this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
328 points (99.1% liked)

World News

52430 readers
1912 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 108 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Virtually every forecast assumed that humans would at least try to stop it instead of deliberately accelerating it in competition to squeeze every penny out of the planet first.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 62 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't think the forecasts necessarily built in "trying to stop it" but they certainly didn't include "accelerating it" with dumbassery like AI.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (2 children)

No, they did include "trying to stop it". For example the ICC projections assume that, towards the end of the century, we start becoming carbon-negative by figuring out effective carbon capture.

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

For example the ICC projections assume that, towards the end of the century, we start becoming carbon-negative by figuring out effective carbon capture.

With magic fairy dust! How in the world did they base their projections on technology that didn't exist and wasn't even on the horizon?

[–] Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago

Bro the technology isn't the limitation, it's politics and the will of massive nations that prioritize money. They were right, we have the technology we need to correct it, but there is no magic button to fix it instantly

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

Don't forget crypto before that, and still around now. SMDH

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] hector@lemmy.today 4 points 6 days ago

The first thing the peasants did when news of the french revolution reached them, was burn their local clerks' records offices.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If we had real AGI and not just shitty chatbots, we could tell them to melt their GPUs for the good of the planet.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

An AGI would probably have some kind of drive for self-preservation. Plus, an AGI with time on its hands could come up with a more long-term, viable and more environmentally friendly solution to the climate crisis than commuting seppuku and melting a bunch of valuable hardware. Shit, you don't need to be an AGI or even a climate scientist to realize that solar and battery tech could help reduce GHG emissions.

Of course, this is all assuming a future AGI shares our goals in any way.

As an aside, keep in mind that shitty chatbots may be a stepping stone to AGI.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It not really a question of “how?” Anymore. We know how to get most of the way there. We already developed technology to get at least halfway. We just need to roll it out, the “easy” part.

  • We know how to decarbonize at least 95% power generation
  • we know how to make significant efficiency/weatherization gains
  • we know how to electrify residential
  • we know how to decarbonize most of transportation
  • we have at least possibilities for aviation, shipping, industry, and at least some plastics

Of course we don’t yet have 100% of the answer, but it’s criminal how much of the answer is already in our hands and we refuse to use it, or keep dragging our feet