4 ms·

Its worth noting that the world on average is 14% more green today than 20 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.bbc.com/n

Its worth noting that the world on average is 14% more green today than 20 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 The reality is that no one really know whats going to happen. Maybe we are doomed maybe we will do just fine, maybe an astroid will hit earth before we find out. Personally i dont think there is much we can do other than to charge on, keep growing our economies and develop new technologies and solutions to the problems nature always have presented us with.

agumonkey 8y ago
Maybe it's a rate ratio. 14% more green but 50% more toxic particles ? Not knowledgeable. Anyway, I could tolerate a lot more green anyway :)
- ThomPete 8y ago
  That's the point. We don't know and any claim to knowing exactly what's going to happen is simply charletanian. We know that earth is warming, we know humans have some effect but not how much, we know that it can have consequences that the oceans are rising but so far we haven't really been able to predict how it's going to affect things (there is natural erosion from the oceans which is unrelated to humans) I think the debate could be a lot more rational if people didn't paint themselves into corners such as the "climate catastrophist" and "climate deniers" in reality there is a lot of things we all agree on but these extreme views are taking everyone hostage to the point were I can't even comment on this without being downvoted (instead of pointing to where someone disagree). The debate certainly has gotten 50% more toxic :)
ageofwant 8y ago
No, we are pretty sure what is going to happen. You work with the evidence you have, what you know, not what you don't know. We cannot continue to 'grow' our economies, our economies need to fundamentally change. Unconstrained growth is economic cancer. The third industrial revolution will by necessity change what we currently understand economies to be: https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5zaq/watch-vices-new-documentary-the-third-industrial-revolution-a-radical-new-sharing-economy https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5zaq/watch-vices-new...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  We are sure that the planet is warming we are not sure how much humans affect this and what it will mean. If you want to stand a chance against whether you fear the environment will do to you need growth to be able to pay for the development of new technologies. Here is the paradox you are dealing with. We also know that growth and free markets help those who have access to it get out of poverty and much more prosperity. That means at least a couple of billion more people are hoping to get what you and I have. Are you going to tell them they can't have what you have? And if you are what are you going to offer them in return that they would care about. They don't care about the environment in any shape or form that you or me or any other westerner does. This is the paradox we are dealing with. If there is a third industrial revolution it certainly won't be based on the sharing economy that's not how humans work.
  - zajd 8y ago
    > We also know that growth and free markets help those who have access to it get out of poverty and much more prosperity. Growth and free markets are what is driving overconsumption
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      They also drive prosperity and have provided us with plenty of ways to deal with mother nature who's always been rough on us. If you think that living 200 years ago was a better life for most people just because they had more nature and couldn't consume as much I think you would be mistaken. You can't have your cake and eat it. Growth and prosperity comes with its own problems and challenges but I take those any day over an antigrowth philosophy.
      - ageofwant 8y ago
        You really need to deal with your straw-man fixation, or at least reserve it for people that may be impressed with it. 'Growth' as you are defining it, is unsustainable. Do you you know what 'unsustainable' means? It means it must stop. Not 'has to', 'would be nice to' but 'must'. It has a hard physical thermodynamic ceiling. Your philosophy has no future.

agumonkey 8y ago

Maybe it's a rate ratio. 14% more green but 50% more toxic particles ? Not knowledgeable. Anyway, I could tolerate a lot more green anyway :)

ThomPete 8y ago
That's the point. We don't know and any claim to knowing exactly what's going to happen is simply charletanian. We know that earth is warming, we know humans have some effect but not how much, we know that it can have consequences that the oceans are rising but so far we haven't really been able to predict how it's going to affect things (there is natural erosion from the oceans which is unrelated to humans) I think the debate could be a lot more rational if people didn't paint themselves into corners such as the "climate catastrophist" and "climate deniers" in reality there is a lot of things we all agree on but these extreme views are taking everyone hostage to the point were I can't even comment on this without being downvoted (instead of pointing to where someone disagree). The debate certainly has gotten 50% more toxic :)

ageofwant 8y ago

No, we are pretty sure what is going to happen. You work with the evidence you have, what you know, not what you don't know. We cannot continue to 'grow' our economies, our economies need to fundamentally change. Unconstrained growth is economic cancer. The third industrial revolution will by necessity change what we currently understand economies to be: https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5zaq/watch-vices-new-documentary-the-third-industrial-revolution-a-radical-new-sharing-economy https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5zaq/watch-vices-new...

ThomPete 8y ago
We are sure that the planet is warming we are not sure how much humans affect this and what it will mean. If you want to stand a chance against whether you fear the environment will do to you need growth to be able to pay for the development of new technologies. Here is the paradox you are dealing with. We also know that growth and free markets help those who have access to it get out of poverty and much more prosperity. That means at least a couple of billion more people are hoping to get what you and I have. Are you going to tell them they can't have what you have? And if you are what are you going to offer them in return that they would care about. They don't care about the environment in any shape or form that you or me or any other westerner does. This is the paradox we are dealing with. If there is a third industrial revolution it certainly won't be based on the sharing economy that's not how humans work.
- zajd 8y ago
  > We also know that growth and free markets help those who have access to it get out of poverty and much more prosperity. Growth and free markets are what is driving overconsumption
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    They also drive prosperity and have provided us with plenty of ways to deal with mother nature who's always been rough on us. If you think that living 200 years ago was a better life for most people just because they had more nature and couldn't consume as much I think you would be mistaken. You can't have your cake and eat it. Growth and prosperity comes with its own problems and challenges but I take those any day over an antigrowth philosophy.
    - ageofwant 8y ago
      You really need to deal with your straw-man fixation, or at least reserve it for people that may be impressed with it. 'Growth' as you are defining it, is unsustainable. Do you you know what 'unsustainable' means? It means it must stop. Not 'has to', 'would be nice to' but 'must'. It has a hard physical thermodynamic ceiling. Your philosophy has no future.