|
Uncle Jam posted:
You want me to run modeling exercises? I'm not a climate scientist. More importantly, McPherson isn't a climate scientist. Nobody (that I know of) in his doomsday cult is a climate scientist. He is an avid self-promoter, however. He publishes books: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=guy+mcpherson he has a radio show, which doesn't feature climate scientists: https://extinctionradio.org/ He has created a NTHE (near term human extinction) support group, full of people from all walks of life (massage therapists, accountants, etc.) but oddly few (if any) climate scientists. They also screen you for ideological purity before joining. (if you have linked 350.org in your timeline, you won't pass. You must be doomsday to join) https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTHESupportGroup/ He's also extremely defensive of his name. His edit history of his own page on rationalwiki is pretty funny. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=1408472&oldid=1406542 Actual climate scientists are telling us the future looks absolutely terrible for humanity. Every tenth of a degree we fight for represents millions of lives. Millions. Ignoring climate scientists got us into this mess, and ignoring them in favor of doomsday cults is going to make it worse. If you're a doomsdayer, please check your beliefs against a real climate scientist: http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Fansy posted:If you're a doomsdayer, please check your beliefs against a real climate scientist: What is a doomsdayer? For the record I don't think humans are going to become extinct but I don't think collective action is going to save us from 4C+ degrees of warming in the next 200 years
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What is a doomsdayer? For the record I don't think humans are going to become extinct but I don't think collective action is going to save us from 4C+ degrees of warming in the next 200 years You can identify a doomsdayer by their use of acronyms (NTHE), conspiratorial beliefs (scientists aren't telling us the truth!) and their lack of degree in a climate-related field. Science is not infallible, but the consensus of the professional community is by definition the best you can do at any time. Fansy fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Fansy posted:You want me to run modeling exercises? I'm not a climate scientist. Okay, but the first step is to realize people who dismiss graphs as alarmism because they don't care to take the time to understand them are basically deniers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
I find it absolutely hilarious that people think we'll be able to adapt to this change without society collapsing/changing into something that we wouldn't be familiar with today, tbqh. Trump was just elected because a bunch of the Midwest got sadbrains over Walmart paying less than Ford, do you really think people are going to react rationally to a climate crisis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:I desperately want to believe you because this thread has sapped my will to live. I mean, the only way you're going to be directly affected any time in the "near" future is if you live in a city that's on the water (especially on the east coast and especially in the Southeast) or if you live in the Southwest or somewhere else that's drought prone. If that's the case then, yeah, I probably wouldn't invest in any real estate that you're looking to hold onto over the next twenty or thirty years. The world economy isn't going to just keep chugging along as major cities become more and more expensive to do business in, but I can also guarantee you that very few people in power will point at these problems and blame climate change. We're going to see a lot of talk about "slow growth" and "economic malaise" as we're basically forced to abandon some of the fastest growing economic centers in the country over a period of decades. But, like, none of this is the end of the world. I've yet to see anyone give a plausible explanation for how western civilization actually collapses as a result of even worst case scenarios. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I mean, the only way you're going to be directly affected any time in the "near" future is if you live in a city that's on the water (especially on the east coast and especially in the Southeast) or if you live in the Southwest or somewhere else that's drought prone. If that's the case then, yeah, I probably wouldn't invest in any real estate that you're looking to hold onto over the next twenty or thirty years. The world economy isn't going to just keep chugging along as major cities become more and more expensive to do business in, but I can also guarantee you that very few people in power will point at these problems and blame climate change. We're going to see a lot of talk about "slow growth" and "economic malaise" as we're basically forced to abandon some of the fastest growing economic centers in the country over a period of decades. Where do all the people that live in these cities go? What happens to the places they move to when they get there? Of all the myriad of ways climate change could effect civilization that's the only one you really need to think about to understand how bad it will get. Think about hurricane Katrina. That was one city and the nation just barely coped with it. It was over 10 years ago and the city still hasn't fully recovered. In the richest nation on earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:Where do all the people that live in these cities go? What happens to the places they move to when they get there? Of all the myriad of ways climate change could effect civilization that's the only one you really need to think about to understand how bad it will get. Think about hurricane Katrina. That was one city and the nation just barely coped with it. It was over 10 years ago and the city still hasn't fully recovered. In the richest nation on earth. The country was never in danger of collapsing after Katrina. When it's happening once every few years? Yeah, that's going to cause problems, but