|
Overflight posted:I'm not happy. I am cursing my brother for being ignorant enough to have children. I am regretting the fact that there is someone else in this planet to suffer. I am dreading the fact that it's going to be one more person who I have the "obligation" to defend in the coming chaos (especially given that my relationship with my family is pretty rocky). Yes, I am that guy. I will call them and act all smiley and congratulatory but I am that guy. Have you considered that you may actually be depressed or something?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Batham posted:Your contribution is noted, unfortunately you most likely live in the part of the world where not having children would have any meaningful impact. Everyone on this forum is in a part of the world where having children has the worst effect on climate and resource depletion. [I'm assuming that nobody is posting from rural Africa or a third world slum]
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively, I'm sure there is a Reddit out there that will echo chamber for you perfectly. /r/collapse. I go there sometimes to gaze at the trainwreck syndrome. These are dudes who think Guy McPherson is a modern-day prophet. Of course, if you decode a lot of what they say, it gets more interesting. It's a toxic intersection between survivalists, preppers, right-wingers, and the general disaffected, who wish society would fall apart for one reason or another. Half of them are writing libertarian fanfiction in the guise of futurism and half of what's left are depression tourists. computer parts posted:This is by design. The media is not your friend. Yeah, this can't be stated enough, especially in the mainstream, which is choking itself to death in an attempt to appear unbiased. That's the real insidious genius of high-profile deniers. As long as they exist in the positions they hold, major media organs have to act as if they have a point. The question isn't "can we adapt," but rather, what shape the adaptation will take and what civilization will look alike during and afterwards. If you look at scientific periodicals, you can get a better idea of the shape of it, because climate change is coming hand-in-hand with a number of other impending societal shifts: widespread automation, artificial intelligence, cloned meat (they can make perfectly potable ground beef, but it's not cheap enough to market), the imminence of affordable and widely available 3d printing. Like I said to you earlier, Overflight, you really don't want to spend all your time reading about how we're doomed, or you'll turn into a wreck. There are people out there who are aware of these problems and who are working to help solve them, alone or in groups, privately or publically, and most of them could use your time, money, or attention. If you're in New York or New Haven, for example, I mentioned GreenWave a few days ago, and they're looking for volunteers. You could also sign up to help with the Ocean Cleanup, or just see what kinds of environmental volunteer work are available in your area. Even if you just walked around picking up litter, that's more useful than panic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted: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. To add to this, I think a likely scenario we might see involving nuclear weapons is nuclear-armed countries using them against non-nuclear opponents. It seems a lot more likely to me than a nuclear exchange, simply because they can't fight back. War isn't supposed to be fair. With climate change, I don't think people are going to come together and work through their problems together peacefully. It's just gonna make people turn on each other on a large scale and I think we will likely see more massacres, genocides, etc. Imagine an Assad-style dictator using a nuke against a center of armed rebellion. Or considering how batshit crazy the GOP is right now in America, it's kinda scary to imagine what people like that would be capable of as the years and decades go on. I don't think they would nuke Russia or anything, but I can see them nuking some poor defenseless opponent somewhere as a show of force. Just to show off how tough and powerful and exceptional America really is and you don't mess with us!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I would think the probability of a state collapsing and losing control over their nuclear weapons and materials is scarier because I don't think we'll be tossing around nukes for no reason (doesn't exactly help with the whole 'warming' thing really) but there are definitely plenty of people who do want to watch it all burn for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
If we're tossing around hypotheticals, the conflict probably will] be between the industrial nations and the third world. The US and Western Europe have the resources to survive climate change. Maybe at significant expense, but we will be able to keep our cities running, and the lights on, and food on the table. We can build levees on the lowest-lying cities near the ocean. Once it's too late, maybe we'll build those nuclear reactors and solar and wind farms, but we'll keep the lights on and most of us won't have our cities sucked into the sea. The economy will change a lot, so it probably won't be great for the next two generations, but we aren't facing extinction. The third world will be devastated by sea level rise. Billions of poor people live near major bodies of water, and will likely have their land erased by the ocean. All of their limited infrastructure will be wiped out. There will be a huge refugee crisis, with displaced people needing places to go, and the surviving places already being strained won't be able to take them in. The third world won't really be able to force their way in, but they will try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
