Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Full accelerationism now! :pcgaming:

KILL EVERYONE :pcgaming:

# ¿ Nov 27, 2015 05:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:34

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

The problem with such a system is that on top of creating even more wealth inequality it would have to imposed by force by an authoritarian goverment. Climate justice warriors rarely take into account the actual will and desires of the people. Who the hell wants to live the life of a poor subsistence farmer who cant even get out of the ten mile radius he was born in because transportation is only for the very rich. Its like that UN guy who said humans will have to get used to eating insects!?? Hellll no im not going

Its pretty clear why this problem is not really going to be solved when poo poo like this still gets thrown around as if its actually what 'Climate Justice Warriors' (is this meant to hearken to SJWs?) want to do.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2016 19:36

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Trabisnikof posted:

The premise that we can't mitigate and adapt to climate change within the current global economic system is both wrong and would lead one to advocate for plans with worse climate outcomes.

This rather optimistically assumes that climate change will even allow the current global economic system to survive.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2016 22:04

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Wanderer posted:

Yeah, this can't be stated enough, especially in the mainstream, which is choking itself to death in an attempt to appear unbiased. That's the real insidious genius of high-profile deniers. As long as they exist in the positions they hold, major media organs have to act as if they have a point.

The question isn't "can we adapt," but rather, what shape the adaptation will take and what civilization will look alike during and afterwards. If you look at scientific periodicals, you can get a better idea of the shape of it, because climate change is coming hand-in-hand with a number of other impending societal shifts: widespread automation, artificial intelligence, cloned meat (they can make perfectly potable ground beef, but it's not cheap enough to market), the imminence of affordable and widely available 3d printing.

Like I said to you earlier, Overflight, you really don't want to spend all your time reading about how we're doomed, or you'll turn into a wreck. There are people out there who are aware of these problems and who are working to help solve them, alone or in groups, privately or publically, and most of them could use your time, money, or attention. If you're in New York or New Haven, for example, I mentioned GreenWave a few days ago, and they're looking for volunteers. You could also sign up to help with the Ocean Cleanup, or just see what kinds of environmental volunteer work are available in your area. Even if you just walked around picking up litter, that's more useful than panic.

I don't understand why we would assume that it would assist the denialists to go from 'its not happening' to 'its happening and we're all completely hosed'. The most obvious position is to just say 'Ah well its happening but its not that big a deal, we won't really have to change our institutions or way of life particularly dramatically particularly if that means we'll have to be held accountable, heck some of the effects might be positive', if anything exactly what you're saying would line up well enough with the direction denialists are shifting to, an emphasis on technological solutions, adaption as it happens and much vaunted 'green Capitalism' that doesn't undermine the current system, that's not a denunciation of what you're saying by the way just an observation.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2016 21:02

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Wanderer posted:

Gotta tell you, I'm not 100% on what you're trying to say here.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. Mozi said that the news was hopeless, and Computer Parts said that's by design and you seem to agree, from what your saying here:

Wanderer posted:

Yeah, this can't be stated enough, especially in the mainstream, which is choking itself to death in an attempt to appear unbiased. That's the real insidious genius of high-profile deniers. As long as they exist in the positions they hold, major media organs have to act as if they have a point.

I take it you're saying that the denialist conspiracy has permeated the media hard? So is the hopelessness and emphasis on the potential extreme negatives of Climate Change that Mozi is concerned about an aspect of this conspiracy? Because I don't understand how it would help denialists (or whatever position they've shifted to now) at all.

Batham posted:

So... according to you if you're not a defeatist you're a 'denialists'. Okay.

I didn't say that dumbass, I said that people who were formerly denialists but now can't ignore the weight of the evidence would probably go for a position fairly close to Wanderer's. Its not a criticism of what specific solutions he was putting forward, you know, which was something I actually said.

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 31, 2016

# ¿ Mar 31, 2016 22:02

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Lets perk things up with a story of a large energy company taking the farsighted, responsible appr... wait, whoops:
EU dropped climate policies after BP threat of oil industry 'exodus'.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2016 15:08

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Cranappleberry posted:

This is not to say don't be environmentally conscious, but if you seriously believe your individual carbon footprint matters, then you are as delusional as climate change deniers.

I always find this attitude interesting because it usually gets followed up with 'but the system is too large and inert to realistically change in the near future', so basically the best idea is to dehumanize yourself and face the bloodshed.

Trabisnikof posted:

Yeah but how many flights can I make if I refuse to have 20 kids? That's a lot of prevented emissions right there!

Are you still salty about this?

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Apr 22, 2016

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 07:10

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

How are u posted:

I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like this. You sound like the guy trying to lose weight 'rewarding' themselves with a cake every time they go jogging for twenty minutes and then confused as to why he can't keep off the pounds?

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 18:08

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

By somewhere do you mean Kashmir?

# ¿ Apr 23, 2016 04:12

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Lets take a break from the endless Arkane roundabout to check some of the latest news of government's taking Climate Change very seriously. And by very seriously I mean having any references to their ongoing gigantic coral bleaching problem being stripped from a UNESCO report because they know it will accelerate the destruction of their tourism industry.

quote:

Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.

Guardian Australia can reveal the report �World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate�, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.

But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia�s move was reminiscent of �the old Soviet Union�.

No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.

Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: �Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.�

...

The news comes less than a year after the Australian government successfully lobbied Unesco to not list the Great Barrier Reef in its list of �World Heritage Sites in Danger�.

The removals occurred in early 2016, during a period when there was significant pressure on the Australian government in relation to both climate change and world heritage sites.

At the time, news of the government�s science research agency CSIRO sacking 100 climate scientists due to government budget cuts had just emerged; parts of the Tasmanian world heritage forests were on fire for the first time in recorded history; and a global coral bleaching event was beginning to hit the Great Barrier Reef � another event driven by global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oBx7Jg4m-o

# ¿ May 27, 2016 02:46

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Triglav posted:

What is to be done in the developing world?

I don't mean "why bother with things here if we can't stop everyone from burning fossil fuels." I mean how is the global community to accept that foreign nations are within their sovereign right to extract, refine, trade, and burn carbon, however they please, to the detriment to themselves and the world, for their own selfish gain?

Cap and trade sounds like a good way for developed countries to invest in developing countries. But the premise assumes developing countries don't need their carbon credits as much as developed ones. Cheap energy is essential for economic growth, and some of the cheapest sources are dirty.

Ideally a developing nation might only use as much cheap dirty energy as necessary for them to transition to expensive cleaner energy. But why should they? That would slow their economic growth and standard of living improvements.

I feel that being antagonistic towards the developing world's use of dirty energy would be akin to kicking the ladder down after climbing it. You can say, "oh that's not really a big problem," but the developing world is growing, and their desires and consumption habits are equal to ours. Every day countless people in the developing world join the global upper class, in all ways.

As an aside, I thought this was interesting, about water rights: https://vimeo.com/164671735

When their living standards are directly, negatively afflicted by the results of use of cheap fossil fuels what do you do then? This is exceptionally short sighted thinking.

# ¿ May 27, 2016 04:17

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

What's shortsighted is to ignore the pressures governments feel to quickly improve the lives of millions to billions of people living in complete poverty and cheap energy being literally the only proven way to do so.

I guess you can go to china and india and tell them how short-sighted they are being, that sounds like it will work.

Yeah, and what are you going to do for those people in southern Asia that you care oh so much about when the ground literally disappears from beneath their feet? Or when droughts worsen throughout the world, or when fisheries collapse utterly, or when increasingly large hurricanes gouge out the coastlines? At this point the large scale use of fossil fuels is more akin to somebody popping amphetamines so that they can bulldoze their way through the work week, it might be effective for a while but it is killing you in the long term. In any event the whole cheapest, quickest solution argument is rapidly being undermined as renewable get cheaper and nuclear power programs are being pursued in the third world. There can be no future with fossil fuels, and people are rapidly wising up to this.

# ¿ May 28, 2016 01:02

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

The issues of capitalism and climate change are only really there because the things that cause climate change (coal et all) run the world. There's very little reason to think that a similarly socialist society wouldn't do basically the same thing (i.e., they would also preserve the status quo because they are the status quo).

Like, here's one random example: the coal workers union exists to promote the interests of coal workers. This means, above all else, preserving their jobs and preventing them discomfort. Changing jobs creates a whole lot of discomfort, as does removing jobs. Therefore, it's in the coal workers union's best interest to preserve the institution of coal power.

