Are they willing to let the world burn?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bricklayer, Feb 9, 2020.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are the eco-doomsayers willing to let the world burn if they cannot compel the few remaining climate denying holdouts to do what they think should be done before they do anything themselves? Must the solution be unanimous? Must the solution be compulsory?

    Aren't the eco-doomsayers the vast majority already? Aren't they like 97% or something?
    Aren't there just a few remaining climate denying hold outs left? I don't get it. Are they really willing to let the whole world burn unless they can get little old me to go along with them?

    In all honesty, I don't believe they're interested in saving the planet. I believe they're interested in minimizing the voluntary and maximizing the compulsory in an effort to keep human beings from multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it.
     
  2. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    8,138
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most don't care what you think.
     
  3. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are mostly correct, it is a political issue to get people elected and give governments more control over the people in order to direct money from the working class to the 1 percent.

    The big thinkers at the top of the political chain know there is never ever any hope that the people will accept the societal changes needed to actually stop global climate change. Feel-good measures that accomplish nothing but will make us poorer is all we can expect.
     
    modernpaladin, Hotdogr and bricklayer like this.
  4. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me? Who asked about me?
    Are you willing to let the world burn? Are you willing to do nothing voluntarily unless you can compel the few remaining climate deniers to do what you won't do voluntarily?
    Don't most people agree with you? Aren't you in the vast majority? Something like 97%?
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who cares about how much those with the most have? They're not wealthy because I'm poor anymore than they're fat because I'm skinny. So, who cares.
     
  6. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was an interesting experiment, if you put a frog in boiling water, she will jump away in a second. However, if you bring gradually the temperature to 100°, the frog won't move and die.

    I could be defined as an "eco-doomsayer". The problem is that the GDP is directly correlated to the amount of oil we consume.

    Among doomsayer, there is different profiles :
    Some don't want to make any efforts, and so they hope everything on the government. I think there is a lot of people who believe in that illusion that you can pollute less and consumming as much. I don't believe in that green energy bla bla.
    I want to reduce my consumption as I don't think there is any solution than consumming less. But like all people, I'm divided, I would always take the plane, even if I know it's a high source of carbon pollution, if I need to visit my family.
    That's quite alike to trying to stop to smoke, you know it's bad for your health, but you don't manage to stop.
    And even if I managed to divide my consumption by two, I know it would still be a drop of water in an ocean.

    I'm always amused by this expression "saving the planet", the planet is fine, it's just a rock with a fine layer of water and gas, it's not about saving the planet, but our lives or the one of our children.

    I'm quite pessimistic. I think that considering the momentum of our human civilization, nothing can prevent a major disaster.
    Beyond that, none of our cities, none of the human geography is organized in a way to spare energy.

    Let's hope I'm wrong.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. As a denier, I want to ask a thoughtful eco-doomsayer, like yourself, when eco-doomsday is supposed to come to pass? When are we going to see the sea level rise that Al Gore showed us in "An Inconvenient Truth" ? When are Miami Beach, Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard going to be evacuated? When are woke people going to sell beachfront property for pennies on the dollar ahead of sea level rise?

    I hear a lot of talk, but when I look at what those talking actually do …. We should all have the average carbon foot print of the top 100 doomsayers. we should all have Greta's or Al Gore's carbon footprint. When I consider what people do, I don't believe that anyone seriously considers ACGCC to be a threat. And, I don't believe that it's just a coincidence that eco-doomsayers just so happen to be those who, in general, seek to minimize the voluntary and maximize the compulsory.
     
    VotreAltesse likes this.
  8. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @bricklayer I don't think there is a clear line where we can says "okay, the disaster has begun".

    The climate change cause an increase of violent phenomenons, such as tornados, massive fire.
    Because it's an increase of rate, you can't say that a specific fire is because of climate change. There is already an increase of extreme climatic phenomenon. We could blame for instance australia fires on that even if there is maybe some arsonist (the fire could spread so much only because also of the increase of temperature that make forest dryer, and so more prone to get in fire). Basically, you can't blame a specific event but just a gradual increase of the rate of some phenomenons. That's why you can't say there would be a "dooms day" however, there would be a transition between an era to another, harsher from an ecological point of view. We could compare that to roman decadence, yes we could quote some breaking points, such as the plundering of rome, but the transition from antiquity to middle age happened on centuries.

    The comparison might be strange, but for instance, you can't define alcoholism by saying it's drinking ten drink a days, and saying 9 is perfectly fine, and magic, 10 become a sickness. There is phenomenons like that where it's hard to define from a quantitative point of view when the problem is.

    We live in a very interesting era.

    Climate change is far to be the only problem.
    Even from an ecological point of view, we could speak of the impoverishement of the fertility of soils, which is a problem for future farming, by the way plastic rubbish, decrease of number of fishs, the increase resistance to antibiotics that could make fear us a super epidemic, and so on.
    Where it become truly fascinating, it's the number of crisis which intricate themselves : we could speak for instance of the debt crisis, a global social crisis, the birth rate that is plummeting and a form of disintegration of social links.

    Seeing how much so many crisis, social, morale, financial, ecological, demographic is frightening, but fascinating.

    Even if we would set the ecological problems, there is another problem : or economy is entirely based on the exponantial consumption of fossile fuels and other limited ressources, there is a strong correlation between the amount of fossile fuels used and the height of GDP. Here is the problem : fossile fuels are limited ressource. Each time the price of oil had reached a too high amount, there is an economic crisis : in 73, and in 2008 (the price of oil was around 100 $ in 2005). Green energy won't solve anything. There is something called the accumulation effects, when mankind discovered oil, we didn't stop to use wood or coal, we used both and we added oil. That's why green energy won't solve the problem of the lack of oil.

    What I mean by that ? Well, the increase of extreme climatic events will have economic influence : drought that would affect negatively the number of food available, increasing the price of food, creating damages that would weaken the economy.

    The question is : will we face a slow decline because of the increasing rate of ecological disasters, or would it be a breaking point ?

    I think there would be a breaking point, but from a financial source, however indirectly caused by ecological problems.

    I suppose there would be a financial crisis in the future years, that would be a breaking point, or 410 plundering of Rome. How it would actually degrade the situation, it's hard to says.

    I'm not really a surivalist, but I think the biggest solution right now is to live back in the countryside and learn to be as self-sufficient as possible.

    For Miami, I suppose, you have still a few decades. Greta Thunberg is a naive young woman. She don't have any real plan. She said that she didn't have any thought about the TAFTA, but how can you ask for action and not ask for the relocalizations of economy. She don't have a plan, personnaly, I have one, decreasing our consumption and that a part of the population go back to the countryside and living in a much poorer way. But how many people would actually accept that ? Even among people that support ecology ?
    I'm not naive and know the answer : almost nobody would accept that.

    Sorry for the long text, it's hard to make shorter.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,981
    Likes Received:
    7,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see how it makes more sense to try to prevent climate change than to try to prepare for it. We will adapt to it. Its just a matter of how difficult it will be. Seems to me the more we try to prevent it (and no one is willing to guarantee that we even can), the less we are preparing to adapt to it. We should focus on adapting to it.
     
  10. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what you're saying is that ACGCC is happening at about the speed of evolution. It's happening so slowly that we will have no problem staying ahead of it.

    Exactly what percentage of climate change is man made?
     
  11. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I don't understand that acronym. No, it happens quicker, on the scale of decades/a century. About breaking point, I suppose it would be in the two next decades, and I suppose even in the next decade but it would be a breaking point not only on climatic issues.

    99 % ? I'm trusting the scientific community on that. I have some basis on science, but it is mostly a matter of trust. I don't trust what politician does with that information, and I would agree that many "ecological" measures made by politician are rarely made to really protect the safety of mankind.
    I noticed there were a change of speech among climate denier, 2 decades ago was : there is no climate change, now it is : climate change isn't man made.

    Climate already changed anyway, we can't go back, and it will continue to change. So yes, anyway, we don't have any choice than adapt.

    However, if there is too much hot days or extreme climatic events, it could destroy a part of the food supply of humanity, possibly leading to the back of starvation, which was until now disappearing.
     
  12. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,294
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    99%? WTH? If 99% of climate change is man made, then only 1% is not. That means that, apart from human contributions, this is the closest our climate has ever been to being absolutely stable. That's ridiculous.

    The climate has changed much faster many times before and most of those times were before humans even existed.
    If you're suggesting that 99% of climate change is man made, then only 1% is not. That's absurd. Never, ever, has our climate been that stable. That's ridiculous.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,989
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Precisely who are the eco-doomsayers, and why do you call them that? Give specific examples, with links, of who these people are, and why you call them eco-doomsayers. Then demonstrate that people here fall into that category. If you're not just engaging in mindless namecalling and propaganda, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

    Why do you keep telling the big lie that the rational and moral people aren't already doing things themselves? You're not fooling anyone with that lie, and it destroys your credibility.

    Demonstrate that "compulsory" is "bad". After all, taxation is compulsory. Does that make it bad? You're reaping the benefits of modern society, so you're expected to help maintain that society. Bragging about your right to freeload is not going to make you friends, because people don't like freeloaders.

    Nope, we'll just keep pointing out the dishonest and self-serving nature of your propaganda. At this stage, you're mainly interesting as a psychological study.

    So, you're a conspiracy theory believer. That's not surprising. The same lack of common sense that causes people to fall for one dumb conspiracy theory, like global warming denial, will also cause them to fall for bunches of other conspiracy theories.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  14. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm speaking of the current events, not the precedent climate change. To tell apart what's the exact part of man made change and natural of nowodays, the best would to let some experts speak, as I'm not trained in climatology.
    However, I would trust the scientific community when they says that nowodays climate change is mostly of human origin.
     

Share This Page