To add to the list: internment of Hungarian and Ukrainian Canadians in WWI in Canada (some other Eastern Europeans too); internment of Japanese Canadians in WWII in Canada.
I don't think it's so much that people have gotten dumber, there's always been dumb folk, but the age of social media has made them less fearful of looking stupid.
It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.
As I tend to say: before social media every village had a village idiot. Now the village idiots are connected, more easily to find and spreading their lack of knowledge.
There were also jewish refugees that were not allowed into Canada. Afair, the bigger arsehole in that story was the UK, that panicked and decided that everyone who fled Germany during some 193x–194x must certainly be a german spy. They forcefully moved people to camps, and also to foreign territories, but it didn’t work terribly well with Canada, too.
I though this to be the article I first heard this story from, but it doesn’t seem to address that. Here I found some more details, e.g. on how refugees were in prisoner of war camps along with actual nazis.
Edit: But those are likely not related to the question of what Canada did to become example of how Geneva convention should be, so maybe an unnecessary info ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I even think humanity will survive fine as many icy places will become habitable and we’re good at adapting to extreme climates. Overall it’s rather our current civilisations with the bad but also the good in them that are the most endangered.
If we manage to keep the warming to levels seen in previous warming periods, humanity might come out better on average in the long run, but the planet is heating faster than it did in those other periods and we haven’t demonstrated any ability to control ourselves. We’d have to stop generating CO2 pretty soon to avoid surpassing the last great warming period.
I guess people didn’t understand my point. If we don’t curb our carbon emissions, we’re certainly going to have a climate that we never lived and it will kill a lot of people. But it’s not unlimited, at some point we will not be able emit more carbon, because there’s no more or we lost the ability to do so. So while fewer than today, there will probably still be habitable places like Nothern Canada and Russia. I think humanity would be able to survive there, although much smaller and the centuries of disasters would have destroyed our civilisations as we know them.
People probably thought I’m denying the urgency to do an ecological transition, but I’m not. I’m trying to comment on what would actually happen, similarly to previous comment saying that the planet itself is not going to die.
You’re making an assumption that the feedback loops are all well understood. They might be, or maybe there will be some runaway effect, some source of carbon or other greenhouse gas that’s completely unknown, gets released, and boils the oceans.
I know, but that’s a very detached and unemotional take… Sure “life” will keep existing. But not the life we know. That we love. That we grew up loving so much.
I understand not everyone feels exactly like me. But I was absurdly fascinated by biology books and wildlife documentaries and would read and watch them religiously as a child.
Thinking of all of that just dying and ending truly breaks my heart. Almost more than anything.
Just not as much as the thought of humanity disappearing. But I know most people share that sadness.
I also don’t think the person is unemotional, it’s more about having the correct idea of what’s actually going to happen if we don’t do anything. I also think ecology needs more rationality, otherwise we get people closing nuclear plants to restart coal plants.
You do know that the most well informed people (like active researchers in the field) are often the most pessimistic right? Like you hear on the media that “oh no we’re gonna pass 2º! I guess I won’t be able to ski as much”. But you go to a climate science conference and it’s “yeah… now that we can add more parameters and feedback loops into our models the chance of total extinction by 2100 is 99.99%. On the bright side, half of us expected it to be 100%. So kudos”.
Well, I could imagine it if I wanted to make myself sad. But I, personally, will be dead long before even the last Panda. So it’s really just a hypothetical.
The worst case scenario is turning Earth into a planet with a climate like Venus’s.
A planet that proves the existence of runaway greenhouse effects btw.
It is theoretically possible that life exists there, but multicellular life is considered unlikely, and we’ll probably never get to take surface samples, given it’s been measured at 464 Celsius.
We probably can’t fuck up the planet that badly, but toss in a nuclear exchange to greenhouse effects and an unfortunate volcanic eruption or two?
That guy hella sexy. But yeah, in general women are WAY more sexualized than men, both in real life and consequently in media. Which is terrible. This is why I am campaigning to sexualize men more, in the name of equality. All movies should go in front of a panel of bisexuals who will deliberate how to best distribute the crop-tops, cheek-pulling pants, and gratuitous nude scenes amongst the characters. In the name of feminism, of course.
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.