|
Batham posted:Meanwhile, in Germany (because nuclear energy is EVIL) ... blowfish posted:Oh and Germany because gas can in principle buffer out spikes in electricity demand or supply in our badly organised renewable rollout (except it turns out gas plants running solely to fix cloud and wind and consumer randomness are money pits and utilities are fighting to get rid of the things again) Except for Bavaria, which seriously planned to get 50% of its energy from Russian gas.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
The Great Barrier Reef is dying: http://gizmodo.com/a-nightmare-is-u...dium=socialflow
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Great Barrier Reef is dying: Yep. At least it's a very visible thing to go wrong. Too bad the people with actual power and influence don't give a poo poo what the general population thinks of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/30/sea-levels-set-to-rise-far-more-rapidly-than-expectedquote:Sea levels could rise far more rapidly than expected in coming decades, according to new research that reveals Antarctica’s vast ice cap is less stable than previously thought. hosed, we're all hosed. Don't have children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
If all the smarter people don't have kids (presumably dumb people are going to continue doing so), it's going to be loving Idiocracy out in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:If all the smarter people don't have kids (presumably dumb people are going to continue doing so), it's going to be loving Idiocracy out in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Intelligence isn't linked to genetics in any detectable way. Correct, intelligence is instead possibly linked with opportunity. Quality of schools, enrichment in family life, money for college, ease or hardship of that education (do you have to work your way through?). There are things working against someone born in a poor family and capitalist society. I got through okay, but I had to work and study for eight years to get a degree, and I was lucky as hell to find FULL TIME work that paid well to support myself and pay tuition. In a world where even people with advanced degrees are looking for work in herds, I count myself ridiculously, stupidly lucky. Perhaps opportunity isn't the birthplace of intelligence, but it is certainly a gatekeeper. Idiocracy may have had a eugenic spin, but with the divide between successful and failing schools growing, income against inflation weakening, people trying to vouch their way out of schools or having to pay tax for schools, states abandoning their public institutions and tuition spiking, red states seeking ways to escape their responsibilities to their poor and finding them in the ex-stacked Scalea Supreme Court, on and on and on... ...we may well see dumber generations, or at least generations with greater proportions of economically-disadvantaged people. It is said the next Einstein is already alive, but she has to spend her days collecting firewood for her children instead. Edit: That ^^ is all off-topic, but the tie-in to Climate Change issues is that, in my opinion, it takes an uneducated / uninformed society to deny climate change at this point. If someone can be presented with the sum work of IPCC AR5 and new data like that collected from satellite atmo surveys and not see where this is going, they haven't been raised with enough respect for observable fact. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
See the failure with the "collapse of civilization via dumb people" idea is that we've only had like 2-3 generations where people in general weren't total illiterates and morons. Like if *that's* the thing that's going to kill society it would have done so hundreds of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:See the failure with the "collapse of civilization via dumb people" idea is that we've only had like 2-3 generations where people in general weren't total illiterates and morons. I don't buy into the whole Idiocracy thing but nuclear weapons have only existed for 71 years and: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:I don't buy into the whole Idiocracy thing but nuclear weapons have only existed for 71 years and: Nuclear weapons will not create an Idiocracy society, and you're posting a projection in which most likely the population peaks and decreases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nuclear weapons will not create an Idiocracy society, and you're posting a projection in which most likely the population peaks and decreases. The shows 3 possibilities; why is the peak and decreases option most likely?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The shows 3 possibilities; why is the peak and decreases option most likely? I'm referring to the orange one (it is clearly a peak). The other two are basically "this is the most extreme case our simulation created in either direction". If the red line is what you're basing your worries on, I have several bridges in New York to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
I'm just saying that in a human time scale we haven't had that much time to do something incredibly stupid with the giant nuclear arsenal and our illiterate moron ancestors didn't have as large of a footprint. If Antarctic ice shelves start snapping off in tandem with a big Siberian methane outgassing I'd imagine those estimates are going to sink a tad lower across the board. On the topic of outgassing, is the possibility of climate disruption triggering limnic eruptions like the lake Nyos incident something probable and severe enough to warrant serious discussion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
What the gently caress do nuclear weapons have to do with the possibility of 6 feet of sea level rise by the end of this dang century??
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:I'm just saying that in a human time scale we haven't had that much time to do something incredibly stupid with the giant nuclear arsenal and our illiterate moron ancestors didn't have as large of a footprint. 71 years is quite literally a human time scale. It's the life expectancy of a person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Yeah, we haven't had a nuclear war over the last 10,000 years, surely now that we have nukes and have gone a few decades without using them on each other we must be good for the next 10,000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:What the gently caress do nuclear weapons have to do with the possibility of 6 feet of sea level rise by the end of this dang century?? There's always more and it is always worse. Some of the people that have the keys are in all likelihood going to be dealing with some serious climate related crises before too long. computer parts posted:71 years is quite literally a human time scale. It's the life expectancy of a person. During which we "progressed" from two gigantic primitive low yield bombs to thousands of all shapes and sizes. Again, I don't actually think the premise of Idiocracy is either profound or actually happening. I'd say we have more opportunities to make things worse than ever before and more people to do it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:During which we "progressed" from two gigantic primitive low yield bombs to thousands of all shapes and sizes. Again, I don't actually think the premise of Idiocracy is either profound or actually happening. I'd say we have more opportunities to make things worse than ever before and more people to do it though. Good thing there's an explicit program to decommission warheads. Mozi posted:Yeah, we haven't had a nuclear war over the last 10,000 years, surely now that we have nukes and have gone a few decades without using them on each other we must be good for the next 10,000. The threat of nuclear weapons itself is mostly a Cold War relic. If there is a conflict involving nuclear weapons, it will be one involving regional neighbors, not a worldwide carpeting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The threat of nuclear weapons itself is mostly a Cold War relic. If there is a conflict involving nuclear weapons, it will be one involving regional neighbors, not a worldwide carpeting. I think the same thing was thought about the austria-hungry/serbia conflict that spawned WW1. I doubt very much the wisdom of discounting the dangers of nuclear warfare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think the same thing was thought about the austria-hungry/serbia conflict that spawned WW1. No, they thought the exact opposite. They thought it didn't matter because the war would be over quickly. We've gone from 68,000 active warheads 30 years ago to 4,000 today, the vast majority of which are in the US and Russia. The world is much safer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, they thought the exact opposite. They thought it didn't matter because the war would be over quickly. Okay, here is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYo25fEFlVc
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Okay, here is my source: Cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
I agree that the threat of all-out thermonuclear warfare is less than it was but overall humanity's capability to inflict destruction and negative externalities has... even 'vastly increased' is an understatement. Before the worst we could do was either kill a bunch of each other, wipe out some bigger fauna, set a bunch of fires, move species and disease around, whatever. We could be stupid and just fast forward a few hundred years and it's all good. Now we're talking about fast forwarding tens of thousands of years to be good again. Let's say the recent articles about sea level rise are accurate and we get 3 feet this century. How will global shipping work when the ports are underwater and there are these gigantic storms? If we need to figure out a technical solution to do something, anything, to help, would that even be possible when suddenly the world is big again instead of small, where suddenly nobody has enough food and millions upon millions of refugees are fleeing uninhabitable areas? Has what we've seen of the international system's response to these issues thus far (in regards to global warming, EU towards the refugee crisis, etc) given any confidence that these systems will still work in 50 or 100 years when these problems are much, much more serious? That is, can humanity adapt to not regress and lose, well, civilization, to survive the next tens of thousands of years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Let's say the recent articles about sea level rise are accurate and we get 3 feet this century. How will global shipping work when the ports are underwater and there are these gigantic storms? Well firstly "giant storms" aren't necessarily a given. There's an increased probability of storms with higher intensity (at least hurricanes, I don't have the data for storms in general), but that doesn't translate to "Katrina everywhere at every time". As for sea level, engineering solutions already exist and even if they're not enough, you're going to be moving the population inland anyway so it would probably follow that same procedure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Yes, I don't mean to come off as completely hopeless. But not much I have seen over the past couple of decades has increased my hope. Even in a best-case scenario this will be the worst and longest humanitarian disaster in recorded history. It's just easier to say 'well the weather was pretty weird last winter' and feel uncomfortable about it than to imagine the real toll to our children and other life on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Yes, I don't mean to come off as completely hopeless. But not much I have seen over the past couple of decades has increased my hope. This is by design. The media is not your friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I go more by, how to do the commitments we have made as an international community measure up against what scientists say is necessary? And the science keeps getting clearer and not in a good way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
I should have been clearer, I'm not particularly concerned with the threat of worldwide nuclear annihilation, but I could see a major climate event increasing the odds of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in particular. An uptick in floods and landslides in Pakistan and Bangladesh getting swallowed by the ocean strike me as events that could destabilize the region pretty quickly. It would not end civilization as we know it but it sure as poo poo wouldn't be good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I go more by, how to do the commitments we have made as an international community measure up against what scientists say is necessary? And the science keeps getting clearer and not in a good way. Where have scientists proposed policy? My knowledge of that academic community is more of a predictive nature. Unless you just mean generic "reduce carbon emissions" in which case yeah we're not immediately abandoning fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Generally, things like this:quote:The paper published Wednesday does contain some good news. A far more stringent effort to limit emissions of greenhouse gases would stand a fairly good chance of saving West Antarctica from collapse, the scientists found. That aspect of their paper contrasts with other recent studies postulating that a gradual disintegration of West Antarctica may have already become unstoppable. The thing about the problem was that the time to panic was a couple decades ago. By the time we actually do panic enough to kick things into gear we'll already be locked in unless aliens come save us or something. Which I think is about as likely as the UN agreeing to (and actually implementing) strict enough terms to head off global warming, but that's just me being pessimistic. If there was a time for scientists to all gear up in their robot suits and take over the world to save us from ourselves, now is it. Just in case they're waiting for me to say that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
My first niece was born today. ...how the hell am I supposed to react to this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Overflight posted:My first niece was born today. Probably best not to think about it too much or you will get very depressed. I've been on the fence about having children for a while now and wasn't planning on having any for 5 or 6 years anyway, but if the science that papers such as the above purport turn out to be true then I just don't think I'll ever be able to justify doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
How are u posted:Probably best not to think about it too much or you will get very depressed. Too late!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Overflight posted:My first niece was born today. Don't be that guy. That's a cartoon character reaction to problems like this. You can be happy for your family and still know there are problems to solve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Removed.
AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Great Barrier Reef is dying: Good. We should be tearing down barriers, not building them up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
One, this is some serious E/N bullshit. Two, you're moved far outside outcomes we can predict and into the realm of personal fantasy/obsession. I would start telling your therapist everything and stop hiding your obsessions from her because you're afraid she'll be convinced and join your terror. Or alternatively, I'm sure there is a Reddit out there that will echo chamber for you perfectly. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
When everything is going to hell, that just makes small acts of humanity more important. Bittersweetness is better than just bitterness. Not that I'm planning on having kids either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Overflight posted:removed by request  Mozi posted:When everything is going to hell, that just makes small acts of humanity more important. Bittersweetness is better than just bitterness. Not that I'm planning on having kids either. Your contribution is noted, unfortunately you most likely live in the part of the world where not having children would have any meaningful impact. Batham fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
OK, I think I am calmer now. Can you please delete all quotes of what I just said please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:13
|
|