|
prick with tenure posted:I recall reading a recent interview with a Nobel prize-winning scientist on why people seem psychologically incapable of coming to terms with climate change and reacting to it appropriately. I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it now - if someone knows what I'm talking about, could you please link it? Thanks. Is this what you were thinking of? I also have this, which came from somewhere else that I don't have the link to: 
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
the_korben posted:This should do it: Thank you very much, that's great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I always saw a religious angle in digging/sucking poo poo out of the ground versus using pure sunlight and breezes to generate power. You might be interested in Alex Grey: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
truavatar posted:You might be interested in Alex Grey: I just watched his documentary last night which showed this picture, it's quite impressive to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I wonder how much impact religion has on the attitude towards climate change, especially since the entire(almost) world is religious. Not addressing the last part of your post since I don't know what "most religious people" think. However, almost all of the major religions do in fact see humans as part and parcel of the natural world (although usually endowed with some special capacity). I believe the discourse in Christianity (which is what you're talking about really) could easily be shifted to one that is in line with ecological thinking. I mean even for the weakest theists, the Earth is pretty much the greatest and coolest thing God ever created, He created us as stewards of the plants and animals, and to gently caress it up is probably not kosher. I think even atheists could get behind that basic reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Some of the early environmentalist groups in North America were religious groups, like women's church auxiliaries and Christian peace activists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Not addressing the last part of your post since I don't know what "most religious people" think. However, almost all of the major religions do in fact see humans as part and parcel of the natural world (although usually endowed with some special capacity). I would certainly agree with that interpretation. However, counterpoint in Genesis 1:26... English Standard Bible posted:Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” I've heard this verse used to justify human beings doing literally anything they want to Earth for any reason they want. edit... Spoot posted:I just watched his documentary last night which showed this picture, it's quite impressive to say the least. It is pretty impressive, especially in print where you can see all the detail... like the insect demon penis whispering in peoples' ears. truavatar fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
truavatar posted:I've heard this verse used to justify human beings doing literally anything they want to Earth for any reason they want. Yes, and now we're getting in to what I wish the state of religious discourse was versus what it is, but if you understand "dominion" as ruler, it's always been considered bad form for a monarch to murder his subjects (animals, plants) with reckless abandon. Anyway the point is that if religion can be mobilized in defense of nature a whole lot of stuff could get done, and it would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Is this what you were thinking of? That's not it, but that's a good article, thanks.  I'm also looking for a good book on climate change to assign in my lower-division philosophy critical thinking classes - something that maybe has some stuff on environmental philosophy in it and not just the science. Discussion on why we find climate change so difficult to grapple with psychologically would be great as well. I would really appreciate some recommendations from the knowledgable goons here. edit: Also, people interested in religion's role here should read this seminal article: http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf For the "stewardship" angle, see Passmore: http://www.briangwilliams.com/environmental-ethics/passmore-john-arthur.html prick with tenure fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
This might be a pretty interesting one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change Since it drags up some fairly interesting points about the problematic issues climate change causes for libertarian ideology. Related to it: http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/environmentalism-poses-a-problem-for-libertarian-ideology/ Sort of but not quite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I appreciate the response, but did you read what I posted? Shelving climate change entirely, why are conservatives so desperate to make our national security something largely beyond our control? I get why those in power want it (sweet sweet consulting gigs at Lockheed and BP), but the average conservative voter? I guess it just surprises me that there doesn't seem to be a contingent of people that are very conservative but have the ability to see that dependence on foreign oil makes the US very vulnerable in many ways. Hell, even if you didn't believe that we could ever be independent from foreign oil, why not at least try to get ahead of the Chinese in what is a serious growth industry? Well the conservatives in power are helping out their oil baron buddies and Joe the Plumber is voting for those conservatives because he believes the bullshit shoveled to him
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:That's not it, but that's a good article, thanks. I would recommend Bill McKibben for this. I haven't read any of his books specifically on Climate Change, but his focus is often on the confluence of scientific and philosophical thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:I'm also looking for a good book on climate change to assign in my lower-division philosophy critical thinking classes - something that maybe has some stuff on environmental philosophy in it and not just the science. Discussion on why we find climate change so difficult to grapple with psychologically would be great as well. I would really appreciate some recommendations from the knowledgable goons here. A lot of books on climate change deal in the lobbying activities and government stances on the issue. For first year political science, I remember we were given this book to read: http://desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up Although it was good for the purposes of a poli-sci class, it may not be all that great for a philosophy class since it left very little space for further discussion of the issues. I'd love to find a book that explores the underlying ideaological reasoning behind climate change acceptance/denial more deeply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:That's not it, but that's a good article, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:That's not it, but that's a good article, thanks. The IPCC has had some fairly good interdisciplinary stuff looking at the psychology around climate change and denialism, somewhere on that site. Possibly interesting from a philosophical perspective is the problems and debates around defining and representing "risk" and "severity". The CRU I *thought* had some stuff on this too, but I cant find it. They might have turtled up a little bit due to the retard assault on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Boing posted:My discipline is psychology but my PhD is in carbon capture, so I've been getting to know the social side of climate change literature quite a bit. There's one particular article that I found very interesting: The Psychology of Global Climate Change (Rachlinski, 2000) Could I ask you some general questions? Which people are most likely to say global warming is a threat? Of those people, who is most likely have taken action to reduce their carbon footprint? Do these things correlate most closely with age, or income, or region, or what? What surprises you most about your research? Do you see any signs for hope?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
duck monster posted:This might be a pretty interesting one: Seems like kind of a straw man for the libertarian conception of property rights. Kids might routinely walk across your lawn and this is also trespass. Do you think this also means that libertarians have to deny that kids walk across your lawn? I routinely cast a shadow on other peoples' land, marginally lowering the temperature there. Is this also trespass? This is the conception of property rights put forth as the "libertarian one" in your articles?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Jewdicator posted:Seems like kind of a straw man for the libertarian conception of property rights. You can dismiss those examples because the effects of kids walking across your lawn or casting your shadow on other people's land are insignificant. The effects of pollution and climate change are very significant, and the fact that you think comparing them is reasonable illustrates the article's point perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:You can dismiss those examples because the effects of kids walking across your lawn or casting your shadow on other people's land are insignificant. The effects of pollution and climate change are very significant, and the fact that you think comparing them is reasonable illustrates the article's point perfectly. I'm thinking specifically of the quote from the second article: "Coal plants do not contract with every nearby property owner to allow for them to deposit small amounts of particulate matter on their neighbors’ land. They are guilty of a form of property trespass." Also the more general claim: "Once those individuals become owners of their respective property, nobody else can touch that property or do anything whatsoever to that property without their consent." Key words anything whatsoever...so under Matt's view you can substitute any interference (harmful or not) for climate change. If you think it's not insignificant (in the case of the BP spill and a number of other environmental disasters) then sue them. If you think you can demonstrate global warming damage to your property from a single polluter, good luck!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
So "Tragedy of the Commons" means nothing to libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:So "Tragedy of the Commons" means nothing to libertarianism? Libertarians believe the free hand of the market will cause a solution to be invented or sold, or cause capital to be invested which will make new resources or environments appear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:So "Tragedy of the Commons" means nothing to libertarianism? The tragedy of the commons is precisely why you need robust property rights (since it's hard to own the air, carbon credits are probably the closest thing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Jewdicator posted:If you think it's not insignificant (in the case of the BP spill and a number of other environmental disasters) then sue them. If you think you can demonstrate global warming damage to your property from a single polluter, good luck! No single polluter causes significant global warming damage. All of them combined do. So how, in a framework explicitly designed to only deal with individual rights, can we possibly address global warming? e: You mention carbon credits in the post above. Can you elaborate on what you're talking about there, because the only things I know of called "carbon credits" have to be enforced by some government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Solution to the tragedy of the commons: no commons, no tragedy
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:No single polluter causes significant global warming damage. All of them combined do. So how, in a framework explicitly designed to only deal with individual rights, can we possibly address global warming? Most individuals can't choose how they get their primary energy (electricity) or intermittent energy (gasoline, charging batteries, etc.), unless they have a lot of money and can afford to buy solar panels for their houses, that is, assuming they own a house. The production of baseload electricity is done far more efficiently and cheaply on very large scales generally, with the goal being that most people should be able to afford it. The answer to reducing emissions for every single person simultaneously is really quite simple: swap the primary source with clean sources that have either reached 3rd phase grid parity or become even cheaper than the competition. For intermittent energy sources, advanced batteries like liquid/liquid flow cells (easily scalable and theoretically cheaper thanlead-acids) and lithium-air could provide good storage media for cheap clean electricity. Or if your primary sources are so cheap that they make drilling for oil and natural gas redundant for fuel purposes, you can make use of the Sulfur-iodine cycle to crack water into oxygen and hydrogen, whereafter you can use CCS to capture and activate carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, readying it for chemical reaction with hydrogen to produce simple fuels like ethers and alcohols. The latter option is very favorable for the average consumer since it's far easier to incorporate into our current transportation system, requiring little investment on the consumer's part, and the fuel still produces zero net emissions when burned. For cheap baseload electrical production, there's a lot of interest in factory-assembled modular nuclear reactors. Since most the the cost of building nuclear plants comes from safety features and protocols implemented by nuclear regulatory agencies (with delays on construction having a HUGE impact on total cost), factory-line assembly of standard models is a promising way of drastically shortening delay costs while ensuring optimal safety (all your reactors are the same and much easier to inspect/keep tabs on). The design I constantly post about that I'm completely convinced could do all this is the molten salt reactor, specifically the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, which is essentially a near-perfect nuclear reactor design for the thorium fuel cycle. It's been theorized the first modular LFTRs would produce electricity near 1-3 cent per killowatt depending on regulations, but essentially it could be as cheap as hundredths or even thousandths of a cent when you account for the re-sale of pure fission products like Pu-238 for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (essentially batteries that discharge continuously for a hundred years, used by NASA in deep-space missions and mars rovers), along with the resale of thorium-229 for use in nuclear clocks, nuclear isomer batteries, or as a medical isotope cow (leading to the incredibly valuable Bismuth-213 for cancer treatment). LFTR's are also high temperature reactors that can reach above 900 degrees celcius, so it would be feasible to build and use them almost exclusively as heat sources to drive the sulfur-iodine cycle and most CCS methods requiring heat energy, as well as being a heat source for chemical plants in general. The best part is they're gas cooled, not water cooled, so there is no pressurized water involved and they don't need to be next to a body of water. You can bury them if you want. Office Thug fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:Why would anyone do this? It would be an incredible coincidence if all the technologies best suited to fight global warming were also ideal over the short term on which capitalist organizations make decisions. Why would people in a libertarian society voluntarily make economically unfavorable decisions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Why would anyone do this? It would be an incredible coincidence if all the technologies best suited to fight global warming were also ideal over the short term on which capitalist organizations make decisions. Why would people in a libertarian society voluntarily make economically unfavorable decisions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The libertarian perspective is that capitalist organizations do not exclusively make decisions based on the short term. Ecological disaster is extremely economically disadvantageous, so our hypothetical rational actor would genuinely want to prevent it. No capitalist organization is going to avoid a stockholder mutiny by accepting short term losses in exchange for long term profits. Sustainability is predicated on the non-exploitation of available resources, and that is anathema to a capitalist ideal. The board simply would say that short term is a sure thing within their control while the long term is a coinflip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:No capitalist organization is going to avoid a stockholder mutiny by accepting short term losses in exchange for long term profits. Sustainability is predicated on the non-exploitation of available resources, and that is anathema to a capitalist ideal. The board simply would say that short term is a sure thing within their control while the long term is a coinflip. In my experience with libertarians, they don't like the idea of stockholders very much and would prefer to see corporations run singlehandedly by bold, manly captains of industry, who would naturally be wise and forward-thinking enough to see that environmental destruction would not be in the interests of their countless grandchildren. Better still, because they're so wise and forward-thinking, they'll invent a solution to all the environmental problems and sell it to people to make even more money! At which point, of course, the system has degenerated into yet another version of "everything is okay because the world is run by omnipotent philosopher-kings".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:No capitalist organization is going to avoid a stockholder mutiny by accepting short term losses in exchange for long term profits. Sustainability is predicated on the non-exploitation of available resources, and that is anathema to a capitalist ideal. The board simply would say that short term is a sure thing within their control while the long term is a coinflip. I'm no libertarian but plenty of generally successful business operate some or all of their departments at short term losses to the tune of tremendous long term gain. But it also looks like there's no real long term "gain" from making a shift to non-exploitative means. It's like a choice between getting $5 now and losing $50 later, and losing $5 now and still losing $35 later anyway, since the forecast is that collectively everyone will be big losers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:But it also looks like there's no real long term "gain" from making a shift to non-exploitative means. It's like a choice between getting $5 now and losing $50 later, and losing $5 now and still losing $35 later anyway, since the forecast is that collectively everyone will be big losers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
You're forgetting the ultimate externalisation factor: lifespan. It's the endgame for short-term thinking. Who cares how the corporation is doing after we retire? Who cares about the planet after we die? That's why there is no time; a generation has to be out of the way before real action is taken and by then it's too late to avoid serious consequences. Then you have to get people to think beyond their lifespan anyway to bring the climate back into balance while they're freaking out about resources. We are so screwed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:But -$40 > -$45? Still better off, and minimizing losses are as much a 'self-interest' thing as maximizing gains. I mean, I made up numbers to conveniently favor the sustainability approach. Those numbers aren't really proportional or based on anything else. The actual question is does anybody consulting the individual companies know what those numbers are? Which companies will benefit the most from making positive changes in its impact on the environment? Which companies would make the biggest difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:I'm no libertarian but plenty of generally successful business operate some or all of their departments at short term losses to the tune of tremendous long term gain. Smaller losses being objectively better than larger losses notwithstanding, a shift to non-exploitative means would be more along the lines of "being able to continue making money, albeit less per quarter than you could at present, though present behaviors will result in the exhaustion of available resources within x timeframe." I see it being like a hypothetical lumber industry. You either produce your goods at a rate exceeding, equal to, or below the rate at which your supply (trees) grows. exceeding = depletion, equal = maintenance, below = you end up with more trees left over every year. You may not make as much money as if you had just cut down as many trees as you could, but the long-term interest certainly lies in taking less profit at present so that you don't run out of trees later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
The problem is, these companies are in competition to each other. A lumber mill can go "Ok if we reduce the take from an old growth logging we'll preserve the forest for later", but it also means its competition is able to swoop in and grab the business from its reduced output and essentially make the "green" mill redundant. Its like that bullshit argument about doing a carbon tax that "If we do it, other countries will out compete us because they havent signed it yet". It has the unfortunate property of quite possibly being true, even if in the end, if EVERYONE thinks that everyone loses. To me it seems like some sort of paradox in rational behavior that as long as people treat the environment as the chess board of a zero sum game, the selfish actor rationality of each individual player ultimately produces a less rational outcome for everyone. The trick to defeating this stupid chess game is to light the loving thing on fire and refuse to play it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem is, these companies are in competition to each other. A lumber mill can go "Ok if we reduce the take from an old growth logging we'll preserve the forest for later", but it also means its competition is able to swoop in and grab the business from its reduced output and essentially make the "green" mill redundant. This is why policies must be enacted at the government level. Companies won't take these steps on their own and we shouldn't expect them to. The economic system we live under basically ensures they won't. That doesn't mean capitalism is incompatible with making the kinds of changes we need, just that the government must enforce regulations (which is obvious anyways if you look at the business community) quote:Its like that bullshit argument about doing a carbon tax that "If we do it, other countries will out compete us because they havent signed it yet". It has the unfortunate property of quite possibly being true, even if in the end, if EVERYONE thinks that everyone loses. Very easy to fix, enforce environmental regulations domestically and disallow trade with countries who refuse to do so quote:To me it seems like some sort of paradox in rational behavior that as long as people treat the environment as the chess board of a zero sum game, the selfish actor rationality of each individual player ultimately produces a less rational outcome for everyone. The trick to defeating this stupid chess game is to light the loving thing on fire and refuse to play it. There is nothing rational about what we are doing, it's short sighted, stupid, and a surefire way to bring disaster upon us (which it has done and will continue to do so at an accelerating pace) We should really just move away from using the word rational with regards to human behavior, the distinction between rationality and irrationality doesn't exist as far as I can see a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
duck monster posted:To me it seems like some sort of paradox in rational behavior that as long as people treat the environment as the chess board of a zero sum game, the selfish actor rationality of each individual player ultimately produces a less rational outcome for everyone. The trick to defeating this stupid chess game is to light the loving thing on fire and refuse to play it. It's the simple outcome of game theory - that the aggregate of "good" individual decisions can be a poor overall outcome. Keynesian economics is based on the same concept. It doesn't even need to be a zero-sum game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Solution to the tragedy of the commons: no commons, no tragedy This is what the actual outcome is going to be. With unchecked climate change tens or hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world are going to die and the quality of life for the vast majority of the survivors will be far worse. The people making decisions preventing any action on climate change will probably be dead of old age when it happens, or very old and retired and if so they will be completely fine in whatever rich people conclaves they decide to settle in with their vast wealth. As will their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren with the fruits of a lifetime spent gathering rents from the greatest economic expansion in the history of humanity. There are no immigration barriers for billionaires. If getting an extra billion dollar bonus this year (or hundred million dollar lobbying gig after their term of office ends) starves a billion people over the next fifty years that's a pretty goddamn clear choice, you starve those people. a lovely poster posted:There is nothing rational about what we are doing, it's short sighted, stupid, and a surefire way to bring disaster upon us (which it has done and will continue to do so at an accelerating pace) Rationality is a poor term, but bringing about that disaster is making the people responsible as a whole more wealth, proportionally and in total, than any group of people in all of human history. That's entirely rational to a neoliberal, or a libertarian. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
UberJew posted:This is what the actual outcome is going to be. With unchecked climate change tens or hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world are going to die and the quality of life for the vast majority of the survivors will be far worse. You know drat well private ownership flows towards the person with the most money. It isn't the loving green sector companies each raking in billions of dollars of profit per quarter. This is the race to the moon of our time, but it is actually existentially meaningful. Concerted government action has the potential to push into being leaps and bounds in the advancement of technology available at the consumer level, but instead you have a bunch of shitass cowards who would rather watch the world burn than see the government drive Apollo-level innovation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem is, these companies are in competition to each other. A lumber mill can go "Ok if we reduce the take from an old growth logging we'll preserve the forest for later", but it also means its competition is able to swoop in and grab the business from its reduced output and essentially make the "green" mill redundant. This is the most absolutely depressing thing about the whole situation. You can unplug appliances when they're not being used, walk/cycle/bus everywhere you need to go, take short cold showers, recycle your food waste, and all that inconvenience and sacrifice doesn't matter one tiny bit because your neighbour hasn't turned off his TV in three years, drives an inefficient 4WD everywhere he goes, takes long hot showers twice a day and buys everything individually-wrapped. And you'll never sell him on trying to cut back because every facet of his life for the past whatever years has told him to gorge on luxuries and conveniences to the fullest extent that his paycheck allows. Then there's your neighbour across the street, who's poor and can't afford to be green. And the guy down the road who lays bricks all day in sweltering heat and just wants to come home at night to a 63" flatscreen and a 23C house. And you've got to tell all these people that they shouldn't be enjoying things? The worst part is that even if you make every effort, sacrifice, save, conserve, you're still a huge part of the problem because even a minimalistic first world lifestyle isn't sustainable. Everything about this situation flies completely in the face of how we're built and trained. People always go on about "oh they said the same thing about the Cold War and look nothing happened". Because in that situation everyone, from the powerbrokers to the titans of industry and even the ordinary bloke, on every side, had a huge incentive to do everything they can to prevent the nukes from flying, and they didn't have to sacrifice their style of life to do so. Now we're in a situation where it's in everyones best interest to personally consume and let other people conserve, and every effort to reverse that process is stonewalled by a society completely build around maximising consumption. Christ, it makes you want to scream.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 11:42
|
|
