|
Stereotype posted:It actually represents a temperature increase of 0.2C in the top 700m, and 0.05C in the 700m to 2000m range. I didn't really expect you to do math correctly, so I'm glad I did it myself! Some fun, dirty math. In 2008 global energy consumption was 144,000TWh, or 1.26e21 Joules. The energy needed to warm that water is 5e22 Joules. So that's roughly equivalent to dumping every single bit of energy we've ever burned for the past fifty years directly into the ocean. That's loving absurd.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
I don't get why we are still debating the existence of climate change after 15 to 20 years of debate. The overwhelmingly vast majority of politicians, scientists and bureaucrats have accepted the science and are working on fixes to the problems (arguably to poor effect). Meanwhile the very few sceptics who remain are off on a rage to irrelevance. The tl; dr bit in the title is right - we are so screwed; the only legitimate scientific debate right now is about determining the precise size of the particular implement in question and the manner in which it will be inserted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Hypation posted:I don't get why we are still debating the existence of climate change after 15 to 20 years of debate. The overwhelmingly vast majority of politicians, scientists and bureaucrats have accepted the science and are working on fixes to the problems (arguably to poor effect). They aren't really proposing fixes, because the necessary remedies to truly mitigate the worst of the damage coming forth require massive shifts in how we view capital. No politician currently in the western hemisphere can hope to succeed on such a platform. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:The very fact that the "fixes" are too poor effect indicate that no, the overwhelming vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats have not accepted the science. It's "I accept climate change, but..." is the familiar line. If they truly did accept the science, projects like the Keystone pipeline would not have ever entered the discussion. This is slightly different for me - Bureaucrats are frustrated and angry that obvious things that should be done are not being done. I think [with few notable exceptions eg Australia] the majority of politicians have accepted the science, but I also think what you say is also true - they are not getting on with it. The reason is they are allowing short term views to dominate the electoral cycle. Where this short-termism does not pervade (eg China) there are more significant measures being made. I also agree that a politician saying 'you're screwed' but I can save the next generation is not going to get up. The answer there seems to be to take a bipartisan approach (which is also why proposed measures get dumbed down to the last swing vote). I also think that there does not necessarily need to be a massive shift in how we value capital rather it is more true to say that the capital value of a range of assets will massively shift: eg coal, CSM, shale gas etc. This is a profound point - that the market does not crash - it just goes up or down; there is nothing in climate change or the proposed responses to it that in anyway requires changes in the nature of capital markets - they can just persist as always. Albeit with a new commodity to value and trade. Changes in values will likely play out in the same way as the arrival of some new disruptive technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Hypation posted:This is slightly different for me - Bureaucrats are frustrated and angry that obvious things that should be done are not being done. I think [with few notable exceptions eg Australia] the majority of politicians have accepted the science, but I also think what you say is also true - they are not getting on with it. The reason is they are allowing short term views to dominate the electoral cycle. Where this short-termism does not pervade (eg China) there are more significant measures being made. One aspect of what acceptance entails is a consideration of the anthropocenic. If you are persuaded of the anthropocenic nature of climate effect then you are also considering a shift from the Holocene to Anthropocene that is taking place right now. This is being produced by humanity (you and I). If you have come to consider that to be the case, then you also have to consider not just functional means in the matter, but the grounds for those means. This involves a shift in world view as significant as shifting from a Ptolemaic to Copernican view of the universe. It's upsetting, particularly if one self identifies as a beneficiary of Holocene thinking and action. It's no wonder people in such a condition have struggled. The implications of imagining that human activity now effects planetary systems at the same scale as those systems themselves are profound. It's not just something like "how will markets be effected?" The fundamental epistemology of the industrialized world, effective in terms of survival advantage for a small portion of the planet's inhabitants in the late Holocene, is now killing all of us. The notion that we are all separate and separate from a self occurring world of objects can no longer be maintained. The notion that the effects of our living are limited to niches in time and space no longer functions. The functional niche becomes the planet as a whole and not just in this moment. The level of interconnectedness implied by that requires a very different set of assumptions about our reality. Much of the inability to act is indeed based on the argument about who will pay the costs and reap the benefits associated with the necessary changes. Clearly that has been shown to be an inappropriate way of considering our current condition. Sogol fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Some fun, dirty math. I believe you mean "Totally okay and not at all bad." The hardest part about explaining climate change is that 0.6C seems like a small increase to most, for example I personally wouldn't be able to discern a change that small through feel, but it is actually a huge number and a massive amount of heat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
