|
avshalemon posted:you may produce another life only if you intend to raise it in perfect harmony with nature my progeny will be legion. they will grow so many that they will blot out the sun and consume this planet entirely, down to the last atom. as a ravenous horde, they will move on to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, consuming them all and producing more and more and more. eventually they will turn towards the sun and consume it too. then, my children, my legacy, will become so numerous as to undergo gravitational collapse themselves, igniting fusion within their bulk and forming a new star that travels alone in the universe, carrying with them the collective sins of this world and its inhabitants until the end of time.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
the child could be the promised one
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child. It is fantastic that you are seriously embarking on this journey together. The question cannot be well answered in the abstract. It must first be lived quite immediately and locally, from my point of view. For me a couple of things are involved. First do a complete audit of your life with special attention to the carrying capacity of where you live and your habitual identity as a "consumer". You want your best effort at an audit across your participation in all the major planetary systems. You want a sufficiently data informed picture that it has the potential to reveal and even interrupt your implicit bias as you work on this. It’s pretty easy to bullshit ourselves or to adopt idealized utopias or dystopias that will not assist you in taking action or making conscious changes. Be ready to fail a lot if you live in and benefit from one of the industrialized social contracts. I assume you do or you would not need to be considering these changes in the same way. If you even marginally succeed you will start to live outside the dominant paradigm. This is not only "inconvenient", when measured by markers of success in the system producing climate change you will in fact be failing at life. This means you must discover and adopt an entirely different criteria for a "successful" life than what you have inherited or been handed. Which gets to the second point. What you are intending almost certainly involves a degree of existential crisis. Are you prepared for that? Mostly we try to avoid that in ways that undermine our efforts. Do you have sufficient social fabric to support the degree of change you are imagining? What you view as "necessary" will inevitably change if you are serious in your efforts. This is one of the main difficulties with having children, beyond the calculations of environmental impact. This also begins to get to equity issues and how they are related to global environmental degradation. For instance, in your current identity you are going to "wean" yourself into biking to work. This is smart and having a plan that allows the changes to be tolerated is good. On the other hand, what worldview, identity, paradigm are you embodying such that riding a bike is optional? That 5 days a week of participation in the manufacturing scale food system seems necessary? I understand and the example of your wife's work is a good one. Even if you feel you cannot make such changes, it might be important to reveal the world view that leads to your current understanding of what is necessary and what constitutes a good life. At first this can occur as some sort of deprivation or scarcity. All the things I can’t do because of these changes I am making and this is very real. It is equally real that many things are made impossible by your current way of life, but those are probably deleted. Many things become possible as a result of the changes that were previously invisible. Examine what you are asserting as necessary in your life and why you are doing that. None of it is actually necessary, because really you (and I) are in no way necessary. Therefore what choices are you making and how are you making those? Since most people around you are living in a particular sort paradigm, it is very possible these changes you are making will offend and upset people close to you (because your sense of self will be changing as well). This means localize and find community. Community Choice Aggregation can be one way to encounter community if you do not already have it. If it doesn’t exist, start it where you live. Or start a food group. Or a natural bill of rights movement to enable the local regulation of corporate resource taking. Or a bicycle advocacy group working on redoing transportation infrastructure and option where you live. Again, it can be useful to organize your efforts around planetary systems and human systems with greatest impact. Food, energy, transportation, "waste", water, etc. Make your efforts bigger than yourself. Experiment and learn. In short, though it’s fantastic to resolve to reduce your carbon emissions the overall question is to understand your identity relative to participation in the systems both producing and benefiting from a relationship to the planet that results in climate change, mass extinction, acidification of the oceans, etc. I can’t imagine this sort of answer is really helpful. As I said, kinda hard to answer these things in the abstract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child. Adopt instead of procreating. There's absolutely nothing you can do to offset the carbon cost of a new life, nor anything you can do to prevent the hardship they'll live through - unlike the past several generations that preceded us, their life will almost invariably be worse than what yours was. However, taking a life that has already been born the lowest of the low, and trying to improve their lot as much as possible, is a noble goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I feel you may have misapprehended or perhaps strategically avoided the main point suggested, namely: I was mostly just making a narrow argument that economic analysis can/should/must be applied to climate change and the resource allocation of improving and saving human lives. Under socialism, policymaking involves if anything EVEN MORE of those decisions, and under capitalism the numerical dollar-value representation of all the negative externalities are among other things a valuable persuasive tool. Another friend of mine is doing a bunch of work in cost-benefit analysis of things like habitat maintenance and local environmental quality, with precisely that sort of intent in mind - being able to say "we are losing x quantifiable amount of life quality and y quantifiable amount of GJB doesnt know what else and could fix this for z amount of dollars, which is less than u amount of dollars that loosely approximates the lost utilons and mental and physical health".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Hey, just wanted to poke in and ask about your first post in this thread about the mathematical impossibility of oil and gas interests not tanking the world economy after they are forced to take the reserves off the accounting ledger. it'd be a lot of work to turn it into more than spitball numbers, so here's some of those: exxonmobil claims 21B barrels in reserves and has a gross margin of 31%. 21B x $46 (current price of a barrel) x 0.31 = $300B. XOM's market cap is ... $292B. of course its not quite that simple, but for rough purposes "allmost all of your assets and inventory is gone now and you're not allowed any more" will fairly clearly destroy/bankrupt any company. now look at where XOM lives in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue think about the combined market caps* being nearly zero'd out. its well into the high-single-digit trillions. at least as large, imho much larger, than the banking collapse of 07/08/09. the thing is, the fed can't print energy. * be they public or not it doesn't really matter, aramco is not public and yet saudi money is EVERYWHERE StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170518104038.htm Its worth noting as well that they are starting to see evidence that the Ocean is becoming saturated and is starting to leach out CO2. so may not be as strong a sink as we though. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07784-1?linkId=61289333
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I was mostly just making a narrow argument that economic analysis can/should/must be applied to climate change and the resource allocation of improving and saving human lives. Under socialism, policymaking involves if anything EVEN MORE of those decisions, and under capitalism the numerical dollar-value representation of all the negative externalities are among other things a valuable persuasive tool. For me, its not a question of whether socialism or capitalism is the better economic frame. One primary consideration for me is coming to an understanding of the differences between natural economies and financial economies. Look at the Goldman Sachs Commodities Index, particularly with respect to food, for an example of this disconnect and its effects. The very ways in which we think and perceive from within a paradigm of financial economy systematically produces radical inequity and environmental degradation. And from within that mental model, even if the actual costs are understood (which is almost impossible) it is not assumed that this has to do with a flawed model based on grossly flawed assumptions, but rather that we simply have not sufficiently implemented the model well enough, whether that model is socialism or capitalism, etc. More scale is better. More consolidation of power and profit is better. They become moral propositions. Basically this results in doubling down on the deep models and associated structures, process, etc. that enslave and destroy the human and life systems of the planet. All of this model writ large, including the objectivist endeavor and the production of authorized knowledge associated with that, were at some point in the Holocene an appropriate survival strategy for a tiny minority of the planet. The assertion of a reality made of separate objects, capable of being manipulated, rather than e.g. an assumption of a radical interconnectedness, is essentially violent in nature. Furthermore it asserts about itself that it is not socially constructed. It also asserts (in what I feel is a misinterpretation of Darwin) that competition is the context for growth and development. Put this all together and you get the horror of collective human activity on the planet today which more or less ignores that we are currently living within what is functionally a closed thermodynamic system (though technically small amounts of matter do move in and out of the system). Most importantly for me, the real power and effectiveness of that violent, objectifying apprehension of reality in action has caused a shift of geological era. This means that even if it were once a meaningful survival strategy for the beneficiaries of the resulting oppression, it is no longer remotely correlated with the actual condition of the planetary systems nor the planet as a whole. There is not an appropriate model from the Holocene for what we now face (created by the enactment and reification of those very models from the Holocene). No improvement to those ways of apprehending the world will suffice. It is an existential crises not just for individuals coming to some level of realization about the nature of our current condition, but for humanity as a whole. Sogol fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I can’t imagine this sort of answer is really helpful. As I said, kinda hard to answer these things in the abstract. This post reads like an international standard. It kinda rules. ISO 29009:2018 Lifestyle Modification - composting consumerist ideologies to reduce environmental impacts
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
