(Thread IKs:
Stereotype)
|
we are all going to die
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
ben shapino posted:we are all going to die So what? None of us were ever going to get out of Life alive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
lame, i thought some poo poo might've went down
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:So what? Now you tell me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
this is not good news at all quite the pickle
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
jetz0r posted:What dildo material is both safe and non reactive enough to survive as long as a fossilized skeleton?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 06:00
|
|
cowboy
|
me, carefully enscribing the entire works of Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley on my dildo before final use
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
Friends we have modern polymer resins. If you want to be trapped in amber at the moment of climax that is within your power. Go, ensure your future as an exhibit in anthropocene park!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 06:55
|
|
|
jurassic park amber dna extraction scene, except instead of a mosquito's butt, it's my balls
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 06:56
|
|
|
Mola Yam posted:jurassic park amber dna extraction scene, except instead of a mosquito's butt, it's my balls Bonus points if testicular needling is your kink. Depending on how well you complete the process of autoerotic amberization, they may be able to collect directly from the bubble of splooge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:First guy has been making up their sciencey sounding interpretations in blogs since predicting peak oil became popular in the early 2000s. he's dead now but he was a straight up crank. i dont think anyone responded to it but it's not a great thing to see someone share without anyone going "uh, that's garbage" dismissing people as 'cranks' is some A grade university discourse bullshit. there is no center of epistemological legitimacy anymore from which to designate 'cranks', not when this entire civilization has turned out to be a disastrous wrong turn. if you have a coherent argument against the maximum power principle (which Hanson did not invent, it was Lokta in the 20's) or against Jacobson (who spent 40 years fighting in the trenches before giving up and becoming a doomer) then by all means, I'd love to hear them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
Confusedslight posted:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/27/endless-record-heat-asia-highest-april-temperatures seems suboptimal Just a Moron posted:For clarity, a heat index of 51C is considered unsafe to humans for any amount of time. yeah they should examine their climate policies
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:autoerotic amberization
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
Erghh posted:eh dnd will be in demanding an explanation for why everyone's looking at antarctica instead of petitioning for hydrogen powered cruise ships or some poo poo Yeah the "tree planting" aspect of carbon offsets is completely fugazi just like carbon credits. It's total greenwashing
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
Osv18 posted:dismissing people as 'cranks' is some A grade university discourse bullshit. there is no center of epistemological legitimacy anymore from which to designate 'cranks', not when this entire civilization has turned out to be a disastrous wrong turn. if you have a coherent argument against the maximum power principle (which Hanson did not invent, it was Lokta in the 20's) or against Jacobson (who spent 40 years fighting in the trenches before giving up and becoming a doomer) then by all means, I'd love to hear them. lotka, odum, and systems ecology are not crank poo poo. https://jayhansonsdieoff.net/overshoot-loop-evolution-under-the-maximum-power-principle/ specifically is crank poo poo. did uh, did you read it? "if you have a coherent argument against the concept of time and cubes (which Dr. Gene Ray did not invent) then by all means, i'd love to hear them"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:lotka, odum, and systems ecology are not crank poo poo. https://jayhansonsdieoff.net/overshoot-loop-evolution-under-the-maximum-power-principle/ specifically is crank poo poo. did uh, did you read it? i have read it dozens of times and been thinking about it for more than a year, trying to poke holes in it the entire time. you have not presented an argument against it. I'd love to hear it, because I really want him to be wrong. but I'm not sure how he is. eco-literate societies by definition are not energy maximizers and have no incentive to expand. energy maximizers are compelled to expand to overcome their overshoot of their own territory, and will be able to field more soldiers and wield more energy against their opponents. when they encounter eco-literates, they tend to win. where I disagree with hanson is that this is somehow genetic. there are plenty of examples of people and social projects who are not energy maximizers and try not to overshoot. but that doesn't really matter. over the long arc of history, overshooters win and eventually invent capitalism, which is just the overshoot as an auto-reproducing feedback loop enforced at gunpoint. what am I missing? I really want him to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
ancient history aside, it also explains a lot about the history of communism to date. Marx was wrong when he assumed capital is a fetter on the productive forces. socialist projects are not better energy maximizers and could not outcompete capitalism on its on terms. most eventually capitulated and got re-absorbed. dengism integrated itself into capitalism and has been highly successful in the short term, but the Maoist project had better long term potential. doesn't matter. you have to follow the MPP if you want to compete with capitalism, and following the MPP inevitably leads to overshoot dieoffs. Like, sure Hanson's just a random dude on the internet (as are we all) but he formulated this using lotka and odum. it's compatible with the laws of thermodynamics. he's not just pulling it out of his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
Hanson's also not the only person to formulate this conclusion. Paul Chefurka (another crank on the internet) was investigating the fuckedness up until 2013. this is his where he ended up: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Thermo/Thermo1.html He stopped writing shortly after and is now a hippie ultra doomer who thinks the maximum sustainable population of Homo Sapiens is 20 million hunter-foragers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 11:22
|
|
|
I'll take the doomiest hippie you have no that's too doomy
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 11:25
|
|
|
Osv18 posted:i have read it dozens of times and been thinking about it for more than a year, trying to poke holes in it the entire time. you have not presented an argument against it. I'd love to hear it, because I really want him to be wrong. i'll let cuttlefush give his own critique, but the argument seems very similar to rod swenson's view of behavioral perception-action cycles as the physics of earth as a dissipative system to me. Thermodynamic Reasons for Perception-Action Cycles posted:An argument is developed to show that the origin and evolution of the perceptual guidance of movements and the movement enhancement of opportunities to perceive, that is, perception-action cycles, have a direct and deep connection with thermodynamic principl6s. The cornerstones of the argument are: (a) maximum entropy production as a physical selection principle (thermodynamic fields will behave in such a fashion as to get to the final state-minimize the field potential or maximize the entropy-at the fastest possible rate given the constraints); (b) the inexorability of order production (order production is inexorable because order produces entropy faster than disorder); (c) evolution as a global phenomenon (the Earth system at its highest level evolves as a single global entity); and (d) information in Gibson's law-based, specificational sense (invariant relations exist between higher order properties of structured energy distributions and their environmental sources). In the coordination of self-organizing dynamics with information in the specificational sense, access is provided to otherwise inaccessible opportunities to produce ordered flow and to dissipate, thereby, the geocosmic potential at faster rates. The progressive emergence of perception-action cycles in the evolution of the Earth as a global entity is the lawful product of opportunistic physics: There was no other way to produce the collective (ordered) states that would engender these higher levels of dissipation. Perception-action cycles express higher order symmetries of the world itself, in its own becoming. Perception-action is the physics at these higher levels. from this view, where earth is understood to evolve as a single global entity, it's possible that by virtue of behaving at a global scale, humanity can perceive and act on thermodynamic relations, and thus access niches, that are inaccessible or don't exist when species are operating at smaller scales. behavior is thus nondecomposable and emergent here, and we can't simply reduce it down to how algae or whatever more easily studied species behave. hanson thinks we can, and i don't think that's true--specifically, i think that's an artifact of all species heretofore behaving at non-global scales, and thus being unable to perceive the thermodynamic relations available to humanity. in that sense communism will not defeat, but emerge from capitalism, because it will afford acting on higher-order thermodynamic relations in a way that capitalism cannot. i'm not going to dump on my fellow cranks, but i think one clear advantage to swenson's view is not having to postulate a new principle of thermodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
does arguing about the technical semantics of whether or not algae behavior is a relevant variable help the Formal Debate contingent not think about the disaster that is unfolding or something Did I miss some single event recently that caused this? Joe Biden setting all time world records for fossil fuel expansion just hit as a reality? Do you all live in an increasingly flooding Florida? A general late April realization by the left leaning electorate your votes really don't matter? There were two different pretty heated arguments about climate change at work this week so did NPR actually tell the truth for once? It's an interesting sociological concept at least. Is one single variable causing an abrupt degeneration in the ability for certain groups to cope with their surroundings or is this a longer trend where a series of events breaks through even the strongest group delusion? Rectal Death Adept has issued a correction as of 12:03 on Apr 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:they think we can organize our way into sustainable material conditions by dismantling capitalism But we can and we must. There’s no other way. It won’t stop (whatever level of warming we are at and that we bake in) until we do. That wasn’t the issue with croup’s posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:07
