|
Xibanya posted:What I want to know is what I should do to survive the next 30 years so I can live to be 50. Seems dumb to stockpile stuff, if society collapses, someone will probably just kill me and steal it (especially because I'm a weak lady person.) So, what's a middle class white American to do? Get an education in a high demand field like engineering, begin setting aside money for retirement as soon as your debts are payed down, plan on paying a somewhat larger percentage of total income for food and transportation over time, and don't invest in real estate in southern Florida or other low lying coastal regions. On second thought you should probably just kill yourself.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Maybe also don't live in Miami or New Orleans. It may not get bad in places like that before 2050, but you're gonna be able to see bad from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Las Vegas and Phoenix, too. The danger to those cities is often exaggerated, although if you work in agriculture or some kind of manufacturing your job might be at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The danger to those cities is often exaggerated, although if you work in agriculture or some kind of manufacturing your job might be at risk. Dangers to Vegas are definitely not exaggerated. Below is a picture showing the city's growth between 1984 and 2009. Note the massive shrinkage in the nearby Lake Mead, to the right: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:begin setting aside money for retirement Hahaha... like a retirement fund is going to mean anything in 30 years. Anyone under 50 who's saving for retirement needs to rethink their investment strategy (unless you're planning to retire in the next couple of years). The chance of retirement funds surviving in worthwhile amounts after 20+ years of inflation, let alone hyperinflation and/or a full financial meltdown, are pretty limited. Invest ASAP in a place where you can grow your own food, in a community of like-minded people; if you have money to spare after than, put it in a retirement fund if you like. Squalid posted:On second thought you should probably just kill yourself. Now you're being more pragmatic. Legal notice: The opinions set forth in this post are not those of a chartered financial advisor and no liability will be held for the results of your investment choices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Mid-range projections for drought posted in this thread are calling for dustbowlification of about half of agriculturally productive land in North America by 2050. That's going to mean a lot to everyone if it comes to pass. It will mean higher meat and milk prices, and an end to 'organic' agriculture and the horribly inefficient practice of turning corn into biofuel, but I don't think it will result in food shortages or a spike in the price of staple grains.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:It will mean higher meat and milk prices, and an end to 'organic' agriculture and the horribly inefficient practice of turning corn into biofuel, but I don't think it will result in food shortages or a spike in the price of staple grains. The total destruction of half of the growing capacity of the Mississipi basin, drying up of groundwater sources across the South- and Mid-west and problems with irrigation, fertilisation, germination, etc elsewhere are certainly going to have a major effect on the lives of large segments of the population of the USA. It's absurd to argue otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:The total destruction of half of the growing capacity of the Mississipi basin, drying up of groundwater sources across the South- and Mid-west and problems with irrigation, fertilisation, germination, etc elsewhere are certainly going to have a major effect on the lives of large segments of the population of the USA. It's absurd to argue otherwise. I'd argue a large part of this will depend upon adaptability. Modern agriculture is horrendously inefficient, and food waste is particularly endemic in modern Western culture. I think it's possible to avoid mass starvation, but it means something more akin to the good ol' days of rationing rather than the "buy thirty different kinds of organic cereals" conditions of today. It also depends heavily upon relatively rapid shifts to more efficient agricultural practices (tight water restrictions, more precise fertilizer use), which is part of the reason why I'm such a staunch advocate of nationalizing agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Sure, the range of possible outcomes is broad, but to say that "even the worst feasible projections wouldn't mean TOO much to first-worlders within the next 30 years, or even in our own lifetimes", which was what I was reponding to, is patently untrue. There are any number of projections assuming fairly conservative emissions courses and forcing effects that predict changes to hydrogeology that will certainly require massive reconfiguration of the economy of large swathes of the first world simply to avoid the impoverishment of millions by 2040-50. It's the case that the global South is at far greater risk from climate change, but it's not true that the North isn't going to have much to deal with in our lifetimes if the projections discussed in this thread are halfway accurate.
Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Hahaha... like a retirement fund is going to mean anything in 30 years. I'd just like to note that this exact train of thought was given by people half a century ago for similar and other reasons (eg, defunding social security).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 05:46
|
|
Xibanya posted:What I want to know is what I should do to survive the next 30 years so I can live to be 50. Seems dumb to stockpile stuff, if society collapses, someone will probably just kill me and steal it (especially because I'm a weak lady person.) So, what's a middle class white American to do? Get really good at survival by playing "simulation games", such as Left 4 Dead 2 and Half Life 2. Gather "Mother Nature points" (MNP) by throwing around fliers advocating to save the wilderness. Remember that you get a 50% multiplier if you go vegan, and can craft items to further increase your MNP growth, such as the "shirt made from your own hair" and "Icon of Buddha made from 5 shades of brown soil". Also, do not forget. The only way to survive the coming fascist dictatorship is to run away and grow your own soybeans in Alaska with a bunch of other smelly hipsters. Make sure you stockpile yourself on guns and most importantly of all, weed and booze.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I have no feeling of superiority, I just think you're another idiot who's posting about things he knows nothing about using arguments we've all seen for years. Normally posting such poo poo in this thread is probatable but since that has more or less gone out the window I wouldn't expect some kind of warm welcoming for "well, if temperatures haven't gone up in the past 12 years...". Why don't you actually address the content of my post instead of tuning it out because someone took a tone with you that you don't like. You're not killing anybody, and regardless of how many Mad Max related strawmen you build, ultimately you're just another idiot running his mouth about things you have no qualifications or business doing so. Yeah, calling me an idiot doesn't make you look like you feel superior. Your post didn't have much content as far as I could tell. As far as strawmen go, I've said I think the climate is warming and CO2 causes warming, but I'm not convinced of the strength of human added co2 on the climate, which I think is reasonable if the models seem to be generally getting things off and given the huge complexity of trying to model climate. And yes I know the argument will be it's to dangerous not to do anything, but I'm not suggesting doing nothing, just if the severity of cutting emmisions so quickly is a good idea. as far as me mad max strawmanning. just read the last few pages..... Bizarro Watt posted:There's a problem with this. Saying this implies you actually read up on and understand what is being published in the primary, peer-reviewed literature regarding climate studies, and I doubt this is actually the case. Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone here is constantly reading all the primary scientific literature Illuminti fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Yeah, calling me an idiot doesn't make you look like you feel superior. Your post didn't have much content as far as I could tell. As far as strawmen go, I've said I think the climate is warming and CO2 causes warming, but I'm not convinced of the strength of human added co2 on the climate, which I think is reasonable if the models seem to be generally getting things off and given the huge complexity of trying to model climate. And yes I know the argument will be it's to dangerous not to do anything, but I'm not suggesting doing nothing, just if the severity of cutting emmisions so quickly is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'd just like to note that this exact train of thought was given by people half a century ago for similar and other reasons (eg, defunding social security). You are talking about financial policy decisions. I am talking about radical reductions in our physical capacity to survive, resulting in financial changes. Besides, your argument that preparing for a future disaster is wrong because one time that people did that it was subsequently found to be unnecessary ignores all of the thousands of times that people could have prepared/did prepare for wars, natural disasters and subsequent financial crises. Were Jewish people wrong to evacuate Germany and central/eastern Europe when they saw strong evidence of bad times ahead? Is it wrong to invest money on tsunami/flood defences rather than retirement funds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 12:47
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You are talking about financial policy decisions. I am talking about radical reductions in our physical capacity to survive, resulting in financial changes. Excellent analogy, young Pioneer. Just like Jews in Hitler times, us privileged first world hipsters need to migrate to the country side to escape Mother Nature's wrath. Then we'll grow fields of soy bean and when the hungry proles come to our hippy paradise, we'll be like haha fat chance, I bet your un-groovy rear end didn't even read Edward Abbey until 2020! This "John Zerzan" guy says that the world population needs to be reduced anyway, which is okay as long as the good people (like me and my vegan Facebook friends) survive.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You are talking about financial policy decisions. I am talking about radical reductions in our physical capacity to survive, resulting in financial changes. If we get to the point where the only way to survive is to grow your own food, you can forget about retirement, or life in general. This goes beyond Jews in Germany. If the US reaches the point where we need to grow our own food, that means there's global hunger on an unprecedented scale. Food riots, global wars, and government collapse are basically guaranteed. In that situation, you'll have nine billion other people trying to get food, so your little plot of land will be overrun by someone with more guns than you. A better idea for planning for the future: get involved with government, especially locally where you can actually make a difference. Get involved with your community to make it more sustainable. Join national organizations to try to change national policy. Have some hope. Yes, we're screwed, but hopefully not to the point where we're all dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
From whose empty skull came the idea that dissipating 7 billion people into the countryside is an ecologically sound, just and good idea, and can be recommended as a plan of action to other people without them dying of laughter.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Dusz posted:From whose empty skull came the idea that dissipating 7 billion people into the countryside is an ecologically sound, just and good idea, and can be recommended as a plan of action to other people without them dying of laughter. Nobody, that's just another straw man to throw on top of your pile in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:18
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Nobody, that's just another straw man to throw on top of your pile in this thread Alright then if you think that, then give me your take on what Placid Marmot is saying.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Just a point of clarification: We are currently in an "Ice Age". An Ice Age is any time that has glaciers and we still have a few left on Greenland/Antarctica and in mountains. Not for long though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Alright then if you think that, then give me your take on what Placid Marmot is saying. Well one thing he's clearly not doing is suggesting that the jews fleeing the Nazis is a good blueprint for how to deal with climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Edit: Bad at posting and reading.
Tanreall fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Alright then if you think that, then give me your take on what Placid Marmot is saying. Think what? That you made a straw man argument, poo poo on a post, offered no content, and have done so repeatedly in this thread before? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=75648 Xibanya posted:What I want to know is what I should do to survive the next 30 years so I can live to be 50. Seems dumb to stockpile stuff, if society collapses, someone will probably just kill me and steal it (especially because I'm a weak lady person.) So, what's a middle class white American to do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SODaBMEJ2xQ isn't a bad place to start. Get involved in your local community. Build resiliant structures and cross your fingers. There's really no way to predict the acute effects of stresses on the climate system, we're all going to have to get used to that. Dusz posted:I did offer content, I mocked some privileged hipster kid that came to this thread to beat his chest about his plans to FYGM off to the countryside. Yeah if I wanted to see political "zingers" I've heard a million times before I'd tune in to Fox News a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Did this thread ever discuss the validity of the ABC special Earth 2100? I think it kind of neatly fits into what we're talking about now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:43
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Think what? That you made a straw man argument, poo poo on a post, offered no content, and have done so repeatedly in this thread before? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=75648 I did offer content, I mocked some privileged hipster kid that came to this thread to beat his chest about his plans to FYGM off to the countryside.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone here is constantly reading all the primary scientific literature That point is basically entirely irrelevant to what I was arguing earlier and you're clearly trying to dodge right now. You don't walk into a climate change discussion, go against the scientific consensus by saying that you don't find their results and conclusions convincing enough, and then deflect when you're called out on that. I don't have time to read all the scientific literature on climate change, but I'm also not calling into question their results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Get really good at survival by playing "simulation games", such as Left 4 Dead 2 and Half Life 2. Gather "Mother Nature points" (MNP) by throwing around fliers advocating to save the wilderness. Remember that you get a 50% multiplier if you go vegan, and can craft items to further increase your MNP growth, such as the "shirt made from your own hair" and "Icon of Buddha made from 5 shades of brown soil". While the idea that we should be deurbanizing rather than getting newer, more efficient infrastructure, agriculture and sources of power is one I don't agree with, it's pretty hard to deny that the production of meat and other animal products has horrible effects on climate, water supplies, forest resources, land usage and grain usage. Some of it could remain and be made better, but the situation where there's enough produced for every American and Chinese to eat meat or eggs or cheese every drat day just isn't going to work. "But my.. my KFC DoubleDowns!  