I'm gonna go ahead and return to the stupid and toxic discussion of "is there some way to offset co2 by spending personal money", which was quickly turned into another round of "there is nothing u can do bitch, you dumb Little baby, how dare u even ask such a stupid question". The main argument of the sad brain crowd was that carbon offsetting doesn't work as you need to reduce carbon emissions in order to make a significant changes. Well let me blow your minds by saying that there are organisation's you can give money to that do exactly that. There's multiple serious companies that aim to reduce overall co2 emissions by using your money to fund renewable Energies, to provide poor people in third world countries with energy efficient methods of living their lives, or that use it to protect already existing carbon positive things like woods and other biomes. Anything you can personally do right now to reduce your own carbon footprint is an important first step, but giving money to organisation's that do this on top will do some good, so don't let the sadbrains let you tell otherwise. It's also tax deductible as it's a donation in my country, and might work similarly in yours, so that's a way you can redirect your tax money into more environmentally friendly measures, which is a good message on top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:There is straight up nothing you can do and no comfort you can sacrifice to any extent which will offset the carbon footprint of bringing another child into the world. Lol, come on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Don't have kids, for fucks sake. Sogol has the right idea in that by any modern standard your child will be a "failure" because they will not have a better life than you, regardless of what you do. As the resident sadbrains rear end in a top hat I ask the further question: why do you want to have a child in the first place? Do you want someone to take care of you in your old age? Someone to act as unpaid labor for you in a subsistence farm? Someone to keep you company despite their inevitable suffering? Or someone to parade around to others and show off your "amazing" ability to instill a blank slate with whatever values you have? None of those in my view justify bringing someone into the hellscape that is coming. Just last week my mom was bragging about what a great job she did with me and my brother to push us into "profitable" careers we both resent and put me on the spot asking that if I became my niece's guardian I would do the same. I ended up saying that she should pursue what she wished but have a plan B and yet I still got poo poo for it. Can't imagine what reaction my real answer would be ("Do whatever you want because it's all going to hell anyway") AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
This thread reminds me of the old Lacan bit about a husband being pathological about his wife cheating on him even though she's actually cheating on him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Whoa this thread has some things. I popped in to ask a question about a lifestyle choice I have made recently. I have a flex fuel car, and an electric car is in my future. I decided to go almost exclusively running on E85 because there's a convenient station a block away. The tailpipe emissions are pretty much the same according to the EPA, but am I doing at least some good by reducing GHG during the production of E85?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Kunabomber posted:Whoa this thread has some things. I popped in to ask a question about a lifestyle choice I have made recently. In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. You still burn a lot of fossil fuels to plant the corn, refine it into ethanol, ship it around, reduce the mpg of the car and so on. The "better" lifestyle choice is riding a bike, but of course that's a pain in the rear end for most people's commutes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Don't have kids, for fucks sake. I mean. I don't know much but doing the opposite of whatever the gently caress you think is right has to be the way to go
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
There is one weird trick to offset the carbon footprint of having a child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. You still burn a lot of fossil fuels to plant the corn, refine it into ethanol, ship it around, reduce the mpg of the car and so on. That's unfortunate. I'll keep using E85 because there's always the potential for it to get better over time, and increased consumption of it may pressure it to get better in the future, perhaps start using switchgrass to produce it. But the corn lobby being the way it is... The USDA released a report saying that it does reduce GHG to use ethanol as fuel and may get better in the future. I'll have to sit down and read it sometime to get a better picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Kunabomber posted:That's unfortunate. I'll keep using E85 because there's always the potential for it to get better over time, and increased consumption of it may pressure it to get better in the future, perhaps start using switchgrass to produce it. But the corn lobby being the way it is... the given article posted:“As the report notes, corn ethanol has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 76 percent when accounting for advancements in production efficiency techniques and sustainable agricultural practices. The ethanol industry works every day to improve production processes, ensuring that ethanol will continue to provide even greater benefits well into the future. The ethanol industry is proud to provide a product that helps clean our air, improves engine performance, and saves consumers money when they fill up their tank.” Reality is closer to this, with biodiesel: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Donate to earthjustice, they are a bunch of surly lawyers that sue the government for environmental transgressions. Won't solve this problem, but at least they are working to make this administrations efforts a pain in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child.  your kid is going to grow up in a hell-world, good choice!  For real: reconsider. Think longer and harder, because 10 years from now, 15 years from now, when we start to get into very beginning of the real bad poo poo, you are going to look at the world and then look at your kid and feel some world-crushing guilt and shame. How are u fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
