Climate change is not going to kill/cripple “almost all” humans. Not even close. Even the most extreme climate models don’t forecast anything like this.

Or I just have cheap taste buds. While to other people food is a pleasure to me it’s fuel.

I prefer Burger King over most restaurants.

I’m probably going to order a burger anyways so I don’t see the need to pay extra for a fancy one that I need a knife and fork to eat when I can get just as tasty burger from BK.

That’s not why the light is red lol

Red light doesn’t mess up your night vision. With a red light you can turn it off and still see as long as there’s some ambient light such as moonlight. With white light you need to wait for 10 to 15 minutes for your eyes to get accustomed to the darkness.

Asbestos and holes in the o-zone layer were real issues though and both have now been more or less resolved. It’s not like new problems mean the previous ones weren’t valid.

Free will is often defined as the capability to have done otherwise.

It is conceiviable for an entity to not have free will but still be consciouss. It feels like something to be that thing. It couldn’t choose their actions but they could experience pain and suffering. I don’t see a reason for such entity to not have rights only because they don’t have free will.

If you don’t know any math and I explain you why 1 + 1 = 2 and you get it, it’s not because you decided to understand. You helplessly did so and you can’t unlearn it anymore. There’s no free will in that.

This same applies to the judge and jury. If they truly understand the illusion of free will it will have an affect on how they relate to other people. You simply cannot blame them for their actions the same way once the illusion is broken. It’s like knowing the stove is hot and still touching it. You can do it but you’ll get burned and no matter of how hard you want to believe it’s cold it just isn’t and every attempt to live your life like it is just results in you getting burned again and again.

If someone kills a bunch of people no amount of philosophical quibbling and defining is going to make me think that person should be allowed to continue living in society, justice simply couldn’t be a concept at all in the absence of some form of free will, yet we require justice to cooperate in making better lives for ourselves. So the value of acting as if we have free will is more valuable than an esoteric philosophical truth.

Free will or not - if you have intentionally killed a bunch of people in the past it’s to be expected you’re likely to do it again. Such person shouldn’t be put to jail because we want to punish him. After all he could not have done otherwise. However as they’re danger to others something clearly needs to be done. They have to be separated from society in some way to prevent further harm but we should still treat them humanely and make sure their live is as good as it could be withing the circumstances.

If a bear wanders onto residential area we don’t shoot it because it’s evil. In my opinion the bear is no different from a murdered. They’re both slaves of their biology.

Continuing the trend of completely butchering the rear end of the vehicle as is the case with many other modern cars aswell.

Intentionally misrepresenting facts is not how one should try and make a point though. It just makes people cynical and distrustful.

Do human artists not take any influence from art they’ve seen before? I could name you the photographer, Serge Ramelli, that has influenced me the most and if you compare our photos it’s quite apparent. Is my art just a hoax?

Looks like a helicopter to me

This was a highway test though, not how EPA test the ranges

What am I wrong about? What happened to Venus was caused by the eruption of super volcanoes. That’s the exact example I used above of an actual existential threat.

According to who? I’m sure you can link me some study to back up those claims.

An asteroid impact or super volcano eruption has the potential to kill every single human on earth and end the human race. That’s what I mean by existential threat. I feel like many people think of climate change as something that’s on the same scale but it really isn’t. Saying stuff like “climate change will ruin us all” just isn’t true. There are degrees of bad and while climate change definitely is up there in the bad end of the spectrum there’s still events that are orders of magnitude worse.

My message literally starts by saying climate change is bad. It will be catastrophic. At no point have I claimed otherwise.

It will however not be civilization ending. It’s not an existential threat to humanity like an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would be.

According to WHO: “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.”

Also: “Even after accounting for adaptation, an additional 1.5 million people die per year from climate change by 2100 if past emissions trends continue.”

That’s about the same as what road accidents or diabetes kills every year.

Climate change is bad but it’s not an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption bad. It will not “ruin us all” and no credible scientist is claiming it would. Uneducated fear mongering like this is what causes extreme anxiety to people that don’t know any better.

It has the aerodynamics of a brick