|
I think one of the easiest ways to visualize what we think the future will be like is science fiction films and video games. We can use them as yardsticks, so to speak. For instance, I don't think it'll be like Mad Max: Fury Road, but I do think it'll be like the first Mad Max, which was a pre-apocalyptic film. There was still civilization in Mad Max 1, but things were starting to get run down and really chaotic. Interstellar is another good visual since it depicts crop failures and a new Dustbowl. Just strip out the magic tech and the deus ex machina happy ending, and you have a plausible future. How about Elysium? Again, all you have to do is remove the magic technology like robot servants and spaceships and focus on what Earth looks like. Overcrowded and super poor. People forced into dehumanizing jobs. Sweltering weather, garbage everywhere. Children of Men is another good one in terms of tone. Especially the treatment of immigrants, the fascist government, and increase in terrorism. It's funny to me how optimistic the Blade Runner films turned out to be. There are numerous offworld colonies, amazing cloning tech, flying cars that are impossibly fuel efficient, and abundant genetically modified food. It's supposed to look dystopic, but the future in the Blade Runner films is more prosperous than what we'll probably have. I did like the details in the sequel like the massive sea wall around Los Angeles and the snow, to show just how hosed the climate has gotten. Will it get as violent as Fallout or other post-apocalyptic works? In the worst parts of the world, it already is. That will probably increase. Have you read The Peripheral by William Gibson? I found its depiction of the apocalypse to be very interesting and plausible, since it was described as so slow you'd barely notice it happening. It was the climate getting worse and worse, while technology got better and better, but not good enough to save most people. In the book, the apocalypse is called The Jackpot, since a lucky few got through it and were made prosperous by the changes while the majority of Earth's population was killed in the chaos. As long as you don't nitpick the little details and liberties these works take, some of them are quite plausible depictions of what the coming decades will look like.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Gibson said that the jackpot is happening which owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:I think one of the easiest ways to visualize what we think the future will be like is science fiction films and video games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
let us know if they find one and where that is
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:let us know if they find one and where that is
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
nankeen posted:my eyes just rolled right out of my head and across the floor and out the door and away down the street in search of a better life Well I hope they rolled all the way around the planet and landed on the parts of my post that explained what I meant. People sometimes have trouble seeing it in their heads. I suggested picking and choosing the most plausible parts of a visual medium, particularly the production design, so people will have an idea of what to expect. In my examples, I avoided the hyperbolic apocalypse scenarios like The Road or The Book of Eli, and focused more on examples where society still exists but is broken and limping. I'll defend my post as something you could tell people who are curious about climate change who need something to imagine. I've struggled to convey the info to people in the form of statistics and articles, but most people have seen popular sci-fi films and you can point out iconography and tone to help them imagine it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
That On the Beach (1959) recommendation was awesome. Thank you! I couldn't get over how eerie and relatable it was, especially the scientist at the party just losing his mind drunk over statistics and things. I've been That Guy a couple of times now...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
nankeen posted:end of my cul de sac guillotine
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Speaking of On The Beach, I noticed that the young couple often refer to their baby as "it." Is that just some sort of 50's idiom, or is it meant to be subtly unnerving, or are they horrible parents, or....?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:Well I hope they rolled all the way around the planet and landed on the parts of my post that explained what I meant. I think you might be addicted to escapism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Speaking of On The Beach, I noticed that the young couple often refer to their baby as "it." Is that just some sort of 50's idiom, or is it meant to be subtly unnerving, or are they horrible parents, or....? I think it has more to do with the fact that since the baby was never going to grow up to actually have a gender identity that they never felt the need to say he or she. It's like the part in Grosse Point Blank where he says he doesn't know his cat's gender because he "respects its privacy."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
'Unprecedented': more than 100 Arctic wildfires burn in worst ever season The Arctic is suffering its worst wildfire season on record, with huge blazes in Greenland, Siberia and Alaska producing plumes of smoke that can be seen from space. ... “The amount of [carbon dioxide] emitted from Arctic circle fires in June 2019 is larger than all of the CO2 released from Arctic circle fires in the same month from 2010 through to 2018 put together.” In June alone, the WMO said, Arctic fires emitted 50 megatonnes of CO2, equal to Sweden’s total annual emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...re_iOSApp_Other
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
tuyop posted:That On the Beach (1959) recommendation was awesome. Thank you! I couldn't get over how eerie and relatable it was, especially the scientist at the party just losing his mind drunk over statistics and things. I've been That Guy a couple of times now... I blogged about this in relation to the climate game I'm building. https://www.theclimatetrail.com/development-blog/why-am-i-giving-this-game-away-or-can-a-game-make-you-cry
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
I, uh, did not realize there were wildfires in the Arctic Circle. That's good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I, uh, did not realize there were wildfires in the Arctic Circle. That's good. There's a shitload of them. In fact a couple days to a week or so ago there was so much smoke in Siberia that it formed what could only really be called a smokecane which if the weather patterns are still holding true was sucked up into the Arctic to lovingly deposit ash onto the ice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGscXNVckK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY5N7cAO_zs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKafLeEnYtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xSU79iir6g
