4 ms·

I find that this sort of eco-doomsaying much less constructive than the impressionable young men with inflated dreams. Regardless of how innefecient it is to f

by 627467 9y ago

I find that this sort of eco-doomsaying much less constructive than the impressionable young men with inflated dreams. Regardless of how innefecient it is to feed positive change through impossible dreams, insisting on idea that humans are self-destructive species that will destroy themselves and what's around them is borderline neurotic and ignores the continuum-nature of evolution of Earth. Humans have been terraforming the planet since life has appeared on here.

throwaway5752 9y ago
I doubt that you know the science here very well if you think this is neurotic. AGW won't destroy life on Earth, just a bunch of it. We'll also probably relegate most human civilization to northern parts of North America and Asia. The process of that happening will, bluntly, will be warfare and genocide. The sea level increases will destroy quadrillions of dollars of current value of investment in infrastructure. We will have used up all easily accessible sources of hydrocarbon, mineral, metal, and radioactive deposits. I'm sure than 500M-1B humans will figure out a new way to get buy, but it will be very different that what you or I would be used to. I'm unabashedly cynical on this. We've known about this for over 30 years, and have seen predictions turn out correctly in real time for 20. It's like http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html, except replacing them with the broader population and scientists. Read stuff like this: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.12...
- rybosome 9y ago
  I believe this, which is why I've stopped keeping up with environmental news. It's so fucking depressing and sours my enjoyment of the life I have now. If things genuinely will shake out this way, I want to have enjoyed the sweet life while I had it.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    Okay, I missed it. I think that's a very reasonable path if you don't have kids.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    It has to be depressing to persuade people that it's important by scaring them and removing all hints of possible ways out other than reducing fossil fuel use. Reality won't be as bad as the impression the news and climate change battlers give. Eg the IPCC predicts a 1 foot sea level rise in 100 years. Watching the news, you'd think it was 6 ft. Those are both extreme values due to uncertainty.
    - throwaway5752 9y ago
      https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projections/empirical-projections https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projection... It's actually 1-6 feet in 80 years, now, and current models predict slower rise that is being currently observed, ie, risk to upside.
- averagewall 9y ago
  Quadrillions in infrastructure? China moved half it's population to cities in the past few decades and built the infrastructure to support them. They're still doing fine despite that huge cost. 100 years is a long time for a building.
- 627467 9y ago
  It's not the "natural sciences" that's telling me this is neurotic. Its the other sciences. It this persistent doom-saying state. Life's too short to be stuck inside the dark cocoon.

by 627467 9y ago

throwaway5752 9y ago

I doubt that you know the science here very well if you think this is neurotic. AGW won't destroy life on Earth, just a bunch of it. We'll also probably relegate most human civilization to northern parts of North America and Asia. The process of that happening will, bluntly, will be warfare and genocide. The sea level increases will destroy quadrillions of dollars of current value of investment in infrastructure. We will have used up all easily accessible sources of hydrocarbon, mineral, metal, and radioactive deposits. I'm sure than 500M-1B humans will figure out a new way to get buy, but it will be very different that what you or I would be used to. I'm unabashedly cynical on this. We've known about this for over 30 years, and have seen predictions turn out correctly in real time for 20. It's like http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html, except replacing them with the broader population and scientists. Read stuff like this: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.12...

rybosome 9y ago
I believe this, which is why I've stopped keeping up with environmental news. It's so fucking depressing and sours my enjoyment of the life I have now. If things genuinely will shake out this way, I want to have enjoyed the sweet life while I had it.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  Okay, I missed it. I think that's a very reasonable path if you don't have kids.
- averagewall 9y ago
  It has to be depressing to persuade people that it's important by scaring them and removing all hints of possible ways out other than reducing fossil fuel use. Reality won't be as bad as the impression the news and climate change battlers give. Eg the IPCC predicts a 1 foot sea level rise in 100 years. Watching the news, you'd think it was 6 ft. Those are both extreme values due to uncertainty.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projections/empirical-projections https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projection... It's actually 1-6 feet in 80 years, now, and current models predict slower rise that is being currently observed, ie, risk to upside.
averagewall 9y ago
Quadrillions in infrastructure? China moved half it's population to cities in the past few decades and built the infrastructure to support them. They're still doing fine despite that huge cost. 100 years is a long time for a building.
627467 9y ago
It's not the "natural sciences" that's telling me this is neurotic. Its the other sciences. It this persistent doom-saying state. Life's too short to be stuck inside the dark cocoon.