|
Spiritus Nox posted:For what it's worth, they're saying there's evidence that it might be part of a seasonal thing. While rising temperatures are definitely at least somewhat responsible for the astonishing data, we might not be as immediately hosed as it appears.  MY PROFITS just need to get out of the way or be ignored because clearly nothing is going to get done the way things are currently going.But of course this will never happen because liberals are just not good at the screechy, emotional messaging that Gets poo poo Done 
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:You want a nice little depressing footnote to counter this? In terms of geologic time, the Earth really only has a narrow bit left for habitability. Due to the gradual increase of solar output over time as the sun burns through its store of hydrogen, the temperature will rise and in about 500 million years a combination of increased solar output along with subduction of water into the mantle due to plate tectonics will lead to plant life going extinct and a gradual depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere. Do you have any references or links on this? It's not something I'd realised before. I'm reading books about distant history at the moment and having only 500m years left in the scheme of such things is disappointing. Dusz posted:In every single post you come off as a melanholic manic depressive, I am surprised anyone has the patience to pretend to take you seriously. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, even if there's nothing to be done, it's nice to know that there's other people who are looking the inevitability of our decline in the eye, and that not everyone is wilfully blind to very logical conclusions and ample evidence. It's not disgusting, it's comforting. Ronald Nixon fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Dusz posted:In every single post you come off as a melanholic manic depressive, I am surprised anyone has the patience to pretend to take you seriously. Yeah, I'm not really seeing "melancholic manic depressive" in his posts. He's simply speaking from a realistic perspective (it's unlikely that we have the time/will to make sufficient changes to alter the course of events leading to our extinction). Perhaps the reason you take issue with it is that he's saying things that you don't want to hear or consider? I also wanted to chime in on the "who put us in charge" comment. I think this is extremely relevant. Simply saying that we're the best (most evolved/advanced), so clearly we know what's best for the planet is arrogant. The only thing that being the most advanced species on the planet grants us is the largest responsibility to not gently caress things up for everyone and everything. And we've been chugging along towards loving things up for quite some time, and we're riding it straight into the ground. We've been extremely irresponsible in our actions, and we continue to be. Even if we think ourselves the masters of the universe, the only legacy we leave is ruinous. It's shameful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Simply saying that we're the best (most evolved/advanced), so clearly we know what's best for the planet is arrogant. No one is saying this, there is no good or bad for the planet, nature is a blind process. poo poo happens, and we just watch/react. Most of own history has been a blind process, but the consequences of our technology are catching up with us, and we need to show some foresight or go extinct. Humans are the universe becoming self aware, and part of that is coming to understand how we fit in with the blind and inexorable forces of nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Actually uh, someone did say that:Balnakio posted:We did, when we smashed any competition and became the dominate species. (This was in response to "who appointed us rulers")
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Well it seems beyond debate that humans are in a unique niche in the Earth's history. We aren't rulers, but we have an insight and agency that no other species appears to have. The whole ecology idea of just being "part of the ecosystem" is a dangerous meme that makes us surrender that agency in alot of small ways- it keeps society static and unresponsive. If we look at human beings from a wider point of view most people conceive a mechanistic system with humans at the top of the energy pyramid. I see us as a more unusual social animal that in large groups becomes domesticated in a way. Civilization domesticates people, and this can be a very dangerous thing with regards to our technology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Well it seems beyond debate that humans are in a unique niche in the Earth's history. We aren't rulers, but we have an insight and agency that no other species appears to have. Sure, and I wouldn't argue that. However, the belief that we're somehow more important seems to be fairly prevalent, but I find it interesting that it's mostly "we can do whatever we want" rather than "we should take responsibility for this". Profit dominates people, and that's what's truly dangerous. We don't do things because they're a good idea, or safe for everyone (including the planet), we do them because they're going to make money. I'm generalizing, but that's what drives this. Well, that and convenience, and the fact that we're kind of locked into the infrastructure we've got at this point if we're going to continue to be "civilized". It makes me wonder if it's truly healthy for us to be civilized. Can we act responsibly at the same time? It seems to me that most of the responsible decisions we make as a species don't get made until we've already painted ourselves into a corner. This time it'll be too late by the time concerted action is taken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:What about the drought that the American Southwest is currently suffering? It's not just the Southwest. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
I've always been a bit perplexed when I hear statements on how the current warming trend is "Natural". It makes me think the alternative is a "synthetic" cause, and immediately I think of Ur-Quan Dreadnaughts in space using a large warming device attached to their powerful fusion cannons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Is exceptional just being used as a superlative in that chart or is it meant literally in the sense of "this is something that doesn't usually happen"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Guigui posted:I've always been a bit perplexed when I hear statements on how the current warming trend is "Natural". It makes me think the alternative is a "synthetic" cause, and immediately I think of Ur-Quan Dreadnaughts in space using a large warming device attached to their powerful fusion cannons. In context I assume it's meant as shorthand for "non-anthropogenic".
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Torka posted:Is exceptional just being used as a superlative in that chart or is it meant literally in the sense of "this is something that doesn't usually happen"? I believe it is more a superlative than anything, but the definition specifically cites dry wells and water emergencies as a distinguishing factor. So even though it's likely just used in the superlative, it's also something that doesn't happen often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Torka posted:Is exceptional just being used as a superlative in that chart or is it meant literally in the sense of "this is something that doesn't usually happen"? Both. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/classify.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
The main reason I am so adamant about my position is that I feel you'll be able to help more people when the poo poo really hits the fan if you're willing to accept reality as it is rather than continue to engage in delusional wishful thinking. Wishful thinking will result in actions that will only add up to a lot of wasted effort in the end. Most of the proposed "solutions" I see coming from both this thread and mainstream environmentalism are thoroughly grounded in the same sort of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. At the most fundamental level, the problem of climate change requires a change in philosophy. Beyond that, I think it's also necessary to add that there is no such thing as a solution at this point - we've activated quite a few positive feedback loops, and climate change is now self-sustaining. We may be able to mitigate further effects, but that's it. The climate of this planet will probably be pretty unstable for a century or two and then it will even out again, though as something we are unfamiliar with. My best guess is that the Earth will probably settle out as a lush jungle world if the rain patterns stabilize enough - all that heat, humidity, and carbon dioxide is perfect for plants, and they don't call it "the greenhouse effect" for nothing. Av027 and McDowell: I agree with most of what you guys are discussing and I think both of you have offered some really reasonable and perceptive conclusions, but I have a few quibbles. Av027 posted:The only thing that being the most advanced species on the planet grants us is the largest responsibility to not gently caress things up for everyone and everything. Be careful here - the idea of being "advanced" is a human concept that nature gives no shits about. Likewise for things like being most intelligent, most self-aware, etc. All of those things are human value judgements that may not have much bearing on reality (after all, we have no idea of what it feels like to be any creature other than human). If anything can be said of humans, it's that we are one of the most "weedy" and adaptable species on the planet. We share this distinction with other animals, like canines and mice. McDowell posted:We aren't rulers, but we have an insight and agency that no other species appears to have. Perhaps the reason it appears this way is that we are imposing human definitions of insight and agency onto other creatures. We judge the intelligence of other creatures not of their own accord but by comparing them to us, which is absurd. If a dog acted just like a human, it wouldn't be very effective at filling the environmental niche that dogs fill, now would it? Remember, we are not the only species on the planet that uses language - not even close. We just can't understand anything other than fellow humans, though we've taught a few species of primates and grey parrots how to use our language. McDowell posted:The whole ecology idea of just being "part of the ecosystem" is a dangerous meme that makes us surrender that agency in alot of small ways- it keeps society static and unresponsive. I think you've got it totally backwards here, McDowell. Over the past few millenia, we've been pursuing a strategy that has involved less and less direct contact with the ecosystem. It's been enormously effective up to a point, but we're beginning to turn a corner, and our life strategy is rapidly impairing our ability to survive (not to mention completely wrecking everything that is non-human). We're so heavily invested in the strategy that it is impossible to abandon because it would involve an enormous amount of human suffering. We've become, as you said, static and unresponsive, but it's because we have chosen to divorce ourselves from the ecosystem rather than live within it. Basically, the exact opposite of what you said. Sure, evolution has continued to act on us, but in ways that make us more fit for air-conditioned living rooms. Living within the ecosystem means that evolution acts in ways that make us better adapted to the ecosystem, whatever form it takes. If we prove unable to adapt, we go extinct. Nature's calculus is pretty simple. Living as part of the ecosystem and letting nature and evolution act on us may initially appear brutal (it doesn't have to be), but then again, nature doesn't always comform to human ideas of beauty or fairness. Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
