|
ThaGhettoJew posted:Discussing your theories on the function of taxation would unfortunately be a bit of a derail here, but I am baffled by your position on the existence of global warming and would like to know more. Do you believe that temperatures aren't rising climate-wide over time? Do you think there's some sort of hoax or mass delusion among scientists (and insurance adjustors)? I can see the occasional reactionary or contrarian deciding it isn't as bad as reported or that the causes and projected outcomes are wrong, but there are vanishingly few people who straight up just don't believe anymore. No anthropic change? No sea-rise? No weather pattern shifts? All coincidence or foolishness? Further; if that person doesn't believe in global warming why would they think its a good idea to tax ("punish" in their worlds) carbon emissions? If carbon dioxide doesn't increase the warmth of the planet what else is it doing that would motivate us to limit its release?
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Well, for one, fossil fuels are finite and there's a pretty compelling argument to be made for moving away from being so reliant on them, even if burning them wasn't changing the climate. Granted, straight taxing carbon might not be the most effective way to do so, but it's something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
There's also particle pollution to worry about
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Not to mention that fossil fuels go into more than our vehicles and power plants. There's a shitton of plastics and such that are dependent on it as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Hell, I think global warming is a load of crap and I sti<snip>
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Further; if that person doesn't believe in global warming why would they think its a good idea to tax ("punish" in their worlds) carbon emissions? If carbon dioxide doesn't increase the warmth of the planet what else is it doing that would motivate us to limit its release? Taxes are inherently punitive and are used to discourage certain behaviors: Taxes on cigarettes discourage smoking Taxes on carbon discourage carbon emissions Taxes on medical devices discourage the production and sale of medical devices Taxes on wages or earnings discourage employment or earning income Obviously, certain behaviors (like working and commerce) should be encouraged. I don't think anyone would argue that carbon emission should be encouraged, so even if there's no value to taxing carbon at all aside from the revenue, it is at least less harmful than, say, the payroll tax, and should replace it. quote:Discussing your theories on the function of taxation would unfortunately be a bit of a derail here, but I am baffled by your position on the existence of global warming and would like to know more. Do you believe that temperatures aren't rising climate-wide over time? Do you think there's some sort of hoax or mass delusion among scientists (and insurance adjustors)? I can see the occasional reactionary or contrarian deciding it isn't as bad as reported or that the causes and projected outcomes are wrong, but there are vanishingly few people who straight up just don't believe anymore. No anthropic change? No sea-rise? No weather pattern shifts? All coincidence or foolishness? I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power. Anyway, I follow climate news to the extent that I see it in the media and here. I'm not a scientist, but I do think I'm a good enough critical thinker to have an educated opinion on this. It's not that I believe global warming isn't true--it's that the theory is so vague that it doesn't matter if it's true. It's like a climate horoscope: CO2 is above 350 ppm and Saturn is in the house of Leo? You will face climate challenges today. And sure enough, because there are 7 billion people on this Earth, many of whom are living in inhospitable areas, something happens, like a flood in Bangladesh, which is then blamed on global warming. If nothing happens, we just ignore it. That's how we wind up with lists like this: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power. If climate change were false, we would not see data like this:  (Source)  (Source) Anthropogenic climate change as proposed by scientists is the only explanation that makes sense. Climate change could have been falsified by this sort of data not emerging. Conversely, the existence of such trends provides compelling evidence that the theory is correct. Opponents of climate change do not have a competing coherent theory that explains all the data (which goes far beyond temperature measurements or polar ice fluctuations); instead, they nitpick at minor details without fully understanding the field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power. Obviously it's not completely falsifiable. There's only one planet. Well, guess we'd better carry on and see what happens. If it turns out we do gently caress ourselves we can leave some notes for the next bunch of idiots so they know better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
As always it's going to be far cheaper to deal with climate change right now than it is going to be ten, twenty, fifty years from now. The cost of not doing anything and climate change being real is going to be far more catastrophic than changing how we produce energy and how we live and finding out that things weren't as bad as we thought. There's no reason not to press for implementing policies right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Taxes are inherently punitive and are used to discourage certain behaviors: When has the existence of an income tax ever stopped anybody from getting a job?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
