3 ms·

Sometimes I do wish we could neatly separate people into groups of consequences based on their opinions - all the climate change deniers get to live in exactly

Sometimes I do wish we could neatly separate people into groups of consequences based on their opinions - all the climate change deniers get to live in exactly the world that results from doing nothing. Political party A supporters get to live in a world governed by political party A and so on. I suspect it would rapidly result in a lot of people actually researching their political opinions properly.

watersb 7y ago
No, just lots of very unhappy people, who blame everyone else for their lot. Ultimately, each person is in their own world, alone. And here we are.
nostrademons 7y ago
That was the original impetus for nation-states. In those days, the big schism was between Catholic/Protestant, with each group feeling that the others' opinions would damn them to hell for eternity. They worked out a system where they could say "Okay, in your duchy, you can believe what you want and God will only damn you to hell, while in our duchy, we'll believe what we want and go to heaven." The issues have changed a bit and a number of national boundaries aren't really reflective of the diversity of cultures within. Plus we now have truly global issues like Internet access, supply chains, and global warming. But perhaps this is indicative that we're in for a major reshuffling, and that existing national boundaries are going to collapse. We already have a political framework (federalism) for getting independent states to agree on matters that impact all of them while still being able to exercise their own discretion on local matters.
vixen99 7y ago
Given that IPCC estimates of lowering of global temperature by 2100 as a consequence of almost any level of lowering of emissions now ('doing something in political terms'), are in expressed in terms of small fractions of one degree, it would seem that the worlds you describe would be indistinguishable other than by instrumentation. As it is, most of us experience temperature shifts of up to 20 degrees in our environment on a daily basis. "If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels[14] a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200. {10.7}" https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm... While extreme weather events are often claimed to be caused by global warming, none have been substantiated - as yet. When and if, then you have a point. If there's a GC model shown to retrospectively predict global weather as observed we should pay attention. To date they do not do this. Factoring in cloud cover is a major difficulty. Given that many more people die from cold than from heat, a profound moral problem arises with the impact of taxes on energy use. Politicians supporting limitations on availability of energy, must be clear that they believe that lots of poor people dying in misery is a price worth paying. Perhaps it is; perhaps it isn't. We should understand clearly that extinction-rebellion-minded people evidently believe it is.

watersb 7y ago

No, just lots of very unhappy people, who blame everyone else for their lot. Ultimately, each person is in their own world, alone. And here we are.

nostrademons 7y ago

That was the original impetus for nation-states. In those days, the big schism was between Catholic/Protestant, with each group feeling that the others' opinions would damn them to hell for eternity. They worked out a system where they could say "Okay, in your duchy, you can believe what you want and God will only damn you to hell, while in our duchy, we'll believe what we want and go to heaven." The issues have changed a bit and a number of national boundaries aren't really reflective of the diversity of cultures within. Plus we now have truly global issues like Internet access, supply chains, and global warming. But perhaps this is indicative that we're in for a major reshuffling, and that existing national boundaries are going to collapse. We already have a political framework (federalism) for getting independent states to agree on matters that impact all of them while still being able to exercise their own discretion on local matters.

vixen99 7y ago

Given that IPCC estimates of lowering of global temperature by 2100 as a consequence of almost any level of lowering of emissions now ('doing something in political terms'), are in expressed in terms of small fractions of one degree, it would seem that the worlds you describe would be indistinguishable other than by instrumentation. As it is, most of us experience temperature shifts of up to 20 degrees in our environment on a daily basis. "If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels[14] a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200. {10.7}" https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm... While extreme weather events are often claimed to be caused by global warming, none have been substantiated - as yet. When and if, then you have a point. If there's a GC model shown to retrospectively predict global weather as observed we should pay attention. To date they do not do this. Factoring in cloud cover is a major difficulty. Given that many more people die from cold than from heat, a profound moral problem arises with the impact of taxes on energy use. Politicians supporting limitations on availability of energy, must be clear that they believe that lots of poor people dying in misery is a price worth paying. Perhaps it is; perhaps it isn't. We should understand clearly that extinction-rebellion-minded people evidently believe it is.