Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Getting used to a more ascetic lifestyle now is good preparation for getting used to it when you have no choice later.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 00:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 04:12

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

Dang capitalism is so fuckin good at what it does. People instinctively think "Why should I give up X" not "Why do I want X altogether" when they consider not doing something.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 00:31

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

I'm sure when you're being beaten to death by climate refugees for the couple scraps of food you've got on you it'll definitely have been worth spending the extra time taking the public transportation or learning how to grow vegetables back when the soil could support plant life that offered nutrition to humans. When you get blown up by an IED or shot by some fascist with a gun it'll feel much better knowing you voted for the guys who didn't call climate change a Chinese hoax, but still failed to do anything even approaching remotely worthwhile with regards to addressing the problem. When your home is destroyed by a hurricane and you're left homeless and abandoned by a society that can no longer support even a fraction of the people who have literally nothing left but the clothes on their backs I'm sure you will sleep much better in the cold knowing that you bought the right kind of light bulb or reduced your carbon footprint enough to smugly tell people that they're a bunch of rubes being tricked by capitalism into enjoying what little time they have riding the wave of reckless consumption that doomed the world before they were old enough to vote in the first place.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 00:51

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Bingo

Honest question, do bottle deposits matter? Or are they just another way to tax poor people while corporations pollute 100x worse than them?

# ? Aug 10, 2017 01:11

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

ChairMaster posted:

I find it pretty hard to believe that there still exist people who have read a single report on any climate issue in the last two years who seriously believe that reducing your personal emissions means poo poo to anyone in any point in time or in any part of the world. You people are being ridiculous. I don't know how the 90's-00's hosed up so many people's perceptions of reality so badly, but it's getting to be a bit farcical at this point.

Anyways you're being hilariously disingenuous if you're trying to say that anyone posting in this thread has the power to do anything, just by virtue of the fact that we are technically globally wealthy. The power to make a difference lies in the hands of a very very small number of incredibly wealthy people, and not a single one of them posts here or will ever read anything in this thread. Those people are the actual top of the socioeconomic ladder, they're the ones with the power, and they are never going to do a drat thing to even try to mitigate the disastrous future that is headed our way. They've got theirs and we can all get hosed for all they care. If you want to make a difference then start trying to get people to throw IEDs at them whenever they show their faces in public, try to get people to drive trucks full explosives or armed personnel through their gates and gun them down or something. Those are the actions you should be advocating if you want to make a positive change in the world, not "buy a hybrid car and vote Democrat so we can participate in the hilariously ineffectual and lackluster Paris Accord".

In the mean time, I'm gonna see if I can get citizenship in New Zealand before global civilization falls apart. It seems a bit safer.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/29/silicon-valley-new-zealand-apocalypse-escape

# ? Aug 10, 2017 02:20

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

enraged_camel posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/29/silicon-valley-new-zealand-apocalypse-escape

I don't really get what you're laughing at. Maybe you're reading a stronger moral judgement into what I'm saying than I mean to imply?

I was done being personally outraged at the people who destroyed the world by the time I turned 18. I've accepted things for what they are and I'm working toward making my own life better and safer than those who dick around trying to pretend like we can still save the world.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 02:56

Oxxidation: Jul 22, 2007

ChairMaster posted:

I don't really get what you're laughing at. Maybe you're reading a stronger moral judgement into what I'm saying than I mean to imply?

I was done being personally outraged at the people who destroyed the world by the time I turned 18. I've accepted things for what they are and I'm working toward making my own life better and safer than those who dick around trying to pretend like we can still save the world.

Making vague gestures towards a "geoengineering degree" isn't any sort of life improvement, bucko.

You're going to die the way you lived and NZ is probably full up on fat and friendless register jockeys.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 02:59

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Is geoengineering a degree? I've never heard of such a thing.

Also I haven't been overweight for like half a decade, you weird stalker people need to keep track better if you're gonna follow people around with old e/n posts.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 03:05

the old ceremony: Aug 1, 2017; by FactsAreUseless

t r e e s

# ? Aug 10, 2017 03:06

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

we do read this thread fyi chairmaster

# ? Aug 10, 2017 03:35

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

ChairMaster posted:

I'm sure when you're being beaten to death by climate refugees for the couple scraps of food you've got on you it'll definitely have been worth spending the extra time taking the public transportation or learning how to grow vegetables back when the soil could support plant life that offered nutrition to humans. When you get blown up by an IED or shot by some fascist with a gun it'll feel much better knowing you voted for the guys who didn't call climate change a Chinese hoax, but still failed to do anything even approaching remotely worthwhile with regards to addressing the problem. When your home is destroyed by a hurricane and you're left homeless and abandoned by a society that can no longer support even a fraction of the people who have literally nothing left but the clothes on their backs I'm sure you will sleep much better in the cold knowing that you bought the right kind of light bulb or reduced your carbon footprint enough to smugly tell people that they're a bunch of rubes being tricked by capitalism into enjoying what little time they have riding the wave of reckless consumption that doomed the world before they were old enough to vote in the first place.

It's ok the rich will protect us with security drones that they'll definitely never turn on us later. :allears:

# ? Aug 10, 2017 04:32

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

I think its a completely false three-way dichotomy (tri-chotomy?). "Should I take individual action" vs "Society and our economic system need fundamental change" vs "Technology will save us". Climate change is an ALL OF THE ABOVE situation not a which-one situation. All are necessary, none are sufficient.

It will take individuals to decide that they are willing to live different, less energy-expensive lifestyles, to create the social opening for broader more societal change. Much the same as we finally got gay marriage after a decade (or two) of everybody's cousin or friend from high school coming out of the closet. Its not even about the gigatons you save individually, its about seeding society with tangible examples and raising a generation where those different lifestyles are not abstract hypotheticals, they're "normal" because they've always been there. In fact the only reason we can even really say this is the generation(s) that came before us that made what progress there already has been on environmentalism and sustainability.

Similarly, humans are simply not altruistic enough to make sum total amount of change it would take to become sustainable now (kill urself), so while people are bringing their footprint down through marginal activity technology has to be *simultaneously* greatly reducing carbon cost and increasing energy efficiency for basic standard of living things (one or two children, 'room tempature' year round housing, 10km+ radius 'commuting'/social-traveling, meat).

Only then, when both waves of poeople have adapted and compound improvements in technology have developed alongside those adaptations will the new social norms and societal structures emerge that can form the basis for a sustainable future for humanity and life on earth.

And yes, its super duper easy to look at that and think its a pretty safe bet to bet against it. You can absolutely 100% make a rational case for giving up without trying and just not giving a gently caress. But then why the gently caress are you even reading this thread? For gods sake at least don't post, you've already admitted to yourself you're a useless leach, at least save us the :words:

where you try to justify it with bullshit excuses or name calling.

tl;dr - move to an apartment, rideshare in EVs, and strangle at least one banker with your bare hands

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Aug 10, 2017

# ? Aug 10, 2017 04:49

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

Wait gently caress there are gonna be packs of hungry migrants and redneck executioners? When?

# ? Aug 10, 2017 08:31

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

StabbinHobo posted:

For gods sake at least don't post.

Quoting to make sure you guys got that part.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 13:12

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

StabbinHobo posted:

It will take individuals to decide that they are willing to live different, less energy-expensive lifestyles, to create the social opening for broader more societal change. Much the same as we finally got gay marriage after a decade (or two) of everybody's cousin or friend from high school coming out of the closet.

This is a crazy comparison. It took like 20 years for something that has literally no effect on 95% of people's lives to be made legal through slow individual change, and that same kind of thing is supposed to help us abandon reckless consumption and rebuild our entire society from the ground up?

Once again we come back to the problem being that people with optimism seem to have no idea what the scope of the problem really is, and how far down the hole we already are.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 16:03

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Definition of optimism may vary as needed.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 16:25

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

ChairMaster posted:

This is a crazy comparison. It took like 20 years for something that has literally no effect on 95% of people's lives to be made legal through slow individual change, and that same kind of thing is supposed to help us abandon reckless consumption and rebuild our entire society from the ground up?

Once again we come back to the problem being that people with optimism seem to have no idea what the scope of the problem really is, and how far down the hole we already are.

Exactly. Recognizing gay marriage meant zero sacrifice on anyone's part and it still took loving forever to happen. It's weird when people bring this issue up as an example of how a society can progress.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 16:26

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Optimism as a defense mechanism is OK. Optimism as a method to browbeat realists is horseshit.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 16:29

FourLeaf: Dec 2, 2011

https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/896387728711045120

# ? Aug 12, 2017 16:27

Crazycryodude: Aug 15, 2015; Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

....Is that still a valid thing to jingoistically blow out of proportion?

So my petroleum company-owning right-wing 1% uncle (not my actual bio uncle, but a family friend going back decades before I was even born that I call "uncle") just gave me A Disgrace to the Profession and Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. I'm probably not even gonna bother opening them because I can already tell you from the covers alone that they're bullshit, but does anybody know specifics of exactly how and why they're bullshit if he ever asks what I thought of them?

# ? Aug 12, 2017 20:16

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Crazycryodude posted:

So my petroleum company-owning right-wing 1% uncle (not my actual bio uncle, but a family friend going back decades before I was even born that I call "uncle") just gave me A Disgrace to the Profession and Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. I'm probably not even gonna bother opening them because I can already tell you from the covers alone that they're bullshit, but does anybody know specifics of exactly how and why they're bullshit if he ever asks what I thought of them?

no, this is the fatal flaw everyone makes. you cannot convince these people by trying to out-memorize factoids and counterpoints. they can piss in your mouth faster than you can spit and nothing gives them more joy than watching you try.

this man has invested a lot in associating denial with his identity. maybe because he's a good person who built a lot of wealth in the oil sector and didn't truly come to grasp the truth until far too late, or maybe he's just a spiteful piece of poo poo that compulsively pursues things that put him in angry-reaction-mode. either way if you want to change his opinion its 100% therapy about his issues and has dick poo poo to do with the flaws/certainty of this or that study.

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 12, 2017

# ? Aug 12, 2017 20:27

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

If he disbelieves in climate change so much just burn his house down and tell him its a temporary heatwave

# ? Aug 12, 2017 20:42

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

got any sevens posted:

If he disbelieves in climate change so much just burn his house down and tell him its a temporary heatwave

But then you'd get imprisoned and indicted for arson.

# ? Aug 13, 2017 02:06

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Grouchio posted:

But then you'd get imprisoned and indicted for arson.

Look; do you want to win the argument or not?

# ? Aug 13, 2017 03:02

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

got any sevens posted:

If he disbelieves in climate change so much just burn his house down and tell him its a temporary heatwave

Just convince him to invest in some exciting new housing developments on the south Florida coast. It's a buyers' market!!

# ? Aug 13, 2017 10:42

dex_sda: Oct 11, 2012

TACD posted:

Just convince him to invest in some exciting new housing developments on the south Florida coast. It's a buyers' market!!

Ah, the long* con. I like it.

* Long may not actually be that long if current trends of fossil fuel use are anything to go by.

# ? Aug 13, 2017 13:56

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Huh, poo poo, maybe that oxygen deprivation thing is a concern :stare:

FSU Research: Ancient ocean deoxygenation provides an urgent warning

quote:

A 94-million-year-old climate change event that severely imperiled marine organisms may provide some unnerving insights into long-term trends in our modern oceans, according to a Florida State University researcher.

In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, Assistant Professor of Geology Jeremy Owens traces a 50,000-year period of ocean deoxygenation preceding an ancient climate event that dramatically disturbed global ocean chemistry and led to the extinction of many marine organisms. He also draws parallels to similar rates of oxygen depletion observed in our contemporary oceans.

“We found that before this major shift in the climate, there was a stretch of oxygen depletion of about 50,000 years,” Owens said. “The rate of deoxygenation during that time is somewhat equivalent to the rate at which many scientists suggest we’re losing oxygen from our oceans today.”

Alongside scientists from Arizona State University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Owens used a newly devised Thallium isotope analysis to examine organic-rich sediment from the Demerara Rise, an underwater plateau off the coasts of Suriname and French Guyana.

In these samples, Owens and his collaborators discovered evidence of rapid oxygen loss tens of thousands of years prior to the globally recognized climate event.

The best indicator for a significant climate disturbance like the one Owens and his colleagues investigated is the burial of large amounts of organic carbon. Owens said that the 50,000-year interval of deoxygenation preceding the climate event may help explain the relationship between buried organic carbon and major climatic shifts.

“The easiest way to bury organic carbon is for there to be a lack of oxygen because decreased oxygen slows down microbial respiration, and thus more primary producers sink down to the seafloor,” Owens said. “This oxygen depletion prior to the event makes a lot of sense as it sets the stage for widespread organic carbon burial — carbon that we now use for some of our fossil fuels.”

In the study, Owens found that the onset of the deoxygenation period corresponded with a marked rise in volcanic activity. As volcanism increased, carbon dioxide was pumped into a warming atmosphere and the oceans were suffused with an excess of nutrients, leading to a process of dense aquatic plant growth and rapid oxygen depletion called eutrophication.

The cascade of events that seems to have precipitated the 50,000-year deoxygenation period — carbon dioxide emissions, a warming atmosphere and eutrophication — is a familiar one to those studying modern fossil fuel combustion and climate change.

“The volcanism linked to deoxygenation in the past represents the same kind of process as we see today — we’re just dealing with different sources,” Owens said. “If the climate event in our study is analogous to modern events, we have to consider what that might mean for our oceans.”

