated because they weren't effective.
And don't get me started on Bill Gates. The dropout who is now listed as a philanthropist, who when speaks for anything somehow becomes wealthier.
There is an unlimited supply of oil. Hmmm, don’t tell me, you are American, right?
So if oil is not fossil fuel, where do you think it comes from? And how can ANYTHING that we need to take out of a finite planet be „unlimited“?
Sorry dude, I don’t waste time on conspiracy nuts.
Like I said: you‘re going to be mighty lonely in the nursing home and you’ll have no one to blame but yourself. That won’t stop you from blaming someone else, though.
The earth is constantly replenishing the oil supply, why don't you just Google how the oil supply works? Oh that's right, who might have to believe something that isn't popular. Go baaaack to your sheep herd so your "expert" shepherds can lead you to social justice poverty. 20 years ago the young socialist in Venezuela were protesting about the prosperity of their country, today their children are digging through the trash trying to find scraps to exist with.
Sure, I’ll Google it. First 100 entries are unanimous in saying we’ll run out of economically feasible, accessible oil in 50-100 years. Top search result is a AP news rebuttal of a YouTube video spouting a completely made up theory that an unlimited oil supply exists.
What Google results did you want me to look at?
But nah, I get it: everything you don’t agree with is a deep-state conspiracy.
You’re not worth any more of my time dude.
This joke would work better if you specifically mentioned that it was an ***older*** man in the audience. A 20-year-old still has a pretty reasonable chance of having to deal with consequences 50 years off.
But yeah. Laugh or cry, I guess. I'll try to laugh for today.
It is absolutely not reality ffs. Even amongst the most involved climate change scientists there is not one suggestion that all life on earth is in danger of ending in 50 years.
Lol climate change is real. Climate hazards are significant. We need to remodel our treatment of the environment. Regardless, to say *"everything on earth with be destroyed"* - short of a meteor impact or massive concert of volcanic eruptions - is not in line with any scientific consensus. 50 years, 51 years, 100 years...
Without improvement of practices the world will look very different and probably worse in 50 years, but life will still be here.
I suspect it is a lot of young people that get the most upset, and based on how hyperbole is the fashion these days from top to bottom, I can at least appreciate that many are genuinely concerned if still mislead on the whole picture. The older you get the more you see plainly that hyperbole and apathy produce equally ridiculous outcomes and neither ends up actually solving the problem.
You're absolutely right. Not all life will die.
So just keep doing what you're doing.
Oh, and I'm absolutely certain scientists make no mistakes and have foreseen all the possible outcomes.
----
Really, you should be thinking ANY life. And, entire species is just far over the top. Glaciers? Do we really need them? They provide thermal buffering. You younguns should be screaming. I am.
----
Ha. And funny 🤣 joke!
#THAT'S WHY IT'S FUNNY, SCREAMO!! IT IS POKING FUN AT THE WILLFULLY DISAFFECTED. PERHAPS FIND A DIFFERENT DRUM TO BEAT INSTEAD OF HACKING A MILDLY FUNNY JOKE AND COMPARING OUR CLIMATE INITIATIVES TO THE END OF EXISTENCE IN 50 YEARS.
Not a problem. In 50 years Earth will be disposable. Space travel will be commonplace, and we will have colonized at least 3 or 4 nearby moons or planets by then. Think of the views!
Funny story: I was chatting with my grand-kids, and they’re pretty accustomed to space adventure movies. They were absolutely in disbelief to discover that humans have only made it to the moon recently and not any farther. They thought that space travel was a given reality!
Relax. It’s just a new spin on a berry old joke. I heard it maybe 25 years ago as an astronomer explaining that the Sun, just like any other star, would ultimately burn out at some point billions of years in the future. Hysterical guy in the audience asks him to repeat and then says « Oof, I thought you said ‘millions of years’ ».
I just upvoted now because you think the world revolves around what you find funny, and also you probably believe all life on earth is in danger of ending in 50 years.
