Jeff VanderMeer on 'Annihilation,' Utopia, and Climate Change
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- Jeff VanderMeer, the author of 'Annihilation,' discusses how writing fiction about environmental crises may jolt readers out of complacency in this animated interview with The Atlantic.
Subscribe to The Atlantic on CZcams: bit.ly/subAtlan...
I love this author.
Great Graphics
fuckin eh'
Finished the series recently, it was incredible.
I still like what Jesse Ventura said about climate change. "Whether you believe in it or not, don't you think it is a good idea to take care of the planet as best you can?
Love when I find a JEWEL 💎👏🏼👍🏼 THANKS ANS KUDOS!
Science and facts do not need your opinion or approval to survive. You need them to survive.
You forget Science gave us climate change
Great video and animation.
Kudos to you!
Yes climate has been changing for the last 50,000 yrs
Great animation Caitlin
Interestingly, I have a book of my own, awaiting another rewrite. Working title is Aftermath.
Is it done? Where can readers find it?
I agree with every point made in this, but the title's clickbait.
LOL
I don't see how.
I consider climate change deniers to be having the same level of intelligence as flat-earthers. Let us not fall for their toxic vilification on the issue that is the most pressing of our times. I hope that one day they will finally open their eyes and see the truth that is so self-evident.
Overrated writer.
There are few facts in science and many theories
theories are the best you can get in science. Facts are merely part of a scientific theory.
You know what is also a theory, Einstein's general theory of relativity. If something is 97% true doesn't make it false. How likely will you win the lottery when you have a 97% chance of winning. The other side is also true, if there is a 3% chance of us destroying the climate system, it's still a good idea to work on that.
The definition of theory in science is very different than what you think it is.
You are literally using the popular science definition of 'theory'.
A scientific theory is an established hypothesis on par with laws in terms of how well they seem to reflect nature.
Einstein's general theory of relativity is not some assumption on shaky ground it has been verified through observation and mathematical fact.
There are more facts in science, observable phenomenon, than theories.
Yeah I mean that, but
davetileguy
thinks a theory isn't 'true' like we know a scientific theory is like 99,9% true/facts.
So, this had no information on climate change? Let me tell you something dear narrator. You are probably a denier yourself. You likely accept the physics of climate change, yet like most people you likely deny the fact that the physics of climate change cannot be solved with the economics of capitalism.
What we know:
1) Capitalism demands a global avg growth rate of 3%. Too long under that for any myriad number of possible reasons and return on investment suffers, sentiment changes, market values fall and you get a recession or depression.
2) Due to that requirement of 3% growth per year, global capitalism doubles in size over just 33 years. Doubling its requirement of energy and materials needed to sustain its perpetual growth.
3) We currently unnaturally dig up and add 39 billion tons of Co2 a year to the climate system. The equivalent of 292,000 volcanoes worth. Rising at 2 to 4% a year. For context the earth only has 1500 active volcanoes.
4) We are currently taking 80 billion tons of stuff per year from a world that can only sustain 50 billion tons. Due to the doubling of capitalism we will be taking 150 billion tons by 2050. Green growth, is an impossible myth.
5) After 30 years of installing renewable power globally, we are at 15% of total electrical generation from them. And remember our electrical generation is only 30% of total emissions so do the math, 15% of 30% over 30 years = pissing in the wind compared to what is needed. It is not even a start.
6) We need an all electric economy, i.e. we need to move all fossil fuel systems onto electrical systems and generate all electrical power via renewables and nuclear power. For the UK to do this and maintain the economy it has now, never mind grow, just to maintain what it has now, it would need to tripple the size of its energy grid. All other advanced nations are likewise.
7) For my nation the UK to keep to its commitments of no warming past 2oC it needs an all electric economy within the next 15 to 20 years. Which means it needs to tripple its electrical generation and grid capacity via non fossil fuel sources, in just 20 years. And remember, that's not for growth, just stagnation. Again, all advanced nations are the same.
The proof:
Here is one of my nations greatest scientific minds, based at Manchester University. He is explaining what physics is telling us to a room full of reporters.
Physics says our socioeconomic paradigm (capitalism) is incompatible with solving climate change. - 9 mins
czcams.com/video/EprNPlSe6co/video.html&t=
What we have already done - 2 mins:
czcams.com/video/exXBGHxA4BE/video.html
We are already ahead of worst case scenarios - 3 mins:
czcams.com/video/-T-_Os7A4_A/video.html
Capitalism is incompatible with solving climate change. It can be solved, but only via a new economy, of democracy at work, with localisation and common ownership of production.
So because I don't believe something I'm now in a cult? Great....
This cult member projects too much.
Zoe Phin nah he's just telling it like it is
nope, how it is in observed reality.
You're even here getting triggered...you seriously have no life huh?
Zoe, you're clearly entrenched in denial. But I'm sure you have a multitude of political ideological and free-market fundamentalist beliefs for dismissing science.