I really appreciate the article and responses here. This is a topic that resonates with me, and is something I often struggle with. My early dreams were to be an ecologist, wildlife biologist, or conservation scientist, along the lines of Jane Goodall, George Schaller, or E.O. Wilson. Life circumstances and choices I made early on diverted me from that (along with the fact that these are extremely difficult careers to break into), and I ended up in a relatively comfortable, tech-focused career. I have a loving family, live in a beautiful area, have great friends and my income is good...
And yet I still wrestle with "could-of" or "should-of" thoughts about my life. It's tiring, and often detracts from my well-being and happiness.
This report was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which according to Wikipedia "is a climate change denial lobby group registered as a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, practise and promote climate change denial."
Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.
To be honest, I just looked up the report and did not not notice it came from there. My only agenda was that it was the only report that clearly showed the average and CI of the different studies throughout the years. WWF links to the actual report [1] which is found at [2]. They try their very hardest to not show that the population is either stable or increasing. If you look at decreases, for example in Davis Strait, it is a loss of 1% with 0% in the 95% interval.
Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.
I disagree. I too have worked in these environments. As mentioned in the article, and in numerous other references about the Backrooms - the creepiness stems partially from the "liminal" feeling of walking around large, man-made spaces that are totally empty. Think walking around a shopping mall after hours. I had several odd jobs before I was in college where I had to work overnight shifts, sweeping the floors of large department stores. That feeling of "empty watchfullness" was definitely a thing, and it's captured well by a lot of the Backrooms content.
The other aspect of "creepiness" stems from the idea that the Backrooms represent an endless, malevolent labyrinth. One of the scarier aspects of being trapped in the Backrooms (for me) is that you would just wander around until you died for lack of water and food, in a bland corporate office corridor with fluorescent lights buzzing overhead.
I've worked in these environments too, and I think the modern "open" office without assigned desks give a far greater creepy "liminal" feeling that old suburban cube farms.
When you have assigned desks, people personalize their spaces. It feels lived in (at least a bit). A more contemporary open office feels more liminal, even when it's full of people. And after hours it's even worse: there's no trace of human habitation.
And yet I still wrestle with "could-of" or "should-of" thoughts about my life. It's tiring, and often detracts from my well-being and happiness.
reply