3 ms·

> climate change causing crop failures and push up the price of food. That sounds plausible. It has to be verified for each case. In the case of the Syrian civ

by Udik 7y ago

> climate change causing crop failures and push up the price of food. That sounds plausible. It has to be verified for each case. In the case of the Syrian civil conflict, many aren't convinced: https://theconversation.com/is-syria-really-a-climate-war-we-examined-the-links-between-drought-migration-and-conflict-80110 https://theconversation.com/is-syria-really-a-climate-war-we... But more in general, climate might act as a multiplier of existing weaknesses. A drought or a crop failure (and other climate related disasters such as floods) is something a healthy country can withstand without much trouble. A poor country, with bad infrastructures and planning, is going to be affected much more. But it's an astoundingly silly idea that of improving the situation by fixing the droughts- but leaving those countries as vulnerable and politically unstable as ever- as opposed to helping countries to become more politically stable, wealthy, with better planning and infrastructure. A few years ago a WHO report calculated in many hundreds of thousands the yearly victims of climate change. Digging in the report, it turned out that the number was calculated as such: diarrhoea statistically kills x% more people per year per each added degree in average temperatures- but only in very poor countries, where sanitation and public health systems are severely lacking. It follows that by fixing sanitation and health care in those countries, at a relatively modest expense, we could save many millions, climate change or not.

benj111 7y ago
"It has to be verified for each case. In the case of the Syrian civil conflict, many aren't convinced" Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though. "But more in general, climate might act as a multiplier" That's a fair point. I think at some point they do have to take responsibility. I'm reminded of the rhyme 'for want of a nail' [1]. You can't ignore climate change any more than you can blame it all on the nail [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail
- Udik 7y ago
  > Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though. Do you think? In the case of Syria, for example, we're talking about 500 thousand deaths, millions displaced, a country in ruins. It's a disaster of gigantic proportions. And we made so many wrong choices before and during the conflict (first and foremost those of invading two neighbouring countries seeding chaos and fanaticism, then of siding against the regime at all costs, arming the rebels and prolonging the war) that could have made an enormous difference. But no, we wonder if it was the climate- the most indirect of all our possible responsibilities. Sometimes I feel we're some sort of street hooligans à la Clockwork Orange beating up homeless people in the streets, and then seriously wondering if it's the fault of capitalism.
  - benj111 7y ago
    If the question is, what caused the Arab Spring? We can have a well reasoned debate with evidence and statistics and possibly say with some certainty whether or not climate change was a factor. There is no moral component in there. I don't like Hitler, I'm not going to blame him, unless the evidence leads there. I like puppies, if the evidence points to puppies then I'm not going to reject that just because I like puppies If the question is, what should we do about the causes of the Arab Spring? That is a question with a moral component. We can disagree about whether addressing climate change should be a part of the solution, just like we can disagree whether we should be murdering all the puppies, we should really be on the same page about whether puppies are the problem before making that decision though. You mention making wrong choices, starting with incorrect assumptions isnt going to help make the correct choices.

by Udik 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

"It has to be verified for each case. In the case of the Syrian civil conflict, many aren't convinced" Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though. "But more in general, climate might act as a multiplier" That's a fair point. I think at some point they do have to take responsibility. I'm reminded of the rhyme 'for want of a nail' [1]. You can't ignore climate change any more than you can blame it all on the nail [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

Udik 7y ago
> Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though. Do you think? In the case of Syria, for example, we're talking about 500 thousand deaths, millions displaced, a country in ruins. It's a disaster of gigantic proportions. And we made so many wrong choices before and during the conflict (first and foremost those of invading two neighbouring countries seeding chaos and fanaticism, then of siding against the regime at all costs, arming the rebels and prolonging the war) that could have made an enormous difference. But no, we wonder if it was the climate- the most indirect of all our possible responsibilities. Sometimes I feel we're some sort of street hooligans à la Clockwork Orange beating up homeless people in the streets, and then seriously wondering if it's the fault of capitalism.
- benj111 7y ago
  If the question is, what caused the Arab Spring? We can have a well reasoned debate with evidence and statistics and possibly say with some certainty whether or not climate change was a factor. There is no moral component in there. I don't like Hitler, I'm not going to blame him, unless the evidence leads there. I like puppies, if the evidence points to puppies then I'm not going to reject that just because I like puppies If the question is, what should we do about the causes of the Arab Spring? That is a question with a moral component. We can disagree about whether addressing climate change should be a part of the solution, just like we can disagree whether we should be murdering all the puppies, we should really be on the same page about whether puppies are the problem before making that decision though. You mention making wrong choices, starting with incorrect assumptions isnt going to help make the correct choices.