Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

TheBlackVegetable posted:

Is anyone else just of the assumption that the world governments generally know and accept it's all going to go down, billions are going to die, and we can't fix it within the system or hope to change the system itself - so the actions they do take are with the goal of just persevering something, anything, with themselves still in some position of power?

Note that the IRA is largely focused on energy security.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 13:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:02

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

TheBlackVegetable posted:

Is anyone else just of the assumption that the world governments generally know and accept it's all going to go down, billions are going to die, and we can't fix it within the system or hope to change the system itself - so the actions they do take are with the goal of just persevering something, anything, with themselves still in some position of power?

Sure, we're falling without a parachute or backup, but if we brace ourselves just right and aim at just the right angle and get real drat lucky, maybe we won't smash every single bone in our body, and maybe we'll rupture just one lung and maybe come out of this just quadriplegic instead of a sticky red stain on the ground?

I think they know on some level, like many people here do, but there's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 14:30

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Professor Beetus posted:

Pardon my ignorance but is that strictly like, rainwater directly from the rain, or can it be filtered/treated/etc and made safe if captured?

Not sure if this was answered, but yes, it could be treated and made safe. Basically the droplets act as a transport mechanism for any airborne contaminants as it rains, but it could be collected and treated to drinking water standards.

The problem is that PFOAs and certain other contaminants need more significant treatment for removal because conventional water treatment is not able to remove them.

So in the example of contaminated rainwater, it would more likely be "treated" via dilution with a blended source, rather than actually having direct treatment applied.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 15:03

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

THE BAR posted:

Well that's absolutely mortifying, and I'm not sure how I can continue today without breaking. Harrowing.

Trainee PornStar posted:

I'd bet money that rain water has been unsafe for decades & they've only just noticed.

theCalamity posted:

https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-antarctica-and-on-the-tibetan-plateau-rainwater-is-unsafe-to-drink-1.620735

Apparently rainwater is unsafe to drink now due to the presence of PFAS chemicals even in remote areas

SlowBloke posted:

Good news, no need for teflon pans anymore! Antistick is already in the water!

This just popped up, so maybe there's some hope for the future. I'm certainly glad that progress is being made in tackling the issue.

Chemists Found a Way to Break Down Dangerous 'Forever Chemicals'
Harmful PFAS pollutants, which are everywhere from the air to our drinking water, don't degrade on their own. But now, there's a glimpse of solution.

https://gizmodo.com/simple-method-break-down-pfas-forever-chemicals-1849425993

quote:

They�re everywhere. In the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the soil we grow our food in�decades of industrial and commercial production and use have left basically no corner of our lives untouched by PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly called �forever chemicals.� The two most important things to know about these chemicals: They�re toxic, and they don�t degrade over time on their own. Instead, they accumulate in our environments and in our bodies.

But a newly discovered chemical mechanism could help in the fight against mounting PFAS pollution. Chemists have found a way to break down some types of these chemicals into harmless, component parts using inexpensive and common tools. The new research, published today in the journal Science, is a big step forward in our understanding of how these compounds react. And though we�re still a long way from solving the problem, we�re just a little bit closer to a healthier world.

Why PFAS Are So Dangerous?
PFAS are chemicals with a lot of different uses (food packaging, fire fighting foams, nonstick cookware, furniture, cosmetics, etc...). Their main draw is that they�re super good at repelling water, oil, and grease, and even at tamping out fires. They do all this by being super-duper non-reactive. PFAS are made up of highly stable molecules that basically just stick to themselves.

When they leach into the environment and enter our bodies, our systems have no way of getting rid of them. So, they pile up and cause problems. Research has found links between PFAS and multiple types of cancer, immune system problems, high cholesterol, liver disease, and issues with pregnancy and infant development. (Because of all these health effects, the EPA announced new limits on PFAS in drinking water in June, advising that safe water supplies should basically contain no detectable PFAS.)

Yet they�re very difficult, nigh impossible, to avoid. PFAS have been detected in drinking water across the U.S., both indoor and outdoor air, farm fields worldwide, fish, cosmetics, and elsewhere.

Even with lots of human effort, these forever chemicals have proven incredibly difficult to break down. Incineration doesn�t seem to work. Lots of strategies can lead to other toxic byproducts. And many methods can be cost-prohibitive, limited, or hard to scale up�like heating water containing PFAS to super high temperatures.

