3 ms·

I think the "Human extinction by 2030" is a confusion of what is being claimed by serious people. If the current trend continues and nothing done by 2030 the r

I think the "Human extinction by 2030" is a confusion of what is being claimed by serious people. If the current trend continues and nothing done by 2030 the repercussions will be so severe to the environment they threaten future organized human existence. So basically we still have time to avoid the worst outcome, the loss of the ability for organized human existence. Not that we will all be dead by then.

zdragnar 6y ago
Congresswoman Cortez said that the world would end by 2030 if we did nothing. Later, she said only a sea sponge would believe her. Presumably, she is arguing that hyperbolic proclamations are a valid way to get people to listen and engage in political discourse. Of course, I presume that by "serious people" you are referring to scientists, but it definitely creates a mixed message from politicians- you know, the ones setting government policy. At what point is it not hyperbole, but actual serious discussion? Should we treat everything as hyperbolic? All this does is confuse the problem (making it more or less drastic than it actually is). In my lifetime, "serious people" have often made predictions about drastic things and were completely wrong- and they had models to support them! This is true about many things beyond climate change as well. Why should this be any different? Why should I believe that I should act, or believe that there is still time to do so? Is this a new hockey stick graph? If you don't invest a lot of time sorting through all the BS, most people I think end up flipping a coin, picking a side and just going with it.
- thedmstdmstdmst 6y ago
  You were talking about Kids in your comment, Doomers I guess you said. So by serious people I mean not that. "The world would end by 2030", like obviously there is no way this can be true. No matter what happens the world will not end in a biblical sense. "People made predictions and were wrong in the past" is a great point. Why should you believe you should act or that you can and do something about it? I don't know great question! I'm sure someone has explored the morality of avoiding the worst case scenario caused by human induced climate change.
  - username90 6y ago
    > "The world would end by 2030", like obviously there is no way this can be true. No matter what happens the world will not end in a biblical sense. Cortez said exactly that though. You could argue that she isn't a serious person, but lots of people do take her seriously, she is a very public figure. Exact quote from 2019: "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/...
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      That's not an exact quote. From the article you linked: "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said. Even a very middlebrow newspaper like USA Today was able to figure out that she was characterising a political viewpoint rather than making a straight scientific assertion, as shows by the use of single quotation marks. It's misleading to strip away that context, just as it would be accurate-but-misleading if I trimmed her quote down further to say 'Ocasio-Cortez: 'Don't address climate change.''
      - zdragnar 6y ago
        She's clearly characterizing a viewpoint that she finds valid, even if it was intentionally hyperbolic (which I know it was). The thing is, she put it out there. It put the notion in people's minds. If we don't fix it by then, we'll be unable to avoid a mass extinction event. That was the whole point of the green new deal (along with a grab bag of other social justice items). When we are talking about how people can become overly distressed, and then jaded when their fears don't come to pass, that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes the situation worse, not better.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        I get your point, but we should stop trying to get buy-in from the slowest and/or least cooperative people out there. If it's over-simplified, they'll dismiss it. If it's too complex, they'll dismiss it. If it's not certain enough they'll dismiss it. If it's too specific they'll dismiss. There is always going to be some % of the population saying something is a terrible idea and their concerns aren't bein treated seriously enough, like the minority of people alleging that wearing face masks and social distancing is tyranny. One should certainly make a few good faith efforts to get them on board, but after the 3rd or 4th irrational or bad-faith rejection, it's OK to sideline them.

zdragnar 6y ago

Congresswoman Cortez said that the world would end by 2030 if we did nothing. Later, she said only a sea sponge would believe her. Presumably, she is arguing that hyperbolic proclamations are a valid way to get people to listen and engage in political discourse. Of course, I presume that by "serious people" you are referring to scientists, but it definitely creates a mixed message from politicians- you know, the ones setting government policy. At what point is it not hyperbole, but actual serious discussion? Should we treat everything as hyperbolic? All this does is confuse the problem (making it more or less drastic than it actually is). In my lifetime, "serious people" have often made predictions about drastic things and were completely wrong- and they had models to support them! This is true about many things beyond climate change as well. Why should this be any different? Why should I believe that I should act, or believe that there is still time to do so? Is this a new hockey stick graph? If you don't invest a lot of time sorting through all the BS, most people I think end up flipping a coin, picking a side and just going with it.

thedmstdmstdmst 6y ago
You were talking about Kids in your comment, Doomers I guess you said. So by serious people I mean not that. "The world would end by 2030", like obviously there is no way this can be true. No matter what happens the world will not end in a biblical sense. "People made predictions and were wrong in the past" is a great point. Why should you believe you should act or that you can and do something about it? I don't know great question! I'm sure someone has explored the morality of avoiding the worst case scenario caused by human induced climate change.
- username90 6y ago
  > "The world would end by 2030", like obviously there is no way this can be true. No matter what happens the world will not end in a biblical sense. Cortez said exactly that though. You could argue that she isn't a serious person, but lots of people do take her seriously, she is a very public figure. Exact quote from 2019: "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/...
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    That's not an exact quote. From the article you linked: "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said. Even a very middlebrow newspaper like USA Today was able to figure out that she was characterising a political viewpoint rather than making a straight scientific assertion, as shows by the use of single quotation marks. It's misleading to strip away that context, just as it would be accurate-but-misleading if I trimmed her quote down further to say 'Ocasio-Cortez: 'Don't address climate change.''
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      She's clearly characterizing a viewpoint that she finds valid, even if it was intentionally hyperbolic (which I know it was). The thing is, she put it out there. It put the notion in people's minds. If we don't fix it by then, we'll be unable to avoid a mass extinction event. That was the whole point of the green new deal (along with a grab bag of other social justice items). When we are talking about how people can become overly distressed, and then jaded when their fears don't come to pass, that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes the situation worse, not better.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        I get your point, but we should stop trying to get buy-in from the slowest and/or least cooperative people out there. If it's over-simplified, they'll dismiss it. If it's too complex, they'll dismiss it. If it's not certain enough they'll dismiss it. If it's too specific they'll dismiss. There is always going to be some % of the population saying something is a terrible idea and their concerns aren't bein treated seriously enough, like the minority of people alleging that wearing face masks and social distancing is tyranny. One should certainly make a few good faith efforts to get them on board, but after the 3rd or 4th irrational or bad-faith rejection, it's OK to sideline them.