And may I say, sir, quite majestic.

Because North America and Africa were once geographically connected, the Appalachians formed part of the same mountain chain as the Little Atlas in Morocco. This mountain range, known as the Central Pangean Mountains, extended into Scotland, before the Mesozoic Era opening of the Iapetus Ocean, from the North America/Europe collision (See Caledonian orogeny)

By the end of the Mesozoic Era, the Appalachian Mountains had been eroded to an almost flat plain.[27] It was not until the region was uplifted during the Cenozoic Era that the distinctive topography of the present formed.

I’ll take your entire stock!

Uh, media technology, yes.

That was just a made-up example though.

You say that but there are a lot of environmental science initiatives looking for investment and meanwhile an AI dildo just secured 800 Million in first-round funding.

Fair. I don’t moderate anything but I can see how someone would set up a community and for various reasons be hands-off. I think a shared block list will become a Lemmy thing, it’s a kind of moderation in a sense. (Just IMO, obvs, maybe it won’t).

I thought evidence existed that most of the earth was tropical, for lack of a better word, in . . dinosaur . . . times?

Hey mon, that sounds irie for I an I. Eh, hold the dinosaurs.

Blocking them directly is the way to go.

Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.

Huh.

‘Everything is doomed’ is epic and has charm, but ‘humanity is doomed’ moves you to action.

Okay. I mean. Whatever gets the action i guess.

Epic and has charm?? I don’t . . . Its . .

My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.

By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.

The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?

It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.

Mmm.

Ach.

IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile.

What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?

The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:

• there’s plenty of nature
• we can’t live like savages, we must pollute to make money
• what if we add lead to it and spray it all over everything and everyone? No knocks! Profit!
• What the heck is an ozone layer
• oh you’re a tree hugger huh
• there’s no proof its caused by humans
• there are always periods of heating and cooling
• this is a Chinese hoax
• well you drink water so you’re part of the problem
• i’ll never give up eating meat, what are you, gay?
• It’s too expensive to not destroy the environment
• oil prices are the key to liberty and freedom
• the future of clean energy is a nightmare because we’ll have to enslave humanity to extract rare minerals from protected wildlife areas to build large batteries
• it’s fine, the earth will survive. Sure we’ll die and everything we commonly consider animal life will be killed but - ya gotta go sometime

. . . the planet and life itself will survive . . .

How are you defining “life itself”?

. . . and probably even be better off without humans.

I’d say that goes without saying.

Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.

Start “fresh”? Like with single-celled organisms? Maybe a billion years later we’ll be back eating sandwiches? Okay, so what process created sustainable environments again? Humans left some sort-of-permanent damage. Nuclear waste, PFAS, etc. Sure a good ol’ pole shift and a few asteroid impacts and we’re back in business.

So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.

God this is fucking exhausting. The prevention of unmitigated and prolonged suffering by all sentient life is the goal, YES. Kudos to the possibly viable future space rock and the wisdom to acknowledge our utter inability to protect one single planet from ourselves is laughably inadequate and - CLEARLY - irrelevant.

I heard we can cause widespread suffering and death for all animals in the greedy, blinkered pursuit of ever more money and it’ll be fine. Scientifically, of course.

teeming

Could you define “good”