What�s New About This Method?
�It think it�s fair to say that all other emerging PFAS degradation methods are things that you would classify as very high energy [or] relatively exotic conditions,� said William Dichtel, a chemist at Northwestern University and one of the study researchers, in a press briefing on Tuesday. �That�s really what differentiates our finding from from from everything else that that�s out there,� he added� emphasizing the accessibility and relative ease of the new method.

Using just a little bit of heat and supplies that can be found in high school chemistry labs (sodium hydroxide, i.e. lye, and a solvent called DMSO), the researchers were able to take one type of concentrated PFAS and break it up into smaller, non-toxic compounds.

�Most chemists are taking two molecules and squishing them together to make one big molecule, like taking two Legos and putting them together,� explained Brittany Trang, who was the study�s lead researcher and completed her PhD at Northwestern University last month, in the press briefing. �But instead, what we were doing is smashing the Lego to bits and looking at what was left to figure out how it fell apart.�

And that second step is important. Not only did the chemists successfully degrade the PFAS, but they used quantum mechanical models to figure out exactly how it happened and to provide a road map for others to use in related research.

Which Diana Aga, an analytical chemist and PFAS researcher at the University of Buffalo who was uninvolved in the new study, told Gizmodo she was especially grateful for. �I appreciate everything that this publication has done in terms of detailed analysis and comprehensiveness.�

To smash the Legos apart, Trang and her co-researchers heated their PFAS, lye, and DMSO solution at temperatures between 80 and 120 degrees Celsius (176 and 248 Fahrenheit). After four hours, nearly 80% of the PFAS was gone, and after 12 hours, more than 90% of it disappeared�replaced by benign carbon byproducts like oxalate, which is in many of the vegetables we eat, or glycolic acid, which is commonly used in skincare products.

Characterizing those byproducts is a big deal as well, Aga said. It�s a thorough step that helps ensure more environmental harm won�t come from trying to tackle the issue (which has happened before with PFAS). �This study is beautiful, because they did that,� she added.

What Are the Limitations?
But even if it�s beautiful, the new research isn�t perfect. This isn�t the end of the PFAS problem or a quick-fix, the researchers all stressed.

For one, the method only works on some PFAS. There are over 5,000 unique PFAS compounds out there, and they come in different categories. Two of the biggest classes are known as carboxylates and sulfonates. The new method successfully got rid of almost all of the carboxylates in a solution, but it doesn�t work for the equally prevalent sulfonates (or any other PFAS types).

The researchers are hoping they or others could address this and expand to sulfonates in follow-up studies. �For now, this is not a general solution,� said Dichtel. �The biggest gap in what we have today versus what is needed is that we really would like to degrade sulfonates, as well.�

And it�s not as if the researchers can dump lye and DMSO into our water supply to get rid of PFAS there. �That would really not be good either,� Trang told Gizmodo in a phone call.

The potential use for this method is in degrading PFAS that have already been filtered out of drinking water. Lots of ongoing research is focusing on ways to do that, through activated charcoal or reverse osmosis. Once filtered out, a good destruction method is key to ensure the PFAS doesn�t just immediately leach back into the environment. Yet on its own, the new research doesn�t get rid of the pollution.

Other scientists, engineers, and lab groups have been working to solve the PFAS problem and have made some big strides recently. Earlier this year, a group of engineers published a method involving UV light, sulfite, and iodine that could be used to break down a broad array of PFAS. And some work has focused on using microbes to do the same. However, given the scale of the problem, we probably need every method and all the knowledge we can get.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 20:15

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

KozmoNaut posted:

The economy is completely made up, it only exists as a shared delusion. Just declare it fixed and move on to solving real problems.

The real production and movement of actual material goods and services, is not something that can be hand waved away.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 20:38

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Electric Wrigglies posted:

As someone that is part of reducing climate impact of the global south without loving over their lives with violence for their own good, I think you don't appreciate what tearing down all the systems actually means. Like a survivalist that thinks the post nuclear armageddon will include them as anything other than another corpse on the side of the road or in a tunnel, you and me both alongside anyone that knows about climate models will be put up against a wall and shot in a proper revolution.

It makes sense if you think humanity is fundamentally good but has been corrupted and controlled by capitalism. We just have to break the system and set humans free to work together and solve the problem. It relies on the assumption that the masses would want to make drastic personal change and sacrifice for absttact long-term benefits if only they were allowed to.

I think humans are just kinda lovely. Greed and short-sighted self-centered pricks predates capitalism - the Pyramids were not built for the sake of capital gains or tax breaks. If we somehow peacefully smashed the system it's not obvious that the result would be popular demand for austere living rather than groups competing for as large a cut as possible at the expense of each other. Which is what we do now.

# ? Aug 18, 2022 22:53

BRJurgis: Aug 15, 2007; Well I hear the thunder roll, I feel the cold winds blowing...
But you won't find me there, 'cause I won't go back again...
While you're on smoky roads, I'll be out in the sun...
Where the trees still grow, where they count by one...

It's weird that there's any assumption from what I wrote that I think peace is a top priority or even possible.

I'm saying whatever it takes to meet the moment and address climate change. I state that I believe it will take the threat of complete disruption of the economy/structure of our way of life (domestic if not global) to get meaningful concessions. It doesn't mean I don't understand the ramifications. We've captured the future of human evolution and the trajectory is an unjust longterm terrible cost that we (prosperous first world nations) are only beginning to feel even as it is and will further ravage those least participant and complicit in the process that brought us here (often directly invaded exploited or killed to prop up our way of life in fact).

You say the cost of the changes I'm advocating for is too great... I'm saying the cost of our way of life is so monumentally unjust and unsustainable, if it cannot immediately correct course than it should be utterly undone.

Call me a bloodthirsty idiot if you ~~have some sort of FYGM cognitive issue~~ want, but trying to talk down climate alarmists using incremental change suggests a lack of imagination or back-bone.

For what it's worth, this is not a rant I hastily engage in when speaking to my friends who have children. But it's a question of if what we've built is so amazing it must be preserved at all costs, or what we've built has gone so awry (or otherwise is the very problem) that the most extreme measures are required to correct or at least stop it at all costs. I hope it's clear where I'm coming from now.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 01:04

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

BRJurgis posted:

It's weird that there's any assumption from what I wrote that I think peace is a top priority or even possible.

I'm saying whatever it takes to meet the moment and address climate change. I state that I believe it will take the threat of complete disruption of the economy/structure of our way of life (domestic if not global) to get meaningful concessions. It doesn't mean I don't understand the ramifications. We've captured the future of human evolution and the trajectory is an unjust longterm terrible cost that we (prosperous first world nations) are only beginning to feel even as it is and will further ravage those least participant and complicit in the process that brought us here (often directly invaded exploited or killed to prop up our way of life in fact).

You say the cost of the changes I'm advocating for is too great... I'm saying the cost of our way of life is so monumentally unjust and unsustainable, if it cannot immediately correct course than it should be utterly undone.

Call me a bloodthirsty idiot if you ~~have some sort of FYGM cognitive issue~~ want, but trying to talk down climate alarmists using incremental change suggests a lack of imagination or back-bone.

For what it's worth, this is not a rant I hastily engage in when speaking to my friends who have children. But it's a question of if what we've built is so amazing it must be preserved at all costs, or what we've built has gone so awry (or otherwise is the very problem) that the most extreme measures are required to correct or at least stop it at all costs. I hope it's clear where I'm coming from now.

Is anyone saying the cost is too great or are they actually just pointing out that the "solutions" that you are proposing are not realistic and not going to happen? I am horrified by the tragedy of the commons that has led us here and the likely inevitability of mass deaths and displacement and wars over resources, but I also do not think that anyone is going to come along and smash the system anytime soon, no matter how much I wish capitalism could die a quick and painful death. And if that's not what you're implying then apologies, I am not here to argue, just pointing out that most people are probably trying to be optimistic and excited for even baby steps in the right direction, because they're the only thing we're realistically going to get.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 01:19

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Professor Beetus posted:

Is anyone saying the cost is too great or are they actually just pointing out that the "solutions" that you are proposing are not realistic and not going to happen? I am horrified by the tragedy of the commons that has led us here and the likely inevitability of mass deaths and displacement and wars over resources, but I also do not think that anyone is going to come along and smash the system anytime soon, no matter how much I wish capitalism could die a quick and painful death. And if that's not what you're implying then apologies, I am not here to argue, just pointing out that most people are probably trying to be optimistic and excited for even baby steps in the right direction, because they're the only thing we're realistically going to get.

if we're talking "realism" then billions are going to die and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

dont expect me to be happy because we shaved a few ten million off that number

# ? Aug 19, 2022 03:26

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

A big flaming stink posted:

if we're talking "realism" then billions are going to die and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

dont expect me to be happy because we shaved a few ten million off that number

If people are going to die no matter what happens then every life saved should be celebrated.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 03:46

