4 ms·
No, what we need a catastrophe. People will stubbornly ignore inconvenient truths until they're undeniable and until the immediate cost of denying is higher tha
by akie 11y ago
No, what we need a catastrophe. People will stubbornly ignore inconvenient truths until they're undeniable and until the immediate cost of denying is higher than the cost of doing something. You see this in all areas of life (regarding healthy habits, for example), and I fear that unfortunately nothing substantial will happen until the shit hits the fan.
- ck2 11y agoI think you are missing how humanity typically keeps doing detrimental things even after catastrophes. Only thing that would stop this would be population decimation. Given the aging of our nuclear stockpiles or the possibility that Trump might be elected, we might get to see what decimation does. If we live.
- gjm11 11y agoI think Trump would be a terrible president (though probably less terrible than it feels like he would be) but it seems unlikely that he will decimate the human population. Even with the original meaning of "reduce by 10%" rather than "reduce to 10%".
- ck2 11y agoI'm actually more afraid of what he will do if he loses. He doesn't take demotions well. Yes I mean the Roman decimate. It's what the USA did to the Iraqi population.
- vixen99 11y agoAnd then we have the phenomenon of Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and scores of other distinguished intellects ignoring inconvenient truths! Will they be indicted for intellectual dishonesty if that ever becomes a crime?
- cholantesh 11y agoScores of 'distinguished intellects' who are still a minority among their peers and are often not even remotely connected to climate science. On your list, only Lindzen and Curry are, and both also engage in various strains of intellectual shadiness. This is not the conspiracy it's being made out to be.