5 ms·

Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or eve

Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change. Or, correction, there's one way to get them to do that: Point guns at them. (Un?)fortunately, the vast majority of the developed world lives under democratic government, and the same people who would rather not massively and suddenly reduce their wealth and quality of life in response to future predictions also would rather not have martial law imposed to convince them to do so. So the "tiny ineffectual reductions from current emission levels" is the only possible framework under which any kind of preemptive climate action can actually happen. You're correct that there's no way this can solve the problem; the correct response is to understand that we're just basically fucked and the only ways out include things like "establish, by force, oppressive totalitarian global state oriented around climate management" which would damage the future world we live in just as much as climate change would, but in a different way. We're just fucked. And there's a certain liberty in that! You don't have to worry about whether or not we'll fix the problem; we won't, so there's no troublesome uncertainty. Just go see the sights around the world you'd like to see before they're destroyed.

esotericn 7y ago
What you're saying is probably fairly accurate though I don't like to accept it. We're in a world full of people grabbing and using as much as they can with no care for what that means for themselves never mind other people. Unexamined lives. People would have to change habits that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with. I don't care for seeing the sights, though I do care for the world to not become some sort of theme park terraformed (... ha) nightmare for humans to survive. The answer for me is going to be to continue to do my best regardless because to do otherwise would be barbaric. In a lawless world I wouldn't become a mass murderer just because society allowed it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MrEldritch 7y ago
  >that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with Frankly, air conditioning alone is worth fighting for. The wealth and comfort generated by our carbon-spewing economy is the greatest achievement in mankind's history - and developing nations reaching towards it would be right to fight for it. Having to make the kind of far-reaching sacrifices needed to prevent climate change at this late stage would (if we actually did it) be among the greatest tragedies in human history, second only to the tragedy of what will happen if we don't.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- netsharc 7y ago
  Ah well, since this is a representative democracy, we've delegated the murdering to our elected representatives. Assuming you're USian or EUian, our governments already fuck with refugees who want to move to a livable part of the planet because (amongst other things) climate change made their part of the planet not livable. And this fucking has lead to many deaths for sure...
coldtea 7y ago
>Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change. So, to paraphrase, it's like we're on the Titanic, sinking, but there's no way to stop people from dancing and dining on the upper deck, and start getting on the lifeboats or helping close the rift.
- netsharc 7y ago
  There aren't even lifeboats in this analogy... or has someone built a spaceship to sustain life off earth?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    "Get into lifeboats" I just meant as "do something to stay alive", not as in "escape somewhere else" necessarily.
- MrEldritch 7y ago
  Here's a closer analogy: We're on the Titanic. It's sinking, probably, but it's still mostly possible to ignore it. Some very smart people have calculated that the lifeboats cannot possibly hold the weight of everyone aboard; if we are going to save ourselves, either we have to start throwing some people overboard, or we all have to cut off a limb to meet the weight allowance. Nobody is especially eager to do either of those things - the people who would have to be thrown overboard are especially not enthusiastic about it, and nobody's exactly enthused about the alternative solution of choosing our least favorite arms. So as long as it's possible to pretend that everything's going to be fine and we're not sinking and the hole isn't that big anyway and even if it was, we could always patch it eventually, and even if we can't, maybe rescue will get here in time ... we're not going to resort to that. Not until we absolutely, really have to. By the time we're desperate enough to resort to such things, it will be too late and there will no longer be time to select who to throw overboard or conduct the necessary amputations.

esotericn 7y ago

What you're saying is probably fairly accurate though I don't like to accept it. We're in a world full of people grabbing and using as much as they can with no care for what that means for themselves never mind other people. Unexamined lives. People would have to change habits that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with. I don't care for seeing the sights, though I do care for the world to not become some sort of theme park terraformed (... ha) nightmare for humans to survive. The answer for me is going to be to continue to do my best regardless because to do otherwise would be barbaric. In a lawless world I wouldn't become a mass murderer just because society allowed it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MrEldritch 7y ago
>that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with Frankly, air conditioning alone is worth fighting for. The wealth and comfort generated by our carbon-spewing economy is the greatest achievement in mankind's history - and developing nations reaching towards it would be right to fight for it. Having to make the kind of far-reaching sacrifices needed to prevent climate change at this late stage would (if we actually did it) be among the greatest tragedies in human history, second only to the tragedy of what will happen if we don't.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
netsharc 7y ago
Ah well, since this is a representative democracy, we've delegated the murdering to our elected representatives. Assuming you're USian or EUian, our governments already fuck with refugees who want to move to a livable part of the planet because (amongst other things) climate change made their part of the planet not livable. And this fucking has lead to many deaths for sure...

coldtea 7y ago

>Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change. So, to paraphrase, it's like we're on the Titanic, sinking, but there's no way to stop people from dancing and dining on the upper deck, and start getting on the lifeboats or helping close the rift.

netsharc 7y ago
There aren't even lifeboats in this analogy... or has someone built a spaceship to sustain life off earth?
- coldtea 7y ago
  "Get into lifeboats" I just meant as "do something to stay alive", not as in "escape somewhere else" necessarily.
MrEldritch 7y ago
Here's a closer analogy: We're on the Titanic. It's sinking, probably, but it's still mostly possible to ignore it. Some very smart people have calculated that the lifeboats cannot possibly hold the weight of everyone aboard; if we are going to save ourselves, either we have to start throwing some people overboard, or we all have to cut off a limb to meet the weight allowance. Nobody is especially eager to do either of those things - the people who would have to be thrown overboard are especially not enthusiastic about it, and nobody's exactly enthused about the alternative solution of choosing our least favorite arms. So as long as it's possible to pretend that everything's going to be fine and we're not sinking and the hole isn't that big anyway and even if it was, we could always patch it eventually, and even if we can't, maybe rescue will get here in time ... we're not going to resort to that. Not until we absolutely, really have to. By the time we're desperate enough to resort to such things, it will be too late and there will no longer be time to select who to throw overboard or conduct the necessary amputations.