10 ms·

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 mo

by 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.
    - collyw 10y ago
      The reduced pollution would probably reduce at least some of the health care costs. Plus we spend way too much on wars and killing people ("defense"). Use some of that money first.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I'll give you an example. I live in Ithaca, NY, not far from some of the richest shale gas deposits in the United States. This town is also ground zero for fracking hatred. Post something awful about fracking, and people will eat that shit up whether it's true or not. I know, because I was one of them. Then I started dating a hydrogeologist. As luck would have it, her very MS thesis was on fracking. She dispelled rumors left and right: "fracking causes earthquakes!" - actually it's poorly built injection wells and wastewater storage that causes earthquakes; "fracking injects radioactives and other poisons into our groundwater!" - nope, the fluid itself is relatively benign (except for a single phase of high-concentration HF/HCL) and the radioactives are actually pumped UP from the crust, not the other way around. And as much as we hippies like to believe - the 60s/70s never really ended in Ithaca - our town is powered by dirty, dirty coal, not magical fairy dust; natural gas would hugely reduce our CO2 emissions. Point is, it's fair to be scared. Improper fracking CAN cause earthquakes, it CAN poison groundwater, but it is very obvious where and how it happens, and it can be regulated and prevented. The only real problems arise when people refuse to reconsider their opinions in the face of facts.
- tremon 10y ago
  The only real problems arise when people refuse to reconsider their opinions in the face of facts. But your fact is just another one's opinion. We have had ample examples in the last fifty years where "science" has been abused with a for-profit motive (tobacco and nutrition are useful examples, as is this article). It's not fair to blame "hippies" for ignoring "science", unless you're also willing to blame media, politics and business alike for overstating the "certainty" of scientific knowledge.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    It is quite fair to blame hippies for ignoring science. Propaganda works on everyone. It is nobody's job but your own to do due diligence. Yes, the media, politicians and so on has a tendency to proclaim falsehoods as facts - nutrition advice and policy being a great example - but our legal system requires a modicum of intent to assign liability, just as society accepts that requirement for blame. (Blah blah criminal negligence other exceptions I fucking hate how defensively I have to write on the internet these days just to get a point across without leaving a tiny detail open for someone to slam for karma). >But your fact is just another one's opinion. That is a very dangerous perspective. Our understanding of the universe is always changing. But eschewing accepted science without a compelling alternative because it could be wrong is a path to nowhere but President Trump.
rquantz 10y ago
Sure we do. Cap and trade. Boom.
dave2000 10y ago
Well, no, don't look at the warnings as entertainment one might tire of (although I appreciate that news is typically presented that way); more as a warning one should heed.
gohrt 10y ago
Transfer payments to old people aren't mentally exhausting. What's interesting is what those old people spend the money on. macroscopically, what matters is what money motivates people to do, who handles the money is just a means.
freshhawk 10y ago
> no solutions or actionable items Well that's not true, they have no palatable solutions or actionable items. No new toy to buy that will fix things, no low effort/high status ritual to perform. Just a bunch of changes that involve sacrifice on our parts, and involve organizing large groups of people and trying to get them to plan for the future and then act in accordance with this plan. Also some of these choices will result in immediate harm to some people for the sake of future harm prevention, so these are quite easy to argue against using the inherent uncertainty of preventing future harm. tldr; The problem with the doom sayers is that they have no solutions or actionable items that allow me to consume more things, so we say "fuck that"
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  The greatest impediment to attaining fully renewable energy generation and ending climate change is that our biggest opponents in this conflict are ourselves and our insatiable desires.
- b1daly 10y ago
  The problem with doomsayers is that they are under the influence of a common, but powerful, pattern of thinking that heavily biases their perception and reasons about reality to be highly negative. I think of it as "chicken little-ism" and, as parables so often do, it illustrates that nuanced knowledge of the psychological pitfalls has been well understood for centuries. Yet, somehow even highly educated, professional, scientists seem to be just as susceptible to its lure as the rubes who attend Donald Trump rallies, who are convinced not "the world is going to hell in a hand basket" but that e journey has been completed. Paul Erlich could be the poster boy for this group. He's still at work, announcing doomsday scenarios to this day. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915/ https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich... Which illustrates the cost of giving in to this psychological bias. Should we believe him this time? Wasn't there some other parable about this kind of thing, with a wolf and a young male of our species?
wiggity 10y ago
I found Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change" (http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/) a refreshingly action-oriented exploration of your question ("but what?"). Its interactivity and richness of presentation are icing on the cake. Incidentally, one can imagine a parallel message of informed empowerment to address the dark sides of OP's UI "mind hijacks."
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  Thanks. There is a lot more that could be done in that style of action oriented discussion.
sullyj3 10y ago
Switch to nuclear energy
collyw 10y ago
Adjust our economy to a resource based economy. The Zeitgeist movie a few years back came up with some decent proposals. Sure they might not be perfect, but they seem to be looking in the right direction.

