6 ms·
1. They are not, hence your stance is disingenuous. The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale. By saying "The Earth will be fi
by yongjik 10y ago
1. They are not, hence your stance is disingenuous. The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale. By saying "The Earth will be fine," you are saying you don't find millions of deaths and suffering to be important enough to warrant a solution. And then when someone proposes a solution, because you don't like it, you bring out your hypothetical Bangladeshi farmer.
2. If you want to talk about "real human costs" of climate policy, you might want to pick a country that is not built upon a coastal flood plain that is routinely flooded[1]: Bangladesh is going to be among the countries hit hardest by climate change[2].
It makes me suspect that you don't care about human costs at all. On the other hand it did help me writing this rebuttal, so I guess all is well after all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh
> In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded, including half of the capital city Dhaka. ... 30 million people were made homeless and the death toll reached over a thousand.
[2] Same page
> The difference between historical and projected average temperatures each season throughout the world has revealed that harvests from major staple crops could drop by 40 percent by the end of the 21st century due to high temperatures in the growing seasons.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale." Well, I actually do care about people. So, there's that. "In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded, including half of the capital city Dhaka. ... 30 million people were made homeless and the death toll reached over a thousand." That's sad, all right. How many routinely died in famines before the advent of modern, high-energy, mechanized agriculture? Hint: a lot more than a thousand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770 Try ten million. And that was just one such event. They were routine in the days before mechanized agriculture and mechanized food transport. Happened all the time. Note that the article tries to blame this on the British (and they do appear to have been rather callous), but the primary cause was the failure of the monsoon. Nowadays if a monsoon fails you can truck in food from somewhere else. You can't do that without fossil fuels or some equivalent. Not to any real degree. "It makes me suspect that you don't care about human costs at all. " I'm not the one who wants to sentence the bulk of the human race to a preindustrial scenario involving periodic mass starvation. So, no.
- IanCal 10y ago"Reducing energy consumption" does not mean nobody can use tools from post 1800, and it also doesn't mean that nobody can help after a drought. There's even a quote in your link describing it as a man made famine.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"Reducing energy consumption" does not mean nobody can use tools from post 1800 Until you actually demonstrate functional and economic alternatives, that is exactly what it means.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]