|
I'm in the toothpaste pessimist category because I don't see any means by which we say: "Hey there, developing nations! You know all those nice things we westerners have been enjoying for two hundred years off the backs of your slave labor? Well, ends up you can't have any of them. We had too much fun and you're just going to have to suck it up and skip the fun parts or we'll all die. Wait, why are you still industrializing? No, stop! Aren't you listening?!?" India has a larger population than the EU + USA combined. You could throw every last one of us westerners into an eco-friendly wolf-bunker and their footprint growth will still put the planet below water sooner or later. We have no moral standing to push the point on anyone in the developing world. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube at this point. Sure, keep trying to reduce your own footprint or your nation's footprint, etc. But in the longer term, the rest of the world is going to develop and want to experience the luxuries we've been hoarding for literally hundreds of years, depending on what particular luxuries you're lumping into it. They're not going to take no for an answer, long-term, and we have no right to demand it given this is mostly our fault in the first place. Edit: ooh, great way to welcome a new page.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
pessimist & helplessness, shifting to FYGM as parenting is becoming my main role
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I'm in the toothpaste pessimist category because I don't see any means by which we say: But you have to look at these luxuries and see which ones 1) are things which people genuinely need 2) are things which people genuinely want 3) are things which people genuinely need or want due to decisions taken by ill-informed governments or due to technological underdevelopment. So if we're being optimistic for the sake of argument, we can envision that India and Africa won't need all of the worst and dumbest poo poo we developed over the 20th century, because they can pick up the better, later products, like how Africa has relatively few computers at their landfills but soon everyone will have a smartphone
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
nihilist/pessimist/spite checking in *displays knuckles reading D-E-T-H K-R-E-W*
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
This thread is still garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:This thread is still garbage. Why do you say that? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:This thread is still garbage. Coincidentally, there are actually lots and lots of computers in Africa's landfills because that's where we send much of our electronics garbage from the USA.  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/inside-a-massive-electronics-graveyard/383922/
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:But you have to look at these luxuries and see which ones 1) are things which people genuinely need 2) are things which people genuinely want 3) are things which people genuinely need or want due to decisions taken by ill-informed governments or due to technological underdevelopment. So if we're being optimistic for the sake of argument, we can envision that India and Africa won't need all of the worst and dumbest poo poo we developed over the 20th century, because they can pick up the better, later products, like how Africa has relatively few computers at their landfills but soon everyone will have a smartphone Yeah there are other possible ways of developing that don't involve the massive waste associated with car-commuter based western societies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I'm in the toothpaste pessimist category because I don't see any means by which we say: I had to go back and search the last page for toothpaste. I assume you're making a metaphor here since I couldn't find anything. You had me worried I was destroying the planet by brushing my teeth. It might be optimistic of me, but I think a lot of the reason the USA has such emissions is because we have designed our country in a way that relies heavily on transportation. Compared to other countries, you have to travel a LOT to do normal things. If a developing world is aware of the effect emissions has and is able to address the issue before it happens, then they won't make the same mistakes. I couldn't find a category for "No point in reducing my footprint since developing nations won't follow by example", maybe part Virtue Signaling part Helplessness and part Other-ism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Yeah there are other possible ways of developing that don't involve the massive waste associated with car-commuter based western societies. Example: Decentralized solar would make more sense in India than wiring up the nation into a coal-fired grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Gonna go out on a limb and say the only moral standing we have left is whether we kill off enough humans in time to prevent the extinction of every other species on earth. Killing six billion humans with a tailored virus is vastly less morally repugnant than allowing all other higher life forms to vanish just so that some chucklefucks in Somalia can pop out six kids and enjoy a "western standard of living". And to think, we wouldn't be in this position without bleeding hearts like Borlaug. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
okay settle down thanos
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:This thread is still garbage. VideoGameVet posted:Why do you say that? Just curious. Rime posted:Gonna go out on a limb and say the only moral standing we have left is whether we kill off enough humans in time to prevent the extinction of every other species on earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