https://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085 And... http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf And THIS is how you deal with cranks like McKintire quote:"Dear Mr McIntyre, Thats the Vice chancellor pretty much telling him to get hosed. Official man at the top laying the smackdown action on conspiracy theorist punks. The lawyers advice is even better quote:“I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.” lol duck monster fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Hypation posted:I don't get why we are still debating the existence of climate change after 15 to 20 years of debate. The overwhelmingly vast majority of politicians, scientists and bureaucrats have accepted the science and are working on fixes to the problems (arguably to poor effect). Meanwhile the very few sceptics who remain are off on a rage to irrelevance. I don't necessarily disagree that even in America, politicians and the bureaucracy agree that climate change is real and is happening. However, the consensus generally seems to be "we will maintain our way of life through the use of force". Absolutely nobody is realistic about the economic implications of tackling climate change. This applies to the bourgeoisie (even those funding climate denialist mouthpieces), whose upper echelons are increasingly concerned with private security devices and social systems designed to insulate them from any possible climatic or social disruption. It equally applies to the Pentagon and American national security apparatus, who recognize that climate change, resource scarcity and the resulting social instability will drive the conflicts of the 21st Century. Denialists aren't important for what they say. They are important because they produce rhetorical flak and provide political cover for people to keep doing business as usual. It's cynical manipulation of public discourse to keep substantive change from happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
duck monster posted:https://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085 Thanks for that, as I suspected it looks like it was the Frontiers/NPG lawyer who nixed it on the basis of British law at the time: quote:The journal’s lawyer, who is based in England (as was Lewandowsky by that time), was very concerned about the journal being sued for libel. At that time, British libel laws left scientists, peer-reviewed journals and journalists exposed to potentially ruinous lawsuits for publishing fair criticism of a company, person or product. (Of all the jurisdictions in which academic journals are published, the UK has historically been one of the most generous to libel claimants.) That changed on January 1 this year, when Britain’s libel laws were amended to reverse the chilling effect on science and legitimate public debate. Claimants must now show that they have suffered “serious harm” before launching legal action. Good to see that's changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
The only positive that might come from this (I'm extremely skeptical regarding the mainstreams ability to continually evolve a story for obvious reasons), is that the severity of the problem will now finally be getting more widespread media attention. Tonight on NBC, one hour special on CC 7pm eastern: Ann Curry Reports: Our Year of Extremes We'll see if it's phrased as the typical "Asking questions" or actually reflects the scientific consensus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Thom Hartmann interviews Guy McPherson. Pretty depressing conversation where he quotes some of the same studies as that Nation article from last December. I recommend a cute kittens compilation viewing afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
WaryWarren posted:Thom Hartmann interviews Guy McPherson. Not as cute as kittens, but it should be noted that, years ago, he was saying that our cities would go dark by 2012. Paper Mac probably covered it best, though... Paper Mac posted:Guy Mcpherson is a fairly nutty doomer and should be read in that light. There's no particular reason to treat him as an authority, given the kinds of sources he relies on for his conclusions and the disingenuous way he treats even good data. tmfool fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
WaryWarren posted:Thom Hartmann interviews Guy McPherson. The best description of the guy I've heard is "photo negative of a climate skeptic". "[s posted:David Dees[/s] Guy McPherson"]“In other words, near-term extinction of humans was already guaranteed, to the knowledge of Obama and his administration (i.e., the Central Intelligence Agency, which runs the United States and controls presidential power). Even before the dire feedbacks were reported by the scientific community, the administration abandoned climate change as a significant issue because it knew we were done as early as 2009. Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does.”
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Thanks for that, as I suspected it looks like it was the Frontiers/NPG lawyer who nixed it on the basis of British law at the time: That said, I would have loved to have seen the CRU people (And Mann etc) using the libel courts in the UK as a venue to revenge-gently caress those behind the whole climate-gate frame-up, starting with the Murdoch Press and taking in Watts/McKintire/etc. What was done to those scientists was cruel and frankly a little bit evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
How about this:quote:March 28, 2014, AUSTIN, TX – March winds brought a new wind power record to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region Wednesday evening, March 26, when instantaneous output reached a record 10,296 megawatts (MW) at 8:48 p.m. The transition to renewable energy sources is possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
After catching up after not reading this thread for a long while... I'm just gonna go outside, light a cigarette, and enjoy a relatively nice day the likes of which my children, and their children, and their children, and their children will yearn for their entire lives. ... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:How about this: http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-the-age-of-renewables-is-beginning--2014-3 Can't seem to find the actual report though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
I'm not seeing anything that would explain how they would avoid the power gluts and shortages that Germany has been having under their new energy plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I'm not seeing anything that would explain how they would avoid the power gluts and shortages that Germany has been having under their new energy plan. I've heard development of hydrogen fuel cell technology advanced as a method of storing excess wind/solar/hydro power for later use. Rifkin's been talking about it for a few years now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5FU0N5nf8U), but I haven't looked into it much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:hydrogen fuel Has there been any advancement in dealing with hydrogen embrittlement and permeation for storage or transportation? Or is a Nickle alloy still the best we have atm? Hydrogen ,as a fuel, would be a huge boon for renewables due to the single fact that it can turn renewables into base load power or power on demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
That Irish Guy posted:After catching up after not reading this thread for a long while... Myself and the missus have both had small breakdowns over the last two weeks respectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Myself and the missus have both had small breakdowns over the last two weeks respectively. I deal with this in the course of my work a lot. This is my take on what is sometimes involved and is not meant to be prescriptive of your experience, which may be very different. One way to consider it is that when we confront all this we are also often confronting a kind of identity death. The future "promised" by the industrialized social contract is not going to be delivered. (It is already not being delivered.) When our expectations about the future are violated we can sometimes go through what is essentially an existential crisis or identity crisis. To the extent that any one of us is self identified, consciously or not, as a beneficiary of the social contract violated, that crisis can be pretty extreme. When it is the functioning of the social contract itself that is creating the conditions of violation, well then it can truly suck. Basically, the journey to come to terms with the new reality (the anthropocene and all it's implications) requires a fairly profound journey that is emotional and psychological rather than simply cognitive in nature. This is made worse when the condition is collective. That is, the crisis we feel in ourselves is actually mirrored and amplified in the world around us. I often loosely reference the Kubler-Ross death and dying process in conjunction with this. Not only are we experiencing a kind of identity death, we might also be grieving for a lost future and the felt reality of our part in that, whatever that may be. Much of this thread can be read as dealing with that. - denial, in which I delete and distort data to keep my identity and status as a beneficiary in tact - anger, in which I find the appropriate parties to blame: old people, rich people, the Chinese, poor people, the US, scientists, religious fundamentalists, etc., etc. - bargaining, in which I look for solutions that allow me to keep my identity, status as a beneficiary and the imagined future in tact: primarily the belief in free market and technological miracles, which may be necessary, but are likely insufficient for a variety of reasons - depression, in which I loose all sense of agency, hope or belief that I can do anything about it at all. Sometimes also expressed as fiddle while Rome burns. - acceptance, in which I come to terms with my new reality, such as it is. At this point it is possible to engage in authentic action which is not based on the same assumptions that are creating the initial conditions of violation. It becomes possible to sense the emergent future with a new set of alternatives and possibilities. That process can take months or years and is not linear. Personally, I have been thinking about and working on the conditions of climate effect and then the anthopocene since 1989. I first began really having complete meltdowns around 2003 or so. It took me several