|
4C may not literally kill everyone, but what we call "civilization" will either become unrecognizable or will simply cease to exist.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Ah. Ok then. On a slightly less apocalyptic note, I just yesterday learned about a crowdsourced climate modeling thing run through the BOINC client. Anyone who wants to contribute their computer's power to climate models and other such science can learn how to do so here I plan on installing this on my computer when I get home this weekend, as my laptop wouldn't make anywhere near as much of an impact as my desktop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:4C may not literally kill everyone, but what we call "civilization" will either become unrecognizable or will simply cease to exist. Do you have any sources on that? Even general predictions about the future are extremely difficult to make and I don't really think there's enough evidence for you to claim that with any confidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Plus it seems some level of cooperation will triumph obstinate isolationism/survivalism, though I'm not sure what level of community is needed to be considered "civilization."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Sure a large rise in average temperature will be bad but ocean acidification will probably end up doing the most damage. The Darkening Sea by Elizabeh Kolbert: http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/kolbert_06_ocean_acidification_new_yorker.pdf It was published in 2006 by The New Yorker. Still a pretty good read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Every time I come into this thread it feels like my only response could be the title over and over again. The World Bank has a Coursera course entitled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided as if we've already blown right past the 2°C mark. Of course there's no reason to just give up, but prepare for some very interesting times in the coming decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Okay, so are you proposing (a) that we should do nothing at all, (b) that we should only pursue "magic bullet" solutions, or (c) some third option? It's no big shocker that nothing is changing- humans simply don't make huge changes or are prepared to make utterly huge investments without a direct, incontrovertible threat. And to get all the major players in the world to agree on a way forward? It's almost laughable if you think about it, given recorded history. The New Black posted:The most depressing thing for me about this has been that although there is a general consensus here that the flooding is linked to global warming, we even had Cameron say so in Parliament, it's generated virtually no public discourse on actually fighting it. I mean there's plenty of talk about flood defences and relief plans and so on, but nobody is saying "oh, well maybe we should actually work towards cutting our emissions". Like what exactly is the UK going to do? They are drops in the bucket on the world stage, nothing they do is going to stop or prevent the effects of gw. Even when you get to the biggest players, you are going to need everyone working together to actually make any change. The US could 0 out emissions tomorrow and it won't mean jack poo poo if china and india are still annihilating coal as fast as they can dig it. And considering the cheapest way to industrialize and improve living conditions are the dirtiest fuels, good luck with that. The nuke plants china are throwing up are going to help, but if the estimates about GW are correct it will be too little too late. Basically we better hope a scientific solution saves us (once poo poo actually does get real and countries get serious about it) because there is basically no hope on the other ends. Just look at the numbers. Anyone who thinks the world can get together and make the changes in the timeframe required is crazy. It would hardly be the first time either- malthus only looks silly in retrospect because science saved the day. Don We Now posted:The World Bank has a Coursera course entitled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided as if we've already blown right past the 2°C mark. "Giving up" implies we even tried in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Do you have any sources on that? Even general predictions about the future are extremely difficult to make and I don't really think there's enough evidence for you to claim that with any confidence. 4 C is the point where we could shut down every single source of CO2 emissions and the positive feedback loops would still carry us into extreme temperatures. 4 C is the average global temperature, remember, so you'd see increases on land up to 10 C which would devastate most of our agriculture. Three meals away from anarchy and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
enbot posted:Basically we better hope a scientific solution saves us (once poo poo actually does get real and countries get serious about it) because there is basically no hope on the other ends. Just look at the numbers. Anyone who thinks the world can get together and make the changes in the timeframe required is crazy. So, (b) "magic bullet", then? Do you think trying to advocate for emissions control in at least a few parts of the world in the meantime would make implementation of said bullet (a) easier, (b) more difficult, or (c) some third option?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
enbot posted:Basically we better hope a scientific solution saves us (once poo poo actually does get real and countries get serious about it) because there is basically no hope on the other ends. Artificial photosynthesis looks most promising. It would be not only a carbon-neutral energy source, but also impossible to deplete until we have carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. It seems easier to get than the long-promised fusion, there are already working prototypes (like the artificial leaf mentioned in the Wikipedia article) and the main obstacle with development of this technology is that fossil fuels are still cheaper. It seems likely that we will hear more about this technology in the following years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:4 C is the point where we could shut down every single source of CO2 emissions and the positive feedback loops would still carry us into extreme temperatures. 4 C is the average global temperature, remember, so you'd see increases on land up to 10 C which would devastate most of our agriculture. Thanks for replying to the question "Do you have any sources on 4C = collapse of civilization?" with "certain bad things will happen" and no sources. Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that yes, poo poo will get super bad, but there's no reason to delve into absurd hyperbole. The truth is bad enough. I think the overabundance of doomsaying makes people feel more helpless and less likely to do anything, and the more people we have doing nothing, the worse off we all are. Edit 2: The other point is that there are environmentalist crackpots who are just as lacking in scientific data as climate deniers who like to make ridiculous "game over" blog posts that only tangentially relate to the truth, and I'm sick of seeing people talk about crap like "literally all humans will die" or "giant methane releases will set the entire world on fire" as if it had any basis in reality. The truth is bad enough without making poo poo up. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that yes, poo poo will get super bad, but there's no reason to delve into absurd hyperbole. The truth is bad enough. I think the overabundance of doomsaying makes people feel more helpless and less likely to do anything, and the more people we have doing nothing, the worse off we all are. Is it really hyperbole though? And plenty of evidence as to concrete effects has been presented in the thread already, it just seems that a few pages distance leaves people comfortable enough to come back to the thread acting like things aren't really that bad, and demands of new proof from anyone who doesn't see a positive end to things. Paper Mac made an excellent post detailing the serious effects of only 2-3 degrees of warming. Severe drought placing 10% of the world's population in a state of absolute water scarcity. RCP8.5, which would roughly correspond with a temperature anomaly of ~4.9 degrees, shows huge declines in the yields of our major staple crops. I made another post addressing oceanic ecosystem collapse. Warming waters are already predicted to lead to widespread coral bleaching by 2050. A 1 degree increase in ocean temperature for 8 weeks or longer causes severe coral bleaching. I think its safe to say you'll see a lot of that with 4 degrees atmospheric warming. The loss of coral reefs and additional acidification are going to cause the collapse of any fisheries we haven't already destroyed on our own. With severe drought, severe reduction of agricultural yields, the collapse of ocean fisheries, the further collapse of other ecosystems we depend on, is it really so hard to imagine that the stress this is going to put on the earth's 6 (and by then certain to be 7+) billion people might cause rather drastic changes to any civilization that makes it through to the other side? When you factor in issues of sealevel rise causing massive human migration (particularly in places like India and China), this will cause a lot of unrest. There will be refugees and resource wars, and this is only going to further tax the resources and abilities of the regimes in power to continue addressing and reacting to climate change. We have good reason to believe that little things like drought have lead to the collapse of more primitive civilizations in the past. While we are certainly less primitive and our civilization is now much larger and globally interconnected, I don't see how this makes us immune to the problems of famine and the instability it ushers in. I think its hubris to dismiss any consideration of this possibility as the musings of environmentalist crackpots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
So if the collapse of civilization is going to happen no matter what, why should I care?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Yiggy, we've already passed that 7 billion mark -- two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So if the collapse of civilization is going to happen no matter what, why should I care?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Because you have the capacity to do so. To care, or to do something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
enbot posted:It's no big shocker that nothing is changing- humans simply don't make huge changes or are prepared to make utterly huge investments without a direct, incontrovertible threat. And to get all the major players in the world to agree on a way forward? It's almost laughable if you think about it, given recorded history. Your pessimistic argument for doing nothing is great and all, but... I mean yeah, individually the UK doing anything wouldn't do much but it builds momentum. As long as nobody does anything everyone can point to everyone else and whine about it rather than "get[ting] serious about it". Someone has to make the first move even if TPTB love to tell everyone it's economic suicide. And if the US zeroed emissions tomorrow that would probably mean we'd developed alternative technologies that China and India could use as well. (Basically we need to dump billions into energy and other basic research thirty years ago. edit: Step one: Re-elect Carter  )
Polygynous fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
