|
FAUXTON posted:We're also genetically programmed to not reproduce if biologically infeasible. Granted, civilization (even in the third world) has mitigated that particular condition out of relevance but it isn't like humans don't have an evolutionary governor built into our genes to start causing more frequent miscarriages if there isn't enough food or sleep to go around. Hmm interesting. Have some links on it? Also what do you mean about mitigated out of existence, along the line of food abundance?
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But seriously, If you already are a net producer of carbon-free electricity, offset all your emissions, go to local, regional and national meetings and hearings, don't eat meat or use other high impact good, never fly, and still feel that you can't raise a child that would be a climate net positive, then yes don't have kids. So if you don't do those things, then you should have kids?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So if you don't do those things, then you should have kids? No, just you probably have other things to do too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
I think most of the conflict over this discussion comes from the divide between what YOU can do to change your carbon footprint, and what SOCIETY as a collective needs to do. If YOU want to reduce how much carbon you produce, drive less, eat less meat, adopt kids instead of having your own, etc, however this advice is not applicable to SOCIETY as a whole, which one can hardly say is capable of making any decisions at all. At the society level scale, change can only be effected by changing the incentives and disincentives that drive large scale decision making. For example in 1989 Iranian lawmakers realized their annual population growth rate of 3% would shortly overwhelm their capacity to provide basic services. In response they totally overhauled their natal policy, promoting contraception, providing vasectomies, and reducing maternity leave and welfare for families after their third child. This resulted in the birth rate declining to 1.2 by 2001. Will YOU not having children effect global carbon emissions? Not significantly. However the decrease will be real however small, and if that's important to you go ahead and take pride in your service. Individual choice has driven the decline in global birth rates, which is incredibly important for meeting carbon goals. Few people will really judge you for having a few kids though, because we know real change has to happen at a national or international level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Nope, they're not. Planned Parenthood is fantastic, and people not having babies when they are unprepared to do so is a good thing. People opting to not have babies if they don't want them is cool too. Any argument beyond that when it comes to having children or not isn't really worth arguing incessantly about, though! Woah, woah, woah! You can't have it both ways Mack, didn't you know about Planned Parenthood's connections to the popular Eugenics movements in the early 20th through important figures such as Margaret Sanger? And here you are supporting them, when we should be recognizing the rotten edifice of the birth control movement that goes all the way down to the core, with Eugenics as one of the main motivations! Sorry ladies, I hope you enjoyed the not having unwanted children thing while it lasted, but as pwnyXpress has reminded us, birth Control in the modern age is actually still all about Eugenics and exterminating the weak as myself, Radbot , Salt fish and other people have argued in the following posts: quote:... Okay seriously though, as I've said umpteen times, when I say its probably best to not have kids these days it has nothing to do with some goddamn love of Eugenics, just like how the modern Planned Parenthood organisation doesn't really have anything to do with some of the Eugenicist influences that were there when it first started to form, its to do with idea that it's one of the most straightforward ways to not vastly increase the amount of emissions you'll end up having over the next 80 odd years (and also, if we accept what seems to the depressing but likely direction that Climate Change will lead us, any kids you have will likely be living a significantly worse off life than their parents as a result I find it immoral to bring people into the world just to satiate any desire I might have to be a parent). khwarezm fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Don't worry guys this guy figured out how to minimize one's carbon footprint!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
quote:I enjoy doing laundry about as much as doing dishes. I get my clothing custom made in China for prices you would not believe and have new ones regularly shipped to me. Shipping is a problem. I wish container ships had nuclear engines but it’s still much more efficient and convenient than retail. Thanks to synthetic fabrics it takes less water to make my clothes than it would to wash them, and I donate my used garments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Hmm interesting. Have some links on it? Also what do you mean about mitigated out of existence, along the line of food abundance? Well short of just pointing at the body of science on darwninian fitness and reproductive success, here's an article on how famine and lovely social environments affect pregnancy outcomes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15986988 Things like being chased by predators and chasing game aren't a major part of human existence anymore, that's what I mean by mitigated out of existence. Only under extreme and rare circumstances do you find pregnant women enduring strenuous physical labor to the point where it causes a miscarriage. I mean in the Midwest US you get the occasional story from L&D nurses about the farm kid who doesn't know she's knocked up until she's rushed to the ER, having conceived and then miscarried because she worked 14-hour days wrangling hogs, and just spent the past couple weeks as a walking coffin before her body decided to expel the spontaneously aborted fetus. From a biological standpoint, most vertebrates suffer from lower fertility and fecundity when food and safety are scarce. Somewhere millions or billions of years ago some lifeform rolled the right dice and had genes that prevented them from being able to reproduce below a certain ratio of diet to activity right around a time when nature handed them a famine and a surplus of predators. The end result was that the ones with the higher "minimum specs" for fertility were able to tough it out due to having fewer offspring or less frequent offspring. If all of that sounds like "poo poo that isn't a concern for modern humans" you'd be right, which is why I said it's been mitigated out of existence. E: This isn't a validation of "the female body finds a way to shut that whole thing down," though. Rape doesn't really make the cut as readily as starvation and exhaustion do. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
