|
If it's any consolation, I think there's a pretty good chance that geoengineering will push the point of complete societal collapse to out beyond the lifespans of most people alive today.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I don't care about vengeance. I don't care about fighting. I don't care about doing anything with minimal impact just for the "at least I did SOMETHING" value. I don't get involved in fights I am not 100% sure I can win. I care about results. I care about is the life I was promised: That of doing what I am told in a safe environment and be compensated progressively more for it, hopefully with someone I can care for and have meaningful cultural discussions with. None of that is possible in the world that is coming. Go gently caress yourself with a cactus. Tiax Rules All posted:If it's any consolation, I think there's a pretty good chance that geoengineering will push the point of complete societal collapse to out beyond the lifespans of most people alive today. There wouldn't be a "complete societal collapse", because humans are inherently social creatures; no kind of (realistic) catastrophic economic upheavals, mass migrations or depopulation through famine, war and disease have the power to turn humanity into scattered bands of survivors with no knowledge of the world beyond their immediate surroundings. Not possible. That said, no amount of geoengineering will prevent the world 40 years in the future to be as if not more different than the world 40 years ago as compared to now. The age of a comfortable job letting you own and drive your own car, and buy anything you want from across the world through amazon, is going to end. Our society works on borrowed energy, and creature comforts will plummet along with the ocean ecology. And the disasters that will serve as a wake up call to maybe begin geoengineering efforts are going to happen within our lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:The human population has already hit peak child so any population growth is pretty much baked in at this point. I think that this piece of logic is remarkable. Essentially; the statistics of population growth means that having a child won't increase the total population. It reminds me a lot of: "It doesn't matter if I vote because the polls show my candidate ahead by 5%" or "It doesn't matter if I buy an SUV instead using public transit because global warming is unstoppable" or maybe "it doesn't matter if I eat this piece of cake because this is a cheat day for my diet anyway".
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
The whole reason the person in the first place said don't have kids was because those kids lives will loving suck and be much shorter and more painful than our own.AceOfFlames posted:So I ask again, how the hell can anyone do anything knowing this sort of thing and not want to immediately hang themselves? I've gotten to the point where everything sounds pointless and I can't convince my therapist to go beyond "Things will work out!"- Only resort is drugs but if civilization collapses those will go as well. I'm hoping every day that I die in a painless accident. Get over it, dude. What exactly is it about global human civilisation that you're so invested in anyways? Work toward bettering your own future and get used to the idea that most people's futures are going to be pretty loving bad. It's really not your problem, worry about yourself first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Why are we back on the having kids discussion? I mean personally I certainly agree that adoption is the best, and having a child is going to be a personal decision yadda yadda. Do we need to carry on beating this dead horse? I would kinda point out that it's decidedly unstrategic, giving how we know children inherit their parents' viewpoints, to have all the dickhead selfish morons continue to breed while everyone who gives a poo poo removes themselves from the genepool. Purely thinking in terms of 'hey a future human will emit more than the lack of a human' is rather reductive. Maybe your child will persuade 100 others to reduce their emissions. Maybe your child will invent tech that will very literally save the world. This is basically a variant on the 'if you think CO2 emissions is important why are you using electricity to get on the internet?' argument. The answer, if you want to make that choice, is that you think there's upside potential. AceOfFlames posted:I wouldn't be guaranteed but at least it would have a REASONABLE chance, as opposed to nil. Learn to look after yourself, jeez. You're talking to us out of your low sense of self-esteem, and basically asking us to logic you out of it. That's not really how it works, and your psychological state doesn't make anything anyone says to you particularly helpful for anyone. Stop reading the thread for a while and try to get your life in order. No one is saying that there's 'nil' chance of getting through this. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So I ask again, how the hell can anyone do anything knowing this sort of thing and not want to immediately hang themselves? I've gotten to the point where everything sounds pointless and I can't convince my therapist to go beyond "Things will work out!"- Only resort is drugs but if civilization collapses those will go as well. I'm hoping every day that I die in a painless accident. You have the privilege of liveposting through the fall of Rome. Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure your despair over this is actually from depression. Like, watch this and see if you get any, "Oooooh, shiiiiiit," moments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc Or just watch it out of general interest. It's very good! Accretionist fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So I ask again, how the hell can anyone do anything knowing this sort of thing and not want to immediately hang themselves? I've gotten to the point where everything sounds pointless and I can't convince my therapist to go beyond "Things will work out!"