by cpt1138 10y ago

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.
  - collyw 10y ago
    The reduced pollution would probably reduce at least some of the health care costs. Plus we spend way too much on wars and killing people ("defense"). Use some of that money first.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

I'll give you an example. I live in Ithaca, NY, not far from some of the richest shale gas deposits in the United States. This town is also ground zero for fracking hatred. Post something awful about fracking, and people will eat that shit up whether it's true or not. I know, because I was one of them. Then I started dating a hydrogeologist. As luck would have it, her very MS thesis was on fracking. She dispelled rumors left and right: "fracking causes earthquakes!" - actually it's poorly built injection wells and wastewater storage that causes earthquakes; "fracking injects radioactives and other poisons into our groundwater!" - nope, the fluid itself is relatively benign (except for a single phase of high-concentration HF/HCL) and the radioactives are actually pumped UP from the crust, not the other way around. And as much as we hippies like to believe - the 60s/70s never really ended in Ithaca - our town is powered by dirty, dirty coal, not magical fairy dust; natural gas would hugely reduce our CO2 emissions. Point is, it's fair to be scared. Improper fracking CAN cause earthquakes, it CAN poison groundwater, but it is very obvious where and how it happens, and it can be regulated and prevented. The only real problems arise when people refuse to reconsider their opinions in the face of facts.

tremon 10y ago
The only real problems arise when people refuse to reconsider their opinions in the face of facts. But your fact is just another one's opinion. We have had ample examples in the last fifty years where "science" has been abused with a for-profit motive (tobacco and nutrition are useful examples, as is this article). It's not fair to blame "hippies" for ignoring "science", unless you're also willing to blame media, politics and business alike for overstating the "certainty" of scientific knowledge.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  It is quite fair to blame hippies for ignoring science. Propaganda works on everyone. It is nobody's job but your own to do due diligence. Yes, the media, politicians and so on has a tendency to proclaim falsehoods as facts - nutrition advice and policy being a great example - but our legal system requires a modicum of intent to assign liability, just as society accepts that requirement for blame. (Blah blah criminal negligence other exceptions I fucking hate how defensively I have to write on the internet these days just to get a point across without leaving a tiny detail open for someone to slam for karma). >But your fact is just another one's opinion. That is a very dangerous perspective. Our understanding of the universe is always changing. But eschewing accepted science without a compelling alternative because it could be wrong is a path to nowhere but President Trump.

rquantz 10y ago

Sure we do. Cap and trade. Boom.

dave2000 10y ago

Well, no, don't look at the warnings as entertainment one might tire of (although I appreciate that news is typically presented that way); more as a warning one should heed.

gohrt 10y ago

Transfer payments to old people aren't mentally exhausting. What's interesting is what those old people spend the money on. macroscopically, what matters is what money motivates people to do, who handles the money is just a means.

freshhawk 10y ago

> no solutions or actionable items Well that's not true, they have no palatable solutions or actionable items. No new toy to buy that will fix things, no low effort/high status ritual to perform. Just a bunch of changes that involve sacrifice on our parts, and involve organizing large groups of people and trying to get them to plan for the future and then act in accordance with this plan. Also some of these choices will result in immediate harm to some people for the sake of future harm prevention, so these are quite easy to argue against using the inherent uncertainty of preventing future harm. tldr; The problem with the doom sayers is that they have no solutions or actionable items that allow me to consume more things, so we say "fuck that"

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
The greatest impediment to attaining fully renewable energy generation and ending climate change is that our biggest opponents in this conflict are ourselves and our insatiable desires.
b1daly 10y ago
The problem with doomsayers is that they are under the influence of a common, but powerful, pattern of thinking that heavily biases their perception and reasons about reality to be highly negative. I think of it as "chicken little-ism" and, as parables so often do, it illustrates that nuanced knowledge of the psychological pitfalls has been well understood for centuries. Yet, somehow even highly educated, professional, scientists seem to be just as susceptible to its lure as the rubes who attend Donald Trump rallies, who are convinced not "the world is going to hell in a hand basket" but that e journey has been completed. Paul Erlich could be the poster boy for this group. He's still at work, announcing doomsday scenarios to this day. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915/ https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich... Which illustrates the cost of giving in to this psychological bias. Should we believe him this time? Wasn't there some other parable about this kind of thing, with a wolf and a young male of our species?

wiggity 10y ago

I found Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change" (http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/) a refreshingly action-oriented exploration of your question ("but what?"). Its interactivity and richness of presentation are icing on the cake. Incidentally, one can imagine a parallel message of informed empowerment to address the dark sides of OP's UI "mind hijacks."

bjelkeman-again 10y ago
Thanks. There is a lot more that could be done in that style of action oriented discussion.

sullyj3 10y ago

Switch to nuclear energy

collyw 10y ago

Adjust our economy to a resource based economy. The Zeitgeist movie a few years back came up with some decent proposals. Sure they might not be perfect, but they seem to be looking in the right direction.