r/dankmemes 1d ago

Political meme?

Post image
3.1k Upvotes

225 comments sorted by

View all comments

213

u/party_in_my_head 1d ago

did you know that children born 2020 and after have a 0% chance of having a comfortable life after the age of 70 given the current policies in the world? Now you do.

103

u/ninoski404 1d ago

Children born 2020 without rich parents, that won't enter the tiny wildly successful group, but yes.

4

u/Obnoxiousdonkey 14h ago

stop with the fear mongering. what happened to raising your kids healthily and responsibly? don't kick them out at 18 and cut contact, be a good fuckin parent.

-3

u/party_in_my_head 13h ago

Go cry about it

-71

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

In 1998 we were told by 2025 that most people would be wearing some sort of ozone filtering respirator and large chucks of Florida would be permanently submerged.

Me waiting for my ozone mask like.....

89

u/BayTranscendentalist 1d ago

Wow, turns out we don’t have to do this because politicians actually decided to do something about it! Who could’ve known???

48

u/NewSauerKraus 1d ago

And no serious person ever made those claims anyways lmao.

54

u/BayTranscendentalist 1d ago

The ozone layer stuff was a legitimate concern but it was relatively easy to solve since it was proven what damaged it

18

u/NewSauerKraus 1d ago

The ozone thing was a lack of ozone in the atmosphere. Not so much that you would need a respirator to prevent inhaling it. The commenter above seems to have mixed up conspiracy theorists with reasonable people.

-39

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

No it was extremist BS. Because when you look at the studies and tests that were being done back then they don't line up with what was being repeated to the public

Back then they had the mentality that if they presented the worst case scenario it would result in scaring people into action. This was before we had such precise models and simulators as we do today.

Unfortunately them doing that for so long made people not believe them anymore. Once people started to realize that they were exaggerating and being over the top..

And now that they're trying to be more honest today and present more factual information related to our climate and weather so many people don't believe them. Because they lied and exaggerated about their findings in the past.

This is why so many people over the age of 50 just don't buy into climate change science and warnings. Because most of their lives it was just exaggerations and over the top findings presented to the public as scientific fact.

20

u/wickwack246 1d ago

lololol when were people, on any meaningful scale, scared into action?

-31

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

Ever hear of World War II? I mean that's just the easiest one to come up with. Enough so to where your questions shouldn't even have been asked because you should automatically know that was an

You want more? I mean Google could solve this problem for you but I guess I can do your research for you if you want.....

15

u/wickwack246 1d ago

your brain isn’t working right

11

u/tappy100 Late to everything 1d ago

who was saying that? there was a scientifically backed ozone scare back in the 80s but thanks to things like the Montreal protocol CFCs were pretty well phased out by the late 90s because back then governments actually listened to scientists. i also can’t find anything about people saying florida would be submerged, back in the 90s the IPCC projected that by 2100 florida would see a sea level rise of tens of centimetres which is enough to really fuck florida

4

u/party_in_my_head 1d ago

This was a statement from the oecd, but note that it's given the current policies. This means that this wel be the outcome if we carry on like this without changing a lot.

2

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

I'm not saying that they were altering the science back then. That they were manipulating their findings. A lot of the studies being done back then were accurate in their predictions of sea level rise and temperature change. But that's not the stuff that was being presented to the public.

The worst case scenario findings and the most fringe results were the ones being presented to the public. We still do that today. But way less frequently. A lot less

If a news agency is going to interview somebody when it comes to the climate do you think they're going to interview somebody who's entire presentation is going to be scientific fact? Or do you think they're going to interview somebody who can provide the most extreme and sensationalist view to the viewers?

Back then they usually chose the latter. The sensationalist and the extreme. Cause that's what gets ratings.

Nowadays we are more fact-based and scientific based in these presentations. But only because the public has access to the raw data from these studies and research groups. So they can't play the sensationalist and extreme card like they used to

1

u/edgethrasherx 14h ago

“Nowadays we are more fact-based and scientific” I know you were referencing the specific situation over how climate change was/is presented to the general public, but still reading that sentence word-for-word in the year 2025 felt like a fever dream. Maybe somehow climate change specifically is presented in a way that’s less based on fear-mongering and catering to extreme viewpoints, but overall I think our media and information environment has taken the exact opposite trend to a shocking degree. Media literacy is at worryingly abysmal levels; bias, misinformation, bots, echo-chambers, the way most people consume information now compared to 30 years ago and other distortions have created this surreal landscape wherein everyone has their own “reality” and “truth” has become this nebulous subjective concept more influenced by personal beliefs and the above factors rather than any indisputable facts or objective evidence.

Three different people can hear about the same story three different ways, from three different sources, with three different belief systems and all walk away with completely different understandings of what happened and what “the truth of the matter” is. Rather than hearing from sources first hand or hearing the same story and reaching different conclusions people get their information through so many different layers of filters, interpretations, opinions, biases, etc, I really feel like pretty soon it will be like we’re all living in different realities and all experiencing a different world from one each other

7

u/yukwot PC Master Race 1d ago

Because we got rid of cfc gases in hair care products and refrigeration units

3

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

CFCs were not about climate change. They did add to our greenhouse gasses but their effects in the environment are pretty low on the list as far as severity. In comparison to things like sulfur, carbon monoxide and methane

Banning CFCs was all about the ozone layer. Because they were causing significant damage to it.

8

u/yukwot PC Master Race 1d ago

Thank you for reiterating how cfcs affected the ozone layer

0

u/RudeJeweler4 1d ago

It’s a good thing the dude didn’t say it was about climate change. Bro threw in a fun fact.

1

u/TheLuckySpades 1d ago

If only there were a global push to fix the ozone layer that had international bans of the pollutants most responsible for it, but guess since we are absolutely still using them everywhere the ozone layer must have fixed itself sithout human intervention whatsoever.

Like seriously there was a warning given with steps to prevent it and they were taken and the worst didn't happen.

1

u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago

I said the word ozone and people thought I was talking about the ozone layer and cfcs. I was just talking about the particulate and pollutant filtering respirators that you have to wear while you're outside.

Some of you half read a comment, read what you want to read and then smash reply before comprehension kicks in.....

0

u/TheLuckySpades 1d ago

Well in that case the stuff you claim people were saying is even more wrong? Like if there were any climate scientists outside of the fringe saying that I'd be shocked.