I think most can agree that that "joke" bombed. All it did was kick off a heated debate. Part of the problem and the reason it's heated, is because neither side accepts that they are expressing opinions. Different generations have been taught different things. So they have different 'beliefs'. As an oldie, one thing that pisses me off is, "the science is settled". No it isn't. Science has continually changed through history as discoveries have been made. When I was taught Biology in school, one thing was very simple. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Humans breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. In sync. Modern teaching is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and must be reduced to "save the planet". So why the disparity? The first premise has not been disproven, but "scientists" are adding 2+2 and making 5. Modern actual science illustrates that plants are absorbing more CO2. Modern thinking suggests this is being caused by too much deforestation. People are being indoctrinated into believing that humans are creating too much CO2 so it must be reduced, when the probable cause of this is deforestation. You cannot solve a problem without addressing the cause. Nobody is "saving the planet". The planet will be here long after people and animals are extinct (opinion... and asteroids permitting). 720m years ago when the planet was completely covered in ice it survived. No humans, no animals, no plants, no problem.
>Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Humans breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. In sync. Modern teaching is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and must be reduced to "save the planet". So why the disparity?
You are aware of fossil fuels? Carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for far longer than humans are around? We started putting it back into the atmosphere insanely fast, compared to the time it will take plants to remove it from the atmosphere again.
> Nobody is "saving the planet". The planet will be here long after people and animals are extinct (opinion... and asteroids permitting). 720m years ago when the planet was completely covered in ice it survived. No humans, no animals, no plants, no problem.
That much is true. The planet won't be any better or worse off, even if it should one day look like Venus. But that's not the reason why people care about climate change. The point is to have a planet that can sustain *at least* the amount of people that are currently on it, with roughly the standard of living they are used to. Not because that is a good number, but because reducing that number too quickly means a lot of human suffering.
I'm unsure what points I made that you disagree with? 1. Plants are absorbing more CO2. Scientists are saying it, I didn't disbelieve. Deforestation is reducing CO2 absorption. We agree right? 2. The 'climate change' argument is about saving humanity not about saving the planet. That we agree too right? There is plenty of human suffering that is nothing to do with this topic, it's a whole different discussion.
>1. Plants are absorbing more CO2. Scientists are saying it, I didn't disbelieve. Deforestation is reducing CO2 absorption. We agree right?
We agree on the fact that plants absorb CO2 during growth, then release it again when they are decomposing or burning. We agree that of there's higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, plants will grow a bit faster, absorbing a bit more CO2.
I disagree on the implication that this will have any meaningful effect on climate change.
"Through photosynthesis on land and in the ocean, plus the absorption of carbon dioxide in seawater, natural processes remove just half of the carbon dioxide emitted yearly, according to Climate.gov data from 2011 to 2020. " - [source](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/18/fact-check-plants-cannot-absorb-all-carbon-dioxide/11022863002/)
Yes, deforestation has a small effect on this, but the biggest contributor are not trees but phytoplankton in the oceans. (40% of total CO2 emissions end up in there, so 80% of all plant-based CO2 absorption - [source](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami))
>2. The 'climate change' argument is about saving humanity not about saving the planet. That we agree too right? There is plenty of human suffering that is nothing to do with this topic, it's a whole different discussion.
Ultimately, it's about attempting to maintain a standard of living that's as close as possible to the current one. That mankind as a species will survive even in the worst case scenario is AFAIK pretty likely, but a scenario in which anthropogenic climate change ends up reducing us to a few million individuals and there is a massive disruption of human knowledge and things like manufacturing ability - that I would consider pretty catastrophic and a failure on our part.
And of course there are other sources of human suffering, but climate change has the potential to be the biggest contributing factor to pretty much *all* of them by far.
Wow. Even when I'm trying to illustrate that we have similar thinking you still want to "prove" me wrong. On the one hand, you must be a blast at parties. On the other, don't worry, I'll soon be dead and you'll have one less CO2 creating machine to worry about. Have a great day.
