4 ms·

> Climate predictions are complicated but the negative valence coupled with the confidence in your predictions doesn't represent that. You seem to be making th

> Climate predictions are complicated but the negative valence coupled with the confidence in your predictions doesn't represent that. You seem to be making the mistake of assuming all predictions are similar in scope and nature. To use an analogy: predicting the specific effects of how a blast of heavy radiation will affect a human body is _complicated_. But a prediction of "this is going to hurt you badly" can be made with high confidence. There's a universality here regarding complex systems, and it applies to human bodies, buildings, economies, geologies, and natural ecosystems alike. Complex, self-reinforcing systems do not fail linearly. Pressure cause cracks and minor symptoms as the system absorbs the initial stresses, and at some point systemic collapse occurs rapidly. Concrete spalls, metal rusts, and when the time comes the building collapses rapidly as the reinforcing mechanisms fail one by one. Cancers form, mild symptoms are felt, and eventually the body succumbs in weeks or days as the final metastasized stages shut down vital functions. The ground is silent as pressure build, tremors are felt, and in a matter of seconds heaves to spew its burning contents. The stressors on our world's ecosystems are numerous and myriad and well documented. The seas and fish populations are strained by plastic pollution and overfishing to feed a population that is an order of magnitude larger than existed just 100 years ago. Insect populations are observably collapsing in many parts of the world. Water tables have been severely depleted in many agricultural lands, including in many parts of the USA, but also places like southern india. These are the observable cracks. The article of this subject contains more. Modern agriculture, at the rate of productivity that it operates at now, relies on the existence and viability of sophisticated supply chains that mine, produce, and deliver fertilizer, pesticides, and other "high-level economy" products that themselves depend on deeper supply chains. Climate change and the rapid increase in global temperatures introduces a steady grind of increasing pressure - a new stressor to this complex system that is already heavily stressed to unsustainability, and is already showing it cracks. We know for a fact that the stress will increase steadily and inexorably. It is indeed possible to make high confidence statements that this is going to hurt us badly. It is wishful thinking to hope otherwise. What _can_ be hoped for is mitigations. We may be able to mitigate some of the damage, if we try hard and fast enough.

acituan 5y ago
> Complex, self-reinforcing systems do not fail linearly. I am with you. This is called the criticality of a complex adaptive system. It is the grain of sand that will collapse a sand heap into chaos. The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is, nor we qualify the knowability of that point, nor we know if the critical point is the most important thing to focus on, e.g. incremental degradation could just as well saturate our harm tolerance without really reaching a phase-shift point. The reason I am bringing these up is not to use skepticism to induce apathy, but to underline the fact that all of these axes require drastically different policy responses. There is a risk in trying to invest the entire political, psychological and moral capital into an all-or-nothing apocalypse-countermeasure-policy-A if the system at hand actually needed a set of incremental countermeasures with policies B, C .. Z. This is the main objective in focusing on proportionality, to ensure our response is the appropriate one. Incrementalism doesn't make headlines the way apocalypticism does and over-salience of criticality might be distracting us in a way that brings us closer to it. Demonstrated time and again, it doesn't rally people to action, it doesn't seem to enchance our agency, and maybe even hurts it.
- kannanvijayan 5y ago
  > The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is We know that given the inertia we have currently, we are almost guaranteed to hit it. We cannot stop on a dime, and even if we did, the existing inertial effects will continue. > Incrementalism doesn't make headlines It also doesn't really work, as evidenced by the complete failure of the incrementalist "reduce, recycle, reuse" campaign, which effected nothing and might well have acted as a safety blanket to prevent serious policy. But the failure here lies more in a politically dominant demographic that was not ready to understand any reality that might involve policy that impacted material costs or the conveniences, combined with the fact that any relevant solution necessarily would involve those sacrifices. Alarmism works just fine as a political tool, and it has worked to spur action on many issues - legitimate or not. In this particular case, the alarmism is certainly warranted. And generational shifts allow for a more receptive audience for that message.

acituan 5y ago

> Complex, self-reinforcing systems do not fail linearly. I am with you. This is called the criticality of a complex adaptive system. It is the grain of sand that will collapse a sand heap into chaos. The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is, nor we qualify the knowability of that point, nor we know if the critical point is the most important thing to focus on, e.g. incremental degradation could just as well saturate our harm tolerance without really reaching a phase-shift point. The reason I am bringing these up is not to use skepticism to induce apathy, but to underline the fact that all of these axes require drastically different policy responses. There is a risk in trying to invest the entire political, psychological and moral capital into an all-or-nothing apocalypse-countermeasure-policy-A if the system at hand actually needed a set of incremental countermeasures with policies B, C .. Z. This is the main objective in focusing on proportionality, to ensure our response is the appropriate one. Incrementalism doesn't make headlines the way apocalypticism does and over-salience of criticality might be distracting us in a way that brings us closer to it. Demonstrated time and again, it doesn't rally people to action, it doesn't seem to enchance our agency, and maybe even hurts it.

kannanvijayan 5y ago
> The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is We know that given the inertia we have currently, we are almost guaranteed to hit it. We cannot stop on a dime, and even if we did, the existing inertial effects will continue. > Incrementalism doesn't make headlines It also doesn't really work, as evidenced by the complete failure of the incrementalist "reduce, recycle, reuse" campaign, which effected nothing and might well have acted as a safety blanket to prevent serious policy. But the failure here lies more in a politically dominant demographic that was not ready to understand any reality that might involve policy that impacted material costs or the conveniences, combined with the fact that any relevant solution necessarily would involve those sacrifices. Alarmism works just fine as a political tool, and it has worked to spur action on many issues - legitimate or not. In this particular case, the alarmism is certainly warranted. And generational shifts allow for a more receptive audience for that message.