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

A big flaming stink posted:

if we're talking "realism" then billions are going to die and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

dont expect me to be happy because we shaved a few ten million off that number

I'm not expecting that? Who asked you to be happy? Dehumanize and face to bloodshed, I'm just pointing out that the stranglehold capitalism has on the global economy and world governments is not being loosened. If a real solution to climate change begins with "ending capitalism" then it may as well be magic beans. How much we can mitigate under the current systems may be the best we can achieve as a species, and it's fine for people to celebrate every half a degree of Celsius we can stop from rising.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 04:47

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Professor Beetus posted:

I'm not expecting that? Who asked you to be happy? Dehumanize and face to bloodshed, I'm just pointing out that the stranglehold capitalism has on the global economy and world governments is not being loosened. If a real solution to climate change begins with "ending capitalism" then it may as well be magic beans. How much we can mitigate under the current systems may be the best we can achieve as a species, and it's fine for people to celebrate every half a degree of Celsius we can stop from rising.

Again keeping with what I expect to happen, I think this sentiment in particular is delusional

# ? Aug 19, 2022 05:13

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

A big flaming stink posted:

Again keeping with what I expect to happen, I think this sentiment in particular is delusional

Okay

# ? Aug 19, 2022 05:28

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

A big flaming stink posted:

Again keeping with what I expect to happen, I think this sentiment in particular is delusional

If you think that sentiment is delusional then would you be willing to explain why? If the answer that you have is so clear, simple, and easy as to render people who think "we're doing as best we can, in the circumstances that we live in" to be delusional then I would definitely like to hear it. I am a climate organizer, it would be great if you would lay out the simple steps to achieve the optimal solutions, so that I can take that and let other people know.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 07:32

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

How are u posted:

If you think that sentiment is delusional then would you be willing to explain why? If the answer that you have is so clear, simple, and easy as to render people who think "we're doing as best we can, in the circumstances that we live in" to be delusional then I would definitely like to hear it. I am a climate organizer, it would be great if you would lay out the simple steps to achieve the optimal solutions, so that I can take that and let other people know.

These do not exist

the solutions to climate change are fiendishly complex, insanely difficult to implement, and require a vast number of people to behave in opposition of their material incentives. What solutions we do have are not being taken and will not be taken. We will trundle on towards a half-hearted Paris accord that is based on lowball estimations, with zero political will to reassess what is needed when the affects of climate change begin to blight even the developed world.

The solutions I can offer people is to make peace with the coming reality, don't have children, and form bonds with your community.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 09:04

BRJurgis: Aug 15, 2007; Well I hear the thunder roll, I feel the cold winds blowing...
But you won't find me there, 'cause I won't go back again...
While you're on smoky roads, I'll be out in the sun...
Where the trees still grow, where they count by one...

Professor Beetus posted:

Is anyone saying the cost is too great or are they actually just pointing out that the "solutions" that you are proposing are not realistic and not going to happen? I am horrified by the tragedy of the commons that has led us here and the likely inevitability of mass deaths and displacement and wars over resources, but I also do not think that anyone is going to come along and smash the system anytime soon, no matter how much I wish capitalism could die a quick and painful death. And if that's not what you're implying then apologies, I am not here to argue, just pointing out that most people are probably trying to be optimistic and excited for even baby steps in the right direction, because they're the only thing we're realistically going to get.

I'm trying to advocate climate preservation through embracing a (and hopefully replacing/overcoming other) singular and passionate worldview. People are all kinds of angry, people want to feel like strong winners. Talking incessantly about this poo poo is basically my identity at this point, and I've found a message of strength and self reliability resonates with certain people.

I'm saying there is purchase for ideas like being more independent from the system, being "strong" or otherwise durable enough for your family and community. A two-fold benefit of taking power out from underneath our system and enduring ite absence... how can you threaten the status quo when you are completely materially dependant on it?

I'm saying live a life of open aggression to and renouncement of our current order of consumerism and capitalism and industry. I'm saying until the masses have a different relationship with power (or the priorities and proclivities of the powers that be are forced to change) progress and hope are no victory at all and actively harmful if they diminish peoples urgency.

I'm saying that systems can be threatened, destabilized, or coerced... they can (and will) fail. We may not be a le to predict or control the process or aftermath, but if it is impossible to change or deviate meaningfully from our course than, again, we should be undone by any means.

