Radbot posted:I just don't understand the faith people are placing in "technology will save us and we won't technically go extinct in the next 100 years due to +4C", while it's pretty clear the world economy teeters on a knife's edge as it is. To me, it's not about us being physically capable of surviving climate change, it's about it not being an insanely destabilizing influence on everything humans do. Just because the world economy teeters on a knife edge doesn't mean we're going extinct. I think you have way too much attachment to our current material circumstances. Do you realize that the vast majority of human existence looked nothing like what it does today and everyone was fine? Like people had lives and feelings and things?
|
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:10 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 16:31 |
|
down with slavery posted:Just because the world economy teeters on a knife edge doesn't mean we're going extinct. I think you have way too much attachment to our current material circumstances. Do you realize that the vast majority of human existence looked nothing like what it does today and everyone was fine? Like people had lives and feelings and things? A world without internet is a world not worth living in.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:25 |
|
down with slavery posted:Just because the world economy teeters on a knife edge doesn't mean we're going extinct. I think you have way too much attachment to our current material circumstances. Do you realize that the vast majority of human existence looked nothing like what it does today and everyone was fine? Like people had lives and feelings and things? The fact that it took "the vast majority of human history" to reach the current state of civilization doesn't exactly bolster your argument. Everyone was fine because they were adapted for the circumstances of their time, and in all but the last century or so, that adaption is well past having died out of human memory. It doesn't even begin to be as facile as "attachment."
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:45 |
|
FAUXTON posted:The fact that it took "the vast majority of human history" to reach the current state of civilization doesn't exactly bolster your argument. Everyone was fine because they were adapted for the circumstances of their time, and in all but the last century or so, that adaption is well past having died out of human memory. It doesn't even begin to be as facile as "attachment." Do you seriously think that humans are gonna die off because we're too spoiled from having a good as poo poo life for a couple centuries then not being able to cope with things going lovely? That's fuckin dumb, dude. There's plenty enough resources on the planet to keep a breeding population of humans going. Humans aren't going extinct unless someone gets around to building a serious rear end bomb that can blow up the Earth or poison the whole atmosphere or something.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:57 |
|
I think most people are more attached to the survival of modern civilization than the survival of humanity as a species.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:58 |
|
nm
white sauce fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 25, 2014 |
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:58 |
|
FAUXTON posted:The fact that it took "the vast majority of human history" to reach the current state of civilization doesn't exactly bolster your argument. Everyone was fine because they were adapted for the circumstances of their time, and in all but the last century or so, that adaption is well past having died out of human memory. It doesn't even begin to be as facile as "attachment." There are people who live in countries where this doesn't happen at all. Places like Somalia spring to mind for me, for instance. Not everyone on Earth has a silver spoon in their mouth.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:00 |
|
Inglonias posted:There are people who live in countries where this doesn't happen at all. Places like Somalia spring to mind for me, for instance. Not everyone on Earth has a silver spoon in their mouth. Yup, literally just posted this above, except I wasn't as nice about it. Yea, try being born in one of the poorest developing countries, seeing people live such lovely lives that even if they spent all of their income on food they would still go hungry, watching their lovely houses get destroyed when El Niño comes along, etc...
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:04 |
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Yup, literally just posted this above, except I wasn't as nice about it. Yea, try being born in one of the poorest developing countries, seeing people live such lovely lives that even if they spent all of their income on food they would still go hungry, watching their lovely houses get destroyed when El Niño comes along, etc... To be fair, that doesn't exactly sound like my idea of a good time, but as someone told me when I said something similar: Uranium Phoenix posted:4C isn't going to kill everyone. It will be horrific, but "we're all literally dead" is hyperbole. That having been said, still. Climate change:
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:23 |
|
Oh good, so extinction is off the table for the near future. I feel better already.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:16 |
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Oh good, so extinction is off the table for the near future. I feel better already. Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:19 |
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Oh good, so extinction is off the table for the near future. I feel better already. Don't worry, the iPhone 7+ is going to be so sick...
