InappropriateEmote

Then you need to do more reading because I did work in this field and have read the science on it as well. First all, you have to take into account what time scales are being discussed. What you're reading is, I'm all but certain, just talking about the coming few decades, in which yes, millions at least will likely die. And even then the science that tends to reach the public is toned down, pacified, and doesn't represent the whole truth. You should be familiar with this as a communist trying to get an understanding of what's really going on with the world via popular journalism. Is what you're reading about "catastrophic weather events" also discussing what will be happening 1000 years from now? 10,000? Despite the longer scale, what we are doing right now and in the coming decades will have an effect on those longer scales. Climate change is so much more than simply an intensification of weather events. It is literally a rapid change to the composition of our atmosphere. An atmosphere which has, by the way, been completely altered by life in one of the most chemically fundamental ways possible, from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one. This is what I mean when I say even many leftists just do not understand how extreme the risks are here. A runaway greenhouse wouldn't just kill a billion, it could well end our species and most other species of "higher lifeforms."

Well... Earth becoming more like Venus is an inevitability in the high hundreds of millions of years (and for scale, multicellular life has been around for roughly 5-600M years, with the more than 3 billion before that just being simple single-celled prokaryotic life), but that is completely independent of anthropogenic climate change, it is because of the expansion of the sun towards it's red giant phase. In terms of being habitable to life, Earth is easily past the half-way mark already, no matter what. However, that is far enough out that it doesn't bear worrying about and isn't something we can have any sort of impact on.

That said, the climate change that we as a species are causing right now could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on much shorter time scales. The fact is, there have been times in Earth's history where it has been so hot that complex life could mostly only survive at the poles (with the equator being a death zone to all but simple, single-cellular extremophiles) and there have been times where Earth was encased almost entirely in ice except perhaps at the equators - not just our usual conception of an ice age, but "snowball earth," and this was likely caused by certain forms of simple life, fascinatingly enough. The feedback loops we are triggering right now have a potential to drastically change the composition of the atmosphere on a far shorter timescale, one in which we are talking about an end to most complex life (obviously ourselves included). It was almost certainly volcanism that caused Venus to go from a mostly habitable planet to the completely, utterly inhospitable world it is. Volcanism has also been responsible for extreme heat and mass extinctions on Earth, but obviously it never tipped over into Venus-like territory. The thing is, right now we're changing the atmosphere at a rate far faster than volcanism has in the past! And rate of change matters a lot with this kind of thing. I'm repeating myself, but again, it is not a certainty but it is a possibility that anthropogenic climate change could hit tipping points that Venus-ifies Earth on a much shorter, nearer term than anything relating to the expansion of the sun, on time scales that are worth worrying about (if we value humanity as a whole), and is the sort of thing we can have an impact on.

Both. I do believe that "communism will win" as an inevitability (with one big caveat, see below). Capitalism obviously is unsustainable and rife with internal contradictions that can only lead to its eventual demise. The obvious and broad example being that it requires infinite growth on a finite planet. But I think it can get very bad before it gets better, and expect it will further devolve into fascism (much more so than it already has) for most if not all of the western world, and the entire world will suffer as a result. Socialism, then communism will eventually emerge (since fascism is just as doomed by its contradictions as capitalism is), but before we get there, I expect there is going to be some truly unimaginably dark and horrible times on the way there. So in that sense, I am ultimately optimistic about the future of the world, but extremely pessimistic about its more immediate future.

But now for the caveat. I think that most people, even leftists, don't fully appreciate how much climate change is going to reshape the world. There is a real chance that it will get bad enough that civilization may not survive, that humanity as a species will be among the many that don't make it through the mass extinction we've only just entered. Even people fully on board with knowing climate change is bad and must be curtailed as much as possible as soon as possible still mostly don't realize how much a genuine existential threat it is on a planetary scale, on a scale of centuries and longer. It is by no means a certainty, but given the feedback loops we don't fully understand and definitely don't know how to interrupt, there is a possibility of Earth even going the way of Venus. Obviously I hope that's not the case, but it would be a mistake not to recognize the extreme potential of climate change. If we are able to mitigate it in time, I am like I said, ultimately optimistic. But I am beyond afraid that we won't be able to mitigate it in time.

