3 ms·

A better analogy would be this. You have very limited mobility, your head is immovable, and your feed is a conveyor belt which slowly brings to your mouth hambu

by avmich 7y ago

A better analogy would be this. You have very limited mobility, your head is immovable, and your feed is a conveyor belt which slowly brings to your mouth hamburger pieces. You've been doing this for a while. Your hands have some mobility, so you can affect what's on the conveyor, but rather slowly. In this situation you suddenly realize that cholesterol is bad. Remember, you've been doing this feeding for quite a while and, while knowing about cholesterol, weren't that concerned - things didn't notably change for you. Now you start feeling some inconveniences and decide to do something about the cholesterol, as doctors recommended. Now you still have to eat regularly, and can't stop the conveyor, and can change what's on the conveyor only rather slowly - so what would you do? Among other things you'd probably think "sure, the cholesterol is bad but if things would go too bad I can at least get a heart bypass". I think it's a usable model of the current situation.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Well, there is a problem becoming evident with any further "we'll take action once the situation proves itself so bad that action is unambiguously necessary". That problem is that human civilization is becoming less rational in response to the stresses of the situation. The degree to which a country or the entire world has ever able to act "selflessly" or broadly altruistically has always been limited but some things have happened - banning Ozone destroying chemicals was an action. Wars have shown change (negative change but change) can happen quickly if a society needs it. I don't think there's a fundamental technological barrier to forcing a lessening of green house gas production. Rather, it's a loss of capital investment barrier. The forces arrayed to prevent oil assets from losing value are huge. Maybe a fund could just buy these assets and let them wind-down or maybe we're all doomed or maybe there's another escape. I'm not sure but I think pushing for quick, not slow action, is appropriate, whatever one think is realist (the end of the human race looks realistic, certainly but I don't see a reason to simply accept it).

by avmich 7y ago

joe_the_user 7y ago

Well, there is a problem becoming evident with any further "we'll take action once the situation proves itself so bad that action is unambiguously necessary". That problem is that human civilization is becoming less rational in response to the stresses of the situation. The degree to which a country or the entire world has ever able to act "selflessly" or broadly altruistically has always been limited but some things have happened - banning Ozone destroying chemicals was an action. Wars have shown change (negative change but change) can happen quickly if a society needs it. I don't think there's a fundamental technological barrier to forcing a lessening of green house gas production. Rather, it's a loss of capital investment barrier. The forces arrayed to prevent oil assets from losing value are huge. Maybe a fund could just buy these assets and let them wind-down or maybe we're all doomed or maybe there's another escape. I'm not sure but I think pushing for quick, not slow action, is appropriate, whatever one think is realist (the end of the human race looks realistic, certainly but I don't see a reason to simply accept it).