|
Most of those criminals are white so it's actually the worst kind of genocide
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
I did like that bit in Timeline of What We Tried where an oil exec is kidnapped and has CITIZEN OF THE WORLD branded on his back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Here I was thinking I was risking being accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted by a mod for mentioning genocide, even as an advocate against it because genocide is unacceptable No worries, it's been thread consensus for a good while now that controlled murder, usually through beheading, is fine, as long as it's part of a revolution, leads to climate solutions or simply out of revenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm not asking you to find even a likely path forward that meets those terms of success. I'm asking for just a path, however unlikely but reasonably possible. and not just on the genocide topic. you can basically map any of the top 5 things to an immediately 2 page derail. aggressive wind & solar options -> everybody voices their inner grover about BASE LOAD population control -> genocide nuclear energy -> "cost", waste ccs/beccs/dac -> fantasy/propaganda urbanism/light-electric-transpo -> gentrification, 'american dream' indoctrination, pre-existing totally coincidental housing-crisis, garden variety old people complaining about young peoples scooters rail -> sadbrains defeatism and cynicism gmo crops and maybe even animal protein -> probably justified terror but we're that low on options smartgrid/distributed-battery-caching -> pile on the tech bro shitpost time! eventually turning into a 2 page derail about elon musk. automation & machine-learning -> immediate 2 page derail about elon musk space telcos & universal highspeed internet -> utter nonsense about elysium and mars -> also an immediate 2 page derail about elon musk fwiw, I think a combination of those things really will bend the curve somewhere between 2025 and 2030 and we will reach <5Gt/year somewhere around 2045 - 2055, and then some form of NET will drive us to 0 and then even negative 2 - 10 Gt/year after that as needed. we will probably bake 2.5 into the math and then pull it back and "only" wind up around 2C. the question is how aggressive is the lag between emissions and consequences, exactly what and where do those consequences play out, what follow on repercussions there are, etc. the true terror is thinking about the rough-patches during that process, not psychotically pingponging between "it'll be fine" and "we'll all burn in hell". litterally billions of people are going to survive a 2C scenario just fine. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
I'm stoked to no longer be the craziest motherfucker in this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:
This will be the defining point of climate change. Billions of people are going to survive, yes, but hundreds of millions or maybe billions won't. Those that experienced extreme suffering and perished will have done so due to the excess and inaction of the western world. When those people start to die, and when the world really starts taking notice, it will be at that point we decide if we are going to participate in the largest genocide ever known to mankind. If people don't revolt and overturn the system that will inevitably lead us to that turning point, then the only option is to maintain the status quo of violence and genocide. The world will very quickly morph into a collection of fascist oppressors watching the rest of the world bleed to death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
It's amazing how often this thread brings up normalcy bias as an obstacle to climate change. But, for some reason, it's impossible to imagine a revolutionary moment happening in the near-future. I guess things are just going to be super duper normal until the apocalypse. It'll just be democrats and republicans till death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Bro, we're already participating in the largest genocide known to mankind. It's happening. Where have the insects gone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
How are u posted:Bro, we're already participating in the largest genocide known to mankind. It's happening. parliament.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm not asking you to find even a likely path forward that meets those terms of success. I'm asking for just a path, however unlikely but reasonably possible. It's not possible for me to prove a negative, for example that civilization won't be destroyed. I don't know what what you mean by "in the ballpark of unacceptability as extinction," it sounds pretty subjective. Maybe if you laid out a specific argument like, global warming at 2.5 C will cause x additional deaths, cost x trillion dollars, etc? Then we could have a more meaningful conversation. Extinction is a pretty meaningful inflection point when we talk about impacts, so its hard for me to intuit what you think would be equivalent. I couldn't find specific predictions for 2.5 C so instead I'm going talk about predictions at 2 C and conservatively double the severity of impacts. I'm just pulling numbers from this website, it has the relevant citations if you're curious.. At 2 C warming the global maize yield is predicted to decline by 9%. If we assume the effect is double that at 2.5 C then the decline is a whopping 18%. This is extra troubling, because with world population predicted only stabilize above 10 billion persons, we need to produce a lot more food. However, there is an important caveat. This prediction does not account for any improvement in yields from advances in agricultural science. As a result actual impacts on yields is guaranteed to be smaller than the predicted value. In fact climate related declines in production can be mitigated in many places without any new technology at all, we simply have to apply existing techniques. For example today Cuba produces about 2.5 tons of cassava per hectare, compared to 6.5 tons per hectare in the Dominican Republic. This difference is primarily down to land management, capital investment, and other policy minutia. So i for example climate change induces an 18% decrease in casava yields, we could mitigate that entire impact simply by applying existing practices. In fact we would even expect a net increase in yields. In a world with 2 C temperature increase world GDP is predicted to be 13% lower than it would have