- Only resort is drugs but if civilization collapses those will go as well. I'm hoping every day that I die in a painless accident. Why die now? Aren't you curious about what exactly is gonna happen in the coming decades? How it's all gonna play out? If any of the doomsday poo poo we talk about is actually gonna come true, it's gonna be one hell of a thing to witness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I would kinda point out that it's decidedly unstrategic, giving how we know children inherit their parents' viewpoints, to have all the dickhead selfish morons continue to breed while everyone who gives a poo poo removes themselves from the genepool. Purely thinking in terms of 'hey a future human will emit more than the lack of a human' is rather reductive. Maybe your child will persuade 100 others to reduce their emissions. Maybe your child will invent tech that will very literally save the world. If we're in the position of having a breeding competition to settle the politics of global warming then I'm officially pushed over the fence into advocating against the creation of sentient life to observe the future of Earth. Fangz posted:This is basically a variant on the 'if you think CO2 emissions is important why are you using electricity to get on the internet?' argument. The answer, if you want to make that choice, is that you think there's upside potential. I think you're right about this, except it's true that we should be using less carbon in our daily lives. I think it's better to acknowledge that we could be doing more as individuals than to pretend we don't each have a role to play in causing the issue. I think that it's better to acknowledge it even if we do it while continuing our bad carbon habits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Why die now? Aren't you curious about what exactly is gonna happen in the coming decades? How it's all gonna play out? If any of the doomsday poo poo we talk about is actually gonna come true, it's gonna be one hell of a thing to witness. "Morbid curiosity" isn't much of a reason to wake up in the morning. I can sympathize with that guy to an extent, though the melodrama is really tedious - I've got next to no surviving family and not much of a social circle, but still found a little bit of optimism in the world at large, that ever-uphill climb, march of progress, et cetera, et cetera. Knowing instead that civilization as we know it is going to swirl down the spout sometime in the next half-century takes away even that small consolation, and the recent election is just the cherry on top of the poo poo sundae. It's enough for me to stop bothering with my 401k, at the very least. Even if I do live long enough to hit retirement age, something tells me I won't want to stick around for much longer after that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:It's enough for me to stop bothering with my 401k, at the very least. Even if I do live long enough to hit retirement age, something tells me I won't want to stick around for much longer after that. And there's the point where you should seek professional help. Not kidding. Get your mood and behavior checked by a professional; there are therapies and drugs that can help with making things better. Or you'll find out you're totally rational and be on firmer footing for taking potentially irreversible actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:And there's the point where you should seek professional help. I'm fine, dude. There isn't any garment-rending going on here. Some people have just needed to re-evaluate their futures a little in light of impending events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
For anyone under ~40 or so posting in this thread, "retirement" as a concept will probably not exist. I can't knock people for foregoing a 401k or any sort of other retirement plan in the context of what will most certainly be a very unpleasant future, especially after watching what the financial crisis did to most of them in 2009. It's just more money taken from you and put in the pockets of rich assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think that this piece of logic is remarkable. Essentially; the statistics of population growth means that having a child won't increase the total population. Well a few nihilist westerners deciding not to have children because "the future is doomed to hellscape" honestly won't have any effect on the world population no. Most population growth will be in Asia and Africa, but even developing nations are quickly reducing their fertility rate to replacement levels. Most of the west is already sub-replacement, so even if we all have kids the population of Europe and America likely wont be much higher than it is now in 100 years. But really this discussion isn't about children, but about posters just wanting to throw their hands up in the air and say we are doomed because it gives them a nice excuse to not bother doing anything to make the world a better place. At this point it is pretty clear the climate change will massively effect the planet and the human race, but I believe that humanity should strive to overcome these challenges, and hope that my children and perhaps their children will build a better world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Well a few nihilist westerners deciding not to have children because "the future is doomed to hellscape" honestly won't have any effect on the world population no. Do you understand that for each child born the population of the world increases by one (1) person? Oxxidation posted:I'm fine, dude. There isn't any garment-rending going on here. Some people have just needed to re-evaluate their futures a little in light of impending events. There is no utility in this type of hopelessness. Worrying about the future is only useful if it drives you towards more positive/informed behaviors and greedily min-maxing your income at the expense of ever being able to retire is not positive or informed. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
