How fucked is our environment?

Fucked

>>8138783
Pretty fucked, but there's nothing we could really do about it right now that doesn't involve halting industry.
The best solution is to continue advancing under the promise of environmental destruction until a feasible solution is found in the next coming years to decades.
Even if the environment does get smashed, it's not like humanity itself wouldn't have any time to prepare. Developed countries would adapt while underdeveloped nations get ravaged.

It is completely and totally fucked

i like it

it depends. if we all dropped dead tomorrow and the nuclear plants and all the other stuff that would go haywire in such a scenario don't blow up, the environment in terms of CO2 concentration/ocean pH and so on would be back to normal in a few thousand years. The northern hemisphere would be covered in forests in, I don't know, 10k years (that's also more than enough to reform the natural soils, so traces of former agriculture would mostly be gone), but it would still be very easy to find ruins of major cities. The plastic in oceans is probably gonna stay around for 100k of years. After 1Ma, in areas affected by the handful of ice ages occuring in the next million years (read: under hundreds of meters of ice for millenia at a time), you would probably have to go look with a magnifying glass to find traces of human existence even in previously densely populated areas.

So the environment in its current state is very stressed, but could easily recover given time. So you can argue that it's fine. What's not looking fine at all is the prospects of the next few centuries, but again, that's only important for existing ecosystems, our dependence on them functioning and with that our existence.

We might extinguish ourselves, but nature and the planet at large ("the environment") will be fine.

>>8138783
very. we will die in less than a week.

>>8139094
Well in terms of human life continuing to exist on the planet it's fairly viable to adapt human civilization with advances in technology such as the IoT and Cloud Computing so as to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. It's not like it'll do much in the coming decades, but when nobody will stop burning coal or using gasoline for machinery our best shot is to adapt human settlements to survive in the harsher and harsher climate that we are making for ourselves.

The normal optimist and environmental pragmatist argument against this is either that current warming trends are reversible through carbon sequestration, super-chimneys, sunshields etc. but those technologies are prohibitively expensive and there is not enough political will to enact them. preservation instinct is much stronger than that long view of environmental awareness.

File: Torus_Cutaway_AC75-1086-1_900.jpg (313KB, 900x710px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 900x710px

>>8138783
Depends how how you define our. I like to think I'm not permanently limited to living on this planet. For the foreseeable future we're stuck here, but instead of wasting our time trying to save this rock maybe we should be figuring out a work around and making the problem obsolete.

It's mostly Texas so who gives a fuck.

>>8139197
Texans.

>>8139200
It's Texas.

>>8138783
More than global warming deniers think, but less than what is believed by the average "environmentalist"

>>8139238
I gotta agree.

I stopped calling myself an environmentalist after reading "Silent Spring."

the book predicts clear back in the 60's that neonicotinoid insecticides will result in the extinction of honeybees and the collapse of agriculture within a few short decades.

Not only that but the book references science from the 1940's that said the same thing. And this idea is still dusted off and trotted out by environmentalists on facebook a few hundred times a year.

despite the fact that bee populations have grown tenfold since the 40's when environmentalists began saying they were going extinct.