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:19 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action. Unfortunately the world is divided into a bunch of rival capitalistic nation states and that makes things a lot harder
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:20 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action. Who here is making hyperbolic statements about human extinction?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:34 |
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Unfortunately the world is divided into a bunch of rival capitalistic nation states and that makes things a lot harder It does, but spreading untruths when people are having trouble believing the facts isn't exactly helpful. By the way, it is in globalist, capitalists and stateists best interests' to mitigate and adapt to global climate change. Why do you think they talk about it at Davos and Jackson hole? A Bag of Milk posted:Who here is making hyperbolic statements about human extinction? Anyone who says human extinction is likely in the next 100 years due to 4+C
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:38 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Anyone who says human extinction is likely in the next 100 years due to 4+C Nobody said that.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:25 |
|
Kurnugia posted:A world without internet is a world not worth living in. As someone born before the internet was available, I will completely endorse this. Try having 3 loving channels on the tv, which you can't really see because reception sucks. Pohl fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 25, 2014 |
# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:28 |
|
ChairMaster posted:Do you seriously think that humans are gonna die off because we're too spoiled from having a good as poo poo life for a couple centuries then not being able to cope with things going lovely? That's fuckin dumb, dude. There's plenty enough resources on the planet to keep a breeding population of humans going. Humans aren't going extinct unless someone gets around to building a serious rear end bomb that can blow up the Earth or poison the whole atmosphere or something. You know what's fuckin dumb? Conflating "no we won't be fine" with "we're all gonna die off." what the hell possessed you to assume I was saying humanity would go extinct? That's what loving shitposters do, but ironically. God drat. You shouldn't leap to the same dumbass conclusions you're trying to argue against.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:53 |
|
Well there's still the methane clathrate gun waiting to go off, and nobody knowns when that's gonna happen. And well, if the oceans have been absorbing all the excess heat in the system for the past two decades...Trabisnikof posted:Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action. Well for a pessimist like yours truly, the worst outcomes give a sort of schadenfreudian satisfaction. I mean, ACC has been a known danger for half a century and we've basically done nothing but sniff our own farts and wax lyrical about the futurum perfectum under neolibertarian global capitalism. I'm just hoping transhuman technologies get to the point where I personally might achieve some sort of ascension before things go completely poo poo.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:59 |
|
It's funny watching people hand wave away the collapse of modern civilization like that wouldn't be a big deal. A lot of people would die. I guess it's goony to be concerned about the greatest Holocaust humanity will ever endure though, since technically humans will still be able to eke out a miserable existence.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:03 |
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Nobody said that. Radbot posted:I just don't understand the faith people are placing in "technology will save us and we won't technically go extinct in the next 100 years due to +4C" Kurnugia posted:So the question I keep asking myself is, do I have reason not to be utterly pessimistic about the prospects of humanity to survive this century on Earth? You can bicker about semantics, but those are both hyperbole. Who's climate scenarios predict human extinction in the next 100 years or due to +4C? Apocalyptic talk is already being uses to resist mitigation and adaptation. If humanity is doomed, why ruin the party just to clean up before the cops arrive? If we care about trying to mitigate or adapt hyperbole won't help us convince recalcitrant actors. Radbot posted:It's funny watching people hand wave away the collapse of modern civilization like that wouldn't be a big deal. A lot of people would die. I guess it's goony to be concerned about the greatest Holocaust humanity will ever endure though, since technically humans will still be able to eke out a miserable existence. The collaspe of modern civilation in the next 100 years either has nothing to do with climate change or is completely unsupported by climate science.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:03 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:The collaspe of modern civilation in the next 100 years either has nothing to do with climate change or is completely unsupported by climate science. How much of the world's arable land do you figure we could lose and not have a more-or-less global collapse of civilization? How much arable land do you figure we're going to lose at +2C? What about at +3C? +4C?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:08 |
|
I predict that modern civilization will not in fact collapse in the next 100 years.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:09 |
Has anyone ever actually done that sort of interdisciplinary analysis of how climate change could (or currently is) affecting social/political/economic systems?