When the inevitable legal challenge to Obama's "ambitious" plan comes, I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing. They stymied Obama's efforts to limit toxic mercury because the cost of compliance was too high. They might do the same again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:When the inevitable legal challenge to Obama's "ambitious" plan comes, I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing. They stymied Obama's efforts to limit toxic mercury because the cost of compliance was too high. They might do the same again. From what I understand the regulatory methods involved are rather different and the challenge to the mercury rule doesn't apply to the carbon rules. I believe the specific regulations at issue in the mercury case deal with when the EPA mandate a specific technology, which is not the case in the climate rules. However, the supreme court can do whatever they want really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:When the inevitable legal challenge to Obama's "ambitious" plan comes, I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing. They stymied Obama's efforts to limit toxic mercury because the cost of compliance was too high. They might do the same again. But don't businesses have a constitutional right to never have to suffer slightly lower profitability because of government tyranny?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:From what I understand the regulatory methods involved are rather different and the challenge to the mercury rule doesn't apply to the carbon rules. I believe the specific regulations at issue in the mercury case deal with when the EPA mandate a specific technology, which is not the case in the climate rules. A 5-4 decision that amounted to an admission that, yes, C02 is a pollutant and can be regulated by the EPA doesn't inspire much confidence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Woah, woah, woah! You can't have it both ways Mack, didn't you know about Planned Parenthood's connections to the popular Eugenics movements in the early 20th through important figures such as Margaret Sanger? And here you are supporting them, when we should be recognizing the rotten edifice of the birth control movement that goes all the way down to the core, with Eugenics as one of the main motivations! Sorry ladies, I hope you enjoyed the not having unwanted children thing while it lasted, but as pwnyXpress has reminded us, birth Control in the modern age is actually still all about Eugenics and exterminating the weak as myself, Radbot , Salt fish and other people have argued in the following posts: You sure got yourself riled up here over things I didn't say! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:You sure got yourself riled up here over things I didn't say! pwnyXpress posted:Guys I have a lot of data showing how eugenics would be positive thing for the human race, you can't argue with that!  Birth control constantly gets linked to Eugenics by people who like to smear it, especially planned parenthood because of its early history. Its moronic, and seeing pro-life twats regurgitate this kind of thing:  Makes me wonder why you decided to get into to a conversation about birth control and having kids with the Eugenics crap that nobody else mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:
You're the one that linked the two? I never said anything about PP, and honestly didn't know they had an early history with eugenics stuff. Who cares, since they are good now? I posted what I did as a sort of rolling-eyes response to Radbot's blind march into further derailment: Radbot posted:You've got data on childless-by-choice couples vs. quiverfull? I'd love to see it. Radbot posted:Do you have any data on this or does it just "feel" right? Radbot posted:Still waiting on that DINK data. Making decisions based on data is generally a good thing, I agree, but data isn't the end-all-be-all of decision-making, hence the eugenics example. Getting stuck on kids/notkids is by far the stupidest thing this thread (which isn't a conversation about birth control, if you check the title!) ever does for a number of reasons. I was trying to add my version of: Dubstep Jesus posted:shut the gently caress up about kids
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Getting stuck on kids/notkids is by far the stupidest thing this thread (which isn't a conversation about birth control, if you check the title!) ever does for a number of reasons. I was trying to add my version of: Maybe you could step up and offer something productive to discuss instead of white noise posting about the quality of other people's posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Maybe you could step up and offer something productive to discuss instead of white noise posting about the quality of other people's posts. pwnyXpress posted:How about thorium plants?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Maybe you could step up and offer something productive to discuss instead of white noise posting about the quality of other people's posts. pwnyXpress posted:I'm at a special collaborative meeting of scientists in climate, atmospheric science & chemistry, and space science for the next week and a half. Any interesting unknowns you want me to keep an eye out for? To which only one person really replied. Apparently I never got back to him/her also. Sorry Fasdar, there seems to be a lot of work being done on "full-atmosphere" models, incorporating the upper atmospheric physics into the already fairly robust oceanic and tropospheric modeling. I didn't see any indications of an updated biomass map, though that wasn't the focus of the meeting, so it doesn't rule that out. There was a little bit of talk regarding the Last Millennium simulation (http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/experiments/cesm1.1/LM/LastMill_ensemble.html, you can actually run this one on your own computer if you want!), and how it uses a few different maps for historical terrain changes, but it didn't seem fully fleshed out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Maybe you could step up and offer something productive to discuss instead of white noise posting about the quality of other people's posts. Dubstep Jesus posted:shut the gently caress up about kids