It's dark triangulation. The double secret underground third way.. It's the backwards party. Not left, not right, backwards.

Seriously though I'm advocating for not buying into our world or economy, planning and operating outside of it as much as possible, and not because I expect or hope to survive but because I want to help the fight. The more we buy into our system the more captured we are materially and in imagination.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 12:41

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to "What does accountability/enforcement look like to you?" while remaining within the rules of posting on SA.

It's like arguing with someone whose opening move is to declaratively pronounce that they were born yesterday.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 15:18

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

A big flaming stink posted:

These do not exist

We're in agreement.

A big flaming stink posted:

the solutions to climate change are fiendishly complex, insanely difficult to implement, and require a vast number of people to behave in opposition of their material incentives.

Again, I agree completely.

A big flaming stink posted:

What solutions we do have are not being taken and will not be taken.

This is wrong, we are in fact enacting solutions, just not at the rate that you or I would like to see. The transition, however, has begun and will continue.

A big flaming stink posted:

We will trundle on towards a half-hearted Paris accord that is based on lowball estimations,

I'm not a climate scientist so all I know is that I don't hear about lowball estimates in my work in the climate organizing community. Even if they are lowball estimates, all I can do is continue to push for change with as much speed as possible. So, life goes on for me.

A big flaming stink posted:

with zero political will to reassess what is needed when the affects of climate change begin to blight even the developed world.

I don't see why this would be true. It seems obvious to me that as the old die and the next generation takes control of government that reassessments of 'what is needed' will follow.

A big flaming stink posted:

The solutions I can offer people is to make peace with the coming reality, don't have children, and form bonds with your community.

Same! Except for children. Have them or don't, that's everybody's personal choice to make. I would add "and organize with your community to press and demand more and faster climate action" as well.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 16:25

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Not solutions. Baby steps.

Finding a dollar on the ground does not solve my rent problem.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 17:01

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

I agree that we are enacting first steps. First steps are first steps, even if you personally consider them not as big as you'd like. I personally consider them not as big as I'd like.

But that's why we'll never stop demanding more, and quicker. The problem is here and will remain for the rest of our lives, so we will never stop.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 17:07

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

BRJurgis posted:

I'm saying live a life of open aggression to and renouncement of our current order of consumerism and capitalism and industry. I'm saying until the masses have a different relationship with power (or the priorities and proclivities of the powers that be are forced to change) progress and hope are no victory at all and actively harmful if they diminish peoples urgency.

I'm saying that systems can be threatened, destabilized, or coerced... they can (and will) fail. We may not be a le to predict or control the process or aftermath, but if it is impossible to change or deviate meaningfully from our course than, again, we should be undone by any means.

The aftermath of some systems failing is predictable. Being concerned about climate change is an admission and acknowledgement fundamentally that the failure states of some systems are predictable. The failure of the current systems of production would also have predictable, terrible consequence.

The honest take on the �by any means� is Zizek�s comparison of that choice to �war communism�. It implies and is understood that, that choice carries a holodomor.

Either systems failure could kill a lot of people. Incomprehensible numbers of people. The solution was to change one (international production and energy extraction) system 50 years ago.

My expectation is that we will see a too late transition. So it�s possible we end up at partial failure states, in both systems that might be preferable to a total failure of one or the other.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 17:26

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

How are u posted:

I agree that we are enacting first steps. First steps are first steps, even if you personally consider them not as big as you'd like. I personally consider them not as big as I'd like.

But that's why we'll never stop demanding more, and quicker. The problem is here and will remain for the rest of our lives, so we will never stop.

I can't call it "progress" though if my rent debt is still accelerating away from me rapidly.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 17:32

Preen Dog: Nov 8, 2017

No human scale threat has ever been addressed before it became damaging to the ruling classes.

CFCs weren't banned until the ozone hole became a cancer risk to everyone. The Thames wasn't cleaned up until parliament could no longer tolerate the stench. DDT wasn't banned until raptors, The symbol of power and dominion, faced total extinction.

Climate change will reach a much more destructive phase than these examples because the consequences of climate change are trivial for the rich to avoid in the short term. If it's too hot, or a place floods, they can just move. Your home getting wrecked by a tornado doesn't matter if you have seventeen.

And the solutions require complete transformation of every aspect of civilization, unlike the previous examples which affected only specific industries, with easy and available alternatives. This time, consumption itself is the problem. Even a solar panel or a fusion plant (lol) has a carbon footprint.