been otherwise by 2100. So conservatively, let's assume at 2.5 C that it is 26% lower. Again however notice that this doesn't mean 26% lower than today. Instead we are assuming it will be 26% lower than it would have otherwise been, if growth had not been effected by climate change. The result is that in this scenario, the United States will still probably be wealthier in 2100 than it is today. I couldn't find growth predictions for 2100, however US per capita GDP is expected to be 34% higher by 2050 than it is today. As a result, the typical American is still likely to be wealthier than they are today by 2100 in this scenario. Let's say impacts are much worse. Let's say the world falls back to a nineteen fifties standard of living. In this scenario many millions of people will die of preventable causes. It wouldn't be the end of the world however. Even in times of war and famine life goes on. People find reason to live. Being poor doesn't mean your life lacks meaning. It wouldn't be the end of the world. People would be hungrier and less healthy, but they would still find reason to keep going. Of course most people who believe in a vague and illdefined climate apocalypse will assert that in the end, it will be man who destroys himself. So taking the most destructive possible ending, what would be the impact of global thermonuclear war? For this I found a few studies discussing this risk linked from wikipedia, I've read a couple of them before and I remember them being good so I'm going to just discuss them based on that summary. In the event of a full scale nuclear war with eighties level stockpiles between the USA and Soviets a study found that up to 70% of the US population could die and 40% of the Soviet population. Let's average that and say nuclear war will directly kill 55% of the population in participating countries. A later study estimated that nuclear winter related climate disruptions following a war between India and Pakistan could put 2 billion people, or 1/3 of the world population in 2013 "at risk" of starvation by disrupting food production and supply chains. I noticed some weaknesses in this study, for example I think a lot of that at risk population would actually be people in Pakistan and India who would probably die immediately when the bombs fall. Also this estimate is highly uncertain since we have very bad estimates of how much particulate matter would be released into the upper atmosphere in a nuclear war. Still let's just assume the worst for the sake of argument, and say that half of those at risk or 1/6 of the world population will die of nuclear famine. So let's assume USA, Russia, Bangladesh, and China all decide to have a nuclear gangbang, how many people will die? All those together add up to 43% of world population. So half of them dying is 21%+ 17% from nuclear famine = 38% of world population dead within a few years. Hey at least in this scenario we won't have to worry about lack of glacial melt for irrigation on the Ganges plain right? It's pretty bad but not anywhere on the level of human extinction. Is nuclear war likely due to climate change? Not really. It's about the worst possible event we could imagine happening, and I really can't imagine how climate change is supposed to induce anything worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
How are u posted:Bro, we're already participating in the largest genocide known to mankind. It's happening. Yeah I shake people by the shoulders and ask "haven't you noticed there are way the gently caress fewer insects than, oh I don't know, last year?" They haven't noticed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Yeah I shake people by the shoulders and ask "haven't you noticed there are way the gently caress fewer insects than, oh I don't know, last year?" Well also because individual observations like that are meaningless. I have seen more insects this year than last year. That doesn’t mean squat about climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well also because individual observations like that are meaningless. I was being a bit glib there -- the real baseline I'm working from is a few decades, and the rapid change has only been noticeable the past few years. I'm glad to be shown that it's a selection effect or confirmation bias, but I've lived in several biomes and I travel a lot around North America...i don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
I got my wildflower garden going good but I’ll die before I let the domers get their hands on it
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
you know what, I'm already surprised we haven't all been probed already
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
I wish all the insects would die already. I mean if it's already too late to do anything I could spend the last decade or whatever of the peak of industrialized society not dealing with mosquitoes and fruit flys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:I wish all the insects would die already. I mean if it's already too late to do anything I could spend the last decade or whatever of the peak of industrialized society not dealing with mosquitoes and fruit flys. Good thing we have no reason to believe it is too late
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
v much looking forward to squalid's inevitable breakdown and joining the lmao crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:No worries, it's been thread consensus for a good while now that controlled murder, usually through beheading, is fine, as long as it's part of a revolution, leads to climate solutions or simply out of revenge. And let's face it, with this amount of bitter, it's usually the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
I admit it's a miniscule sample size, but back in 2016 I drove a friend from BWI to Cumberland, MD for her to stay with her folks for three weeks. It's about a two and a half hour drive through rural valleys and over foothills. At the end of just that drive, the front of my car and windshield were loving *festooned* with insect guts. I didn't bother washing it because I had another 2.5h drive back to Northern Virginia and I figured it'd just get hosed up all over again on the evening drive back. A month ago I visited her again in Cumberland for lunch. Going there and driving back...I had only *three* dead bugs on the entirety of my front fascia *and* windshield. I'm driving from DC to Ottawa to Toronto and back to DC in mid-August. It'll be interesting to see how pristine my car will look after all of that. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:you know what, I'm already surprised we haven't all been probed already Could you explain to me why a 9% decrease (before accounting for advances in production) in agricultural yields is in the same ballpark of negative consequences as total human extinction within our lifetimes? Presumably you mean this in a philosophical sense or. . ? Kinda hard to get a read on the argument you were making
