4 ms·

> we are making one of the BEST trade-offs humanity has ever seen Either you believe that we are not heading to a near extinction-level event, that we will pre

by Jare 10y ago

> we are making one of the BEST trade-offs humanity has ever seen Either you believe that we are not heading to a near extinction-level event, that we will prevent it before it happens, or that such an event is a fair price to pay for enjoying a century of computers and iphones. The first option seems blind, the second baseless optimism, and the 3rd... I don't really know what to say. Is there a 4th?

demonshalo 10y ago
>The first option seems blind yea, just toss an opinion aside as blind because you don't like it. That will get people listening to your point of view!
PeterisP 10y ago
Do you believe that we are heading to near extinction-level event? As far as I have seen, even the most extreme predictions of climate change consequences don't come close to that. I have seen predictions expecting mass forced migrations, decrease in sustainable population, etc; but unless you're literally expecting the vast majority of the worldwide population to die, it's not an extinction-level event, it's not near extinction-level event, it's an entirely different ballpark. It might be a horrible catastrophe, it might change civilization as we know it, that's for sure, but there's really no valid reason to mention the term of extinction in this context. There are some risks/potential events that have a (low) chance of threatening extinction, but the expected climate change is not one of them.
- demonshalo 10y ago
  That's what I mean when I say they lack reason. The entire green movement's argument is an emotional one not a logical one.
- caf 10y ago
  I think "near-extinction" might be hard to credit - humans have survived tough times before - but I also don't think a mere "horrible catastrophe" sounds like a reasonable price to pay for the recent century and a half of rapid progress either.
- Jare 10y ago
  "Horrible catastrophe" works, but it doesn't stop there. How are humans and our political and military structures going to react? It is debatable how close we have been, during various past crisis, to an actual large-scale nuclear conflict. I don't think we can deny our raw capability to cause a near-extinction-level with our existing technology (nuclear, biological or otherwise). Our political and military ecosystems, flawed as they may be, have kept that capability in check. But would such a "horrible catastrophe" stress that ecosystem way past the point where it will remain confidently under control? Absolutely yes, I believe that beyond any reasonable doubt. With our global structure out of control, is there is a significant probability for that destructive capability to be put into action? Absolutely yes, I believe that probability to be significant, beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't see how it can't be otherwise.
  - lambdadmitry 10y ago
    Do I get this correctly? * climate change may lead to a "horrible catastrophe" of unknown substance with probability A * this "horrible catastrophe" may lead to a nuclear war with probability B * the nuclear war may lead to humanity's extinction with probability C * you are claiming that A * B * C is very close to 1 If that's right, I call bullshit. There is a ton of potential triggers for nuclear war besides climate change, we didn't have one yet and I can't see why climate change should be the biggest concern in this regard. Moreover, nuclear war is hardly an existential threat to humanity and may even cool the planet a bit.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    It's worth noting that only USA-Russia full "mutually assured destruction" nuclear exchange has the potential to come anywhere close to an existential threat. A limited nuclear exchange using up the arsenals of all other states does not; a nuclear escalation that results in USA or Russia nuking a non-nuclear state does not, etc. As long as USA and Russia (who between them hold almost all global nuclear weapons) keep their MAD reserves not triggered, it would simply be localized mass destruction on a scale comparable to the city/country destroying mass bombings of WW2. It would be horrible, it would be comparable to the largest mass killings of 20th century, but it wouldn't be anything that different from what we have survived in the past and it wouldn't be a "near extinction event". "Just" a horrible catastrophe.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Maybe not, but since when did climate change become the only environmental concern? It's as if we can just curb our appetite for fossil fuel in time, we'll be okay. But there are other pressures on the biosphere that clean energy isn't going to alleviate.

by Jare 10y ago

demonshalo 10y ago

>The first option seems blind yea, just toss an opinion aside as blind because you don't like it. That will get people listening to your point of view!

PeterisP 10y ago

Do you believe that we are heading to near extinction-level event? As far as I have seen, even the most extreme predictions of climate change consequences don't come close to that. I have seen predictions expecting mass forced migrations, decrease in sustainable population, etc; but unless you're literally expecting the vast majority of the worldwide population to die, it's not an extinction-level event, it's not near extinction-level event, it's an entirely different ballpark. It might be a horrible catastrophe, it might change civilization as we know it, that's for sure, but there's really no valid reason to mention the term of extinction in this context. There are some risks/potential events that have a (low) chance of threatening extinction, but the expected climate change is not one of them.

demonshalo 10y ago
That's what I mean when I say they lack reason. The entire green movement's argument is an emotional one not a logical one.
caf 10y ago
I think "near-extinction" might be hard to credit - humans have survived tough times before - but I also don't think a mere "horrible catastrophe" sounds like a reasonable price to pay for the recent century and a half of rapid progress either.
Jare 10y ago
"Horrible catastrophe" works, but it doesn't stop there. How are humans and our political and military structures going to react? It is debatable how close we have been, during various past crisis, to an actual large-scale nuclear conflict. I don't think we can deny our raw capability to cause a near-extinction-level with our existing technology (nuclear, biological or otherwise). Our political and military ecosystems, flawed as they may be, have kept that capability in check. But would such a "horrible catastrophe" stress that ecosystem way past the point where it will remain confidently under control? Absolutely yes, I believe that beyond any reasonable doubt. With our global structure out of control, is there is a significant probability for that destructive capability to be put into action? Absolutely yes, I believe that probability to be significant, beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't see how it can't be otherwise.
- lambdadmitry 10y ago
  Do I get this correctly? * climate change may lead to a "horrible catastrophe" of unknown substance with probability A * this "horrible catastrophe" may lead to a nuclear war with probability B * the nuclear war may lead to humanity's extinction with probability C * you are claiming that A * B * C is very close to 1 If that's right, I call bullshit. There is a ton of potential triggers for nuclear war besides climate change, we didn't have one yet and I can't see why climate change should be the biggest concern in this regard. Moreover, nuclear war is hardly an existential threat to humanity and may even cool the planet a bit.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  It's worth noting that only USA-Russia full "mutually assured destruction" nuclear exchange has the potential to come anywhere close to an existential threat. A limited nuclear exchange using up the arsenals of all other states does not; a nuclear escalation that results in USA or Russia nuking a non-nuclear state does not, etc. As long as USA and Russia (who between them hold almost all global nuclear weapons) keep their MAD reserves not triggered, it would simply be localized mass destruction on a scale comparable to the city/country destroying mass bombings of WW2. It would be horrible, it would be comparable to the largest mass killings of 20th century, but it wouldn't be anything that different from what we have survived in the past and it wouldn't be a "near extinction event". "Just" a horrible catastrophe.
goatlover 10y ago
Maybe not, but since when did climate change become the only environmental concern? It's as if we can just curb our appetite for fossil fuel in time, we'll be okay. But there are other pressures on the biosphere that clean energy isn't going to alleviate.