I don't think he's going to be very receptive to logical thinking if he assumes taxes are punitive. Assuming participating in society is punitive is pretty more definitional American Liberal thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I believe there is currently a shipping vessel sailing through the passage. Somebody felt the risk was good enough to base an entire company on. Yes, and the trip was heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. And it was carrying loving coal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...rcial-activity/
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Taxes are inherently punitive Stopped reading here because unless this guy paves his own roads before driving over them every day, we're dealing with some massive deficit in critical thinking that is bobbing to the surface here like an iceberg of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Stopped reading here because unless this guy paves his own roads before driving over them every day, we're dealing with some massive deficit in critical thinking that is bobbing to the surface here like an iceberg of dumb. What's even the point of saying poo poo like this? This is a guy who disagrees with the theory of global warming but is willing to let James Hansen's plan be put in to action and all you can do is be a dick? gently caress man, we really do have no hope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Taxes as a negative feedback loop is just a systemic interpretation. Of course they can be equally considered a positive feedback loop. That is a matter of identity. Thinking in terms of systems positive and negative feedback loops (and governance structures) are often considered fairly low level interventions yielding linear effects within the dynamics of the same system. They are also a much easier point of alignment since they require no real alignment on things like vision or 'paradigms'. This can be the basis for working with people holding views that differ fairly radically. Jimmy Carter has been criticized in the past for negotiating and building coalitions between people who are otherwise mutually antagonistic based on this sort of strategy since people relating to some paradigm as a if 'morality' are offended by this approach. Sogol fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power. Bolded the part that's the problem here - the media is poo poo and more interested in a narrative of flux and conflict than accurate reporting. If that's where you're getting all your information it's no wonder you think the science is vague. Being a good critical thinker can't transform editorial dregs into an educated grasp of climate science. As an example, you seem to think dissent isn't welcomed, or incorporated into the vast global scientific effort that's taking place. That's understandable if you get all your information from the popular media, because they repeatedly trot out the same tired arguments or 'controversies' that have been addressed long ago, some of which are already accounted for in the science. For example it's not unusual to hear people arguing that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the planet are the real cause of global warming, but The Scientists are overlooking this factor. The amount of solar energy hitting the planet is the entire fundamental basis of climate science. It's like someone arguing with a particle physicist by saying that there are these things called atoms and 'atom' means 'indivisible' so they're wrong. It gets tiring to constantly address these recycled talking points, although some people still make that effort to try and educate people, but it leads to the impression that science is 'ignoring' these 'new' points. Simply giving them airtime or column space lends them instant legitimacy, and constantly repeating them makes them appear like serious counterpoints, flaws in the science. A narrative of conspiracies and ivory-tower academics being beaten by easily digested talking points is far more entertaining (and comforting) than any kind of rigorous understanding of the science, and the problems that need to be faced up to. And even when the media is treating climate science seriously, they're still prone to doing the things you're complaining about - ascribing specific events to climate change. This isn't something that scientists do. The scientific stance is that climate change, global warming and all the changes to the system it causes, will make extreme events more likely. Nobody with any shred of credibility attempts to divine that a particular hurricane wouldn't have occurred if the climate was slightly different, because that's not something we can know. But we can identify factors that contribute to extreme events, and factors that mitigate them, and explain how changes in that balance will lead to those events being more or less likely. tldr - don't rely on absorbing information through the media, the media is there to tell simplistic stories that people will want to watch and read, so they can make as much advertising revenue as possible. You need to seek out information yourself to have a hope of understanding what's going on. That's a general media rule though
