|
Edit: Upon reflection, this was a really dull and predictable joke, and really doesn't contribute to the discussion such as it is. Snipped
Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 23, 2016 |
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Dwesa posted:There will be a free webinar called 'Fostering a Scientifically Informed Populace' tomorrow Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So what I have gathered from this thread so far, geoengineering is literally the only possibility left at this point if we want to prevent substantial warming, and our options for accepting the warming and trying to deal with the consequences are all pretty terrible for anyone outside the first world or near the equator? Also Geoengineering is risky and expensive, and has a good chance of not working, or loving things up worse. Good times. Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
pidan posted:You could say you don't want to create children who will have to live in the world we've created, but then again their life will probably be better and more comfortable than that of 99% of people in history. Well, in the context of climate change, that's probably true if you are already a first world individual. The author is making the classic anti-natalist argument though. quote:I, like many philosophers, believe that it’s morally better to make people happy than to make happy people. Those who exist already have needs and wants, and protecting and providing for them is motivated by respect for human life. It is not a harm to someone not to be created. Which remains true in my mind, even if climate change doesn't impact us in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Anti-natalism gets shot down by breeders news at eleven. Well yes, Anti-natalism is something you can advocate for and encourage in your own life. It's not really feasible to force it though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Anti natalism is legit retarded Gonna have to give me more to go on than that. I find myself agreeing with the argument. (with the understanding that anti-natalism isn't an actual climate change solution.) Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:i find that pretty dumb quite honestly considering our idea of suffering is entirely relative and our cushy little existences we think are required for a happy life haven't existed for 99.999% of the time humans have existed. But that's not the fundamental argument? The argument is that you can't ensure an existence in complete bliss for a new life. It doesn't matter that our existence is 1000% more pleasurable than hunter/gatherer societies, creating life still causes harm. That said however. Nocturtle posted:However the anti-natalist discussion is tiresome because it's obviously not going anywhere. This is certainly true in thread context
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:It was a hypothetical question; would environmentalists in our country become motivated to act in such extreme measures? I'd place it between the likelihood of the next world war starting due to climate migration/stresses, and the aliens finally mercy killing our species.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Sure, but we've had thousands of years of reflecting heat back into space, so I think it evens out in the long term. You forgot all the extra methane gas white people emit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Edit: You know what. This is a bad post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:So how do I convince my vehement, frothing denialist Boomer relatives to sell off their Florida properties before the next hurricane? Try to hook them up with good homeowners insurance. Make sure it doesn't cover floods.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Edit: NVM this was a dumb statement. Of course it would work in a purely hypothetical imagined situation in my head.
Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:First, we've already significantly hosed poo poo up, us all dying won't undo that damage but does exclude us ever mitigating the damage in the future. We need humanity to stick around to clean up our mess. Well, thanks for the legit response. About two minutes after making that post I realized how dumb it was. But I appreciate you went to the effort.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 21:29
|
|