|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, corporatism is incompatible with serious environmental protection so that has to go, for starters. And if you can do that, then you can also implement some serious wealth redistribution (you know, like UBI), so that's good too towards protecting quality of life for the most vulnerable in an increasingly harsher world. Who implements ubi? We just invade every country then kill their leaders then take over then enforce ubi then make everyone promise their children and their children and their children will keep doing it and never break and be capitalist again for the next billion years? If you fund investment into a new kinda solar panel people will use that because it's better, if you just try to globally legislate no cat patting people are just gonna eventually not do that anymore and someone is gonna pet a cat. You have to present actual solutions to people, not just hope you can shame them into being more moral. Even if you win you've presented no mechanism to make sure in 50 years that a billion Chinese people or africans that now have global UBI and are reaching some sort of middle class aren't gonna say "I wanna eat a hamburger and go pet french cats" and totally not care that their poverty stricken dad got forced into a deal made by rich white people a generation ago. But they will use a cool nuclear power plant design that someone invented a generation ago if it works well.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who implements ubi? We just invade every country then kill their leaders then take over then enforce ubi then make everyone promise their children and their children and their children will keep doing it and never break and be capitalist again for the next billion years? You appear to have entirely missed the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You appear to have entirely missed the point. The point is that you are never ever going to be able to enforce any global moral framework based on people intentionally self impoverishing unless it's so minor it's negligible. Telling everyone to just act right is a feel good solution to jerk off about on how great you are, but it's worse than useless as a solution. The literal only solutions possible are to find better ways that enrich people. If that is simply not possible then i guess we got another 75 years left to wrap up star wars and maybe add some genes into some corvids and octopuses to make them live longer to give them a better shot at being a cool next civilization before we die out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is that you are never ever going to be able to enforce any global moral framework based on people intentionally self impoverishing unless it's so minor it's negligible. Telling everyone to just act right is a feel good solution to jerk off about on how great you are, but it's worse than useless as a solution. The literal only solutions possible are to find better ways that enrich people. If that is simply not possible then i guess we got another 75 years left to wrap up star wars and maybe add some genes into some corvids and octopuses to make them live longer to give them a better shot at being a cool next civilization before we die out. I mean, if you get down to the brass tacks, all life is but a losing battle against entropy. But you need only step off your high horse for a moment to see that my post was specifically about getting more time to find solutions, if such solutions exist, and not a long-term solution in of itself. That said, we are aware a world where you can't travel to every continent to pet cats isn't a world that's worth living in for you, therefore this is a non-starter even if it was an achievable path.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:
Yeah pretty much, the ability of humans to travel has evolved generation to generation to the point an everyday person can save up and see every continent a few times in their entire life if they focus on it as some grand life goal. Hopefully this isn’t the apex and a hundred years from now we have worked out methods anyone can go anywhere they want as much as they want or need. The idea it will regress is awful. Hopefully a generation from now some guy can take a hyperloop or space plane or whatever and commute to another hemisphere every other weekend if they want. Not regress till only the ultra rich see outside their home town.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, corporatism is incompatible with serious environmental protection so that has to go, for starters. And if you can do that, then you can also implement some serious wealth redistribution (you know, like UBI), so that's good too towards protecting quality of life for the most vulnerable in an increasingly harsher world. I get where you are coming from, but honestly it is almost like wishing for a unicorn. I don't think any global system changes in relation to corporatism/capitalism are likely to get anywhere until climate change starts to yield massive body counts. Even relatively achievable victories in the west, like shifting automobiles away from fossil fuels is moving at a slow pace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah pretty much, the ability of humans to travel has evolved generation to generation to the point an everyday person can save up and see every continent a few times in their entire life if they focus on it as some grand life goal. Hopefully this isn’t the apex and a hundred years from now we have worked out methods anyone can go anywhere they want as much as they want or need. The idea it will regress is awful. Hopefully a generation from now some guy can take a hyperloop or space plane or whatever and commute to another hemisphere every other weekend if they want. Not regress till only the ultra rich see outside their home town. The problem is that the way this has become achievable is through offloading the true costs globally and to future generations. That's really it. That's what it boils down to. It's not really 'regression': it's paying the loving debt. Ideally what you'd want is yeah, invent technology to magically make the debt go away... but maybe we should exercise some fiscal responsibility here? At least to stave off bankruptcy while considering other options? https://twitter.com/dril/status/384411458794057728