The UK has a major presence in global politics (warranted or not) and so there's scope to set the agenda and present an example. There could be a genuine push by the richest and most advanced nations to plough funding into next-generation power sources (i.e. nuclear and renewables), developing cleaner technologies, and helping other nations to adopt them. Instead we have a government that's rolling back on its green 'promises', cutting back on green energy and subsidies and putting a huge amount of investment, financial and political, into a 'dash for gas' - shale, which is a completely unproven quantity in terms of how much can be recovered, how much it will cost, and what it would actually do for the country. Crazy rhetoric and promises are being thrown around, in the face of all evidence (even the drilling companies themselves say it wouldn't lower prices), all to build support for further investment and adoption of fossil fuels. We're finally getting a few more nuclear plants built - but by foreign (state) companies, subsidised with a guaranteed minimum profit, effectively funneling public funds into business profits as usual, instead of using it to develop a broad modern infrastructure and national energy security. Wind power, where the UK had a technological edge for a long time isn't being supported and developed as a high-tech export that would benefit the nation and the rest of the world - it's basically being hamstrung, another wasted opportunity. This is the issue and it goes for most of the most advanced nations - they don't even talk the talk. There's no pressure, there isn't really even any leadership, because even those in the best position to do something about climate change often don't. Right now the scenario is competing on exploitation of fossil fuels - who has oil, who has the cheapest coal and gas, and therefore has the cheapest production costs and the most competitive economy. Nobody's really interested in even talking about changing the game, it seems, and that would be a big first step
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWF11yem6U8 I thought this was appropriate. It is certainly possible to stop climate change in time to prevent a global collapse of technological civilization. Changing the energy production base of the world would be a monumental undertaking that would take decades, but a few decades we have. Building massive numbers of nuclear power plants employing thorium breeder reactors, tapping into tidal power, and 20 years down the line, using graphene solar arrays and building massive liquid metal-organic capacitor stations to handle all the stress on the power grid, all of this is indeed possible. The only problem is a lack of unity and determination to make the necessary sacrifices to build all of this. It would require immense resources, and a unified global governance regarding the implementation. The bad news is, that achieving that critical decision in time to implement all that construction is exceedingly unlikely. It's certainly possible, but I don't see a way for it to happen. We as a species are too fragmented, too conflicted and too drat indecisive to reach a global consensus on anything. That doesn't mean that I as an individual am going to sink into despair though. There is a a way for me, and a very small minority of humanity to survive the coming fall. And that is to use emerging technologies, transhuman technologies, to adapt ourselves to a world much harsher than the current one. And when the fall begins, to come together and form a new kind of society to ensure that at least the transhumanity will survive the long night. Sorry for being so dramatic, I suck cocks for a living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Thing is, it really doesn't seem that way. Our energy use is still heavily tied into Industrial Revolution-era processes - take concentrated energy sources from ground, and fuckin' burn that poo poo. Not only is it not sustainable, it's something we should have moved on from long ago - more than we have, anyway. It doesn't really take a lot of sacrifice to engage in major national infrastructure projects and investment, the problem is the world is run heavily on neoliberal lines, so instead of long-term cooperation you have a focus on short-term profit and the needs of corporations. Nationalising and developing a country's energy infrastructure is the best way of setting out a roadmap for the future and then putting the expertise and funding wherever it's needed to achieve that goal, but it sure hurts those private power companies which own the current power stations, and the energy companies which supply the fuel. So government intervention in the situation is practically anathema, even though this is exactly what the government's role should be in this situation. Private companies sure aren't going to move things forward, unless they're showered with riches to make it worth their while - and who can blame them, they're businesses. Which is why relying on them to fix this issue is a non-starter. There doesn't even need to be a global consensus on this, except maybe in eliminating the hostility towards state involvement. And this is just intuition, so for the sake of discussion instead of me just talking out loud I'll ask: do we even need any emerging technologies to start addressing this issue? Like hypothetically, with all the political roadblocks put aside for the moment, do we have the power generation and infrastructure technologies and resources to effectively reconfigure human civilisation, basically as it is (maybe allowing for behaviour changes to be less wasteful) without needing anything new? Do we have all the tools, right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:
From what I've seen, yeah it's perfectly possible. We have Nuclear plant designs that could work fine (or Solar/Wind/etc if nuclear makes you scared). Most cars could probably be replaced with electric versions no problem (the exception being truckers but that's still the vast majority of vehicles in the US), and if you want to just disincentivize cars you can rebuild cities to be more accommodating; it's not some dark magic that's unknown. The tech problem is mostly solved, it's the propagation and diffusion of that tech that remains the issue, and that's mostly a concern of demand and cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So if the collapse of civilization is going to happen no matter what, why should I care? We are only somewhat hosed, maybe we should try not to replace that with "completely hosed"? It's worth keeping in mind that +4°C would have kicked us halfway out of the last ice age and we really don't want to deal with that much change if it can be helped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
computer parts posted:So if the collapse of civilization is going to happen no matter what, why should I care? That's the whole point of doom mongering, which is why it's the ideology of choice for idle Power Rangers fans, mentally ill former college professors and 20-something hipster "Buddhists". You can pretend to be "wise" and pragmatic without really knowing what you're talking about.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Sorry to derail End Times chat, but as a follow up to the SoTU, Obama is doing a thingPolitico posted:President Barack Obama will ask Congress to set up a $1 billion “Climate Resilience Fund” in his proposed budget next month. $1B isn't much considering how much we subsidize fossil fuels, never mind getting through Congress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Thing is, it really doesn't seem that way. Our energy use is still heavily tied into Industrial Revolution-era processes - take concentrated energy sources from ground, and fuckin' burn that poo poo. Not only is it not sustainable, it's something we should have moved on from long ago - more than we have, anyway. As for need, it's not a question of need when it comes to emerging transhuman technologies. Those technologies will be developed and they will arrive whether you or I like it or not. If there's profit in it, it will be done you know. My choice when it comes to surviving the coming century is trying to acquire as much wealth and technical know-how as I can. I think money and knowledge is what might get me and those who share my beliefs into a position where we just might survive the century. Or maybe it won't, who knows. But it's a gently caress better chance than the possibility of humanity getting her act together and pulling off the most immense infrastructural rearranging in the history of man in the course of a few decades. My personal opinion is 'gently caress humanity'. This crisis has been spoken off by scientists for good half a century, and our leaders have done nothing to solve it. So gently caress them and the people who let them in power. I'll take me and mine and get the gently caress off this planet. What happens to the rest is not my concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:19
|
|
Entropia posted:Well, 'a lot of sacrifice' is a bit of a nebulous term, but the key point is that it'd require immense international cooperation to succeed. Like I said, the emergence of such a project in time to prevent catastrophic climate change is possible, just not very likely. I would 't put any money on the chances is me point. As for ideological considerations, remember that the US is not the world. There is plenty of will by national governments, in Europe and especially ASia (India and China in the foremost) to do something about climate change and our energy production base. Thing is, I really can't see any of the world powers cooperating in a meaningful sense, what with geopolitical cockswinging and posturing at a historical high since the end of the cold war.. Goodness me...aren't you the cynic. Just a thought though - are you currently a member of the economic upper class? I know you are (we all are) by world standards, I'm talking western/US standards.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Goodness me...aren't you the cynic. Well I am a scientist, so it's hard not to be cynical with the current direction our world is heading... And yes, I am indeed a member of the upper class. Why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Entropia posted:And yes, I am indeed a member of the upper class. Why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Augustus posted:It's like you don't even see what you're writing. Humor me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
What is the state of recent research on the nature of and effects of positive feedback effects and abrupt climate change? We often talk about "tipping points" and the like, but it's often talked about as a mysterious black box, whose ultimate extent and effects are still unknown. Considering it's such a huge question-mark in determining the future trajectory of climate change, I would imagine that there is intensive research at the moment into how these feedback effects will/are coming into play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:58
|
|
Entropia posted:Well I am a scientist, so it's hard not to be cynical with the current direction our world is heading... And yes, I am indeed a member of the upper class. Why do you ask? Well if you really are a member of the upper class, then that's okay (as a scientist, though? Are you sure - it'd be interesting to know the specifics.). Good luck and try not to fall. I ask because a lot of people think they're going to "make it" and fail miserably. Surviving on your own, the odds aren't good unless you're well off already. Remember - social mobility doesn't get better when the overall situation gets worse.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Humor me. Your last paragraph is literally  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What is the state of recent research on the nature of and effects of positive feedback effects and abrupt climate change? We often talk about "tipping points" and the like, but it's often talked about as a mysterious black box, whose ultimate extent and effects are still unknown. Considering it's such a huge question-mark in determining the future trajectory of climate change, I would imagine that there is intensive research at the moment into how these feedback effects will/are coming into play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback Basically there are a lot of carbon sinks in the world which will release methane and/or became unable to store various carbon oxides when the temperature rises high enough, causing the release of even more greenhouse gasses. Classic positive feedback cycle scenario, which would mean the extinction of mankind. If Arctic and oceanfloor methane starts gasifying, we're talking about 12-20 C warming. Dusz posted:Well if you really are a member of the upper class, then that's okay (as a scientist, though? Are you sure - it'd be interesting to know the specifics.). Good luck and try not to fall. Entropia posted:That doesn't mean that I as an individual am going to sink into despair though. There is a a way for me, and a very small minority of humanity to survive the coming fall. And that is to use emerging technologies, transhuman technologies, to adapt ourselves to a world much harsher than the current one. And when the fall begins, to come together and form a new kind of society to ensure that at least the transhumanity will survive the long night. Yeah I know. That's why I'm trying to accumulate as much wealth as I can, by any means available, and live as frugally as I can. I don't want to be the only one to survive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Entropia posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback Haha, yeah, I know about that. In fact that's what I focused my undergraduate degree on! But it's been some years since I took another in-depth look at the subject, and I was wondering about the state of recent research on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:07