That example is flawed since a large part of the reason unions seek to maintain the coal industry is because they understand that without it there is little incentive for a capitalist framework to invest in and provide employment in an area like Southern Wales or Appalachia without that key resource. The Socialist solution might involve deliberately moving industry to the region to maintain employment, regardless of whether or not its necessarily the best place to build a shoe factory or what have you. Inevitably that will get criticized for making 'fake' jobs or whatever but its better than depending on lovely industries like coal.

It baffles me that this is up for debate, most of the solutions that are proffered in this thread sound distinctly un-capitalist in nature: large scale government programs to build energy infrastructure like renewables or nuclear regardless of profitability compared to fossil fuels? Heavy regulations that are well enforced to prevent companies from over-exploiting the environment? Hiked up taxes to take into account the effects of Carbon? Voluntary assistance and aid to poorer countries to disincentivize their own over-exploitation of the environment? The capitalist solutions seem to either rely on miracle technology being discovered and utilized under the whims of the free market (there is zero reason this could not happen under a Socialist system too) or companies and the rich voluntarily forgoing short term profits and self gain for the benefit of the rest of society (Bwahahaha).

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 21:41 on May 28, 2016

# ¿ May 28, 2016 21:39

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Trabisnikof posted:

I think you'll find that actually regulation and subsidies of private actors are both inherently capitalistic policies. As are cap and trade markets and to a lesser degree even carbon taxes rely on profit seeking behavior.

Only the people engaging in wishful thinking are proposing non-capitalistic policies.

Just because they happen to Capitalists in Capitalist countries does not make them inherently Capitalistic policies. Considering that modern neoliberal ideology tends to consider the sanctity of the free market untouched by the deathly touch of government(until they need them to bail them out) to be the most important loving thing in the world I have no idea how anybody expects to move forward on this issue without seriously confronting the nature of Global Capitalism.

Also markets still exist under many extremely socialist ideologies.

# ¿ May 28, 2016 22:21

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Trabisnikof posted:

You seem to be confusing some specific consumerist ideology with the concept of capitalism.

Unless Capitalists decide they don't like money anymore they're inextricably linked.

quote:

You're also incredibly disconnected from reality if you think the "sanctity of the free market" rules the world. Very few markets are "free" in the way libertarians wants. Most are regulated to one degree or another.

Are you loving serious? Did the last thirty five pass you by? Yes truly free markets don't actually exist because such a concept is realistically impossible, and because leftists the world over have managed to safeguard various rights for workers, the environment etc, but you're a fool if you don't think that the free market remaining free and unsullied by the interference of government isn't a golden calf that gets trotted out at every opportunity to defend the interests of Capital. Have a look at every argument concerning raising the minimum wage and see how much 'might hurt business' pops up, look at the uproar in France right now as a supposedly socialist government is attempting to batter through legislation that will contract workers rights for the benefit of business. Most of all I would have thought that the denialist movement and the incessant conflict between serious action against climate change and what gets called damaging for business interests would be evidence enough that unfettered Capitalism is a lot of the problem.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 01:05

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

From historical records, the Socialist solution was forcibly moving the people elsewhere. Which is really lovely.

I guess if your historical records begin and end with Stalinism you might think that (also Capitalism does it too, you should look into indentured servitude among Southern Asians in the British Empire and the demographic effects this had in places like Guyana, South Africa and Fiji), look at something like the EU's cohesion fund where they spend significant sums of money attempting to keep people and employment in poorer regions like Southern Italy, sometimes in fairly Byzantine ways.

quote:

And even if you are right, that *still* doesn't disprove the fact that retraining is a grueling process even with a good support system, especially the older your workers are.

And? The point remains, a pure Capitalist system wouldn't have much incentive to do anything for those workers so long as they have nothing to offer, hence why places like West Virginia had to latch onto and defend dangerous polluting industries for so long, the only way out is for retraining and incentives for other industries to set up in the region to come from somewhere and nine times out of ten that will have to be from the government.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 03:05

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

So which historical Socialist systems are you pointing to?

And isn't the EU's program proof that Capitalism doesn't do that too?

The Social Democratic systems that have had a big impact in Europe in the last two centuries? It might have to make certain concessions to Capitalism (chiefly its continued existence) but its been integral to quality of life here. Its difficult to disentangle that from the EU too, which isn't entirely an institution that exists to enrich the upper class, its just mostly that, especially now.

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 03:24 on May 29, 2016

# ¿ May 29, 2016 03:20

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

Yeah, Social Democracy is not Socialism.

Oh we're doing this particular hair splitting.

quote:

The EU is firmly capitalist.

It may well be, and way too much so in my view, but not all policies are based off of what the captains of industry demand and have to take into account the needs of working people so it can maintain its legitimacy. Likewise the United States is and always has been extremely Capitalist but it didn't stop the New Deal from being a thing despite being very loudly denounced as unamerican and practically Communist by the standards of the country.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 04:11

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Triglav posted:

Hair splitting? The literal difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Social Democracy is still meant to aim for an explicitly Socialist end point without Capitalism, its just that it works within the democratic systems of many Capitalist countries and involves less lighting dynamite.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 04:25

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

No, it explicitly doesn't because it doesn't give the means of production to the workers. That's the definition of Socialism.

No, it does, or ostensibly its meant to, just without resorting to dramatic revolution and instead fostering change within a democratic framework that ultimately erases class differences, the originators of the ideology like Bernstein and Jaures were very up front about this. Many Social Democratic parties called themselves Socialist straight up.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 04:55

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

Nope, worst case is that Europe gets a lot browner but that was kind of inevitable anyway.

Mass displacement, no biggy.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 19:31

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

gradenko_2000 posted:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/796858/duterte-says-no-to-climate-pact-compliance

No offense to the good people of the Philippines, but everything I've heard about this guy makes it sound like he's a preview for Trump in America if he gets elected, is that a fair comparison?

Wasn't there something about him telling people to go out and beat up junkies?

# ¿ Jul 18, 2016 16:26

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

computer parts posted:

Not saying there aren't concerns about climate change, but dude whose company is literally defined by electric cars and storage might not be the best source to draw from.

Are you serious.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 15:43

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Conspiratiorist posted:

Major population displacements are about the only thing that will cause violent terrorism vs private industries within the US. It's been mentioned over and over in the threads, but you need an exceptional amount of anger boiling across a large swath of demographics, with grievances that can be pinned to a target, in order to trigger that kind of response.

And even then, it's almost as likely the anger will be directed towards the government for not taking necessary steps or warning people enough about this, than against corporations themselves.

Thread also tends to make a big deal about how on the ball US intelligence agencies are on domestic terrorism, but all you need is 1-3 sufficiently insane/motivated people and that's a mass shooting or bombing, multiplied by whatever level of civil unrest is happening at the time.

I think people make the barriers for terrorism seem greater than they really are. Back in the 60s and 70s you had tons of what were usually fairly well-sheltered college age kids in America and Europe running around killing people and bombing places in the name of minuscule Ultra-leftist organisations seemingly without much support from the general populace. Its important to remember that terrorism can establish itself even if its not particularly popular, and it wasn't like economic conditions were that bad at the time. Even now you see some very violent terror attacks from small Radical Muslim groups scattered around the west.

I really wouldn't be surprised if domestic terror related to Global Warming began again in the near future, especially if employment remains crap (and/or gets worse due to automation), living standards fall for a lot of the population, income inequality keeps rising and macho hard right movements represented by people like Trump and Le Pen continue to gain traction. It would be close to a perfect storm.

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Nov 30, 2016

# ¿ Nov 30, 2016 02:49

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Arglebargle III posted:

It's reasonable to assume that this is the best shot at a more advanced civilization than our own that the Earth will ever get, for two reasons. First, the easiest way to get past where we are is to start where we are. Starting from nothing will be much harder.

Second, birds and whales have been around for a very long time and they've never written anything down much less launched a rocket.

In the very long run, it's reasonable to assume that if Earth life wants to be more than a mote that eventually dies out, we're its best shot.

That may seem a ridiculously long term point of view but happily it squares with not ruining everything we like in the short term either.

Well, assuming civilization-forming intelligent life needs to be endothermic, landbased and amniote that would mean it probably took roughly 250 million years to get to us? If worst case human-caused mass extinction does occur like its looks like it will you'll still have a lot of surviving animals that meet those requirements and more, like corvids, canines, rodents, psittacines and some primates, maybe if all humans went extinct it would be easy enough for the next civilisation building species to emerge over the remaining 500 million years of habitable earth time?