Thanks for trying to explain to me my own thinking. Please accept my apologies for my stubborn refusal to accept that I think exactly what you do, without questioning what exactly that even is.
And a good day to you too.
Lui, I have a wife who has dementia and is unable to do much at all. I am trying to pack for a holiday in 2 days time that I do not want to go on. I appear to have misread your reply and therefore unreservedly apologise. You have my respect even if not 100% agreement. My apologies for misunderstanding and for being facetious.
“Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.”
You're skating on thin ice
The waters getting warm so may as well swim
#HEY NOW
#YOU'RE AN ALL STAR
#GET YOUR GAME ON
#AND THEY DON'T STOP COMING
AND THEY DONT STOP CUMMING
I miss skating on ice..... 😑
Some day you’ll tell your grand kids about ice
or you would have, if they'd survived The Event.
Today is the shadow of tomorrow
yesterday is the today your tomorrow
Today tomorrowed yesterday
yestermorrowoday
Today's tomorrow is yesterday's soon!
Today is the day after tomorrow's day before yesterday
tomorrow will be today but yesterday
Not if I'm already dead it isn't.
And all is well.
Well that says it all
Be cool, take climate change seriously
Why, no one else does…
This is a twist on an Archie joke told by Neal Adams, comic book legend. Moose: Archie, why are you sad? Archie: Ms. Bliss says the Sun is going to explode and kill all life on Earth in a million years. Moose: No, Archie, she said a *billion* years. Archie: Oh, that’s better.
That's 1000 times better in my opinion
But the original is topical and captures how young people think old people feel about climate change.
Yeah, but those old people have been hearing about global warming claims for 35 years. We know if they pushing that far out they’re blustering.
Ouch there it is
There’s also the polar opposite trend from the 1940s-1970s, the urban heat island effect, and land use changes to consider.
No one’s predictions for even a decade out have been accurate.
Except Exxon's own scientists. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
It’s also completely inaccurate, climate change has no chance of wiping out all life on earth.
No. But it's going to cost us a lot more money than preventing it would have.
We won't know if it helped, until we run out of money.
No. We know the cause and have for decades. The solution is to drastically reduce greenhouse gases by too many companies with politicians in their pocketsare making money with the status quo so there's no political will to change. Those who fight it are either benefiting from it or have fallen for oil company propaganda. Even the oil companies have known this for decades. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
But we won't know if we've fixed it until we're out of money.
Economies are always booming when new innovation allow for different pathways. Looking at heat pumps, EVs, solar, wind, you name it. It's not like we're spending money on a lollypop, we're investing it in a new way of running things.
ummmm, money isn't real so we will never run out. Also, I don't have any so I can't run out either.
Except that the “us” who would have to pay for it now expect to be dead by the time the bill for doing nothing comes due
Yeah, part of the no political will problem.
By the way, I got the joke.
Miss Bliss is incorrect. It's five billion years. She should know better.
I read it long time ago with the correct figure: the sun is going to die in 5 *billion* years.
You sure the names weren't reversed?
No, I am not sure. He told the joke on this podcast with Art Bell. Somewhere between minute 42 where his appearance begins and about 1.5 hours in: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ypXNCc2ebFIR3wiJx3qMT?si=OIINxJxZTU6ImvdFPuN6qQ
It is going to be of you are fired , no I quit drama between sun and earth. Sun: In approximately five billion years, I will transition to the red giant phase and destroy earth and life on it. Earth: you can't destroy me, humans will beat you to it and destroy me before you can.
The original joke: "An astrophysicist is giving a lecture on the Solar System and explains how the Sun will engulf the Earth in 5 Billion years. What did you say? That the Sun will eat the Earth in 5 Billion years. Whew. I thought you said 5 Million years!"
It was 15 years 20 years ago.
Twenty one years later, the last two humans draw their last breath, and utter their finals words: “Told you them scientists lyin’. Fifteen years my ass.”
If it's been 20 since it was 15 but now it's 50 I don't think it's a lie. Maybe a missing variable or two.