|
|
Entropia posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback Well if this is what you really believe, I hope you're on you're way to becoming the next Stephen Hawking because if not, you'll share the same fate as everyone else regardless of how frugal and ambitious you are. Also here's the thing about transhumanism - if it's not a myth altogether, we can get there only if science continues to move forward . According to your (imo rather crazy) understanding of the situation, society is going to collapse soon, and dramatically - which I'm afraid to say, means science as a human endeavor is going to suffer, and your cause is a lost cause from the beginning.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Well if this is what you really believe, I hope you're on you're way to becoming the next Stephen Hawking because if not, you'll share the same fate as everyone else regardless of how frugal and ambitious you are. Well, we'll see what happens with technology. There only so much one person can do in a lifetime so I try to get me the money I need to fund the research I need done. As for 'crazy', I dunno what you're referring to. Society isn't going to collapse 'soon'. We have at about 30-60 years by my reckoning before things really start to go tits up. Obviously I don't know for sure though. The climate doesn't react to changes in greenhouse gas emissions in a year, it takes far longer than that. However long we have, the window to begin changing in earnest how our energy is produced on a global scale is growing exceedingly narrow. Changing the way we produce our electricity something we can do in a few years, it would take decades. And all the while we'd be building new kinds of powerplants, the old fossil fuel ones would be churning out greenhouse gasses to fuel that change, so it's not like we can just switch them off and go nuclear overnight. That's why we're hosed, because we can't come to an agreement on how to change things in a matter of a decade or two. DrSunshine posted:Haha, yeah, I know about that. In fact that's what I focused my undergraduate degree on! But it's been some years since I took another in-depth look at the subject, and I was wondering about the state of recent research on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:26
|
|
Entropia posted:Well, we'll see what happens with technology. There only so much one person can do in a lifetime so I try to get me the money I need to fund the research I need done. As for 'crazy', I dunno what you're referring to. Society isn't going to collapse 'soon'. We have at about 30-60 years by my reckoning before things really start to go tits up. Obviously I don't know for sure though. The climate doesn't react to changes in greenhouse gas emissions in a year, it takes far longer than that. How old are you, anyway - I'm assuming older than 20? So that thing about transhumanism - if you think you're going to be old (50-70 or more) before everything really becomes a mess - your ambition is to live forever, or what? I thought you were just trying to survive into old age. Also, seriously - could you be a little bit more specific? Are you already tenured faculty at a top Western institution or a top researcher outside of academia? Or are you another one of the many, many (tens/hundreds of) thousands of 20-somethings taking it for granted they will make it to the top in a competitive human endeavor as long as they give it "their best"? I know you can't expect someone to give out personal details on a silly internet comedy forum - but no offense, your ambitions seem a bit overly grandiose based solely on what you're telling us. Dusz fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Dusz posted:How old are you, anyway - I'm assuming older than 20? So that thing about transhumanism - if you think you're going to be old (50-70 or more) before everything really becomes a mess - your ambition is to live forever, or what? I thought you were just trying to survive into old age. Dusz posted:Also, seriously - could you be a little bit more specific? Are you already tenured faculty at a top Western institution or a top researcher outside of academia? Or are you another one of the many, many (tens/hundreds of) thousands of 20-somethings taking it for granted they will make it to the top in a competitive human endeavor as long as they give it "their best"? Really, there's very little you can say or do to cause me to doubt my beliefs, as I'm sure you know. Faith is funny like that. The chance of catastrophic failure (for me anyway) is not a reason not to aim big. My dreams are beyond grandiose and I laugh at myself for being mad and stupid enough to believe in them every time I think of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:59
|
|
Entropia posted:I'm in my twenties, yeah. My ambitions are many and complicated. I don't just want to 'live forever', I want to do a lot more than that. Transcend the human condition, die under a different sun, all that transhumanist claptrap. Those ambitions hardly matter right now though. I concentrate on what I should be doing now, not what I might be in a hundred years. Well, what can I say? It's true, you always have to have faith - nobody can live without it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Phayray posted:$1B isn't much ... never mind getting through Congress! Yeah I was gonna say, its great Obama is asking for this but Congress won't bite. If it happens, I wouldn't be surprised if its going to have to be a Republican president and legislature that finally came to its senses if we ever see anyone push through any sort of climate legislation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:38
|
|