|
Shima Honnou posted:Faster or slower? What does "up" mean, do you think?
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Not much, what's up with you
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
Saki posted:What does "up" mean, do you think? down on the upside, obviously. not saying there's zero chance, but we're blowing up the outside world here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
Saki posted:This is a pretty alarming image showing sea ice loss - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY1Pzg6UMAA-Omn?format=jpg Bad news: The 2012 trace mysteriously vanishes off the bottom before August for some reason 🤔
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:down on the upside, obviously. not saying there's zero chance, but we're blowing up the outside world here. I appreciate you for this post.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:Not much, what's up with you 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Sealife is fleeing to the poles, as oceans heat up and become more acidic https://www.sciencealert.com/as-the-world-gets-hotter-thousands-of-species-are-fleeing-to-earth-s-poles
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 13:48
|
|
|
Australia's top climate scientist seems to think there's no way to avoid total collapse:quote:‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
JfishPirate posted:Australia's top climate scientist seems to think there's no way to avoid total collapse: Among other things from this optimistic report, the graphic painting the Amazon and other tropical rainforests as a 3C+ hazard is outdated. Turns out the threshold is looking more like 2C for when those are boned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Yeah that sounds about right. Trump just signed an executive order to basically eliminate the EPA for "economic recovery!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
JfishPirate posted:Australia's top climate scientist seems to think there's no way to avoid total collapse: This isn't any different than fear mongering that comes out from Climate Doomerists like Guy McPherson. Here's great place to start reading about how tipping points work, https://twitter.com/ClimateTipPoint/status/796661106781593600
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:This isn't any different than fear mongering that comes out from Climate Doomerists like Guy McPherson. lol, gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
McPherson is, afaik, wrong on the assumption that nuke plants will just be left to... freely emit and radiation poison everyone? Most of them have failsafes. But his book "going dark" was a quick and interesting read nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:McPherson is, afaik, wrong on the assumption that nuke plants will just be left to... freely emit and radiation poison everyone? Most of them have failsafes. But his book "going dark" was a quick and interesting read nonetheless. Yeah, this is a really poor assumption on his part: If the reactor is not in operation, they usually get defueled and decommissioned. Does he claim the same about Coal/Gas/Drilling sites?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
McPhersons fear of nuke plans sterilizing the earth is largely dumb. The underlying concept, of major pollutions or environmental destruction continuing to degrade life on earth long after we cease to have a functional civilization, is very salient. Take the vast tailings lakes we've created while refining rare earth's, for example, or the Athabasca Mordor. Places like these will represent threats to life for millenia, and we have no method whatsoever to actually clean them up. Not "clean" them up by shifting the toxins to somewhere as cheaply as possible or literally burying the issue, but actually render the threat 100% neutralized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
If civilization has ceased to exist - what happens to earth is a moot point. Rare earths (well not actually the rare earth elements themselves but the ores normally are radioactive or quite toxic in themselves so the tailings are a bastard to treat) is a bit different in that they pose danger to life in the near term. Burying them is quite sufficient though - after all they are only a problem because they were dug up!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:If civilization has ceased to exist - what happens to earth is a moot point. There are a few other participants in the biosphere that might disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:There are a few other participants in the biosphere that might disagree. Sure, but killing/allowing a death of one human life to accommodate their wishes is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
I'm not taking the bait this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:McPhersons fear of nuke plans sterilizing the earth is largely dumb. The underlying concept, of major pollutions or environmental destruction continuing to degrade life on earth long after we cease to have a functional civilization, is very salient. Nobody is going to argue we don't need better ways to deal with pollutants, but the reality is the actual amount of pollution of radioactive waste is minimal compared to what we deal with waste wise with everything else we do. Radiation is just more scary sounding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
mdemone posted:There are a few other participants in the biosphere that might disagree. No, they wouldn't because they don't have brains like we do and can't communcate, much less comprehend extinction. The earth IS a dead end street. Earth has an expiration date. We can sterilize the earth completely tomorrow and the universe will remain completely unchanged. It is in fact what will inevitably happen when our sun runs out of hydrogen. That isn't the point, it's not the point of fighting the climate crisis and it isn't the point of this thread. Fighting against all this is and always has been self preservation. Not only that, as we learn more and more we are approaching the realization that we are a lot more dependent on the current equilibrium of nature than we have previously assumed or have comfortably neglected to internalize; the real point of nature preservation is maintaining the equilibrium that keeps us all alive. It's always been rational to think "oh, we can damage nature a litte and destroy this forest and mine that mountain it's no big deal" but it turns out we can't damage nature a little. The fucker has tipping points, and we don't know what they are and we can gently caress up something small and cause massive damage on the other end. We should have been super careful, but greed has dictated that we should not be. I think 2020 is a fantastic sign of things to come. Nature's unequal and opposite reaction can be felt in the relatively minor disruption from the coronavirus pandemic; some small alterations to the day-to-day of consumption and now the US is on fire. But that poo poo is minor league. This is the kiddie version. If we get a crop failure year, if there's a sudden or unforeseen resource shortage, or a global disruption, we are all going to get to see just what happens when people aren't reacting to perceived threats on their rights but reacting to tangible and immediate threats to their lives. Things will get gradually shittier, sure, but at our own tipping points we get to experience what it looks like when the house of cards gets shaken. Cascade failure. Remember the term. And that will kill more people than ten Chernobyls ever could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Sure, but killing/allowing a death of one human life to accommodate their wishes is hosed up. lol look at this garbage
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Why dont you try applying that logic to the rich assholes running this planet instead of the animals we're relentlessly wiping out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
the thing about purity tests is they only ever apply down not up
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
ubachung posted:Why dont you try applying that logic to the rich assholes running this planet instead of the animals we're relentlessly wiping out. I fully support the rich arseholes also ensuring decisions and actions they take to help flora and fauna does not come at the expense of human lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 10:03
|
|
|
History will not treat your type kindly, if anyone is left to write it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
The flora and fauna are the only things keeping you alive, you ignorant gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:No, they wouldn't because they don't have brains like we do and can't communcate, much less comprehend extinction. Are you really sure this is a good way to distinguish between things that have value and things that don't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Sure, but killing/allowing a death of one human life to accommodate their wishes is hosed up. I understand where you're coming from, but mdemone posted:The flora and fauna are the only things keeping you alive, you ignorant gently caress. This right here is the problem with this line of thinking, dismantling your argument even if you're trying to be an utilitarian that holds human life and comfort as the highest moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:The flora and fauna are the only things keeping you alive, you ignorant gently caress. Absolutely and that point was made by both myself and Nice piece of fish. We have to protect the environment to protect human lives. Where the difference is and where the Greens lose a lot of credibility (apart from lack of reading comprehension you illiterate gently caress) is where they deviate into how much human life they would be willing to expand to protect some of the environment for no other purpose than for its own sake. The fight against nuclear, the fight against damming rivers for hydro because that particular valley looks nice, the circle jerks or "just thinking out loud" for population control in Africa or poors in general, the diversion of resources into making some process "safe" for millennia long after humans are extinct (which was what started this discussion). Any discussion about worrying about the environment post human existence is a precursor for why certain human life is worth less than some of the environment and all of a sudden we are into ranking human life. Eco fascism is a thing and it is a thing just as reprehensible as Nazi fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
reading that post felt like being drained by colin ferguson (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Absolutely and that point was made by both myself and Nice piece of fish. We have to protect the environment to protect human lives. I don't think this argument is as powerful as you seem to think it is. It can be easily turned on its head by the observation that you're drawing a distinction between "useful" and "useless" nature, and we humans are nature. Consider that opposition to dam projects often comes from minorities that live on the land that's about to be dammed. You're glossing over them along with the nature you describe as deriving its only value from "that valley looks nice". In general I think pitting conservationism against human rights is poor framing as it relates to what's happening in the real world. Out there it's almost entirely powerful industrialist interests on one side, aligned against humans and nature on the other. You could say dam projects in the Amazon are a net good as compared to oil projects in the Amazon, but both have human costs that are passed by in silence, and in both cases you'll have people arguing it's for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:the fight against damming rivers for hydro because that particular valley looks nice after all these years, I've found it - the worst thing ever posted in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 10:10
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:I don't think this argument is as powerful as you seem to think it is. It can be easily turned on its head by the observation that you're drawing a distinction between "useful" and "useless" nature, and we humans are nature. Consider that opposition to dam projects often comes from minorities that live on the land that's about to be dammed. You're glossing over them along with the nature you describe as deriving its only value from "that valley looks nice". Yeah, agreed not every hydro project is a gain - far from it. Daming the Franklin river in the 80's in Australia was not going to help the environment in any way, shape of form (because it was not for substituting coal or gas). It was purely to provide marginally cheaper power to sectional interests that would not have translated to feeding the malnourished. Trying to keep sentences concise is going to make it hard to include all the good and required effort that goes into how to move people in an equitable way, including special efforts to look after vulnerable persons individually not able to negotiate effectively in their own fair interests. But then if we agree that a communities view is his inalienable castle than I know you will also all be supportive of the effectively a (an easily bought) veto local community members have in Germany on wind farms that is currently crushing further rollout of wind there. It is not pitting human rights against conservational rights, the original comment was about taking actions now to preserve the environment beyond human existence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Yeah, agreed not every hydro project is a gain - far from it. Daming the Franklin river in the 80's in Australia was not going to help the environment in any way, shape of form (because it was not for substituting coal or gas). It was purely to provide marginally cheaper power to sectional interests that would not have translated to feeding the malnourished. I'm really torn on the wind farm thing. I suspect the opposition often is rooted less in aesthetics, and more in issues of involvement, control and profits. If development starts out by recognizing that unspoiled nature has a value (because it obviously does) and the local community is involved in the planning from the beginning and given more control/ownership, it might solve some of the issues. You'll see people who're upset and surprised when the plans are announced with absolutely no input from them, for some abstract investment group to profit off of. So I think some of the conflicts can be avoided by just not going about the development in a boneheaded way, and finding ways for locals to immediately benefit from it. It's a difficult issue of course, and obviously there are bad actors too, but in order to phase out fossils we should be willing to put a lot more on the table, even profits. quote:It is not pitting human rights against conservational rights, the original comment was about taking actions now to preserve the environment beyond human existence. I find that people who do the actual work in those fields are almost always about conserving things for their own sake, not because they're useful. They may present a utility argument to get others to care, though. I took "environment beyond human existence" as roughly equivalent to "nature that doesn't confer any benefit to humans". It seems like a reasonable interpretation given the context. So maybe I misunderstood you, but assigning effectively zero value to that, or saying that e.g. chimpanzees or elephants have no rights and must always lose to human development seems extreme. And if they do have value, it's not that it individually can surpass that of human life, but rather that clear-cut trolley problem style situations are rare. You should be thinking less "tiger attacking person" (wherein you obviously put down the tiger), and more about poachers killing relatively "useless" endangered animals for economic benefit which may ultimately help someone in their community pay their medical bills. There are much better and more equitable attempted solutions to the latter problem than deregulating hunting ("attempted", because the latter wouldn't really solve it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:I'm really torn on the wind farm thing. I suspect the opposition often is rooted less in aesthetics, and more in issues of involvement, control and profits. If development starts out by recognizing that unspoiled nature has a value (because it obviously does) and the local community is involved in the planning from the beginning and given more control/ownership, it might solve some of the issues. You'll see people who're upset and surprised when the plans are announced with absolutely no input from them, for some abstract investment group to profit off of. The film "Planet of the Humans" outright lied about the Vermont Wind Farm they claimed was as bad as strip mining,   Gibbs’ footage is shot in fog, so there’s no perspective or scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The film "Planet of the Humans" outright lied about the Vermont Wind Farm they claimed was as bad as strip mining, Sounds like a bad movie if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
I really don't have any desire to watch Planet of the Humans, but for anybody that has: what's the take-away? It seems from what I have read that in the film they do a bunch of concern trolling about how clean, green tech is actually Very Bad. What do they then propose?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:I really don't have any desire to watch Planet of the Humans, but for anybody that has: what's the take-away? It seems from what I have read that in the film they do a bunch of concern trolling about how clean, green tech is actually Very Bad. What do they then propose? It doesn't really have a proposed solution. It's more of a film about the implausibility of using renewable energy to 'beat' climate change and the links between green organizations and international capital. Insomuch as it discusses climate change as problem that could be solved, it states that energy sources like solar, biomass and wind power can't stop climate change because economic and population growth are continuing unchecked, because those renewable energy sources still use non-renewable minerals for plants/turbines to be built, and because battery technology has not improved enough to deal with the problem of intermittency for full-scale use. If there's any solution proposed, it's basically the destruction of growth-driven capitalism across the world, though most of the runtime is devoted to attacking those three types of renewable energy instead. The film was recently reposted to YouTube, so those who are interested can watch it, though as someone who did, I don't really think it's worth 90 minutes of your time. Even if you agree with the underlying thesis of "stop capitalism to save the planet", the way that the film focuses on how solar panels and wind turbines won't entirely solve the problem is quite myopic. They did, however, post a "Fact Check Bible", to attempt to counter the criticism the film has received. JfishPirate fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
JfishPirate posted:If there's any solution proposed, it's basically the destruction of growth-driven capitalism across the world Where do I sign up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 04:18
|
|
