|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Seems the chickens are coming home to roost in Miami Miami is already experiencing nearly daily flooding at street level, so yeah its gonna get worse there. Nothing like building on water soluble limestone for your bedrock.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Responsible zoning would have banned high rise buildings on that kind of foundation, if not banning buildings outright. This is elemental planning for future conditions. Developers can build, get bought out or transfer assets and dissolve/claim bankruptcy and never be held accountable for this kind of disaster because the company doesn't exist any more. Sure, you might grab a CEO for prison time but this is the development business, chances are they are already doing time. Bad planning and zoning costs lives. Even when it doesn't it massively impacts the quality of life of residents. I'm not shocked it happened and if anything this will keep happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Reading some follow-up on that story, apparently there is talk of Monroe county buying out homes that can't be saved in the Keys due to rising sea levels. Isn't this a deeply red state, why are we spending government dollars to bail out homeowners who bought property built in irresponsible places? This isn't some new phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 11:34
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Reading some follow-up on that story, apparently there is talk of Monroe county buying out homes that can't be saved in the Keys due to rising sea levels. Isn't this a deeply red state, why are we spending government dollars to bail out homeowners who bought property built in irresponsible places? This isn't some new phenomenon. well, rich people own more expensive homes, so they get more money from govt. the system works
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 11:39
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:why are we spending government dollars to bail out homeowners who bought property built in irresponsible places? This isn't some new phenomenon. Correct, this is not a new phenomenon. This is the entire purpose of the national flood insurance program
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
cross-posting from the global warming thread: effort-post about actively developing a model for de-growth.take_it_slow posted:... I've found a constructive project to which I can devote myself: I joined a small farm commune (not a cult) that is actively developing an agrarian-focused lifestyle and specific energy/ agrarian technologies that are quickly being disseminated around the world. In my understanding, there are a few elements to the farm that make it unique:
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
take_it_slow posted:cross-posting from the global warming thread: effort-post about actively developing a model for de-growth. This is not remotely feasible for multiple reasons, for one thing its basically dragging us out of the industrial age and that's not going to be possible without sacrificing things like modern medicine and technology. This is very close to stuff the Sierra Club pushed in the 70s, its regressive as hell and there's no way anyone but small communes could reasonably believe this is a real option. Degrowth is classist and practically white privilege. There are some valid points like improving passive cooling of buildings through improved construction regulation, stuff like that, but everything else is more of a non-starter than even building more Nuclear plants is right now. And I'm sorry, that guy may claim otherwise, but his commune's leader and their goals are pretty cult like, down to the prepper mindset of preparing for the collapse of society. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We're all on this planet together for better or for worse, and frankly I'd kinda like it to be for the better for everyone involved. Its a little optimistic in the face of some very hard challenges, to be sure, but as a physicist its hard not to want to do better. Have begun, the Resource Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is not remotely feasible for multiple reasons, for one thing its basically dragging us out of the industrial age and that's not going to be possible without sacrificing things like modern medicine and technology. Ignoring the associations with the word de-growth, how is what I’m describing “dragging us out of the Industrial Age”? How is describing a standard of living as good as the average American’s, while using a fraction of the energy ‘regressive’? I could understand complaints about being removed from the power grid/ municipal water supply, but this technology is being developed for places where those may not exist. Given that the primary application of these technologies, to-date, has been to raise standards of living in impoverished countries/ portions of the US, I don’t understand that criticism. I haven’t done the math on whether it’s feasible to manufacture 1/2 a solar panel per person (per 30 years) on a global scale, but remember that this model exists in opposition to standard US solar installation practices that use 6+ solar panels and a massive battery bank for every single-family household...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