The impacts humans have had on the biosystems of earth mean that human intervention will be required for centuries to even just mitigate the harms. It seems a larger moral crime to absolute the species of this burden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Sundae posted:we have no right Dictates of circumstance. Also, we're a splurge. We shouldn't have done this; it was a mistake. Fortunately, quality-of-life and health and so on does can be achieved in other ways. We can be happy and healthy with vastly smaller footprints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I'm in the toothpaste pessimist category because I don't see any means by which we say: The only moral answer to this issue is western nations using their vast wealth to help developing nations build power grids that both meets their needs and is as close to carbon neutral/negative as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
It would be better for the planet if we went with the virus route and stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value at this stage. A salmon is more precious than any of us, sorry natalists. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:It would be better for the planet if we went with the virus route and stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value at this stage. And if all of humanity disappeared overnight, the salmon would mostly die off still. The way to save as many salmon (et al) as possible is for active human intervention in the disaster we've set in motion. A fantasy where *just the right people* are killed by a magic virus and then the survivors gang together to rehabilitate the earth is at least as absurd as the UN brokering a pro-capitalist "solution" to climate change (if not more so). I think neither are options worth really considering. Edit: but don't worry, the powers that be have stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value, unfortunately that just means our deaths won't bother them as they enjoy the highlife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Rime posted:It would be better for the planet if we went with the virus route and stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value at this stage. In my opinion human life has as much intrinsic value as any other life on the planet, and I don't think that value is zero. Ideally humans could help preserve and perpetuate biodiversity on earth, but that pretty clearly isn't happening. Humans are probably the most destructive species on earth right now, and from a perspective of biocentrism life on this planet as a whole would likely be better off without us. The rest of the natural world can survive without humans, but the inverse isn't true. When I posted along these lines earlier in this thread I was told my views are repugnant, so good luck getting people on board with your even more extreme position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Rime posted:It would be better for the planet if we went with the virus route and stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value at this stage. You may want to rethink this environmental engineer thing. Protecting human health is sort of what we do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
I have just finished reading this entire thread, all 370 pages of it, over the course of the last week. I should not have done that. If I had a gun I'd top myself right the gently caress now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
I hope the survivors of all of this are gonna look back at rampant capitalism the same way any decent person today looks at crazy poo poo like witch hunts and slavery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I have just finished reading this entire thread, all 370 pages of it, over the course of the last week. lol i hope you're joking, if not, i'm sorry. this wasnt meant to be taken that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
indians can have all the hot showers, e-tuk-tuk rides, and air conditioning they want. its total bullshit to assume that development = becoming american what if we used a "virus" to pre-kill a few billion humans only that "virus" was "healthcare and education for girls" all along StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I have just finished reading this entire thread, all 370 pages of it, over the course of the last week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Luckily solar power is starting to become more invested in than coal, even in places like Texas and China, so at that rate we should start being very able to avoid the worst case scenarios. We are already able to, we just choose not to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I have just finished reading this entire thread, all 370 pages of it, over the course of the last week. That's not really the ideal way to read this thread man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
I'm not actually suicidal, I was just expressing how bleak this entire subject is. Don't worry goons
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I'm not actually suicidal, I was just expressing how bleak this entire subject is. Don't worry goons I too caught up on the thread recently and understand your frustration and despair. What kept me going was the slim hope that maybe, one of these days, OwlofCreamCheese would stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Luckily solar power is starting to become more invested in than coal, even in places like Texas and China, so at that rate we should start being very able to avoid the worst case scenarios. Even the worst case scenarios optimistically assume we'll take baby steps measures, so that's not saying much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
I've also read the entire thread recently. Apart from feeling like Ethan Hawke's character in First Reformed, I feel much more confident to gab about cc in rl. The whole situ is actually... ugh... sapping. Like even writing this post I'm struggling to be motivated to... ugh. Nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Go harass your politicians, especially those running for higher office right now. Idk if it will make a difference but telling someone with the power to do something that we should be in a state of emergency feels moderately better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Luckily solar power is starting to become more invested in than coal, even in places like Texas and China, so at that rate we should start being very able to avoid the worst case scenarios. Meanwhile, we're also transitioning into natural gas and building plants with service lives measures in decades while we have maybe 5-10 years to decarbonize our energy grid entirely. The problem is and always has been that it isn't economically feasible to move at the rapid pace that's actually required. We've had the technology to decarbonize for probably as long as anyone who's posting in this thread has been alive, but we haven't done it because nobody is throwing away perfectly good infrastructure. I'm not trying to be a downer, it's just that saying that we're "investing" in x or y represents a gross misunderstanding of the problem. We need to be shutting down plants that potentially have 30-40 years of life left. We need to stop selling cars that will continue to emit for another 10-20 years. If we aren't doing that right now then we aren't really addressing the problem at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
The best way to prevent overpopulation is promoting women's rights and birth control. Most families, if they are not under pressure from patriarchal structures ("have more kids, it will make the family proud" "god wants you to have children" "a woman's role is to give birth" etc) will tend to have one or two children at most, which will eventually bring down the population. Also better healthcare, since a high birth rate is usually a preventative response to a high death rate. Rime posted:It would be better for the planet if we went with the virus route and stopped viewing human life as holding any form of intrinsic value at this stage. This is a retarded response and just as evasive as anything else. Human survival depends on preserving as much biodiversity as possible, and human survival is our best motivator for spurring people into action, so human survival is the best motivator for protecting other species. Any discussion about the "value" of individual species vs humans is bullshit, we must simply save as many lives and beings as we possibly can by ending emissions, doing things individually as far as possible and eventually locking carbon in some way. Shibawanko fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Would I be wrong in assuming that one of the potentially biggest impacts you can do in the year 2018, if you are from the USA, is voting for human beings in the upcoming midterm elections? From what I've gathered about US politics as a filthy foreigner is that the democrats for the most part suck d1ck with a handful of exceptions, but the republicans are actual FYGM ghouls with NO exceptions who will actively make this problem (and a million other problems) worse the longer they are in any position of power. All of that seems like it goes without saying BUT should the democrats gain the upper hand then will there be any progress on the CC front or will they just sit there like idiots doing nothing? Would they need to control all the branches to do anything, and even if they did control it all, would they do anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
Democrats did have full control when Obama was In office for a few years. We got this lovely not universal Healthcare and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 11:06
|
|
|
The easiest way to decrease population growth and as a by-product the global carbon footprint is honestly to raise the standard of living on a global scale. I know this is unlikely pipe dream, but the only way population growth decreases is for people to feel more secure and comfortable in their daily lives. It is a weird sort of paradox that the tendency to start enormous families arises from economic anxiety. Also, quiverfull families need to go to the camps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
Press release from Climeworks they raised 30.8 million to begin commercializing direct CO2 air capture. They are using the funds to bring down costs of CO2 capture and prep for mass production. Apparently, they have 9 plants. The one in Sweden is just the commercially viable one? Huh. If that is the case and they are able to ramp up production and bring down costs that could bring the other 8 online to capture as much as Sweden... Link
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Press release from Climeworks they raised 30.8 million to begin commercializing direct CO2 air capture. They are using the funds to bring down costs of CO2 capture and prep for mass production. Cool beans. How is all of this funded though? There is no profit to be made here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Gortarius posted:Cool beans. There is profit to be made. CO2 is in a TON of products like carbonated beverages, Bar equipment, too many to count really. Basically, they sell off the CO2 they capture to companies. Also, they are partnered with a greenhouse company and are shipping off the excess CO2 to use in their greenhouses to increase crop yields. Right now they are funded by grants and investment equities like the Gates Foundation. In the past year or so Climeworks grew from a team of 30 to 60 employees. So I am pretty optimistic 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:46
|
|