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What's even the point of saying poo poo like this? This is a guy who disagrees with the theory of global warming but is willing to let James Hansen's plan be put in to action and all you can do is be a dick? gently caress man, we really do have no hope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Since when do we dance on eggshells for people in D&D? Should we put trigger warnings on top? "Caution, may make you feel like the opinion you are passing off as fact is unwelcome!" I guess I'm past the point of trying to "win" arguments with people that will never change their opinions (see: Arkane) and would rather discuss solutions that both sides can agree on. It doesn't matter if someone denies climate change if they are in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Not everybody has to know the science inside or out or hold the exact same nuanced position as you. We're talking about the future of the planet here, I think it's safe to say that it's probably time for a more realpolitik approach if environmentalists want to see any action. Or we can just smugly post in D&D and watch the world burn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I guess I'm past the point of trying to "win" arguments with people that will never change their opinions (see: Arkane) and would rather discuss solutions that both sides can agree on. It doesn't matter if someone denies climate change if they are in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Not everybody has to know the science inside or out or hold the exact same nuanced position as you. We're talking about the future of the planet here, I think it's safe to say that it's probably time for a more realpolitik approach if environmentalists want to see any action. It's fair to attempt reasonable discussion, and educating the uninformed.but it is also the case that climate change in particular debates are mired in a situation where a few obstinate voices create a false image of debate by contesting everything from the begining often derailing serious discussions in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:And even when the media is treating climate science seriously, they're still prone to doing the things you're complaining about - ascribing specific events to climate change. This isn't something that scientists do. The scientific stance is that climate change, global warming and all the changes to the system it causes, will make extreme events more likely. Nobody with any shred of credibility attempts to divine that a particular hurricane wouldn't have occurred if the climate was slightly different, because that's not something we can know. But we can identify factors that contribute to extreme events, and factors that mitigate them, and explain how changes in that balance will lead to those events being more or less likely. I don't want to put words in his/her mouth, but I think that StarMagician acknowledges that scientists can't make specific short term predictions about extreme weather events from climate models, but he thinks that they should be able to if they expect to be taken seriously. This is a sentiment that I hear a lot from skeptics (I am not a climate skeptic myself): e.g. "the IPCC admits that global temperatures this year are lower than predicted, so how can they be more confident in anthropogenic climate change?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:It's fair to attempt reasonable discussion, and educating the uninformed.but it is also the case that climate change in particular debates are mired in a situation where a few obstinate voices create a false image of debate by contesting everything from the begining often derailing serious discussions in the process. My point is that he might be factually wrong, but he's NOT derailing serious discussion. He's willing to admit that James Hansen, the boogey man to a lot of denialists, has an idea that's actually good and the only thing people in this thread can do is dogpile on him for saying he doesn't buy into global warming. He's not playing Arkane's game (note how Arkane simply ignored my comment about James Hansen and his 'solution') He's come in here with an opposing viewpoint and is willing to still pursue the solutions you want and you're still going to attack him? Trust me, nobody who's read this thread and is still a denier is going to change their mind because of some smug D&D posting by people more interested in winning arguments than impacting real change. There is some value in attacking denialist arguments here in that it gives the readers of the forum better language to deal with discussion in their everyday life, I just don't think we need much more of it in this thread given the content of the past 100+ pages. Let's move past having the age old "is climate change happening debate" and move towards proposing real solutions that work within the current economic framework. Look around, the revolution isn't coming. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:proposing real solutions that work within the current economic framework. The "current economic framework" assumes that infinite debt-driven growth is possible and desirable. There may not be a revolution, but if capital suddenly decides that actually sustainable zero-growth economies are the way to go, you may as well call it that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:The "current economic framework" assumes that infinite debt-driven growth is possible and desirable. There may not be a revolution, but if capital suddenly decides that actually sustainable zero-growth economies are the way to go, you may as well call it that. It won't. If you think humanity is going to divorce itself from economic growth by choice I've got some beachfront property to sell you as well. Options like "sustainable zero-growth economies" are out. We're not making that transition, the will isn't there nationally, much less globally. We all know how dire things are, how "tl;dr - we are so screwed" we already are. We can't afford to be talking about revolution or sustainable zero-growth economies. There are real solutions(or at least steps in that direction) being proposed by individuals like James Hansen that are much more palatable than some of the solutions we'd all like to see. So why not take a step back, and work on this small incremental step that has appeal to both sides of the debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Has there been serious theorizing on how a zero growth economy might actually function? It seems