take_it_slow posted:Maybe it’s just the phrase ‘de-growth’ that bothers you? That’s how I chose to describe it because it’s the closest analog I’m aware of. It’s not how the mission is described by others. Maybe you’d actually read what I wrote if I summarized it as “an internship on a farm pioneering new energy-saving technologies, and new technologies that would improve third-world agriculture”? You require massive industry to construct solar panels en masse, and get the materials for them. Nearly all Solar Panels are constructed in large factories in China, of materials that had to be mined via massive mining and/or chemical extraction. And that's before we get to the fact that no one but some podunk guy on a small farming commune is meeting the average energy demands of a large city or industrial park with solar alone. Oh, but don't worry, we're going to degrowth everything that makes those very keystones to making solar panels possible. Its not seeing the forest for the trees. its like people who pretend Wind Farms come from nowhere despite all the metals and carbon fiber needed to make them. All these things require immense amount of energy and logistical infrastructure that does not exist in the world that this little commune pretends to prep for when Civilization collapses. Degrowth is the ultimate privilege, because only a privilaged guy in the US could think we're going to solve climate change by dragging everyone backwards. Its new age woo. We are not getting valuable advice to handling Climate Change from a guy who joined a prepper commune readying for the collapse of society that they already acknowledge they are fully prepared not to participate in anymore. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You require massive industry to construct solar panels en masse, and get the materials for them. Nearly all Solar Panels are constructed in large factories in China, of materials that had to be mined via massive mining and/or chemical extraction. Massive industry being clearly unsustainable, what alternative is there? 3.5C is apparently our likely lower bound by 2100 now, so barring global revolution/the enslavement of all humanity to forcibly relocate tropical plants poleward combined with all the geoengineering we can throw at the problem, shoving government resources at preppers is probably a better long term strategy for humans. I empathize with your commitment to humanity, but degrowth or not isn't really a choice at this point, civilization is too big and resource-intensive to achieve homeostasis. We have to do triage. And as to it being white privilege to entertain, just...what? My best case scenario as a white dude already in the north is to get the equivalent to a remote south American jungle village going and adopt a ton of refugees. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Massive industry being clearly unsustainable, what alternative is there? 3.5C is apparently our likely lower bound by 2100 now, so barring global revolution/the enslavement of all humanity to forcibly relocate tropical plants poleward combined with all the geoengineering we can throw at the problem, shoving government resources at preppers is probably a better long term strategy for humans. Massive industry fueled by fossil fuels is unsustainable, but to change that to "All industry is unsustainable" is a pretty big difference. Car Hater posted:shoving government resources at preppers is probably a better long term strategy for humans. Yeah, no. No its not. If this was true, can you provide me a list of products and services you are okay with giving up to participate in Degrowth, including the fact that you are taking advantage of industrially produced things to post on a internet forum about how degrowth is a functional path. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
I doubt "de-growth" or something akin to what the OP has posted about (which seems pretty cool and pretty harmless, if its your thing) is a viable CC solution simply because I really doubt most people want to or will voluntarily choose to be farmers like that, if given the choice. CC is certainly forcing lifestyle changes, but I doubt its possible to use the OPs template as a model for widespread adoption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Massive industry fueled by fossil fuels is unsustainable, but to change that to "All industry is unsustainable" is a pretty big difference. And it's a difference I can stand behind. There is no such thing as sustainable manufacturing, even preindustrially. Manufacturing goods means a commitment to growth, as specialization of production implies centralized organization, economies of scale, and transport infrastructure. Taxes/levies are require to maintain that physical and social infrastructure through directed work, which leads to increased population density and population and therefore increased demand for manufactured goods and additional services and infrastructure to accommodate that demand. And eventually, inevitably, things get too big and complex, and there's a series of bad harvests or floods or something else, maybe a fuel source dries up, but the infrastructure still has to be maintained, or it decays, and communities die off. As an industrially bred ape I'm not "okay" with giving any of this up. It's not really my choice though, so it makes sense to use the resources available to better prepare for a future when they are not. If I had evidence humanity was gearing up the coordination to manage the overshoot situation we are in, I would act differently. Ultimately, probably most electricity-related things will be quite rare and precious, so those are the best to get used to living without. My printer and ink for example, very temporary, but the books I can bind and save have an infinitesimal chance to be useful to someone someday. What do you mean "a functional path"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