In other words, it's not just "socialism or barbarism," it's socialism or annihilation.

Never in my life would I have imagined that someone would try to apply dialectical materialism to physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Lenin's_contributions

No. electrons and protons dont attract because they have a history or because of the conditions surrounding them

What are you even talking about, yes they do. Two particles will interact if their shared history (light cone) includes them being in the right conditions (like proximity to each other, opposing charge, etc.) for that to happen.

they do so because of intrinsic properties of themselves

Their intrinsic properties are part of the conditions that cause any given particles to behave the way they do. The environment they find themselves in, such as what other particles they are in the presence of, very obviously plays just as much an important part of the role in determining their behavior as their intrinsic properties. And those conditions at any point in time exist because of the history that led to those conditions - which is just as true of leptons and bosons as it is of kings and peasants.

they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a struggle or process of any kind

Yes, they absolutely did! "Struggle" would be an inappropriate (but still not necessarily inaccurate) term for it just because it carries the implication of intent and human emotions. But dialectical materialism, which is a metaphysical framework, absolutely does not rely on intention in any way - in fact it's largely defined by the fact that it does not rely on intention since that would be idealism. But that's just a matter of odd phrasing, because if you take the word "struggle" out, and just say "they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a process of any kind," you would be completely, even incomprehensibly wrong. Of course they arrived at their current situation through a process. It could be any measure of complexity in the process that led to their conditions, but at it's most simple, it's literally just cause and effect. True of human society, true of particle physics.

they just are the way they are

As is literally everything else.

and dialectics tells u nothing about how electrons and protons will behave. Dialectical materialism is just one way to look at the world and it is good and accurate when used to describe somethings and useless when used to describe others, its a model like any other, it is more dear to our hearts than most models but that doesnt make it perfect or a theory of everything.

Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical framework. The issue here is not that we have to use it to describe particle interactions or predict their outcomes, but that particle physics and dialectical materialism are absolutely compatible with one another. It is even perfectly reasonable to look at the interaction between electrons and protons through a dialectical materialist lens, as @[email protected] pointed out, by considering that interaction as a contradiction and resolution relationship, (law of unity and conflict of opposites), even negation of the negation.

It's political inadequacy aside, let's just take a look at the first few sentences of wikipedia's entry on Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism is a materialist theory based upon the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging from philosophy of history to philosophy of science. [emphasis mine]

It's way too much to quote, but also please note the section on Lenin's contributions to dialectical materialism, and note how it relates to physics. I do not mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you don't seem to understand either physics or dialectical materialism. Almost everything you've said indicates a deep misunderstanding of both.

Just because you aren't used to hearing about the vast reality beyond the propaganda bubble you've (knowingly or unknowingly) confined yourself to, that doesn't mean that something you encounter outside of that bubble that contradicts it isn't factually the truth. If anything, as a rule of thumb, it's more likely to be closer to the truth if it contradicts whatever narrative nonsense you've been swallowing from any given large western media news outlet.

Bro, learn to read paragraphs. My comment above is literally made up of two of them of very normal and standard size. Have you ever read a book? Paragraphs written in places other than twitter or reddit tend not to be broken up arbitrarily every 2 sentences like it seems you wanted me to do.

The question is why won't you condemn the aggressor and stop putting the onus of peace on the people who are being murdered by an aggressor?

The people being murdered... Oh, you mean the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine? The ones who the openly fascist banderite government (that coupe'd the democratically elected government in 2014) were trying to ethnically cleanse when Russia stepped in and prevented it? Yes, I do support those people of Donbas, and seeing as they support Russia, you should too if you care about innocent people getting murdered. Similarly, I condemn the aggressors, the aforementioned banderite Ukrainian fascists and their NATO backers.

