comment: >
  
  Man, we're really going to miss you when you die on Friday
context: That article sucked. Just repeating the same thing in different ways over and over. >
  
  Just repeats the same thing over and over. What a sucky article. >
  
  That article really sucks, it literally just repeated the same thing over and over >
  
  Not a very good article tbh. It just keeps saying the same thing repeatedly to make it look like there's more content than there actually is. >
  
  But in actuality, there isn’t enough content to write about, so the same thing is repeated in a vaguely different way. The effect this causes is that it seems like there’s more content then there is. >
  
  article use many words when few words do trick. >
  
  Man, humans are awful >
  
  Someone isn’t thinking of the record quarterly profits >
  
  The penguins are dying
  That's bad! 
  But Awful stocks are through the roof 
  That's good! >
  
  And it comes with a free frogurt! >
  
  What if I don't like frogurt? Can I get a cream filled doughnut instead? I liked doughnuts! >
  
  The frogurt contains potassium benzoate >
  
  I hope I die long before they do. What a depressing place this world will be in 200 years time. >
  
  Same. I’m so glad I don’t have kids and have to worry about them in this future. >
  
  Shocked its only two thirds >
  
  It's because that Emperor penguin has no clothes on in the goddamn antarctic.  No one has the balls to tell him. >
  
  See, myself...  I was thinking it was a lack of sun lamps.
  Yes, I know his was a play on the Emperor wears no clothes. But I like the mental image of penguins trying to operate sun lamps a United Nations airlift starts dropping across Antarctica. And where do they plug them in, and all the big coal burning power plants we would need to build so they could use the sun lamps.  Or maybe we  give them nuclear technology and they use nuclear plants instead. But then the penguins acquire The Bomb and they find out about man-made global warming. And they decide to fight back, so the penguin invasions happen and everything ends with Mariah Carey going nuts and singing that damn Christmas song again, followed by mass suicides on both the human side and penguin sides in the great penguin wars. >
  
  I’m not sure what you’re smoking, but you might wanna ease up. And share it with the rest of us. >
  
  I'm not smoking anything. My brain chemicals are just naturally this way. It makes for interesting times. >
  
  Who gives a shit about stupid penguins, I want to ride my SUV to the store around the corner!
  /s >
  
  Wait, you guys have stores around the corner? >
  
  No one will read this. People will pretend to not know that we are killing all life on earth and that nothing could be done to stop it.
  Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >
  
  People will read it, maybe some will post a tweet, but almost everyone will refuse to put any amount of effort to help prevent it. >
  
  The majority of the effort must come from companies. They are a far bigger pollutant than regular citizens. The companies will never willingly pick earth over money. >
  
  The campaign to push "individual responsibility" is just the large corporations being determined to put the blame onto everyone else while they continuing profit making and polluting as ever. >
  
  If no one bought dumb, plastic and epoxy based christmas, birthday, any holiday celebration, it would cause a more than insignificant impact >
  
  Yes but mass coordination of consumer habits is for all practical purposes impossible, especially at the level required to make a significant difference >
  
  Pretty sure at this point not enough people care. It is very depressing. >
  
  There are too many people on the planet. It's unsustainable for the human population to keep rising at this rate, no matter what climate policies we have. >
  
  The human population is rising at a decreasing rate as education levels rise, access to contraceptives improves, and birth rates fall. That “issue” doesn’t exist. The real issue isn’t resource scarcity, we already produce excess food globally to feed everyone and excess clothes to clothe everyone, it’s resource distribution. Humans are not the virus. Overpopulation is a eugenic myth. 
  I’m not assuming your comment was intentionally following that logic. It’s easy in our current consumerist society to assume that there’s just too many of us to share, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Don’t let doomers get to you about the climate. Action now is important to prevent the long-term harm from worsening. >
  
  The human population has been rising significantly since 1750 A.D.. What you're saying is the planet can sustain this trajectory? Overpopulation isn't a myth, it's been studied in other species. I love how humans think they're different from all other life on earth, and defy logical outcomes. And the sharing part - the less resources to go around, the less altruistic sharing among people will occur. I'm not saying that to be divisive, it's simply the truth. >
  
  You’re correct about the human population exploding in the past few centuries, but it’s important to view that trend in the context of the surrounding environment. Our technological developments have increased exponentially in that same time, and we are now capable of producing/recycling materials in a way never before thought possible. It’s not just about raw production, which has improved drastically, but also our efficiency. Like i said earlier, we already produce more than enough food to feed everyone right now. We just don’t distribute it to the people that need it properly. 
  Speaking of trajectories, I already mentioned that the rate of increase in human population is decreasing, and it has been for several years. That means it’s eventually going to settle on a lower rate, or level out, or start decreasing naturally over time. As I mentioned, the largest drivers of population increase have been vanishing as education and contraceptives have improved. This supports the notion that the birth rate will continue to drop to a more sustainable level. 
  We are different from other animals, we have technology. 
  To finish up, as i already said. We have an excess of resources. Scarcity is a myth. We don’t need to worry about it when we have excesses, and we can make use of those excesses to distribute them fairly and make sure everyone is supported. I can understand your logic if scarcity existed, but it doesn’t. >
  