I like how over and over with this topic the truth is just too hard to cope with so we all must be mental illness suffering doomsayers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:I like how over and over with this topic the truth is just too hard to cope with so we all must be mental illness suffering doomsayers. TBF, AceOfFlames is a prominent poster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:TBF, AceOfFlames is a prominent poster. Don't get me wrong I'm not arguing that none of us are suffering from mental illness, I certainly am, but that isn't necessarily the cause of the doom saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
The point is more that saying "we are all hosed, best just lie down and die" does exactly nothing, and doing anything is preferential to just posting about how much more enlightened you are for not even pretending you can do something against it. Being depressed and helpless in the face of overwhelming adversity is absolutely understandable when look at climate change. It is also a mental illness and not normal. I've been there multiple times over the last few years, and let me tell you nothing motivates people less than telling them poo poo is hosed and nothing they can do will change anything. Which is not true. Get enough people motivated enough to put pressure on politics and companies and things can make a difference in the long run. Telling people the opposite is a 100 percent guarantee that poo poo is gonna go completely off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:TBF, AceOfFlames is a prominent poster. I'm flattered. And for all those who ask "Why don't you just avoid climate related news?" well https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/3k9mvv/weather-systems-took-on-a-new-meaning-in-2018 Kinda hard to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
The only thing that individuals can do right now that will make a difference is 1) be American citizens and 2) vote into office people who have the political will to tackle the problem. The only people who have the will to tackle the problem in the serious way that is required (dismantle society and economy, rebuild radically new) are pretty much people 30 and under. I've never believed that nothing can be done, I just have an honest appreciation for how utterly small is the chance of success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Lol, come on. The ratio of useless Rime or AceofFlames posts to newsposts is linearly correlated with the number of poo poo posts I make in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Sogol posted:For me, its not a question of whether socialism or capitalism is the better economic frame. One primary consideration for me is coming to an understanding of the differences between natural economies and financial economies. Look at the Goldman Sachs Commodities Index, particularly with respect to food, for an example of this disconnect and its effects. We need to think in terms of connected circular system instead of maximization for single variables. Unconstrained maximazion for single variables (depending on the particular variable ) without controls has a tendency to cause catastrophic failure of the larger system. It's probable that this is a provable and testable assertion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Paying to offset your carbon output feels to me like recycling. The whole recycling saying of "reduce, reuse, recycle" applies to carbon output as well. The first thing you should be trying to do is absolutely, 100% reducing or eliminating your carbon output, but in order to participate in some sense in modern society, *some* degree of carbon output is just unfortunately going to be a given unless you refuse to heat your home and freeze to death. Paying for carbon offsets is at least *something* that has some degree of positive effect, even if it's not as effective as not polluting in the first place. Your first thought should *always* be to reduce your carbon footprint, but once you are at the point where you can't realistically reduce it anymore, paying carbon offsets is better than doing nothing. It's like that poster above that wouldn't fly to his parents at Christmas - sure it's noble, but when you consider the millions of business consultants who fly literally every week to a new place to do a job that probably could be done from their home, and even add extra flights just to bump up an imaginary frequent flier points, chastising someone who flies once a year to see their family for Christmas seems misguided, especially if they at least offset that by buying carbon offsets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
You can't effectively buy carbon offsets, though. And in the same vein, recycling is feel good bullshit that doesn't actually help the environment unless the proper infrastructure to handle it is in place. And even then the benefit is sometimes marginal at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
There are things to do, but a realistic "good outcome" is probably a reduction of humanity from 7 billion to 1-2 billion people by end of century, with a general quality of life in terms of energy per captia similar to people 1910s, 1920s or so. We'll have better entertainment options though as long as we keep the computers running and the internet up. Hopefully not too many places will be destroyed and left irradiated by the nuclear exchanges that'll likely happen mid to late century. Calling it "hellworld" is not too far off, we'll probably end up doing awful things like letting climate migrants die by the veritable mountain load, killing off the mentally/physically disabled out of a rather awful cost-benefit analysis, and other nasty, nasty poo poo like that. On the other hand, I'm reasonably sure we can have a modern civilization, with a LOT of effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child. This isn't cutting your emissions, but you can potentially offset the carbon use of a future child by working/donating to improve contraceptive, sex ed, and abortion services access.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
My wife and I are expecting our first and only child in May. We are the damage doers contributing to global ruination. But, ever since the 80's as a kid I've been hoping for zero population growth. By having a kid, sure we're bringing a new carbon footprint into the world, but we're still sticking to negative population growth by only having one, and I waited until I was 40 to do it, so at least we can't be accused of not being the change we want to see in the world. And as for my child having a life worse than I have, that's fine with me. My life has been way more convenient than is necessary to survive and still consider life worthwhile. Do your best to reduce your emissions as the kid grows. Kids should be encouraged to stay active but maybe driving them back and forth to a soccer league twenty minutes away multiple times a week isn't necessary if you've got kids in your neighborhood they could just run around playing with. I don't know, I'm sure there will be a bunch of variables to figure out along the way, but if you want a kid then either adopt or have one, and feel the appropriate amount of shame for doing so, being aware of how much harm your doing. Shame will hopefully keep you striving to do better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Actually, what tends to happen is that having children becomes such a fundamental part of your identity, you continuously find ways to justify the decisions you make on the matter to reduce the cognitive dissonance. ED: case in point Parenting the Climate Change Generation posted:And I have to admit: I am also excited for everything that Rocca and her sisters and brothers will see and do. Yes, she will hit her child-rearing years around 2050, when we could have climate refugees in the many tens of millions; and, yes, she will be entering old age at the end of the century, the end-stage bookmark on all of our very bleak projections for warming. In between, she will watch the world doing battle with a genuinely existential threat, and the people of her generation making a future for themselves, and the generations they bring into being, on this planet. And she won’t just be watching it, she will be living it — quite literally the greatest story ever told. It may well bring a happy ending. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
It’s a mixed bag. Of course do whatever we can on all fronts. What can be hard to determine or to come to terms with is the possibility of what Freire calls "false charity". It’s been referred to in thread in different language so apologies for redundancy in advance. False charity means well intended acts of charity the ultimate result of which is to keep in place the giver's status as the beneficiary of a system of oppression, and thereby keeps the system of oppression itself in place. True charity, in that same model, relies on a pre-condition of solidarity. In the absence of that solidarity we are most likely acting in ways that keep the oppression and violence in place as well as keeping our benefit from that violence and oppression. So, is climate change caused by a system of oppression? If so, in what ways; to what extent? If true, what is our relationship to that system of violence and oppression producing climate effect? Are we a benefactor? To what extent and in what ways? Who or what is treated as an object in the system of oppression? Who receives disproportionate advantage and who is marginalized or systematically disadvantaged? Where do we and our charitable giving fit in that? If we don’t imagine climate change is related to the system of oppression that produce and keep in place inequity, then we don’t have to ask those questions of course. And if we don’t have to ask those questions we don’t have to take on the very difficult changes that match the answers we might come up with. If we discover that we are a beneficiary it completely sucks. We may have pristine intent, but disproportionate impact. We then might tend toward a strategic unconsciousness relative to that impact, if not an outright defensiveness and egoic fragility. It seems impossible to disentangle ourselves. It seems impossible to even make authentic efforts at solidarity, or even ally-ship. Maybe we feel attacked by the revelation of our status as a beneficiary of the system causing the life killing effect. What is even more difficult is to come to understand what solidarity looks like and what changes are involved... then making those changes as best we are able. There is more about how this dynamic works in practice of course. This is part of the problem underlying "buying our way out" and it has no definitive or easy solution, or so it seems to me. None of this does. There really is no good way to have these conversations, and I am not so great at them within that condition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
How are u posted:
Parenting the Climate Change Generation
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Man, it's not even the carbon footprint of having a child which gets me, that's just too abstract for my simple working mans brain. It's the idea that I'd be bringing a child into the world despite fully knowing that they're probably going to end up living out The Road by their late teens / mid-20's, and good lord I do not want that weight on my conscience. That'd be some lovecraftian cosmic horror, to me, knowing that I have consigned another sentient mind to suffering out of my own selfish desires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We need to think in terms of connected circular system instead of maximization for single variables. Unconstrained maximazion for single variables (depending on the particular variable ) without controls has a tendency to cause catastrophic failure of the larger system. I think what you are talking about is described pretty well in Panarchy theory from the Stockholm Resilience Center. Look at Holling and Gunderson's work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
davebo posted:And as for my child having a life worse than I have, that's fine with me. I personally can not understand felling this way though I do not think I am presently capable of raising a child anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 20:03
|
|