What are some of the most at-risk areas in the third world? It'd be interesting to look at it case-by-case and guess what a likely reaction's going to be. I'd figure that once the dust settled you'd see a lot of first-world investment in formerly third-world locations. After all, what better location for "going Galt" can you imagine than the flooded-out, nearly-abandoned ruins of Honduras?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
I'm not at all suggesting we're moving to an idiocratic society (is that even a word?). An idiocratic (there's that word again) society isn't going to kill itself, either. A large fraction of the (US) populace seems to either lack respect for observable fact or does not have access to or inclination to understand the bounty of conclusions regarding climate change publicly available. I used to be more wishy-washy on asserting Absolute Truths, but if a person: 1) Is educated enough to understand what constitutes rigor in science 2) Is interested in truth enough to seek primary information sources 3) Has some spare time and access to primary information ...that person is not going to outright deny climate change. I am interested in this post and my last post in issues on education and access as it is an educated society that will more quickly accept the existence of observable problems as they crop up. Inertia is a core topic in the history of American environmentalism, and widespread denial of issues despite clear and available information in particular is not new. We don't need some ivory tower utopia to raise climate change from a contentious, amorphous problem in the public eye to the extinction-level issue is presents. We just need to make sure fewer children slip through the cracks as a result of neglect (lack of funding) or willful ignorance. Someone stated in here earlier that culture is "a generation thick," and the scale of climate change advocates versus don't-cares and deniers is already steadily leveling in the states. edit: spelling Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't understand why we would assume that it would assist the denialists to go from 'its not happening' to 'its happening and we're all completely hosed'. The most obvious position is to just say 'Ah well its happening but its not that big a deal, we won't really have to change our institutions or way of life particularly dramatically particularly if that means we'll have to be held accountable, heck some of the effects might be positive', if anything exactly what you're saying would line up well enough with the direction denialists are shifting to, an emphasis on technological solutions, adaption as it happens and much vaunted 'green Capitalism' that doesn't undermine the current system, that's not a denunciation of what you're saying by the way just an observation. Gotta tell you, I'm not 100% on what you're trying to say here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't understand why we would assume that it would assist the denialists to go from 'its not happening' to 'its happening and we're all completely hosed'. The most obvious position is to just say 'Ah well its happening but its not that big a deal, we won't really have to change our institutions or way of life particularly dramatically particularly if that means we'll have to be held accountable, heck some of the effects might be positive', if anything exactly what you're saying would line up well enough with the direction denialists are shifting to, an emphasis on technological solutions, adaption as it happens and much vaunted 'green Capitalism' that doesn't undermine the current system, that's not a denunciation of what you're saying by the way just an observation. So... according to you if you're not a defeatist you're a 'denialists'. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Gotta tell you, I'm not 100% on what you're trying to say here. Maybe I'm reading you wrong. Mozi said that the news was hopeless, and Computer Parts said that's by design and you seem to agree, from what your saying here: Wanderer posted:
I take it you're saying that the denialist conspiracy has permeated the media hard? So is the hopelessness and emphasis on the potential extreme negatives of Climate Change that Mozi is concerned about an aspect of this conspiracy? Because I don't understand how it would help denialists (or whatever position they've shifted to now) at all. Batham posted:So... according to you if you're not a defeatist you're a 'denialists'. Okay. I didn't say that dumbass, I said that people who were formerly denialists but now can't ignore the weight of the evidence would probably go for a position fairly close to Wanderer's. Its not a criticism of what specific solutions he was putting forward, you know, which was something I actually said. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I take you're saying that the denialist conspiracy has permeated the media hard? So is the hopelessness and emphasis on the potential extreme negative of Climate Change that Mozi is concerned about an aspect of this conspiracy? Because I don't how it would help denialists (or whatever position they've shifted to now) at all. I'm really saying two things. 