11 ms·

> Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it. I wish to see this kind of positivity ar

> Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it. I wish to see this kind of positivity around me more often. I have worked with a colleague or two in the past who viewed problems as something that needed to be solved, and were a step or two ahead of the rest of us in terms of finding solutions. Lately, I see that the default reaction to problems is to complain. Don't get me wrong... complaining is fine if it leads to action, but isn't it rare.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
My hope is the poor, and low middleclass are not the ones paying for it though. It's easy for the wealthy guy to go electric, go solar, and move his stocks to around so he feels like he's making a difference. The poor guy is struggling, and is forced to go with the cheapest solution. We don't have the luxury to be virtuous. I try by having a small truck (couldn't afford gas for a large one), and am pretty much a vegetarian. (The price of chicken, and beef, makes it easy.)
rhizome31 5y ago
I don't understand how it is possible to still have this view of the problem. All the resources I am aware of that seem backed by facts and science are currently forecasting an utter disaster. I think I'm someone with a rather positive attitude in life and as you said I always try to look at solutions rather than just complain. In fact I'm doing rather well at the personal level. But in the case of the environmental crisis (which isn't limited to a climate crisis), I honestly can't see how it's going to work. In the optimistic camp all I see so far is wishful thinking. > Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it. It's all about what this mess and pain is going to be about. If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances, that doesn't qualify as a success to me. The fact that a handful of privileged people will manage to get through and still have cars and smartphones isn't really a relief.
- laurent92 5y ago
  > If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances Right here, here is a sign that you are reading quite extreme literature. More importantly: Unbalanced, uncriticized literature. Scientific studies don’t only need to seem backed up by facts, they also need to be criticized to ensure the facts were not cherry-picked. Studying science in the current political climate is like saving paintings during a revolution.
  - rhizome31 5y ago
    I pulled that number as an exaggeration to illustrate the fact that even if "our civilization" survives (whatever it may mean), it doesn't mean things are going to be OK. Even if you make that 50% it's still not great news in my book. I've read Dire Predictions written by members of the IPCC, the famous Limits to Growth and I follow the works of Jancovici, a French engineer specialized in these issues (here is a talk in English he did for MIT Media Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA ) Do those qualify as biased sources to you?
    - laurent92 5y ago
      > Do those qualify as biased sources to you? Potentially yes. Everyone can be biased. Do they share a common interest or trait? They do. I have been a fan of Jancovici in 2006. I see through his game now. He’s the master of correlations and he’s sorely lacking causations. Because causations at global scale are hard to demonstrate, short of actually doing global-scale experiments, which we can’t do. Another aspect is that we citizen can’t measure it, so it’s hard to discuss on something that we can’t see (It’s the Covid effect). Another is that we’re planning on literally playing chemists with the Earth’s atmosphere composition, despite just having concluded that large-scale chemical experiments are to be avoided. One last point is Janco divides emissions by the number of people on Earth, which is a heavily-loaded formula with extremely bad side effects (but has been approved by UN), such as giving advantage to countries who overpopulate, which Janco himself demonstrates is bad, but he doesn’t see that because he’s under his own ideology. The EU follows and in June it plans to vote an increase of population of 12% by 2030 (through external growth). It feel like all our efforts will reduce global emissions by 5% or 10% only to be cancelled by a population increase. So it just seems that they want us to consume less. It’s a minefield that would be easily influenced by many parties for political gain. I’m not saying global warming doesn’t exist.
solveadwordsin 5y ago
Quoting: 'Don't get me wrong... complaining is fine if it leads to action, but isn't it rare.' Solved! ^^ Somehow it may be related (but OT) Comic: > //ibb.co/hXjtxLr [sings:] 'freedom!...freeedom!...' (-; regards,

hellbannedguy 5y ago

My hope is the poor, and low middleclass are not the ones paying for it though. It's easy for the wealthy guy to go electric, go solar, and move his stocks to around so he feels like he's making a difference. The poor guy is struggling, and is forced to go with the cheapest solution. We don't have the luxury to be virtuous. I try by having a small truck (couldn't afford gas for a large one), and am pretty much a vegetarian. (The price of chicken, and beef, makes it easy.)

rhizome31 5y ago

I don't understand how it is possible to still have this view of the problem. All the resources I am aware of that seem backed by facts and science are currently forecasting an utter disaster. I think I'm someone with a rather positive attitude in life and as you said I always try to look at solutions rather than just complain. In fact I'm doing rather well at the personal level. But in the case of the environmental crisis (which isn't limited to a climate crisis), I honestly can't see how it's going to work. In the optimistic camp all I see so far is wishful thinking. > Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it. It's all about what this mess and pain is going to be about. If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances, that doesn't qualify as a success to me. The fact that a handful of privileged people will manage to get through and still have cars and smartphones isn't really a relief.

laurent92 5y ago
> If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances Right here, here is a sign that you are reading quite extreme literature. More importantly: Unbalanced, uncriticized literature. Scientific studies don’t only need to seem backed up by facts, they also need to be criticized to ensure the facts were not cherry-picked. Studying science in the current political climate is like saving paintings during a revolution.
- rhizome31 5y ago
  I pulled that number as an exaggeration to illustrate the fact that even if "our civilization" survives (whatever it may mean), it doesn't mean things are going to be OK. Even if you make that 50% it's still not great news in my book. I've read Dire Predictions written by members of the IPCC, the famous Limits to Growth and I follow the works of Jancovici, a French engineer specialized in these issues (here is a talk in English he did for MIT Media Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA ) Do those qualify as biased sources to you?
  - laurent92 5y ago
    > Do those qualify as biased sources to you? Potentially yes. Everyone can be biased. Do they share a common interest or trait? They do. I have been a fan of Jancovici in 2006. I see through his game now. He’s the master of correlations and he’s sorely lacking causations. Because causations at global scale are hard to demonstrate, short of actually doing global-scale experiments, which we can’t do. Another aspect is that we citizen can’t measure it, so it’s hard to discuss on something that we can’t see (It’s the Covid effect). Another is that we’re planning on literally playing chemists with the Earth’s atmosphere composition, despite just having concluded that large-scale chemical experiments are to be avoided. One last point is Janco divides emissions by the number of people on Earth, which is a heavily-loaded formula with extremely bad side effects (but has been approved by UN), such as giving advantage to countries who overpopulate, which Janco himself demonstrates is bad, but he doesn’t see that because he’s under his own ideology. The EU follows and in June it plans to vote an increase of population of 12% by 2030 (through external growth). It feel like all our efforts will reduce global emissions by 5% or 10% only to be cancelled by a population increase. So it just seems that they want us to consume less. It’s a minefield that would be easily influenced by many parties for political gain. I’m not saying global warming doesn’t exist.

solveadwordsin 5y ago

Quoting: 'Don't get me wrong... complaining is fine if it leads to action, but isn't it rare.' Solved! ^^ Somehow it may be related (but OT) Comic: > //ibb.co/hXjtxLr [sings:] 'freedom!...freeedom!...' (-; regards,