|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:
I would say that any answer that is "global permanent austerity" is dumb and unworkable. I think change and malleability in culture is near infinite and if we all change to eating yeast paste and mcdonalds serves fried maggots as long as they taste good people will go for it. If it tastes better than beef people will get over the yuck and forget they ever ate beef. If someone presents a workable alternative to airplanes that isn't just "hurr, sail a ship" and we are all taking suborbital rockets or transpacific hyperloops or something everyone will dump planes the day the better thing competes. If the answer is ever that the only solution is some global regression or stagnation of standards of living then that is an answer that humanity came with a death timer. My standard of living should be the standard everyone gets. Future people should get better, if that isn't possible maybe humans weren't possible in the long term, maybe that is sad, but this isn't a megaman level where you know the designer made sure there was a winnable path.
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Ahhh a new climate doomsayer is born because they just can't stomach the thought of minimizing their output for a little while. If the only answer is eternal suffering penance then the answer is "we had a good run", if environmentalism is about finding ways to extend first world standards of living to the rest of the world in more sustainable ways than we have now then that's cool, do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:But hey, I understand if you want to ignore this and just scream "All is lost" so you can absolve yourself of any blame from your hedonism. And you can blame "hedonism" then absolve yourself from worrying because you already created the ultimate (and totally impossible) answer that would solve everything: penance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:There is no "answer", there's a bunch of strategies to lower CO2e concentrations in the atmosphere and the better we do at that the better off we are. The real binary tipping point is killing most eukaryotes via hydrogen sulfide poisoning when our oceans go euxinic and we have a long way to get there that involves tons of mass human migrations along the way. It's up to you how far you want to force that lever. If the answer is that the third world has to remain in eternal suffering poverty and the first world has to turn back the clock and regress then go for it, push that lever and extinct everything outside of a deep sea vent. If this is the highest possible reachable peak then it wasn't high enough. We had a cool run and if the next 40 years or show can show us some more cool stuff then great, but if this is the best we can do to provide for people it's just not good enough and not worth setting less as some goal to keep on earth eternally for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The third world can get all the air conditioning, electric cars and buses, and dense cities they want. They can't get huge cow farms and international flights to take pictures of cats. You can't either. If we can build magic green energy cars for 7 billion people we can figure out how to build carbon neutral airplanes with carbon neutral jet fuel made from algae or something. If the goal is to actually improve people's lives and not just use fake "environmentalism" to preserve the things you declare virtuous and remove the things you declare hedonism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, are the killer robots running on solar/nuclear? They ran on an ecologically friendly system where they digested plants and oxygen to self generate fuel. Which went wrong when the military made kill bots and the kill bots self replicated until they had consumed 100% of the plants and oxygen that existed on earth, and science had to leave some other robots for long after everyone was dead to jumpstart a robot ecology of robot animals and plants in some far distant future that could maybe eventually be repopulated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Since a guy is talking about killing himself over this stuff someone needs to repeat that no one reading this thread is really actually likely to die of climate change. It's real and bad and is going to be the largest single thing that kills the most people and the stuff it means for the next generations is really scary, and saying this is going to be taken by some people as downplaying things but like, if anyone here is actually corporeal scared for their actual body and life they are probably being hyperbolic. Like, people are going to die, it's very bad. But like, you personally are going to die in 2067 from a regular old heart attack most likely, even if it's in a world that is starting to get real bad off in a lot of places and really starting to take a toll on vulnerable people and more and more on random people via natural disaster. Like, seriously, the people talking about everyone dying next week or whatever are just jerking off to their depressed death fantasy. Like the future past that, past 2100 and past that get way more iffy on more and more sadsack predictions being actually real, and some really grim things are absolutely going to happen during your life time but like, you personally aren't actually going to die from this and shouldn't kill yourself over that sort of worry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:you aren't going to be scrounging for dog food in a post-apocalyptic hellscape. Yeah, it's lovely when people try to make it their prepper fantasy that is going to wipe away their boring life and take them on a zombie apocalypse adventure. It's such a horrible thing that is happening with climate change but it's just going to hurt people in ways that are mundane and tragic for a long time, not the ways that broke brains try to spin into exciting escapes from their mundane life into fallout new vegas or the sweet embrace of death that will punish all their enemies in exact proportion to their sins. Climate change is real real bad, and a lot of people are going to die, but unless you are really specifically vulnerable the time line just doesn't match up for it to be likely specifically you will specifically die. It'll gently caress over people like you all over the world for centuries and you should have empathy for that. But it's not the rapture that is coming in 6 years to wipe things clean in glorious cleansing fire. It's you hearing on the news a disaster killed 30,000 people in some third world country and you treating it like no big deal when actually even though those people were in a third world country they had been totally fine and hanging on until recently when they weren't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
white sauce posted:California is the wealthiest and most populated state and they're going to be/are already hosed. Then it's other costal states like Florida. Things aren't going to be rosy in the United States and they aren't going to be rosy anywhere else. You also have a finite life span and are not going to live eternal ever after to watch them sink into the ocean. This is absolutely not a proclamation that everything is going to be okay, it's the hard truth that unless you slid out of a womb onto this webpage right this morning the time line of events doesn't really line up to get you a cool seat to watch and it's really your children and their children that are going to face this as corporeal threat to their body instead of economic drag on their lifestyle. Like when you look at 2075 and see the graph of how horrifying it's gonna be, you, specifically, personally are going to have died by then, just anyway. Probably.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
white sauce posted:we are watching people die in this country from climate change right now. Yeah, they are. And it's possible to feel that is important without making it about yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
"People are dying right now" and "it is unlikely you specifically are going to die from this" are not contradictory. Drug resistant tuberculosis is a real serious problem, it's going to ravage a bunch of poor countries and also kill a ton of people in the first world. But like, you shouldn't hide under your bed that TB monster is specifically going to come to your specific house and that your specific death is actually specifically very likely. It's gonna kill hundreds of thousands of people a year, but like, don't plan your life around your TB funeral, something else is probably gonna get you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Elon musk just needs to shoot a bunch of spores and tardagrades in random directions so the human race can say it did something in the end
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Extinction isn’t just a lot of people dying, it’s literally everyone dying and enough people live in enough places in enough different ways that is pretty much unthinkable at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I mean you can kick off a feedback that dumps a fatal amount of hydrogen sulfide in the air along with acid rain, but it takes some effort. That still seems like "large number of deaths = extinction". I can't imagine a poison gas killing literally everyone on earth, especially if it didn't appear simultaneously everywhere. I mean, the human race bottlenecked down to <10,000 people before in the past and there is probably at least that many people breathing heavily filtered air right now. (probably not enough women but there is probably that many people just on submarines right now)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I know it's hard to believe for some people, but we do not actually possess the technology for self-sustaining habitats. Nor do we have the technology to reduce the earth to the point you need to live in a totally sealed self sustaining environment. Like we can poison water but we can’t like, blow up all the water
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:It's crazy how much chaos 1°C is causing. Can't wait to see what 2 has in store for us. 1 degree since when?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:
Climate has never been stable, we were always going to have to geoengineer. It's not like we would have been fine during an ice age or something 5000 years from now. Humans living on this planet was always going to mean locking the climate into a tight range.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
self unaware posted:maybe stability isn't a binary? just a thought for your smooth brain to ponder Humans are shortening what should have been a thousands of years long period of favorable climates into like one and a half of a global agricultural civilization and we should fix that. But like, long term humans were not ever going to get some sort of eternal favorable climate that lasted forever and ever and we always were going to have to take up the reins of controlling climate. No matter what we did. It would have been better when it would have been thousands of years from now and on a longer time scale but we never ever had the option of "just keep it like it is" without major geoengineering projects.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
self unaware posted:long term the sun consumes the earth and we all die in a fire so really why geoengineer? Events hundreds or thousands of years into the future are things people can think about now compared to things millions or billions of years in the future. Right now climate is naturally very favorable and we are ruining it but beyond that it's not like nature will always grace us with this good climate and at some point geoengineering will have to change from "restoring nature" to "mitigating nature". Like There is probably an argument that we shouldn't be ruining the atmosphere now with fossil fuel because our great great great x10 grandchildren are going to need it later to ruin the atmosphere then.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
It seems like you couldn’t do the insane stuff like sun shields preemptively so the only time anyone would be offering that as a solution would be in a time the problem was already so bad no one really would be in a position to say no.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Primary schools regularly exceeding 1250ppm in classrooms begin to see diminished performance in some reasoning categories with some students, with most students experiencing impairment in most categories by 1500. 1500 is a bigger number than 600
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Honestly if this "the air is poison soon" hypothesis was a real thing you'd think scientists would drop even talking about climate change and focus on making sure to mention that the air is poison now with "oh yeah, the climate also is changing" as a distant footnote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Is this like... half dilbert, half achewood? Somehow?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:nah he's his own man, very much a type, lots and lots of them too. the pedantic pragmatist who's always making GBS threads on your correct concern for not being technically correct. please stop making GBS threads on my concerns for not being correct!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:It is not me personally, I am saying societally it is mostly a non-starter. There are huge physical and social drives to procreating, even pushing for a one-child policy is really difficult. The one successful case we have for that was basically a totalitarian government and it had a number of issue/repercussions. Either way population growth is slowing in many regions and declining in some, it happens when standards of living and women's rights improve. Obviously both should happen faster. Yeah but if improvement comes from helping people and giving them better lives instead of through weird elaborate punishment for environmental sins how will I be able to have jerkoff fantasy about global warming punishing all my enemies?!?!?!?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
kill your children to own the climate changes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This is exactly the same thing that always happens. It is an irrefutable fact that having kids is the number one worst thing you can do for the environment. Even mentioning this, along with not eating meat or flying anymore, is enough to make people furious at you and decide that climate change isn't real after all. Because it's like waltzing in to a conversation about how to deal with the AIDS crisis and just repeating "just stop having sex" over and over. It's a simple answer that lets you feel sanctimonious and very little else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we really should collab on some kind of OP update that represents some kind of summary-truce so we can stop going round and round *as* much Yeah but is the goal to save the environment or punish women for environmental ~sins~
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:^Oocc I think you are not a bad dude but you're not doing anyone any favors by trotting out your anti-woman strawman arguments as if that's what any of us are saying. poo poo's beneath you man.^ Like we have such a good answer on how to reduce population. It works with 100% success rate and is win win for everyone. You just increase people's quality of life and particularly give women equal rights and education and the problem solves itself. It's a perfect solution. Like literally the only reason to not like it as a solution is that it "rewards" people with a better life instead of making people cry in a sad dark mud hut and reflect on their sins against the earth then solve it by paying penences.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No I'm not? Oocc was the one insinuating that anyone suggesting people stop having kids is obviously a monster that just wants to use the excuse of climate change to punish women. Anyone that wants to remove or impede any woman's reproductive freedom in any way is a hosed up piece of poo poo. Anyone that wants to improve people's lives and through that reap the demographic changes that means that over a population women have less kids while still giving individual women more freedom is cool and good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You can support a woman's right to choose while still being realistic about what the world will look like for those kids in 50 years. Like I would never vote to impede anyone's reproductive rights but I can still hold the opinion that the person on my news feed who just popped out a 6th kid is an irresponsible idiot. So like if a wizard solved all climate change or whatever you'd be way buddy buddy with this totally gender neutral person on your friends list that pops out children? And this isn't a preexisting opinion you hold about the number of children they chose to have that you are just using climate change as a convenient cudgel to attack?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Cats are great and I'm one of the only humans who has ever lives in all of history that has petted a cat on every continent that has a cat. But I haven't had children either, and it didn't take a gun to my head or anyone insulting me. Give people options and people will find their own things to do. Restrict people's options and people will pick among the few that are open to everyone regardless of if it's what they wanted. Give everyone on earth a good standard of living and some people will find they want a family with children and some people want to see some cats or run a goat farm or live in a boat or whatever. I did what you wanted: not have kids. But it didn't require punishing me or looking down at me (which wouldn't have happened as much because I'm a man anyway). But it's bad because I also took like 10 international flights instead of crying in a corner and deciding to forgo children in a self deprecation sort of penance way. give people options and some people will pick kids and some people won't and statistically it works out to be less than replacement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You misread my initial post. I am claiming that oocc is strawmanning my position as misogynistic hate, his position is very clearly not misogynistic in any way and I never said as much. I don't know if you personally are misogynic, who knows. I do know that attacks on women for having "too many children" in a frame of them being morally bad is a thing and that people use that to reframe lots of different topics into cover stories on ways to attack sinful women who "pop out" children. As being slutty or assumed to be poor or somehow using money that the speaker thinks should be theirs or whatever. Like on stuff like that people are just using stuff like environmentalism as a cover, if a wizard fixed environmentalism they'd still be equal amounts mad about those women and just move on to some new 'neutral' reason why they hate them. To people like that some answer that gave those women even more stuff, and a better standard of living is seen as bad, they didn't even pay penance for their sins, they just got more wealth/education/whatever without having to suffer at all for their "crimes". To anyone else more options is a win win for literally everyone involved. You get sub replacement population growth, women retain their choice to have children, no draconian law need to be enacted and the women have a better quality of life. It's a perfect solution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:But having children is morally bad. no.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:
Okay, hypothetically what evaluation would you make? Because if the answer is not a real simple "well in that case, I'd not have any problem at all", then you may discover you actually are just using environmentalism as a cover for your awful opinions about women having children.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:In the counterfactual where a wizard exists and can solve all of our problems magically? Sure have as many kids as you like, there is a wizard that will solve literally any possible problem. This being a thing that is super hard for you to answer is going to make me strongly assume that you would be doing this weird children are morally bad thing no matter what and have just latched on climate change as a classy angle to take it from.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Papal Infallibility posted:Friendly reminder that OOCC called people who scorned regular trans-oceanic flights as being racist xenophobes so I don't think you're going to make much headway with this one. People that think the solution to environmental issues are to limit people's travel, close borders, remove women's rights or any of that sort of punitive stuff almost always are just being a parasite on environmental causes where they just think they can use it to justify their totalitarian ideals. In real life the only actual thing that has ever worked to fix environmental problems is raising people's standards of living and giving people more freedom. In which case the have less kids, gravitate towards cleaner technologies and are able to develop and implement permanent changes to lifestyle that aren't just eternal austerity programs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:also your kids will live lives of unspeakable poverty and suffering and die cursing your name, No, that isn't actually a real thing any science says and is actually just some made up doomsday cult thing that weirdos are trying to glue to the actual real problem of climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Spiking posted:You're fighting against a moral philosophy that's never going to happen, and you're wrong at the same time. That's a lol. Don't worry, the corporate overlords will continue to protect your right to fly around and meme with cats even after the countries of the world descend into nationalistic protectionist fervor. It's profitable to let rich people like you do that, so you'll be fine. Namaste! Okay? So like, you are admitting that your dream of weird global eternal austerity is a non-starter. But like your plan is to sulk about it and beat your fist that you didn't get your way than go forward and look for solutions that improve lives?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:
Okay, so who SHOULD have children? If it's not women in the developed or developing nations?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 19:11
|
|
Kind of a weird thing to suppose I'm selectively anti-natalist.