I'm not the person you were asking, but yes, I also support the people of Western Ukraine, the vast majority of whom do not want to fight in this war but are being press ganged, literally kidnapped off the street by the Ukrainian government and shipped off to be cannon fodder and die on the front line. I fully support them and advocate for the immediate end of this war so that no more of them will die needlessly in this senseless meat grinder that NATO and the Ukrainian government insist on perpetuating despite their inevitable loss. If you care about human life and if you care about justice, then you would completely support Ukraine immediately accepting this peace offer. If you think human life is cheap (especially if it's foreign to you) and that Ukrainian working class people are expendable and should go ahead and die for the sake of lines on a map that favor western countries, then yeah, that would be in line with cheerleading for the Ukrainian government and opposing the offer of peace.

Russia is neither fascist nor "the aggressor." Anyone who doesn't recognize that Russia entered a civil war where one side (a coup government with an actual fascist military that openly admits their fascism) was trying to ethnically cleanse the other side (who are speakers of the Russian language) doesn't know what the fuck is going on and has almost certainly swallowed gallons of propaganda.

could stop it at any minute by returning to their own territory

And then what would happen to the people of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbas? They would get ethnically cleansed. But I guess you don't give a shit about that? Or you literally didn't know about that?

and admitting that they're simply the bad guys in this war?

Baby-brained simplistic bullshit. No, Russia is not "the bad guy" in this war and you need to expose yourself to more of the world than fucking marvel movies. Also, the word fascist has a meaning, it's not a synonym for "bad guys," and if you had any exposure to the world beyond your little bubble from which you lap up propaganda like it's ice cream, you'd know that (for example) the US just as if not closer to being fascist than Russia.

Nah, there was never any point where Russia was going to lose this unless countries other than Ukraine joined in with more than just grift money and weapon donations but with actual troops on a large scale (beyond just small scale mercs that are easy to deny). And fortunately that wasn't too likely to happen because even the most belligerent NATO warhawks knew it would be seriously risking global nuclear war. So many internet armchair generals, mostly NAFO dipshits but plenty of Russia-aligned SMO-watchers too, were (and are) way too focused on the lines on the map, the fine details of kettles and who held what small towns, etc, all without recognizing the bigger picture: long term attrition. In that sense, Russia has always had the upper hand by a large margin. That's not going to change either. Russia is, as you say, "slowly getting the upper hand," in the more obvious ways but this was always what was in the cards and it's just going to continue in that same inevitable direction. The only way Russia will lose this war is if there is some major change in how things are set up on the global stage.

Also it's not really true to say that Russia is asking for more than they hold because even if some areas are still contested, Ukraine has no chance of hanging on to them. As others have noted, this is a very generous offer and I expect it's only being made because Russia is plainly aware that Ukraine will not accept it (in fact Ukraine cannot accept it because those who fund them, those who are using Ukraine as their proxy and who are ultimately responsible for all this, wouldn't allow them to). That's the only way in which this offer is "dishonest," if you consider it dishonest for Russia to propose a plan they know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Ukraine accepting.

Yeah, something of that proportion could not be kept secret even if all NATO member states were all in total agreement and unity and even with the avowed silence of high officials. It also would at least partially defeat the purpose of NATO if a state joining it were to be kept secret.

That's right! We have to make sure the very last Ukrainian dies in a meat grinder before we even think about agreeing to these completely reasonable, even generous peace terms. Wait, what's that? Russia will have even better leverage and grounds to demand even more concessions the longer this conflict goes on and the further Ukraine gets beaten back? Damn, oh well who cares? As long as western arms manufacturers can keep their grift going a little longer and a few more Eastern Asiastics get taken out, it will be well worth it, right guys?