|
BTC.spengler posted:Aren't we just influencing evolution by changing the environment in ways that will select for different traits? Billions of people dying aside, the problem is anthropogenic warming is causing climate shifts much much faster than would otherwise be indicated. Species don't evolve over the course of a hundred years. In the end this leads to reduced biodiversity.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Radd McCool posted:Can anyone speak to the viability of geoengineering? Literally nothing is going to change or get better unless someone 1) figures out how to make money from it 2) Capitalism goes away and we stop using, "can I make money from this" as the only metric that matters. Sucks but its true.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
I guess it's time to move to Iceland. Pretty energy independent with all the geothermal power and stuff and its going to get warmer and wetter up there, so maybe they'll be able to grow more food too! And its an island so its way easier to keep all those poors out!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Great Lakes are already about 10 or 15 feet lower than what they were back in the 50s IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
You're presuming a level of critical thinking that just does not seem to exist in American politics these days, if it ever has.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
$15 million? That's the political equivalent of a paper launch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
That is such a disingenuous argument that I think you have to be trolling at this point. Your poorly formatted post is full of "people are stupid!!!!11" and "human nature!!!!11" arguments (loving sheeple amirite?) so if you actually have anything concrete to say instead of trying to smugly snipe from the sidelines with out contributing anything at all to the discussion in this thread, do so, or 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Why is avoiding the checks and balances in nature inherently a bad thing though?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
My comment wasn't really directed at you, more at Your Sledgehammer as a proxy for the author of that article who seems to think that every human living beyond whatever the population of the world was in 4000BC is beyond the natural carrying capacity of the planet. Since that is not a very large number compared to the billions of people living today, there really isn't a way to get around the fact that people who hold the viewpoint that technology is killing the earth and we should stop using it are indirectly advocating for the elimination of billions of people. Personally, I believe there is (must) be a way to use technology responsibly while preserving biodiversity because the alternative is plain untenable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
There are some actual civilian transport ships with nuclear reactors IIRC, can't remember why they stopped making them. Probably too expensive, combined with all the anti-nuclear poo poo that's happened in the last 30-40 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
The dust bowl in part was caused by bad general agricultural practices that left large amounts of top soil loose on the surface of the earth, I believe that has been mitigated to a certain extent. Living down here in Kansas though I can tell you it's dry and hot as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
I don't know man. The current global capitalist economy has already shown a pretty poor track record of dealing with large scale externalities, I'm not sure how you can be so certain that humanity as a whole will be better off ~85 years from now when the double whammy of climate change and peak fossil fuel based energy is coming down the pipeline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:I think our capacity for poor decision is exceeded by our capacity for creativity and finding solutions when things are really serious. I'm also pretty skeptical of peak energy concerns - I was pretty hardcore into peak oil back in 2006, when it supposedly peaked and apocalypse was just around the corner. History has shown the Malthusians to be wrong over and over again, and there are vast energy sources still to be tapped if we set our minds to it. Watched the scientists throw up their hands conceding, "progress will resolve it all" Saw the manufacturers of earth's debris ignore another green peace call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jW5BA060Kg
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
City living if you use public transportation and live in an apartment block is some of the most efficient living energy usage wise. It's not just about how much energy you use, it's how much energy is used to get the products that you use to you. So unless you're totally off the grid and entirely self sufficient you're actually doing more harm than good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:There are a variety of ways you can look at the back to the land idea. If everyone did it then yea, that would probably do more harm than good to our environment, but people are inspired by this idea by more than a simple argument like that. People often cite wanting a simpler life not filled with consumerism or having to work and make money for other people. If you look at things more through the lens of global capitalism and its effect on our planet you could try and make the argument that limiting your participation in that system helps. Some try and take that in the direction of the self sufficient off the grid lifestyle. As of right now I don't think there are any solid solutions for an individual given the tragedy of the commons. "Yes this idea that will objectively lead to more energy use for several years at the very least compared to ecologically conscious living in an urban core is a good idea because it might make people feel better. Also Capitalism man". I'm Marxist as gently caress but this is stupid and counterproductive and amounts to saying it's someone else's problem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 21:27
|
|