1) Due to repeated accusations of "bias" over the course of the last 20 years or so, and the tendency of denalists to also be pretty hardcore right-wingers, mainstream media doesn't go as hard on skewering denialists as it could or should. They're trying to appear sufficiently objective that they can avoid the "liberal media" label, so they cover both evidence and denial as if they have equal ideological weight. 2) Impending doom gets clicks and gets you to tune in at six to see the full story, and we've been culturally hardwired to expect a big, flashy apocalypse for quite a while now. Thus, the media engenders hopelessness, or at the very least, encourages you to know about it, but not think about it because it's depressing. More importantly, many of the behaviors that would help mediate the situation--spend less, drive less, generate less trash, you don't need to eat meat at every meal--run contrary to the desires of late-stage American capitalism, so most of the media sources don't want you to adopt those behaviors. I don't think it's any kind of formal conspiracy, but it is a particularly tenacious kind of change resistance. It's a problem all over the place, really; a lot of behaviors that worked just fine a hundred or fifty or even twenty years ago are anywhere from destructive to unsustainable at current population/technology levels, but people don't want to give them up even in the face of evidence. In a lot of ways, these are civilization's growing pains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
^^ Same. I want to propose that there doesn't need to be a high-level conspiracy if an engine is driven by a million little parts acting in self interest that each add to a cumulatively-awful result. In the case of our news media engine -- particularly television -- good business decisions may coincidentally be those which also inflict public harm. Public harm in this specific instance is to misinform or underinform the masses.
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study findsquote:A Yale University study says global climate models have significantly underestimated how much the Earth’s surface temperature will rise if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as expected. I can't wait to experience the end-permian extinction, without the hassle of building a time machine. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Rime posted:Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds don't worry, you can pet your dog and pretend everything is alright
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Rime posted:Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds jesus loving christ we are all so dead. That is a stupidly high sensitivity they came up with. I mean... wow. Really not much else to say about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
The human race won't go extinct we have enough technologically wise that the earth's population may die off but there will still be enclaves of the wealthy etc... who survive. So literally apocalyptic wasteland. Like we have the technology to build climate controlled large enclaves, small cities, etc..
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The human race won't go extinct we have enough technologically wise that the earth's population may die off but there will still be enclaves of the wealthy etc... who survive. So literally apocalyptic wasteland. Like we have the technology to build climate controlled large enclaves, small cities, etc.. Okay, but when I say "we are all so dead" I mean we as in "the poor people" I'm not happy about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
It's kind of disturbing how common the refrain of "well, Some humans will survive, somehow, maybe" is becoming, as if this somehow excuses the complete destruction of our biosphere and extinction of most species on earth. Like, what the poo poo is wrong with people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Rime posted:It's kind of disturbing how common the refrain of "well, Some humans will survive, somehow, maybe" is becoming, as if this somehow excuses the complete destruction of our biosphere and extinction of most species on earth. You mistake people making excuses with people have long ago accepted what "mitigation and adaptation" really meant. We need to work hard to mitigate the suffering and adapt to our now more ruined world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Rime posted:It's kind of disturbing how common the refrain of "well, Some humans will survive, somehow, maybe" is becoming, as if this somehow excuses the complete destruction of our biosphere and extinction of most species on earth. I think most people are largely ignorant of how bad climate change will make things, and spend next to no time thinking about it. Likely, they are distracted by more immediate things, like problems at work, paying the bills, or escaping into entertainment. The true consequences of climate change are too far delayed, and the status quo has a great deal of inertia in keeping things the way they are. Many people will quickly either dismiss the problem or the consequences because that's mentally much easier to do. Many conservatives will simply disbelieve climate change, while others will say it won't be that bad, while many liberals will place the problem on a back-burner while they push for things they see as more urgent. And, for the people who do realize how bad things will get, they are largely powerless to stop it, and are often dismissed by the former. Trabisnikof posted:You mistake people making excuses with people have long ago accepted what "mitigation and adaptation" really meant. We need to work hard to mitigate the suffering and adapt to our now more ruined world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
So there's literally no good news to be had anymore? Isn't the US making progress in cutting carbon emissions, for example? And the rise of electric cars?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So there's literally no good news to be had anymore? Isn't the US making progress in cutting carbon emissions, for example? And the rise of electric cars? Depends on whether you see things as all too little too late, or the beginning of the required shift.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So there's literally no good news to be had anymore? Isn't the US making progress in cutting carbon emissions, for example? And the rise of electric cars? https://youtu.be/XM0uZ9mfOUI At this point I suspect we're so far gone that most governments have taken the same stance as they would towards an imminent asteroid strike, or the eruption of yellowstone: we can't stop what's coming, we can only mitigate the panic by playing down the severity of things for as long as possible. Like, gently caress me, there won't be coral reefs anywhere on earth inside of ten years. You think we can reverse that with some carbon tax rebates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So there's literally no good news to be had anymore? Isn't the US making progress in cutting carbon emissions, for example? And the rise of electric cars? There's always good news. The Paris Summit was good news. The anti-fracking movement developing in many parts of the country is good news. Up in Washington, the Lummi Nation and local activists have put the breaks on a large coal terminal, and will likely defeat it. Awareness on climate change is slowly building back from the deficit caused by corporate campaign to deny reality. It's not much, but it's there. The bad news does vastly outweighs the good news, currently. For example, emissions in the US dropped a bit starting with the recession, but have risen again in 2013 and 2014, and the methane studies linked earlier make it likely that we've been underestimating emissions on top of that. Electric cars are also useless as long as our electricity still comes mostly from fossil fuels. Personally, I think the magnitude of the bad news should be a powerful call to action, one that should inspire us to get more involved in activism and politics. Mostly because, if we despair and give up, it can always get worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So there's literally no good news to be had anymore? Isn't the US making progress in cutting carbon emissions, for example? And the rise of electric cars? There's some, here and there. Check my post history so I'm not repeating myself too much. The problem is that it's mostly about practices that could help, technologies that aren't mature, and initiatives that are barely past the start-up stage. There's not much in the way of a silver bullet and likely won't ever be. Uranium Phoenix posted:Mostly because, if we despair and give up, it can always get worse. I couldn't agree more. It's easy for a lot of people to brush it off as "hopium" and revel in the despair (or try to sell each other survivalist kits), but that's really a luxury.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Global warming, El Nino leave 36 per cent of coral reefs on death watch. By July, that number could rise to 60 per cent quote:About 36 per cent of the world's coral reefs — 72 per cent of the U.S. reefs — are in such warm water they are under official death watch, and that could rise to up to 60 per cent of the world's coral by July, said Mark Eakin, the coral reef watch coordinator for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Eakin said Kiritimati was the worst he's seen, with American Samoa a close second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Rime posted:Global warming, El Nino leave 36 per cent of coral reefs on death watch. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Honestly at this point it feels like the only way we could hope to avert some REALLY nasty stuff down the pipe would be a WW2 style mobilization to decarbonize, and it would have to essentially become a worldwide effort as well. Kevin Anderson has some good research and his lectures are interesting. The scales involved here is truly frightening. It is a drat shame that action wasn't taken when we could have actual made gradual reductions as opposed to being in a situation where no one wants to hold the bag. Also, as cynical as I am, even the rich may not escape what is coming. When you are talking about large scale destabilization and survival, people are not just going to sit outside of your walled cities starving. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Honestly at this point it feels like the only way we could hope to avert some REALLY nasty stuff down the pipe would be a WW2 style mobilization to decarbonize, and it would have to essentially become a worldwide effort as well. Kevin Anderson has some good research and his lectures are interesting. The scales involved here is truly frightening. It is a drat shame that action wasn't taken when we could have actual made gradual reductions as opposed to being in a situation where no one wants to hold the bag. So what would be a good way for an aspiring political analyst to weather this future storm?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Take risks, enjoy life to the fullest, accept that within 30 years or so its all going to come crashing to a halt. Love your friends, make few enemies, cherish every dewy morning and warm sunset as if it were your last. Don't set aside today thinking it will pay off tomorrow or further down the road. We are not our parents generation, there is no hope for us worth saving for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:Take risks, enjoy life to the fullest, accept that within 30 years or so its all going to come crashing to a halt. Love your friends, make few enemies, cherish every dewy morning and warm sunset as if it were your last. Ah yes, the final stage of climate denialism: "it's too late, better just watch the world burn"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
It's probably still a good idea to save.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what would be a good way for an aspiring political analyst to weather this future storm? I would say whatever you find the most fulfilling and that serves your conscience. Even with things being grim, actions we take now can make things less bad in the future. That is pretty much what most of the organized efforts who are honest are aiming for anyway, mitigating the damage. We can still work towards green goals, I would just temper your expectations. As singular actors, I am not sure what to tell you in particular as an aspiring politcal analyst, there should still be meaningful work in that field. I am not sure that I am as grim as Rime, but I totally understand the sentiment. This is the kind of issue where it is hard to make an appreciable dent as singular actors. There are people who cut out car/plane transportation, go vegan, etc. Still so many things we do have a knock on effect that it is really hard to really be carbon neutral. Then you get to more hysterical things. You have like a dozen people in this thread mentioning not having kids as 1st world citizens, but I am not really even sure the efficacy of that (they are free to do whatever they want, I am not judging) simply because there are enough people moving from impoverished nations willing to take their place either way. That is not to mention the rapid advancement of many of these countries anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah yes, the final stage of climate denialism: "it's too late, better just watch the world burn" I don't think we should conflate hopelessness with denialism. You can criticize someone who feels hopeless for inaction, but I think many of the people who are feeling hopeless still do things, they just realize how inadequate their individual actions are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I don't think we should conflate hopelessness with denialism. You can criticize someone who feels hopeless for inaction, but I think many of the people who are feeling hopeless still do things, they just realize how inadequate their individual actions are. It's Trabisnikof. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is in some stage of climate change denial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah yes, the final stage of climate denialism: "it's too late, better just watch the world burn"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The human race won't go extinct we have enough technologically wise that the earth's population may die off but there will still be enclaves of the wealthy etc... who survive. So literally apocalyptic wasteland. Like we have the technology to build climate controlled large enclaves, small cities, etc.. It won't go extinct but as for all that "enclave" talk - where are their resources going to come from? Urban civilizations live off the surplus generated from their environment (the countryside) - for that to work you need the resources to be there, and you need to have ways of extracting it, and means of defending the reserves that you have piled up. Well, everything is running out, especially oil. Many of our means of extraction and transport are oil-based. Finally, the collapse of societies like the USA will make the defense situation a total mess like it was in post-Soviet Russia for instance. There's no way anyone whosoever will be living the way we are living 50-100 years down the road. And it's rather certain that there will be a lot less of us living in any case. I'd like to remind people that the huge population overshoot we have going in the world is based on increased food production. This in turn is based on the methods developed during the industrial age (especially the green revolution) - a lot of which are fossil fuel dependent. Meaning that we are basically guaranteed to fall down to pre-industrial population levels, meaning 6 billion people or so will die. Still, we should count ourselves as lucky because we have far greater access to resources than the soon-to-be-dead poor people in many parts of the world. And unlike many people in the West, including our opulence-addled brothers and sisters, some of us have our mental freedom as well. Nothing under the sun could guarantee our survival in any case but you best believe that the people who know what's about to happen have better odds of survival than the people already starving in urban slums, or the people who are blind to the reality, burning away their mental and physical health at 80h a week for the sake of the career that they're never going to have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
You're such a negative nancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:18
|
|