5 ms·

I don‘t like alarmism. Most of it is simply proven wrong in the long term. People are good at adapting most of the time. For example, I got myself air condition

I don‘t like alarmism. Most of it is simply proven wrong in the long term. People are good at adapting most of the time. For example, I got myself air conditioning in a country famous for skiing. People in poor countries will probably suffer much more, but they need to tackle their population growth issues anyway. In essence, there are life-changing problems affecting us every day (who would have thought 50 years ago that we‘d need barriers againt car attacks at all major public events?), don‘t obsess over one thing like some sort of religious freak („the end is nigh...“).

dm319 8y ago
I think alarmism is a retrospective assessment. We can probably say a lot of our reporting on current Western terrorism is alarmist - numbers wise, it didn't compare to road deaths or regular shootings. But global warming will be/is unprecedented and will affect the whole world. Immediate action is unlikely to reverse this process either. Your comment about population growth issues is disgusting.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > We can probably say a lot of our reporting on current Western terrorism is alarmist - numbers wise, it didn't compare to road deaths or regular shootings Because we have adapted. But how many are affected by the terror it involves? Terrorism = terrorizing people, not just murdering them. > But global warming will be/is unprecedented Erm, no. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
  - rotw 8y ago
    > Erm, no. Why do you bother commenting on this if you just flat-out refuse to accept scientific evidence in the original post?
- oceanghost 8y ago
  In any other context, an obsession with the end of the world would be evidence of mental illness.
CalRobert 8y ago
"who would have thought 50 years ago that we‘d need barriers againt car attacks at all major public events" To be honest, we still don't need them. Obviously it's horrible but considering that we accept ~1.25 million people a year killed on the roads (~25k in the EU, 30-40k in the US, or about one 9-eleven a month) it's probably not the best ROI. Though to be honest I think we should put massive barriers between cars and people anywhere we can, or just remove the cars wherever possible, but I'm odd that way. Like I said I hope I'm wrong, but right now it looks like all the earlier estimates were too conservative and to think that we can cause major disruptions to the world's food supply, as well as making some places simply uninhabitable without air conditioning, strikes me as naive. To think that you can do it while still planning a 401(k) and buying holiday houses on the beach a cheap flight away for when you retire seems especially naive (though I worry we'll still have the cheap flights, which would be a bummer unless they're electric). As far as population - it's true that we could stand to have far fewer people around, but even if your motivations are purely selfish, making hundreds of millions of people hungry, thirsty, and desperate doesn't sound like a good idea. And of course, most poor people emit basically nothing, so reducing the population of people living on under 5 dollars a day won't do much for the planet as a whole.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  I don‘t really want to play this game of stupid comparisons. Because then we don‘t need treatments for many uncommon diseases either. It‘s a fact that people demand these barriers for their peace of mind and cities build them.
konschubert 8y ago
I think you're falling for a fallacy of scale. The perceived need to add car barriers to public events ks nothing in comparison with having to air-condition homes and public spaces around the globe. Also, remember nature?
rotw 8y ago
> For example, I got myself air conditioning in a country famous for skiing. AC units are massive drivers of climate change. Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude. I don‘t care about your assessment. You are free to live in humility, poverty, extreme heat, whatever - if you think it will make you a superior human being. I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, without having to beg and wait for the whole world to stop burning fossil fuels, eating meat etc.
  - rotw 8y ago
    > I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, What gives you the right to all that at the direct expense of the people who can't afford it?
    - lazyjones 8y ago
      The right of the stronger, fitter. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care?
      - rotw 8y ago
        > The right of the stronger, fitter. Right, so why don't I just come along and murder you? I have the right, by your logic. Or, maybe, this Social Darwinism is fascist nonsense and you fully admit to being disgustingly amoral. > I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Human society is not "uncontrollable nature" or determined solely by biological evolution. Everything is a social and personal choice. > Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care? Really? The only reason to care about social wellbeing and people other than yourself is religion?
Daishiman 8y ago
This is some seriously shortsighted thinking. There's nothing you'll be able to do about oceanic anoxia, or a myriad other effects that are simply catastrophic. Speaking of skiing, good luck when those economies collapse when the brunt of tourism goes away.

dm319 8y ago

I think alarmism is a retrospective assessment. We can probably say a lot of our reporting on current Western terrorism is alarmist - numbers wise, it didn't compare to road deaths or regular shootings. But global warming will be/is unprecedented and will affect the whole world. Immediate action is unlikely to reverse this process either. Your comment about population growth issues is disgusting.

lazyjones 8y ago
> We can probably say a lot of our reporting on current Western terrorism is alarmist - numbers wise, it didn't compare to road deaths or regular shootings Because we have adapted. But how many are affected by the terror it involves? Terrorism = terrorizing people, not just murdering them. > But global warming will be/is unprecedented Erm, no. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
- rotw 8y ago
  > Erm, no. Why do you bother commenting on this if you just flat-out refuse to accept scientific evidence in the original post?
oceanghost 8y ago
In any other context, an obsession with the end of the world would be evidence of mental illness.

CalRobert 8y ago

"who would have thought 50 years ago that we‘d need barriers againt car attacks at all major public events" To be honest, we still don't need them. Obviously it's horrible but considering that we accept ~1.25 million people a year killed on the roads (~25k in the EU, 30-40k in the US, or about one 9-eleven a month) it's probably not the best ROI. Though to be honest I think we should put massive barriers between cars and people anywhere we can, or just remove the cars wherever possible, but I'm odd that way. Like I said I hope I'm wrong, but right now it looks like all the earlier estimates were too conservative and to think that we can cause major disruptions to the world's food supply, as well as making some places simply uninhabitable without air conditioning, strikes me as naive. To think that you can do it while still planning a 401(k) and buying holiday houses on the beach a cheap flight away for when you retire seems especially naive (though I worry we'll still have the cheap flights, which would be a bummer unless they're electric). As far as population - it's true that we could stand to have far fewer people around, but even if your motivations are purely selfish, making hundreds of millions of people hungry, thirsty, and desperate doesn't sound like a good idea. And of course, most poor people emit basically nothing, so reducing the population of people living on under 5 dollars a day won't do much for the planet as a whole.

lazyjones 8y ago
I don‘t really want to play this game of stupid comparisons. Because then we don‘t need treatments for many uncommon diseases either. It‘s a fact that people demand these barriers for their peace of mind and cities build them.

konschubert 8y ago

I think you're falling for a fallacy of scale. The perceived need to add car barriers to public events ks nothing in comparison with having to air-condition homes and public spaces around the globe. Also, remember nature?

rotw 8y ago

> For example, I got myself air conditioning in a country famous for skiing. AC units are massive drivers of climate change. Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude.

lazyjones 8y ago
> Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude. I don‘t care about your assessment. You are free to live in humility, poverty, extreme heat, whatever - if you think it will make you a superior human being. I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, without having to beg and wait for the whole world to stop burning fossil fuels, eating meat etc.
- rotw 8y ago
  > I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, What gives you the right to all that at the direct expense of the people who can't afford it?
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    The right of the stronger, fitter. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care?
    - rotw 8y ago
      > The right of the stronger, fitter. Right, so why don't I just come along and murder you? I have the right, by your logic. Or, maybe, this Social Darwinism is fascist nonsense and you fully admit to being disgustingly amoral. > I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Human society is not "uncontrollable nature" or determined solely by biological evolution. Everything is a social and personal choice. > Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care? Really? The only reason to care about social wellbeing and people other than yourself is religion?

Daishiman 8y ago

This is some seriously shortsighted thinking. There's nothing you'll be able to do about oceanic anoxia, or a myriad other effects that are simply catastrophic. Speaking of skiing, good luck when those economies collapse when the brunt of tourism goes away.