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The problem is that the way this has become achievable is through offloading the true costs globally and to future generations. That's really it. That's what it boils down to. Well it turns out you are literally going to get zero traction ever on the “no one travels anymore” platform then keeping it going for the rest of human history so someone better get going trying to find real solutions instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Well it turns out you are literally going to get zero traction ever on the “no one travels anymore” platform then keeping it going for the rest of human history so someone better get going trying to find real solutions instead. Most people agree with you fyi. That's why they are so pessimistic. If you limit solutions to "politically realistic" ideas in 2018 there are none.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Most people agree with you fyi. That's why they are so pessimistic. If you limit solutions to "politically realistic" ideas in 2018 there are none. Good, it should be politically inconvenient to tell people the solution to climate change is rejection of existing freedoms. Climate change is real and needs real solutions. And real solutions are never going to be “everyone just be poorer and more limited forever”
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Good, it should be politically inconvenient to tell people the solution to climate change is rejection of existing freedoms. Climate change is real and needs real solutions. And real solutions are never going to be “everyone just be poorer and more limited forever” Tbh I don't comprehend your insistince that real solutions be bounded by human desires (particularly those of a globetrotting elite consumer class) and not "whatever is necessary to keep the seasons stable and crops maturing."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Tbh I don't comprehend your insistince that real solutions be bounded by human desires (particularly those of a globetrotting elite consumer class) and not "whatever is necessary to keep the seasons stable and crops maturing." It's rationalization of consumerist 1st world lifestyle as being ethical, taken to it's logical conclusion: as my lifestyle is personally enjoyable it is therefore correct, and since I'm not an evil person I of course believe everyone should have it just as good, and if that's not possible then it's not a problem with my lifestyle, but with reality itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Well it turns out you are literally going to get zero traction ever on the “no one travels anymore” platform then keeping it going for the rest of human history so someone better get going trying to find real solutions instead. There is something really telling about how you equate "You shouldn't be flying around like a bored fly" with "no one travels anymore". Honestly though, if you are what happens when people travel to ~~expand their horizons~~, I think we should start shooting people who travel outside of their home city/village 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Tourism isn’t a goddamn right, it’s an indulgence of the rich
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, that's pretty clear, then. Any measure that means intentional reduction in quality of life (as opposed to natural Well yeah, it is unrealistic. If your program is "Make America Poor Again", no one is going to vote for you, which is why I can say with absolute certainty that it will never happen. But really, that's just gloating. The real reasons I oppose it are because it's moronic, amoral, unnecessary and would accomplish nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 09:23
|
|
) is unrealistic and therefore not worth considering.
|
It's pretty stunning to see how so many posters ITT have made theirs the classic George H. W. Bush line - the American way of life is not up for negotiation. Period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:It's pretty stunning to see how so many posters ITT have made theirs the classic George H. W. Bush line - the American way of life is not up for negotiation. Period. Try the Chinese way of life buddy. They already emit more carbon than the US and all of Europe combined and are higher per capita than the EU. Even if you could somehow, miraculously, convince the Americans to go back to living in shacks and tilling the glebe, it would make no difference. They'd make up the deficit in about ten years at current growth rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Tbh I don't comprehend your insistince that real solutions be bounded by human desires (particularly those of a globetrotting elite consumer class) and not "whatever is necessary to keep the seasons stable and crops maturing." How do you propose to get people to work against their desires? What propaganda do you imagine persuading people to materially harm themselves? How do you stop it being countered? How does your effort deal with capitalism organising against you? Why isn't this being done already given how easy it is to point out the problems of capitalism? None of that is apparent when you describe your ideas. It is very easy to point out that capitalism is bad then name solutions without even describing how they work. There is a history of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Try the Chinese way of life buddy. They already emit more carbon than the US and all of Europe combined and are higher per capita than the EU. Even if you could somehow, miraculously, convince the Americans to go back to living in shacks and tilling the glebe, it would make no difference. They'd make up the deficit in about ten years at current growth rates. Lol if you think that the Chinese way of life is what drives most Chinese carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Lol if you think that the Chinese way of life is what drives most Chinese carbon emissions. What does that mean? Presumably, that you believe Chinese carbon emissions are driven by goods exported to the West. Well, you're wrong. Chinese exports are responsible for, at best, 17% of its emissions. Not enough to change the calculus significantly. You're not even doing the smart versions of this. I listen to Kevin Anderson, who propounds this moralistic, anti-consumption doctrine, and even he admits there are a whole lot of people in China who are "consuming too much" by the standards you want to use. Git gud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:higher per capita than the EU E: ... and China has one of the worst CO2/GDP, so maybe the "Chinese way of life" line is apt. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The best part is that if the edifice collapses, Thug and OOCC and Orange Sunshine will not blame people for refusing to reduce overall use of energy and resources, but rather the ~deluded anarcho-primitivists~ for poisoning the well of ideas and failing to come up with functional solutions. On this specifically: I don't blame those people for anything. I just think they're complete assholes. Stupid too. I was reading a book review by Will Boisvert, (you should read his post about how climate change won't be that bad too), and the conclusion is apt here: quote:But let's not be alarmist about alarmism. Industrial society won’t collapse, and “you [in the future]” will lead a better life than we do now. There are enough people who want to make the world a better place, to accommodate reality, to reap large benefits from small risks, that fear-mongers will likely never succeed in derailing progress, though they may impede it. Vollmann can’t save or destroy the world with his ideology; the most he can do is make it a little worse than it otherwise could have been. Your myopic and reactionary ideology will accomplish nothing. You cannot save the world, because you misidentify its problems and offer no solutions. You cannot end it, because your deluded fantasies of collapse are built on sand. You can just make the world a little worse. You can promulgate an atmosphere of depression and tilt against the windmills of nuclear power and GMOs, forestalling decarbonization and burgeoning agricultural yields. You can make people guilty about eating at McDonalds and maybe, if you're extremely lucky, get glyphosate banned, thus removing one of the least toxic herbicides from the market for the sin of being made by Monsanto. But affect history? That's something you'll never do. Your foremost intellectuals will, at best, be remembered as anachronistic curiosities like Oswald Spengler and Arthur Toynbee: eccentrics who believed in an impending collapse, created a lot of sound and fury around that concept and, in the end, signified nothing. More likely they'll be forgotten. Always remember: you can't accomplish anything. Your ideas are too ignorant and self-indulgent to be translated into reality. You can't destroy capitalism, let alone industrial civilization. You might manage to make the world a little worse, but not by much. Then you'll die. And I'll be here, lmfaoing at your idiocy, all the way. Have a good life dumbass. 
Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And lower than those of most high-income EU countries, and half that of Canada and the US. Now here's one that surprised me: Mongolia's emissions per capita are on the level of the US and Canada! Not France, which has a 75% nuclear electricity system, or Denmark, which has 50% wind. Not even the UK, which has a decent mix of fossil, nuclear and renewable. Decarbonization is important but it's the advanced countries that are most poised to implement it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:What does that mean? Presumably, that you believe Chinese carbon emissions are driven by goods exported to the West. Well, you're wrong. Chinese exports are responsible for, at best, 17% of its emissions. Not enough to change the calculus significantly. You're not even doing the smart versions of this. I listen to Kevin Anderson, who propounds this moralistic, anti-consumption doctrine, and even he admits there are a whole lot of people in China who are "consuming too much" by the standards you want to use. Git gud. Of course it changes the calculus if you factor these outsourced emissions back into the Western emission total. And your deflection doesn't change poo poo: the American and the Western way of life is absolutely going to have to change, whether it is in a voluntary, planned and proactive manner or in the face of yet more severe capitalist and ecological crises. None of this is to say that the Chinese ought not to keep their consumption in check as well of course. Thug Lessons posted:Your myopic and reactionary ideology will accomplish nothing. You cannot save the world, because you misidentify its problems and offer no solutions. You cannot end it, because your deluded fantasies of collapse are built on sand. You can just make the world a little worse. You can promulgate an atmosphere of depression and tilt against the windmills of nuclear power and GMOs, forestalling decarbonization and burgeoning agricultural yields. You can make people guilty about eating at McDonalds and maybe, if you're extremely lucky, get glyphosate banned, thus removing one of the least toxic herbicides from the market for the sin of being made by Monsanto. But affect history? That's something you'll never do. Your foremost intellectuals will, at best, be remembered as anachronistic curiosities like Oswald Spengler and Arthur Toynbee: eccentrics who believed in an impending collapse, created a lot of sound and fury around that concept and, in the end, signified nothing. More likely they'll be forgotten. I'm afraid that it is you who is making the world worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Of course it changes the calculus if you factor these outsourced emissions back into the Western emission total. Not much. It barely moves the numbers at all. And China's growth is accelerating, with speeds no one in the West can hope to match. Even if their emissions peak on schedule, in 2030, they'll only increase their lead over the West (whose emissions peaked in 2007 and have fallen every year thereafter) in the near future. 50% of the world's iron ore is mined in Australia. Most of it is sent to China to build their new skyscrapers and high-rises. And it's not going to stop. The era of Western economic dominance is over. You can fart around trying to blame it on posh Westerners as long as you want but you'll just be confusing yourself. Consumption does not emit carbon, and consumption is not going to decrease. It's going to increase rapidly, driven mostly by developing countries. Learn to live with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Tourism isn’t a goddamn right, it’s an indulgence of the rich 85% of americans have been on a plane, the use of planes is a basic thing that everyone that has them available utilizes. I bet you have been on a plane yourself, but you tell yourself it doesn't count because it was for something important to you and not something important to me and that you feel very bad so it's okay when you did it, because the goal isn't to find real solutions, it's to feel smug, and you have decided you felt the right way when you flew so your okay but I enjoyed it when i flew so it's sinful even if the earth isn't gonna care how the carbon we release FEeeLS, and the only solution is to find a way both of us can do what we did while releasing less carbon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