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah they used to completely cover the front of your car driving in the mountains around here. Maybe 2008ish? Nowadays you just don't hit any. At all. My wife actually brought that up a few days ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Same mayflies used to a scourge to anyone driving here but now???? I don’t think I’ve seen more than a handful in some time
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
How are u posted:v much looking forward to squalid's inevitable breakdown and joining the lmao crowd. Yeah, really. Usually the people in denial are pointing to a specific data point or technology they think will let them not have to feel unsafe/insecure/bad about the future. This "Well you can't say with 100% certainty what is going to happen therefore anything could happen" stuff is actually a bigger waste of time than the nihilists and comedians because at least they are being honest with themselves about what is going on instead of trying to misrepresent things to be more palatable for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
please don't lump me in with him, i only said billions of people will survive i'm not dumb enough to think that gdp per capita projections out that far are anything but ideology
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Could you explain to me why a 9% decrease (before accounting for advances in production) in agricultural yields is in the same ballpark of negative consequences as total human extinction within our lifetimes? Presumably you mean this in a philosophical sense or. . ? Kinda hard to get a read on the argument you were making So many people are going to loving die that it is unacceptable, it is disgusting to really consider the terrible things humanity as a whole have done. As this is currently unavoidable we are "doomed".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:Yeah, really. Usually the people in denial are pointing to a specific data point or technology they think will let them not have to feel unsafe/insecure/bad about the future. This "Well you can't say with 100% certainty what is going to happen therefore anything could happen" stuff is actually a bigger waste of time than the nihilists and comedians because at least they are being honest with themselves about what is going on instead of trying to misrepresent things to be more palatable for them. What do you think I am denying Why is being specific so hard with you guys. Just say what you think is going to happen, then we can make arguments about it. We can present evidence for or against. We don't live in a world where anything can happen. Which is why we shouldn't tolerate unsupported and unsupportable assertions about human extinction. Those predictions are so far outside the bounds of plausibility that they can more or less be disregarded. StabbinHobo posted:please don't lump me in with him, i only said billions of people will survive i'm not dumb enough to think that gdp per capita projections out that far are anything but ideology you know that poo poo goes into the climate models too right. How do you think they make projections about future CO2 emissions. Shifty Nipples posted:So many people are going to loving die that it is unacceptable, it is disgusting to really consider the terrible things humanity as a whole have done. As this is currently unavoidable we are "doomed". That's fair. Just keep in mind that this is a subjective way to look at things. Sometimes we have to consider worsts cases, but other times its ok to be optimistic and take a positive point of view. Whatever gets you out of bed in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
"if only hitler killed but 8.9% of the jews entering his camps, then it would have been acceptable"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"if only hitler killed but 8.9% of the jews entering his camps, then it would have been acceptable"  what exactly do you think I'm arguing? Do you really think I just argued that nuclear war is acceptable because it is unlikely to kill more than 40% of humanity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Yes, actually, you're dancing on that line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Yes, actually, you're dancing on that line. you know, maybe I'm prone to being overly literal. While I've not said anything itt which is controversial, or which contradicts general scientific consensus, the issue is I haven't been speaking in the same symbolic language as a lot of other people. As Shifty Nipples said, when he says humanity is doomed, he doesn't necessarily literally mean doomed to an apocalypse. It's meant to be nonspecific, and "doomed" in this context could really mean per capita GDP being 30% smaller than it would have been without climate change, or the proportion of global population that is food insecure being 50% larger. These posters aren't talking in terms of real population or economic forecasting, they aren't trying to predict war or famine. They are just trying to emphasize the seriousness of the crisis facing us. And that is reasonable. However, while some of these people are reasonable, others use being doomed as an excuse to do nothing. Others worse still, use it to fuel their misanthropy. Humanity deserves it they say. Why are we trying to feed the world's poor, when they're just going to add to emissions, they say. That's not the kind of thinking anyone should tolerate. So looking at people wallowing, i've asked them to ground themselves in reality. Wallowing in the misery can take people to dark places and bad conclusions. If these takes are subjective, we can reframe them in a light that's positive, and actually encourages positive action. The vast majority of evidence suggests that humanity will still exist in 2100. There might be some small probability that it won't, and a slightly larger probability that it won't exist by the end of the next century. Nevertheless, its necessary to plan for what we're gong to do if we are still here. What are we going to do if there is a future. If we sometimes have to emphasize the worst case scenarios, we also have to acknowledge the best case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
That sounds like a bunch of domehead talk
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:you know, maybe I'm prone to being overly literal. Squalid posted:Civilization is the emergent quality of any large scale human social interaction. You think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
One big dome to cover the whole world or we're doooooomed I say
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
Ironically as long as civilization exists we are doomed to eventually either go extinct or become a species that subsists purely on nutritional paste because this heat engine has proven that it won't tolerate non-human competition for resources
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
Squalid posted:you know that poo poo goes into the climate models too right. How do you think they make projections about future CO2 emissions. if a certain emissions level -> then a given level of environmental difficulty -> then a guess as to economic impact the second part we're utterly terrible at (see thread), to think we could then pin something down and get the third right is just, like i said, ideology. the neoliberal economic conceit that we have mastered the universe with spreadsheets. most of their report summaries and infographics don't even mention gdp/econometrics: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/#cid_603
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Burden rests on those claiming there is room for hope. You should do stuff anyway regardless. Hope is stupid Disney bullshit. No peasants had hope they'd actually win when they revolted against nobility. They were just not willing to lay down and die quietly. The October Revolution didn't happen because of an outburst of hope. What will be will be but if you've convinced yourself that the proper action is to do nothing then you're loving up. That's the same result that the climate deniers reach. Fear, hope, these are just emotions based on an uncertain future. Action is what is required and ideas that say 'nah do nothing actually' are bad whatever their justification, whether out of denial or despair or whatever else. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:you have it backwards, "they" make projections about co2 and then from those try and hazard a guess at gdp. like so: I don't think this is true. For example you can read about some of the assumptions made about economic growth by climate models in this paper. Which I found referenced in one of the IPCC reports. Of course it does note that model differences in growth assumptions don't appear very powerful, but clearly it comes into play. Anyway, its obvious that there's a lot of uncertainty involved in economic forecasting, which is why there aren't a lot of serious predictions past 2050, but that doesn't make it impossible. This also has nothing to do with neoliberalism. Do you think central planners never made economic forecasts? In a few minutes looking I couldn't find any sources evaluating the accuracy of long-term economic predictions, but I'd bet they're a good deal more accurate than short term predictions, for the same reason climate predictions can be more accurate than weather predictions. SplitSoul posted:You think? I admit that was a bit excessive but there's a method to my madness. I'm trying to force people to be specific when they start crying that we're all doomed and nothing matters, and asking them to explain exactly what they think is going to happen. Civilization in this context is almost a weasel word, it can mean anything and everything. However someone crying that global warming will mean the end end of human civilization probably isn't just talking about art museums, but good luck pinning them down on that. My hope is by talking about specific issues and their actual predicted impacts, we can break the problem into smaller more manageable pieces that don't send people spiraling into despair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I admit that was a bit excessive but there's a method to my madness. I'm trying to force people to be specific when they start crying that we're all doomed and nothing matters, and asking them to explain exactly what they think is going to happen. Civilization in this context is almost a weasel word, it can mean anything and everything. However someone crying that global warming will mean the end end of human civilization probably isn't just talking about art museums, but good luck pinning them down on that. My hope is by talking about specific issues and their actual predicted impacts, we can break the problem into smaller more manageable pieces that don't send people spiraling into despair. I don't necessarily agree with all the below but this is the prevailing CSPAM opinion more or less: vyelkin posted:Over time everything gets steadily more expensive and you start not being able to always buy whatever you want, either because it's now out of your price range or because there are actual shortages of things like coffee. Weather gets more severe and less predictable. People you know have their homes and livelihoods destroyed by extreme weather events and have to decide whether to rebuild or start over somewhere new with nothing. If you're unfortunate enough to live somewhere like the desert (lol Phoenix, Arizona) then it will become actually unaffordable to live there at all because you'll spend more on air conditioning than you make in income. Every summer you hear about hundreds of elderly people whose air conditioning broke and they died of heatstroke in their own home. Diseases that haven't been seen in your country for decades or centuries start to reappear, like malaria. Diseases that have never appeared in your country before, like Zika or Dengue, also start to appear. Mosquitoes seem to be the one insect that isn't dying out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:I wish all the insects would die already. I mean if it's already too late to do anything I could spend the last decade or whatever of the peak of industrialized society not dealing with mosquitoes and fruit flys. Sadly I think the wasps will hang in there with us, since they enjoy our picnics as much as we do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 21:39
|
|
