3 ms·

Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" It's pretty inevitable that our world is going to change dramatically over the

Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" It's pretty inevitable that our world is going to change dramatically over the next century as equatorial regions dramatically change climate, ocean ecosystems go through rapid extinction phases in some regions, and coastlines are redrawn. So if you're concerned about a change to your life and environment, too bad. You're getting that no matter what. What matters now is not exacerbating the problems presented by using technologies that appear to be harmful like fracking. You don't need to return to "the dark ages" to preserve a post-industrial society. That society needs to pool resources, spread out less, and use more decentralized infrastructure. > And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface. This is simply a non-sequitur and you should realize it. No technology or even a theoretical framework exists to stop volcanos from erupting. What's more, we know factually that volcanos have historically tweaked the environment one way or another, and humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano. So we should focus on the things we can change.

growlist 7y ago
> Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. > You're getting that no matter what. That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc. in those economies, but apparently for some reason the concrete used in housing etc. built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. > humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. Even if we ignore the conspiratorial nature of this statement for the sake of assuming positive intent... this doesn't even remotely answer or even address my question. Even if there are sinister cabals of powerful regressives, what does Fracking have to do with it? And even if someone might have a less than pure motive, does it matter if there are positive scientific findings and plenty of alternatives? > That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Really? "Severe punishment?" Other than being called wrong and having their papers refuted over and over what exactly is that? It seems strange to offer such an unmeritocratic view on this. > Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. Like that guy who said folks displaced by rising sea levels can sell their homes and move? > I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure Firstly, are you suggesting the UN is "encouraging" refugee crisis? Couldn't then this symmetrically be spun as tyrranical dictators and religious governments oppressing populations such that they flee, "thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc?" And doesn't that seem like the more reasonable assignment of blame? > built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. Construction is hardly the primary source of CO2 in most developed nations. > And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity. I am aware some small minority of people believe in unproven ideas, and that's fine. But simply finding people who agree with you isn't the point of science or my post. You've said a lot of things but not said why fracking, specifically, is important. It's certainly not a tradition. It, as it is currently performed, is not particularly important for global energy production. It's not the preferred method for helium harvesting. If I were to stop for a moment in my meticulous assumption of positive intent, I might be inclined to believe you're much more interested in signaling your distaste for technological progress rather than actually caring about the specific legacy technology at hand.

growlist 7y ago

> Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. > You're getting that no matter what. That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc. in those economies, but apparently for some reason the concrete used in housing etc. built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. > humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity.

KirinDave 7y ago
> I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. Even if we ignore the conspiratorial nature of this statement for the sake of assuming positive intent... this doesn't even remotely answer or even address my question. Even if there are sinister cabals of powerful regressives, what does Fracking have to do with it? And even if someone might have a less than pure motive, does it matter if there are positive scientific findings and plenty of alternatives? > That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Really? "Severe punishment?" Other than being called wrong and having their papers refuted over and over what exactly is that? It seems strange to offer such an unmeritocratic view on this. > Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. Like that guy who said folks displaced by rising sea levels can sell their homes and move? > I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure Firstly, are you suggesting the UN is "encouraging" refugee crisis? Couldn't then this symmetrically be spun as tyrranical dictators and religious governments oppressing populations such that they flee, "thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc?" And doesn't that seem like the more reasonable assignment of blame? > built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. Construction is hardly the primary source of CO2 in most developed nations. > And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity. I am aware some small minority of people believe in unproven ideas, and that's fine. But simply finding people who agree with you isn't the point of science or my post. You've said a lot of things but not said why fracking, specifically, is important. It's certainly not a tradition. It, as it is currently performed, is not particularly important for global energy production. It's not the preferred method for helium harvesting. If I were to stop for a moment in my meticulous assumption of positive intent, I might be inclined to believe you're much more interested in signaling your distaste for technological progress rather than actually caring about the specific legacy technology at hand.