The earth aside, another interesting consequence of increasing CO2 levels will be an eventualy loss of human productivity. If youève ever worked in a building with bad ventilation, you recognise the sensation of "not enough air" and a low, dull sensation. Once interior levels of CO2 reach a threshold of 1000 ppm is when we (occupational health + safety) receive and field complaints from staff members who complain of air quality. Increases above 1000 ppm cause even more complaints, and symptoms vary, such as tiredness, headache, irritability, and so forth. The solution is to improve outdoor air circulation to reduce CO2 levels. Opening a window, taking a walk outside, or installing heat-recovery ventilators are some methods. I wonder how long, at the current rate of increase, would it take for the Atmosphere on earth to hit that point - where even the fresh outside air just makes everyone plain miserable. Will buildings need to be fitted with some form of CO2 scrubbers to help increase productivity? Would the argument of "we'll all end up with headaches, all the time" hold any sway with policy makers? Guigui fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The main reason I am so adamant about my position is that I feel you'll be able to help more people when the poo poo really hits the fan if you're willing to accept reality as it is rather than continue to engage in delusional wishful thinking. Wishful thinking will result in actions that will only add up to a lot of wasted effort in the end. So then what exactly do you propose? Sitting back and letting millions or billions of people die while waiting for nature to hammer us into something that can survive the world we're building? Because if that's all you've got, we're going to have to part ways there, because I find that scale of suffering completely unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
re: that guy who thinks this thread is being needlessly dire If anyone has some news about a country undergoing new environmental initiatives, any of the global warming conferences bearing fruit, or a sustainable principled company succeeding in the current capitalist atmosphere, they are free to post them. These things rarely happen in my eyes, and scientific data portends uncomfortable changes to the earth constantly. Scientists are aware of the many many possible consequences of global climate change, amongst our other environmental degradations, and they still have not entered the public consciousness (and just being conscious of them doesn't force governments or business to act on them). I don't know any answers as to policy or marketing, but I know a fair bit of the scientific background. re: that natural/artificial climate change guy: Star Control 2 was a good game UP AND ADAM fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:So then what exactly do you propose? Sitting back and letting millions or billions of people die while waiting for nature to hammer us into something that can survive the world we're building? Because if that's all you've got, we're going to have to part ways there, because I find that scale of suffering completely unacceptable. That's a really great question. My thought on "what to do moving forward" is to look for local, immediate, and small-scale solutions. Learn what you can about living in simple and adaptable ways (the way ancient humans lived offers a lot of interesting ideas, though not all of them are applicable to our current situation), and pass your knowledge along to as many others as you can. Get a community talking about this sort of thing. Think less along the lines of carbon tax legislation and more along the lines of teaching each other practical ways to abandon cars and air conditioning. You've got to think of this just like any other humanitarian effort, like helping people who are homeless or drug-addicted. You won't be able to help everyone, and there will be some that choose not to accept your help. It sucks, but that's just life. You can't allow yourself to feel too guilty about it, because there are plenty of other people out there who need your help, and you've got to be engaged and active for that kind of effort. If we all try to tackle this challenge in our own small ways and bite off little pieces over the course of a few decades, I think that we'll be surprised at the amount of good that can be done. That's about all I've got, and I honestly think it's a little unfair to ask me for some sort of magic bullet solution that fixes the mess without a great deal of suffering, as if my not having one means you can just dismiss the sobering analysis that I've offered. I've thought about it and I just don't think any large-scale solutions are possible. I also don't think it will prove possible to pull all 7 billion of us through this (I think we've overshot the human carrying capacity of the planet). Many will die because they refuse to change their behavior. Many others will die because they're in positions where they can't change their behavior or are ignorant of what is going on. Is it tragic? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that I think we should just throw our hands up and do nothing. There is a lot of good that can be done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Guigui posted:I wonder how long, at the current rate of increase, would it take for the Atmosphere on earth to hit that point - where even the fresh outside air just makes everyone plain miserable. Will buildings need to be fitted with some form of CO2 scrubbers to help increase productivity? 1000 ppm is more than double our current concentration, and it took 50 years to increase it by 80 ppm. The greenhouse effect will kill us long before we get headaches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:That's a really great question. My thought on "what to do moving forward" is to look for local, immediate, and small-scale solutions. Learn what you can about living in simple and adaptable ways (the way ancient humans lived offers a lot of interesting ideas, though not all of them are applicable to our current situation), and pass your knowledge along to as many others as you can. Get a community talking about this sort of thing. Think less along the lines of carbon tax legislation and more along the lines of teaching each other practical ways to abandon cars and air conditioning. If poo poo really does hit the fan, what good is this going to do when the raiders come? Actually being able to produce in a collapse civilization makes you a target, not a beacon of hope. Oh yay we have gardens and a few solar panels, oh wait not anymore! We are not going to meld back into prehistory, we will be violently dragged there after a second holocaust of the survivors by predatory people. Whoever survives that will rebuild societies, not some enlightened commune.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:1000 ppm is more than double our current concentration, and it took 50 years to increase it by 80 ppm. The greenhouse effect will kill us long before we get headaches. Yeah, but it will spike higher in cities, especially those with lax environmental regulations. Look at Beijing and Mexico City already. Combine that with periods of very high temperatures and things get bad. Even more so if you don't have a wind. Smog and temperature can make things really bad for the elderly and the young. It already happened in Moscow, though that was wildfire smog, not just industrial/transportation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Middle-class people in luxurious privileged America and maybe other developed countries are probably going to be insulated the most from any climate change disaster (provided it's a gradual thing and not some catastrophic event). We won't have as much shrimp to eat, and airline flights will be restricted to the super wealthiest, but people on the coast of Sri Lanka or India, or subsistence farmers in Africa will die the quickest. Comforting~
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Yeah, but it will spike higher in cities, especially those with lax environmental regulations. Look at Beijing and Mexico City already. Combine that with periods of very high temperatures and things get bad. Even more so if you don't have a wind. Smog and temperature can make things really bad for the elderly and the young. It already happened in Moscow, though that was wildfire smog, not just industrial/transportation. Smog is a different issue than CO2 (probably easier to solve since you can see it and smell it), but I was surprised to see that urban vs. rural does make a difference with CO2: The link posted:These data sets revealed that near-surface atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the country outside Paris averaged 415 ppm, while values in the city sometimes reached as high as 950 ppm. These higher values were driven primarily by vehicular exhaust, the two researchers noting that "road traffic is the main contributor and, in particular, vehicles using unleaded gasoline (~90% of the total)." However, I don't think 1000 ppm is a magic limit either: The link posted:In enclosed spaces, however, CO2 derived from human respiration was dominant. In a 150-m3 classroom that held 20 students for a period of four hours, for example, the indoor CO2 concentration rose as high as 4,630 ppm, which "corresponds well," in Widory and Javoy's words, "to an average individual respiration flux of 5 l/min containing ~3.7% CO2."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Here's a good article from Dave Pollard, someone who I think is on the right track. Worth your time. http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2012/07/26/the-hardest-battle/
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
That's a hell of a track right there. I mean, I guess he's honest. He goes out and says that he wants to live in a world where 98-99% of the population is dead, science (and much of language) is destroyed and he can "gently caress the pain away". I really don't know what to say to that!quote:... The humanists come in various flavours and political stripes, and include the technophiles who believe human ingenuity and innovation is Earth’s salvation (look what they’ve done for us so far!); the scientists who want us to conquer other planets, freeze-dry ourselves until the Theory of Everything has solved all problems, and transport our essence into non-corporeal forms.... Yes. Look at at what they've done for us so far. All that learning and technology. Hey, if you want to go back to the caves and die of typhus (or, in his words, rely on "preventive[s], self-diagnosis and self-treatment" versus the " massive cumbersome medical systems"), I'm not gonna stop you. I'm just gonna sit here and read my hubris books on how to help people not die while you go rejoin with the Earth or whatever. I guess I'm "brainwashed" by "civilization", but I'm having an awfully hard time being convinced that I'm secretly miserable and ought to be welcoming a hunter-gatherer apocalypse with open arms. ...But my balking aside, here's a question: quote:...It is our culture that has imprisoned us, a culture evolved in the belief that this is what’s best for the survival and continued expansion of the species. How exactly is this any different from what occurs in even the smallest human groups of any sort? Replace "society" with "family" or "clan" or whatever. Hell, "party of 2". Isn't this very much human/animal nature? How are we exactly supposed to escape this by going back to nature, rather than striving to understand and overcome our psychological faults? Culinary Bears fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Here's a good article from Dave Pollard, someone who I think is on the right track. Worth your time. Wait, did he just quote Einstein saying we should disregard the self and think of ourselves as part of the universe, and then complain about the modern world making him like everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Jazu posted:Wait, did he just quote Einstein saying we should disregard the self and think of ourselves as part of the universe, and then complain about the modern world making him like everyone else? The first thing we must abandon for his glorious future is our sense of irony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Goddamn posted:How exactly is this any different from what occurs in even the smallest human groups of any sort? Replace "society" with "family" or "clan" or whatever. Hell, "party of 2". Isn't this very much human/animal nature? How are we exactly supposed to escape this by going back to nature, rather than striving to understand and overcome our psychological faults?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:The Bible never says nothing about no global warming. Actually in the bible after the Great flood it is said the God will not destroy the world ever again with water, He will use fire next time. Which could possibly entail any number of things that are not pertinent to this post. Anyway I believe that these changes to climate are natural. Certainly there are some man made interactions that can affect the environment. But the Earth is not so fragile that we can break it. This world changes to survive all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
No, we're not going to break the Earth, we're just going to make it break us if we keep on going like we have been.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
marxmanncc posted:Actually in the bible after the Great flood it is said the God will not destroy the world ever again with water, He will use fire next time. Which could possibly entail any number of things that are not pertinent to this post. We can change it enough to break us. The world will never be truly harmed by us, the sun will do that in 3 billion years. The degree to which we are going to get hosed up is the discussion in this thread, with some of us saying it will be severe but manageable (with a lot of pain and suffering) and some taking a more extreme position. It is happening, and it is going to punch humanity in the face. How hard the punch will be is the discussion, not the existence of the punch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
This week's reports of the ice melt in Greenland hit me really hard. I always believed in global warning and that we're doomed but it always seemed like a far off danger, like lung cancer to a teenage smoker. But now I really feel like its happening right now, we're the Easter Islanders fighting over the last trees. It seems like most of you guys got to that point a long time ago. Was there a particular paper or news story that gave you an epiphany?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
bpower posted:Was there a particular paper or news story that gave you an epiphany? For me it wasn't as much direct reporting on climate change as it was all of the ancillary reporting on the biodiversity crisis which is driven in part by climate change, but also largely by our poor development choices and resource management. There were two things I read which really crystallized it for me. First was David Quammen's book The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction. He talks about evolution, how it pertains to islands, how populations shrink and then become susceptible to extinction. The haymaker comes when Quammen starts to walk you through the reality that we as a species are segregating every part of the ecosystem into islands and pushing species to the point where extinction is not just possible but likely (certain?  ).A second piece which helped drive it home for me was George Divoky's Planet, originally published in the NYTimes Magazine. What this piece did for me was showed me the extent to which evidence for climate change is all around us when you look to the biosphere, and that its been acting and creating real changes in ecosystems for a long time. That its been going on for so long puts the idea of inertia in your mind. The degree to which the signs are in every little place you look, and people still won't see, really started to erode what hope I had that people will be convinced soon enough to matter. My training was in biology, so in large part its going to be what I see as the big problem. Thing is, theoretically we could reverse the CO2 problem (we won't though, no offense). But the biodiversity crisis, the extinction level event going on right now? Even if everyone realized it and tried to reverse it, its not ultimately correctible. When species disappear they disappear. You can theoretically remove the carbon, but you won't add lost species. And biodiversity of an ecosystem is kind of like genetic diversity in a gene pool. More = Better than, Less = more susceptible to catastrophe and less resilient in the face of ecological change. And climate change means that the cycle of change is speeding up faster than evolution is able to churn new species out of unfilled niches. We don't just depend on the earth and its mineral resources, but also the biological web we're embedded in. And we're burning it down. Here is a preview of George Divoky's planet, its worth reading the whole thing. quote:George Divoky's Planet Yiggy fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
bpower posted:Was there a particular paper or news story that gave you an epiphany? My training is in political science. Once I became convinced that anthropogenic global warming was a real thing and then watched the Copenhagen talks come to nothing, I suspected that between the US, China, and the developing economies, we were not going to do anything to globally limit greenhouse gas emissions. It still seemed like a problem I might never live to see the painful consequences of, until the news of massive methane clathrate thaw off of Siberia got out. When that happened, I suddenly realized that I would be alive to see real climate change-related catastrophes play out on a systemic level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Yiggy makes an excellent point that reveals the scope of the mess - climate change is but one major problem among many that we currently face. By my count, here are the four* major crises that we'll have to endure from now to about the end of the century: 1. Climate change 2. Loss of biodiversity 3. Resource depletion (including food and water, as illustrated by the drought in the American Midwest that is affecting food prices) 4. Economic stagnation/instability Thinking about these issues for longer than 10 seconds will cause you to realize that the mess is intractable at this point. In some cases, significant action on one of the above problems would make some of the others worse. For example, pouring money into decarbonizing society would further strap governments that are already cutting essential services in a desperate attempt to stay afloat. The bottom line is that none of the above problems can be solved, they can only be endured. For the brave who are reading this, this documentary does a much better job of forcing you to stare into the abyss than I can. This is why I am a big time proponent of small-scale, local attempts to change. Contrary to popular goon belief, it is not the rugged, gun-toting, FYGM conservative survivalists who will survive this transition. They will die starved and alone, because they will lack the one thing that is our species' only hope for survival: community. *I say four but there is actually a fifth problem that is further aggravating all of these: overpopulation. Human population has grown at a very rapid (probably logarithmic) rate - so rapidly that we have outgrown the planet without realizing it, because we have yet to feel the full effects, much like you can eat so fast that you still feel hungry despite having a full stomach. Goddamn posted:How exactly is this any different from what occurs in even the smallest human groups of any sort? Replace "society" with "family" or "clan" or whatever. Hell, "party of 2". Isn't this very much human/animal nature? How are we exactly supposed to escape this by going back to nature, rather than striving to understand and overcome our psychological faults? A good portion is just human nature. Humans have a natural capacity for unconscionable levels of violence. However, this can be mitigated in the right setting - for example, violence and theft become less common in groups of people who know each other and engage in some form of collective decision-making (think you and your buddies, or a family unit). Humans can keep up with about 150 personal relationships. When a group grows beyond 150, you have to start instituting laws and policies in order to keep people in line, the caveat being that laws are much less of a deterrent than strong personal relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
bpower posted:Was there a particular paper or news story that gave you an epiphany? No particular news story, just issues adding up in aggregate. The whole global warming hullabaloo, the resorting to unconventional means to retrieve fossil fuels, and the realization that we only have a three days supply of food in our society should our transportation system shut down all wore on my head. Add in disgust at the natural American resistance to doing anything about or even acknowledging these problems, and you've got my sense of impending doom about the whole situation. So no epiphany. Just a creeping dread that feels like it just keeps getting closer and closer. Your Sledgehammer posted:This is why I am a big time proponent of small-scale, local attempts to change. Contrary to popular goon belief, it is not the rugged, gun-toting, FYGM conservative survivalists who will survive this transition. They will die starved and alone, because they will lack the one thing that is our species' only hope for survival: community. I tend to agree with this, but I'd hate to see it when the community-oriented folks and individualists come to loggerheads in the future when resources do become tight. Especially here in the United States where these groups can already be made out, fuzzy as the picture is right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I tend to agree with this, but I'd hate to see it when the community-oriented folks and individualists come to loggerheads in the future when resources do become tight. Especially here in the United States where these groups can already be made out, fuzzy as the picture is right now. Bandits have always preyed on communities, but civilization has progressed despite them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
Ronald Nixon posted:Do you have any references or links on this? It's not something I'd realised before. I'm reading books about distant history at the moment and having only 500m years left in the scheme of such things is disappointing. I know its not usually a good reference point, but wikipedia's articles on astronomy and geology are usually pretty good. The article on Earth is pretty finely done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Future
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
marxmanncc posted:Actually in the bible after the Great flood it is said the God will not destroy the world ever again with water, He will use fire next time. Which could possibly entail any number of things that are not pertinent to this post. Look up ozone depletion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
I was going through my old poo poo and found a cool chart that shows the relative scale of different power sources and what we use the energy on. Might have found this on SA originally, I don't remember. It's not actually labeled, but based on the size of the "nuclear" bar this appears to be US-only.  Also gives you an idea of why the auto fleet is one of the most effective targets for reducing emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:34
|
|