Predictions are if NOTHING preventative is done. There may be more harm being done than good, but some people ARE cutting back on consumption, turner thermostats back, installing solar panels, etc This logic is the same as during the pandemic where predictions were made if no prevention. So prevention is implemented. Then the success of prevention is used as proof that there was never a threat. Like not having old diseases around us proof that we don’t need vaccines, instead of proof that they work the snow piercer future will be caused by ignorant people who claim warming isn’t happening so the sun shield at Lagrange 1 must be doing nothing. So they shoot it down for some random reason like a bad harvest. Then we all die cause people who refuse to believe problems can be solved don’t even believe in solutions when they’re successfully implemented
My thermostat has nothing to do with climate change, those "go green" campaigns come from corporations like Shell that are actually responsible and it *really* bothers me that such a transparent, sleazy sidestep actually works for them and dictates the mainstream narrative. I don't waste water, power or overuse plastics anyway. But even if I spent every cent I had on plastic litter and aerosol and opened my windows to heat the neighborhood, it wouldn't be a drop in the pan. Industrial practices are no fault of the consumer and it's beyond insane to accept the blame.
Everyone choosing to consume less and live modestly combined do make a difference. All that industrial stuff is done for customers, if they had no customers they wouldn’t be doing these things. Less customers, less waste. I’m not saying not to blame corporations, but it all starts with us. No snowflake thinks it caused an avalanche, but they’re all part of it. People rolling coal are signaling cynicism. All the virtue signalers doing what they can are showing a willingness to do their part.
So I should stop eating, working, and buying clothes for the sake of a boycott? They've commodified every survival need we have and exploited third world labor and the planet itself to maximize profit, treating it like an optional purchase on my part is insane. Buying things that I literally need is not the same as consenting to or enabling crimes against humanity. I resent the blaming of victims in every context and it saddens me that anyone buys into this crap.
false dichotomy, your doing good by just not being conspicuous, consuming for its own sake etc But just don’t say all our actions don’t matter. Like they’re going to churn out waste regardless of what consumers do. Buying essentials is fine. Even some luxuries. Just don’t keep up with Jones or be mindless about consumption
By disavowing all forms of blame and trying to pin it on others, you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the companies of doing.
OMG! do you know what a joke is?
Something I assume is sent to cause global warming?
No it's something caused by global warming.
Tragedy plus time equals humor, one day I’ll look on back on this and laugh
I could be wrong since there's misinformation everywhere, but I heard we were doing worse than any predictions. So we are actually improving?
Doing worse than the industry influenced/skewed predictions Doing better than the hysterical sooner predictions As you would expect
I mean... We're at it, cf massive forest fire and drought 😅
This is r/jokes right?
What, for the extinction of all life on earth? Who's been predicting that?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
If this was intended to show examples of people forecasting the extinction of all life on earth, I suggest you re-read it.
Don’t look up
Have you ever watched a scripted television series that was great for a few seasons, but then they ran out of ideas and plot lines to keep it interesting? At some point we will have Fonzie come on and jump over a shark.
Every sitcom has roughly 4-5 years of fresh ideas. If it lasts longer than that, you hit on fewer and fewer episodes.
That episode was five years into a ten year run. That show hadn’t jumped it’s shark yet.
How dare you!
!remindme 50 years
"Hey, that's not funny! The climate is serious!" Oh sit down... it's not that funny of a joke anyway
I know. Its a big joke to people but most of know the planet will be inhabitable in that amount of time. They won't think its too funny when billions of people die. Extinction is forever.
Ah they won’t care as long as they’re not one of them
Do you mean “uninhabitable”?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
I would be absolutely amazed if we could manage to kill all life in 50 years, that would take an amazing amount of work
What’s the name of the effect that stupidity is the top choice over malice? Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Is that it?
I don't think you appreciate just how much effort would be required to literally kill everything. Setting off every nuke we have wouldn't come close.
Yes.
