|
A Bag of Milk posted:I put around $40-50 a week into my 401k even though my net monthly income is $1,500ish. I could definitely use the extra money on a week to week basis, and I've tried to think long and hard about what it is I'm doing. I turn 65 in 2054. What will the world look like in 2054? Will I ever see my money again? I have no faith in the stability of the future. I wouldn't even say with any degree of certainty that the United States will exist in 2054. I have come very close to cutting my contributions completely. The only thing that has stopped me is that I'm not yet willing to accept that level of resignation. The implications of ending my contributions weighs heavy on me psychologically. Are you saying I should simply be more aware of where exactly my money is going and where I'm investing? I'm not sure how much better that would make me feel. Anything you would suggest specifically? If you think the US will collapse, holding stocks is way more valuable than having cash. Theoretically your shares of Coca-Cola represent a percentage of ownership in the company, and even if half of the developed world collapses, that's still half a world of customers for them. And if you're holding cash in that scenario, that does absolutely nothing for you. Honestly your contributions towards any industrial activity causing the downfall of society will be just as bad as if you use that money as spending money now versus investing it in the companies whose products you're buying. If you're at the point where even thoughtful and measured contribution to the economy starts to make you feel uncomfortable, the only real way out of that psychologically is to find a job where you're helping to deal with the problem.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:If you think the US will collapse, holding stocks is way more valuable than having cash. Theoretically your shares of Coca-Cola represent a percentage of ownership in the company, and even if half of the developed world collapses, that's still half a world of customers for them. And if you're holding cash in that scenario, that does absolutely nothing for you. Except that if the state collapses, you lose the legal apparatus responsible for enforcing your ownership claims on that corporation..?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Except that if the state collapses, you lose the legal apparatus responsible for enforcing your ownership claims on that corporation..? America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
If you're only managing to save 1-2k a year, you might as well spend it now since it's not enough to retire on. You should be praying for a climate apocalypse if anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I'm dumb. My guess is planting a ton of trees won't do much to prevent global warming right? I'm only asking because I've seen people suggest that or say "C02 isn't a harmful gas! Trees use it!" and I can't help but wonder how trees will get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4304/full/ncomms4304.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
quote:Conducted by geophysicist Dr. Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University in Montreal, the study analyzed temperature data collected since 1500, paying particular attention to changes in the past 125 years, since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. quote:Lovejoy's research, which was unfunded, uses carbon dioxide as a surrogate for other human-caused and natural events associated with climate fluctuations, including land-use changes and aerosol pollution from volcanic eruptions -- variables that can often stump computer models. quote:Even with his more rudimentary form of analysis, Lovejoy notes, his results are pretty much in line with estimates by the IPCC and National Academies of Science. The study predicts that doubling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius; the IPCC's projection was for an increase of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius under the same scenario. quote:"Increases in CO2 is strongly linked to global economic activity," Lovejoy says. "To a good approximation, if you double the economy, you double the emissions -- and, therefore, you double the effects." quote:Raymo clarified that none of the recent changes in the climate can be explained by the Earth's distance to the sun, solar output or our planet's elliptical orbit. If anything, the climate community has often underestimated and understated the rate of climate change and its projected impacts, she says. quote:So, just to set the record straight on sea-level rise. The IPCC's worst-case scenario forecasts a sea-level rise of 26 to 59 centimeters (10 to 23 inches) by the end of this century. But that is based on a temperature rise of 5.2 degrees Celsius—whereas the IPCC itself said that temperatures might rise 6.4 degrees Celsius. By lowballing the possible temperature increase, the IPCC reduced the estimate of sea-level rise by six inches, Rahmstorf calculates. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Can't wait for Arkane to tell us what he thinks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
A new model, based on no new data, is roughly consistent with the dozens if not hundreds of other models that have been presented before. I don't think it's really going to be a game-changer, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Can't wait for Arkane to tell us what he thinks Or if you say sea level rise three times in front of a mirror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:I put around $40-50 a week into my 401k even though my net monthly income is $1,500ish. I could definitely use the extra money on a week to week basis, and I've tried to think long and hard about what it is I'm doing. I turn 65 in 2054. What will the world look like in 2054? Will I ever see my money again? I have no faith in the stability of the future. I wouldn't even say with any degree of certainty that the United States will exist in 2054. I have come very close to cutting my contributions completely. The only thing that has stopped me is that I'm not yet willing to accept that level of resignation. The implications of ending my contributions weighs heavy on me psychologically. Are you saying I should simply be more aware of where exactly my money is going and where I'm investing? I'm not sure how much better that would make me feel. Anything you would suggest specifically? The only specific investment advice I would give you is to ignore any specific investment advice from me. What I meant, and I think what you have pointed toward, is about the real time effects of investment. Investment by its nature is an imagined future. If we also consider that our actions in this moment tend to correlate with the future we perceive then the nature of that imagined future, and so investment, becomes important. How does being vested as a beneficiary effect us? From what are we benefitting? What are the systemic effects? There are also some interesting models associated with investing in particular ways. One of them is the retirement model itself. What does that mean? It's a kind of transaction in the social contract. I pay (invest) now, often working in ways that are not my actual preference, in order to have some form of life I want later. Maybe I imagine what that life will be like? I make plans, etc. I believe that I am investing in the realization of that retired life. The nature of the investment is a transaction. It is financial in nature. If I have enough money, then I can have the life I want. The model is one in which our well being and happiness are predominantly a financial matter. It probably also relies on the assumption of a meritocracy. There is no real investment in the social fabric or some local milieu. The stock portfolio that sits behind a 401k has no local investment at all. The interests represented have no systematic responsibility locally. It is an investment in the financial economy that systematically ignores local and natural economies. This doesn't mean "don't do it" necessarily. I don't happen to, but that is just me really. For myself, I think this model of retirement is broken. It contributes to a broken model of life. The life I want is out there someplace. It's as if I imagine that at a certain point in time some big switch is going to flip, my state will change and I will now be happy. In the meantime I am engaged in things that often do not seem meaningful to me or might even be direct contradictions of that imagined life and my values. How does such a model effect my decision making and what I see or delete now? Often I will not have done anything to actually prepare myself for the imagined life. I have not practiced living the way I imagine I want to live. I probably have imagined specific form to this life in some way. I may be attaché to and self identified with that form. In industrialized social contracts this often takes a particular shape, informed by self as consumer. I believe in some way that my happiness and freedom are a direct consequence of my affluence in the society. The first expression of this is that I believe if I have this or that then I will be happy. At some point I might realize this is not working out and experience some form of crisis. I might switch at that point from my material model to some sort of spiritual consumerism. Instead of things, I now become a workshop junky, seeking enlightenment or something. I believe if I can have this or that experience then I will be happy and those forms are not consistently present in my life now. In this equation happiness is always outside of me, distanced from life. I have episodic events I might associate with happiness. They are often related to stimulus. As a system, since happiness is assumed to be external, any investment in this system of attainment reinforces the externality. Since I have episodic events I come to believe that I am simply not doing enough of what I am already doing. Things and affluence have not made me happy. It's not a problem with the model of self as consumer, it is simply that I don't have enough things. It's my own belief that various forms of this model are cooked right into the system that is currently producing these planetary effects. For me then, this means that such investments are investments in my benefitting from the active (and often unconscious) participation in the production of a shift from the Holocene to Anthropocene. It is also the case for me that this model is one of the main factors contributing to our inability to responsibly deal with the planetary effect we are creating. From within the model we are in an argument about who will benefit and who will pay costs, all the while ignoring the actual and immediate costs of that argument, regardless of who wins or loses by the terms of the legacy model. To invest means I now have a vested interest as a beneficiary of the model producing the effect in some way or other. How do I deal with that? Do I have some coping strategy? Do I have some sort of post hoc rationalization so it can make sense to me? Are there coping mechanisms involved? In an extreme case I come to believe that the negative consequences of the model in which I am now a vested participant are outweighed by the benefits. I may come to believe that only the legacy system can "save" us, even as I suffer it in some way in the immediacy of my own life. I double down, etc. For myself, I have found that living the values that are important to me is not served by investing in the equations of the financial economy as a beneficiary. These might be the