  Well, I hope you are right. >
  
  Yes, but consider that stonk line go up. Who cares about birds when line go up? Won't someone think of the line?! >
  
  How will it go extinct don’t we have them in zoos? And what about the designated wildlife reserves? The correct statement should probably be that they will experience massive population losses, but with how widely known the animals are I still think total extinction in the wild is a worst case scenario, other lesser known ones more likely will experience that. >
  
  You dropped this: 
  
  /s >
  
  These doomsday articles of what will happen in 75 years are just idiotic. In 10 years we will have nuclear fusion powering our grid and the world will be on a different trajectory >
  
  People said this 70 years ago. And 50 years ago. And 30 years ago. They say it over and over but don’t actually just do anything to lift a finger and prevent the crisis. >
  
  They just had the first net positive energy fusion experiment. It will happen, it’s just a matter of engineering. >
  
  And they had “successful” fusion experiments decades ago as well. “Let’s not do anything that would definitely save the planet, and instead continue polluting and hope someone else solves the problem” is how we got here in the first place >
  
  That news requires quite a bit of context.
  
  However, the real implications of honest-to-god ignition at NIF are significantly more subtle than one might think. Even if NIF is able to replicate the shot, perform similar ones consistently, and eventually increase the yield by five or tenfold, the experiment is still a dead end when it comes to meaningful energy production. Two megajoules is about the amount of energy released by burning a small chunk of kindling, so thousands upon thousands of such shots a day would be required before the energy production became in any way usable. Unfortunately, NIF’s lasers use huge slabs of glass that take hours to cool down between shots; in other words, they simply aren’t up to the task. (In fact, NIF was never meant to be a fusion-energy project but one designed for weapons research—another story altogether.)
  The “more energy out than laser energy in” equation masks several fundamental problems. NIF’s doped glass lasers have an efficiency of about 0.5 percent, meaning that they would have sucked in roughly 400 megajoules of energy from the grid in order to produce the 2.1 megajoules of light energy that eventually yielded the 2.5 megajoules of fusion energy out. That isn’t accounted for in the “break-even” calculation. Nor is the large amount of energy (and time and money) required to manufacture each target. Even if we could collect all the fusion energy generated with perfect efficiency and convert it into usable power (which we can’t), this brings us to much, much less than 1 percent of the way to a true net production of energy from NIF’s very best fusion reaction.
  
  Source.
  It's a "breakthrough" that's on par with previous incremental advances, but it's one that has no promise whatsoever of leading to fusion contributing any power to our grid in the next ten years. If anything, we're still a minimum of 30 years out from getting fusion power, just as people were saying 30 years ago and 30 years before that. >
  
  Ok. You have no clue about this. I’ll quote Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for you: ““This is one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century,” Granholm said at a press conference, adding that researchers have been working on the effort for 60 years.”
  Also the department of energy has set a goal for commercializing fusion within 10 years. >
  
  Here's what Kim Budil, Director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, said at the same press conference you're quoting from:
  
  "Not six decades I don’t think. Not five decades, which we used to say,” she said. “I think it’s moving into the foreground and probably with concerted effort and investment a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant.”
  
  Source
  So no, we're not going to switch to fusion power in ten years. >
  
  And no one can predict accurate timelines of technology more than 10-20 years out. Look at any point in history about where we thought we’d be and despite huge gains, things are very slow and incremental >
  
  :( they don't deserve this >
  
  That article sucked. Just repeating the same thing in different ways over and over. >
  
  I don't know if you guys heard, but Emperor Penguins might be on the way out. Like, they might be going extinct. Emperor Penguins as we know them might seise to exist. Also, at the rate Emperor Penguins are going, they might not be around much longer.
  So, in summary, the Emperor Penguins are effectively going to be gone soon.
  Edit: Kaput >
  
  Man, humans are awful >
  
  Someone isn’t thinking of the record quarterly profits >
  
  The penguins are dying
  That's bad! 
  But Awful stocks are through the roof 
  That's good! >
  
  And it comes with a free frogurt! >
  
  What if I don't like frogurt? Can I get a cream filled doughnut instead? I liked doughnuts! >
  
  The frogurt contains potassium benzoate >
  
  I hope I die long before they do. What a depressing place this world will be in 200 years time.