2 ms·

Your fifth paragraph (the personal note) is atrocious reasoning. It's the equivalent of saying "There won't be a housing crash. People have warned about that fo

by graeme 10y ago

Your fifth paragraph (the personal note) is atrocious reasoning. It's the equivalent of saying "There won't be a housing crash. People have warned about that for years, but each year home prices keep rising." The effects of the carbon we're releasing vastly exceed human lifespans. So you have to be prepared for the possibility that predictions will take decades to have a visible impact. The counter to your "we produce more food and feed more people claim" is that we've done so largely by drawing down capital stocks. Stored carbon, topsoil, aquifers, etc. We can't know that those increased support numbers are proof of anything. They might be, but we'd only know in hindsight. And by then it's too late.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Yes, I agree it is atrocious reasoning. It's probably not reasoning at all in the sense of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. I don't care because I'm emotionally exhausted by the situation. While I do think we should do something, it's not clear to me what I should do other than occasionally shout at the screen from my chair. I suppose I could vote Green or vote with my dollar, if I thought it would help. I could put solar panels on my roof, but I'm not a home owner so I can't. I could buy an electric car but I don't have tens of thousands of spare cash, nor the desire for a vehicle loan, because I'm trying to save for the deposit on a house. Maybe what I can do is seek solace in the knowledge that future generations will be able to look back and read that I was at least angered for a brief period by the circumstances I find myself in. And in the mean time I'm going to continue doing the things I like that make living worthwhile, which means driving 200+ kilometres one or twice a month to get to the surf or the mountains in my not-so-fuel-efficient camper van, and having the occasional steak. But that's just it isn't it, if 'saving the world' means giving up the things I like, I'm not interested, really, until there is zero friction and everyone else is doing it. And this is the revealed preference of almost all of us on this planet: we're too busy surviving, or too busy enjoying, to stop for a moment and think "should we be doing these things, no? okay let's change". And even when we acknowledge we should change, we don't. We're trying, but it's mostly token gestures. All the evidence suggests that dead people, previous generations, don't care much about the environment, and since the consequences / benefits to inaction / action are multiple decades out it is very hard for us to act now. I don't believe we, the global community, will act until our ability to survive is in immediate danger.
- graeme 10y ago
  Oh, actually I agree with you then. I don't think we'll do anything unless immediately threatened. If then. Our CO2 emissions have actually been growing. And any sort of gas/carbon tax that would actually alter behaviour is shouted down. And when we actually have immediate problems from warming, there will probably be pressure to focus on the short term aspects, such as famines or economic decline, and pressure to keep burning fossils fuels. Probably the only way out is to have some tech that makes t economically stupid to burn fossil fuels, because they're more expensive.

by graeme 10y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Yes, I agree it is atrocious reasoning. It's probably not reasoning at all in the sense of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. I don't care because I'm emotionally exhausted by the situation. While I do think we should do something, it's not clear to me what I should do other than occasionally shout at the screen from my chair. I suppose I could vote Green or vote with my dollar, if I thought it would help. I could put solar panels on my roof, but I'm not a home owner so I can't. I could buy an electric car but I don't have tens of thousands of spare cash, nor the desire for a vehicle loan, because I'm trying to save for the deposit on a house. Maybe what I can do is seek solace in the knowledge that future generations will be able to look back and read that I was at least angered for a brief period by the circumstances I find myself in. And in the mean time I'm going to continue doing the things I like that make living worthwhile, which means driving 200+ kilometres one or twice a month to get to the surf or the mountains in my not-so-fuel-efficient camper van, and having the occasional steak. But that's just it isn't it, if 'saving the world' means giving up the things I like, I'm not interested, really, until there is zero friction and everyone else is doing it. And this is the revealed preference of almost all of us on this planet: we're too busy surviving, or too busy enjoying, to stop for a moment and think "should we be doing these things, no? okay let's change". And even when we acknowledge we should change, we don't. We're trying, but it's mostly token gestures. All the evidence suggests that dead people, previous generations, don't care much about the environment, and since the consequences / benefits to inaction / action are multiple decades out it is very hard for us to act now. I don't believe we, the global community, will act until our ability to survive is in immediate danger.

graeme 10y ago
Oh, actually I agree with you then. I don't think we'll do anything unless immediately threatened. If then. Our CO2 emissions have actually been growing. And any sort of gas/carbon tax that would actually alter behaviour is shouted down. And when we actually have immediate problems from warming, there will probably be pressure to focus on the short term aspects, such as famines or economic decline, and pressure to keep burning fossils fuels. Probably the only way out is to have some tech that makes t economically stupid to burn fossil fuels, because they're more expensive.