(Edit: to be clear, this addressed to commie) I understand that, from your perspective, any solutions that don’t involve a drastic reduction in global population will require greater energy usage, and that you believe that that energy must be produced in nuclear fusion/ fission plants. Obviously that’s incompatible with reductions in social complexity/ loss of global supply chains. Why throw the baby out with the bath water, though? Common-sense adaptations that lead to reduced energy usage are not incompatible with continued global industrial society (though it could be cynically argues that they are a threat to the current ruling order), and are not incompatible with a decent standard of living. I’m certainly being willfully ignorant when I ask after the feasibility of solar for all; I realize that, even ignoring all the other issues, sufficient raw materials do not exist. None of the work with broader significance here depends on solar power. The oven design is drastically more efficient than conventional ovens, the bio-gas work reduces methane emissions associated with organic waste disposal/composting while providing a substitute for fossil fuels, and the combine and other farm equipment projects enable smallholders in the US and abroad to benefit from modern agricultural mechanical improvements at a fraction of the industrial ag costs (e.g., most combines made today harvest anywhere from 6-24 rows at a time (e.g., incompatible with non industrial farming)and cost tens of thousands of USD, while a single-row combine could cost <$500). Putting aside the word ‘degrowth’ here, how are any of these things inherently bad/problematic? take_it_slow fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:As an industrially bred ape I'm not "okay" with giving any of this up. It's not really my choice though, so it makes sense to use the resources available to better prepare for a future when they are not. If I had evidence humanity was gearing up the coordination to manage the overshoot situation we are in, I would act differently. Ultimately, probably most electricity-related things will be quite rare and precious, so those are the best to get used to living without. My printer and ink for example, very temporary, but the books I can bind and save have an infinitesimal chance to be useful to someone someday. Think readily available medicines. Think advanced medical diagnostic techniques and treatments. Or spare parts. Or returning to farming scenarios not capable of handling longer winters or significant drought. Its like when people say: "I'm going to turn my lawn into a garden to help offset emissions from farming". That's good. You should do that. But nobody is surviving entirely off the crops they grow on their lawn. To degrowth the way these guys want to, you basically have to accept mass starvation if not outright accept genocide to make it possible, or accept that you will cause massive increases in suffering in impoverished societies. That's why its privilage. That's why its classist. Only a person who already has everything they need could honestly say "I can give up a large portion of this" because they've never actually had to do without. take_it_slow posted:(Edit: to be clear, this addressed to commie) I understand that, from your perspective, any solutions that don’t involve a drastic reduction in global population will require greater energy usage, and that you believe that that energy must be produced in nuclear fusion/ fission plants. Obviously that’s incompatible with reductions in social complexity/ loss of global supply chains. Because nothing he is proposing is something we cannot do with more advanced things produced industrially. Little communes are not going to solve Climate Change, because to make them work, you need to massively shrink the Earth's population. That means accepting that rather than Climate Change leading to suffering and death, you are going to solve climate change by encouraging the exact same thing. On purpose. And no I sincerely doubt his oven is "more efficient" that modern ovens, much like his cement mixer clothes washing machine is not more efficient than the one I have upstairs that is actually rated and studied for its efficiency. And to replace the farming equipment that is used right now, you need electric or diesel electric. There's no scenario where large mechanical farming equipment disappears, even on non-monoculture farms. That means industry. That means cities, logistical infrastructure, and a large robust, mechanized and industrialized workforce. Oh by the way, those Solar Ovens are only really useful at certain times of the year: https://homeguides.sfgate.com/effectiveness-solar-ovens-79711.html. The amount of methane to run a gas oven off decomposing methane along is also way more than you will produce on your commune. For example quote:Typically, one million tons of landfill waste emit approximately 432,000 cubic feet of LFG per day, enough to produce either 0.78 MW of electricity or 216 MMBtu of heat To solve emissions from non-natural sources, we need to address Electrical generation above all, and then transit. That means replacing large vast energy sources, joule for joule. That means very dense energy. That means Nuclear combined with Renewables. And then move on to electrifying transit every place possible, improving public transit and encouraging Electric or Hybrid vehicles. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is not remotely feasible for multiple reasons, for one thing its basically dragging us out of the industrial age and that's not going to be possible without sacrificing things like modern medicine and technology. It’s about as realistic as voting out pretty much the entirety of congress and replacing them with militant Eco-activists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Pobrecito posted:It’s about as realistic as voting out pretty much the entirety of congress and replacing them with militant Eco-activists. True, I'll give you that. But given that was the OTHER plan proposed by the previous posters.....Our choices are better voting (which we have a functional if flawed system for) or everyone go live on a commune and give up everything modern society has given us, I suspect the former will be more feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because nothing he is proposing is something we cannot do with more advanced things produced industrially. (Lol, yeah, I’m not going to bat for the cement mixer washer- that would never make sense on-grid) quote:...encouraging Electric or Hybrid vehicles. Fakeedit: just saw your edit. Biodigestion =/= natural decomposition of waste in a landfill. Feel free to look up what a biodigester actually is and what it actually does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
