You're misunderstanding the quote. It doesn't say "...entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth BY THE YEAR 2000" It says "...if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
Nonsense. Now we prepare for this to happen - by preemptively allocating places for displaced people can go. We do our best to limit how many countries are affected.
There's never a point where all we can do is throw up our hands and do nothing. There's always something to be done, even if it's not directly related to the cause of the crisis.
It said "some nations", mostly small island ones, like Tuvalu and Fiji.
That's not worldwide doom. It's just a very clear indicator of the damage that happens elsewhere, where low-lying cities like Amsterdam, New York, and much of Bangladesh have to either go elsewhere or take very expensive damage control measures.
We're at a point where it's still cheaper to prevent that at the climate level. It just grows more expensive by the day. Things can cost a lot of lives and dollars without being apocalyptic, and still worth dealing with sooner rather than later.
While some ill effects can most likely no longer be prevented, even worse things happen at higher temperatures. Every tenth of a degree makes things worse.
I like to think of it like this - some places are doomed to extreme drought and flodding and others will be mostly spared - but the environmental effects are just one piece of the puzzle, other areas of the earth will need to cope with the refugee crisis we're going to see from parts of the world becoming less habitable.
As these crises put more stress on the rest of the world we're just going to accelerate exploitation to support more people with less stuff - we're essentially burning through the world's buffer of habitability to eek out a bit more profits today.
>That's completely irrelevant because you're not supposed to stash it in a mattress you're supposed either spend it on basic needs or to invest it.
Says who? And why has saving become something only stupid people do? This idea that you MUST invest is pure evil and is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Long-term view, due to it's volatility and the regulatory and political environments, while it may be an excellent speculative investment, Bitcoin is a poor place to store wealth.
It's funny how everyone here worships YC and YC has invested in multiple crypto companies and yet everyone here hates crypto and everyone involved in crypto. How do you justify that? Is it because you think YC is just clever to cash in on the speculation, the same way Trump is clever to not pay any taxes, but you hate all the little guys that cash in on the speculation?
Yeah, because websites won't adjust the price in crypto for goods and services if its price relative to dollars drops.
I'm long on crypto myself, but come on. This crash still affects the prices of goods and services, unless all you're buying is other crypto and nothing else. We are nowhere near the point where shops don't assume they have to check the bitcoin/usd cost every few minutes to adjust their pricing.
Buy bitcoin at $1 on Jan 1, sell at $10 on dec 31. I now owe taxes on $9 in gains, so I’ll need USD$3 on April 15. If on Jan 2, I buy more Bitcoin at $10 and it drops to $6 on April 15 that will suck because then I’ll need to sell half my Bitcoin to pay taxes.
You might think Bitcoin is not a good store of value, but a lot of people disagree with you. The energy "waste" argument is just virtual signaling at this point. It has been thoroughly debunked.
