4 ms·

"Once we find out for certain it's almost certainly too late to avoid it." I don't understand why is that. What I do understand is that somehow, for so many li

"Once we find out for certain it's almost certainly too late to avoid it." I don't understand why is that. What I do understand is that somehow, for so many like you, change is too often pictured as a bad thing. And I am glad that on the large scale we are inclined to be skeptical in our nature. And if some change happen to have something undesirable, I won't rush to blame the change, I would rather take a look at what change brought, good and bad, and only do something about the bad. So far, observing the general attitude, most of us seem to think like me. Humans can (and will) get through climatic change events well enough. Even if today we could have only 20% of our current arable land, that would be enough to feed more than our current population level, providing that the necessary diet adjustments are made (e.g. less beef). The past mass extinctions could not be mitigated by coordinated reactive actions that are possible today and it's simply wrong to attempt to project something similar with equal level of destruction into our future. We have the power to preserve almost everything we deem worth preserving and we do exactly that. Actually, if nothing else, thanks to us, the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future "mass extinction events".

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It's quite simple. Once a tipping point is passed, and clearly apparent, it's too late to stop it. We're not doing anything about the bad. It's right there in our system's designed-in premise that the bad is an "externality". There is far too much evidence to no longer believe in anthropogenic climate change, or that the change is not bad. Nothing wrong with change per se. Nothing at all wrong with discoveries and inventions that have brought modern levels of health and comfort if we mitigate the costs. Everything wrong with change that makes our planet less able to support biodiversity, or to be slightly more emotive, an unpleasant, marginal, place to be for everyone. Change and develop without triggering the next great collapse. I do not want my comfort to be at the expense of every future generation. Thankfully, at least in Europe, there are signs that critical mass of public opinion is being reached and there are increasingly strident calls to do something substantive. That's at odds with the general state of political opinion which seems to be trailing public opinion markedly. > Humans can (and will) get through climatic change events well enough Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/06/katharine-hayhoe-interview-climate-change-scientist-crisis-hope https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/06/katharine-ha... > We have the power to preserve almost everything we deem worth preserving Which appears to be nothing unless it is profitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction That humanity could survive is moot if it involves going through a millennia long dark age, or effectively bombing ourselves back to the iron age. > thanks to us, the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future Again, our track record speaks loudly against this.
- userulluipeste 8y ago
  "Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption." Based on many things. Our tenacity, for starters. Primitive as we were, tens of thousands of years ago we already had the capacity to populate almost the entire planet, be it the lush grasslands, or arctic/sandy deserts. Now count in our current capacity. Even in the unlikely event where we "bomb ourselves" into a nuclear winter, I very much doubt we'll suffer any long term major drawback. As the time progressed we simply became more proactive and prepared ourselves for such eventuality and have bounce-back plans in place. We have technical capacity to do a lot of things here on earth, including to direct the current climate change or even to arrest it if necessary. We just had no serious reason to do that. Overall, we are mostly at "seeking our comfort" stage, not on "straightening it up" stage. If the upcoming global warming will prove to be bad in almost all its aspects, that will warrant a change in our priorities; I have no doubts about it. But as I've tried to say, maybe the coming change isn't necessarily bad. Why won't we welcome it and experience it up close? What if the current increase in planetary temperature can be used somehow in our advantage? That, I reckon, is (or should be) our defining trait as evolving civilization. "the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future" "Again, our track record speaks loudly against this" That is because you are inclined to listen that voice and ignore anything else contradicting it. We have reservations and other means where as time progressed, unlike the other extinction events, we took responsible steps towards preserving the existing species even in the face of their natural decline (arguably, examples of this may include Kakapo parrots or Panda bears).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It's quite simple. Once a tipping point is passed, and clearly apparent, it's too late to stop it. We're not doing anything about the bad. It's right there in our system's designed-in premise that the bad is an "externality". There is far too much evidence to no longer believe in anthropogenic climate change, or that the change is not bad. Nothing wrong with change per se. Nothing at all wrong with discoveries and inventions that have brought modern levels of health and comfort if we mitigate the costs. Everything wrong with change that makes our planet less able to support biodiversity, or to be slightly more emotive, an unpleasant, marginal, place to be for everyone. Change and develop without triggering the next great collapse. I do not want my comfort to be at the expense of every future generation. Thankfully, at least in Europe, there are signs that critical mass of public opinion is being reached and there are increasingly strident calls to do something substantive. That's at odds with the general state of political opinion which seems to be trailing public opinion markedly. > Humans can (and will) get through climatic change events well enough Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/06/katharine-hayhoe-interview-climate-change-scientist-crisis-hope https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/06/katharine-ha... > We have the power to preserve almost everything we deem worth preserving Which appears to be nothing unless it is profitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction That humanity could survive is moot if it involves going through a millennia long dark age, or effectively bombing ourselves back to the iron age. > thanks to us, the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future Again, our track record speaks loudly against this.

userulluipeste 8y ago
"Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption." Based on many things. Our tenacity, for starters. Primitive as we were, tens of thousands of years ago we already had the capacity to populate almost the entire planet, be it the lush grasslands, or arctic/sandy deserts. Now count in our current capacity. Even in the unlikely event where we "bomb ourselves" into a nuclear winter, I very much doubt we'll suffer any long term major drawback. As the time progressed we simply became more proactive and prepared ourselves for such eventuality and have bounce-back plans in place. We have technical capacity to do a lot of things here on earth, including to direct the current climate change or even to arrest it if necessary. We just had no serious reason to do that. Overall, we are mostly at "seeking our comfort" stage, not on "straightening it up" stage. If the upcoming global warming will prove to be bad in almost all its aspects, that will warrant a change in our priorities; I have no doubts about it. But as I've tried to say, maybe the coming change isn't necessarily bad. Why won't we welcome it and experience it up close? What if the current increase in planetary temperature can be used somehow in our advantage? That, I reckon, is (or should be) our defining trait as evolving civilization. "the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future" "Again, our track record speaks loudly against this" That is because you are inclined to listen that voice and ignore anything else contradicting it. We have reservations and other means where as time progressed, unlike the other extinction events, we took responsible steps towards preserving the existing species even in the face of their natural decline (arguably, examples of this may include Kakapo parrots or Panda bears).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]