While it’s unknown exactly how quickly the world’s oceans are deoxygenating, scientists estimate that they lose a small percentage every decade. On the scale of a human lifetime, this pace seems negligible. But on a geologic scale, this is happening quickly and could have major effects on the global ecosystem.

“It’s not a problem way off in the distance, and it’s not just carbon dioxide we should be worried about,” Owens said. “These processes are also having an impact on oxygen levels, and that’s a major issue for many organisms.”

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Agouron Institute. Owens’ coauthors are postdoctoral student Chadlin Ostrander from Arizona State University and Sune Nielsen from Woods Hole.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 01:25

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Atmospheric oxygen depletion is not a concern in a timeframe that matters to humans - it would definitely gently caress over the biosphere but we're talking about thousands of years before the effects are seen. It matters if you care about the long-term viability of the biosphere and the human species but otherwise :shrug:

Anoxic ocean events however are indeed a very real concern, and no one's saying otherwise.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 01:49

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Quite.

This whole PDF is amazingly depressing, but this page is a gooder:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf#page=60

quote:

The number of reported marine dead zones has been roughly doubling every ten years since the 1960s, and by 2007 had reached around 500.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 06:10

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Rime posted:

Quite.

This whole PDF is amazingly depressing, but this page is a gooder:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf#page=60

Measuring it in "number of dead zones" seems problematic. Eventually the number is gonna go down as zones merge.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 12:07

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Thug Lessons posted:

Can anyone get institutional access to this and post it? Looks pretty significant if you're at all worried about methane clathrate.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n8/full/ngeo2992.html?foxtrotcallback=true

https://www.scribd.com/document/356270424/Microbial-oxidation-as-a-methane-sink-beneath-the-West-Antarctic-Ice-Sheet

# ? Aug 14, 2017 13:54

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Measuring it in "number of dead zones" seems problematic. Eventually the number is gonna go down as zones merge.

My favorite part is the complete lack of dead zones around economically unimportant countries! Surely the sea is doing fine there and it's not just that we haven't really measured it.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 15:09

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

call to action posted:

My favorite part is the complete lack of dead zones around economically unimportant countries! Surely the sea is doing fine there and it's not just that we haven't really measured it.

The dead zones are due to excessive nitrogen from commercial fertilizers so that actually makes sense.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 15:10

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

hobbesmaster posted:

The dead zones are due to excessive nitrogen from commercial fertilizers so that actually makes sense.

Considering there's dead zones around areas of the US that don't have commercially significant amounts of agriculture (New England, for example) I'm going to say that seems like one part of the issue

# ? Aug 14, 2017 15:14

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

call to action posted:

Considering there's dead zones around areas of the US that don't have commercially significant amounts of agriculture (New England, for example) I'm going to say that seems like one part of the issue

From what I can tell, runoff from urban areas/industries/landfills can play a large part too, as can human interference with the flow of water (or just a generally low rate of replacement in the waters in question.). So basically ~~population~~ consumption density.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 17:10

Morton Salt Grrl: Sep 2, 2011; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
FRESH BLOOD

May their memory be a justification for genocide

ChairMaster posted:

I find it pretty hard to believe that there still exist people who have read a single report on any climate issue in the last two years who seriously believe that reducing your personal emissions means poo poo to anyone in any point in time or in any part of the world. You people are being ridiculous. I don't know how the 90's-00's hosed up so many people's perceptions of reality so badly, but it's getting to be a bit farcical at this point.

Anyways you're being hilariously disingenuous if you're trying to say that anyone posting in this thread has the power to do anything, just by virtue of the fact that we are technically globally wealthy. The power to make a difference lies in the hands of a very very small number of incredibly wealthy people, and not a single one of them posts here or will ever read anything in this thread. Those people are the actual top of the socioeconomic ladder, they're the ones with the power, and they are never going to do a drat thing to even try to mitigate the disastrous future that is headed our way. They've got theirs and we can all get hosed for all they care. If you want to make a difference then start trying to get people to throw IEDs at them whenever they show their faces in public, try to get people to drive trucks full explosives or armed personnel through their gates and gun them down or something. Those are the actions you should be advocating if you want to make a positive change in the world, not "buy a hybrid car and vote Democrat so we can participate in the hilariously ineffectual and lackluster Paris Accord".

In the mean time, I'm gonna see if I can get citizenship in New Zealand before global civilization falls apart. It seems a bit safer.