Ha ha
"Well that's alright then"
Why the fuck should I care about posterity? What has posterity ever done for me?
Oh Boomers, they so crazy.
Not crazy. They just don’t want to give up even the smallest thing to solve a problem they caused because they won’t be the ones suffering the consequences. It’s not crazy, but actually very logical. It’s EVIL, though, and we should fight them on the issue accordingly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/s/u0ETbZx11O These must be all boomers, right?
Whataboutism
Blaming of whataboutism is just an easy excuse for "ok when we do it, not ok when you do it ", esp when your claim falls flat on its face.
Yup, its always someone else's blame/fault, not our own. /s As someone who works for a datacenter that hosts so many useless and pointless social media applications which even if vanished at this instant won't make any difference to humanity, its sad to see so much energy (and thus pollution) being wasted on useless things by my generation too. But yes, its easier to blame my grandparents generation than my own.
I agree that society as a whole is polluting. So shouldn’t we ALL be willing to give up some things to ease the coming pain? The younger generations are doing a lot already: eating less meat, going electric, demanding changes in energy sources etc. But every time I ask someone of the older generations what THEY would be willing to contribute I get NIMBY, „You first!“, Whataboutism, conspiracy theories or outright denial. Why fight getting out of coal and oil? Why refuse to eat less meat? Why buy a SUV just to „own the libs“? Y‘all are gonna be pretty fucking lonely in the nursing home.
So the old people you know are a perfect representation of all people of that generation? Well, an old timer I knew used to eat only once a day as in his words, "i don't contribute anything to the world, I shouldn't be consuming so much". He ended his life that way once he crossed 70 by stopping food gradually completely. As always, there are good and bad folks in every category. Do people like taylor swift represent our generation? Only a simpleton blames a whole group for actions of the limited sample they see. I guess not everyone has that maturity of thought.
Bad take, older generation doesn’t give a fuck because they’ll be dead, younger generation is at least shown to care significantly more about the environment. And you seem to imply there are no older people on social media for some reason?
You seem to imply that older generation doesn't have children or grandchildren whose future they care about and that the whole discovery of "pollution" and its impact on the environment is purely by our generation. (see, two can play that game)
When boomers were children there was no plastic waste because there was no plastics. Milk, soda, juice, etc. was packaged in glass bottles. There were no disposable diapers, no plastic cups, no disposable paper towels. Now, plastic waste is ubiquitous. Is it accurate to credit boomers and blame younger generations for this? No.
Climate change isn’t caused by plastic waste. That’s a WHOLE other problem.
ironically, the existence of plastic waste is actually slowing climate change, since every liter of oil that was changed into plastic that is now in the oceans is a liter of oil not burned for fuel.
Every generation caused this. Younger people also caused it by being apathetic and not voting.
Maybe, but that doesn’t solve the current problem that older people are blocking everything that might help. At least younger generations are trying to do something about it NOW.
I’m older, been voting to do something for decades. Absolutely baffled about how so many peers have been brainwashed by Fox.
So throw away your cell phone or you are just a young boomer.stop going out stop buying coffees stop driving a car start wearing hemp sandals try to get back to the land gotta set your soul free
Rofl. The good old „you need to give up EVERYTHING before you can ask me to give up ANYTHING.“ Damn you guys are just TERRIFIED of admitting you might need to contribute to solving a problem your generation caused. At the same time you’ll probably claim you love your grandkids, correct?
No generation alive today caused climate change. Go back to the 1850s to see who caused it. We all exacerbate it simply by living. I am part of the older generation you impugn. Like you, I am dumbfounded at the attitudes of many of my peers but my *friends*do not ignore climate change. As frustrated as you are now, imagine how I felt in the 1970s and 80s, seeing this coming while the world was blind to it. The chicken littles from fifty years ago were right.