You're far too optimistic. Think no medicine at all beyond what you can scavenge or make locally. Think no clean water for miles so you can die of thirst or die of a parasite if you don't have a filter built that you can make your own treatment for. Think breaking a leg and being glad to be put down. Better have a good community to put you down though. Under our current conditions, where we know climate change is going to massively disrupt our governments and way of life, and nuclear plants are actively being shut down and replaced with natural gas because people voted for it: Who will coordinate and maintain the global nuclear fleet? How will it be decided in an era of conflict to whom fuel and other resources will be delivered, and what areas are climate-doomed Miami write-offs? How will it be decided who owes the world what resources, at the cost of their local sovereignty and often their land and lives? Where does the vast amount of resources needed come from for the Great Electrification? (For example we would need 700 years worth of cobalt production at current rates just to replace the ICE car fleet) How will we build all the additional infrastructure without exceeding our already exceeded carbon budget? Can enough nuclear baseload be brought online in time to prevent us from reaching 500 ppm? How long can all of this be maintained even if we do reach a carbon negative nuclear-backed global system? What does such a world look like after we have transformed it? Do humans have any room for freedom of action when every possible scrap of energy would have to be directed at reducing atmospheric carbon? Worst of all, what would there be to vote on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
 https://www.livescience.com/amp/vanilla-flavor-plastic-waste.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
take_it_slow posted:I realize that this is beside the point, but I’m curious: How can you decry solar in one breath, for being un-scale-able and then promote private electric (e.g., battery-based) vehicles in the next? I can respect either view, but they seem incompatible... We have no cases where solar scales well. That's what Nuclear does best. Massive, dense energy in very small scale. Car Hater posted:You're far too optimistic. Think no medicine at all beyond what you can scavenge or make locally. Think no clean water for miles so you can die of thirst or die of a parasite if you don't have a filter built that you can make your own treatment for. Think breaking a leg and being glad to be put down. Better have a good community to put you down though. That's certain to happen for sure in both Climate Change if unrestricted and this Commune system Car Hater posted:Under our current conditions, where we know climate change is going to massively disrupt our governments and way of life, and nuclear plants are actively being shut down and replaced with natural gas because people voted for it: This is gish galloping. You want all the answers, right now? A lot of these questions you can answer for yourself. Under our current conditions, where we know climate change is going to massively disrupt our governments and way of life, and nuclear plants are actively being shut down and replaced with natural gas because people voted for it: Who will coordinate and maintain the global nuclear fleet? We already have agencies that do this. How will it be decided in an era of conflict to whom fuel and other resources will be delivered, and what areas are climate-doomed Miami write-offs? That's a difficult answer, but given what was propose won't be able to do that either, how do communes do this? How will it be decided who owes the world what resources, at the cost of their local sovereignty and often their land and lives? What, you imagine all these communes are going to readily and freely share resources? Where does the vast amount of resources needed come from for the Great Electrification? (For example we would need 700 years worth of cobalt production at current rates just to replace the ICE car fleet). There's going to have to be a transition, the idea that we're going to go full EV tomorrow is obviously insane, but encouraging people to switch will be necessary. How will we build all the additional infrastructure without exceeding our already exceeded carbon budget? This is a sunk cost fallacy: We're going to have to put out more carbon to fight climate change. Just like producting more wind and solar still requires more mining and industrial refining/production. We're not getting out of the Anthropocene on the cheap. Can enough nuclear baseload be brought online in time to prevent us from reaching 500 ppm? Yes. Yes it can. Multiple states are already looking at build outs, Russia has production lined their VVER and soon to be build VVER-S reactor series, and is rapidly expanding their reactor foorpting. Japan is restarting old reactors because they recognize that there's no feasible way to meet demand without either Nuclear or more Gas/Coal, China is building more plants. Its unrealistic to say that Nuclear is dead, its just a long term project and just because we ourselves will not benefit from it does not make it a project not worth doing. How long can all of this be maintained even if we do reach a carbon negative nuclear-backed global system? A lot longer than returning to the trees and being sustenance farmers will. What does such a world look like after we have transformed it? Do humans have any room for freedom of action when every possible scrap of energy would have to be directed at reducing atmospheric carbon? Worst of all, what would there be to vote on? Don't know. These are a lot of VERY deep question you are expecting answers on, but to pretend that Commune idea is in any way a feasible way other than accepting and encouraging outright genocide is laughable. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Oh poo poo no I'm being a dick because I see no possible answers to those questions that aren't "The communism fairy blesses humanity with the gift of True Comradery", so I'm essentially just playing at being you in inverse. What's your functional path, the communes have laid out theirs, it makes more sense than yours, and again they've currently got better odds long term than civilization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Oh poo poo no I'm being a dick because I see no possible answers to those questions that aren't "The communism fairy blesses humanity with the gift of True Comradery", so I'm essentially just playing at being you in inverse. What's your functional path, the communes have laid out theirs, it makes more sense than yours, and again they've currently got better odds long term than civilization. No, you created a massive list of questions that even an academic researcher would have difficulty answering with certainty, and that is very much a dick move. The communes are a functional path if you are okay with genocide and return to pre-industrial eras of suffering. And frankly, the fact that you said "No, that's the good path" is pretty concerning. If being sustenance farmers is the only way we survive this, we're dead already and we might as well keep pretending nothing is wrong and face our doom. But frankly, I know we can do better than that. We do not need to go full luddite to avoid climate change, we have the technology and we have the means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
The other path is extinction of all mammals bigger than rats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The other path is extinction of all mammals bigger than rats. That's already happening, so tell me, how quickly do we join are local commune to stop this? Either way requires decades, if not half a century of getting people to either adapt and use new technology or kick the societal bucket and go back to being sustenance farmers. Which one is going to be easier to get people to buy in on and actually happen? I'll tell you one thing: I doubt my neighbors are going to be up for the commune idea, let alone going to be accepting of the fact that many of them would probably face certain death. For a bunch of people who bemoan my pro-nuclear stance as "Magic" you sure do have some magical ideas about getting people to become commune sustenance farmers short of unleashing a full scale nuclear strike to get them to do so. I'm gonna take a break from this thread, so feel free to discuss among yourselves. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
i have to admit i laughed a bit at the commune post. i mean it’s fine to enjoy doing that sort of thing but it is absolutely not extrapolatable to the majority of humanity for many reasons already espoused in the thread. like i grew up on a small non-industrial farm and the idea that everyone will want to, be able to, or have access to the land required to live like that is extreme privilege imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's already happening, so tell me, how quickly do we join are local commune to stop this? Either way requires decades, if not half a century of getting people to either adapt and use new technology or kick the societal bucket and go back to being sustenance farmers. Where did I say that would stop it? I said the communes have better odds of working out for human survival long term (it does require industrial civilization end rapidly enough not to ensure total extinction) Your alternative is to push us even further past the climate threshold and then somehow pull ourselves back, and I cannot understand your boundless confidence that this is technologically possible, let alone survivable. It seems clear given where we are that positive feedback loops have kicked in, EROEI for fossil fuels is in decline, and we would therfore have to spend any nuclear energy that came online to recapture (not offset, capture directly from the air) all the carbon from building that plant before we could use the energy for society. So because even _less_ energy goes to dealing with all people's desires and we have more people to satisfy but we're spending all the energy on the transition, you are already asking them to commit massively to degrowth, for something we can point to as being an extension of the current situation which is unsustainable in a bunch of other ways. I think, given your closing paragraph, you know that that's the most likely option that the powers that be will ultimately take to preserve their own bunkers and outposts, and probably the most likely to provide a "viable pathway" if we can call any option in the anthropocene viable. Maybe it is "extreme privilege" to think this way. I don't know. I do know that it's been an extreme privilege to exist in a world where any power at all could be generated without using muscle or at most the flow of water or wind, and that it is a temporary thing. Best of luck out there, it's a long way down to the bottom again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:I think, given your closing paragraph, you know that that's the most likely option that the powers that be will ultimately take to preserve their own bunkers and outposts, and probably the most likely to provide a "viable pathway" if we can call any option in the anthropocene viable. No. It was because you posted a long, multi choice questionnaire that I could probably write a graduate thesis on and expect me to answer each question, yet your solution is "Sustenance Farming Communes and everyone give up everything" That's a stupid hot take and do not come into threads and make assumptions. Car Hater posted:Your alternative is to push us even further past the climate threshold and then somehow pull ourselves back, and I cannot understand your boundless confidence that this is technologically possible, let alone survivable. It seems clear given where we are that positive feedback loops have kicked in, EROEI for fossil fuels is in decline, and we would therfore have to spend any nuclear energy that came online to recapture (not offset, capture directly from the air) all the carbon from building that plant before we could use the energy for society. So because even _less_ energy goes to dealing with all people's desires and we have more people to satisfy but we're spending all the energy on the transition, you are already asking them to commit massively to degrowth, for something we can point to as being an extension of the current situation which is unsustainable in a bunch of other ways. No. To fight climate change, guess what? We're going to have to spend a lot of money. We're going to have to emit emissions. It sucks that we have to, because we should've been doing it 30 years ago instead of buying into Greenpeace and Sierra Clubs mischaracterization of accidents like Three Mile Island and fearmongering about Chernobyl, instead we spent 30 years burning MORE fossil fuels, creating MORE environmental debt. And no, Nobody is asking them to commit to degrowth. Especially not loving SUSTINENCE level degrowth that's just you shifting the goal posts. Instead we created more efficient vehicles, more efficient technology like LED lighting to replace Fluorescent and Filament light bulbs, started making more efficient machines. That's not degrowth in the way you are demanding degrowth, and its pathetic to compare the two and say "These are the same thing" Car Hater posted:Maybe it is "extreme privilege" to think this way. I don't know. I do know that it's been an extreme privilege to exist in a world where any power at all could be generated without using muscle or at most the flow of water or wind, and that it is a temporary thing. Its super extreme privilege that only a shitposter on a comedy forum could think is a workable answer to climate change. I have posted graph after graph showing that replacing our current energy requirements with Wind and Solar is not only unlikely, its outright lying to yourself about our chances, but anybody that posts a REAL answer that we can achieve, like Nuclear Power gets bemoaned as "magical thinking" But you come trash the thread with demands that society revert to the pre-industrial era while ignoring the suffering and death that will bring, and have the audacity to claim that's a real solution? Bullshit. Do NOT put words in anyones mouth in this or any thread with parting shots. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No. It was because you posted a long, multi choice questionnaire that I could probably write a graduate thesis on and expect me to answer each question, yet your solution is "Sustenance Farming Communes and everyone give up everything" Already spent the time enough to try to answer them all myself to write the thesis when I still thought I'd do the Nuke PhD, save yourself the effort. Would you please answer what you will accept as a solution either ideal or minimal, and why you get so hostile at anyone who doesn't agree that we can attain a uniform and satisfactory level of global development? I don't care what the rest of the world actually does at this point, I just think the communes have slightly better odds of existing long-term under certain conditions than our current population in the billions under any conditions. CommieGIR posted:No. To fight climate change, guess what? We're going to have to spend a lot of money. We're going to have to emit emissions. It sucks that we have to, because we should've been doing it 30 years ago instead of buying into Greenpeace and Sierra Clubs mischaracterization of accidents like Three Mile Island and fearmongering about Chernobyl, instead we spent 30 years burning MORE fossil fuels, creating MORE environmental debt. I think we've hit our debt limit is what I'm saying. What is your minimum acceptable scale of this nuclear-powered (arctic circle only) civilization, and can we possibly do it without locking in runaway warming if it isn't already? The transition absolutely requires that we collectively commit to large decreases in individual energy consumption, and that's without getting to things like using less water or traveling less. We would need to commit the vast majority of our resources to the transition, and that would divert them from being used in other areas of life, which, to be fair, are mostly consumerist and could stand to be trimmed anyway. No it is not degrowth in the same sense as I would suggest, but it would be a huge and coordinated reduction in what the western world considers 'standard of living'. This makes me think that it will run into the same resistance you already described, which is why I am not demanding anything, I am merely agreeing with the long term strategy of preparing for collapse as a result of climate change. You are the one making a demand that we continue to prevent degrowth, which is the natural outcome of growth, by once more advancing society wholly to a denser fuel source. CommieGIR posted:Its super extreme privilege that only a shitposter on a comedy forum could think is a workable answer to climate change. Alright then, I'll retract the snideness, my apologies for trying to detach by being a smartass. Am I rallying for solar? Am I rallying for wind? Am I demanding anything other than the space for an alternate viewpoint, because someone posted something they thought was pleasant and hopeful, something someone without power could at least hypotheticallyexecute on in their own lives? If I was going to demand anything it would be, again, to dump all of humanity's remaining efforts on moving the tropical flora and fauna poleward, since I genuinely think that's the best use of our sapience. I was you. I posted the same graphs all the time. Planned a career in the field, rallied my family, harassed my congresspeople, argued with Greens about the nonviability of solar and wind, talked to all my engineering friends about replacing cars with some elegant on/off rail solution that was both a train and a taxi. Even made a Twitter account exclusively to try to pester Candidate Trump ("what a crazy guy! maybe he'll listen and get it some attention!") into promising to build a big beautiful nuke fleet. Kept at it and at it and got angrier and more hostile, like I see you doing in here. I am curious what you think is a real, workable answer because I have never been able to come up with one that works when actually considering externalities and how people seem to behave. I've honestly been a lot happier since I switched to not worrying about saving civilization and to just hoping that the some humans make it through in a relatively intact biosphere, so yeah, pro communes, communes good, nuke plants shortsighted and non-maintainable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:I was you. I posted the same graphs all the time. Planned a career in the field, rallied my family, harassed my congresspeople, argued with Greens about the nonviability of solar and wind, talked to all my engineering friends about replacing cars with some elegant on/off rail solution that was both a train and a taxi. Even made a Twitter account exclusively to try to pester Candidate Trump ("what a crazy guy! maybe he'll listen and get it some attention!") into promising to build a big beautiful nuke fleet. Kept at it and at it and got angrier and more hostile, like I see you doing in here. I am curious what you think is a real, workable answer because I have never been able to come up with one that works when actually considering externalities and how people seem to behave. I've honestly been a lot happier since I switched to not worrying about saving civilization and to just hoping that the some humans make it through in a relatively intact biosphere, so yeah, pro communes, communes good, nuke plants shortsighted and non-maintainable. No offense but I'm not going to address your entire post because are basically saying the same thing over and over again, so I'm going to be blunt: There is no solving climate change by just going back. Because nobody, NO ONE is going to willingly do that. For someone badmouthing us for saying we need to vote in Congresspeople that need to enact change and GND, you actually expect them to buy into this commune idea? No. Its absolute insanity to even propose it as a viable solution. And again, you've basically shrugged and said "Those who will die in this mass transition backwards will die.". You have very high expectation of what people are willing to tolerate in your solution that in no way actually does anything useful. We need to invest what emissions we have, what money we have, and start transitioning to cleaner energy sources. Now. And shuttering nuke plants IS NOT DOING THAT. Reverting to pre-industrial age sustinence farming is insane and I'm through pretending you are either serious or actual capable of rationally addressing the topic. Car Hater posted:I've honestly been a lot happier since I switched to not worrying about saving civilization and to just hoping that the some humans make it through in a relatively intact biosphere, so yeah, pro communes, communes good, nuke plants shortsighted and non-maintainable. "Actual solutions short-sighted, despite nuclear plants having 40+ year lifespans with minimal to zero carbon emissions and thousands of terrawatts of clean energy to maintain society that are here now working and we're capable of making more. No, forcing people into farming communes and abandoning civilization. That's workable. C'MON People, leave the cities return to the fields, abandon all those things that enhanced our lives and made it possible to live easier. Back to the fields with you!"  I'm done discussing this with you personally. If you think its workable: Go do it right now. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite posting on a comedy forum taking advantage of the very things you bemoan that we must dispose of. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
Ok again, I am not demanding or forcing anything, and I would loving love it if we went balls to the wall on nukes, I'd jump right back in and agitate in all my spare time. They could massively extend our window to clean things up, regardless of how long (on a scale of centuries, not one generation of plants, come on). But you are repeatedly misreading me, either deliberately or not, and insisting that I am demanding these things be forced on the world. What's your deal? E; suit yourself
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
It’s SUBSISTENCE farming not sustenance farming. Subsistence: the action or fact of maintaining or supporting oneself at a minimum level. You guys are killing me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Substack farming, got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
Shortstack farming?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
I hear they’re practicing subsidence farming in the San Joaquin valley
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
take_it_slow posted:I hear they’re practicing subsidence farming in the San Joaquin valley Even more so now that the supreme court said Cesar Chavez can't ever exist again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Is it fixed yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
I am a very good sentence framer
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is it fixed yet No and our only hope is going backwards, hope you like tilling the soil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 12:02
|
|