b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Prevention would be best, but it’s a flat out falsehood to say it’s the only thing that would be effective. It's the only thing we know would be effective. Pure conjecture to assume we're gonna be able to science our way out of this catastrophe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: It's the only thing we know would be effective. Pure conjecture to assume we're gonna be able to science our way out of this catastrophe The down range affects are conjecture. Being able to get to zero emissions is conjecture. Don’t pretend like you’re approaching this from some grounded point of view that others aren’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signifyin(g)Monkey Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 42 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The only effective mitigation is prevention. Unless we start electing politicians who take climate change seriously, I am decidedly not. I think you’re underestimating the powers of human technological creativity. This is why the ‘doomsday’ view of climate change always strikes me as naively Malthusian in nature. I won’t deny that we might be in for some pain—humans can be a little slow on the uptake. It might be that the average Joe has to see the oceans rising up and burying a good third of the city or village he lives in before he gets truly motivated. But once humans are motivated to address a problem en masse—I.e., once it’s do-or-die for the average Joe—they tend to find an ingenious, didn’t-see-that-coming way to solve it. Maybe not overnight—but given enough time, they tend to find an answer. That’s how we got the horse and plough, weights and measures, vaccines...all the accumulated wonders of technological innovation that saved us not just from a Malthusian apocalypse, but innumerable others that ought to have done us in, but didn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 29 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said: I think you’re underestimating the powers of human technological creativity. This is why the ‘doomsday’ view of climate change always strikes me as naively Malthusian in nature. I won’t deny that we might be in for some pain—humans can be a little slow on the uptake. It might be that the average Joe has to see the oceans rising up and burying a good third of the city or village he lives in before he gets truly motivated. But once humans are motivated to address a problem en masse—I.e., once it’s do-or-die for the average Joe—they tend to find an ingenious, didn’t-see-that-coming way to solve it. Maybe not overnight—but given enough time, they tend to find an answer. That’s how we got the horse and plough, weights and measures, vaccines...all the accumulated wonders of technological innovation that saved us not just from a Malthusian apocalypse, but innumerable others that ought to have done us in, but didn’t. I personally believe that while we won't do much to prevent climate change, we will be fairly successful at mitigating some of the damage. Having said that...you're only successful until you aren't. We've been lucky in the past with coming up with ingenious solutions to problems, but that doesn't guarantee future success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Look. Are we fucked from the climate? I don't know. What I do know is I'm having empanadas for dinner. Humanity is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 16 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The down range affects are conjecture. Being able to get to zero emissions is conjecture. Don’t pretend like you’re approaching this from some grounded point of view that others aren’t. We can get to zero emissions, or at least net zero, but it will take a lot of effort and political will, and we have to act quickly. 9 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said: I think you’re underestimating the powers of human technological creativity. This is why the ‘doomsday’ view of climate change always strikes me as naively Malthusian in nature. I won’t deny that we might be in for some pain—humans can be a little slow on the uptake. It might be that the average Joe has to see the oceans rising up and burying a good third of the city or village he lives in before he gets truly motivated. But once humans are motivated to address a problem en masse—I.e., once it’s do-or-die for the average Joe—they tend to find an ingenious, didn’t-see-that-coming way to solve it. Maybe not overnight—but given enough time, they tend to find an answer. That’s how we got the horse and plough, weights and measures, vaccines...all the accumulated wonders of technological innovation that saved us not just from a Malthusian apocalypse, but innumerable others that ought to have done us in, but didn’t. We're not good at collective action problems, particularly one that is as relatively slow moving as climate change, and whose acute effects aren't as 1 to 1 as it is for regular chemical pollution (which we still have problems with, even on the intranational level). This isn't something that can be quickly fixed once we get to a tipping point either. Hell, we already see sunshine high tide flooding in parts of Florida today and still nothing. It's scientifically ignorant to say that we just need some motivating factor to get a solution to pull carbon from the air at an industrial level, when the problem is from carbon, the side product of a highly exothermic reaction, and is damn difficult to reverse outside of photosynthesis (which still requires a tremendous amount of energy from the sun). We know the chemistry, it isn't hard or complicated. We're not lacking knowledge, like in your other examples, we lack the will and the economics to make the change. That's what makes climate change so unique and difficult. (Side bar, the Montreal protocol isn't a good example either, as the scale of fossil fuel pollution is far larger, with associatedly larger entrenched interests, and it had a more acute effect on the environment) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: We can get to zero emissions, or at least net zero, but it will take a lot of effort and political will, and we have to act quickly. Globally, no, not without major technological improvements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 45 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said: I think you’re underestimating the powers of human technological creativity. This is why the ‘doomsday’ view of climate change always strikes me as naively Malthusian in nature. I won’t deny that we might be in for some pain—humans can be a little slow on the uptake. It might be that the average Joe has to see the oceans rising up and burying a good third of the city or village he lives in before he gets truly motivated. But once humans are motivated to address a problem en masse—I.e., once it’s do-or-die for the average Joe—they tend to find an ingenious, didn’t-see-that-coming way to solve it. Maybe not overnight—but given enough time, they tend to find an answer. That’s how we got the horse and plough, weights and measures, vaccines...all the accumulated wonders of technological innovation that saved us not just from a Malthusian apocalypse, but innumerable others that ought to have done us in, but didn’t. "Well yes climate change is going to cause a significant amount of human suffering, but it probably won't cause a complete extinction of human society. Once the suffering gets bad enough I think we'll find a solution" is not really a very optimistic outlook on the future of humanity IMO. I also think that the idea that "we always solve problems when the consequences get bad enough" is being extremely optimistic. Technological development alone isn't going to pull us out of the woodchipper unless we have some miraculous discovery very soon. Here's a hypothetical: tomorrow the University of Utah (lol) announces they have developed a commercially viable fusion reactor. It would still take years, probably decades before the majority of power production was replaced by such a device. And then, it would take decades after that to get to the point where the climate stopped warming. If this miraculous technological development you're hoping for isn't going to happen until after we're seeing coastal cities and island countries getting submerged, I don't think I'm being pessimistic to say that it's probably too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 21 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Globally, no, not without major technological improvements. If we (Americans and the west generally) don't change our consumption habits and built environment, this is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: If we (Americans and the west generally) don't change our consumption habits and built environment, this is correct. You are the only person I’ve ever come across who thinks climate change can be solved without major technological advances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 17 minutes ago, sblfilms said: You are the only person I’ve ever come across who thinks climate change can be solved without major technological advances. What major technological advances do we need to combat and solve climate change? Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and carbon neutral biomass all work, it's a matter of economics. Transportation/the built environment needs a massive rehaul, but is doable today. There are thing that will need a massive complete reorganization, like our farming supply chains; where our food comes from and how it is grown. But it is largely a solved problem, just a matter of economics (as right now we rely on cheap transportation supply chains across the globe which may not be economical in a zero net carbon future) Metals and concrete are the major problems. These we will need to use less of, for one, and for two we may need to offset the carbon produced here by burying carbon back in the ground (for example). We will end up using less of these materials if we change how we build cities and transportation systems. But doing what we know works now (electric generation and fixing the built environment) buys time for science to fix the metals and concrete issues, along with reorganization of entire supply chains in so many industries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 A significant reduction in the human population would also positively impact climate change. It's been established that the period of the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan reduced carbon dioxide levels measurably. I just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: A significant reduction in the human population would also positively impact climate change. It's been established that the period of the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan reduced carbon dioxide levels measurably. I just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration. Western population. The global south didn't cause this, and their emissions are miniscule compared to ours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 18 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: A significant reduction in the human population would also positively impact climate change. It's been established that the period of the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan reduced carbon dioxide levels measurably. I just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration. The Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs also most likely lead to global cooling. The world needs to abandon car culture. Cars are a blight. We make cities fit for cars but not fit for humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 16 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: The Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs also most likely lead to global cooling. The world needs to abandon car culture. Cars are a blight. We make cities fit for cars but not fit for humans. I wish I could use public transit and have it not take 10 hours to get to where I need to go. At my old job I lived about 20 minutes driving distance. One guy who I worked with for like 3 weeks lived near me and told me he had to leave 2 hours early to get to work on time since he had to take the bus. it’s all broken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 American public transit is a joke. Any random Warsaw Pact city from the mid 80s had better mass transit than your average American city. But it doesn't have to be that way. Other countries do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 8, 2020 Author Share Posted January 8, 2020 12 hours ago, Massdriver said: Unfortunately, this is exactly how I thought the graphic would be greeted by some, as if the world can’t be getting better in some ways, even while we regress in others, and as if things can’t get better even if things are still bad. Carry on wallowing in sorrow. Forgive me for trying to offer a sliver of light and goodness to any subject here. I feel ya, but there's a reason I don't trust the graphic. That group that posted it is a climate change skeptic organization, and it comes from right-wing UK sources. That's why stuff like "look at all the wealth created" continues to be disingenuous bullshit because it continues to go to rich hands who already have wealth. And the stuff they retweet: It's ironic that fixing climate change would help some of the issues they talk about. I've been pretty clear to people who are broken post-2016 that the amount of people who turned to activism -- the environmental activists, the voting rights activists, the health care protests, the teachers' protests -- has really filled me with more optimism than I thought I'd have. I think things will get better. But that optimism is different from the disingenuous organization who shared that picture as their idea of "things getting better" is that climate change is making anything worse, and they're full of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 @SaysWho?, You can verify a lot of the stats from the graphic independently. There's no point in effort posting here. Literacy rates, absolute poverty, child mortality, look them up (edit literacy wasn't on the chart, was from other stats I'm familiar with). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 The implicit message of these articles/images is for you to ignore your lying eyes, things are getting better, not worse in many important aspects, so stop pushing for change as that might undo all the OBJECTIVE GOOD we've done. It's to suppress dissent in the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Massdriver said: @SaysWho?, You can verify a lot of the stats from the graphic independently. There's no point in effort posting here. Literacy rates, absolute poverty, child mortality, look them up (edit literacy wasn't on the chart, was from other stats I'm familiar with). Hey man, I enjoyed the graphic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Massdriver said: @SaysWho?, You can verify a lot of the stats from the graphic independently. There's no point in effort posting here. Literacy rates, absolute poverty, child mortality, look them up (edit literacy wasn't on the chart, was from other stats I'm familiar with). Don’t let people steal your optimism. This board is full of people who think everything is terrible all the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The implicit message of these articles/images is for you to ignore your lying eyes, things are getting better, not worse in many important aspects, so stop pushing for change as that might undo all the OBJECTIVE GOOD we've done. It's to suppress dissent in the status quo. That's not a psychologically healthy or even an objective way to perceive reality, but I can't stop you. Have fun with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 15 minutes ago, Massdriver said: That's not a psychologically healthy or even an objective way to perceive reality, but I can't stop you. Have fun with that. I'm not trying to reconcile terrible things are happening with things are getting better (but only getting uniformly better somewhere else, not where I and everyone I know live) while parroting propaganda from a Group that states the issue of the science of climate change is "not settled" but go off King. I can't imagine why such a group would have an interest in uncritically upholding or promoting the status quo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 19 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Don’t let people steal your optimism. This board is full of people who think everything is terrible all the time I consider optimism to be a degenerate psychological proclivity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 8, 2020 Author Share Posted January 8, 2020 46 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Don’t let people steal your optimism. This board is full of people who think everything is terrible all the time I'm responding to this because he referenced me in his post: I'm one of the only guys here who kept thinking good things would happen in 2017 and tides would turn, and made a post a few months ago to really upset and pessimistic members of the board about the enormous activism around the nation and world and how it makes me hopeful of the future, to the point that a couple members thought I just do some kind of triumphant movie pep talk. That doesn't mean I'm a moron who is going to be silenced by a disingenuous organization whose motives are for people not to do as much on climate change. 45 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Yeah, but... $5 million for an organization that is fighting back against the deliberate silencing of people's right to vote and gerrymandering bullshit is really damn good. We want him to use that money on something worthwhile; that's worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, SaysWho? said: Yeah, but... $5 million for an organization that is fighting back against the deliberate silencing of people's right to vote and gerrymandering bullshit is really damn good. We want him to use that money on something worthwhile; that's worthwhile. I'd rather him spend every dime he has giving money to good causes and beating Trump (better yet, these causes not need exist but anyway) but I still wont like the influence the wealthy have on our elections Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/476689-bloomberg-rises-to-third-place-alongside-warren-in-national-poll Quote The nationwide poll, which was released Friday, shows Bloomberg up from 5 percent to 11 percent support for the nomination nationally. The former New York City mayor is now in a dead heat for third place with top-tier candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who also received 11 percent support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Gross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 9, 2020 Author Share Posted January 9, 2020 15 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I'd rather him spend every dime he has giving money to good causes and beating Trump (better yet, these causes not need exist but anyway) but I still wont like the influence the wealthy have on our elections Can't argue with you there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Fuck me if it ends up as Biden vs Bloomberg due to Bloomberg's money. There needs to be severe spending limits put in place for democratic elections. And I bet if Bloomberg finishes second or third he will just launch an independent bid and re-elect Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Bloomberg has 0 path to the nomination. He won't even finish in third. Dude isn't even at 1% in Iowa or NH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 9, 2020 Author Share Posted January 9, 2020 51 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: Fuck me if it ends up as Biden vs Bloomberg due to Bloomberg's money. There needs to be severe spending limits put in place for democratic elections. And I bet if Bloomberg finishes second or third he will just launch an independent bid and re-elect Trump. Worse. Based on trends, it's very likely going to be Gabbard vs. Delaney. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbobo Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Dems are not picking a multi, mutli, mtuli-billionare in the primary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Bloomberg's greatest contribution to America should be buying Fox News. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.