Yeah, there's nothing I can do about it except complain, and there's nothing you can do about it except cheerlead, that's true. I suppose our collective destiny rests within the hands of Xi, then. Hopefully he'll turn out to be one of the wiser autocrats who have ruled the world. Still doesn't change the fact that I'd also like the West to reevaluate its way of life too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yeah, there's nothing I can do about it except complain, and there's nothing you can do about it except cheerlead, that's true. I suppose our collective destiny rests within the hands of Xi, then. Hopefully he'll turn out to be one of the wiser autocrats who have ruled the world. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to hope they'd reduce their carbon emissions, which is possible, rather than expecting them to change their lifestyle (i.e. get poorer) which isn't going to happen and wouldn't make a difference anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:85% of americans have been on a plane, the use of planes is a basic thing that everyone that has them available utilizes. Owlofcreamcheese posted:I bet you have been on a plane yourself, but you tell yourself it doesn't count because it was for something important to you and not something important to me and that you feel very bad so it's okay when you did it, because the goal isn't to find real solutions, it's to feel smug, and you have decided you felt the right way when you flew so your okay but I enjoyed it when i flew so it's sinful even if the earth isn't gonna care how the carbon we release FEeeLS, and the only solution is to find a way both of us can do what we did while releasing less carbon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Wouldn't it be more reasonable to hope they'd reduce their carbon emissions, which is possible, rather than expecting them to change their lifestyle (i.e. get poorer) which isn't going to happen and wouldn't make a difference anyway? I don't get the "change their lifestyles = get poorer" thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yeah, I have. Of course it counts. I also have resolved to not do it again, who cares what you resolved? Gaia isn't going to sort out your carbon and make it safe because you felt bad about it. Maybe someday I can just resolve to never fly again too after I've flown everywhere I want if this is an ask forgiveness retroactively type of thing. If you are this into environmentalism and even you didn't avoid flying and only repented from flying after you were done doing all you wanted then how can you present it as any sort of broad global solution?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I don't get the "change their lifestyles = get poorer" thing. Some people derive their life meaning through endless consumption. Any stop to it represents a "less full filling life" = poor people cannot endlessly consume, thus....
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Some people derive their life meaning through endless consumption. Any stop to it represents a "less full filling life" = poor people cannot endlessly consume, thus.... I think everyone defines poverty by being able to consume less products and services. That is pretty much the actual definition of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
I haven't been everywhere I want to go to. I absolutely want to go to America in 2024 for the total eclipse. I really want to go to *insert paradisiac destination here* on vacation. I really really loving love meat. I'm not renouncing any of these things for forgiveness, though. I do it out of ideology, because I strive to live in accordance with my morals, and my morals and my ideology dictate that I should not be so wasteful as to ride on a plane for three weeks' worth of distraction. That's all. You really should imitate me, Owl Of Cream Cheese. Temper your passions with reason. Take the bus and go take pictures of cats in a neighboring city, you'll find it infinitely satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think everyone defines poverty by being able to consume less products and services. That is pretty much the actual definition of poverty. Kinda giving up the game there bud
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Not France, which has a 75% nuclear electricity system, or Denmark, which has 50% wind. Not even the UK, which has a decent mix of fossil, nuclear and renewable. Decarbonization is important but it's the advanced countries that are most poised to implement it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think everyone defines poverty by being able to consume less products and services. That is pretty much the actual definition of poverty. I think you'll find that official definitions of poverty are actually based on not being able to afford a certain amount of goods and services. I don't believe depriving someone from access to a luxury is making them poor. In order to get poorer, you have to already be poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Take a step back and just take it all in. It's wonderful to behold in all its head-up-rear end glory. Not flying to every continent is austerity Diminishing consumption is poverty There is a nonzero chance we're being trolled by a very long game gimmick account
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I haven't been everywhere I want to go to. I absolutely want to go to America in 2024 for the total eclipse. I really want to go to *insert paradisiac destination here* on vacation. I really really loving love meat. But you still say you took planes. With all the moral superiority you didn’t even manage to not use planes, just later decide you felt bad and that you wouldn’t watch an eclipse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Hold the gently caress on, this is the loving climate thread what is going - 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:50
|
|