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I think it has more to do with the fact that since the baby was never going to grow up to actually have a gender identity that they never felt the need to say he or she. It's like the part in Grosse Point Blank where he says he doesn't know his cat's gender because he "respects its privacy." That's sufficiently depressing, yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:“The amount of [carbon dioxide] emitted from Arctic circle fires in June 2019 is larger than all of the CO2 released from Arctic circle fires in the same month from 2010 through to 2018 put together.” 50 megatones is 0.05 gigatonnes we emitted 37 gigatonnes in 2018 forest fires are bad but they're not a meaningful feedback loop, from a numbers perspective. they're just "regular" bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:50 megatones is 0.05 gigatonnes I was waiting for someone to point this out, hell I almost did, but was seized by wondering instead what the albedo knock-on effect is from a shitload of ash blanketing the polar ice. My gut tells me it's, uh, poorly understood but not good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:50 megatones is 0.05 gigatonnes What's your point? That's one set of fires in one month, and that figure doesn't capture the long term diminishment of carbon capture ability in that area, it doesn't capture the impact on biodiversity, it doesn't capture the impact erosion can now have, etc. It's still an important piece of data particularly because these forests have traditionally been less likely to burn than those in the southern Rockies or Sierra Nevada. It's like counting the tons of CO2 that Amazonian slash and burning contributes to annual emissions as it that comes close to capturing the impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
my point was clearly articulated in the third line of text. i could not figure out what your last line says.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted: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. I'm surprised you had that many bugs on your windshield in 2016. My family and I have been making that same drive multiple times every summer since the late 80's. I've definitely noticed a sharp decline in the late 00's and now it's next to nothing. I got one bug on my windshield driving up this past weekend, although I don't recall any last Summer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I was waiting for someone to point this out, hell I almost did, but was seized by wondering instead what the albedo knock-on effect is from a shitload of ash blanketing the polar ice. Ash is a natural de-icing agent. It darkens ice or snow which then decreases albedo and the sun melts it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
dream9!bed!! posted:What's your point? That's one set of fires in one month, and that figure doesn't capture the long term diminishment of carbon capture ability in that area, it doesn't capture the impact on biodiversity, it doesn't capture the impact erosion can now have, etc. It's still an important piece of data particularly because these forests have traditionally been less likely to burn than those in the southern Rockies or Sierra Nevada. Go look at his post and check the decimal point to understand why the overall impact of a forest fire doesn't match the overall impact of human emissions. Its like people trying to compare volcanic output to human emissions, without realizing its nowhere near the same scale. Humans have far outdone nature emissions wise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted: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. Not just that but less insects also means less birds (they will actually reproduce less if they can't feed)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Human body ‘close to thermal limits’ due to extreme heatwaves caused by climate changequote:When air temperature exceeds 35C, the body relies on sweating to keep core temperatures at a safe level. However, when the “wet bulb” temperature – which reflects the ability of moisture to evaporate – reaches 35C, this system no longer works. I dunno, goons, I fail to see how this could possibly cause civilization to implode.  Also, I'm in Portland Ore. until Saturday if anyone wants to meet up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
To any economists or economics-adjacent folks itt: how do you feel about Mark Blyth's somewhat hopeful view on climate change? Do you think he might be right, or is he talking bollocks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0&t=4170s
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Do you have a time-stamp for that? e: Ah, 1:09:22 Admiral Ray fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Venomous posted:To any economists or economics-adjacent folks itt: how do you feel about Mark Blyth's somewhat hopeful view on climate change? Do you think he might be right, or is he talking bollocks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0&t=4170s It seems reasonable and plausible, and the optimist in me wants to believe it. However, like every other reasonable argument made by an economist it has one huge flaw: it assumes that people will, on the whole, make sound and rational decisions based on the information available. The problem is, people do not always do that, and I'd argue that they don't often do that. The Great Recession was a perfect example of people saying "this time it's different, we have solved the question of the economy and value will always go up!" despite evidence to the contrary in 2006 and 2007. Even after that example, we have people today talking about how we don't have to worry about a recession on the horizon and that we can continue to party from a fiscal and investment standpoint. Something massively detrimental happened to our economy 11 years ago, and we've already forgot the lessons learned, as a whole. What makes us think that we are going to be any different with climate change? Especially given the grade of leaders we have now, I don't see nations responding to a global crisis with "how can we fix this?" but instead "how can I pass the buck?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Rime posted:Human body ‘close to thermal limits’ due to extreme heatwaves caused by climate change there really isn't a plausible mechanism. The weakness of your position is betrayed by your refusal to engage in specifics and use of subjective or meaningless phrases like civilization, or implode. If you were actually forced to make a coherent fact based argument your position would immediately be exposed as baseless and incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:Ash is a natural de-icing agent. It darkens ice or snow which then decreases albedo and the sun melts it out. Yeah, uh, I was working under that assumption... I was more on about what the strength of the impact would turn out to be (which I doubt can be readily reliably quantified).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Venomous posted:To any economists or economics-adjacent folks itt: how do you feel about Mark Blyth's somewhat hopeful view on climate change? Do you think he might be right, or is he talking bollocks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0&t=4170s Economically, sure, what he says makes sense. People will be spurred to action by a dramatic event. But this isn't an economics problem. For his hypothetical: If we lose Miami without first implementing global emission reduction plans we are already locked in to our civilization destabilizing and possibly collapsing. He believes this is a crisis like others we've faced and it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGscXNVckK8 These are great examples! Thank you! The reason I use sci-fi movies in my examples is due to a weird psychological quirk in, for lack of a better word, dumb people that reject reality. I've tried showing articles to people, but they don't want to read. Even if I force them to watch these really great videos of actual historical events, from which we can easily extrapolate future events, it's like their brains turn off whenever I show them non-fiction. They're dumb and the factual info I show them is treated with the same enthusiasm as a schoolkid being told they have more homework to do. But strangely, I've been able to break through this stupidity by pointing out examples from films they have already seen. And what's funny is that the fictional worlds I point out somehow resonate with them more than footage of the actual world. For instance, if I show them the footage of Sudanese or Syrian refugees, they say, "Oh that's over there. It won't be like that in America." Even if I use Katrina as an example, they dismiss it by saying, "Oh that's just how it is in Louisiana. They flood all the time." Reality just bounces off. But that same stupidity makes them really gullible to fiction. They could see a dumb disaster film like 2012 and gobble it all up. So by using fictional depictions of the world, I have had more success getting them to imagine what the world will look and feel like. Art and fiction are super useful, and can reach people who deny reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Yeah, uh, I was working under that assumption... I was more on about what the strength of the impact would turn out to be (which I doubt can be readily reliably quantified). Probably very bad. Some people use ash instead of salt to clear ice and snow without harming plants or ground under it during winter to give an idea of effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
Squalid, There is something else going on and this is a cross thread thing. Look at the way you talk and think and ask what do most people encounter when they interact with people that talk and think that way? Also look at the most important casual loop that drives the behavior of the system. Does your posting fundamentally address the root of the problem? Is that root problem addressable (it might not be, this is an open question). The other day I was on a ship and European chief engineer started to chat about carbon capture. I say the following: "Global emissions last year were equivalent to 37 Gigatonnes." He blinked and paused for a moment. That was followed by: did you say "Giga". I can't blame anyone for reaching a radical conclusion on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Squalid, oh, no, just CO2 was 37 gigatons. total global emissions are estimated to have been around 50 gigatons CO2e
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Squalid, oh I understand the difficulty I'm facing. Pressing Rime to get specific when he say's civilization is going to implode is pointless because he has nothing coherent or specific in mind and isn't even making an empirical argument. He's not arguing about what is going to happen, he's making an argument about how we should feel. Concepts like civilization are meaningless from the standpoint of science or history or anthropology, these terms are used because of their strong emotional content and connotations. I can't counter subjective feelings with facts, so why even try? However, I went into this conversation with a clear strategy in mind. I'm not a psychologist, but I recall people are more likely to act when they feel they can make an actual difference. This thread unfortunately, has been promoting narratives in which we can't do anything, that nothing matters. Why fight for emissions reductions when civilization is already doomed? Now most people who post regularly here are probably already committed to action in someway, even if they are pessimists. But people who just stop in occasionally might not be. For that reason, narratives that promote the feeling that better things are possible should be promoted. Bad ideas which promote depression and withdrawal should be discouraged. Now I know I'm not really the person to promote positive outlooks and narratives. However I can still challenge the bad ideas which fail basic tests of coherence and good sense. I can't make people agree with me, but neither can they reject what I'm saying. I won't change minds but I can at least break up the echo chamber, and with that goal in mind I will refuse to accept anyone else's symbols or their framing of the issues. I just hopefully posters like nakeen will find success when they put out positive stories and narratives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:Art and fiction are super useful, and can reach people who deny reality.  you know what you're doing and now you've explained it i think it's a good approachunfortunately my eyes were taken by a marauding crane
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Squalid posted:oh I understand the difficulty I'm facing. Pressing Rime to get specific when he say's civilization is going to implode is pointless because he has nothing coherent or specific in mind and isn't even making an empirical argument. He's not arguing about what is going to happen, he's making an argument about how we should feel. Concepts like civilization are meaningless from the standpoint of science or history or anthropology, these terms are used because of their strong emotional content and connotations. I can't counter subjective feelings with facts, so why even try? For what it's worth and without getting into this probably endless debate, I think it's really nice to have this change of tone and have someone trying to break up the same sad stuff that this thread keeps circling around. You're a good poster and I hope you won't be yelled out at some point, because imo your strategy of looking at specific points is neither wrong nor bad and maybe it helps sharpen perspective here and there, even without changing minds or saving the world. Also, avs rocks, invertebrate o'clock and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Squalid posted:Concepts like civilization are meaningless from the standpoint of science or history or anthropology, these terms are used because of their strong emotional content and connotations. I can't counter subjective feelings with facts, so why even try? I appreciate where you're coming from Squalid. I wonder if you have any facts you'd like to share about how you think the current political climate in the western world will deal with the ongoing, growing, humanitarian crisis?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2019 01:32
|
|