It's all very well saying that the power to make a difference lies in the hands of a few wealthy people, but if they actually tried to change anything, wouldn't there be mass rioting in the streets by people angry that they can't maintain their quality of life? I'm not saying that people in power are inclined to change anything, but if you actually told people "Hey, we're not going to build any more houses because we already take up too much land, you can only have one kid and there'll be less food to go around because we're not exploiting the earth anymore. Also, no more consumer electronics because it's a big waste of resources for quickly-replaced luxuries." there'd be blood in the streets.

For example, here's a huffpost article angry that the UK government is starting to restrict welfare payments to just the first two children, because of course everyone has the right to have as many children as they like.

The biggest challenge to environmentalism isn't corporations, IMO; it's a humanist ideology that says that no-one should ever suffer without considering what the cost of avoiding that suffering is. While I generally agree with you that going green and recycling and cycling to work one day a week isn't going to save the world, ordinary people do have the ability to change the world by taking more radical steps (such as agitating for population control and placing environmental/animal rights over human rights) but they won't because it would significantly affect their own quality of life.

Morton Salt Grrl fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 14, 2017

# ? Aug 14, 2017 18:45

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Nobody is willing to agitate for population control, or stand firm that we've overpopulated to the point where a Rhino is vastly more precious than a couple thousand human lives, because you are branded as a Nazi and aggressively witchhunted if you do so. You're correct, however, the greatest enemy to our future is base level humanity rather than a shadowy cabal of ne'er do wells.

Just look at the poo poo I take in this thread for my opinion on Borlaug.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 18:54

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Morton Salt Grrl posted:

It's all very well saying that the power to make a difference lies in the hands of a few wealthy people, but if they actually tried to change anything, wouldn't there be mass rioting in the streets by people angry that they can't maintain their quality of life? I'm not saying that people in power are inclined to change anything, but if you actually told people "Hey, we're not going to build any more houses because we already take up too much land, you can only have one kid and there'll be less food to go around because we're not exploiting the earth anymore. Also, no more consumer electronics because it's a big waste of resources for quickly-replaced luxuries." there'd be blood in the streets.

For example, here's a huffpost article angry that the UK government is starting to restrict welfare payments to just the first two children, because of course everyone has the right to have as many children as they like.

The biggest challenge to environmentalism isn't corporations, IMO; it's a humanist ideology that says that no-one should ever suffer without considering what the cost of avoiding that suffering is. While I generally agree with you that going green and recycling and cycling to work one day a week isn't going to save the world, ordinary people do have the ability to change the world by taking more radical steps (such as agitating for population control and placing environmental/animal rights over human rights) but they won't because it would significantly affect their own quality of life.

I don't think this is a great example for this particular argument. Welfare restrictions inherently shove the cost of this problem off onto the poor, which is... not awesome. If you're going to do population control as government policy then you need to avoid regressive policies that only target vulnerable groups. Either everyone does have the right to have as many children as they'd like or no one does. Using welfare to punish poor people with large families is legitimately monstrous.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 19:35

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Population control as a policy is both unnecessary and morally suspect.

Lets start with the unnecessary part. If we look at all of the developed nations of the world what they have in common is that a combination of better sexual education, distribution of preventive medical options and a high-standard (but yet precarious) standard of living has put us all at around replacement level. It is never a economically sound decision in the West to have children and as accidentally having children has become more difficult we simply stopped at some point. Therefore, instituting population controls doesn't really serve any purpose here.

Then we have morally suspect. In the undeveloped nations, from which most of our population-booms come from since the end of the 1960's, the situation is reversed. There is low to non-existent levels of sexual education. Preventive medical options drift between being difficult to access to illegal. Furthermore, in large swaths of the world subsistence framing, scavenging and child-labour makes it a net-positive thing to have children. The roots of all of these exist in our global economical systems failure to treat third world nations as anything but post-colonial areas from which to extract wealth. To advocate population controls in these countries is to advocate instituting totalitarian rule on these areas and to murder them for circumstances which we ourselves placed them under. This all while many of them live at living standards which are less polluting than our own by multiples of 2-2, depending on the country. Furthermore, that's without even getting into that much of their pollution comes from them producing crap for our benefit. We could kill them all but that wouldn't change the fact that we would still demand cheap clothing, electronics, steel, minerals and furniture.

Population controls do not address the systematic failures which brought us here. Any sensible plan for addressing climate change needs to get comfortable with the fact that this earth will still house a few more billion humans and that we are just as screwed with them as we are without them.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 19:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 04:12

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Morton Salt Grrl posted:

For example, here's a huffpost article angry that the UK government is starting to restrict welfare payments to just the first two children, because of course everyone has the right to have as many children as they like.

Sounds like more Protestant attacks on Catholics!

# ? Aug 14, 2017 19:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »