3 ms·

There is no 'solution' to climate change becaus the climate changes. It's not even always a problem, either. It's like strong/weak currencies. Some people wa

by brc 11y ago

There is no 'solution' to climate change becaus the climate changes. It's not even always a problem, either. It's like strong/weak currencies. Some people want a strong currency, others want a weak currency. Adaptation to climate is what humans have always done and what humans will always do. The richer we are, the better we can adapt. It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. The problems faced by humans 100 years ago are mostly not problems anymore, because of the use of technology and greater productivity. Framing productivity and technology as the problems simply is code for trying to freeze progress. The greater issue is people using fear to try and gain more power. Fear of terrorism and fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power. Mostly this is by people who think they can reduce the chaos of life though better planning. While that is possible at the margin and at the micro level (better city planning results in better cities) at a level above that it breaks down and makes things worse. Central planning is, has been and always will be a disaster. Whenever you hear a politician advocating giving them more power so they can plan a better life for you, know that while they may sincerely believe it, it is more likely to make things worse for you.

orf 11y ago
> It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that. > fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power Except as far as I can see it those in power (at least in the US) are doing their best to deny climate change. And my whole point is the people in power are not doing enough, hence... you know, climate change.
- brc 11y ago
  What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.
  - orf 11y ago
    > what is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Clearly in this context someone who denies the impact man is having on the climate. > In this I am intellectually honest. And monstrously short sighted. American, I assume? > Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. Who said anything about stopping all production? That's obviously not going to happen. What should happen is a rapid reduction in the emission of gasses like CO2 through whatever means necessary. If that means you can't buy more cheap crap from China, or have to actually think about your fuel consumption so you can't drive down the block to buy a burger that's been frozen and flown in from thousands of miles away then so be it.
    - brc 11y ago
      So you define someone with labels and then argue against what you think that person thinks. Labelling and then arguing against that label is a good way to feel correct but fail to persuade. I am not American nor do I fit into any of the labels you wish to press onto my argument. I don't 'deny' that human activities have an impact on climate. There is scientific and physical evidence that this is true. It also passes the 'obviously' test because any change to the state of a system will have an impact on the system. What I do understand is that previous predictions as to the level and severity of impact are completely incorrect after several decades of study and predictions. On this even ipcc contributing scientists agree. What I also understand is that current policies are inconsequential even if the current sensitivity levels (which appear overstated) are correct. On this most politicians and activists agree as we can read from the sober observations from Paris. What is true is that trying to socially engineer changes by banning certain types of technology or use of technology, or by erecting grand schemes are all doomed to fail, and are a complete waste of time and resources. What will change things are the development of new technology. The best way to get that is to stop trying to distort resource allocation in a specific way, particularly as doing so diverts resources towards negative or low eroei reruns which further hampers the ability to deliver new tech and lowers the ability to adapt to a changing climate. If you're an activist, that's fine. But I write for the people reading this and thinking through positions, not to sway people by using labels and stereotypes.

by brc 11y ago

orf 11y ago

> It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that. > fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power Except as far as I can see it those in power (at least in the US) are doing their best to deny climate change. And my whole point is the people in power are not doing enough, hence... you know, climate change.

brc 11y ago
What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.
- orf 11y ago
  > what is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Clearly in this context someone who denies the impact man is having on the climate. > In this I am intellectually honest. And monstrously short sighted. American, I assume? > Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. Who said anything about stopping all production? That's obviously not going to happen. What should happen is a rapid reduction in the emission of gasses like CO2 through whatever means necessary. If that means you can't buy more cheap crap from China, or have to actually think about your fuel consumption so you can't drive down the block to buy a burger that's been frozen and flown in from thousands of miles away then so be it.
  - brc 11y ago
    So you define someone with labels and then argue against what you think that person thinks. Labelling and then arguing against that label is a good way to feel correct but fail to persuade. I am not American nor do I fit into any of the labels you wish to press onto my argument. I don't 'deny' that human activities have an impact on climate. There is scientific and physical evidence that this is true. It also passes the 'obviously' test because any change to the state of a system will have an impact on the system. What I do understand is that previous predictions as to the level and severity of impact are completely incorrect after several decades of study and predictions. On this even ipcc contributing scientists agree. What I also understand is that current policies are inconsequential even if the current sensitivity levels (which appear overstated) are correct. On this most politicians and activists agree as we can read from the sober observations from Paris. What is true is that trying to socially engineer changes by banning certain types of technology or use of technology, or by erecting grand schemes are all doomed to fail, and are a complete waste of time and resources. What will change things are the development of new technology. The best way to get that is to stop trying to distort resource allocation in a specific way, particularly as doing so diverts resources towards negative or low eroei reruns which further hampers the ability to deliver new tech and lowers the ability to adapt to a changing climate. If you're an activist, that's fine. But I write for the people reading this and thinking through positions, not to sway people by using labels and stereotypes.