If any of you are experiencing Climate Change-related suicidal-ideation then you should probably stop following this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Do you understand that for each child born the population of the world increases by one (1) person? Sure, I just don't believe it to be a net negative effect on our planet. There are lots of things humanity needs to stop doing to help mitigate climate change, but having babies is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Why are we back on the having kids discussion? Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Sure, I just don't believe it to be a net negative effect on our planet. Also I'm confused about the ad-hom of calling someone a nihilist. A nihilist would claim that nothing matters and that there is no significance to our decisions. The choice between having a child or not having a child would have equal cosmic weight and it wouldn't matter which choice you made. In contrast, if I say that it's a tremendous responsibility to choose to have a child I'm very directly rejecting nihilism and giving value to the consequences. Personally I believe that giving sentience to something is the most significant decision a human can make and I support those who decide against it because they can't assure the happiness or success of their offspring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them) This thread isn't being inundated with posts, so perhaps if you'd like a certain type of content you could post it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:For anyone under ~40 or so posting in this thread, "retirement" as a concept will probably not exist. I can't knock people for foregoing a 401k or any sort of other retirement plan in the context of what will most certainly be a very unpleasant future, especially after watching what the financial crisis did to most of them in 2009. It's just more money taken from you and put in the pockets of rich assholes. This is halfway decent advise. Manage your finances, invest smartly, don't rely on long-term investment/retirement plans that can crash when a bubble pops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Also I'm confused about the ad-hom of calling someone a nihilist. A nihilist would claim that nothing matters and that there is no significance to our decisions. The choice between having a child or not having a child would have equal cosmic weight and it wouldn't matter which choice you made. In contrast, if I say that it's a tremendous responsibility to choose to have a child I'm very directly rejecting nihilism and giving value to the consequences. Personally I believe that giving sentience to something is the most significant decision a human can make and I support those who decide against it because they can't assure the happiness or success of their offspring. Well for starters I definitely don't want to come across as pressuring that any individual poster should have a child. Having children is a major decision and if someone doesn't want to have kids thats fine by me. However it reeks of naivety to say other people shouldn't have kids because; as you put it "they can't assure their happiness or success." No parent in history has ever had that kind of control. While our future may look bleak, it has been similarly bleak many times in history and yet humanity has struggled on, and made great strides to check our base tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Something to bear in mind, whether you are one of the sadbrain nerds who go off the deep end every few pages like clockwork in this thread, or a normal person, is warming in the arctic over the last few decades is probably caused, to a large degree, by black carbon and methane, not just CO2. Of course, the warming we are seeing in the arctic is a consequence of global warming, and if CO2 emissions are not radically reduced to bring down the global temperature, the arctic is eventually as hosed as anywhere else. But black carbon (basically soot, that lands on snow/ice and make it less white hence less reflective) may account for around half of arctic warming. Methane, also, is disproportionately important in the arctic due to the scarcity of natural sinks (soil). This is good news (sort of) because: -Black carbon and methane have short atmospheric lifetimes, and therefore any action taken to reduce these emissions has a much faster response vs. CO2, which hangs around for a long time and must be slowly removed by natural sinks. -Black carbon in particular is not well mixed in the atmosphere like CO2 or methane; sources from Europe and North America are most significant to arctic warming. A recent study conducted in Abisko (northern Sweden) found that ~45% of the BC found there can be attributed to combustion within the EU, which is obviously a much easier source to regulate than e.g. global CO2 emissions. (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12776). Other studies also find similar figures (the review article at the bottom attributes ~40% of arctic BC to the EU). Generally speaking, the most significant sources are invariably domestic burning of e.g. wood fired stoves, diesel engine transportation (including marine), and industrial burning of liquid fossil fuels. These are all relatively straightforward to regulate, especially in the high latitude western countries whose emissions are most important for the arctic (for example, restrict wood and oil stoves, implement strict emission standards on diesels, transition industrial generators to natural gas). A lot of this is happening already, for e.g. clean air or economic reasons, and there is no reason such activity could not be dramatically accelerated. As a result, strategies which substantially reduce black carbon emissions near the arctic may be able to help the situation very substantially even if CO2 concentrations do not go down for decades.importance of black carbon to arctic warming is only somewhat recently gaining wide appreciation, but it is on the radar. Since BC, especially from sources that are important in the arctic, can be radically reduced, quickly, and with minimal economic consequences (compared to CO2), it could very well be that this, combined with non-crazy amounts of CO2 reduction globally, can arrest the extreme warming we are seeing in the arctic. It is may be that such action combined with modest concentrations of sulfate aerosols injected only at polar latitudes could stabilize the arctic even if we gently caress the goose and there aren't radical CO2 emission reductions, at least in the near-mid term. This, of course, would do nothing to solve ocean acidification, global warming in general, or the fact that we are all turbofucked long term if emissions are not reduced sharply. But since virtually all of the oh-poo poo near term tipping points are located in polar regions, this knowledge should at least help you guys be somewhat less suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