values I imagined associated with some model of "retirement", but often manifest in very different forms. If is change something about that equation certain things seem impossible, but other things that might be invisible from within the legacy system become possible. Rather than living some recipe or formula that I imagine produces a predictable outcome I must become very creative in an immediate way. True this could fail, but that could be said about any life. One of the ways to understand the legacy model is as a defense against impermanence. It is an attempt to apply control based on the assumption that the world will kill us if we do not. Instead maybe I embrace something about impermanence and change, not as a nihilist, but as a creative participant. I begin to have my life focused on a different sort of investment. Of course it is difficult because there is not exactly a trodden path. We are changing planetary conditions. We don't know exactly what works now or the changes in assumption, ways of being and living required for the emerging condition we are actively creating. We can learn from the legacy model. We can learn from indigenous models. We can learn from emergent and revitalized ways of knowing. They don't map directly or offer some sort of pre-made predictable solution. The strategy of applying control for the sake of predictable outcomes is at the heart of the legacy model and intimate to the production of the planetary effect. For me one of things this means is having an evolving, positive vision of a localized life. That localized life is not a fortress life, because by definition that is neither sustainable or resilient. Such a vision may specify form, but that is a shifting landscape so it needs to be based in a set of values, principles and practices that allow a great diversity of formal expression. The nature of that vision needs to be much larger than me. My well-being must be possible as a by-product of working on the vision, not the end point of the vision. This is true about the boundaries of self, community, geography and time. For resilience I must be actively integrating across vastly different scales. At the same time I must have a clear view of the current and emerging conditions. My vision cannot simply be some means of dissociation or comfort. I must learn to hold both that future and this present together at the same time. This creates a great deal of tension in myself and potentially for others if I effectively invite them into that process and practice. For most people that tension is very uncomfortable. Initially my attention may oscillate. I can attend to one or the other, but not both at the same time. As a result of the discomfort we often enact a bunch of coping mechanisms to deal with it. This might mean compromising some aspect of the vision. Equally it could mean going into a land of unicorns and rainbows in which we ignore the current condition. It could also mean all sorts of lateral movements of distraction and entertainment. I might do things to attempt to "throw off" the energy or desensitize myself in some way. The thing about many forms of such coping mechanisms is that they themselves become problematic. I then have to deal with the coping mechanism and it's effects, rather than the base condition that spawned it. Often I will spawn another form of coping to do this, and so on. This is all a description of a system in structural tension. It is the structure of the system itself that creates the tension. In this case we are talking about a system made up of an imagined future and a felt present. The tension can be understood as the implied gap. One dimension of the structure is the current condition. This involves investment in understanding the current condition and creating shared understanding in community. The current condition is constantly changing and fundamentally impermanent. The other end of the system is some individually or collectively held aspiration or vision. This exists only while we maintain our attention. This also means that it can be made more or less stable. Systems in structural tension tend to resolve toward the point of stability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Sorry, this post was a while back, but I feel the need to reply to it.Pobama posted:It is pretty bleak no matter how you look at it. I think that equilibrium in China is moving back towards sustainability, honestly - the situations caused by coal burning have massively emboldened environmental causes over there. Heck, even Greenpeace is optimistic about coal growth stopping and reversing. Getting solar power to take rise in India before it ends up going in China's direction of dependance on coal is a necessary step that will have to be taken, but since India is a bit behind China on that timeline, we still have time to allow that to happen. And with solar power becoming cheaper and cheaper, I think it is definitely possible. Increase in population doesn't have to mean increase in emissions, with today's technology. About those factories and sweatshops rendering our contributions worthless: They'll be burning coal no matter what, and we have no real way to change that outside of protests and boycotts (which can have an impact). But if you and I decide to walk or take the bus rather than driving, that indisputably stops gas from being burnt that otherwise would be burnt. I imagine a lot of people convince themselves "someone else will buy the gas, why bother trying to cut my own emissions when it'll be cancelled out?", but that's a pretty harmful mindset. It's the idea that "my actions have no potential positive impact" that allows the status quo to be maintained. And I think we all agree that's bad. I'm being perhaps a little overly-optimistic about these things. That's just who I am - I'm an optimist, I don't believe that humanity is going extinct or going to revert to a Stone Age lifestyle (though strengthening local infrastructure to withstand the processes in action is necessary). I do recognize that massive changes in our relationship to the earth will need to occur. We'll need to recognize that the car industry and petrochemical industry have an expiration date. But individual action is incredibly valuable, if only because of its ability to change momentums. As for me, all I can do on my limited budget right now is take the bus everywhere, buy from farmers markets, and be glad that I'm living in Seattle, where almost all the electricity comes from relatively sustainable sources. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Regarding things we can do, I've started the challenge of limiting myself to one serving of meat per day. It's actually really not that hard and somewhat fun, mainly because my college campus has an Indian fast food place. Curry is goddamn delicious, and I'm going to try making some at home just to see if I can. When my semester ends, I would imagine that all I need is a little creative grocery shopping to keep to this target, but we'll see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
India's diet is actually relatively sustainable, given that so much of the population is vegetarian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:India's diet is actually relatively sustainable, given that so much of the population is vegetarian. For real though, does it appear that any of the two major Indian parties have the clout to create a Green Deal in the foreseeable future? India already has its Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission but what beyond that? America Inc. fucked around with this message at 00:05 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
So, fun stuff is happening in my state. When you ship crude oil by rail, eventually this happens.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:For real though, does it appear that any of the two major Indian parties have the clout to create a Green Deal in the foreseeable future? I admit I'm not too knowledgeable on that topic, but I do know that the MNRE is a pretty major government office there with substantial clout. The solar mission is going well, according to this article.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:So, fun stuff is happening in my state. Mine too, but not nearly as bad: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57884340-78/crash-lanes-canyon-parley.html.csp
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:So, fun stuff is happening in my state.  A false flag so Obama will approve keystone!!1!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
One of the pervasive arguments I continue to see deals with the warming trend over several millenia compared to what is generally presented in popular media as warming over the past few hundred years. My typical rebuttal to this is that scientists take all that into consideration when evaluating lines of evidence and ultimately reaching consensus. That is to say, given all that history the current warming trends have never been observed to impact the earth to the degree that these recent phenomena have. Thus, it is cause for concern. Here's an example email that I receive from climate change skeptics: quote:Ok. You’ve probably seen these graphs. I trust you don’t dispute them. Ignoring the fact the the sources quoted weren't attributed, what would be the scientific response to this? I have attempted many Google Scholar searches for this information but quickly get bogged down in the minutiae of individual pieces of evidence for each article.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
As I understand it the issue is the rate of change not just the change itself and the impact on our agriculture as it exists. Great, it was hotter when dinosaurs were around. They didn't need to grow wheat and rice and whatever else in huge quantities to feed their populations.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:So, fun stuff is happening in my state. At least it wasn't like the Lac-Megantic incident.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Hitch posted:One of the pervasive arguments I continue to see deals with the warming trend over several millenia compared to what is generally presented in popular media as warming over the past few hundred years. My typical rebuttal to this is that scientists take all that into consideration when evaluating lines of evidence and ultimately reaching consensus. That is to say, given all that history the current warming trends have never been observed to impact the earth to the degree that these recent phenomena have. Thus, it is cause for concern. First, the poo poo they're spewing out is designed specifically to be difficult to refute, because, yeah, of course they're not going to cite sources, and of course they'll try and obfuscate the real issues with dumb paleoclimate crap. Present day society and all the wonderful species around us didn't adapt to conditions 2 million years ago or 200 million years ago. What was "normal" then is not "normal" now and is irrelevant to now. People, and all our agriculture and cities, are adapted to present day conditions. A rapid change in climate over the course of a few decades or centuries will change that climate we're all adapted to, causing all sorts of devastation. You can go back in the geologic record and find that every rapid climate shift parallels an extinction event. The PETM and Permian extinction events are great examples of this, and they happened over the course of thousands of years. Essentially, it's a variation of the "but it's been colder/warmer in the past" talking point, which has nothing to do with the present crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