|
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:37 |
|
^ Yes, that's what this IPCC report does. There are tons of other studies too. The IPCC is inherently conservative in their results since it is a consensus document. Kurnugia posted:How much of the world's arable land do you figure we could lose and not have a more-or-less global collapse of civilization? How much arable land do you figure we're going to lose at +2C? What about at +3C? +4C? Well, there's a nice report that this group called the IPCC did you might want to read if you're interested in the topic: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf But please make sure to read where they define their terms as they use them in very specific ways. quote:For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. After 2050 the risk of more severe yield impacts increases and depends on the level of warming. See Figure SPM.7. Climate change is projected to progressively increase inter-annual variability of crop yields in many regions. These projected impacts will occur in the context of rapidly rising crop demand. Fig SMP.7: Note that this figure includes a wide range of climate response scenarios including a no adaptation scenario. So when you see the 20% potential for massive crop losses in the out years, that's if we stopped adapting (which we're funding much better than mitigation because its easier to sell). Here's another chart looking at the range of possibilities of % change per decade by crop: Edit: to drive the point home about climate change and the global economy... quote:For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to reduce energy demand for heating and increase energy demand for cooling in the residential and commercial sectors (robust evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to affect energy sources and technologies differently, depending on resources (e.g., water flow, wind, insolation), technological processes (e.g., cooling), or locations (e.g., coastal regions, floodplains) involved. More severe and/or frequent extreme weather events and/or hazard types are projected to increase losses and loss variability in various regions and challenge insurance systems to offer affordable coverage while raising more risk-based capital, particularly in developing countries. Large-scale public-private risk reduction initiatives and economic diversification are examples of adaptation actions. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 25, 2014 |
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:42 |
|
Winter Rose posted:Has anyone ever actually done that sort of interdisciplinary analysis of how climate change could (or currently is) affecting social/political/economic systems? Yes and nobody but goons have predicted the imminent collapse of civilization and reversion to a premodern state within the next century based on the scientific data available.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:42 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ I think I read the last year's version of that, but thanks. I know there are a lot of different models which predict wildly different outcomes for different scenarios, and as I'm not a Climate Scientist I wouldn't dare to comment on the likelihood of any of them, but I find it hard to believe we're heading for world where global food supply is going to be increasing lockstep with population. But really, my question was what would be the consequences if we lost a few percentages of agricultural yields by say, 2030? You'll remember what caused the Arab Spring I'm sure. From: http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf Point being, it doesn't take a whole lot to make social order to shake. How much does it take for it to crumble?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 23:02 |
|
Kurnugia posted:I think I read the last year's version of that, but thanks. Are you sure they covered the same topics? The IPCC Working Group II is not the same thing as the IPCC Working Group I. Kurnugia posted:But really, my question was what would be the consequences if we lost a few percentages of agricultural yields by say, 2030? You'll remember what caused the Arab Spring I'm sure. Point being, it doesn't take a whole lot to make social order to shake. How much does it take for it to crumble? But if you actually read the report you claim to have read, the IPCC addresses the incremental impact of climate change on those risks: quote:For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to reduce energy demand for heating and increase energy demand for cooling in the residential and commercial sectors (robust evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to affect energy sources and technologies differently, depending on resources (e.g., water flow, wind, insolation), technological processes (e.g., cooling), or locations (e.g., coastal regions, floodplains) involved. More severe and/or frequent extreme weather events and/or hazard types are projected to increase losses and loss variability in various regions and challenge insurance systems to offer affordable coverage while raising more risk-based capital, particularly in developing countries. Large-scale public-private risk reduction initiatives and economic diversification are examples of adaptation actions. quote:Climate change over the 21st century is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Displacement risk increases when populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, in both rural and urban areas, particularly in developing countries with low income. Expanding opportunities for mobility can reduce vulnerability for such populations. Changes in migration patterns can be responses to both extreme weather events and longer-term climate variability and change, and migration can also be an effective adaptation strategy. There is low confidence in quantitative projections of changes in mobility, due to its complex, multi-causal nature. Instead of asking leading "what if" questions, I think its more effective to look towards the things we can actually back up with evidence. The less we mitigate and adapt the more climate change will weaken international peace, create new refugees, endanger food security and disproportionally impact the poor. That's bad enough, we don't need to mislead with impacts we can't support through science. Because critics will point out these unsupported claims and use a wide brush to discredit the valid ones. We need to give critics of mitigation and adaptation less ammo not more. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Sep 25, 2014 |
# ? Sep 25, 2014 23:14 |
Radbot posted:It's funny watching people hand wave away the collapse of modern civilization like that wouldn't be a big deal. A lot of people would die. I guess it's goony to be concerned about the greatest Holocaust humanity will ever endure though, since technically humans will still be able to eke out a miserable existence. Who's handwaving it away? What sorts of material circumstances do you think are required for a human being to have an existence that isn't "miserable".
