4 ms·

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

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.
primroot 7y ago
Yes, sadly. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european... Let alone the fact that around 40% of the current population is sustained by synthetic fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process represents 1% of the world's energy consumption.

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.

primroot 7y ago

Yes, sadly. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european... Let alone the fact that around 40% of the current population is sustained by synthetic fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process represents 1% of the world's energy consumption.