Perversely, as climate change gets worse and token carbon taxes and other sanctions are enacted, conspicuous consumption will get even more prestigious. Ostentation and waste will never stop being cool. It will become cooler and cooler the more expensive it is to maintain. Asceticism will never be mainstream prestigious because it's a trait of the teeming masses.

So one "solution" is to wait for poo poo to get so bad that the 99% is finally willing to dehumanize themselves and face to bloodshed in communism 2.0, and make it work this time. If that's even possible, given that wealth and power will always accumulate, in any system.

Or just settle down and expect there to be an apocalyptic climate die-off "reset" every hundred years. This is not a crazy expectation as economies and governments already do this in the form of boom/bust and left/right cycles. We can only hope that climate feedbacks don't kill us down to a population unable to support organization and technology. If survivable, the die-off cycles would get milder and milder as each successive epoch gets a little smarter and tech gets a little better. Eventually we become space-faring and the problem becomes moot.

So buckle up and enjoy the ride. As always, if you want to make a difference, the only imperatives are to survive through the day and pass on your memes. This is easier if you have kids because you can brainwash them for a few years before advertisers and confidence men own them.

Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 18:00

Not Alex: Oct 9, 2012; Cut loose before the god eaters show up.

I don't believe there's time for the overthrowing of capitalism and for communism to "solve" climate change. Its not magic, it too is a flawed human enterprise. Revolution would be nothing but a carthartic flagellation in bleeding effigy of the generations of exploitation responsible for this.

And you know what? Good. I find that wave of symbolic bloodshed far more just than the wave of "unavoidable" bloodshed that the capitalist system is setting up like dominoes. Oh too poor, oh too dark, oh born in the wrong place, oh natural disasters. Bullshit. Revolution would be a horrorific cavalcade of violence. Business as usual would be a horrific cavalcade of violence. People try to moralize against the former while calling latter tragic. I'd rather the violence be a temporary choice rather than baked into the system. A distinct reign of murderers rather than an automated slaughterhouse mulching its way from the bottom up.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Aug 19, 2022 18:48

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Not Alex posted:

People try to moralize against the former while calling latter tragic. I'd rather the violence be a temporary choice rather than baked into the system.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 18:56

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Not Alex posted:

I don't believe there's time for the overthrowing of capitalism and for communism to "solve" climate change. Its not magic, it too is a flawed human enterprise. Revolution would be nothing but a carthartic flagellation in bleeding effigy of the generations of exploitation responsible for this.

And you know what? Good. I find that wave of symbolic bloodshed far more just than the wave of "unavoidable" bloodshed that the capitalist system is setting up like dominoes. Oh too poor, oh too dark, oh born in the wrong place, oh natural disasters. Bullshit. Revolution would be a horrorific cavalcade of violence. Business as usual would be a horrific cavalcade of violence. People try to moralize against the former while calling latter tragic. I'd rather the violence be a temporary choice rather than baked into the system. A distinct reign of murderers rather than an automated slaughterhouse mulching its way from the bottom up.

Speaking of slaughterhouses, 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture, so everyone reading this should go vegan

# ? Aug 19, 2022 19:16

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

"Speaking of slaughterhouses, 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture, so everyone reading this should lobby their elected officials to ban red meat"

I altered this to better reflect both how the change we need might occur and highlight the actual long term difficulty of achieving it.

Like buddy you didn't even break it down the various kinds of agriculture so it really seems like you are pushing a vegan agenda instead of posting about actual climate change. I think we're okay to keep eggs.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 19:20

Not Alex: Oct 9, 2012; Cut loose before the god eaters show up.

Enjoy posted:

Speaking of slaughterhouses, 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture, so everyone reading this should go vegan

Yea, ok. I'll support your thing if you support mine.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 20:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Preen Dog posted:

No human scale threat has ever been addressed before it became damaging to the ruling classes.

The capital class, literally the underwriters are upset about it now and are already talking about it and pressuring governments on it due to their losses.

I�ve watched them talk about it in person.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 20:31

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Some of them are. Some of them will fight to burn everything as long as it's profitable.

And to ensure that burning everything stays profitable

# ? Aug 19, 2022 20:36

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Again, an agenda that has hoped onto the climate emergency, feeling that finally! People will be made to realise how bad they are for using animals to source protein and iron in their diets which is an affront to my good morals. It is so transparent that it does harm to the climate emergency message to entertain these agitators.

I notice there is not the same energy getting up in rice's grill about excessive methane production, getting out there telling those SE Asians that can't survive without three square of rice a day they are gonna have to learn how to eat wheat.

Beef methane production can be reduced by 70 to 90% by supplementing the feedstock, pricing carbon would likely modify other practices to get the pareto benefit even further.

Saying that, educating people to reduce meat intake where it is excessive is a good thing. If they really want strong laws making peoples lives miserable, a law kicking in on waists over 35.4 inches for women and 31.5 for men would probably have a much better effect on food based methane production with the added benefit of improving quality of life dramatically for the population whether they like it or not. That sort of thing is not being pushed because the climate is a secondary (irrelevant?) consideration for the bulk of agitators of methane based cow production.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 20:46

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Again, an agenda that has hoped onto the climate emergency, feeling that finally! People will be made to realise how bad they are for using animals to source protein and iron in their diets which is an affront to my good morals. It is so transparent that it does harm to the climate emergency message to entertain these agitators.

I notice there is not the same energy getting up in rice's grill about excessive methane production, getting out there telling those SE Asians that can't survive without three square of rice a day they are gonna have to learn how to eat wheat.

Beef methane production can be reduced by 70 to 90% by supplementing the feedstock, pricing carbon would likely modify other practices to get the pareto benefit even further.

Saying that, educating people to reduce meat intake where it is excessive is a good thing. If they really want strong laws making peoples lives miserable, a law kicking in on waists over 35.4 inches for women and 31.5 for men would probably have a much better effect on food based methane production with the added benefit of improving quality of life dramatically for the population whether they like it or not. That sort of thing is not being pushed because the climate is a secondary (irrelevant?) consideration for the bulk of agitators of methane based cow production.

It's kind of difficult to have a dialogue when your foundational assumption is climate advocates are pushing a hidden agenda

# ? Aug 19, 2022 21:59

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

A big flaming stink posted:

It's kind of difficult to have a dialogue when your foundational assumption is climate advocates are pushing a hidden agenda

No I think in this instance EW is right. Veganism is a fine moral choice and the dramatic changes we need will necessarily entail reduction of consumption of meat. We eat too much. But jumping into the thread to advocate individual posts go vegan is just bog-standard proselytizing. Individual footprint remains a distraction. edit- thinking about it more individual poster footprint it PABP sorry mods!

I wouldn't vote against a bill to ban red meat. I don't think there's any being put forward right now though.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 22:03

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Sure that's one person here, but to use that person to paint a broader brush against all "agitators" seems an obvious issue of bad faith

# ? Aug 19, 2022 22:09

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

A big flaming stink posted:

Sure that's one person here, but to use that person to paint a broader brush against all "agitators" seems an obvious issue of bad faith

Hmm yes I see. The "again" would be invalid. The revolutionary level of change needed to our entire systems of consumption and production to truly "solve" the climate emergency is specifically relevant to the issue of climate change in a way that moral perils of animal products (which truly there is a huge range of. I personally think we should only farm birds and fish. :shrug:

) is not.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 22:15

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

BRJurgis posted:

I'm trying to advocate climate preservation through embracing a (and hopefully replacing/overcoming other) singular and passionate worldview. People are all kinds of angry, people want to feel like strong winners. Talking incessantly about this poo poo is basically my identity at this point, and I've found a message of strength and self reliability resonates with certain people.

I'm saying there is purchase for ideas like being more independent from the system, being "strong" or otherwise durable enough for your family and community. A two-fold benefit of taking power out from underneath our system and enduring ite absence... how can you threaten the status quo when you are completely materially dependant on it?

I'm saying live a life of open aggression to and renouncement of our current order of consumerism and capitalism and industry. I'm saying until the masses have a different relationship with power (or the priorities and proclivities of the powers that be are forced to change) progress and hope are no victory at all and actively harmful if they diminish peoples urgency.

I'm saying that systems can be threatened, destabilized, or coerced... they can (and will) fail. We may not be a le to predict or control the process or aftermath, but if it is impossible to change or deviate meaningfully from our course than, again, we should be undone by any means.

It's dark triangulation. The double secret underground third way.. It's the backwards party. Not left, not right, backwards.

Seriously though I'm advocating for not buying into our world or economy, planning and operating outside of it as much as possible, and not because I expect or hope to survive but because I want to help the fight. The more we buy into our system the more captured we are materially and in imagination.