One thing I've become curious about recently is whether or not animal cognition has been on a rough but continuous upward rise since the major animal groups evolved. Like I'm pretty sure everything was a whole lot dumber back in the Cambrian period, but even going back to the times of dinosaurs scientists don't usually seem to have very flattering estimates of the mental capacities of early dinos. But they also seem to consider the brain sizes of later dinosaurs like Troodon TRex to be quite a bit more impressive than similar dinosaurs ages before them, like Allosaurus. And compared to animals today, Troodon, the dinosaur stereotypically seem as 'the smart one' wasn't much better than a modern day Opossum(which is a dumb animal), it would be totally outclassed in the brains department by current day dinos like Crows and Parrots. So maybe the next civilization creating creature is just around the corner, on a geological timescale anyway.

Anyway don't mind me, I find talking about animal smarts soothing after thinking about the existential dread of what Climate Change will do to us.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2016 04:21

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Hollismason posted:

Actually we have had more intelligent life. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are two different species. We share a common ancestor but they quite distinct from humans.

The likely hood though of another species evolving into a "intelligent" life as we know it is pretty low. Otherwise there would be more species of intelligent life like neanderthals and humans found in archaeology.

I think the best way I heard it was " in 500 million years we've had one dominant species evolve" there is another 500 million years before the Earth is no longer sustainable to life because of the way the Sun ages and expands.

We're probably it.

Technologically though we can in fact overcome Climate Change because we can build self contained Arcologies most likely.

First off humans aren't going to go extinct, second 500 million years ago animals had barely evolved hard structures, nothing lived on land and the most complex brain around would probably have been outclassed by a modern woodlouse. I don't think that humans could find a way to wipe out every single vertebrate on land if we tried, even if only a few rats or crows survived that would about 400 million years worth of evolution already done.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2016 03:39

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

GlyphGryph posted:

Yeah, nihilists are a bit more realistic than anyone that thinks not having kids is gonna do a thing to help the planet.

Having a kid is probably the single most important thing you can do to raise your carbon emissions.

Sorry, its just the way it is.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2016 22:47

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

GlyphGryph posted:

And killing yourself is the quickest and most effective way to reduce it. Are you going to argue mass suicide is a something we should pursue and advocate?

Not having a kid, or just having less kids, is a teensy bit different from hanging yourself in the shed unless you think condoms have resulted in an unimaginable genocide.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2016 23:02

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Fair.

You can have another kid for 100,000$ net worth of person you remove.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2016 23:08

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

I have never understood how its either selfless or moral to have a kid, unless your genes are not a part of your self.

In the modern world its at best neutral.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2016 23:12

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

GlyphGryph posted:

Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them)

The human race will not go extinct because everyone will voluntary chose to go childless. If anything a generation of sub-replacement birthrate, especially among richer westerners, might be pretty good for the environment and general resource management on earth, especially if major breakthroughs are made in extending human lifespans.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 06:00

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Fangz posted:

I was exaggerating for effect.

Actually I hope to think that my contribution as a scientist means that I am a net negative on global emissions over the course of my life.

In any case if your claim is that per capita emissions can only increase then that's manifestly untrue. The marginal effect of having one more person (ignoring that the effect of various constraints and incentives in the economy would be that you not having a child would probably just increase the chance of someone else having a child) will be basically about a 1/billion increase in emissions. A small technological or political or cultural change can easily overwhelm that.

As an educated person who gives a poo poo about climate change, statistically my offspring is dramatically more likely to do something about the future than the vast majority of humanity.

Also I'm not sure why I should particularly give a poo poo about the future of humanity in this vision of a future solely populated by the children of the ignorant and the selfish.

Edit: The worst case scenario is not IMHO human extinction. The worst case scenario is the heirs of ExxonMobile successfully genociding the majority of humanity, living in comfort in their ill-gotten gains, and getting away with it.

This idea of Climate natalism where we need to outbreed the deniers is the stupidest thing. The vast, vast majority of people on earth have an apathetic rather than outright denialist stance towards Climate change at this point and that's subject to change as the effects of climate change become more obvious in the near future. It will be much easier and more effective to try and educate the rest of the populace over how Climate Change will effect them and what they might do to reduce their footprint rather than have a kid and wait twenty years before they can become a strategic asset in fighting Carbon Emissions (at which we'll likely already be too far gone).

Even then there's no guarantee at all said kid won't just ignore what their hippie parents think and get a job in the corporate world to have a more comfortable life, at least for themselves.

