|
Yet somehow we never get around to taking on these global elite, who just so happen to live in our own backyard, because we're terrified of all these hungry masses living on the other side of the planet.
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Malthusian cynicism is a trap, it's also bullshit. The problem is not the billions of mouths on the bottom of the world hierarchy, it's the 1% on top who use exponentially more of the carbon budget and are responsible for every decision which got is into this mess and are currently gate-keeping any chance of turning things around. The problem is any number of mouths at all, it's biological nature in action that we generate a 1% that dominates resource control and distribution. Malthusianism, ironically, isn't cynical enough.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
You appear to be attacking someone else then, as I never expressed those opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Yet somehow we never get around to taking on these global elite, who just so happen to live in our own backyard, because we're terrified of all these hungry masses living on the other side of the planet. You are probably part of the 1% friend. There is; after all, 78 million of you. Maybe not, maybe just one of the 390 million that make up the top 5%.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:You are probably part of the 1% friend. There is; after all, 78 million of you. Maybe not, maybe just one of the 390 million that make up the top 5%. Edit: nm misread
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:You are probably part of the 1% friend. There is; after all, 78 million of you. Maybe not, maybe just one of the 390 million that make up the top 5%. What's your point? Climate change is certainly more on me (and everyone else in this thread) then the billions of humans in developing countries that the Malthusians and Dickens' villains love to pretend are the real problem.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
I think education of women, availability of birth control, and uplifting those in poverty are all important tools to help fight some of the effects in climate change, especially since the worst effects of climate change will first be felt by the global poor. Revolution and the upheaval of capitalism would obviously be pretty loving great, but I see no path towards that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
So when are you going to get around to taking yourself on? You terrified of people that live in developing nations? My point was a general nod towards a lot of people saying how they want to crunch down on the elite rah rah rah and don't realise that they themselves are the elite that they are talking about. Lack of self-awareness and all that. I am fully supportive of your general thrust that the problem is not population or oversexed Africans or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
When talking climate specifically, it is clear that population controls or population reduction isn’t a sufficient solution. 4B people emitting as much as today is not different from 8B people emitting less than half what they emit today. We have to change our economy and society to get to zero emissions, and if per-capita emissions are zero then population size doesn’t matter. Broader questions about carrying capacity, multi-criteria sustainability, etc. are so complex and impacted by our other climate choices that I don’t think any of us posters can accurately predict what those future restrictions will be. Which net zero agricultural system we create will define where and how we need land and water. etc. There are many pathways where we end up with more people than we can sustain and there are pathways where we do not.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
All rather moot, yes? Net zero per-capita emissions is not going to happen in time, if it ever could. Pretty soon we will just be putting out fires, forever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
It really doesn't matter either way, unless some aliens come save us or something this planet's only gonna have half a billion people on it a hundred years from now. The fraction of those people that are descended from those who are currently globally wealthy or globally poor doesn't matter that much to me because I'll be dead by then either way.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Yes, probably. All we can do really is focus on harm reduction in our local area and attempt to raise awareness in friends and family.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
I guess the best I can hope for is that one day my son is shot in the head from behind for his water supply as opposed to slowly stabbed a bunch? Not the kind of uplifting messaging that will drive people to the polls this November unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
davebo posted:I guess the best I can hope for is that one day my son is shot in the head from behind for his water supply as opposed to slowly stabbed a bunch? nah, teach your son to build underground domes, the domes will protect him. this thread has forgotten that domes are the way forward, and that the the earth itself will be our shelter.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:if per-capita emissions are zero then population size doesn’t matter. this is just a formulaic way of saying "magic technology will save us". it would take a cold fusion breakthrough or something greater to even put that on the table.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is just a formulaic way of saying "magic technology will save us". it would take a cold fusion breakthrough or something greater to even put that on the table. Yes, agreed. We cannot base future policy on complete unknowns, and I'm including geo-engineering in that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
This is a pretty alarming image showing sea ice loss - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY1Pzg6UMAA-Omn?format=jpg
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is just a formulaic way of saying "magic technology will save us". it would take a cold fusion breakthrough or something greater to even put that on the table. No new technology is required. The existing technology we have is more than enough to transform the economy of the world to be carbon neutral (in a real sense) within the decades required to still mitigate significant harms. We lack the political will to do, but technology is not the issue. If you then assume that the politico-economic system itself cannot change, then sure you start requiring scifi to transform capitalism into a self-sustaining ouroboros. In reality the snake dies. Saki posted:Yes, agreed. We cannot base future policy on complete unknowns, and I'm including geo-engineering in that. You're exactly right we don't need any unproven technologies. Especially not geo-engineering as the plan. The technology we need is all well proven, often ancient. What we need is a society that's acting to respond at the scale the crisis demands. That's not a technology problem. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
What you ask would require all countries to completely give up business as usual, and pursue massive degrowth. There would still be huge climate disruption due to the locked-in damage, but yes, that would be ideal. It won't happen though, ever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Saki posted:What you ask would require all countries to completely give up business as usual, and pursue massive degrowth. There would still be huge climate disruption due to the locked-in damage, but yes, that would be ideal. It won't happen though, ever. I don't think that the current socio-economic system is as stable as that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think that the current socio-economic system is as stable as that. Expand on this. So you agree with me that degrowth on the scale required won't happen? So what point are you making?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Saki posted:Expand on this. So you agree with me that degrowth on the scale required won't happen? So what point are you making? I'm saying that we both agree our existing socioeconomic system is unlikely to engage in whatever scale of action is required. Climate change is exactly the kind of thing capitalism cannot property respond to, so I don't see it surviving in the face of it. So our socioeconomic system is increasingly unstable and whatever system succeeds in replacing it will seek carbon neutral economics as a matter of survival.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm saying that we both agree our existing socioeconomic system is unlikely to engage in whatever scale of action is required. Ah. Fair enough. I don't think that transition will happen until a large portion of the world's population are in great distress, displaced, etc. I also think that the huge human migration that will happen down the line will have an unfortunate effect on our politics. I know that here in Europe we will get real fascist real quick when it happens. We will build walls.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No new technology is required. The existing technology we have is more than enough to transform the economy of the world to be carbon neutral (in a real sense) within the decades required to still mitigate significant harms.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is blog broscience nonsense. Please then, what makes it impossible to have a truly carbon neutral economy? Saki posted:Ah. Fair enough. I don't think that transition will happen until a large portion of the world's population are in great distress, displaced, etc. I also think that the huge human migration that will happen down the line will have an unfortunate effect on our politics. I know that here in Europe we will get real fascist real quick when it happens. We will build walls. Yeah I don’t think there’s any course left that doesn’t have more mass death than now. But the grim optimism of the potential for slightly reduced future mass death remains.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please then, what makes it impossible to have a truly carbon neutral economy? Paved roads.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please then, what makes it impossible to have a truly carbon neutral economy? Global temperatures are determined by the area under the curve from where we are now to the carbon neutral point. That trajectory is more important than saying that a carbon neutral economy is possible. If it's possible by 2100 then it's not avoiding catastrophic warming. hth.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
To be clear, a carbon neutral economy has to both be possible, and we have to reduce our emissions by 7% every year along the way to keep global warming within the bounds of what we consider "safe"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Global temperatures are determined by the area under the curve from where we are now to the carbon neutral point. That trajectory is more important than saying that a carbon neutral economy is possible. If it's possible by 2100 then it's not avoiding catastrophic warming. hth. There are still outcome ranges even within high warming scenarios. hth.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are still outcome ranges even within high warming scenarios. hth. Was this post written by a Markov chain bot? It's inscrutable.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
I think he means a post-collapse economy may be carbon-neutral.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
He's saying there's degrees of being hosed. Which is true
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are still outcome ranges even within high warming scenarios. hth. i like how you started out saying "popluation doesn't matter if we can get net-zero per-capita" and now you've backpedalled that all the way to "there are ranges".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please then, what makes it impossible to have a truly carbon neutral economy?  Not the content of the image, the deeply ingrained capitalist social conditioning which facilitated it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Evil_Urna posted:Anti-Irish sentiment in America and England had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with them being Catholic. Whiteness, race and religion are all made up and have no objective basis. Hth.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:
I understood his point to be that the issue is not technical/scientific and this agrees. Eco fascism will rise
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Eco-Fascism would be dealing with those regressive chuds swiftly and decisively to salvage the environment, what people keep labelling as it instead is just plain old capitalism. The violence wrought upon the third world over the 20th century in the name of "growth" brought home to the west at last, as declining everything requires domestic force to maintain capital extraction and upward flow. The ouroborous eating its tail. Nothing Eco about maintaining the supply of F150's and Big Macs through violence. Or shooting randoms in a church, or the myriad other things currently being branded as "ecofacism" in an attempt to smear the environmental movement.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
eco-fascism is just plain old fascism, but the excuse for it is ~muh environments~, op. that's literally the only difference. salvage environment? lmao ain't nobody got time for that
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
They revised ocean heating up again.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:They revised ocean heating up again. Faster or slower?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:38
|
|
