• @someguy3
    link
    English
    755 minutes ago

    Because they never account for exponential consumption growth. It was “a few centuries” at current consumption.

  • @Etterra
    link
    English
    123 hours ago

    While kicking The can down the road, you come across a sign.

    BRIDGE OUT AHEAD

    What do you do?

    1. Continue kicking the can, I’m sure it’ll be fine.
    2. I don’t believe in bridges.
    3. Even if God let the bridge collapse, which he wouldn’t, I’ll go to heaven if I fall and die, so who cares?
    4. Pick up the can and go find a dumpster.
    5. There’s squirrels in my pants! Jump to safety!
  • @AeonFelis
    link
    English
    113 hours ago

    Only one century has passed since then, so we’re still good. It’s pollutin’ time!

  • @MataVatnik
    link
    English
    516 hours ago

    Yeah but why did they need to get political about it?/s

    • @kryptonianCodeMonkey
      link
      English
      59
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      At that level of co2 production, they were probably right about the timetable. What they couldn’t predict is that co2 production would rise so dramatically with automobiles and industry in the decades after that. They were at 7 billion tons a year then. We are over 36 billion tons a year now, over 5 times as much. That has clearly expedited the effects on the climate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        156 hours ago

        That’s so cool to know! Oh wait I mean hot, and also not, well anyway thanks for sharing:-P.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    96 hours ago

    just could not imagine the scale at which human civilization would escalate. Apart from that, spot on.

  • @Armand1
    link
    English
    86 hours ago

    Chat, is this real?