7 ms·

The lead hypothesis for Roman decline is disputed. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/lead-pipes-polluted-roman-drinking-water http://www.rsc.org/chemis

The lead hypothesis for Roman decline is disputed. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/lead-pipes-polluted-roman-drinking-water http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/lead-pipes-pollute... The demise of antibiotics is much overwrought. It won't happen, since researchers have basically solved the problem of cost-effectively finding an unlimited supply of new ones. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26701 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26701 In general people like seeing doom everywhere. To the extent this motivates some of them to do something about it, this is probably good. But it is very irritating when the doomsayers don't adjust their doomsaying based upon current scientific work.

closed 10y ago
> But it is very irritating when the doomsayers don't adjust their doomsaying based upon current scientific work. I love this line. It's like somebody just submitted doomsaying homework, and you are not taking issue with their premise per se, but taking off points for the sources they used.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Heh, yeah. It's like talking to climate "skeptics" - people who believe climate change is real but disagree on the level of human agency. You can show them graph after graph of greenhouse gas emissions being pumped into the atmosphere at alarming rates and they'll say "I'm not that alarmed, we don't know how much of an impact it will have." Meanwhile, coral reefs are bleaching, Florida is flooding, and we are experiencing record heatwaves AND snowfall. At the very least, it doesn't take much to make clear that we should still DO SOMETHING.
  - cpt1138 10y ago
    But what? The problem with the constant doom is that we get exhausted. At least in the US all we truly care about is war and old people (looking at where the money goes; http://whatwepayfor.com/ http://whatwepayfor.com/). The problem with the doom sayers is they have no solutions or actionable items that we can say yes or no to. Its just lions and tigers and bears 24/7.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Reduce our emissions. This has one potential and one actual effect. 1) Potential: If climate change is significantly affected by human output, then we may curb or counter the current climate trends. 2) Actual: Healthier environment for life on this planet. We won't have cities like Los Angeles used to be, or Beijing is now where people can barely go outside without taking a year off their life. This is, without a doubt, a good thing unless you explicitly want poorer health to be the norm.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Reminds me of a comic I see floated around Facebook from time to time of an auditorium of scientists seated beneath a banner reading "Climate Change Conference," and someone raises their hand and says something to the effect of "But what if we're wrong about climate change and we make a better world for nothing?"
        refurb 10y ago
        What happens if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on reducing CO2 emissions and it turns out it was all for naught? That money has to come from somewhere. It could be spent on healthcare, getting people clean water, etc. To me that would be a tragedy.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Yes. It would be tragic to cut out polluting forms of energy production that destroy rivers and lives.
        Solarsail 10y ago
        That's not first and foremost CO2, though. Many other forms of pollution tend to be far worse to local environment. Addressing those might involve things like catalytic converters on ships and the like.
        10y ago
  - panglott 10y ago
    Yea, climate change is ultimately a problem of risk and risk management. And the "climate skeptic" position that we can't assess the risks well is just amazing, as if we shouldn't worry because we can't tell how bad it could be, or how likely the worst effects are.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      Most climate skeptic people I talk to worry but claim that we shouldn't actively suppress and cut funding to research that could contradict the man made global warming hypothesis. I agree with them.
philovivero 10y ago
I'm worried about bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant. So I was excited to read the article you cited. > Don’t get me wrong—there is certainly no case for complacency at this stage. Oh. Okay. So unwarranted optimism is... unwarranted.

closed 10y ago

> But it is very irritating when the doomsayers don't adjust their doomsaying based upon current scientific work. I love this line. It's like somebody just submitted doomsaying homework, and you are not taking issue with their premise per se, but taking off points for the sources they used.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Heh, yeah. It's like talking to climate "skeptics" - people who believe climate change is real but disagree on the level of human agency. You can show them graph after graph of greenhouse gas emissions being pumped into the atmosphere at alarming rates and they'll say "I'm not that alarmed, we don't know how much of an impact it will have." Meanwhile, coral reefs are bleaching, Florida is flooding, and we are experiencing record heatwaves AND snowfall. At the very least, it doesn't take much to make clear that we should still DO SOMETHING.
- cpt1138 10y ago
  But what? The problem with the constant doom is that we get exhausted. At least in the US all we truly care about is war and old people (looking at where the money goes; http://whatwepayfor.com/ http://whatwepayfor.com/). The problem with the doom sayers is they have no solutions or actionable items that we can say yes or no to. Its just lions and tigers and bears 24/7.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Reduce our emissions. This has one potential and one actual effect. 1) Potential: If climate change is significantly affected by human output, then we may curb or counter the current climate trends. 2) Actual: Healthier environment for life on this planet. We won't have cities like Los Angeles used to be, or Beijing is now where people can barely go outside without taking a year off their life. This is, without a doubt, a good thing unless you explicitly want poorer health to be the norm.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Reminds me of a comic I see floated around Facebook from time to time of an auditorium of scientists seated beneath a banner reading "Climate Change Conference," and someone raises their hand and says something to the effect of "But what if we're wrong about climate change and we make a better world for nothing?"
      - refurb 10y ago
        What happens if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on reducing CO2 emissions and it turns out it was all for naught? That money has to come from somewhere. It could be spent on healthcare, getting people clean water, etc. To me that would be a tragedy.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Yes. It would be tragic to cut out polluting forms of energy production that destroy rivers and lives.
        Solarsail 10y ago
        That's not first and foremost CO2, though. Many other forms of pollution tend to be far worse to local environment. Addressing those might involve things like catalytic converters on ships and the like.
        10y ago
- panglott 10y ago
  Yea, climate change is ultimately a problem of risk and risk management. And the "climate skeptic" position that we can't assess the risks well is just amazing, as if we shouldn't worry because we can't tell how bad it could be, or how likely the worst effects are.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    Most climate skeptic people I talk to worry but claim that we shouldn't actively suppress and cut funding to research that could contradict the man made global warming hypothesis. I agree with them.

philovivero 10y ago

I'm worried about bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant. So I was excited to read the article you cited. > Don’t get me wrong—there is certainly no case for complacency at this stage. Oh. Okay. So unwarranted optimism is... unwarranted.