I looked for safety topic and found almost none (just brief mention in introduction). This research’s scope is mental health so it’s understandably out of their scope, but endorsing something should always weight both benefit and risks.
Natural water body never guaranteed to be safe, no matter how it looks on surface. Many lives lost because of OWS every year. Personal floating jacket is bare minimum, won’t guarantee safety either.
IMO whether we’re fucked or not is not a constructive argument.
In either case, the interpretation of climate change can lead to the same conclusion: a) we’re fucked up to the point of no return. So we can keep our wasteful society as is until we extinct, because changing our society will not achieve anything. b) we’re not in that bad situation so we can keep our wasteful society as is until the situation gets really bad and requires change.
Anything could be used to justify not making changes and majority of society/indistry ppl in power are super resistant to it (which likely reduces their profit).
In reality, it’s not black and white. Even if the ‘no return’ scenario is real, we can still lessen the climate change effect or delay catastrophic end if we make changes now.
If it only drives the far-right, does that mean Facebook contributed shifting in window of discourse? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
They added chronological, follow-only feed in recent update. Would you return if they have it now? How much ppl returning will be an indicator of its future.
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
And not some random snakes around there, it’s the exact same snake.
If there’s something to mourn, I’d say the lost oppurtunity to have him procetuted (there was a trial about financial fraud at that time).