that's exactly what I said in the post that you're quoting. It's not going to cause the US government to collapse or mass migrations away from the US (mostly because there's not going to be anywhere better to go). People are going to be displaced and a lot of people are going to spend time feeling like refugees in their own country, but civilization will continue. Don't take this the wrong way: it's going to be bad and being afraid is the correct response. All I'm saying is that industrialized civilization won't collapse and the world of 2050 will almost certainly be just a shittier version of 2016. Society won't fall apart because people are forced to migrate inland over a period of decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Don't take this the wrong way: it's going to be bad and being afraid is the correct response. All I'm saying is that industrialized civilization won't collapse and the world of 2050 will almost certainly be just a shittier version of 2016. Society won't fall apart because people are forced to migrate inland over a period of decades. The question that springs to mind then is this one - "Are there ways to make things less lovely when we get to 2050 in this situation?" To me that answer depends solely on "are negative emissions possible?" because if they are, then I guess we can technically make things less lovely (even if it is unlikely). If they are not, then our only option as a species is to wait it out and try not to break anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:The question that springs to mind then is this one - "Are there ways to make things less lovely when we get to 2050 in this situation?" To me that answer depends solely on "are negative emissions possible?" because if they are, then I guess we can technically make things less lovely (even if it is unlikely). If they are not, then our only option as a species is to wait it out and try not to break anything else. At least some people seem confident that Solar and Wind can't be stopped from taking over. If that happens then all we have to do is work on getting negative emissions somehow, right? So basically 'don't give up, keep fighting' I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:But, like, none of this is the end of the world. I've yet to see anyone give a plausible explanation for how western civilization actually collapses as a result of even worst case scenarios. I usually look at how well the US and Europe is handling this period of slow growth combined with some migration issues, in both cases pretty abjectly failing to resolve anything and usually making things worse. So you have a recipe for instability and conflict. Add in additional ingredients of resurgent nationalism and Trump making the decisions for the US and things are unlikely to improve. As underlying issues become more and more severe, manifesting as another recession and increased migration, and possibly more terror attacks, a positive path forward becomes more difficult to see. It all depends on what threshold would need to be passed to term it a 'collapse of Western civilization', but my fear is that we will have war that renders further progress on climate change impossible in the time frame needed and robs us of the ability to adapt and survive. Global warming enhances and deepens all of our existing threats and risks. I don't worry about dying from lack of water or excess heat, given where I happen to live. I do worry about war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Resources are going to dwindle rapidly as it gets hotter, it will be a miracle if it's anything short of a catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
FWIW if Canada becomes something of a 'Plan B', expect it to go the way of Puerto Rico in terms of autonomy. If the US needs to resettle tens of millions of people into Canada, it will ask us very politely with a gun to our head. The reality is, even if 10% of the population of the United States was relocated to Canada, that would essentially be doubling the population of our entire country. If you are serious about relocating, the PNW or Eastern Great Lakes region (i.e. upstate New York) is your best bet to 'weather things out'. In any case, the nature of climate change and its self-reinforcing effects means the decline will be relatively slow and gradual until it's not. My favorite illustration of this is the exponential growth of a drop of water in the stadium: quote:
sitchensis fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Trudeau seems like a sensible man, is he going to address this at any point? We really need more world leaders speaking out about this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Trudeau seems like a sensible man, is he going to address this at any point? We really need more world leaders speaking out about this. Trudeau is essentially equivalent to Hillary Clinton. Expect him to address climate change to the extent that it steals the NDP's thunder and not one bit more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:So basically 'don't give up, keep fighting' I guess. Imagine you're in a city surrounded by whatever suits your barbarian horde stereotype. You look outside, and there's, like, a hundred thousand of them. You've been paying attention, so you know the walls are full of sawdust and there's only maybe a thousand people in the army. Now, you're stuck, because there's no place left to go, but that doesn't mean that picking up a sword and dying on the wall is the right course of action, neither is manically piling stones in front of the existing wall. That's the situation you're in. Don't waste your time fighting. Focus on other things. Think about how after the city is sacked there's going to be new dynamics for how people might organize. Enjoy yourself, because killing yourself isn't going to change anything anyway. But please don't peddle bullshit about how it's everyone's manly duty to stand and die in a hopeless fight. It's intellectually dishonest and steals agency from people who could better spend their time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That's the situation you're in. Don't waste your time fighting. Focus on other things. Think about how after the city is sacked there's going to be new dynamics for how people might organize. Enjoy yourself, because killing yourself isn't going to change anything anyway. This is the interesting question, to me. I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead? Something tells me that, even if we're able to pick up the pieces after ACC changes our societies, my IRA won't be intact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is the interesting question, to me. I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead? I'm in no position to tell you how to do things. I for one think you should spend your time and money trying to ameliorate the pain of the suffering. I'm just arguing against the delusional belief that countless and continuous failures to do anything just mean we have to try that much harder. After a certain point, it is what it is, and you should accept it instead of being a crazy person unwilling to accept reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
It is absolutely worth fighting for every fraction of a degree. If you really just want to throw your hands up and abandon the rest of the world, you could at least talk to as many people as possible and let them know how much closer this is than we thought and what the consequences are going to be and what they can do. Even if most of them don't listen, if even one of them does then they can do the same and it can multiply exponentially. Don't decide that you can't do something before you do it, even if we can't stop it completely we can still buy ourselves years and lives, every single bit matters. This attitude that it's useless is so dangerous because it is also so prevalent, the number of people who won't do anything because it's hopeless are contributing to the number of people who don't know at all, this is especially stupid at this moment when the disaster will be within our lifetime, something much more likely to drive people into action than telling them they should prepare for a disaster 100 years from now when they won't be alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:It is absolutely worth fighting for every fraction of a degree. No, it's not. You see, your fraction of a degree implies ongoing structural support for whatever changes you're proposing. We've gone beyond the capacity to assume such ongoing structural support. You're just wrong. You're in denial. I guess sadness or anger is next, it's never quite clear to me the order of those steps. Why don't you just skip to bargaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:The question that springs to mind then is this one - "Are there ways to make things less lovely when we get to 2050 in this situation?" To me that answer depends solely on "are negative emissions possible?" because if they are, then I guess we can technically make things less lovely (even if it is unlikely). If they are not, then our only option as a species is to wait it out and try not to break anything else. On the grim side too the more people who die the less resources are going to be used, which reduce arable land needed and energy requirements. I means its better if millions don't die , but it still a factor in reducing emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
"Why didn't they tell us climate change would be so bad??" - Person who gets all their news through the Steam Store
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:On the grim side too the more people who die the less resources are going to be used, which reduce arable land needed and energy requirements. I means its better if millions don't die , but it still a factor in reducing emissions. While they are dying, they will make sure to gently caress up everything that's around. Because that's human beings for you. Because that's what we did to the climate. Basically, imagine all the little wars in between now and then as little Climate Forcing Events and little Ecological Degradation events. So the net effect will be bad. Which is always the case. The net effect is always bad when the topic is this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
No kids here either and I've already done a bit of traveling after a friend suddenly died. Yeah, I had a typical "life is frail" moment and went on a trip to Japan. My only regret is that I should have learned to not talk about it so much, because people are really bad at hiding their jealously of me doing something like that. So, FWIW, do it if you don't mind the judgement. I assume the absolute worst about the future though so I'm trying to have some experiences before I can't anymore (dad died at 39 from a health issue I have as well, amongst other things I could list). I know I probably sound like that stupid American guy from Black Mirror right now however, if we're all in this thread talking about inevitable shittiness, wouldn't it make sense to encourage each other to travel/have fun NOW?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is the interesting question, to me. I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No, it's not. There is "ongoing structural support" for fighting climate change. The fact that the US federal government is in the hands of climate deniers for probably the next 4-8 years doesn't mean that literally all progress across the world is going to stop. Without the US in a functional leadership role there will be setbacks and the damage is going to be worse than anyone in this thread might have been hoping, but it can always be worse and there's still room to limit the damage as much as possible. You honestly sound like you've got some stuff to work through on this topic and you might want to consider sorting yourself out before insisting that other people abandon all hope. cosmicprank posted:I know I probably sound like that stupid American guy from Black Mirror right now however, if we're all in this thread talking about inevitable shittiness, wouldn't it make sense to encourage each other to travel/have fun NOW? If that's what you want to do then go ahead and do it. No one is here to tell you how to live your life. Just don't do it on the basis that the world won't be here tomorrow, because it will be. The most catastrophic scenario that's actually plausible isn't going to destroy civilization within the lifetime of anyone who's currently posting in this thread. Don't let climate change become your nerd rapture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is the interesting question, to me. I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead? Yes and this second sentence is what I mean. It's a conundrum I don't think any other generations before us has to grapple with. If we are able to predict the future is going to absolutely suck in 2060 when my Roth IRA and "retirement" would finally kick in, will I just regret having not had fun as youth because the future is a hot as gently caress bullshit place that we probably have to use virtual reality to escape most of the time anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You honestly sound like you've got some stuff to work through on this topic and you might want to consider sorting yourself out before insisting that other people abandon all hope. Don't project, dude. I studied this in grad school. Did you? There's no mystery to it. I'm not trying to start a cult, I'm just annoyed by magical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There is "ongoing structural support" for fighting climate change. The fact that the US federal government is in the hands of climate deniers for probably the next 4-8 years doesn't mean that literally all progress across the world is going to stop. Without the US in a functional leadership role there will be setbacks and the damage is going to be worse than anyone in this thread might have been hoping, but it can always be worse and there's still room to limit the damage as much as possible. Nerd rapture? I've never seen anyone write that on the internet. Of course I'm not talking about the world actually not being here but if it's going to suck so loving bad by all scientific consensus by like 2050, why the gently caress plan for a "nice retirement" if I'm living in a furnace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There is "ongoing structural support" for fighting climate change. The fact that the US federal government is in the hands of climate deniers for probably the next 4-8 years doesn't mean that literally all progress across the world is going to stop. Without the US in a functional leadership role there will be setbacks and the damage is going to be worse than anyone in this thread might have been hoping, but it can always be worse and there's still room to limit the damage as much as possible. It's a Tragedy of the Commons problem, an uncooperative actor will gently caress up the game. Why would China and India take a hit to their GDP to fight ACC when the US is happily flying the "gently caress you" flag and making money hand over fist? And we've really got no idea how long it will take before we see the effects in our lifetimes. Physical feedback effects aside, societal feedback effects aren't well modeled in IPCC reports and the like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Nerd rapture? I've never seen anyone write that on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Don't project, dude. I studied this in grad school. Did you? There's no mystery to it. I'm not trying to start a cult, I'm just annoyed by magical thinking. Okay, so show me the mechanism by which climate change destroys industrialized civilization in the next four or five decades. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, but my undergrad degree is in chemE with an environmental science focus so I'm sure I'll at least be able to get the general gist of whatever evidence you have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:When resources and food get scarce, would you rather be someone who can afford them or someone who can't? I'll probably just die out. You gonna be the guy stockpiled with guns ready to shoot hordes of starving people trying to force themselves onto your property? Walking Dead has glamorized this "survive by any means necessary when life is not worth it whatsoever" thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Okay, so show me the mechanism by which climate change destroys industrialized civilization in the next four or five decades. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, but my undergrad degree is in chemE with an environmental science focus so I'm sure I'll at least be able to get the general gist of whatever evidence you have. Wait are you trolling or do you not know about the Syrian War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Wait are you trolling or do you not know about the Syrian War. I have no idea how you want me to respond to this, so I'll just say ask this: why are you assuming that [bad thing] which has not currently destroyed civilization will in fact destroy civilization if it gets worse? This is like arguing that Katrina somehow proves that we're all doomed, even though Katrina's long term impact on the overall US economy was negligible. There's definitely an interesting discussion to have about just how bad things can get before they go over the edge, but you've jumped directly to the endpoint of that conversation. If we're only talking about the effects of refugee crises, economic migration, etc. then we're no longer having a discussion about climate change, we're talking about how much political and economic damage our systems of government can withstand. If that's what we're going to talk about, then we need to have a starting point for exactly what it is that we expect to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
You think this was a one-off? Like, won't happen again and again? And worse? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/ I'm confused a bit too, you might be in agreement with me. Or maybe you're saying that the Syrian War being largely because tons and tons of Syrians were forced to move to the cities because their farm land became completely useless due to warming temperatures in their farmland regions won't be a thing that happens again and again and again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:If we're only talking about the effects of refugee crises, economic migration, etc. then we're no longer having a discussion about climate change So there's the problem. See, in being over-specialized and highly educated about the science of climate change, you weren't apparently informed that the earth system is the world system and vice versa. Of course we're talking about climate change when we talk about social upheaval. These throwaway lines like "climate models don't account for socio-political behavior well" are one of the reasons this whole thing has fallen apart like it has. I have no disagreement about the science, who could? The models are good, the basic chemistry is all simple. I have no disagreement about the possibility of mitigation or amelioration with political will. What I take issue with is the naive position that somehow we can effect meaningful change in climate policy in a manner that avoids social upheaval. As a result, any plan that takes decades has to account for growing social instability, which by definition it cannot (unless someone invented cliometrics and didn't tell me). I've said all along in this thread that the US is in a very good position given its food surplus, relatively low population density and strong government. Short of a nuclear war, we're going to keep chugging along. But as pressure is exerted on less stable (food, political and climate-wise) countries, they will fail, and in their failures, they will no longer be expected to follow any climate treaties. Who knows, maybe a simultaneously flooded and desertified India will become super green, I don't know, no one knows, but that unpredictability militates against long-term political approaches given the current system. I've meaningfully engaged with your critique, so maybe you could do the same for me. What is your 20 year prediction for the two most populous nations on Earth: India and China? Do you think they will be able to enact meaningful climate reform or do you think they'll be pressured into scrapping those measures in order to appease the political demands of their respective populations?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I have no idea how you want me to respond to this, so I'll just say ask this: why are you assuming that [bad thing] which has not currently destroyed civilization will in fact destroy civilization if it gets worse? This is like arguing that Katrina somehow proves that we're all doomed, even though Katrina's long term impact on the overall US economy was negligible. CC stresses resources which promotes violence and extremism which in turn promotes more violence and extremism. Everywhere. All it takes is one nutty fucker to shoot off a nuke and we're done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Alright, I'll re-frame my initial question. Given what posters in this thread think about global climate change, are YOU living your life (or perhaps do you think it would be wiser to live) for "NOW" (you know, traveling, enjoying yourself) or for the future? I ask because I read a lot about long-term investing as well. I've read several books written by "Bogelheads" meaning fans of Jack Bogle who started Vanguard and is a huge proponent of index funds and slow sustained growth rather than playing the stock market in the short term to come up rich. Now, a lot of what he and others says in regards to investing and personal finance seem 100% sound. But, I often think that only do they make sense to a person who was in their 20s by 1985 or so. Essentially, to a person who did not have climate change as a very serious consideration in their long term plan/financial life script. Part of me just thinks since things are almost 100% sure to get much worse (not claiming the planet literally won't exist anymore as Paradoxish pointed out) it's worth it to just not have kids and have fun the gently caress now. Of course, certain posters who are convinced real change can be enacted (even if it means a life time of struggle to buy the planet 6 more months, woo) to stop or slow the affects of climate change will probably see me as a hedonist if I decide to go this route. However, I think we should honestly talk about the point Radbot made: "I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead? Something tells me that, even if we're able to pick up the pieces after ACC changes our societies, my IRA won't be intact." This is my exact fear. That all the financial safety nets and putting away a part of each years salary into my Roth IRA will all be hugely pointless if the world is just in an absolute poo poo storm and that Reef, for example, won't even exist anymore. People can use the Cold War or other times in history where tomorrow was not promised to argue that you should still work hard work work hard til the grave, or as other poster pointed out, you're gonna wanna be the ones with the resources over the poors when things go south. It just seems to me inherently very different than the Cold War example because we can see that poo poo like the Syrian War isn't a one-off but will become the new normal. Do you choose to live for NOW, the 2016 that isn't completely ruined yet, do you choose to spend every waking minute trying to "fight" something you know you as one person are way way to small to affect even marginal change toward, or do you just keep working away? Get married, have 2.3 kids as your parents did, with fingers firmly in ears, working diligently away until you "get" to access your perhaps-still-a-thing Roth IRA for another new virtual reality machine or Soma dosage to distract you from the absolute madness of 2060?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Telephones posted:CC stresses resources which promotes violence and extremism which in turn promotes more violence and extremism. Everywhere. All it takes is one nutty fucker to shoot off a nuke and we're done. That's why I posed my question the way I did. I don't think people are very familiar with the Syrian War if they don't understand it's CC origins and the potential for that to happen again and again and again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:22
|
|