Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

TheFuglyStik posted:

Care to elaborate on how these people have a burning desire to oppress women, or are you fine with just leaving it as a straw man?

Operative word there being straw.

I imagine he's referring to something akin to a Kantian State of Nature in which the strongest among us simple take and use whatever they want, be it food, property, or other humans. Considering the relatively brutish nature of human beings, I'm inclined to agree that a total collapse of society would mean a lot of forcible mating.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 23:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 03:39

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

TheFuglyStik posted:

Start reducing the wastes of arable land called lawns

Let's start with cemeteries first. Useless landfills for corpses that have been prevented from rotting for no good reason.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 19:20

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Your Sledgehammer posted:

This thread needs a serious shot in the arm.

http://candobetter.net/node/2755

So what do you think? I agree with Dilworth's assessment - we're basically racing technological innovation against resource depletion, and it's a tortoise-and-hare sort of scenario. Our technological advancement may race ahead - even quite far ahead - of resource depletion from time to time, but resource depletion will eventually catch us in the end. Even were we to implement an energy grid that is powered by a renewable resource like the sun, we'd still run out of so many things (think phosphorus for fertilizer, the rare earth metals that are key components of all sorts of technology, etc.) that a sharp decrease in population would be inevitable. As far as I can tell, the only hope of drastically expanding our resource base for many different resources is some form of space mining, and though that is slowly becoming a reality, it is still unclear that all the energy, material, and money spent getting the asteroids back to Earth would actually provide a return on investment using conventional methods of exploring space (and let's be honest, space elevators are more science fiction than science fact right now). My understanding of asteroid mining is that it provides a more affordable platform for further exploring space rather than it being of any material benefit to folks here on Earth.

It's a mistake to assume that resources wouldn't eventually be depleted without technology. Even without advanced technology, there's still a net loss of energy from any system over time. It would just take a much longer time. The only way to perpetuate humanity indefinitely is to eventually spread to other planets. This demands a more rapid development of technology, not less.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 22:46

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Uhhh....what? Let me make sure I'm understanding you properly - you're saying that you think humans would deplete resources like forests, game animals, energy sources, etc. WITHOUT the use of technology? Really?

The first sentence here is borderline tautology. "Even without humans, the universe will eventually succumb to heat death." Well, of course. But as you said yourself, the "net energy loss" would take a much longer amount of time. Isn't that the goal here - humans reaching extinction later rather than sooner?

Honestly, I'm not sure that perpetuating humanity indefinitely is even a rational goal, much less a desirable one. I'd much rather see humans be the common ancestor of a whole branch of the evolutionary tree than see humans in their current form continue to exist for billions of years.

His whole argument is that humans pushing to develop technology faster and faster is foolish because we're basically just rushing toward depleting our resources. That's true. But eventually we will deplete our resources anyway. We, as animals, consume natural resources. What we put back after consuming them is not as much as what was there to begin with.

If his concern is that by developing our technology we are rushing toward making it difficult to perpetuate the human species on Earth, his argument is dumb because this will eventually happen anyway and the solution is to develop the tech to spread to other planets.

If his concern is that by developing our technology we are rushing toward making Earth inhospitable to life generally, then his argument is dumb because he's essentially arguing that humans need to experience a major die-off (since our current population is totally unsustainable without technological help).

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 00:40

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Appropriate that we'd have a nice strawman for Halloween.

Here's the deal - the whole "we'd eventually deplete our resources anyway, because the sun will die someday" thing is the dumbest possible argument against aggressively pursuing a more sustainable human lifestyle. It crops up from time to time in this thread and I personally think that it's mostly used as a simple, contrarian response to things people just don't want to hear, because if you're willing to ponder the argument for longer than a few seconds, it immediately becomes apparent how short-sighted it is.

It's pretty much the equivalent of someone meticulously and smartly saving money to ensure that they'll have enough throughout their life and then someone comes along and says "You might as well just spend it all now, because you're going to have to spend it all before you die anyway."

I'm not talking about the sun. There is a finite amount of the various elements required to sustain life on this planet and they will be consumed eventually either way. I think aggressive pursuit of emigration from Earth is a better solution. If you spread humans thinner a lot of the problems we cause with our current population density are assuaged somewhat.

The guy takes makes the observation that because we've often made things worse by advancing our technology, then makes the totally unwarranted leap that we can't make technological advances without causing harm. Technology isn't inherently helpful or harmful. The way we go about developing and applying it can be. This means working toward advancement in a smart way, not deliberately slowing down or reversing our advancement because the industrial revolution was all sunshine.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 06:49

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Paper Mac posted:

I basically agree and I don't think those kinds of changes could be meaningfully implemented on a federal level in a country the size of the US anyway- what's appropriate for one state isn't likely to be appropriate for another on the other side of the country. There's also the issue that federal/national governments are normally where the lobbying influence of fossil fuel manufacturers, agrochemical corps, etc lies, so that's another issue. I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know whether its plausible that people could get together at a county/state level to try to implement these kinds of things. Anyway, that's why I eschewed the term 'model', as Cuba's a very different place and the 90s were very different times.

The lobbying influence is present on every level. Here in Wisconsin the legislature is aggressively pursuing relaxation of mining regulations at the behest of, you guessed it, mining companies.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2012 19:30

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

Here in Wisconsin we're having our first below 0 days since 2011, and already people around me are going "Gee, what was I so worried about? It's still as Wisconsin as ever!", totally ignoring that we used to have way more below 0 days and way earlier in the season.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2013 15:45

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

StarMagician posted:

Taxes are inherently punitive and are used to discourage certain behaviors:

Taxes on cigarettes discourage smoking
Taxes on carbon discourage carbon emissions
Taxes on medical devices discourage the production and sale of medical devices
Taxes on wages or earnings discourage employment or earning income

Obviously, certain behaviors (like working and commerce) should be encouraged. I don't think anyone would argue that carbon emission should be encouraged, so even if there's no value to taxing carbon at all aside from the revenue, it is at least less harmful than, say, the payroll tax, and should replace it.

I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power.

Anyway, I follow climate news to the extent that I see it in the media and here. I'm not a scientist, but I do think I'm a good enough critical thinker to have an educated opinion on this. It's not that I believe global warming isn't true--it's that the theory is so vague that it doesn't matter if it's true. It's like a climate horoscope: CO2 is above 350 ppm and Saturn is in the house of Leo? You will face climate challenges today. And sure enough, because there are 7 billion people on this Earth, many of whom are living in inhospitable areas, something happens, like a flood in Bangladesh, which is then blamed on global warming. If nothing happens, we just ignore it. That's how we wind up with lists like this: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

When has the existence of an income tax ever stopped anybody from getting a job?

# ¿ Oct 2, 2013 16:13

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

This measure is achievable but not sufficient, might as well do nothing! *Throws hands in air, retreats to survival basement to await the resource wars.*

Anti-nuclear sentiment is too strong to just go full nuke right now. If we pick at the edges with renewables where possible, eventually we'll be able to make the argument "there's only X much coal power production left. We can replace it with a couple of nuclear plants and be carbon free." and it'll be a much more palatable argument to most Americans than "Replace everything with nucular right now."

Baby steps.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2014 16:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 03:39

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

It rained yesterday here in Wisconsin. Even my most conservative friends are starting to say there's something to this whole global warming thing. And of course, I just smile and nod because I'd rather have them on the right side for the wrong reason than to confuse their position by explaining that the fact that it is hot today is not necessarily linked with the overall average temperature of the world.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 21:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed