5 ms·
I wouldn't have guessed that humanity would fail to coordinate on global warming by this point. Blimey! How would we fare when faced with actually hard technica
by ekr 7y ago
I wouldn't have guessed that humanity would fail to coordinate on global warming by this point. Blimey! How would we fare when faced with actually hard technical challenges?
- kaonashi 7y agoCoordination on a multi-national level (outside ad-hoc corporate arrangements) is an ideological non-starter for most of the world's governments.
- tenebrisalietum 7y agoWhy would you reach any other conclusion? We are a bloodthirsty, competitive, barbaric species that can't go very long without killing large numbers of ourselves in the name of various things we create and twist to fit our tribal tendencies. Certainly people can learn otherwise but it seems any institutions dedicated to peace, civility, helping others or expanding knowledge eventually get co-opted to serve baser instincts, if they aren't created under a subtext of them at the outset. Humanity is not faced with a problem. Humanity is the problem.
- hyperdunc 7y agoHumanity is only the problem from the point of view of some humans, and perhaps other species. The earth itself has no moral view on what should happen.
- danso 7y agoHow is coordinating on global warming not a hard technical challenge? Politics is inherently a hard problem. And even if we were able to extricate politics from the discussion, it's a hard problem to define the optimal benchmarks and criteria for emissions reduction, across all countries and jurisdictions. (by definition, defining these criteria for the world would necessarily involve politics)
- ekr 7y agoI meant that took global warming itself is not a difficult challenge to solve with the technology currently available. Capturing carbon is energy intensive but not impossible. But politically, the coordination problem is unsolvable. Until the effects of the warming become big enough that one of the more powerful agents involved has a clearly positive inventive gradient to actually expend that energy at a personal loss, without the cooperation of others. (Say, for instance, if a majority of US territory becomes uninhabitable due to semi-persistent fires, persistent droughts, etc, I'd expect the US to actually solve the problem irrespective of what the other powers are doing.)
- blackflame7000 7y agoI think it's simply a matter of priority. We still haven't figured out how to feed large portions of the human population and the impact of that is much more immediate.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoSolution for coordination problem https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/
- president 7y agoA lot of people are only concerned about the time they are alive on this planet. To them, global warming is free to kill the earth after they are long gone.
- gwright 7y agoLots of things might happen due to increased temperatures. The Earth dying is not one of them (hint: it has been much warmer in the geological past).
- c0nducktr 7y agoIt's quite clear that "kill the earth" is figurative language. Being pedantic like this doesn't really add to the conversation.
- gwright 7y agoExcept that this type of language is endemic in climate discussion and is often enough accepted at face value and not recognized as hyperbolic language. In my experience there are people who view this language as an accurate description of what global warming models predict (with a high level of confidence) -- the end of life on Earth and runaway greenhouse effect resulting in the Earth turning into another Venus. Even in the realm of "figurative language", it is ridiculously over the top and over used. It adds nothing to a discussion that is chock-a-block full of over the top assertions.
- Daishiman 7y agoIt's satisfyingly close for all intents and purposes. The change of there being a collapse of most of the significant ecosystems isn't trivial. The change of mass migrations and conflicts over resources unlike anything we've ever seen before are no longer trivial. Out of all the hills to die on in the "debate" over climate change, this is about the most ridiculous, pedantic, and useless. How many millions of dead people would you like before considering it adequate language?
- watertom 7y agoReally? You should attend some local government meetings, when only small dollar amounts, and ego is at stake.