I also think having kids tends to intrude on the ability for people to really get proactive in fighting climate change. I'm not criticizing parents for that but its just an observation from what I've seen where lot of my older environmentally conscious friends who understandably have to change their way of living after starting a family (get a car, put a lot more focus on their work, travel much more, be a whole lot less conscious about what they buy and where they buy it from) and literally do not have the time of day to focus significant efforts on fighting climate issues due to the needs of family life.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 15:46

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

NewForumSoftware posted:

maybe stop pretending like a bug's life is worth a human's than? we should be stewards of the environment, not beholden to it

maybe you missed it but for all of the last 400 years humanity's impact on the earth's climate was negligible, humans are not synonymous with environmental damage

existence is not a zero-sum game and if it were the only ethical thing to do would be kill yourself (or at least stop posting) since you're just making all of our lives worse

Uh, for the last 40000 years humans have had massive impacts on their environment. We're obviously neither beholden nor stewards to the environment, pretty much our only notable interaction with have varying levels of exploitation.

Which is normal for any creature of course, but just don't have any illusions.

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Dec 19, 2016

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 17:05

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

NewForumSoftware posted:

i'm sorry but the impacts have been negligible in the context of the greater earth system, yes we probably put major pressure on larger land animals and hastened their decline via hunting but ecosystems were fine and more than able to recover before the advent of the industrial revolution

but like I said, if you really believe humans are just a plague on the earth the least you could do is stop posting about it seeing as your existence is just making the rest of ours worse

Even prior to the invention of agriculture humans probably had the single greatest impact on the earth's environments of any single multicellur species ever. Also any ecologist will tell you that the removal of those large animals could have significant knock on effects that modified the environment, ever hear of 'mammoth steppe'?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 18:00

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

NewForumSoftware posted:

And? Again, we should strive to be stewards of the environment, not view ourselves as inherently destructive

"don't have kids because they'll just destroy the environment more" is stupid, full stop

Its just that most of the time we change that environment and some or many species are going to go extinct.

I'm not really trying to moralise here, its just what life does (see the effects of invasive species almost everywhere), but I don't really know if stewardship is a particularly meaningful goal if we don't really take steps to reduce pressure on environmental systems.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 18:20

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Paradoxish posted:

Just to play devil's advocate for a second here, you don't have to be strictly anti-natalist or support things like a one/no child policy to try to convince people to have fewer kids. From a policy standpoint, you can push the importance of adoption and the resource costs associated with having children in a first world nation. Basically, try to make it more socially acceptable to not have kids rather than pushing the idea that having kids is a bad thing.

A thing people forget is that its not really about bringing in one-child policies or cutting off people's balls. Its doing basic and surpringly simple things like making contraception or abortion widely available, educating women and making it clear to them that their worth isn't based on reproduction. A surprising amount of people don't really want kids but circumstances and cultural pressures can force their hands.

And its not like this pie in the sky thinking, all over the world birthrates have plummeted for precisely these reasons.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 18:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:34

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

SpaceCadetBob posted:

In an attempt to moderate my attitude, I'll say that many of these simple things you mentioned are indeed a great thing. Having children beyond your ability to care for them, or simply because you don't have the option not to due to education or social constraints is a bad thing. I believe that a global replacement fertility rate is something humanity should strive for, and honestly is already practically at.

However I ask you this, do you see any of the potential issues that a sub-replacement rate could cause? What happens if humanity swings to far? The coming demographic crisis in western nations(and some non-western) is a real thing, and could very well lead to even worse outcomes for our environment and our species.

OK, here's my problem with the 'demographic catastrophe!' Thing, it is heavily based on specific problems with our capitalist market economic system right now that is rapidly changing into something unrecognizable. Right now we are starting to see automation eat into wide scale employment, that seems guaranteed to accelerate over the next few decades which will probably mean the majority of people on earth will not be able find employment no matter how low they are willing to sell their labour because a robot will always be cheaper. That automation will fill up most stuff large amounts of unskilled labour used to do.

Secondly we'll probably also see ever greater extensions to human lifespan as medical technology gets more sophisticated especially genetic engineering. If people are aging slower and dying way later then the need to replace them will continuously decrease.

I just don't think the incoming world will have much need for high birthrates at this rate. I know a lot find this whole thing creepy and unpleasant to think about but like global warming its probably inevitable.

khwarezm fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 19, 2016

# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 19:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward