|
GreyjoyBastard posted:There was a real loving cool show about that sort of thing. Fortitude. It's also the subject of the creator of XCOM's upcoming game: https://www.fig.co/campaigns/phoenix-point
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:55
|
|
Guess I know what I'm doing this week!
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Wanderer posted:http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/derrick-crowe-lamar-smith-challenger Few things would please me more than to see Smith lose an election. quote:Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wrote the House-passed bill intended to restock the Science Advisory Board with more members from the business world. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Yes because the business world has Science's best interests in mind 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I'm all for this. Clearly Smith intends this to be a two-way street and wants to include scientists on business and economic advisory boards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:It's also the subject of the creator of XCOM's upcoming game: 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Few things would please me more than to see Smith lose an election. Finally the downtrodden energy and rare mineral mining corporations will have a voice in governme... bahaha death to the oligarchs there's no hope for this dumb nation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Whaaaat? The internet's introduced massive parallelism and balkanized the landscape. Take advantage of that. Oh man, they say these forums are dead but at least there's still a lot of unintentional comedy that comes out! "It'll help downstream" fuckin' lol. Maybe we need to synergize some disruption too!! Accretionist posted:FTFY People are laughing at you because what you are saying is not only really dumb but also shows a child-like understanding of the scale and the complexity of the problem. Even if we assumed your program would have any success (it won't) what are you actually even talking about? A million people in the US eat less / no meat? 10 Million? A hundred? Meanwhile, literal billions of people in the developing world are massively increasing their meat consumption. Double  if you have had/ are planning to have a kid-- something that is several orders of a magnitude more environmentally damaging than eating a surf and turf every fuckin' meal.To even call your suggestion a 'step in the right direction' is laughable. It's not even a drop in ocean. It's like blaming poor people for not being able to afford healthcare because they have smartphones. It's like trying to combat sea rise by taking an eyedropper to the beach. Never mind calling it a "negligible cost"-- let's add the cultural impact of food to the list of things you don't understand! Or how hard it is to change people's diets! I mean I really am cracking up here-- people fail to eat right and adjust their diets when their doctors tell them continuing how they are could kill them, and this joker things people are going to do so because he is  about climate change  Star Man posted:Misanthropes think there are too many people on the planet and any number is too many. News at 11 Well at the end of the day this really is the issue, or rather the number of people trying to live a modern lifestyle. Our problems aren't really that we eat too much meat, it's that too many people are eating meat. It's not like fish are going extinct because we're worse at managing them than we were 150 years ago, just the opposite in fact. It's because we are trying to feed 8 billion people instead of 1. At the end of the day this problem is very malthusian, it's just that the resource ended up not being food but the energy required to sustain billions of more people trying to live a modern lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
tsa posted:Even if we assumed your program would have any success (it won't) what are you actually even talking about? Negligible costs to begin cultural change now. It'll be helpful when cultural change is obligatory, maybe. So why not? But it's a big problem so anything less than one big solution is for idiots, right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
People convinced that climate change is an existential crisis bemoaning the impossibility of convincing anybody that climate change is an existential crisis ITT. [it's in order to view their own laziness as a sign of special superiority]
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:People convinced that climate change is an existential crisis bemoaning the impossibility of convincing anybody that climate change is an existential crisis ITT. Yeah, to me, it looks like a split between sad-brain catharsis and whiny condescension. I mean, there will be a large number of big programs. There will be a large number of small programs. They will be public and private. They will fail to effect prevention. They will effect mitigation and adaptation. What is the virtue of glibly dismissing out of hand everything which isn't a one-step plan to prevent climate change?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:
It's Forever_Peace posted:the opportunity to view their own laziness as a sign of special superiority buncha idiots do not understand basic sociology and the provenance of literally every frame of reference they have on the modern world.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What is the virtue of glibly dismissing out of hand everything which isn't a one-step plan to prevent climate change? It's cautious selection of the problem and its solution. When a freeper shakes his fist at the sky and yells about chemtrails or drinks only soda and beer because fluoridation, said person isn't compelled to do anything personally about it because the bad guy is this insurmountable, amorphous Thing that can't be fought. Should the same person get concerned about poo poo like police brutality, women's health issues, or healthcare, they might actually feel compelled to get up off their armchair and go march, protest, canvass, etc get involved in the very real and accessible ways available to citizens with even a little free time...or otherwise occasionally feel like a hypocrite on the infrequent but persistent occasion that a flash of self awareness reveals to their heart how little they're doing for their beliefs. Apply this to climate change being the enemy. Which is easier, shaking your fist at the rich? Ordoing something, anything inconsequential, at local levels that resembles effort? Take a look at the url in the navigation bar or the name of this app and get back to me. Here's a hint: one of these outlooks increases positive mindshare on climate change topics. The other is used by Republicans to justify kicking the issue down the road. Which is which? (Question left as exercise for the reader)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
You can't really blame people for believing we can do something about climate change. It's really tough to explain to humans that we actually don't have complete control of society and you're not going to stop humans from using technology in order to transform their immediate environments to suit their needs. Just lol at the idea that we will globally overcome our hardwired discount window and take coordinated action to slow down climate change. It's like believing in trickle down economics.Accretionist posted:What is the virtue of glibly dismissing out of hand everything which isn't a one-step plan to prevent climate change? It's about as virtuous as glibly suggesting if everyone just cared enough the world would change. You're basically a termite standing around saying "hey maybe if we build this colony a little slower it will collapse in 29 and a half years instead of 30 years" and then wondering why nobody thinks this is a solution to the colony collapsing. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:and then wondering why nobody thinks this is a solution to the colony collapsing. It's not ohmygod Accretionist posted:There will be a large number of small programs. They will be public and private. They will fail to effect prevention. They will effect mitigation and adaptation. We'll need to do a lot of things. We'll need to a lot of things A number of things. Multiple things. We will need to do multiple things, big and small. A lot of them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:We will need to do multiple things, big and small. A lot of them. To do what? What's even the goal? Feel better about ourselves while the world goes to poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
To effect mitigation and adaptation over the long term. Prevention's impossible. Mitigation and adaptation's possible. Multiple things will have to be done over an extended period of time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
A very large number of things over a century+
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:To effect mitigation and adaptation over the long term. What makes you think we can "mitigate" Antarctica melting? What does that mitigation even look like? What makes you think any sort of plan will survive the next 50 years as a majority of humanity (people living in coastal cities) realizes that they have to get the gently caress out? You can't mitigate a continent's ice sheet melting by changing your light bulbs, changing what you eat, etc. The natural processs have already taken over. The arctic is like 10 degrees C warmer now. Economic growth is the problem and there's literally a 0% chance you ever stop it. Bonus question, have you ever considered that simply accepting climate change as the new reality we live under is a form of adaptation? That maybe we should stop pretending we can slow down these processes? NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:To do what? What's even the goal? Feel better about ourselves while the world goes to poo poo? The way things going, we're gonna need to get to the singularity and discard our weak, meat-based bodies before the world is too hosed up to live in. ...Man, that sounded a lot less cynical in my head.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I think it is cute when we frame climate change as a mere human behavior problem. It permits libertarian policy tinkering (your neighbor got a smiley face; you got an angry emoji face! Boo!) while ignoring the systemic causes. It's better than nothing or coal rolling or whatever but only misguided wonks and technoutopians think it'll save us.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Personally my favorite is people sharing articles for the past 30 years that are titled "we have to act now or it's too late" being unable to accept that it is in fact, too late.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Accretionist, if you were in car that fell off a 1000 ft cliff, would you buckle your seatbelt?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What makes you think we can "mitigate" Antarctica melting? What does that mitigation even look like? You're saying, "mitigation," but you're talking about single-plan prevention Even if all we do is push back the timeline on the worst case scenario, that'll make it easier and cheaper to deal with. And to do so, multiple things will need to be done. A lot of things. More than one thing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Accretionist, if you were in car that fell off a 1000 ft cliff, would you buckle your seatbelt? For your analogy to work, every other person on earth has to commit suicide when the car hits the ground. Edit: Billions will survive the evacuation of Miami. Should they keep burning coal because gently caress it, McDonald's can't sell McDoubles for $2.50 anymore?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:[it's in order to view their own laziness as a sign of special superiority] Dude, come on, yours is not the only position of intellectual honesty. The smarmy performative disregard you have to show to every cynical take is itself an annoying broken record.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You're saying, "mitigation," but you're talking about single-plan prevention No I'm not quote:Even if all we do is push back the timeline on the worst case scenario, that'll make it easier and cheaper to deal with. What do you mean by push the timeline back? Also, what makes you so sure that delaying the inevitable (worst case scenario) is a good thing in of itself. Maybe society collapsing as soon as possible is the best thing that could happen for our long term chances at civilization surviving. Quite frankly, you have no idea on how to do anything to mitigate or adapt to the reality we live in now, i'm not entirely convince you even understand the problem. Accretionist posted:Edit: Billions will survive the evacuation of Miami. Should they keep burning coal because gently caress it, McDonald's can't sell McDoubles for $2.50 anymore? Miami is irrelevant. The US is basically irrelevant. We've already industrialized. And the rest of the developing world is going to burn coal as long as they can. Just like we did. There is no global "stop using coal" button. The global economy has no regulations. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:00 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What do you mean by push the timeline back? Abandon x square miles of coastal urban space by 2080 instead of by 2070. Global carbon emissions peak at (X*.9) instead of X. That kind of thing. quote:Also, what makes you so sure that delaying the inevitable (worst case scenario) is a good thing in of itself. Maybe society collapsing as soon as possible is the best thing that could happen for our long term chances at civilization surviving. Are you pro-climate change or anti-climate change? quote:Quite frankly, you have no idea on how to do anything to mitigate or adapt to the reality we live in now, i'm not entirely convince you even understand the problem. And I think you're being pointlessly contrarian because you're irritated and have no point. Edit: quote:Miami is irrelevant. The US is basically irrelevant. We've already industrialized. And the rest of the developing world is going to burn coal as long as they can. Just like we did. There is no global "stop using coal" button. The global economy has no regulations. I just used Miami as an example of something expensive and burdensome, but I am working off a 'developed western-nation' perspective. That being said, the better developed renewables are, the more they'll be used abroad. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Abandon x square miles of coastal urban space by 2080 instead of by 2070. Global carbon emissions peak at (X*.9) instead of X. That kind of thing. Abandoning coastal urban space is a good thing, not a bad thing. The oceans are not going to stop rising. If anything we should be pushing that now. This is what I mean by not understanding what "adaptation" is. Real adaptation would be moving everyone out of the cities before being forced out by the oceans. Delaying that is not a good thing. quote:Are you pro-climate change or anti-climate change? Uhh there's no such thing as either of these things but I think it's a valid question to posit whether society collapsing now or in 50 years would be better for humanity as a whole. In fact, I think this is often less talked about than it should be, especially considering the only thing we've seen that slows emissions on a global scale in the past 20 years was the 2008 financial crisis. quote:I think you're being pointlessly contrarian because you're irritated and have no point. No it's just 20 years of "guys if everyone just switched lightbulbs, drove a bit less and ate less meat the world will be fine" when you completely ignore the fact that your toothless attempt at changing the world is the entire reason we're in this poo poo to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You can't really blame people for believing we can do something about climate change. It's really tough to explain to humans that we actually don't have complete control of society and you're not going to stop humans from using technology in order to transform their immediate environments to suit their needs. Just lol at the idea that we will globally overcome our hardwired discount window and take coordinated action to slow down climate change. It's like believing in trickle down economics. Frankly, I agree. I see winning mindshare, though, as a really drat important thing to do right now. Please, keep reading, I'll keep it brief. The day will come when the apocalyptic consequences of ACC are readily apparent to even the brainwashed children of Rush Limbaugh fans. On that day, we'll be likelier than ever to go full ham and save what little of a future for however small a society our children will scrape meager existences in. It would be one thing if Trump's presidency only delayed that Full Tryhard commitment. Alas, no, we weren't ever going to be going Full Tryhard before 2040 or even 2050. As you point out, we will not overcome our hardwired me me me this now want buy me now brains until death is staring us in the face at 108 Fahrenheit in traditionally-temperate areas and untold hundreds of millions in South and southeast Asia have succumbed to starvation and war. So, what's the point? Here's your flaw: the Full Tryhard Big Effort at the End Time isn't the only thing that we can be doing right now. The long term may have a very all-or-none outcome that we are already hosed on, but there may well be things we can be doing in terms of our little island of land here in the western hemisphere. Resiliency is one thing: get as much renewable energy as we can before global trade collapses and makes procurement of rare earth materials impossible without even more bloodshed than they currently incur. Build the smart grid. Unfuck the idea that your lawn needs to be green. Build the wall but go all the way, including the machine gun nests that'll be needed to keep climate refugees at bay. this joke intentionally evil Rebuild public infrastructure while money is still a thing. Build out public transit in earnest. Education / Acceptance is another front we can do something on right now. Keep climate science funded, expand it when possible as much as possible. Primary weak democrats out of office and send the GOP's leadership to Jupiter (removal from power is an acceptable alternate goal). Fund the gently caress out of sequestration / mitigation tech; as impractical as it may be, we may well give it a shot at the sunset of the Anthropocene and doing research now in a largely rich and free world will be easier than doing the same when Texas goes feral from heat and thirst and millions die violent deaths to the muzzles of personal firearms. Nothing matters, but climate nihilism does a hell of a lot less mattering than what I'm suggesting. Alternately, just vote Trump 2020 and 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Abandoning coastal urban space is a good thing, not a bad thing. The oceans are not going to stop rising. If anything we should be pushing that now. And there's financial and human costs. If we have to abandon a city, does the associated timeline impact said costs? quote:Uhh there's no such thing as either of these things but I think it's a valid question to posit whether society collapsing now or in 50 years would be better for humanity as a whole. In fact, I think this is often less talked about than it should be, especially considering the only thing we've seen that slows emissions on a global scale in the past 20 years was the 2008 financial crisis. Climate Change: Accelerationist Edition quote:No it's just 20 years of "guys if everyone just switched lightbulbs, drove a bit less and ate less meat the world will be fine" when you completely ignore the fact that your toothless attempt at changing the world is the entire reason we're in this poo poo to begin with. You're still interpreting this through the lens of, "Is it a one-step plan to prevent all climate change?"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
e: this was needlessly rude
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
forums software, not you Accretionist
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Here's your flaw: the Full Tryhard Big Effort at the End Time isn't the only thing that we can be doing right now. The long term may have a very all-or-none outcome that we are already hosed on, but there may well be things we can be doing in terms of our little island of land here in the western hemisphere. I believe in adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change on an individual level. But the first part of that is accepting that it's going to happen and we're not going to slow or stop it, so we should stop wasting our time trying to do so. Focus on your local area and pray that your climate/location is resilient enough to survive the waves of refugees and bizarre weather we're in for. Move north. Vote locally, care locally, and stop pretending like it's your job (or that it's even possible) to save the world. quote:Climate Change: Accelerationist Edition It's worthy of discussion, whether or not it makes you feel uncomfortable quote:You're still interpreting this through the lens of, "Is it a one-step plan to prevent all climate change?" You can keep saying that but I never have so I don't know why you're so insistent.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's worthy of discussion, whether or not it makes you feel uncomfortable No, I think it's funny. If you can have that discussion without sounding clinically depressed, proceed with my endorsement. Edit: And for the record, anti-climate change exists. Climate change is bad, imo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:No, I think it's funny. If you can have that discussion without sounding clinically depressed, proceed with my endorsement. You think it's funny that the only method we've found to reduce global emissions is through global recessions? I don't find it amusing as much as troubling, and a sign that maybe climate change is more baked into the inevitability of humanity's expansion of territory and their ability to transform their environment to their whims. By the way I'm not nihilistic or depressed about climate change, I know saying those sorts of things makes you feel like you've somehow got the "logical" response but you're just deluding yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I believe in adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change on an individual level. But the first part of that is accepting that it's going to happen and we're not going to slow or stop it, so we should stop wasting our time trying to do so. Focus on your local area and pray that your climate/location is resilient enough to survive the waves of refugees and bizarre weather we're in for. Move north. Vote locally, care locally, and stop pretending like it's your job (or that it's even possible) to save the world. We might agree more than we disagree. I think one sticking point is that I see downstream benefits to early local action that increases in scope as time progresses and the % of humanity mentally ready for Shitstorm Xtreme increases. other than that, yeah nothing matters and this owns
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Hey, maybe some people have no talent for politics and should just change their own lives, while trying to inspire their circle of friends. Maybe some people can be really active and try to change national policy. They still need to change their own lives and lead by example. Nothing will set your own cause back more than a climate denier who attacks you for being a hypocrite. In fact, the Chinese government accused the US government of that for a very long time. Now, it's true that the problem is bigger than any one country could fix. Token lifestyle changes in your own life are utterly useless for actually changing the environment. They only have real value as tokens. I can understand the frustration when people don't at least try to acknowledge that. It simply has nothing to do with changing the climate unless you can at least do that much. On another note, I believed the Malthusian argument for maybe one year of my life. Never again. Since then, I've believed more people allows for more potential solutions, far out weighing the problems. Of course, solutions imply plans, specifically family planning. Undeveloped and developing country citizens have the least access to contraceptives, or the least pregnancy education; but they have dreams of steak dinners and private jets and drilling for oil everywhere. Both those things put together are absolutely unsustainable. The planet could probably handle one or the other.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
For what it's worth I'm not a Malthusian (at least in the traditional sense). I don't think overpopulation has much to do with anything. This about humanity's relationship with technology and the environment. The earth has plenty of carrying capacity for 7 billion humans, just not how we're living now. I'd like to believe some sort of strong global central authority could somehow incentivize our behaviors to push for stability as opposed to growth but that's about as pie in the sky as I'm willing to get. Also it will never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:more people allows for more potential solutions, far out weighing the problems Oh sweet Jesus that's the most precious thing I've ever read. I will print this out in enormous font and laminate it and put it on the sail of my ecomutant catamaran.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
I don't know if this thread is at its worst when its dominated by the anarchy loving eco-survivalists who can't stop masturbating about their potential communes or the sadbrains that believe that literally nothing with a path dependent development in politics has ever changed before.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:53
|
|
