4 ms·

I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I rememb

I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.

CzechTech 8y ago
Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  Not a problem at all. Just admit it so we can be honest about where your arguments come from.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    I notice this quite often - people will be arguing completely logically but from a axiomatic starting point that I (and probably most people) would find abhorrent or misinformed. They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully. Props to CzechTech for being upfront at least.
- cageface 8y ago
  A species that destroys its habitat will go extinct. So I guess we’ll see if natural selection removes people like you from the gene pool so the species itself can continue to evolve or if the dynamics are too extreme and this is part of the great filter.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    > natural selection removes people like you natural selection pressure the species whole, what survives next is just those that were somehow more adapt to the new environment, it doesn't carry any punitive or karmatic meaning. it might very well be that psychopaths will be the one surviving the first aftermath by virtue of their selfishness
    - cageface 8y ago
      That's the problem. Generally there are selective pressures against excessively selfish behavior but since climate change is relatively slow and distributed I'm not sure if that will apply in this case. Maybe in this case selection pressure applies to entire species or planets and is one of the reasons we haven't detected any signs of intelligent life outside the solar system?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- crispinb 8y ago
  Admitting sociopathy (outside of financial & real estate circles) is generally a losing strategy.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  Most people alive have children or descendants, and therefore have an incentive to care. You're in the minority.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  In that case, the chances of your genes, ideology, etc. surviving is pretty slim compared to those who do care. It's not that not caring is "wrong", it just has a lower chance of beating natural selection.
  - crispinb 8y ago
    > It's not that not caring is "wrong" Er, actually that's just it. It's (to put it mildly) eccentric to think otherwise.
- chewz 8y ago
  I agree with you. I am 50, no children. I have spent last 10 years travelling, sailing the ocean, hiking in jungles, diving in the reefs that would be extinct soon. I live in a climate where some moderate warming will make more pleasant. I do not care what will happen beyond 20 years ahead. Maybe even less. So why would I inconvinience myself? Why worry? People will get exactly what they deserve. On the other hand somehow it doesn't seem right.
  - kot-behemoth 8y ago
    "People will get exactly what they deserve". What have children born today done to "deserve" the devastating consequences that are going to unfold? Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.
    - chewz 8y ago
      > Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless. Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that". If people with children do not care why should I?
      - crispinb 8y ago
        Caring about children isn't about arguing from premises. Indeed if someone claims to need an argument to care about children, it's a pretty good prima facie case for the existence of a psychological disorder.
baruchthescribe 8y ago
The intro to The Road Warrior postulates that two great warrior tribes went to war and that the world's reliance on oil was fatally crippled as a result. Not a word about climate change anywhere. When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No?
- flukus 8y ago
  > When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No? Got a full quote in context? You "skeptics" have a tendency to miss things like "as soon as" and "if this trend continues".
  - baruchthescribe 8y ago
    No, we tend to take what people say at face value. Even if they're fraudulent hacks like James Hansen: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...
    - flukus 8y ago
      > Hansen, echoing work by other scientests, said that in five to 10 years, the arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer. That's not even a quote, let alone one in context.
      - baruchthescribe 8y ago
        Run along little gamma. He said it in front of Congress. It's in the Congressional record. There is boatloads of coverage of what he said at the time and his prediction, like all of his others before it, is complete bollocks.
dexen 8y ago
>I wish I could downvote this 100 times There's a reason we don't give people more voting power in politics, economics, etc., based on the strength of their convictions. If you want to have people follow proposals and programs you espouse, package the proposals & programs properly. "Pay more taxes to maintain status quo" doesn't cut it. "Earth will be uninhabitable in X years" has been cried one thousand times too many and will never be believable. "Cheaper energy and nicer cars and cleaner environment and happier dolphins and less waste" is great. Even better, the case makes itself: most people have already witnessed great improvements in all those through our lifetimes, and can easily imagine more of the good stuff. A pale blue dot, if you can keep it.