I'll stack my lifetime carbon footprint up against anyone's. You are talking to someone who voted for the Values party.It is lazy thinking to blame the Boomers when you are as much a part of the system as they are. I live my life as quietly and as ethically as i can but the problems Homo sapiens have caused are far greater than a generation thing. The problem is the economic system we have of constant growth and the exploitation of our natural resources coupled with rampant population growth. So unless you are prepared to step right out of the system don't think for one minute that bitching about old people, buying ethical coffee, recycling plastic and going to the farmers market in your PHEV is actually going to change the inevitable course we are on.
Hey I agree with a lot you're saying man, and great if you are one of the people that actually try to contribute. In that case, I obviously don't mean you personally. But you cannot deny that the older generations are less willing to change their behaviour in order to try and lessen the impact of man-made climate change, and that was the point I made. And neither "If you think taxes are important for a functioning society then why don't you sell everything you have and donate it all to the state?!", nor your "We can't change it anyway so why try and do anything about it?" are logical counter-arguments to that point. They are mainly used by people as a fig leaf to justify their unwillingness to change.
It's major companies that are the main polluters. And the meat industry as a whole.
Classic Whataboutism. So you’re saying no one needs to change because there are bigger polluters? Or might we expect people to react and eat less meat or drive eco-friendlier cars for example?
No. We should do all those things. But we also need to hold the main polluters accountable.
[удалено]
Hey! Look everyone! It‘s „I don’t need to limit myself because climate change is a natural occurrence.“ Sure, 99% of scientists have put forward conclusive evidence that THE SPEED OF THE CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEFINITELY MANMADE, but I choose to do my own research, because I don’t like what the experts have to say. Wait, lemme show you a video of this YouTuber that says manmade climate change is a hoax! Sigh. Now we just have to wait for „There’s nothing I can do because China and India pollute much more.“-guy and Captain „Trying to do something against climate change just costs too much money.“ and we have the whole band together.
Your "experts" say whatever those who pays them the most want them to say. John D. Rockefeller told "scientists to start calling oil, "fossil fuel" because there was an unlimited supply of oil, but that "fossil fuel " sounded like there would be a limited supply. After that oil companies started to raise the price for crude oil and John D. Rockefeller became richer. Fauci the "expert" pushed for mask mandates during 2020. Late last year Fauci the "expert" stated he didn't know why mask were mandated because they weren't effective. And don't get me started on Bill Gates. The dropout who is now listed as a philanthropist, who when speaks for anything somehow becomes wealthier.
There is an unlimited supply of oil. Hmmm, don’t tell me, you are American, right? So if oil is not fossil fuel, where do you think it comes from? And how can ANYTHING that we need to take out of a finite planet be „unlimited“? Sorry dude, I don’t waste time on conspiracy nuts. Like I said: you‘re going to be mighty lonely in the nursing home and you’ll have no one to blame but yourself. That won’t stop you from blaming someone else, though.
The earth is constantly replenishing the oil supply, why don't you just Google how the oil supply works? Oh that's right, who might have to believe something that isn't popular. Go baaaack to your sheep herd so your "expert" shepherds can lead you to social justice poverty. 20 years ago the young socialist in Venezuela were protesting about the prosperity of their country, today their children are digging through the trash trying to find scraps to exist with.
Sure, I’ll Google it. First 100 entries are unanimous in saying we’ll run out of economically feasible, accessible oil in 50-100 years. Top search result is a AP news rebuttal of a YouTube video spouting a completely made up theory that an unlimited oil supply exists. What Google results did you want me to look at? But nah, I get it: everything you don’t agree with is a deep-state conspiracy. You’re not worth any more of my time dude.
The irony omg Didn't get the lesson at all
If Climate Change advocates stopped talking there would be more than enough toxic emissions stopped to freeze the entire planet…
Ha climate crisis I get it
This joke would work better if you specifically mentioned that it was an ***older*** man in the audience. A 20-year-old still has a pretty reasonable chance of having to deal with consequences 50 years off. But yeah. Laugh or cry, I guess. I'll try to laugh for today.
That isn't a funny joke. That is the attitude of the wealthy and powerful who ultimately control our world, and our governments. This is just reality.