|
|
|
Zodium posted:but i think one clear advantage to swenson's view is not having to postulate a new principle of thermodynamics. about that... http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:18
|
|
|
hahaha, i stand corrected. i guess that's why it seemed similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:20
|
|
|
It really does look like this will be the year for millions to die in wet bulb events. I hope not but just lol, lmao at everything.  While its still up and free. The Collapse TV show. Random mitigation thoughts. Energy revolution in Cuba. Pioneering for the future? Low tech living.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:37
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:It's an interesting sociological concept at least. Is one single variable causing an abrupt degeneration in the ability for certain groups to cope with their surroundings or is this a longer trend where a series of events breaks through even the strongest group delusion? I guess it is interesting to me because I’d like to understand if humans are a horrible accident or the expected result. Jay Hanson is making an argument for the latter, and I find that somewhat comforting because it means that my votes never mattered in the first instance. This doesn’t provide any moral absolution, but it would mean that I could quit worrying about if I could have helped humanity direct action our way into sustainable equilibrium if I wasn’t so addicted to these delicious treats. I am interested in what specifically makes him a crank, because the argument does seem well founded. I suspect Zodium would say that the available evidence isn’t strong enough to guarantee Hanson’s proposed model, and that is pretty obviously correct. (He probably did say this somewhere in the last 20 pages but why read when I could post instead??) But limiting our ideas to concepts with a known p-value of < .05 seems like a good way to stop learning new things. As an aside, I don’t honestly think this is what Zodium would suggest, but I’m having a hard time finding the nuance in their position. I believe it exists because they seem like a sharp and insightful person even if it is more fun to me to pretend otherwise for the sake of making terrible posts. Anyway, I am interested in reading an even slightly more nuanced take than “Hanson is a crank” if someone can be bothered to write or link one that they like. I did actually read the linked blog based on the last page of discussion and it didn’t seem obviously ridiculous to me, so I would like to know what I missed! For me, the real tragedy is that if Hanson’s model is true, we possess the capacity to understand it so clearly without having the ability to subvert it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:41
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:But we can and we must. Half of this is right. The other half is right in the same way that the leopard could stop eating your face. It could, sure. It won’t. But it could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:
I think it's mostly an attempt to discount an overall narrative and any source that reinforces it than it is an actual criticim of the specific sources. The are working backwards from the conclusion that Hanson or by extension this thread is wrong because they don't want us to be correct about things being bad. So the elaborate arguments are made to support that conclusion instead of creating it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
ben shapino posted:we are all going to die https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkWS4t4l0k&pp=ygUUT25pb24gd2VyZSBnb25uYSBkaWU%3D
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I guess it is interesting to me because I’d like to understand if humans are a horrible accident or the expected result. Jay Hanson is making an argument for the latter, and I find that somewhat comforting because it means that my votes never mattered in the first instance. This doesn’t provide any moral absolution, but it would mean that I could quit worrying about if I could have helped humanity direct action our way into sustainable equilibrium if I wasn’t so addicted to these delicious treats. it is interesting. to be clear, I wasn't trying to prove Hanson's model wrong so much as present a similar alternative. they're just models to me, ways to make sense of the evidence we have. my own position on the past is that humanity is the expected result, but my position on the future is probably best described as radical uncertainty; as far as I can see, things look catastrophically bad for me and our civilization, but there are limits to what and how far I can see on the species scale. what I'm often pushing back on is that sense of yearning for the comfort of certainty you describe. if there's any certainty to be had, it's that we'll die not knowing whether we could have helped humanity direct action our way into a sustainable equilibrium, and that's okay. (nobody should be using p-values for anything.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 13:36
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:sure let me just build a faraday cage around my entire civilization! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 13:36
|
|
|
there is a slim chance it might snow on May 2nd lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:But we can and we must. There’s no other way. It won’t stop (whatever level of warming we are at and that we bake in) until we do. That wasn’t the issue with croup’s posts. In other words, we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
Zodium posted:it is interesting. to be clear, I wasn't trying to prove Hanson's model wrong so much as present a similar alternative. they're just models to me, ways to make sense of the evidence we have. my own position on the past is that humanity is the expected result, but my position on the future is probably best described as radical uncertainty; as far as I can see, things look catastrophically bad for me and our civilization, but there are limits to what and how far I can see on the species scale. what I'm often pushing back on is that sense of yearning for the comfort of certainty you describe. if there's any certainty to be had, it's that we'll die not knowing whether we could have helped humanity direct action our way into a sustainable equilibrium, and that's okay. thanks for the response. it is difficult to disagree with and I feel a bit like I straw manned you on previous pages so sorry for that! while it seems to me most likely that we are headed for 5 degrees or more, it isn’t something that could be formalized to the point of a guarantee. I’m not sure that the difference is super significant, but I can understand why someone would! (also if I don’t use p-values how can I hack my lovely data to make up for my lousy experimental design???)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
a strange fowl posted:unless there's been a proclamation by the prophet of cringe
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
I'd be telling you to drop out and find god even if the biosphere weren't collapsing, btw. It is to the benefit of your happiness and the detriment of the capitalist, but it just so happens to also be what could save the planet if any of you soft fucks could go a day without.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Dystopia Barbarian posted:You're not wrong, but as someone pointed out upthread, intelligent people tend to not want to throw our bodies into the gears of the machine unless / until our suffering outweighs our will to live. Well yeah that’s why revolution won’t come from the imperial core. I’m not advocating for the MTW position which simply excuses inaction and encourages self-flagellation—-there is plenty to do in the imperial core. Also, it’s well-understood that it might take long enough that we’re absolutely hosed—-historically liberation struggles take 50-100 years big picture (Vietnam, China, etc). TehSaurus posted:Half of this is right. The other half is right in the same way that the leopard could stop eating your face. It could, sure. It won’t. But it could. “Rosa was wrong, it’s socialism or extinction,” “When equal rights collide, force decides,” etc etc. Kill the leopard or die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:does arguing about the technical semantics of whether or not algae behavior is a relevant variable help the Formal Debate contingent not think about the disaster that is unfolding or something it reads like a lot of people thought they'd be dead before having to experience consequences so they could hand wave climate stuff away with "i vote and recycle and someone will invent something obvs." but consequences are happening faster and more severely than expected and they can't really hand wave anymore, so are acting out. focusing on technical minutia is kind of like a mental sedative it seems. it's only going to get worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:thanks for the response. it is difficult to disagree with and I feel a bit like I straw manned you on previous pages so sorry for that! that's quite alright. I much prefer that to the cope posters reassuring each other that they can rest comfortably in certainty because of <insert science word>, and anyone who challenges that must be doing so for lack of intellectual fortitude or honesty. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
TehSaurus posted:thanks for the response. it is difficult to disagree with and I feel a bit like I straw manned you on previous pages so sorry for that! yeah, RCP8.5 is iirc still the best fitting for historical cumulative co2 and that's what i'd bet on unless stops being true. compare "RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2emissions" (https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2007117117) with "Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100" (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf/meta) the latter's primary author, roger pielke jr, is an actually existing climate optimist/spoiler or whatever the gently caress he is. his dad, roger pielke sr, was also a dipshit. or they get paid well. i'm sure they've some up in the thread but they're always worth pointing out. also for fun checkhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WtqpmdIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate to see how many letters pielke puts out about climate models/scenarios are too doomy. for getting a sense of what 2100 or so could possibly look like, I like papers like "Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction". https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the pretty good article summary or https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the full paper. that's as good a look into the future as you can probably get without starting to make too many things up. it's also way more grim than the 'lol we all gonna die' so i absolutely understand if some of you want to pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:57
|
|