CzechTech 8y ago

Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
Not a problem at all. Just admit it so we can be honest about where your arguments come from.
- p1necone 8y ago
  I notice this quite often - people will be arguing completely logically but from a axiomatic starting point that I (and probably most people) would find abhorrent or misinformed. They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully. Props to CzechTech for being upfront at least.
cageface 8y ago
A species that destroys its habitat will go extinct. So I guess we’ll see if natural selection removes people like you from the gene pool so the species itself can continue to evolve or if the dynamics are too extreme and this is part of the great filter.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > natural selection removes people like you natural selection pressure the species whole, what survives next is just those that were somehow more adapt to the new environment, it doesn't carry any punitive or karmatic meaning. it might very well be that psychopaths will be the one surviving the first aftermath by virtue of their selfishness
  - cageface 8y ago
    That's the problem. Generally there are selective pressures against excessively selfish behavior but since climate change is relatively slow and distributed I'm not sure if that will apply in this case. Maybe in this case selection pressure applies to entire species or planets and is one of the reasons we haven't detected any signs of intelligent life outside the solar system?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
crispinb 8y ago
Admitting sociopathy (outside of financial & real estate circles) is generally a losing strategy.
jogjayr 8y ago
Most people alive have children or descendants, and therefore have an incentive to care. You're in the minority.
koonsolo 8y ago
In that case, the chances of your genes, ideology, etc. surviving is pretty slim compared to those who do care. It's not that not caring is "wrong", it just has a lower chance of beating natural selection.
- crispinb 8y ago
  > It's not that not caring is "wrong" Er, actually that's just it. It's (to put it mildly) eccentric to think otherwise.
chewz 8y ago
I agree with you. I am 50, no children. I have spent last 10 years travelling, sailing the ocean, hiking in jungles, diving in the reefs that would be extinct soon. I live in a climate where some moderate warming will make more pleasant. I do not care what will happen beyond 20 years ahead. Maybe even less. So why would I inconvinience myself? Why worry? People will get exactly what they deserve. On the other hand somehow it doesn't seem right.
- kot-behemoth 8y ago
  "People will get exactly what they deserve". What have children born today done to "deserve" the devastating consequences that are going to unfold? Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.
  - chewz 8y ago
    > Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless. Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that". If people with children do not care why should I?
    - crispinb 8y ago
      Caring about children isn't about arguing from premises. Indeed if someone claims to need an argument to care about children, it's a pretty good prima facie case for the existence of a psychological disorder.

baruchthescribe 8y ago

The intro to The Road Warrior postulates that two great warrior tribes went to war and that the world's reliance on oil was fatally crippled as a result. Not a word about climate change anywhere. When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No?

flukus 8y ago
> When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No? Got a full quote in context? You "skeptics" have a tendency to miss things like "as soon as" and "if this trend continues".
- baruchthescribe 8y ago
  No, we tend to take what people say at face value. Even if they're fraudulent hacks like James Hansen: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...
  - flukus 8y ago
    > Hansen, echoing work by other scientests, said that in five to 10 years, the arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer. That's not even a quote, let alone one in context.
    - baruchthescribe 8y ago
      Run along little gamma. He said it in front of Congress. It's in the Congressional record. There is boatloads of coverage of what he said at the time and his prediction, like all of his others before it, is complete bollocks.

dexen 8y ago

>I wish I could downvote this 100 times There's a reason we don't give people more voting power in politics, economics, etc., based on the strength of their convictions. If you want to have people follow proposals and programs you espouse, package the proposals & programs properly. "Pay more taxes to maintain status quo" doesn't cut it. "Earth will be uninhabitable in X years" has been cried one thousand times too many and will never be believable. "Cheaper energy and nicer cars and cleaner environment and happier dolphins and less waste" is great. Even better, the case makes itself: most people have already witnessed great improvements in all those through our lifetimes, and can easily imagine more of the good stuff. A pale blue dot, if you can keep it.