I take issue with the idea that not burning a gallon of gas "indisputably" means it won't be burnt. Wouldn't a reduction in gasoline demand lead to a lower price, inducing demand that would not otherwise have existed at the higher price, pushing the price back to an equilibrium level? Like, I may have not taken a road trip until I saw that gas was below a certain amount.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I take issue with the idea that not burning a gallon of gas "indisputably" means it won't be burnt. Wouldn't a reduction in gasoline demand lead to a lower price, inducing demand that would not otherwise have existed at the higher price, pushing the price back to an equilibrium level? Like, I may have not taken a road trip until I saw that gas was below a certain amount. You're basically talking about the rebound effect
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:For real though, does it appear that any of the two major Indian parties have the clout to create a Green Deal in the foreseeable future? No, not really. The national Indian government is too weak compared to state governments, and the legislature and body politic is rather dysfunctional.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
The National Climate Assessment has been released, and it's terrifying. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ Report shows compelling evidence on how climate change is affecting us now, in a wide variety of ways. Which will be helpful when trying to convince others about the need to fight it. I am extremely impressed at how user friendly and accessible they made the report though. It's an interactive website full of helpful graphs and illustrations, and written in language the average person can understand. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ No kidding, that's a well-done site.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I take issue with the idea that not burning a gallon of gas "indisputably" means it won't be burnt. Wouldn't a reduction in gasoline demand lead to a lower price, inducing demand that would not otherwise have existed at the higher price, pushing the price back to an equilibrium level? Like, I may have not taken a road trip until I saw that gas was below a certain amount. Not necessarily, because other factors control the price of gas (for example, fracking is not economically feasible unless it's above a certain price per gallon, so there's an interest in keeping prices high).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The National Climate Assessment has been released, and it's terrifying. It also manages (I think) to frame things in a way that doesn't induce panic if one only goes over the highlights (which most people will likely do.) as the graphics show not too much of a change if we start working on this now. This makes me feel slightly better, but then I'm reminded that we aren't acting now, so...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not necessarily, because other factors control the price of gas (for example, fracking is not economically feasible unless it's above a certain price per gallon, so there's an interest in keeping prices high).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:What price is that? You say high, so like, $3.50? $3.00? It kind of varies based on the field but some go as high as the mid $90s/barrel. The current price is about $99/barrel.  (figure 16) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9506 From there: "PRO FORMA WELL 100 = well with a total of 100 000 Bbls [barrels of oil] produced during the first year, etc."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The National Climate Assessment has been released, and it's terrifying. It is well done. I as about to post "Amazing, it's actually the lead story on cnn.com, holy gently caress it actually got them off of that plane sto-" - then I noticed it was just replaced with "Monica Lewinsky is writing an article!"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The National Climate Assessment has been released, and it's terrifying. 4 degrees by 2050 "on the business as usual scale". Yeehaw. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
tmfool posted:4 degrees by 2050 "on the business as usual scale". Yeehaw.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:4 degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius. If BAU was 4 C by 2050 we might as well start composing requiems for the human race.  Oi, thanks for the correction. This is what I get for trying to quickly read this stuff and post from my phone. Anyway, overall it looks like a pretty great site to be able to send to people looking for the bullet-points.
tmfool fucked around with this message at 01:54 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
A fun animation of the data on CO2 in the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UatUDnFmNTY
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Can I buy climate change derivatives?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Can I buy climate change derivatives? They're called oil futures.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
The authors of that National Climate Assessment thing did an AMA on Reddit, and they didn't cock it up (at least, not that I can see). If, for some reason, you browse Reddit on occasion like I do, the link to this AMA is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/254diy/science_ama_series_we_helped_create_the_third/
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Can I buy climate change derivatives? Not anything that would be long enough to eliminate short-term noise. I'm up for a friendly wager if you want to present your terms. Also up for a monetary wager if it's allowed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 16:29
|
|