6 ms·

I wonder how much longer it will take before humanity will make a stand and change habits.

by marapuru 7y ago

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Only if forced to do so.
- trentnix 7y ago
  So then, tyranny.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Not forced by government but by force of nature. There will be disruptions and people will have to to adapt in some way if they like it or not.
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      Reminds me of the quote: "Procrastination only ensures that circumstance makes your decisions for you."
  - empath75 7y ago
    The constitution is not a suicide pact.
    - trentnix 7y ago
      If history is any indicator, forcing people to live according to the whims of Others results in death and destruction. The coercive power required to get people to behave and the inevitable blowback that occurs when people are unable to govern themselves will result in a lot of both. Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
      - Angostura 7y ago
        > Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem. The thing about democracy is that not everyone has to like everything - just the majority. I don't like that I'm going to have to change my lifestyle, in order to prevent appalling environmental damage, but I understand that I will have to. The "big problem" is the kind of people who describe pragmatic evidence-based policies designed to avoid collapse of civilisation as "an environmental jihad"
      - naturlich 7y ago
        The alternative is to do nothing and that will result in death and destruction. If the ability to harm the environment and other people is a freedom people are up in arms about losing, it's a shitty freedom to have in the first place. One person's freedom should not impinge on others'. Given the choice between the state taking away coal or mass extinction, I'm choosing the former.
    - usrusr 7y ago
      It surely wasn't intended as a suicide pact, but an interpretation that puts personal liberties on a higher pedestal than survival-grade commons could easily make it one.
      - primroot 7y ago
        I share your position, but it is unfortunate that the word personal is prompt to such semantic abuse nowadays. It is not personal liberty that is being preached, it is property liberty. Liberty bestowed not based on the unchanging measure of human personhood, but upon the measure of property ownership. The richer, the "liberior." A cult of the status quo in traditional service of the powerful, hiding its old age by dispensing the righteous aspiration among underdogs of becoming a great owner. And great property depends on a greatly powerful government (as Adam Smith claims when talking about the tasks of government in Wealth of Nations). Hence it is ultimately tyranny what they preach.
  - brighter2morrow 7y ago
    You've seen socialist tyranny, you've seen fascist tyranny, but are you ready for environmentalist tyranny? A coalition of hippies, vegans, and environmental engineers will rise up and take control of the state in order to move society forward on its inevitable march towards an environmentalist future!
    - trentnix 7y ago
      In all cases, these tyrants were utterly convinced of their righteousness and expertise.
    - daenz 7y ago
      You do understand that a key point in tyranny is forcibly imprisoning and/or murdering people who disagree with you, right? If you can justify that, then you're in a dangerous place, friend.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    Why is it not tyranny if I go dump a load of toxic waste in your backyard, just because I can because I'm more powerful. That is a particularly apt analogy for climate change, because as richer countries belch CO2 into a shared resource (the atmosphere), smaller, poorer countries pay the price with the literal destruction of their entire country (see Kiribati).
    - sascha_sl 7y ago
      while rich countries adopt expensive greener tech and blame the poor countries again seems about right
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    The tyranny of the ecosystem we live in. Nature doesn't care about us and we'll either adapt to live within the confines of sustainability or we'll pay dearly for our excesses.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      My prediction is that we will do the latter first and then maybe do the former.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Tyranny might happen, but I'm more unnerved by the realization that it's probably easier (and more effective) to shift emissions by killing people than it is to change minds/politics/behavior.
    - ozmodiar 7y ago
      Yes, I can’t help but feel we’ll get the tyranny because countries will just want to start machine gunning people trying to migrate somewhere safe, and not because of any extreme environmental controls.
