3 ms·

The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. We can't even solve our water use,

The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. We can't even solve our water use, and that is going to cause collapse much sooner than the climate. And it's obvious looking at the oncoming water crisis that those who are most vulnerable will also be least protected, while the supply chains oligarchical institutions are going to be nearly completely enshrined. We are 20 years away, as a conglomeration of democracies, from even being capable of appropriately addressing climate change.

mbg721 5y ago
We're also trying various rapid responses to a slow change, and they're all so subject to political corruption that it's widely assumed that politics is the sole source of the problem. Try telling someone in Ohio there's a water shortage; they'll glance at the river and look at you like you have three heads.
the-dude 5y ago
> conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. For years there have been dire warnings about sea level rise, we have seen the same warnings in the last week in the Dutch press again. Apparently lots of ice is melting for years/decades. Yet, there is no acceleration in the sea level rise on our shores, which has been at a relatively stable ~2mm a year for over a century. Furthermore, sea level has risen since we exitted the ice age, our North Sea used to be land.
mistermann 5y ago
> The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. It certainly seems that way (that "that humans are incapable of conceptualizing...", or even better, replace "conceptualizing" with "<X>"), but is it really so? It is surely presently "true" (if one ignores potentiality), but is it absolutely true (across time and all potential paths)? As a thought experiment, if you rewind 30 or so years, would this statement be an absolute Truth: "Humans are incapable of writing an operating system that <does all the things that Linux does in 2021>"? Also consider: if Richard Stallman, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds had done something other than what they actually did[1], where would we (and the internet, etc) be today? If you then consider humanity's ~paralysis on climate change (or any of our many problems) in this context, doesn't the situation we find ourselves in (on all fronts) seem more than a little absurd? I mean, if we never actually try[2] to achieve something, should we be surprised when we do not achieve it? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux "Linus Torvalds has stated on separate occasions that if the GNU kernel or 386BSD had been available at the time (1991), he probably would not have created Linux." [2] Is it not reasonably true that not only do we not try, but we don't even think about trying, or think about desiring (a plausible pre-requisite for trying) to try to think about trying , etc etc etc, recurse to infinity. Possibly related: https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY

mbg721 5y ago

We're also trying various rapid responses to a slow change, and they're all so subject to political corruption that it's widely assumed that politics is the sole source of the problem. Try telling someone in Ohio there's a water shortage; they'll glance at the river and look at you like you have three heads.

the-dude 5y ago

> conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. For years there have been dire warnings about sea level rise, we have seen the same warnings in the last week in the Dutch press again. Apparently lots of ice is melting for years/decades. Yet, there is no acceleration in the sea level rise on our shores, which has been at a relatively stable ~2mm a year for over a century. Furthermore, sea level has risen since we exitted the ice age, our North Sea used to be land.

mistermann 5y ago

> The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. It certainly seems that way (that "that humans are incapable of conceptualizing...", or even better, replace "conceptualizing" with "<X>"), but is it really so? It is surely presently "true" (if one ignores potentiality), but is it absolutely true (across time and all potential paths)? As a thought experiment, if you rewind 30 or so years, would this statement be an absolute Truth: "Humans are incapable of writing an operating system that <does all the things that Linux does in 2021>"? Also consider: if Richard Stallman, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds had done something other than what they actually did[1], where would we (and the internet, etc) be today? If you then consider humanity's ~paralysis on climate change (or any of our many problems) in this context, doesn't the situation we find ourselves in (on all fronts) seem more than a little absurd? I mean, if we never actually try[2] to achieve something, should we be surprised when we do not achieve it? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux "Linus Torvalds has stated on separate occasions that if the GNU kernel or 386BSD had been available at the time (1991), he probably would not have created Linux." [2] Is it not reasonably true that not only do we not try, but we don't even think about trying, or think about desiring (a plausible pre-requisite for trying) to try to think about trying , etc etc etc, recurse to infinity. Possibly related: https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY