|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's not based on my emotional response, it's based on the logical conclusion of that strategy. An all-electric vehicle push is a good thing and should be taken seriously. A push towards depopulation is a bad thing. Taking it seriously is the least of our problems. If you can't work through the logical conclusion of the western world deciding that population control is an acceptable method to deal with Climate Change you are more naive than I thought. Well, I'd assume that it would come from more of an international effort as things get worse, ideally in a world where people are relocated from danger areas to the global north, but again, why is population reduction through global 1-2 child policies illogical? Because of the effect on the economy? I consider CC a bigger deal than any economy, so that doesn't phase me much. E; did not realize you were all talking about total stoppage of kids. That kind of defeats my whole 'save our species at any cost' thrust. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Oct 18, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
The Groper posted:Well, I'd assume that it would come from more of an international effort as things get worse, ideally in a world where people are relocated from danger areas to the global north, but again, why is population reduction through global 1-2 child policies illogical? Because of the effect on the economy? I consider CC a bigger deal than any economy, so that doesn't phase me much. Who is going to enact this international effort? What makes you think it's even remotely possible? How many people do you plan to relocate? How do you decide who to relocate? What if the climate isn't stable enough at the northern latitudes to provide enough food for all those people? Given that birth rates go down with simply educating women and providing birth control why don't we start there? Put it this way, the amount of coordination and effort required to enact and enforce a 1-2 child policy around the globe is so great that if we could possibly muster that kind of coordination there would be 10 things to try first, like widescale carbon sequestration, geoengineering, carbon taxes, etc. The Groper posted:E; did not realize you were all talking about total stoppage of kids. That kind of defeats my whole 'save our species at any cost' thrust. For the record, I personally don't believe it's ethical to have more than two children given the state we're in but yeah, I'm specifically responding to people who say "why even have kids if we're going to be living in the apocalypse". Lowering birth rates is a good idea, but there are better ways to achieve that don't involve instituting a global 1 child policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what you think is important, what matters is what the people in charge of the world think is important, and what is politically feasible. Population control is even less popular and taken less seriously than standard climate change policy, which is already totally ignored by everyone and will never be put into action until it's far too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Well, I'd assume that it would come from more of an international effort as things get worse, ideally in a world where people are relocated from danger areas to the global north, but again, why is population reduction through global 1-2 child policies illogical? Because of the effect on the economy? I consider CC a bigger deal than any economy, so that doesn't phase me much. Advocating a policy of having 1-2 children isn't advocating a policy of having no children, so you're moving the goalposts quite a bit here. On top of that, reducing the population just spreads out the timescale over which warming occurs, and barely even does that when measured in human lifespans, at best, so it's not a particularly good strategy, since most of the things you would need to do to change that outcome require an effective industrial base with lots of surplus labour and economic activity you can siphon off. Here, let me try and create an analogy. Imagine we are on a asteroid. We are currently racing across the vast blackness of space, on a direct collision course with the sun a few years from now. The reason we're on this collision course is because we have strapped several thousand rockets to the back of our asteroid, and those rockets are pushing us straight for the sun. Population control is akin to advocating that we should remove these rockets and toss them off into space, because clearly the rockets are the reason we are on this collision course. And they are, that's true, but removing all the rockets from the asteroids, or any rockets really, is not a solution. The scenario still ends with us crashing into the sun. Our course is already set. Removing them a couple hundred years ago and preventing anyone from building more might have done it, but like many other attempts it is now too little, too late. Any viable plan for avoiding our crashing into the sun at this point in time absolutely requires a massive amount of rockets. Enough rockets that we can use them to change the course we're on. That has to be the goal - not to get rid of as many rockets as possible, but to point as many of those rockets in possible in a different, better direction, one that changes the course of our asteroid and doesn't end with us getting burned to death. Now, seem people in this thread have advocated the belief that these rockets can not be redirected. In that case nothing, including getting rid of rockets, matters - we're toast. So no matter which side you fall on regarding whether or not redirecting rockets is possible, randomly getting rid of them still isn't a helpful or even coherent plan. Also the rockets are people and no one is ever going to agree to get rid of a significant number of rockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:But yeah, you've got your nihilistic hedonism or whatever, you do you, but most people have actual values that extent a bit beyond "enjoy the ride while we crash and burn". Project much? I'm just pointing out that humans caused this crisis. I do love how the same people that cry about "it's never too late to mitigate the effects of climate change" take up the "having fewer kids only delays the inevitable, so why stop?" mantle, though, which was my point in the first place - why bother trying to mitigate the effects of climate change when the inevitable is still, well, inevitable? call to action fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
call to action posted:Project much? I'm just pointing out that humans caused this crisis. That's fine, it's where you try to use that fact to argue nonsense or where you get confused over the fact that not everyone is a nihilistic hedonist that we run into trouble. call to action posted:I do love how the same people that cry about "it's never too late to mitigate the effects of climate change" take up the "having fewer kids only delays the inevitable, so why stop?" mantle, though. You're gonna have to spell this one out, because you seem to be operating under several false assumptions and engaging in a few logical leaps in the process of making... whatever argument you're trying to make here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:That's fine, it's where you try to use that fact to argue nonsense or where you get confused over the fact that not everyone is a nihilistic hedonist that we run into trouble. That's funny, I'd say the people willing to bring more people into an RCP 8.5 world are the nihilistic hedonists. Not that not having kids will make a difference, it just seems kinda unethical to willingly introduce your own kids to that landscape. Also I don't care about your BEEP BOOP BY YOUR OWN LOGIC crap, just fyi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also the rockets are people and no one is ever going to agree to get rid of a significant number of rockets. You do realize that the only way to redirect the asteroid of this tortured metaphor is to come up with a miracle technology that can remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in like the next 50 years? If you've got any ideas on how to do that, by all means enlighten us, but I'm not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You do realize that the only way to redirect the asteroid of this tortured metaphor is to come up with a miracle technology that can remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in like the next 50 years? If we can replace our power supply with a carbon neutral or minimal carbon alternatives, then we only have to spend roughly the equivalent of global military spending to bring us into the realms of negative per capita emissions (using only currently existing carbon sequestration technology). Which we are obviously technically capable of doing. The miracles there are more political than technological. Technology would mostly serve to make the political miracles less miraculous. It's not a likely outcome, no, specially considering the track record for political solutions, but it's the only outcome that doesn't end on "runaway global warming leads to the extinction or near extinction of the human race" so it's also the only outcome worth pursuing. Intentional depopulation is not only not pursuing that outcome (and thus pointless), it is, in fact, injurious to it, and thus not really worth considering. If you want to argue for relaxing and enjoying the ride into the sun, that's one thing, the argument that throwing away rockets would somehow help is the problematic on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
call to action posted:That's funny, I'd say the people willing to bring more people into an RCP 8.5 world are the nihilistic hedonists. Not that not having kids will make a difference, it just seems kinda unethical to willingly introduce your own kids to that landscape. You could say that, but it would be even sillier than most of the other stuff you've said so you probably shouldn't. quote:Also I don't care about your BEEP BOOP BY YOUR OWN LOGIC crap, just fyi. Yes, not caring about the things you say and what they mean especially when taken together does seem to be the policy you're pursuing. Are you somehow proud of that? Edit: Noticed you added some more back here. call to action posted:I do love how the same people that cry about "it's never too late to mitigate the effects of climate change" take up the "having fewer kids only delays the inevitable, so why stop?" mantle, though, which was my point in the first place - why bother trying to mitigate the effects of climate change when the inevitable is still, well, inevitable? It's not inevitable, only very very likely. No one arguing for action is also arguing that the worst case is actually inevitable. All inevitables have been scoped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
call to action posted:That's funny, I'd say the people willing to bring more people into an RCP 8.5 world are the nihilistic hedonists. Not that not having kids will make a difference, it just seems kinda unethical to willingly introduce your own kids to that landscape. People keep saying we are on an RCP8.5 path, but that doesn't seem to match the definition of the model: quote:This future is consistent with: Meanwhile RCP6 quote:This future is consistent with: Or even optimistically quote:This future is consistent with: Either one seems to match our current policies and binding targets. Obviously, we want to be more like this: quote:Declining use of oil
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You could say that, but it would be even sillier than most of the other stuff you've said so you probably shouldn't. However you need to justify your selfish desire to have kids, just go for it man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
call to action posted:However you need to justify your selfish desire to have kids, just go for it man. Get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:However you need to justify your selfish desire to have kids, just go for it man. Dude, I might agree, but we can't force people to be Antinatalist. And this attitude is exactly why people dislike Antinatlists. Keep the personal morality stuff to yourself. I'm trying to catch up to this thread. Any interesting articles, or just more gloom/bickering?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Going over your posting in here, you've done a good job of at least giving the appearance of having detached yourself from the human condition and humanity as a whole. I pity you, wholeheartedly, and if you need something or someone to talk to, pm me any time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Get the gently caress out. Make me, bitch Potato Salad posted:Going over your posting in here, you've done a good job of at least giving the appearance of having detached yourself from the human condition and humanity as a whole. I need your credit card number with CVV, thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I can never really follow through with madposting people I feel absolutely awful for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I can never really follow through with madposting people I feel absolutely awful for. Post a video of you crying for me It's really weird how defensive people get about this stuff, please keep melting down it's fascinating (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
No support structure, like, no family? Friends nearby? All fun or human contact on industry-supported appliances? I think you might be tougher than you think, or maybe not, I don't know, and I don't matter. Pm me any time though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
I'll mail you $20? Like really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:No support structure, like, no family? Friends nearby? All fun or human contact on industry-supported appliances? Potato salad, more like word salad Potato Salad posted:I'll mail you $20? Like really. Did you see my request for your credit card number? I won't misuse it I promise
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
call to action posted:However you need to justify your selfish desire to have kids, just go for it man. Do you just not understand the meaning of the word selfish, here? You really seem to have some fundamental personal problems that needs to be addressed, because I cant believe anyone is this stupid. You might thinking having kids is wrong, and thats okay, thats a matter of opinion. Dictating what must be the intent of other people you clearly do not understand is pretty dumb though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Having children is a selfish act, inherently, sorry that's tough for you to deal with
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:Dude, I might agree, but we can't force people to be Antinatalist. And this attitude is exactly why people dislike Antinatlists. Keep the personal morality stuff to yourself. The only new article was even the most pessimistic estimates for success are based on us discovering magic with no plan on how that happens. Not great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:Having children is a selfish act, inherently, sorry that's tough for you to deal with Seek either psychological help or a dictionary, depending on where this misconception is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The only new article was even the most pessimistic estimates for success are based on us discovering magic with no plan on how that happens. Not great. Ahh, status quo then. Alright, that's appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Seek either psychological help or a dictionary, depending on where this misconception is coming from. What sort of psychological help do I need? In detail, please
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I can get a visa gift card in a few days time
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:What sort of psychological help do I need? In detail, please More than i am qualified to provide or even speculate upon
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:More than i am qualified to provide or even speculate upon C'mon, you can do better than that. That's not even a burn, let alone a sick one
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:I'm trying to catch up to this thread. Any interesting articles, or just more gloom/bickering? The Vox explainer on the Washington Carbon Tax battle was really good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Who is going to enact this international effort? What makes you think it's even remotely possible? How many people do you plan to relocate? How do you decide who to relocate? What if the climate isn't stable enough at the northern latitudes to provide enough food for all those people? Given that birth rates go down with simply educating women and providing birth control why don't we start there? Again, in an IDEAL world (one where the world is able to come to a consensus), we'd do it in stages to lessen the blow to people, promote education and provide birth control, everything that could possibly work should be done at once. Relocate who you can in as nonbiased a manner as possible, with the understanding that those left behind are essentially in hospice care zones. I know those other things will get tried first, because they address symptoms and not the root cause, i.e. (#of people) x (average person's expectations) = too drat high. GlyphGryph posted:Advocating a policy of having 1-2 children isn't advocating a policy of having no children, so you're moving the goalposts quite a bit here. On top of that, reducing the population just spreads out the timescale over which warming occurs, and barely even does that when measured in human lifespans, at best, so it's not a particularly good strategy, since most of the things you would need to do to change that outcome require an effective industrial base with lots of surplus labour and economic activity you can siphon off. GlyphGryph posted:If we can replace our power supply with a carbon neutral or minimal carbon alternatives, then we only have to spend roughly the equivalent of global military spending to bring us into the realms of negative per capita emissions (using only currently existing carbon sequestration technology). Which we are obviously technically capable of doing. Well, I didn't intend to move goalposts on you, but I DO take umbrage with this analogy, along with your belief that this is a purely political problem. The way I see it, we're not inevitably headed into the sun, we're not even fully aimed at it. If we start turning off rockets and coasting, we could buy more time to put ourselves into a safe orbit.I don't agree that technological innovation and mass deployment of such are the way out of the situation we're in, since imo much like fusion power itself, the promise of a globally carbon-negative system will remain out of reach for far longer than we think right now, the infrastructure comes with an immense up-front fuel cost to build, and you risk having people view it as an excuse to humans to continue on as we have. If we agree that we're getting close to too late to stay under 2C, than to choose the technological innovation path is a huge gamble on whether we can push additional carbon into the atmosphere in order to someday pull more of it back, while at the same time dealing with the present-day effects of those increased emissions. So, from the perspective of people in year 3000 for example, I think pursuing deindustrialization right now has better odds than hoping that the tech works out. That being said, I already know I'm "wrong" in that for this to be truly effective, we would need to reduce population faster than by attrition, we'd have to make awful choices about who lives and dies, we'd have to take away most people's free will, so morality will end up staying us to the course we're on now. E; the analogy is also bad because throwing rockets off the asteroid one after another on the same vector would eventually change our course away from the sun. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
call to action posted:C'mon, you can do better than that. That's not even a burn, let alone a sick one It is not right with my moral fiber to attack and burn the sick. I am, no joke, not qualified or in a position of sufficient responsibility to solicit mental health screening on behalf of a private citizen, and I do not hold professional medical credentials. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
I thus really don't want to get into an internet fistfight with someone who may legitimately be sick, who in the future may point to my posting saying, "he gave what could be construed as medical advice," and then I'm stuck in a liability problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I thus really don't want to get into an internet fistfight with someone who may legitimately be sick, who in the future may point to my posting saying, "he gave what could be construed as medical advice," and then I'm stuck in a liability problem. You could just ignore it, or call him an rear end in a top hat and move on. That's the typical D&D thing to do. Edit: I just realized, I might be encouraging you to use the ignore list. Don't do that, just ignore as in don't read. Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I can do best practice. Ahem: rear end in a top hat. [Sets Ignore]
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
You have to admit it is kinda funny that the only people interested in AGC in the forum are the clinically depressed preppers and nerds that believe in magic bullet tech solutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
The majority of Americans still don't believe in AGC (Pew 2016)  lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Build more nuclear plants and let the US Navy run them. Clear the sites and perform basic support facility construction with a civilian make-work program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Build more nuclear plants and let the US Navy run them. Clear the sites and perform basic support facility construction with a civilian make-work program. Bam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:59
|
|