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:I posted what I did as a sort of rolling-eyes response to Radbot's blind march into further derailment: What the gently caress does eugenics have to do with anything that I've said? Hell, it's reverse eugenics if anything, since I want to reduce first world births which are disproportionately white compared to the world as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
What's the largest capacity thorium plant currently operating and what's the largest capacity thorium plant under construction? Honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What the gently caress does eugenics have to do with anything that I've said? Hell, it's reverse eugenics if anything, since I want to reduce first world births which are disproportionately white compared to the world as a whole. Its called an analogy. You appear to demand action based on data only, as if other factors such as human feelings don't matter. Trabisnikof posted:What's the largest capacity thorium plant currently operating and what's the largest capacity thorium plant under construction? Honestly curious. AFAIK, the only currently up-and-running project is the Kamini experimental reactor in India, which, though it wasn't built expressly for thorium, is the only reactor in the world that uses U-233, which is created through irradiating ThO2. But there is a whole lot of buzz around the topic right now (wikipedia has a good rundown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Current_projects), especially regarding LFTR tech, which seems awesome. It seems to me that India is leading the pack, currently building a 300 MW thorium-only plant (the AHWR) probably because they own most of the thorium. I'm a physics guy, not an engineer, but everything I've seen so far seems very promising, and if it works out we can effectively phase out fossil fuels almost entirely and still continue to increase the standard of living around the world for a long time (see: until we can develop livable space colonies and mine asteroids to satisfy our gluttony).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Moving away from the kids and eugenics discussion, what are the chances that we can carry out a massive decarbonization program following a C02 peak in the late 2020s or early 2030s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Moving away from the kids and eugenics discussion, what are the chances that we can carry out a massive decarbonization program following a C02 peak in the late 2020s or early 2030s? I'd say don't hold your breath for major action as early as 2020. The 2016 elections coming up are going to decide the presidency all the way up to 2020 and I don't know that any of the primary candidates would have the will power to enact major environmental action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Moving away from the kids and eugenics discussion, what are the chances that we can carry out a massive decarbonization program following a C02 peak in the late 2020s or early 2030s? It's hard to say. We could probably get it done surprisingly quickly if there are one or more serious inciting incidents that galvanize political and social will, since there are a lot of private and military researchers currently working on it, or if the denial industry were to dry up (Charles Koch has a deathbed conversion? the American right abandons denialism as a lost cause?). The technology is largely there, either in practice or theory. The big imminent problem is hitting peak elements; we're not too far out from peak helium, for example. What I suspect is going to happen is a new space race, since NASA announced a while ago that, if everything lines up, they can probably get colonies on the moon within our lifetimes, which could then be used as a relatively safe place for asteroid mining. If China's economy doesn't poo poo the bed in the next couple of years, they'll be trying to beat the U.S. there. That would theoretically solve some if not all of the peak-elements problem, although it's obviously a hail-Mary of a plan. Just the same, it seems to be where a lot of the big money is going right now. I'm a little more optimistic than a lot of people in this thread. I can't imagine that human civilization is simply going to roll over and die without a fight, especially once you start running into issues like Miami sinking. Eventually even the dumbest denier's not going to be able to ignore all the evidence, and as a species, we can get a lot done if we focus. What I'm more worried about is overenthusiastic geoengineering; we could, right now, with available technology, sequester a lot of the atmosphere's carbon content (mineral carbonation, Audi's "blue crude," algae reactors, etc.). It'd take a lot of money and effort, but we could do it. It's just a question of what we gently caress up in the course of doing it. Either way, the next twenty years or so are going to be interesting. We've got to dismantle consumption culture, get most of the world off of cheap meat, encourage a low birth rate, clean up the environment where possible, revolutionize farming, do something about methane clathrates, kill the suburbs, and substantially change the concept of personal automotive transportation. I suppose the good news is that most of this is worth doing for reasons besides pure environmentalism; I really think that a big part of this century's going to be spent cleaning up after the last one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
I'm having a kind of crappy morning so I'll fill in for the usual pessimists....Wanderer posted:I can't imagine that human civilization is simply going to roll over and die without a fight, especially once you start running into issues like Miami sinking. There is no human civilization singular. What we have are many human civilizations, most of whom will gladly sacrifice the well being of others (traditionally those with less wealth and power than they) so they do not have to sacrifice (or hell, even make a zero-sum change) themselves. The sinking of Miami would be regarded as a national tragedy after the fact, and beforehand just another opportunity to profit off the preparations - meaning only those with means will be able to benefit. It would literally take the plot of either Independence Day or Armageddon to see action by anything you could regard as human civilization singular, and people acting in concert on a global scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Eventually even the dumbest denier's not going to be able to ignore all the evidence Is this based on any evidence or just blind hope?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Not having a baby still does nothing to fix your current emissions portfolio. The status quo, sans another baby is bad. Keeping the status quo by not having another baby is still bad. The thing people conveniently seem to miss here is that choosing to not have a first world child is not equivalent to changing out your lightbulbs, or selling your car and taking mass transit, or cutting meat from your diet. Or all of those combined. Having a first world child is a serious carbon impact that is astronomically higher than the green choices an individual makes can counter. For reference: http://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html quote:A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. But but but... won't someone think of the children? http://www.alternet.org/environment/does-having-child-make-me-carbon-villain quote:The researchers preempted the collective guilt response from parents ("But what if I recycle and take public transportation?"). They measured the potential savings of replacing your old car, fridge, windows, and light bulbs with energy-efficient versions, driving less and recycling. Those lifestyle changes were insignificant compared to the environmental burden of producing another human being: a Prius-driving, composting, American woman "would save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, but, if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 (18,882 t) to the earth’s atmosphere." Oh. In other words, the average first world individual cannot make a more impactful choice than to not have children, and no amount of "going green" can balance it out. I guess maybe if you abandon society go live in the woods, completely off-grid, you might pull it off, but beyond that? No way. Yes, the underlying problem is the emissions generated by our standard of living, but I can all but guarantee your average person would watch the 3rd world burn to the ground before they gave up their air conditioning. It's not just education we need on that front either, but also a willingness to accept lower standards of living. Anecdotal, but I know only two people that would be willing to do so. Everyone else I know would reject it outright. Not that anything of the sort is going to happen of course. We'll ride this thing straight into the ground, and we won't think twice about it. It might inconvenience us! So, until first world living standards change, choosing to not have a child has an impact, and it's the biggest you can make. vvv Or that. Av027 fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Luckily, since a hypothetical child exists in the future, not having one cannot possibly save emissions from occurring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
For any of you keeping score at home, Av027 is not only unequivocally correct, but also one of the most on-point posters in the whole thread. The point he is making about a necessary reduction in the first world standard of living is one that nearly all of the folks touting political solutions in this thread completely fail to address, and it just happens to be one of the key reasons why all this ecological breakdown is happening. Until people are willing to give up all their fancy things (which, coincidentally, actually don't make any of us happier, despite what you may believe), none of this is going to get much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:For any of you keeping score at home, Av027 is not only unequivocally correct, but also one of the most on-point posters in the whole thread. The point he is making about a necessary reduction in the first world standard of living is one that nearly all of the folks touting political solutions in this thread completely fail to address, and it just happens to be one of the key reasons why all this ecological breakdown is happening. Until people are willing to give up all their fancy things (which, coincidentally, actually don't make any of us happier, despite what you may believe), none of this is going to get much better. gently caress the 3rd world, I'm not giving up my air conditioning and internet and xbox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:gently caress the 3rd world, I'm not giving up my air conditioning and internet and xbox. You might not have the option when those third worlders come knocking at the door to escape their situation! Silver lining: Globalization is probably gonna force everyone but the super rich into poverty anyway as wages continue to be driven down, so maybe accelerationism really IS the solution to global warming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Fewer people would obviously be better for the planet but those studies are relatively limited because they boil down the production of another human to a set of numbers. Accurate numbers that make it very clear what it means to have a child in the first world, but limited all the same. An ecological and responsible society does not appear over night and traditions to build a better world must be handed down. From my experience families are the most effective way at passing those traditions down, both good and bad. I'd rather 10% more humans on the planet if that 10% actively and effectively pushed the planet towards the equilibrium it demands. What if a continual generational effort were to reduce carbon emissions by a third for each generation? Or to expand biodiversity and reclaim marshes and forests? Look at how the Soviet and US nuclear stockpiles are being reduced as each generation tries to disarm human civilization of them. Once we, as a species, understand the threat there will be broad and powerful efforts to counteract it. Right now we're suffering through a middling stage where the powers that be can actually hinder the movement forward, but compared to when they could outright stifle the debate we have made tremendous progress and within ten years the powers of civilization will be bent towards saving and restoring the environment. Even now, and largely due to electing Obama as president, our society has shifted gears and we are building the market forces that can start making a huge difference. Again, think of how electronics have developed since the 1970s and you will see simply unthinkable levels of advancement in that field. In time the bulk of humanity's research and development capacity will be shifted to what it needs to be focused on. I see the main issue that much of the damage will be irreversable and that we're going to lose huge amounts of our liveable and arable land Carbon emissions for having a child should be considered, analyzed and used to make an informed decision. For some people the personal answer will be not have children for an endless and infinite amount of reasons and for most the personal answer will be to have a family of whatever size they choose. If you want to debate in absolute terms feel free, but carbon emissions are just another factor in the already complex subject of having children for a responsible citizen. And, of course, it's a virtue to reproduce because otherwise the chain of life kind of falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:And, of course, it's a virtue to reproduce because otherwise the chain of life kind of falls apart. This is part of the problem right here. The is some biological drive, some genetic and subconscious push, to be forever expanding and growing. That drive is now pushing past the limits of the Earth itself. You have to extinguish this type of thinking to ever have any hope of beating resource exhaustion and global warming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This is part of the problem right here. The is some biological drive, some genetic and subconscious push, to be forever expanding and growing. That drive is now pushing past the limits of the Earth itself. You have to extinguish this type of thinking to ever have any hope of beating resource exhaustion and global warming. It's not the psychological drive to reproduce that is pushing humanity past the limits of Earth itself. It's industrialization and an economic system that requires compound growth to survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:It's not the psychological drive to reproduce that is pushing humanity past the limits of Earth itself. It's industrialization and an economic system that requires compound growth to survive. I didn't say "reproduce" I said "expand and grow" and I was talking about unchecked industrialization as well as reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I didn't say "reproduce" I said "expand and grow" and I was talking about unchecked industrialization as well as reproduction. Yeah, I got you. But I am unsure of how much of that is a natural biological drive and how much is learned from growing up in an all-capitalist ideological universe, where continual growth, consumerism, and expansion have become expected, normal things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Is this based on any evidence or just blind hope? I should actually walk it back. At this point, anyone who's a warming denier isn't doing it because of their fervent adherence to the scientific method. Just the same, they're a minority, and wouldn't be worth discussing if so many of them weren't obnoxiously influential. kaynorr posted:It would literally take the plot of either Independence Day or Armageddon to see action by anything you could regard as human civilization singular, and people acting in concert on a global scale. Nah, it'd be more like World War II, which means we're just waiting for an FDR or Churchill. It's a question of implementing the various different possibilities all at once, wherever they're best used. I was reading about an interesting project earlier today, one of the finalists in Richard Branson's competition, where they use ground olivine to sequester waterborne CO2 by turning it into carbonate, which is relatively low-impact geoengineering that would go a long way towards combating detoxification. There was a more sobering report that air capture of CO2 won't do that much for warming, but the study assumed it was the only thing being done, so I don't think you can count capture technologies out yet. Part of the problem with the discussion, I think, is that so many of the people having it are culturally hard-wired to expect an apocalypse or a collapse. I doubt we'll see either, because we're seeing this from far enough off to do something about it; we may see problems, but I doubt we'll see loving Mad Max. We have the tools to do a lot about this; it's just a question of having the capital and the will. On another note, are any of the thread regulars in Seattle? I'm thinking about heading downtown in the next few weeks to check out some of the urban farming collectives. It seems to me like that would be a productive use of my time, but if anybody's been there ahead of me I wouldn't mind your perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
How are u posted:gently caress the 3rd world, I'm not giving up my air conditioning and internet and xbox. Actually it uses less energy to provide A/C than heat where it snows. Abandon the cold, embrace our hot future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805 Don't mean to get all hurr, better check your facts first so quick but in the first paragraph you already see something that is incorrect. Olympic National Park has burned many times in recent memory. http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/management/fire-history.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:01
|
|