|
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 01:28 |
|
I'm looking forward to seeing how the loss of arable land interplays with ocean acidification. In a morbid kinda way.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 04:52 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because critics will point out these unsupported claims and use a wide brush to discredit the valid ones. We need to give critics of mitigation and adaptation less ammo not more. Critics are capable of pillaging strawmen for ammunition at will and this thread should be proof enough of that. Limiting the scope of our arguments to known certainties keeps us from using the tools that the critics are using to sway their audiences.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:15 |
|
Hello Sailor posted:Critics are capable of pillaging strawmen for ammunition at will and this thread should be proof enough of that. Limiting the scope of our arguments to known certainties keeps us from using the tools that the critics are using to sway their audiences. Just because critics use fear, untruths and distrust doesn't mean we should use those same tools. They just need to stop action, we need to coordinate action which is a more challenging task. You won't beat Rush to his audience by making claims that aren't backed by evidence. I'm not even arguing we should limit the scope of discussion to purely consensus, but recognize that apocalyptic talk is actively being used to delay or reduce mitigation and adaptation activities. So the more we talk about how humanity is doomed because *reasons* the more we reinforce apathy and nihilism. We can discuss a number of "what-if" scenarios that aren't supported by scientific evidence. Maybe global warming will cause the UN to become all powerful and we'll finally unify humanity? But if we start claiming that Climate Change has impacts that aren't backed by science we're no better than the denialists claiming Climate Change will be good for crops because CO2 and reduced winters (We can swim everyday in November!).
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:34 |
|
Let's limit our discussion only a very small set of very boring topics like climate change advocacy politics and *faaaaaaaaaaaaaart*
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 17:18 |
|
Kurnugia posted:Let's limit our discussion only a very small set of very boring topics like climate change advocacy politics and *faaaaaaaaaaaaaart* Yeah, why should we discuss climate change in the climate change thread?
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 17:23 |
|
No, I agree, we should talk about how climate change like vaccines cause autism, because people don't like autism and then they'll have to support ending climate change.
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 17:28 |
|
Okay, then citation needed. Go ahead and prove that people can't be moved to action by anything other than scientific fact or that scientific fact is the most effective motivator to action. Critics use emotional appeal, which is not automatically the same thing as "fear, untruths, and distrust".
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 18:06 |
|
Hello Sailor posted:Okay, then citation needed. Go ahead and prove that people can't be moved to action by anything other than scientific fact or that scientific fact is the most effective motivator to action. Great strawman, I never claimed we shouldn't use emotional appeals, just we shouldn't sit on a high horse about how we use science and our critics don't then proceed to mislead people about what is backed by credible scientific evidence. The impacts of global warming are in fact bad enough we don't need to make poo poo up or ask "what-ifs" to make a strong arguement on emotional, logical and ethical grounds.
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 19:12 |
|
Yes, fight amongst yourselves
|
# ? Sep 28, 2014 19:55 |
|
We really need to change the title of this thread to something more general about the environment. Keep that last part in there though, because we keep doing stupid poo poo like this quote:The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to a new analysis. Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found. I hate this species so much sometimes, including myself. Goddamn.
|
# ? Sep 30, 2014 04:22 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 16:31 |
|
Man I'm hungry right now
|
# ? Sep 30, 2014 05:45 |