3 ms·
The answer to your question as I understand it is that conservatives (and libertarians) are never going to be OK with the idea that they need to participate in
by nickbauman 10y ago
The answer to your question as I understand it is that conservatives (and libertarians) are never going to be OK with the idea that they need to participate in collective action of any kind.
Conservatives and their fellow-travelers have an obsession with this idea that humans are and should always be completely discreet entities with the fewest inter-connecting responsibilities as possible. It's the ultimate narcissistic ideology. It doesn't help that when people believe that their best interests are when they're divided, they're most easily preyed upon by those who REALLY hold the reins of power. The conservative ideology is Condorcet's Secret writ large.
As you've probably deduced, heading off the worst effects of Climate Change is probably the biggest collective action problem humankind has yet encountered.
- droopybuns 10y agoSince you are the most scientific person here, could you talk about the oxygenation levels during interglacial periods? Also, what did humans do then to reduce CO2 emissions? Edit: Science doesn't win when you downvote inconvenient questions.
- mirimir 10y agoHumans don't need to do anything about CO2 emissions. We'll do whatever we do, they'll do what that leads to, and other stuff will go down accordingly. Humanity may go digital, so ecosystem disruption won't matter so much, except perhaps esthetically. But whatever happens, I suspect that the ride will get bumpy for a while. Edit: I'm not arguing against reducing CO2 emissions. I'm just saying that it probably won't happen. That shit will happen. And that, over the long term, natural selection will deal with it all.
- droopybuns 10y agoI completely agree with you. Unfortunately some truths are too offensive for science tourists.
- nickbauman 10y agoYeah, yeah. It turns out that it's unlikely that sea level was glacioeustatically higher than present by more than a few meters during any interglacial of the past 2.5 million years as a result of accounting for oxygenation levels during interglacial periods. A few meters affects billions. Are you liking those odds? There are a number of theories on what starts and stops ice ages, none of them having to do with human intervention, sure. Does that mean that the rise of CO2, especially if it comes from human activity, shouldn't be reduced now? I think not.
- droopybuns 10y ago2.5 million years far exceeds my expectation for human survival. You aren't comparing apples to apples when we are talking about date ranges that large. What are humans going to do that will prevent the dike from bursting when we are dealing with geologicial change? We might as well pretend we can stop earthquakes.