like there must be something out there by green economists but I've never seen it... Nor anything by Marxian economists either. Or even analysis of modern low-zero growth economies, I'm thinking like Japan, and how they might avoid social problems even in the event of a permanent failure to expand economically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:We can't afford to be talking about revolution or sustainable zero-growth economies. I think we can. If we don't start the political debate now and agitate thoroughly for change, we'll be almost certainly facing a new authoritarianism, and not one of benevolent dictators. The world as it stands under (comparatively) mild crisis already has many of the workings of the police state of the future (or what Zizek would call "Groucho Marx authoritarianism" ) in the interests of maintaining the privilege of capitalists. What will happen when the socioeconomic situation gets worse (and it will get worse, barring some incredible new discovery)? Yes, absolutely, it is good to do what is needed to mitigate the present harm to the environment, but it must always be with a caveat lurking behind it: that of a need for something far more radical to be done. Squalid posted:Has there been serious theorizing on how a zero growth economy might actually function? It seems like there must be something out there by green economists but I've never seen it... Nor anything by Marxian economists either. Enough is Enough posits some decent policy ideas. The essential idea is to try and balance human activity with the ability of the earth to absorb it (to ensure that natural/artificial systems can deal with the waste - whatever that may be - left behind by human activity in a way that doesn't exceed their capacity to do so), something which would require more centralized decision making bodies. The basic process would be something like: 1) Roughly model total output "capacity" - how much waste can be handled on a safe level? How much CO2 can we produce? How much phosphorous can we use? How many trees can we cut down? etc. 2) Use a mechanism to determine how potential inputs will be used, limited by the output capacity determined. There's a lot of potential ideas here, from a fully centralized authority (using an updated version of something along the Soviet Union/GDR lines) to a more decentralized "democratic market economy" (e.g., each citizen receives a certain quantity of "resources" which they can then sell in order to purchase goods or use for the production of their own goods). Vermain fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:It won't. If you think humanity is going to divorce itself from economic growth by choice I've got some beachfront property to sell you as well. Options like "sustainable zero-growth economies" are out. We're not making that transition, the will isn't there nationally, much less globally. If we can't transition to a sustainable economy, the current economic order won't be sustained, so there's no point in deferring to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Has there been serious theorizing on how a zero growth economy might actually function? It seems like there must be something out there by green economists but I've never seen it... Nor anything by Marxian economists either. Or even analysis of modern low-zero growth economies, I'm thinking like Japan, and how they might avoid social problems even in the event of a permanent failure to expand economically. It's called Steady State Economics and it's getting more of a following. There's a whole institute for it. http://steadystate.org/ I haven't put a lot of time into reading on the subject, but it's something I've been meaning to do. There is a pretty long reading list on their site if you're interested. http://steadystate.org/discover/reading-list/ note: these people might just be crazy. I'm not endorsing them. I've just been seeing more and more about Steady State Economics. pistolshit fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:If we can't transition to a sustainable economy, the current economic order won't be sustained, so there's no point in deferring to it. Unfortunately, this is more of an opinion than factual statement. The truth of the matter is that there's plenty of energy out there for humanity to harvest and that continuing to expand into space is a completely viable option. It may seem like a long shot with today's technology, but there's very real truth to the statement that we have seen technological barriers like the ones we see today disappear in the blink of an eye due to innovation. I don't want to come off as saying this is what is 'probably' going to happen, honestly, I am more pessimistic in my own thoughts than what I say publicly because being a pessimist is about the least productive thing you can do at this point. And if I'm wrong, and society does collapse the current economic order dies, I can almost promise you that a global sustainable zero growth economy won't be what comes next. The failure of the current economic system would be so catastrophic it's basically not even worth discussing. It's like "what if Russia nukes the US 50 times?". Well, all bets are off at that point because we have absolutely no frame of reference for what might happen after that sort of event. Basically, we should be doing anything and everything to prevent the failure of the global socioeconomic system, even if it is destroying the planet. I think our addiction to growth and resource consumption goes deeper than simply our political systems, it's just the reality of being a living organism. I'm not entirely convinced we can escape that mindset as a species, at this point I'm willing to embrace it and become a believer in technology simply because I don't see any other way, even if the chances are astronomically low. I support the steady state economics movement, I just think it's going to be an incredibly hard sell and I don't see the political/public will materializing any time soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I think our addiction to growth and resource consumption goes deeper than simply our political systems, it's just the reality of being a living organism. I'm sorry, but this is neoliberal ideology at its purset: the idea that humans have a drive to just "consume" endlessly with no prompting and no thought as to the consequences as a part of a biological identity (ignoring the tremendous economic structure that practically enforces consumption as a prerequisite to social being).