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Yeah, calling me an idiot doesn't make you look like you feel superior. Your post didn't have much content as far as I could tell. As far as strawmen go, I've said I think the climate is warming and CO2 causes warming, but I'm not convinced of the strength of human added co2 on the climate, Yeah, you and Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and all of their friends. Click this image:  Observed climate data just cannot be modeled without anthropogenic factors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:While the idea that we should be deurbanizing rather than getting newer, more efficient infrastructure, agriculture and sources of power is one I don't agree with, it's pretty hard to deny that the production of meat and other animal products has horrible effects on climate, water supplies, forest resources, land usage and grain usage. Some of it could remain and be made better, but the situation where there's enough produced for every American and Chinese to eat meat or eggs or cheese every drat day just isn't going to work. Substituting red meat for chicken would be a huge change on it's own, chicken is only a couple times worse than the average veggie/fruit where things like beef, lamb, and some fish are orders of magnitude worse- the carbon footprint of a "no beef" eater is only marginally higher than a vegetarians or vegans. enbot fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:07
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:While the idea that we should be deurbanizing rather than getting newer, more efficient infrastructure, agriculture and sources of power is one I don't agree with, it's pretty hard to deny that the production of meat and other animal products has horrible effects on climate, water supplies, forest resources, land usage and grain usage. Some of it could remain and be made better, but the situation where there's enough produced for every American and Chinese to eat meat or eggs or cheese every drat day just isn't going to work. You know what, given the context, I agree with you. Banning all factory farms and reducing meat consumption is certainly more respectable an approach than the lovely "back to the countryside, grow your own oatmeal" crap. I could even see it happening, and there's good arguments as to why society could deal with the repercussions.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
enbot posted:Substituting red meat for chicken would be a huge change on it's own, chicken is only a couple times worse than the average veggie/fruit where things like beef, lamb, and some fish are orders of magnitude worse- the carbon footprint of a "no beef" eater is only marginally higher than a vegetarians or vegans. That would be a good first step. But cows are just awful, as are pigs and sheep. Industrial livestock production will need to be dramatically changed, or go away altogether. I think there's some form of livestock rearing that makes sense for certain climates when done on a small scale, but it's not going to look like what we have today at all. It would be a good start to maybe have a few days per week without animal products. Dusz posted:You know what, given the context, I agree with you. Banning all factory farms and reducing meat consumption is certainly more respectable an approach than the lovely "back to the countryside, grow your own oatmeal" crap. I could even see it happening, and there's good arguments as to why society could deal with the repercussions. Haha "back to the countryside", hmm? I wonder if we've got some Maoists in this thread. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
The problem isn't having great ideas on how to fix climate change. It's how do you enact those ideas. The only hope for change I have left is that we get some strong El Nino season and it gets people to act.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:That point is basically entirely irrelevant to what I was arguing earlier and you're clearly trying to dodge right now. You don't walk into a climate change discussion, go against the scientific consensus by saying that you don't find their results and conclusions convincing enough, and then deflect when you're called out on that. I don't have time to read all the scientific literature on climate change, but I'm also not calling into question their results. Well if neither of us is reading the primary literature then all we can do is read the scientific journalism that is available and draw our conclusions I'm not convinced that global warming will be catastrophic from what I've read, nor that a huge cut in our CO2 output is absolutely the best thing to do. I'm not deflecting anything because you didn't actually call me out on anything. Yes the main weight of scientific opinion is on your side, but if you can't read and understand all the scientific literature you're basing your position on an appeal to authority. I can't prove anything to you over the internet, but I've read through a lot of sceptical science and a some more technical stuff and I've read what people say the other way, and at the moment I am a "lukewarmist". I'm going to try and wade through the beginning this thread and see if it changes my mind. At the very least i'll know where to buy property and weave my own clothes
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I'm not deflecting anything because you didn't actually call me out on anything. Yes the main weight of scientific opinion is on your side, but if you can't read and understand all the scientific literature you're basing your position on an appeal to authority. I can't prove anything to you over the internet, but I've read through a lot of sceptical science and a some more technical stuff and I've read what people say the other way, and at the moment I am a "lukewarmist". Did you see the graph I posted? It's really not even controversial that manmade factors are the main drivers of climate change, since no climate model even comes close to fitting the observed data without anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/b], methane and other GHGs. Also, you can measure the warming or cooling potential of a substance or phenomenon and figure out what it's responsible for. Just look at this chart. Really, you've got a causal mechanism (greenhouse gases trap heat), lots of models which don't work without manmade factors, and no other good explanations (volcanoes, the sun, etc.), and so much more. Every little bit of evidence is pointing toward manmade climate change, and away from any other option. At this point, being "lukewarm" about manmade climate change is like being "lukewarm" about the germ theory of disease or evolution. There's really a lot of good evidence for it, and nothing substantial against it. But I respect you for being open minded, willing to discuss and read through the older posts in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Yes the main weight of scientific opinion is on your side, but if you can't read and understand all the scientific literature you're basing your position on an appeal to authority. Relying on the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists across the globe in issues of climate science is not an "appeal to authority". If you can't provide specific reasoning for your dismissal of the claims of those scientists, there isn't anything to discuss, you're just emoting. People rag on Arkane but he generally lays out an argument, cites his sources, and gives some kind of indication of what his reasoning is. If you're expecting people to engage with heterodox theories of climate change, you should do likewise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:The problem isn't having great ideas on how to fix climate change. It's how do you enact those ideas. The only hope for change I have left is that we get some strong El Nino season and it gets people to act. On a national level, you're right. However, I have hope the local level is going to help dent climate change effects. Locally, I've seen die-hard Republicans be strong supporters of bike paths, green infrastructure, and stopping global warming. This is because local elected officials see the direct effects of climate change, and they see the benefits of developing infrastructure to stop it. Sometimes it's greed (someone that scoffs at government paying for bike trails becomes the biggest greenie you've seen when the trail goes through his area). More often than not though, it's because they honestly don't want to see their constituents (whom they personally know) or their town suffer from the effects of climate change. A national-level politician is concerned about message, framing, and the next election. A local-level politician is concerned about preventing houses from flooding during heavy rains, staying within shrinking budgets through energy efficiency, and keeping their town running for the next 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Somebody coined the annoying term "glocal" to describe that, and it's actually about as effective as you're saying. There are regional carbon trading programs that WORK, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:On a national level, you're right. However, I have hope the local level is going to help dent climate change effects. Locally, I've seen die-hard Republicans be strong supporters of bike paths, green infrastructure, and stopping global warming. This is because local elected officials see the direct effects of climate change, and they see the benefits of developing infrastructure to stop it. Sometimes it's greed (someone that scoffs at government paying for bike trails becomes the biggest greenie you've seen when the trail goes through his area). More often than not though, it's because they honestly don't want to see their constituents (whom they personally know) or their town suffer from the effects of climate change. The best argument to make to conservatives for fighting it is this... Big business and job creators will have the money to be energy independent on their own, other people won't. This will let them get off the public grid and not have to pay for it, much like has happened with private schools vs public schools. We can then shrink off and privatize the public energy resources with the goal of shrinking the government and people who are unable to pay for their own energy supply will be forced to deal with a privatized grid at market rates. Essentially creating two tiers of energy services where the people who can pay get premium, the rest get a much lower public grid, and the tax burden of those off of it is shrunk appropriately because they aren't using it. This is already happening, and it's the boon of green energy. Sure it sucks for poor people, but that's going to be the price of fighting climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Somebody coined the annoying term "glocal" to describe that, and it's actually about as effective as you're saying. There are regional carbon trading programs that WORK, for instance. In a field full of annoying terms (eco-bag?), that's the new topper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Paper Mac posted:People rag on Arkane but he generally lays out an argument, cites his sources, and gives some kind of indication of what his reasoning is. If you're expecting people to engage with heterodox theories of climate change, you should do likewise. Well, sort of. Arkane has the amusing tendency to make a statement and then provide a "citation" the same way you'd find in a paper (i.e., last name and a year) but won't actually link to that article, or give a title. Either that or he refers to a statement from Stephen McIntyre's blog as if anyone cares what he thinks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:55
|
|