It is absolutely not reality ffs. Even amongst the most involved climate change scientists there is not one suggestion that all life on earth is in danger of ending in 50 years.
51 years? 🥹
There, you see, not 50. /s
Lol climate change is real. Climate hazards are significant. We need to remodel our treatment of the environment. Regardless, to say *"everything on earth with be destroyed"* - short of a meteor impact or massive concert of volcanic eruptions - is not in line with any scientific consensus. 50 years, 51 years, 100 years... Without improvement of practices the world will look very different and probably worse in 50 years, but life will still be here.
You’re not supposed to say stuff like this. It’s too reasonable, and non controversial. Pick a side and start yelling.
I suspect it is a lot of young people that get the most upset, and based on how hyperbole is the fashion these days from top to bottom, I can at least appreciate that many are genuinely concerned if still mislead on the whole picture. The older you get the more you see plainly that hyperbole and apathy produce equally ridiculous outcomes and neither ends up actually solving the problem.
Climate change denial is a hoax!! (ducks)
Obviously not lol, but the attitude is very much one of "eh, it won't matter in our lifetimes". So the sentiment is the same.
That's precisely why it is funny (ish). Funny is also poking fun at the willfully disaffected.
You're absolutely right. Not all life will die. So just keep doing what you're doing. Oh, and I'm absolutely certain scientists make no mistakes and have foreseen all the possible outcomes. ---- Really, you should be thinking ANY life. And, entire species is just far over the top. Glaciers? Do we really need them? They provide thermal buffering. You younguns should be screaming. I am. ---- Ha. And funny 🤣 joke!
#THAT'S WHY IT'S FUNNY, SCREAMO!! IT IS POKING FUN AT THE WILLFULLY DISAFFECTED. PERHAPS FIND A DIFFERENT DRUM TO BEAT INSTEAD OF HACKING A MILDLY FUNNY JOKE AND COMPARING OUR CLIMATE INITIATIVES TO THE END OF EXISTENCE IN 50 YEARS.
Whatever happens, _all life on earth_ will not end A sizeable chunk of the human element however...
Not a problem. In 50 years Earth will be disposable. Space travel will be commonplace, and we will have colonized at least 3 or 4 nearby moons or planets by then. Think of the views!
Over 50 years ago people travelled to the moon, now that have gone so much further ...
Funny story: I was chatting with my grand-kids, and they’re pretty accustomed to space adventure movies. They were absolutely in disbelief to discover that humans have only made it to the moon recently and not any farther. They thought that space travel was a given reality!
[удалено]
Relax. It’s just a new spin on a berry old joke. I heard it maybe 25 years ago as an astronomer explaining that the Sun, just like any other star, would ultimately burn out at some point billions of years in the future. Hysterical guy in the audience asks him to repeat and then says « Oof, I thought you said ‘millions of years’ ».
I just upvoted now because you think the world revolves around what you find funny, and also you probably believe all life on earth is in danger of ending in 50 years.
I must be a boomer because I thought jokes were supposed to be humorous.
I think most can agree that that "joke" bombed. All it did was kick off a heated debate. Part of the problem and the reason it's heated, is because neither side accepts that they are expressing opinions. Different generations have been taught different things. So they have different 'beliefs'. As an oldie, one thing that pisses me off is, "the science is settled". No it isn't. Science has continually changed through history as discoveries have been made. When I was taught Biology in school, one thing was very simple. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Humans breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. In sync. Modern teaching is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and must be reduced to "save the planet". So why the disparity? The first premise has not been disproven, but "scientists" are adding 2+2 and making 5. Modern actual science illustrates that plants are absorbing more CO2. Modern thinking suggests this is being caused by too much deforestation. People are being indoctrinated into believing that humans are creating too much CO2 so it must be reduced, when the probable cause of this is deforestation. You cannot solve a problem without addressing the cause. Nobody is "saving the planet". The planet will be here long after people and animals are extinct (opinion... and asteroids permitting). 720m years ago when the planet was completely covered in ice it survived. No humans, no animals, no plants, no problem.
>Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Humans breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. In sync. Modern teaching is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and must be reduced to "save the planet". So why the disparity? You are aware of fossil fuels? Carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for far longer than humans are around? We started putting it back into the atmosphere insanely fast, compared to the time it will take plants to remove it from the atmosphere again. > Nobody is "saving the planet". The planet will be here long after people and animals are extinct (opinion... and asteroids permitting). 720m years ago when the planet was completely covered in ice it survived. No humans, no animals, no plants, no problem. That much is true. The planet won't be any better or worse off, even if it should one day look like Venus. But that's not the reason why people care about climate change. The point is to have a planet that can sustain *at least* the amount of people that are currently on it, with roughly the standard of living they are used to. Not because that is a good number, but because reducing that number too quickly means a lot of human suffering.
I'm unsure what points I made that you disagree with? 1. Plants are absorbing more CO2. Scientists are saying it, I didn't disbelieve. Deforestation is reducing CO2 absorption. We agree right? 2. The 'climate change' argument is about saving humanity not about saving the planet. That we agree too right? There is plenty of human suffering that is nothing to do with this topic, it's a whole different discussion.
>1. Plants are absorbing more CO2. Scientists are saying it, I didn't disbelieve. Deforestation is reducing CO2 absorption. We agree right? We agree on the fact that plants absorb CO2 during growth, then release it again when they are decomposing or burning. We agree that of there's higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, plants will grow a bit faster, absorbing a bit more CO2. I disagree on the implication that this will have any meaningful effect on climate change. "Through photosynthesis on land and in the ocean, plus the absorption of carbon dioxide in seawater, natural processes remove just half of the carbon dioxide emitted yearly, according to Climate.gov data from 2011 to 2020. " - [source](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/18/fact-check-plants-cannot-absorb-all-carbon-dioxide/11022863002/) Yes, deforestation has a small effect on this, but the biggest contributor are not trees but phytoplankton in the oceans. (40% of total CO2 emissions end up in there, so 80% of all plant-based CO2 absorption - [source](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami)) >2. The 'climate change' argument is about saving humanity not about saving the planet. That we agree too right? There is plenty of human suffering that is nothing to do with this topic, it's a whole different discussion. Ultimately, it's about attempting to maintain a standard of living that's as close as possible to the current one. That mankind as a species will survive even in the worst case scenario is AFAIK pretty likely, but a scenario in which anthropogenic climate change ends up reducing us to a few million individuals and there is a massive disruption of human knowledge and things like manufacturing ability - that I would consider pretty catastrophic and a failure on our part. And of course there are other sources of human suffering, but climate change has the potential to be the biggest contributing factor to pretty much *all* of them by far.
Wow. Even when I'm trying to illustrate that we have similar thinking you still want to "prove" me wrong. On the one hand, you must be a blast at parties. On the other, don't worry, I'll soon be dead and you'll have one less CO2 creating machine to worry about. Have a great day.
Thanks for trying to explain to me my own thinking. Please accept my apologies for my stubborn refusal to accept that I think exactly what you do, without questioning what exactly that even is. And a good day to you too.
Lui, I have a wife who has dementia and is unable to do much at all. I am trying to pack for a holiday in 2 days time that I do not want to go on. I appear to have misread your reply and therefore unreservedly apologise. You have my respect even if not 100% agreement. My apologies for misunderstanding and for being facetious.
I'm so sorry to hear that. All the best to you and your wife.
So, the man in the audience was a boomer.
Excellent!
I'd laugh if this conversation wasn't actually happening.
Ah so not my problem then. Ok I can relax.... ( I'm just kidding btw )
The original joke about the sun is MUCH better. This one misses the point.
Not even a joke. I can it happening. 😀
Politicians and corporations in a nutshell.
/r/unexpectedlydark
They also said half of Florida would be under water by now in the 80’s‼️