4 ms·

> Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? No. But I'm not a nation state who wants to reclaim its former glory as a w

> Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? No. But I'm not a nation state who wants to reclaim its former glory as a world super power. Hence, "if I was Russia". I didn't say "if I was myself"... > Well possibly if they want to live as survivalists. Perhaps some Russians do, but I've only known a couple of Muscovites who would barely know a potato from a turnip. The international order (such as it is) isn't remotely in the ballpark of being resilient enough to survive the convulsions climate change is going to cause. They wont live as survivalists if they have the worlds most productive farmland. Anyway I doubt climate change is going to render the world inhabitable to humans or decimate the global economy. We'll adapt we always do. There'll just be winners and losers. Most will lose and there will be hardships. The natural ecosystems will be fucked but in the end we'll still be here doing just fine.

crispinb 8y ago
> No. But I'm not a nation state .. Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. > We'll adapt we always do. If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens - true so far, but then again modern humans are very recent, so there's little history to go on. If by 'we' you mean our specific civilisation - shakier ground. Many have ended. So can ours. Based on how small edge fluctuations have been shown to create huge perturbations (eg. the 2015 European crisis resultant on a tiny influx of refugees), it's clear our global civilisation's range of dynamic stability is very narrow. It's certainly unlikely to survive ecosystem collapses, the death of the oceans (already well advanced), and the breakdown of a stable climate. Multiple overlapping wars consequent on this chaos are the most likely proximate cause of the final global collapse.
- coenhyde 8y ago
  > Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. I was just providing a potentially more lucrative investment than Greenland. That said I would by future farmland if i had the kind of money that could wait for 50 years for a return. > If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens I was referring to homo sapiens global civilization, not a specific civilization. This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past. I agree that its range of dynamic stability is very narrow for optimal performance. But disagree that falling outside that range triggers collapse. I think it is a much more adaptive and fault tolerant system than you believe it is. It may be damaged by easily but it fixes things relatively quickly. By the way i didn't down vote you. I'm enjoying the banter. And I am very much in support of curbing emissions to prevent further warming.
  - crispinb 8y ago
    > This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past While that's true, I don't think any past war is remotely comparable to a 7-12 billion-strong human population fighting to maintain unrealistic material consumption levels whilst ecosystems continue to collapse. Only time will tell. The one thing we can be sure about re predictions on this scale is that our likelihood estimates are wrong. > By the way i didn't down vote you No worries - I actually wouldn't have noticed as I don't use the voting system on comments. The 'sociopathic' word might have merited it. Perhaps a bit sharp. Or maybe not - I think our 'civilisation' promotes much sociopathy as mainstream. Few of us can in practise be free of that.
    - brendansafr 8y ago
      I upvoted the whole comment chain :) I love the high quality discussion that hackernews fosters to chime in: Russia may want to heat up the world, but would that not result in having to defend their borders from a mass migration inland? the sociopathic part might not the global warming, rather denying the refugees entrance to your country, forcing them to "drown" I ponder: may COLD rank next to water, air, food, as precious global resources?

crispinb 8y ago

> No. But I'm not a nation state .. Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. > We'll adapt we always do. If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens - true so far, but then again modern humans are very recent, so there's little history to go on. If by 'we' you mean our specific civilisation - shakier ground. Many have ended. So can ours. Based on how small edge fluctuations have been shown to create huge perturbations (eg. the 2015 European crisis resultant on a tiny influx of refugees), it's clear our global civilisation's range of dynamic stability is very narrow. It's certainly unlikely to survive ecosystem collapses, the death of the oceans (already well advanced), and the breakdown of a stable climate. Multiple overlapping wars consequent on this chaos are the most likely proximate cause of the final global collapse.

coenhyde 8y ago
> Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. I was just providing a potentially more lucrative investment than Greenland. That said I would by future farmland if i had the kind of money that could wait for 50 years for a return. > If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens I was referring to homo sapiens global civilization, not a specific civilization. This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past. I agree that its range of dynamic stability is very narrow for optimal performance. But disagree that falling outside that range triggers collapse. I think it is a much more adaptive and fault tolerant system than you believe it is. It may be damaged by easily but it fixes things relatively quickly. By the way i didn't down vote you. I'm enjoying the banter. And I am very much in support of curbing emissions to prevent further warming.
- crispinb 8y ago
  > This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past While that's true, I don't think any past war is remotely comparable to a 7-12 billion-strong human population fighting to maintain unrealistic material consumption levels whilst ecosystems continue to collapse. Only time will tell. The one thing we can be sure about re predictions on this scale is that our likelihood estimates are wrong. > By the way i didn't down vote you No worries - I actually wouldn't have noticed as I don't use the voting system on comments. The 'sociopathic' word might have merited it. Perhaps a bit sharp. Or maybe not - I think our 'civilisation' promotes much sociopathy as mainstream. Few of us can in practise be free of that.
  - brendansafr 8y ago
    I upvoted the whole comment chain :) I love the high quality discussion that hackernews fosters to chime in: Russia may want to heat up the world, but would that not result in having to defend their borders from a mass migration inland? the sociopathic part might not the global warming, rather denying the refugees entrance to your country, forcing them to "drown" I ponder: may COLD rank next to water, air, food, as precious global resources?