|
Killer robot posted:It looks like the actual bill is pretty sharply targeted. Covers specifically areas under current Secret Service protection (Generally this is going to be Presidential residences and appearances, plus when political candidates, etc. are under such protection) and under restricted access anyway, and further is filled with "knowingly" and "with intent" language for disruptive behavior, blocking access, etc. I might be missing something, but right now it looks like a mix of the usual reporting quality of RT and conspiracy sites, with a lot of links to people being upset that it will be illegal to literally throw things at candidates you dislike. So basically they are outlawing DNC/RNC protests?
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Fat Jesus posted:Pipe Dreamer has a point. Flannery has zero qualifications in anything to do with the climate. He's paid by the federal government to go around telling us we are doomed, and every single one of his predictions has failed to come to pass, but to be fair, he's not exactly alone in that regard. For example, he claimed melting ice sheets would soon have Australian cities under water while at the same time buying himself some lovely waterside property. He's also invested a ton of cash into a geothermal company, which last I heard is not working out too well. Where does this meme about him being uneducated on it come from? The guy is a serious academic, and although his qualifications are not in climate science, he's pretty much *the* pre-eminant science educator (The dude wrote Future Eaters for gently caress sake) in the country and he's had tenure as the loving Professor of climate science at Macquarie University. For reference in Australia Professor doesnt mean "Teacher", it means something like super-doctor or something. Usually once you've done more than a certain amount of published post-doctoral work in the field (Like 2-3 published papers of year over 10 years or something), you might get awarded the title. Its pretty much the pinacle of your career here. Well maybe winning the nobel prize might be I guess. So lets drop the bullshit that he's got "zero qualifications" please, he's one of the most qualified in the country. I loving hate the mis-information the stupid talking-head right wingers are spreading in this country. People are getting dumber every second that Rupert murdoch resists having a cardiac arrest and dying and going to hell. a lovely poster posted:What? He has a masters in Earth Science. Professor of climate change. There isn't a higher qualification in this country! e: Over 90 academic papers to his name. Compare and contrast with his accusor, "mathematician" Lord Monckton;- 1 undergrad degree in journalism and zero published papers. duck monster fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Mar 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
smashczar posted:That newspaper (Border Mail) is from my home town, theres a running joke in the letters section about daylight savings ruining peoples curtains and drying up rivers. There are a lot of sceptics writing in though, with such gems as 'CO2 is plant food' and so on. Awww... way to ruin the fun, spoilsport! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
Fat Jesus posted:He's still NOT a climate scientist, and he's hardly Australia's leading climatologist (that's Bob Carter, an actual climate scientist). I've read The Future Eaters, fine book, he really should stick to paleontology. it's not a book about climate change in the way you're thinking, but rather how aboriginals arrival in Australia wiped out ancient mega fauna and how their 'fire stick' farming wiped out numerous plant species which caused massive loss of topsoil etc and changed much of Australia into the dry continent it is today. I'm not sympathetic to this argument at all. Its not how academia works. Look, whats stamped on an undergrad often is not where a researcher ends up. My sisters undergrad and honors work revolved around ground water stuff, and now she's in the UK working on climate modelling. This is very common in the sciences. Another friend of mine's undergrad stuff was in chemistry and now he's working in surface physics. None of this should be surprising. Real world science often spans disciplines, so for instance in the case of my sis, she got involved with climate science via her research on how climate change will affect australian ground water supplies and then as happens ended up moving from looking down at the ground to up at the climate. Professorial appointments in australia are largely based on a track record of successfully completed research and reputation in the field. Naturally with his background his research focuses around animal populations and human populations in regards to climate change. This is actual climate change research. The work has been of a quality that he's had around 90 papers published in the field. The dude is bona-fide regardless of the shrill denunciations that have come from outside the scientific community , in fact almost entirely from the same Rupert murdoch press that has been accusing Mann et al of the same thing. And heres the crutch: He's predictions have largely been on the money. It shouldn't be surprising , they where not his predictions they are the IPCC's predictions. Sure if you ignore the time scales he talks about then you might go "Last year Flannery predicted a future of drought, but it flooded instead this year" it might sound like he's off the mark. But all this ignores the fact he's talking much larger time scales then "Next week", "Next year" or even "Next decade", and anyway flooding is a symptom of drought (Extended periods of dry cause the ground to become less porous so when the rain hits, it just slides the gently caress over the land rather than absorbs in. Why do you think most floods happen at the end of summer!) And yeah he cocked up a couple of predictions about dams. poo poo happens in an evolving field. Also I dont really care that he has a financial stake in it. Its not an interesting or relevant thing to discuss. tl;dr keep the fox news character assasination of scientists to Newsmax or something dude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:When I graduated in 2010 from the atmospheric science program at UC Berkeley, I asked my professors -- people who worked in climate change research -- what the status of modeling positive feedbacks was. The answer they gave me was to shrug and say "Well, nobody really knows, because they're so hard to model." The mechanisms are well understood. Heck I can tell you one right now;- CO2 heats atmosphere-> Atmosphere heats ocean-> Ocean releases CO2->Go to step 1. Theres a number of other ones too. The nut of it that CO2, Methane and other greenhouse gasses kind of catalyse (not sure the right word here, Im not a chemist) a number of reactions , many of which release CO2. CO2 then traps in heat, and it cycles like that. We appear to have confirmation that at least some sort of effect like this is currently occuring in the permafrost as well. We have no idea how bad it could get, but the worst plausible models suggest "very". The thing with positive feedback loops, is your right they are not easy or necesarily even well modeled. But the physics lead us to think, along with what we know about how venus was formed, that CO2 feedback loops both exist, and at the absolute worst can be planet destroyingly horrifying (although I dont think any serious climate scientists are proposing a "earth turns into venus" outcome) so even though they are currently too complex to model reliably, the precautionary principle tells us we must at least account for the posibility, including the posibility that the outcome could be *dismal*. duck monster fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
yeah I'm suss on the peak coal thing. I wish there was peak coal. But seriously, theres a tonne of that poo poo underground. And its all ripe to stuff into the atmosphere and ruin our collective poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9192494/Climate-scientists-are-losing-the-public-debate-on-global-warming.html Its entirely possible that we're hosed, because the idiotic loving arkanes of the world and the think-tank spin campaigns that befuddle them are winning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Benny Peiser is an illqualified crank who was discredited half a decade ago for a bullshit paper he published, and I'm really not interested anymore Arkane. We know climate change is happening. We also know its athropogenic and we know that serious consequences have already started. That its happening is not the focus of the debate anymore, its the background premise of it. The discussion now is what to do about it. I don't enjoy arguing about this ,just like I dont enjoy arguing with 9/11 truthers , homeophaths or creationists. Arkane, at what point are you going to acknowledge you've seemingly committed yourself to a wilfully dishonest and frankly batshit position? e: And seriously dude. What do you mean that Hansens Ill qualified. He's been publishing in the scientific literature on the field since the 1960s, starting with his work on modeling venus's atmosphere and turning his attention to earths in the late 1970s. He's one of the most qualifed your going to find. Did he make a few bad predictions in the 1980s? Well sure, but the science has moved a long way since then. This is unlike the anthropologist your championing here who has precisely 1 publication in the field which was then roundly shredded in peer review. duck monster fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It's quite a strange thing that many threads and many years after the fact you still try to claim that I don't believe that the climate is changing. It's almost like you don't even read my posts (I think this may be the case). You cited his boorish denialist poo poo in the article as "correct"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
I gotta say I'm a lot more comfortable with prevention than "cure" when both are mired in the uncertainties of the inherently complex mathematical realities of climate science. Saying "Lets cut down CO2 levels" is a fairly reliable way of mitigating CO2 harm where the cause is simple and the outcome is complex. But when the shits already happening the solution is going to not be simple anymore. And thats a bit scary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm still confused, why would the DOD focus on this? Its pretty easy to understand. The department of defence ostensibly exists to safeguard US interests and global warming fucks with US interests because even the tamer predictions suggest global unrest, famine, mass movements of refugees, and so on. Thats bad for america. Although if it where up to me, I'd make the FEMA death camps a reality and fill them with loving climate denialists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Deuce posted:This post will end up on conspiracy sites attributed to an anonymous Obama administration official. Who said I ain't? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
eh4 posted:This guy knows how I feel. No, I didn't watch it either. Thats an excellent article and I encourage everyone to read it, because I honestly feel that way too. We need to stop "debate" with denialists and just start mocking them mercilessly. The longer we play along with this "debate" the more people will continue to think that there is anything left to debate about climate changes reality. Its real. We know it. The debate needs to move to "What are we going to do about it?" and "what sacrifices are we prepared to make by either action or innaction".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The issue is that there isn't scientific consensus on what the effects would be yet. If scientists could say "There is clear evidence that rising sea levels will cause these highly populated areas in these coastal cities to be uninhabitable by 2050" then there would be a lot more room to make plans about what to do, and a lot more people would take action. But thats not what everones getting bogged down arguing about. Everyones getting bogged down arguing with fools about if its happening at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html No free ride, it seems...
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:This looks to be about what you are wanting. I think anyways. Not going to be an easy answer, there is a ton more to it than just CO2 heat retention. Well it sort of is in a way. In that without the sun, we'd have pretty savage global cooling. ...Well that and floating through the universe as a dead rock... e: Ok. That site is bonkers. Best not reference it. duck monster fucked around with this message at 10:39 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:
I still believe in Ted Kazynsky! well.. sort of.. he's an interesting thinker at least. not so keen on the blowing dudes up bit.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Ian pilmer is incredibly frusturating, because he rose to fame as an absolutely viscious opponent of creationists who could utterly decimate cranks like Duan gish and the like in debates (He once dragged a high powered transformer on stage attached to jumper leads on stage and offered gish the opportunity to electrocute himself on stage to prove that god could overcome the laws of science for those with enough faith) , but he's now basically sided with the cranks. It would seem even those with genuine scientific training and a capacity for rational skepticism can be suckered into pseudo-scientific beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
The problem with nuclear power is more a trust issue. People where told "never again" after cheynobyl and then fukushima happens and yeah, its going to be another decade or two before people trust the industry again. The facts hardly matter, if people believe fukushima could happen to them, and whatever the kicking and fussing about the facts are, we're talking a pretty major disaster in terms of human displacement, they will freak the gently caress out about nuclear power near them. It might be unfortunate, but those are the facts of the scenario, and I don't think the political will exists to remedy those facts. I might add, it certainly doesnt help here in australia that uranium mining companies are total loving cunts that are totally hell bent on loving over local aboriginal populations seemingly every time a new mine comes up for debate. What happened in Jabiluka was unforgivable in my eyes. yes I cheered when that shithole racist mine was closed down. I have no idea if the Mirrar people can ever be compensated for that. The loss of a sacred site to an aboriginal tribe is the equivilent of bulldozing mecca to a muslim. You just don't do it. Many mirarr still believe that mining the site could lead to cataclysmic consequences. They are a very spiritual people, and doing that to them was cruel. duck monster fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Or we could start getting this thorium thing happening. Seems to avoid all of the risks real or imagined , and theres loving tonnes of the poo poo lying around.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:I just wish that environmentalists would educate themselves on nuclear power. Some blogs I read on the topic lump nuclear in with fossil fuels, or post alarmist stories of how bad nuclear is. I can just about convince people that nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but many cling to the idealistic view that we can get 100% of our energy needs from renewable resources, which is just not realistic. I actually have a friend who's an old school nuke activist and also a PhD educated physicist. His reasons are very different to others however, and principally based on the nuclear weapons fuel cycle and the politics of nuclear power, essentially that "nuclear reactors can cause unpopular countries to get bombed or sanctioned, and thus from a rawls type perspective if we accept its bad for north korea we must logically conclude its bad for us if global governance is to be fair. Fix that political issue with a safer fuel cycle and by stopping threatening