years to then completely reorganize my life in a way that I felt was actually correlated to the emergent conditions on the planet and figure out how to live locally given those. It is still a work in progress. In great part I now work with people in the industrialized social contracts of the generation most hosed over and betrayed by what we have wrought as they confront the current condition and go through that process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Aren't you guys being a bit melodramatic? If you're posting here, chances are that you live in the first world and that GCC isn't going to kill you, your family, or your kids and it won't drastically change your lifestyles. Subscribing to some kind of enviroapocalypse fantasy seems like a masturbatory exercise especially since it lets you avoid taking any action. "I'm going to enjoy the weather out today because my kids will have to live in a boiling Venusian hellscape", seriously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
This would be an appropriateshrike82 posted:Aren't you guys being a bit melodramatic? This would be an appropriate kind of response if one somehow felt themselves separate and insulated from the rest of the world and did not imagine that the production of the first world itself was intimately linked to conditions of suffering on the planet or the production of current anthropocenic effects. If on the other hand one imagined such planetary interconnection (a premise of the anthropocene) then one might have to consider the possibility that not only are the industrial social contracts unlikely to deliver some "promised" future they must also be radically reimagined. The radical reimagining might be felt to have radical (personal) consequences once encountered. Really encountering the degree of inter-connectivity implied by the notion that human action is now effecting planetary systems at the same level as those systems themselves might rock your world if taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Sogol posted:- denial, in which I delete and distort data to keep my identity and status as a beneficiary in tact A lot of this stuff is deliberate disinformation from corporations, who don't grieve. There's no point looking for some cultural narrative here, the present situation is explained perfectly well by corporate disinformation and governments who benefit more from ignoring the truth than from confronting it. And yeah, I don't understand the point of getting sad about it. That's what you pick to get sad about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
What exactly are the promises you feel are not being fulfilled?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Heh, word salad at its finest. Look, if you're envisioning a mad max future for your family, own it and become a survivalist. Convert your life savings to guns and gold. If you have an "intermediate" view and are worried about your kids dying in the 2039 climate wars, consider migrating to Canada or other first world countries most likely to weather climate change. Invest in stocks of renewables and other sectors likely to benefit from serious global warming. Weeping silently at your computer that this was the golden age of humanity is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Canada will be devastated when the US and Russia go to war over Arctic drilling and shipping rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Are half of you posting out of a survivalist bunker somewhere? There won't be any actual wars between first world powers in the climate wars but proxy resource conflicts through south Africa and Asia so first world goons don't need to worry about being drafted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Sogol posted:That process can take months or years and is not linear. Personally, I have been thinking about and working on the conditions of climate effect and then the anthopocene since 1989. I first began really having complete meltdowns around 2003 or so. It took me several years to then completely reorganize my life in a way that I felt was actually correlated to the emergent conditions on the planet and figure out how to live locally given those. It is still a work in progress. In great part I now work with people in the industrialized social contracts of the generation most hosed over and betrayed by what we have wrought as they confront the current condition and go through that process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:If you're posting here, chances are that you live in the first world and that GCC isn't going to kill you, your family, or your kids and it won't drastically change your lifestyles. GCC is definitely going to affect me because of sea-rise and wildfires. I live in Ventura County, just off the coast of California. I haven't suffered from wildfires personally but as a volunteer with the Red Cross I'm expected to help out during disasters which include wildfires. And when I was student at California State University, Channel Islands they almost had to evacuate the campus during the middle of classes. If wildfires are supposed to get a lot more intense and more frequent then it won't be too long until we need to open up overnight shelters for several hundred people who live on or near my Alma Mater along with evacuation shelters for several thousand people. This thought fills me with sorrow and dread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:A lot of this stuff is deliberate disinformation from corporations, who don't grieve. There's no point looking for some cultural narrative here, the present situation is explained perfectly