      - primroot 7y ago
        Governments punishing people, who try to save the lives of those fleeing from climate meltdown, is the current state of things (in Italy and the US at least).
    - krageon 7y ago
      Where murder (on any scale) is an option, it's almost always the mechanically easiest option. The reason we don't do it (collectively) as often as might be practical is because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so. Given those things, I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
      - abathur 7y ago
        > because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so How many war crimes and genocides have been perpetrated in the shadow of these polite collective agreements? In times of relative plenty and peace? How many governments are currently defying this norm? Over the last 100 years, did more humans personally intervene to stop genocide, say "someone should do something", or look the other way? > I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution? I'll admit, I'm a little flabbergasted at this. The context of the sub-thread is the concern that it'll take the force of tyranny to move humanity to "make a stand and change habits." I find it more unnerving (than tyranny) that the kinds of organizational units sufficiently motivated by climate-threats to become emissions-tyrants will find it much easier to kill other people than repress their own.
  - kurthr 7y ago
    How about not oligarchs putting their fingers on the scales... Russian, European. American, Chinese? Isn't that considered more democratic, bit less?
  - inscionent 7y ago
    tyranny is other people
antonmks 7y ago
It is already too late. The extinction already started. Right now it is insects, frogs and fishes that has got to go. Our time , together with the rest of vertebrates, will come in 60-70 years.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  This is my feeling too. I feel that even the scientists doing these studies are not considering all of the positive feedback loops. If we could somehow account for everything we’d see that we are already past the point of no return and things are going to change for the worse much faster than anticipated.
Will_Parker 7y ago
Maybe the prospect of a mass extinction will start to convince the far left to start taking nuclear and geoengineering seriously. And for that matter, to realize that the problem isn't lack of moral behaviour of individuals, but game theory and a global problem of coordination between China, India, Russia, USA, and the rest.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  What does that have to do with the “far left”? Is the “ far right” all set and ready? Also what serious geoengineering proposals are out there that are understood and cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions?
  - Will_Parker 7y ago
    The far right seems mostly to be denying the science, at least publicly. The far left accepts the science, but is in denial about what an effective solution would be. (E.g. a carbon tax in the US would do essentially nothing in the big picture, except create an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world. Mass adoption of veganism, even less.) Both sides seem to be trying to silence the center. Another point many won't like: moralistic "nudges" are shown, scientifically, to _decrease_ support for climate policy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333068802_Nudging_out_support_for_a_carbon_tax https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333068802_Nudging_o... Geoengineering deserves a few orders of magnitude more research than it gets, imo, probably some multiple of what NASA and the LHC get. If we actually want to solve the problem, this, and mass conversion of the grid to nuclear, are the best we've got right now. One other point that is outside the Overton window of both sides: we may not be able to reduce oil consumption that much worldwide with cheap energy, because as that gets cheaper, rulers in the Middle East will simply lower oil prices, rather than have their entire economies bust. Without oil sales, there will also be (even more) misery for hundreds of millions of people.
    - jogjayr 7y ago
      > (E.g. a carbon tax in the US would do essentially nothing in the big picture, except create an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world. Wrong on two counts. 1. It gives the US tremendous moral authority in demanding change from other countries. Right now the attitude is "If the US, with all its riches and pre-existing contributions to emissions, can't be bothered to do anything, why should we?" 2. It's totally possible to prevent an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world: tariffs. Countries with carbon taxes can form a tariff bloc against countries without them.

I wonder how much longer it will take before humanity will make a stand and change habits.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

Only if forced to do so.

trentnix 7y ago
So then, tyranny.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Not forced by government but by force of nature. There will be disruptions and people will have to to adapt in some way if they like it or not.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    Reminds me of the quote: "Procrastination only ensures that circumstance makes your decisions for you."
- empath75 7y ago
  The constitution is not a suicide pact.
  - trentnix 7y ago
    If history is any indicator, forcing people to live according to the whims of Others results in death and destruction. The coercive power required to get people to behave and the inevitable blowback that occurs when people are unable to govern themselves will result in a lot of both. Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      > Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem. The thing about democracy is that not everyone has to like everything - just the majority. I don't like that I'm going to have to change my lifestyle, in order to prevent appalling environmental damage, but I understand that I will have to. The "big problem" is the kind of people who describe pragmatic evidence-based policies designed to avoid collapse of civilisation as "an environmental jihad"
    - naturlich 7y ago
      The alternative is to do nothing and that will result in death and destruction. If the ability to harm the environment and other people is a freedom people are up in arms about losing, it's a shitty freedom to have in the first place. One person's freedom should not impinge on others'. Given the choice between the state taking away coal or mass extinction, I'm choosing the former.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    It surely wasn't intended as a suicide pact, but an interpretation that puts personal liberties on a higher pedestal than survival-grade commons could easily make it one.
    - primroot 7y ago
      I share your position, but it is unfortunate that the word personal is prompt to such semantic abuse nowadays. It is not personal liberty that is being preached, it is property liberty. Liberty bestowed not based on the unchanging measure of human personhood, but upon the measure of property ownership. The richer, the "liberior." A cult of the status quo in traditional service of the powerful, hiding its old age by dispensing the righteous aspiration among underdogs of becoming a great owner. And great property depends on a greatly powerful government (as Adam Smith claims when talking about the tasks of government in Wealth of Nations). Hence it is ultimately tyranny what they preach.
- brighter2morrow 7y ago
  You've seen socialist tyranny, you've seen fascist tyranny, but are you ready for environmentalist tyranny? A coalition of hippies, vegans, and environmental engineers will rise up and take control of the state in order to move society forward on its inevitable march towards an environmentalist future!
  - trentnix 7y ago
    In all cases, these tyrants were utterly convinced of their righteousness and expertise.
  - daenz 7y ago
    You do understand that a key point in tyranny is forcibly imprisoning and/or murdering people who disagree with you, right? If you can justify that, then you're in a dangerous place, friend.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  Why is it not tyranny if I go dump a load of toxic waste in your backyard, just because I can because I'm more powerful. That is a particularly apt analogy for climate change, because as richer countries belch CO2 into a shared resource (the atmosphere), smaller, poorer countries pay the price with the literal destruction of their entire country (see Kiribati).
  - sascha_sl 7y ago
    while rich countries adopt expensive greener tech and blame the poor countries again seems about right
- rebuilder 7y ago
  The tyranny of the ecosystem we live in. Nature doesn't care about us and we'll either adapt to live within the confines of sustainability or we'll pay dearly for our excesses.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    My prediction is that we will do the latter first and then maybe do the former.
- abathur 7y ago
  Tyranny might happen, but I'm more unnerved by the realization that it's probably easier (and more effective) to shift emissions by killing people than it is to change minds/politics/behavior.
  - ozmodiar 7y ago
    Yes, I can’t help but feel we’ll get the tyranny because countries will just want to start machine gunning people trying to migrate somewhere safe, and not because of any extreme environmental controls.
    - primroot 7y ago
      Governments punishing people, who try to save the lives of those fleeing from climate meltdown, is the current state of things (in Italy and the US at least).
  - krageon 7y ago
    Where murder (on any scale) is an option, it's almost always the mechanically easiest option. The reason we don't do it (collectively) as often as might be practical is because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so. Given those things, I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
    - abathur 7y ago
      > because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so How many war crimes and genocides have been perpetrated in the shadow of these polite collective agreements? In times of relative plenty and peace? How many governments are currently defying this norm? Over the last 100 years, did more humans personally intervene to stop genocide, say "someone should do something", or look the other way? > I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution? I'll admit, I'm a little flabbergasted at this. The context of the sub-thread is the concern that it'll take the force of tyranny to move humanity to "make a stand and change habits." I find it more unnerving (than tyranny) that the kinds of organizational units sufficiently motivated by climate-threats to become emissions-tyrants will find it much easier to kill other people than repress their own.
- kurthr 7y ago
  How about not oligarchs putting their fingers on the scales... Russian, European. American, Chinese? Isn't that considered more democratic, bit less?
- inscionent 7y ago
  tyranny is other people

antonmks 7y ago

It is already too late. The extinction already started. Right now it is insects, frogs and fishes that has got to go. Our time , together with the rest of vertebrates, will come in 60-70 years.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
This is my feeling too. I feel that even the scientists doing these studies are not considering all of the positive feedback loops. If we could somehow account for everything we’d see that we are already past the point of no return and things are going to change for the worse much faster than anticipated.

Will_Parker 7y ago

Maybe the prospect of a mass extinction will start to convince the far left to start taking nuclear and geoengineering seriously. And for that matter, to realize that the problem isn't lack of moral behaviour of individuals, but game theory and a global problem of coordination between China, India, Russia, USA, and the rest.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
What does that have to do with the “far left”? Is the “ far right” all set and ready? Also what serious geoengineering proposals are out there that are understood and cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions?
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  The far right seems mostly to be denying the science, at least publicly. The far left accepts the science, but is in denial about what an effective solution would be. (E.g. a carbon tax in the US would do essentially nothing in the big picture, except create an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world. Mass adoption of veganism, even less.) Both sides seem to be trying to silence the center. Another point many won't like: moralistic "nudges" are shown, scientifically, to _decrease_ support for climate policy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333068802_Nudging_out_support_for_a_carbon_tax https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333068802_Nudging_o... Geoengineering deserves a few orders of magnitude more research than it gets, imo, probably some multiple of what NASA and the LHC get. If we actually want to solve the problem, this, and mass conversion of the grid to nuclear, are the best we've got right now. One other point that is outside the Overton window of both sides: we may not be able to reduce oil consumption that much worldwide with cheap energy, because as that gets cheaper, rulers in the Middle East will simply lower oil prices, rather than have their entire economies bust. Without oil sales, there will also be (even more) misery for hundreds of millions of people.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    > (E.g. a carbon tax in the US would do essentially nothing in the big picture, except create an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world. Wrong on two counts. 1. It gives the US tremendous moral authority in demanding change from other countries. Right now the attitude is "If the US, with all its riches and pre-existing contributions to emissions, can't be bothered to do anything, why should we?" 2. It's totally possible to prevent an economic disadvantage vs China and the rest of the world: tariffs. Countries with carbon taxes can form a tariff bloc against countries without them.