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I'm sorry, but this is neoliberal ideology at its purset: the idea that humans have a drive to just "consume" endlessly with no prompting and no thought as to the consequences as a part of a biological identity (ignoring the tremendous economic structure that practically enforces consumption as a prerequisite to social being). The issue of economic change and climate change are actually just tangential. We don't need to change our economics to dramatically reduce the future impact of climate change. So in some ways the issues end up distracting each other, because they both may be needed but not because of each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We don't need to change our economics to dramatically reduce the future impact of climate change. I wouldn't be so certain. Jevons paradox definitely still operates here, and there is always the lingering threat of a government backing off from its promises due to political pressure from major economic forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Has there been serious theorizing on how a zero growth economy might actually function? It seems like there must be something out there by green economists but I've never seen it... Nor anything by Marxian economists either. Or even analysis of modern low-zero growth economies, I'm thinking like Japan, and how they might avoid social problems even in the event of a permanent failure to expand economically. Enough is Enough has been referenced. In general Herman Daly is interesting as well as Wendell Berry in an even more general way. Daly basically left the World Bank because he kept putting economic models into the major reports which included 'carrying capacity' and links to the natural economy and thermodynamic system of the planet, which were acknowledged, but then excluded from the final versions of the reports. If you do not feel any meaningful self regulation of the currently delusional growth models is possible, then it might behoove you to investigate various collapse theories including Diamond and whatnot. I particularly like the panarchy work of Holling and Gundersen about resilience. Case studies on recent Argentina history can also be useful from the point of view of the social dynamics, as well as tracing the whole Cuba story through the Power of Community narrative to present. As an aside, I will say that I spent several months about two years ago in a China working with the mayoral offices of about 12 US cities and 30 or so Chinese cities on 'zero emissions city design'. They are very serious and in am y cases involved in meaningful action, though of course real implementation of policy, design and infrastructure are a different matter altogether. The possibility of local action is much greater than national action and of course this creates difficulties. The US tends to be 'bottom up' and China the reverse, in theory, creating very different profiles of distortion, corruption and amplification along the way. Sogol fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Unfortunately, this is more of an opinion than factual statement. The truth of the matter is that there's plenty of energy out there for humanity to harvest and that continuing to expand into space is a completely viable option. It is absolutely completely bonkers to say "it's not realistic to expect to limit growth" one moment and then say this minutes later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I wouldn't be so certain. Jevons paradox definitely still operates here, and there is always the lingering threat of a government backing off from its promises due to political pressure from major economic forces. I'm not arguing that we as a society will chose to make the long-term investment, just that our systems can achieve it. I'm a big fan of Amery Lovin's Reinventing Fire (http://www.rmi.org/ReinventingFire) as an example of how we can overcome the Jevon's paradox via design thinking and how we can achieve effective climate goals within a growth context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I'm sorry, but this is neoliberal ideology at its purset: the idea that humans have a drive to just "consume" endlessly with no prompting and no thought as to the consequences as a part of a biological identity (ignoring the tremendous economic structure that practically enforces consumption as a prerequisite to social being). I think that you could make a pretty compelling argument that this is what happens in nature when organisms are given access to incredible amounts of resources. It's not about "humans" it's about "animals". Basically I'm not convinced that humanity has come so far from the rest of the animal kingdom. We may be looking at an incredibly complex example, but when I look at human growth/consumption hisortical patterns all I can think of is carrying capacity and the stories about deer, wolves and grass in enclosed areas. I'm not entirely convinced that humanity has the sapience to avoid this problem. We've all seen the exponential population charts but those same charts exist for almost every resource and consumption pattern. We have hit the overdrive button on growth and expansion and it's been incredibly successful(again, depends on your metric of success) for 200 years. Do you really see us stopping that by choice? Where is that movement coming from? Global? National? Also, another thing to consider, even if moving to a steady state economy is a long-term goal, isn't a revenue-neutral carbon tax still a great idea today? I think we're going to be better off finding things we can all agree on as opposed to disagree, and Hansen's incremental plan looks like just that to me. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I think our addiction to growth and resource consumption goes deeper than simply our political systems, it's just the reality of being a living organism. The situation comes out of ideas that seemed good at the time and got radically out of control once enshrined in institutions; particularly the idea of progress which is at the core of many of the social, scientific and economic systems of the last 300 years. Yes humans are animals, but we have the capacity to learn from our mistakes; the usual problem is settling for 'near enough good enough'. Other candidates for destructive ideas are our linear, objectifying notion of time and obsession with death. This cocktail does not make for an intelligent response to this crisis. Hence posts like this. Thug Lessons posted:It is absolutely completely bonkers to say "it's not realistic to expect to limit growth" one moment and then say this minutes later. That's the trouble with Western culture, wild progressivism pops out under stress from reality. For me, that is the core of neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Bacterial cultures must be reshaped before we can achieve microbial post-growth economics! I'm so loving sick of the petri dish metaphor. This is going to blow your mind, but -get this- in the real world, the world we all live in, bacteria have SOME HOW avoided devouring all their resources and wiping themselves out. I know this flies in the face of everything you thought you knew about biology but somehow the life's lasted a few billion years, and there's no reason it's predetermined to destroy itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Unfortunately, this is more of an opinion than factual statement. The truth of the matter is that there's plenty of energy out there for humanity to harvest and that continuing to expand into space is a completely viable option. It may seem like a long shot with today's technology, but there's very real truth to the statement that we have seen technological barriers like the ones we see today disappear in the blink of an eye due to innovation. The statement "infinite growth in a finite system is impossible" is not an opinion, it's a tautology. The notion that somehow space will provide us with boundless resources with a positive EROEI is, at best, theoretically implausible (it functions more as an article of faith for true believers in the teleology of Progress). There's no particular reason to suggest that the existence of spaceflight somehow obviates the fact that the existing economic order functions to destroy the resource base its existence is predicated on. The reality is very simple: the existing economic order is, in its own terms, exploiting ecosystem resources at greater than regenerative rates. The majority of this economic activity is directed toward fulfilling consumption demand from a small, wealthy, mostly Western segment of the human population. There is no suite of policies that would represent a meaningful long-term "solution" to ACC without altering that pattern, which definitionally threatens the interests of that small, wealthy, mostly Western group. Even the most naive reformist liberals recognise that extremely powerful vested interests must be successfully challenged in order for any effective organised global policy solutions to be implemented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm so loving sick of the petri dish metaphor. This is going to blow your mind, but -get this- in the real world, the world we all live in, bacteria have SOME HOW avoided devouring all their resources and wiping themselves out. I know this flies in the face of everything you thought you knew about biology but somehow the life's lasted a few billion years, and there's no reason it's predetermined to destroy itself. Actually bacteria have historically done that and there are many theories that some of the extinction events in Earth's past have been caused in part by their rampant consumption. Hell, that's why we have oxygen in the air today. That was a much more major change even than what we're doing via CO2. "Life" isn't predetermined to destroy itself, but I think it has the tendency to want to continue to expand regardless of what kinds of limits you try to put on it. Paper Mac posted:The statement "infinite growth in a finite system is impossible" is not an opinion, it's a tautology. Of course it is, but we don't exist in a finite system(the universe). Or at least we don't know if it's finite yet. That was entirely my point. I know that space exploration/exploitation is not in the immediate future, that the technology isn't there, and it's not even a sure bet that it ever will be. I'm just not willing to say with certainty that it won't be in the future and beyond that, that we can't "kick the can" with regards to the Earth until that point. Thug Lessons posted:It is absolutely completely bonkers to say "it's not realistic to expect to limit growth" one moment and then say this minutes later. Can I ask why? Expanding into space would be the natural next step for the species given our behavior up until this point. Self-limiting growth would be an entirely new phenomenon we have no precedence for. I'd love to see it too, how do we get there? a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:34
|
|