well by corporate disinformation and governments who benefit more from ignoring the truth than from confronting it. While this is the case and can be seen to be the case, the individual axis of coming to terms with a radically changing world is also a thing. It is not just some abstract narrative. You for instance are typically angry and blame some other for the current condition as you understand it. Please understand, I am not saying you are wrong. I am just applying the model I suggested. It is only a model and so always wrong and only sometimes useful. computer parts posted:What exactly are the promises you feel are not being fulfilled? This would take a long effort post suggesting a view of social contracts related to our current condition, and I may do that given time this week. Even so it would just be my (adopted) model of it. Because of things I have written up-thread I do not find it particularly useful to engage the question of our current condition with the intent to persuade anyone of anything. Another easier way into it is to locate what you imagine participation in the social contract promises you. It's a contract. You contribute to it. What do you expect back? Typically it is along the lines of the means for health, security and happiness with emphasis and particular means varying. To whom do you feel some form of these should be delivered amongst participants in the contract? Everyone? Most people? A few people? Who do you feel should be the beneficiaries of such a social contract? Do you feel your current social contract is delivering that, or not? Do you feel that it is likely to deliver whatever you imagine as the benefits of participation to your children and grandchildren? One of the clearest definitions of sustainability is the ability of a social contract to function generationally without destroying the environment in which it is functioning and upon which it depends. Do you feel that is currently happening? What do you feel the bounds of the social contract are? Who is "in" and who is "out"? Why do you feel that way? What is the basis for that? One aspect of our current emergent condition is that we are no longer all separate in the way we might sometimes imagine. This means that it takes a real exercise of force to create and maintain separation. This has not always been the case. Previously our actions could be considered geographically separate, occurring in niches, and in this way to also have limited temporal effect. This is no longer the case. Not only are we all face to face now (e.g. there is no one more than two hours away from the net), we are also collectively effecting the planetary systems at the same scale as those systems themselves. The functioning niche is now the planet itself. Time scales of the effects are very different. This might have a fairly significant impact on who one considers "in" or "out" of a social contract and what that might mean. These are the kinds of things I mean when I suggest that the industrialized social contracts are no longer functioning. They have not yet adapted to the current planetary conditions and may be unable to do so. Sogol fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I.G. posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're having meltdowns because of climate change, you have a more fundamental problem. Billions of people have had to deal with horrible man made disasters for as long as there have been men. And while its certainly a good idea to try and understand and prevent problems before they occur, despairing over the unknown Horrors of the Future is a huge waste of time and energy. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am of the view that if you are not encountering some level of meltdown you are artificially insulating yourself from our current condition. I don't expect you or anyone to believe that. This particular moment in time is quite different, if you imagine there is anything at all true about anthopocenic effect. Humanity is living through a change of geological era, created in great part by the collective action of humanity on the planet. The views above your post that "I will be insulated because I live in the first world" seem a bit off to me. Even if true, what are you having to do in order to stay 'insulated' and what are the consequences of that elsewhere? Personally I do not think it is exactly true in any case since what we are considering is the effect on planetary systems expressed locally, which are deeply interconnected by their nature, and you are on the planet. These are very rational and essentially comforting arguments, but they don't really deal with our condition. Perhaps though, people are not encountering it as a shared condition?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Aren't you guys being a bit melodramatic? Well the area I've lived my whole life and had planned to raise my kids in getting more and more susceptible to storm surge and it's leading me to think it would probably be better to deal with uprooting my life and moving elsewhere then dealing with it once it gets even worse. And this isn't being directly experienced by me, but I know several people in California's Central Valley who own farms that are getting harder and harder to manage due to the increasingly drier and hotter climate. I've noticed changes to wildlife and the regular seasonal cycles that bode poorly for the continued existence of several bird and insect species I've always loved to observe. I'm not seeing some kind of crazy Mad Max future per se, but if people are already having to deal with these kind of issues now it makes me think that in forty years things will be a lot harder. I find the idea that this is the unavoidable legacy that is being left to the future rather sad. I'm honestly a bit surprised that someone could accept that climate change is occurring and not be sad on some level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
No one's saying you shouldn't feel anger or sadness about the impact on the world. But if you're having literal meltdowns about planetary systems, you might be better off taking a step back. Not too mention that d&d isn't the best venue to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
We're hosed, and I really have not much hope for our corrupt and disconnected politicians to actually get their poo poo together and really start fixing this poo poo hardcore before it's way too late. Partially, it already is. Only good thing is I live somewhere where the change won't practically kill me, but that doesn't stop me from despairing for the planet as a whole. gently caress capitalism. That's all I got.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:No one's saying you shouldn't feel anger or sadness about the impact on the world. But if you're having literal meltdowns about planetary systems, you might be better off taking a step back. Not too mention that d&d isn't the best venue to talk about it. The difficulty with complex systems and complexity is the multi-scale nature. One common understanding of resilience has to do with the capacity to integrate across scales when considering design and action. This means things like local, regional, continental, planetary of course. It also means individual, familial, community, society, culture, etc. It is possible to bound ones feelings, thoughts and experiences within some particular scale, but this ignores both the complexity and the possibility for resilience. Climate deniers are typically doing this for instance. The basis of most denial arguments can be found in the proponent's level of identification as a beneficiary of the current system or contract as they understand it. This insulates from feeling the costs associated with the successful production of that system. Another further complication of the current condition is that we cannot separate social systems from environmental systems specifically because the social systems are creating the planetary effect. It is also not useful to completely separate a felt reality from a cognitive reality. Doing so limits the access to change, as we can see in these comments intended to rationalize away the need for fundamental (2nd and 3rd order) changes. The cognitive frame is necessary and in its current form insufficient. Rebecca Costa's "The Watchman's Rattle" is about that question from a neurological point of view dealing mostly with the inability of either synthetic or analytic thinking in and of itself to effectively process and work with the level of complexity currently being generated by human activity and society. To be clear, as I have said many times in this thread I am not a survivalist, nor a pessimist. Far from it. Nor do I think an emo response or first world guilt and such things are useful in and of themselves. I do think there is a holistic process involved. For instance I spend a great deal of time supporting and creating the basis for scientifically grounded policy generation at the moment. That requires a significant transdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort. In order to engage in such an effort it is often the case that participants and contributors have to go through some similar process since it is necessary to examine and consider changing some fundamental assumptions. This often involves a very personal examination of identity. This is not something that "gets in the way" of such efforts. It is intimate to the success of such efforts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Thanks shrike82 for swinging by and dropping some knowledge. I have plans to move out of my insulated bunker (my mom's basement) as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Rebecca Costa's "The Watchman's Rattle" is about that question from a neurological point of view dealing mostly with the inability of either synthetic or analytic thinking in and of itself to effectively process and work with the level of complexity currently being generated by human activity and society. Rebecca Costa is a pseudoscientific corporate huckster. quote:Rebecca Costa is an engaging and deeply knowledgeable trendist and thought leader whose first book, The Watchman’s Rattle, reveals a game-changing message regarding our ability to thrive in the complex world we have created. In a fascinating and accessible read, Costa clearly posits that the escalating complexity of our personal lives, technological capabilities, and government policies have led to conditions—worldwide recession, global warming, pandemic viruses—that have outpaced our ability to manage them. After indentifying and articulating this dynamic, Costa offers an opportunity to address it. She reveals scientific evidence that the human brain can be retrained to comprehend, analyze, and resolve massively complex problems. We can give ourselves brain tune-ups, cultivate “insight-on-demand,” and make a significant impact on the seemingly intractable challenges we face today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
That's what Sogol's posts remind me of! I couldn't put my finger on why his systems thinking gibberish sounded so familiar but I just realized that it comes from the same vein of thought as Gladwell and Toffler. Or... RealityApologist!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:39
|
|