6 ms·

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change." -James Lovelock It's not that peopl

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change." -James Lovelock It's not that people are acting stupid and should know better, a lot of people are just incapable of understanding the implications of a complex situation like this.

tobltobs 10y ago
What is so complex about the situation? It is just that people don't wanna change their lifestyle and give a fuck about future generations.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  When compared to water scarcity, climate change is a very complex problem. The solutions to water scarcity are easy. Use less water, or make more water available. Both have an immediate effect. The solution to climate change is not simple. Yes, emit less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. But the amount of things you can supposedly do to achieve that are numerous and the effects are maybe not even visible in your lifetime.
Balgair 10y ago
Eh, stupidity is a pretty good reason, but I don't think it's that. If it was then the line should be : "Climate change = Shits fucked and will get even more fucked, yo." That is a simple enough line to tout even to a heroin addict. Climate change isn't all that complicated as a concept (exact predictions, yes, but like, 'the color blue' is pretty easy a concept even though like photons and retinal pigments and neurons aren't). Hanlon's Razor is: "never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to stupidity". Well, stupidity isn't really cutting it anymore, so I think you can start to say conspiracy is a reasonable answer now too.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  What I tried to say is that there's a difference between being stupid and being able to grasp the implications of a complex situation. People tend to be dismissive of the things they can't understand. When combined with uncertainty (who can we trust anymore) and paranoia (they are plotting against me), people are finding solace in conspiracy theories.
objectivistbrit 10y ago
People also fail to appreciate how much would need to be sacrificed to reach the emission reductions that are being demanded. (For example, the 80% reduction target the EU is pushing for). Slashing energy usage means slashing many of the benefits of living in a post-industrial society. Think living in one-room houses (no cheap heating), eating bread and potatoes in winter (no imported food), working locally with little career progression (no easy commuting) and many people returning to manual labour (no cheap machinery). All this to prevent 60cm-1m of sea level rise by 2100 - something we can manage, if we maintain the civilisation we have worked so hard to build.
- yongjik 10y ago
  That's FUD. Energy sources that emit little CO2 are being deployed commercially right now. Your argument is equivalent to saying, in the 60s, "These guys believe the future is in toy computers that fit under your desk. If they succeed, the majority of people will have to turn to abacuses to do their taxes."
  - objectivistbrit 10y ago
    Our long-term future is in nuclear and hydroelectric power. Our near-to-medium term future requires continued use of fossil fuels. Your summary of my argument is completely off-the-mark.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Heat: A combination of insulation, thoughtful design (south-facing glass, adjustable awnings, solar water heating, heat pumps vs. resistive electrical heat, etc.) and renewably sourced electricity go a long ways towards the heating issue. I live in a cold-ish city in a 2 bed apt with only electric storage heaters (which are awful) and pay for supposedly 100% renewable (wind/solar/geothermal) energy and my bill peaks at €65 a month in the winter. Commuting: There are also thousands of businesses within a 30 minute walk from my home. Not turning cities into parking lots and skidpads with a building dropped here and there helps. If I cycle, the number of businesses in that range increases by about a factor of 9. (I cycle around 3 times as fast as I walk, so can cover a distance roughly three times as far, or area ~9 times as great). If I don't like pedaling, an e-bike or 50-150cc scooter/motorcycle will get me even farther. Food: I'm not well informed enough on this to comment. Where I live already has pretty bland food with loads of bread and potatoes. Good burritos, though. I'd miss that. We'd probably eat a lot less meat. I could do with a better supply of soyrizo, anyway. Effects: Sea level rise is far from the only concern. Stronger storms, drought, the displacement of peoples and an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle, ocean acidification, and changing weather systems from the loss of the Arctic ice cap (and possibly a chunk of Greenland) are just a few of them. Also, I suppose this makes me impossibly impractical but hey, the loss of polar bears would make me sad. Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic; watching the forests of my home (California) be completely devastated by drought, heat, and beetles is a bummer, to put it mildly.

tobltobs 10y ago

What is so complex about the situation? It is just that people don't wanna change their lifestyle and give a fuck about future generations.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
When compared to water scarcity, climate change is a very complex problem. The solutions to water scarcity are easy. Use less water, or make more water available. Both have an immediate effect. The solution to climate change is not simple. Yes, emit less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. But the amount of things you can supposedly do to achieve that are numerous and the effects are maybe not even visible in your lifetime.

Balgair 10y ago

Eh, stupidity is a pretty good reason, but I don't think it's that. If it was then the line should be : "Climate change = Shits fucked and will get even more fucked, yo." That is a simple enough line to tout even to a heroin addict. Climate change isn't all that complicated as a concept (exact predictions, yes, but like, 'the color blue' is pretty easy a concept even though like photons and retinal pigments and neurons aren't). Hanlon's Razor is: "never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to stupidity". Well, stupidity isn't really cutting it anymore, so I think you can start to say conspiracy is a reasonable answer now too.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
What I tried to say is that there's a difference between being stupid and being able to grasp the implications of a complex situation. People tend to be dismissive of the things they can't understand. When combined with uncertainty (who can we trust anymore) and paranoia (they are plotting against me), people are finding solace in conspiracy theories.

objectivistbrit 10y ago

People also fail to appreciate how much would need to be sacrificed to reach the emission reductions that are being demanded. (For example, the 80% reduction target the EU is pushing for). Slashing energy usage means slashing many of the benefits of living in a post-industrial society. Think living in one-room houses (no cheap heating), eating bread and potatoes in winter (no imported food), working locally with little career progression (no easy commuting) and many people returning to manual labour (no cheap machinery). All this to prevent 60cm-1m of sea level rise by 2100 - something we can manage, if we maintain the civilisation we have worked so hard to build.

yongjik 10y ago
That's FUD. Energy sources that emit little CO2 are being deployed commercially right now. Your argument is equivalent to saying, in the 60s, "These guys believe the future is in toy computers that fit under your desk. If they succeed, the majority of people will have to turn to abacuses to do their taxes."
- objectivistbrit 10y ago
  Our long-term future is in nuclear and hydroelectric power. Our near-to-medium term future requires continued use of fossil fuels. Your summary of my argument is completely off-the-mark.
CalRobert 10y ago
Heat: A combination of insulation, thoughtful design (south-facing glass, adjustable awnings, solar water heating, heat pumps vs. resistive electrical heat, etc.) and renewably sourced electricity go a long ways towards the heating issue. I live in a cold-ish city in a 2 bed apt with only electric storage heaters (which are awful) and pay for supposedly 100% renewable (wind/solar/geothermal) energy and my bill peaks at €65 a month in the winter. Commuting: There are also thousands of businesses within a 30 minute walk from my home. Not turning cities into parking lots and skidpads with a building dropped here and there helps. If I cycle, the number of businesses in that range increases by about a factor of 9. (I cycle around 3 times as fast as I walk, so can cover a distance roughly three times as far, or area ~9 times as great). If I don't like pedaling, an e-bike or 50-150cc scooter/motorcycle will get me even farther. Food: I'm not well informed enough on this to comment. Where I live already has pretty bland food with loads of bread and potatoes. Good burritos, though. I'd miss that. We'd probably eat a lot less meat. I could do with a better supply of soyrizo, anyway. Effects: Sea level rise is far from the only concern. Stronger storms, drought, the displacement of peoples and an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle, ocean acidification, and changing weather systems from the loss of the Arctic ice cap (and possibly a chunk of Greenland) are just a few of them. Also, I suppose this makes me impossibly impractical but hey, the loss of polar bears would make me sad. Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic; watching the forests of my home (California) be completely devastated by drought, heat, and beetles is a bummer, to put it mildly.