Thanks for the sincere and honest reply. I'm mostly I'm agreement of your analysis, I'm just resigned to the fact that I don't think bolded is going to be possible anytime soon. And frankly I think the developed world has a) too much bread and circuses (most of us here on this website are certainly indulging in them), and b) participation in the system is going to be a requirement for 99% of the folks on here to remain housed and healthy, both mentally and physically.

Potato Salad posted:

I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to "What does accountability/enforcement look like to you?" while remaining within the rules of posting on SA.

It's like arguing with someone whose opening move is to declaratively pronounce that they were born yesterday.

Okay well do you think we should openly discuss how exactly to overthrow the world's governments/capitalist systems? I don't think discussing that is very productive even if it weren't an extremely bad idea for other reasons, because it's an absurdly unrealistic scenario from the get go. Like if you don't think you can talk about your idea of what enforcement/accountability looks like, why are you even bothering in the first place? To performatively show how much more black pilled you are the poster x?

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 22:19

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

We're going to pretend not to know what legislative enforcement mechanisms--teeth--historically look like? What background on subversion of legislative goals can be presumed to already be in scope, none?

It's just that I'm not sure about engaging when the proffered starting line is so far back, so I'm voicing why the "what does enforcement look like to you" sealioning has so taken me aback.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 23:28

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Harold Fjord posted:

"Speaking of slaughterhouses, 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture, so everyone reading this should lobby their elected officials to ban red meat"

I altered this to better reflect both how the change we need might occur and highlight the actual long term difficulty of achieving it.

Like buddy you didn't even break it down the various kinds of agriculture so it really seems like you are pushing a vegan agenda instead of posting about actual climate change. I think we're okay to keep eggs.

Do you think it will be easier to make the argument to ban red meat if a larger proportion of the population have already stopped eating it?

Electric Wrigglies posted:

I notice there is not the same energy getting up in rice's grill about excessive methane production, getting out there telling those SE Asians that can't survive without three square of rice a day they are gonna have to learn how to eat wheat.

Rice is a tiny fraction of beef's emissions and it's a staple food of people in the global periphery so why on earth would I bother talking about it here?

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Beef methane production can be reduced by 70 to 90% by supplementing the feedstock, pricing carbon would likely modify other practices to get the pareto benefit even further.

Can be, but it's not. When someone eats dead cows, they're choosing to add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere when there are plenty of alternatives available.

Enjoy fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 23:33

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Like, if there's one really reliable way to shut a potential conversation down, it is to very clearly outline up front that it really isn't worth having. The starting position in this case regarding legislative subversion and enforcement appeared to be "head in sand."

Some actual content: regarding discussions about things like banning red meat or other measures that some people in here see as necessary now and others see as politically infeasible, it's pretty clear that the degree of severity of necessary responses is an extremely broad spectrum. One of the comments at a symposium that has stuck with me the very well was the suggestion that, no matter where we are along the coming journey through catastrophe that we will all be living through, there will always be friction between what are perceived to be extreme interventionism and radical laissez-faire because public opinion is going to move in a window along the axis toward action but yet remain a wide window.

The people arguing that we need to go vegan today may well be holding positions on climate disaster action right now that will not be seen as nearly aggressive enough in the 50 years.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Aug 19, 2022

# ? Aug 19, 2022 23:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:02

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

Potato Salad posted:

Like, if there's one really reliable way to shut a potential conversation down, it is to very clearly outline up front that it really isn't worth having. The starting position in this case regarding legislative subversion and enforcement appeared to be "head in sand."

Some actual content: regarding discussions about things like banning red meat or other measures that some people in here see as necessary now and others see as politically infeasible, it's pretty clear that the degree of severity of necessary responses is an extremely broad spectrum. One of the comments at a symposium that has stuck with me the very well was the suggestion that, no matter where we are along the coming journey through catastrophe that we will all be living through, there will always be friction between what are perceived to be extreme interventionism and radical laissez-faire because public opinion is going to move in a window along the axis toward action but yet remain a wide window.

The people arguing that we need to go vegan today may well be holding positions on climate disaster action right now that will not be seen as nearly aggressive enough in the 50 years.

Am I just reading your posts wrong or were you implying that the only enforcement mechanism you can envision involves violence?

quote:

I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to "What does accountability/enforcement look like to you?" while remaining within the rules of posting on SA.

I'm pretty sure you can make the argument that violence is the only solution, as long as you're not explicitly calling for violence or organizing violence on this forum.

# ? Aug 19, 2022 23:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

«‹›546 »