The Arctic is gonna melt during the next 5-10 years, though. And if the next summer breaks pattern to be hotter, it could very well happen next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah, nihilists are a bit more realistic than anyone that thinks not having kids is gonna do a thing to help the planet. Ultimately it will boil down to your kids versus some other rear end in a top hat's kids, so gently caress away if you think you have an opinion worth repeating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Also, for the more gloomy posters: Doomsday prep is a pretty useful, somewhat time and resource intensive hobby. Don't go building full-on doomsday bunkers, but having a bug-out bag and a plan in case of blackouts is probably just a good idea in general. Try to prep with your community as well, especially in the South since hurricanes are a Thing. And honestly, once you're done despairing, just adapt and move on. For the vast majority of us, that's the option we have available. Every generation goes through its own thing. Our parents had the Cold War and M.A.D. threatening to end everything in an eyeblink, we have catastrophic climate change that will take its slow toll, but some people will likely survive in bizarre little techno-enclaves. Hell, we may end up using all that technology meant for colonizing Mars here on Earth first. Then it'll be like a Space Adventure!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:Also, for the more gloomy posters: Doomsday prep is a pretty useful, somewhat time and resource intensive hobby. Don't go building full-on doomsday bunkers, but having a bug-out bag and a plan in case of blackouts is probably just a good idea in general. Try to prep with your community as well, especially in the South since hurricanes are a Thing. Honestly if you want some purpose take charge in the world around you. It really isn't difficult to volunteer with a disaster relief organization, and you'd be surprised how minimal the existing system actually is. Connecting with the network of organizations - religious, non-profit, governmental - and otherwise that have an interest in dealing with and preparing for disaster events is a genius way to actually do something meaningful about changing the world, and it will probably help you with your sadbrains to understand that there is more to human potential than the thoughts and feelings of atomized individuals railing against a nebulous world order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
You will learn a lot through a hands-on approach. As someone who has helped set up emergency makeshift levees, distributed rations and looked for people trapped in flooded areas, I can tell you that dealing with that poo poo while it's not yet happening to you is easier to cope with and helps you prepare for and deal with personal emergencies. Getting involved enough also gives you a hotline to the right people to get in touch with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:Also, for the more gloomy posters: Doomsday prep is a pretty useful, somewhat time and resource intensive hobby. Don't go building full-on doomsday bunkers, but having a bug-out bag and a plan in case of blackouts is probably just a good idea in general. Try to prep with your community as well, especially in the South since hurricanes are a Thing. To be fair, we still have to worry about M.A.D. threatening to end everything in an eyeblink
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The Arctic is gonna melt during the next 5-10 years, though. What do you mean by "melt"? Arctic summer ice vanishing (in the sense that you can cross the north pole by ship) in ~5-10 years or less is possible on the very pessimistic end of estimates (which imo is the good side to bet on). That's extremely bad, but it's not in and of itself not some game over point where the trend can't be reversed if you remove the climate forcings causing it. Next year (not just the summer) would have to be absurdly hotter than 2016 to get us an ice free summer. Could happen, but its a long bet. At any rate most climate scientists don't predict an ice free summer until considerably further out than 10 years. It's fine to argue against that (I'd probably join in) but you've gotta do better than "arctic (the whole thing??) gonna melt next year".. In any case, compared to "we need to cut CO2 emissions in half by 2020", reducing the absolute poo poo out of black carbon, form northern states, in the next 5 years, is a comparatively trivial goal. And reducing such emissions could have an immediate effect, unlike CO2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Good doomsday prep: learn to make booze.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Morbus posted:What do you mean by "melt"? Arctic summer ice vanishing (in the sense that you can cross the north pole by ship) in ~5-10 years or less is possible on the very pessimistic end of estimates (which imo is the good side to bet on). That's extremely bad, but it's not in and of itself not some game over point where the trend can't be reversed if you remove the climate forcings causing it. I'm saying that we'll already be having ice-free summers (with whatever effect that'd have on the thermohaline circulation) by the time cutting out black carbon emissions is considered in America. Yes, doing so would be good, and yes, anyone with the chance I fully endorse to go work on it, but it's not going to be some clinch last minute miracle that saves the arctic - because it's not going to happen next year, hell it's not going to happen during the Trump administration, plus currently methane is spiking and the global temperature keeps increasing. At best we are going to get a slowdown of ice loss for the winter->summer transitions, but you'd need a major refreeze to start seeing a year long arctic icecap once it goes down the first time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them) The human race will not go extinct because everyone will voluntary chose to go childless. If anything a generation of sub-replacement birthrate, especially among richer westerners, might be pretty good for the environment and general resource management on earth, especially if major breakthroughs are made in extending human lifespans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Climate Change: Take out as many people as possible, then do yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I'm saying that we'll already be having ice-free summers (with whatever effect that'd have on the thermohaline circulation) by the time cutting out black carbon emissions is considered in America. Yes, doing so would be good, and yes, anyone with the chance I fully endorse to go work on it, but it's not going to be some clinch last minute miracle that saves the arctic - because it's not going to happen next year, hell it's not going to happen during the Trump administration, plus currently methane is spiking and the global temperature keeps increasing. At best we are going to get a slowdown of ice loss for the winter->summer transitions, but you'd need a major refreeze to start seeing a year long arctic icecap once it goes down the first time. Why do you think the United States and its policy is an important factor in black carbon radiative forcing in the arctic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Climate Change: Take out as many people as possible, then do yourself I was worried you had fallen in the Great Election Massacre, especially after a food labeling discussion (in like the Donald Trump DnD thread) failed to get you to post. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Why do you think the United States and its policy is an important factor in black carbon radiative forcing in the arctic? It's been a while since I've spent any time looking into it so I'm probably wrong, but I thought it'd been pretty much established that soot was unlikely to be a major cause of arctic warming since only emissions at very high latitudes remain low enough in the atmosphere to actually end up on the ice? Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's been a while since I've spent any time looking into it so I'm probably wrong, but I thought it'd been pretty much established that soot was unlikely to be a major cause of arctic warming since only emissions at very high latitudes remain low enough in the atmosphere to actually end up on the ice? The radiative forcing due to BC in the arctic is estimated to be very high, generally. There is very little uncertainty that black carbon, deposited on snow and ice, has a massive radiative forcing associated with it. There are uncertainties about e.g. the effect of co-pollutants that may have negative forcings, but in general there is little disagreement that BC emissions are broadly similar in importance to CO2 and methane, as far as arctic radiative forcing goes (there is growing consensus that BC is probably the 2nd or 3rd most important emission in terms of radiative forcing even globally). It's true that emissions from very high latitudes are most important per unit of emission, since they will disproportionately be deposited onto the snow and ice. More distant emissions have to be lofted high into the atmosphere in order to be transported to arctic latitudes, and atmospheric BC doesn't reduce albedo the way it does on snow/ice. Some will still make it to the surface though. Globally, Asia is the dominant source of BC emissions (by a huge amount), so you have a situation of low RF per unit emission, but massive emissions. Parts of Europe have very small emissions, but extremely high RF per unit emission and so the little soot they emit is important. Russia emits a decent amount of soot, from sources at high latitudes, and so is very important. The US emits about as much soot as Russia, but it does not contribute much to radiative forcing since sources are at mid latitudes. See for example: https://www.amap.no/documents/download/977 Morbus fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Anecdotal story! One of my friends was doing some work down at one of the Antarctic research bases and all was going fine until, for some reason, a bunch of black carbon found itself on their runway. Their runway proceeded to melt and became unserviceable for larger aircraft and only smaller aircraft were able to get in or out. They were effectively stranded. No fresh produce was able to be flown in and they had to motivate why they "needed" one of the limited seats in order to fly out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I was worried you had fallen in the Great Election Massacre, especially after a food labeling discussion (in like the Donald Trump DnD thread) failed to get you to post. I'm not as active in DnD due to its ongoing discourse problems-I'm more in the science subforum and Games atm. Also I've been having a tough time irl due in part to the strong likelihood that a Trump administration (and the 21st Century Cures Act) are going to dismantle the places I wanted to establish my career.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not as active in DnD due to its ongoing discourse problems-I'm more in the science subforum and Games atm. Also I've been having a tough time irl due in part to the strong likelihood that a Trump administration (and the 21st Century Cures Act) are going to dismantle the places I wanted to establish my career. Here's hoping they're too busy gutting something else to notice the paltry amounts of money they actually spend on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:32
|
|