violence against non western countries that go nuclear, and the morality resolves itself". As you can imagine he's very fond of thorium power and he's somewhat optimistic we can make fusion work, because neither of them demonstrably contribute to fuel for nukes. Anyway, where I'm getting at, is that he's been trying desparately to educate other nuke activists on the physics behind nuclear power because he hates that people lump in things like the reactor at lucas heights, which is a research reactor thats largely designed for making fuel for radiology and other sciencey uses. I wish I could find a copy of the book he wrote, "Nuclear physics for activists". Its pretty much a crash course in nuclear physics for folks without science/math backgrounds, designed to rebase the debate around sound science. But it was snubbed, pretty much, because it doesnt say what some of the activists want him to say, "ATOMS BAD". Instead it builds a case that theres a sane use for nuclear power and processes, but making plutonium for bombs aint one of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Yeah, aquifer-based geothermal isn't something that can work. The much better trick is to pump seawater down there and use it instead, but that's heavily location-dependent and means you need more machinery to pump stuff with. The best thing about this sort of thing is, with a bit of cleverness you can also do something about fresh water too. Pump saline water, hyrdro that poo poo, then scoop non-saline steam, win a double prize.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093 We're not going to go venus. We've had warming like this before, although in the very distant past and implicitely that means that this runaway thing must be limited to some extent. This might be promising too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 Around 10,000,000 pounds seems pretty cheap to me. The question is would it work?. The idea of having to put the climate on life support is chilling.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
The cloud whitening idea seems like its something that could be put to a swift stop if it started to backfire (Ie led to local temperature rises rather than reductions). Frankly if we've already triggered the run-away, perhaps its something we need to roll the dice on. They are talking a couple hundred thousand pounds per tower, and they suggest 100 towers could do it. Thats very cheap, and if it doesn't work , well, thats a bummer, but if it actually has the opposite effect, it seems like we just turn the things off and learn a lesson from the whole exercise. duck monster fucked around with this message at 02:29 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Welcome to non-mainstream politics. I get periods of severe melancholia from time to time and I've known people who have gotten honest-to-god depressions over this. My parents were radicals in their youth, they know someone who basically broke down and never recovered once their movement petered out and who is now a junkie. I remember realising what you're describing there and it was the worst day of my life. During the forest blockades of the 90s I was involved in I saw a lot of people just went crazy after spending months up trees and stuff and the general horror of watching some of the most beautiful and endangered forest in the world getting loving massacred by the chainsaws. I can count at least 3 suicides from all that. I honestly recomend taking breaks from activism when you find yourself in despair. Just become a regular joe for a few months, with perhaps a chilled out bohemian lifestyle or something to lose the pressure a bit, and when your feeling sharp again rip out the jetpack and go nuts again. Its one of the reasons I refuse to completely disown the "lifestylists", to be honest sometimes just being a loving backpacker kid is far saner than drowning in the utter despair of a losing battle. Perhaps the secret is to oscilate between the two a bit to balance sanity and action.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Fuking yikes: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apocalypse-soon-has-civilization-passed-the-environmental-point-of-no-return  quote:Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Graphs and poo poo on the link. I hope he's wrong Still I stand by my long held conviction that in 50 years time if we're looking across a burning and ruined world , and our kids ask us "How the gently caress did this happen?", we owe it to them to present a list of names and addresses of the climate denialists, conservative politicians and billionaires who threw a spanner into our survival attempts, such that our children might drag them from their homes in the dead of the night and hang them by the neck from bridges. It would seem the least consolation we could leave the impending generations we've betrayed. duck monster fucked around with this message at 15:33 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Texas is a wasteful shithole. The amount of sprawl and generally retarded poo poo I've seen there is hilarious. Come see perth australia for real depressing. Our soil is about 1 inch deep, half our useable farm land is already gone from salinity and climate change, and we're running out of fresh water. The major reason my climate/groundwater science sister left the state was pure depression at the inertia and resistance to change. So will we do anything about it? gently caress no, its the most successful economy on the planet (literally), its all about dig dig build build lets get the kids SUVs. At least until the chinese stop buying steel and then we're suddenly post-collapse dubai We're loving doomed.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Arkane posted:First of all, this post is pretty drat deranged. I'm not sure if you're self-reflective about what you just typed, but you probably should be. This reads like a murder fantasy. We kill other types of murderers, why not climate denialists? Well Denialists and the politicians and companies that run their PR via them are potentially going to cause a death toll in the billions at some of the higher end plausible projections. We need to stop mincing words about the game these people are in, specifically crimes against humanity. The reality is, it has been extensively documented and proven that the climate denialism campain was concieved and has been coordinated by a group of public relations firms , previously notable for an earlier failed attempt at casting doubt on the tobacco-cancer link, and in some american cases, biology education too, and funded by a number of oil manufacturers, namely BP, Exxon and a few others, along with a network of likewise funded pseudoacademic "thinktanks" to prey on the lack of science training in the community to create the perception of a vast left wing conspiracy to somehow make scientists lie about the climate for some reason nobody has seemed to work out. The campaign then got viscious with a campaign of defamation and harassment against a number of key researchers, including in some cases even involving death threats, vandalism, attempts to defund researchers and so on. And whats most galling is many of these denialists know full well they are lying and thus potentially gambling with the life of present and future generations. This is unconscionably irresponsible, and in other contexts, other variants of this behavior such as drink driving and so on, would lead to severe repercussions. So I reitterate my claim. We owe it to future generations to note the identities of those behind all this poo poo because I strongly believe what is happening is in effect a crime against humanity. I accept some of these people are acting out of stupidity and thus a moral case might be made that stupidity isnt a crime, but many of the think tanks are acting out of malice, and frankly it needs to be stopped, by force if needs be. quote:Climate changes are FAR too slow for anything on that type of time scale to lead to some sort of apocalypse. Nobody is talking about the bad times as some sort of near vs far future thing anymore. Shits already started. duck monster fucked around with this message at 13:16 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 13:01
|
|
|
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/companies-block-action-climate-changequote:Top US companies shelling out to block action on climate change If your not angry yet, your not paying attention.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Radd McCool posted:If anyone is interested, a paper was published in Nature showing that climate change polarization is attributable to culture rather than scientific illiteracy. Fox News reported on it as 'scientific literacy correlates to climate change skepticism?' If this sounds interesting or you want to not get caught off guard by Fox News' lie, here you go: Article, free PDF Holy poo poo are the spazzy conservatives twisting the gently caress out of this study. Here are some headlines, some news sites, some blogs, around the net: "Climate Change Skeptics Score High Marks in Scientific Literacy Test" "Higher science scores lead to less climate change concern" "Yale Study: Global warming skepticism correlates positively with scientific literacy" "Higher science scores equal less climate change concern" "Told Ya So!!! Skeptics More Scientific Than Alarmists!" "Study: Climate Change Skeptics Know More About Science Than Believers" "Climate change skeptics have the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity” and on and on and on and on  What it *actually* says quote:We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. That second sentence is a bit inconvenient for the angries. Its not saying denialists are MORE scientific, its saying that scientific literacy merely polarized the debate further. Implication being that the dunning kurger effect is not as large here as previously anticipated and lower scientific literacy folks appear to be aware that they dont have the full capacity to assess the data. It sure as gently caress doesnt mean "only dummies believe in climate change!", it means "education isn't a defence against being wrong". Alternative study conclusion I propose: The people might be bad at gauging scientific consensus and forming opinions at it, but the media are blatantly loving horrible at reporting science and in some cases blatantly lying. duck monster fucked around with this message at 11:38 on May 31, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
Heres an actual thing: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/ quote:NC Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal tl;dr North Carolina is making a law forbidding taking climate change + sea level rises into consideration when doing urban planning, etc, because ... some reason. quote:Coastal N.C. counties fighting sea-level rise prediction duck monster fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
A friend recently finished his house and managed to wire it all up with 12 volt led lighting. At full brightness its incredibly bright inside, so he keeps it dimmed, but it still uses an absurdly low amount of power. Its pretty drat good technology.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
McDowell posted:That's awesome, you could run that right off a solar system. I think thats his plan. Up northwest australia its pretty sunny country, and a lot of folks up there are already on solar because power distribution is so expensive in the north-west due to the ridiculous distances. Especially in places where houses can be up to 100kms apart on stations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Torka posted:I've often wondered how people living in areas where clean water is scarce feel about the fact that first worlders poo poo into potable water, if they're aware of it. You can just look at a country like australia where large sections are scarce for water AND people poo poo in fresh water toilets. Reaction: Indifference. (And then outrage when the govt rations water for gardening)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13006#.T80zKar-QCt.facebook Its all lies! Its all lies! (My sister has a whole pile of these loving emails she recieved. I wish she'd let me post them, but apparently the police have said that provoking psychos isnt smart)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
froglet posted:Old growth forests tend to capture carbon at a slower rate than new growth forests. That's not to say old growth forests aren't important, just that significant gains could potentially be made by adding to existing forests with new stock or by establishing new forests. Its sort of true, but is completely misleading, because you lose more CO2 to the atmosphere by pulling down an old growth forest than will ever be regained by the initial accelerated absorbtion of a new forest. So next time a logging apologist tells you logging is good for the atmosphere, punch him in the dick
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:There are methods of contraception which don't require modern technology. Not good or reliable ones, obviously, but they do exist. Unreliable would be understating it, as I may or may not have discovered recently As much as I am sympathetic on a theoretical level with primitivism, I think we have to be honest about the effects on healthcare, which would be ,roughly, abysmal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:This a thousand times this. I hate to break it to you man, but we have nowhere to go. Theres some plausible planets out there that maybe we could go to, except for the niggling problem of being hundreds of light years away. Even at the high-end of plausible, getting a generation ship out there is going to take tens of thousands of years and even then we're talking another 10-100 thousand years waiting for the magical future terraforming machine to get all the horrible methane and I dunno cyanide or whatever it is out of the atmosphere. Since the time frame for "Were hosed" is measured in 2-3 digit numbers and the time frame for mass evacuation to tatooine is in the 5-6 digit numbers, this is not an option on the table, short of a loving miserable existance for a very small number of us on space stations , I dunno, somewhere. None of this covers the various implausibilities of sustaining a civilization in space for 10,000 years with it not turning into a very insane, very stagnant and very horrifying version of the sort of rot depicted on battlestar galactica. Heck if we get nutty enough with moores law, we might even be able to create our own cylons to chase us into the abyss. Theres even a primitivist ending for us at the end! The thing is, its a bit more plausible we just stay and scrape out a desparate existance on a nearly dead planet, pondering "who did this to us?". duck monster fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Primitivists tend to be more about the local than the global. Guys like zerzan have more or less stated they'd be happy just to liberate Eugene, hoping that it would lead to other places liberating themselves. The major problem with primitivism of the anarchist form, is that I'm not a fan of the post-left stance. As much as I actually really like Zerzans analyses of historical authoritarianism and alienation (although some of its loving nuts) I really don't think we CAN untangle our alienation from capitalism and class. We've built a society premised around stupid consumerist excess that drives absurd profits for the bourgoise along with a loving mess of environental problems for the rest of us. Its all well to strap on the black hipster gear, stick on a backpack and try and live communally in a squat out eugene way, but its not going to do poo poo whilst the rest of the world still thinks happiness comes in touchscreen form gouged from conflict mines in a wrecked corner of africa.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Yeah, like if the surface of earth gets hosed because of, I dunno, lava and cyanide air and pterodactyls or whatever, we could just go live in the sea. Its still dumb as poo poo, but it makes more sense than space ,energy wise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 16:55
|
|