3 ms·

Hospitable for which biological organisms? The issue is not that the planet is going to be destroyed. The issue is that the current political systems and huma

by suture 4y ago

Hospitable for which biological organisms? The issue is not that the planet is going to be destroyed. The issue is that the current political systems and human organization of the world is going to be destroyed (or greatly disrupted) in a short period of time. Talking about what the climate was like millions of years before humans evolved is not germane to the discussion at hand.

zmgsabst 4y ago
What makes it irrelevant? You have an unstated assumption that a change to the current political systems and organization is fundamentally catastrophic, but I’m not sure I agree. If the only impact is political, so what?
- suture 4y ago
  Life today evolved over time and adapted to the changes of the planet. Present day life is not adapted to living on the planet as it was millions of years ago. Rapidly increasing the heat of the planet and rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 will cause biological disruptions. It will also cause disruptions for societies as we too have adapted our current ways of life for a climate that increasingly doesn’t exist. The political impact is one of civilizational collapse. Some people are not nihilists and want to avert this.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > It will also cause disruptions for societies as we too have adapted our current ways of life for a climate that increasingly doesn’t exist. Okay — can you quantify “disruptions”, because that comes across as a “scare word” that just means “things will change”. > The political impact is one of civilizational collapse. Some people are not nihilists and want to avert this. Okay, how exactly? That last sentence, where you impeach the character of people who disagree with you, makes me think that this is political tribalism and an excuse for totalitarianism rather than a scientific point. Which has been my experience of people “fighting global warming”: they’re more interested in the excuse to reform society to their totalitarian vision than the science.
    - suture 4y ago
      I didn’t impeach anyone’s character. Me, I tend toward nihilism. I believe the only outcome is going to be massive political disruptions. I think things must get much worse before anything meaningful will be done. Hence my vote for Trump. I voted for the apocalypse. As I see things right leaning people in the U.S. burry their head in the sand and think everything will be just fine. Left leaning people tend to think that driving a Prius is a meaningful action toward the problem and in a sense equally burry their heads in the sand. My views on this are not normative to any major political group in the U.S. One thing that ought to be indisputable is that massively increasing the energy into the weather system will cause major disruptions before the system stabilizes into a new normal (equilibrium).
      - j2bax 4y ago
        I love a good out of left field comment! People are so quick to assume and paint everyone with an extremely blunt brush. We'd all be better to not do that and engage in meaningful conversations with each other rather than rely on what we think we know about everyone's political associations.
      - starkd 4y ago
        There are environmentalists who have notably pulled back on the global warming alarm bells. Shellenberger and Lomborg are two notable examples. They still agree with the science, but think the rhetoric only inflames things and leads to unnecessary panic. Not saying they are right, but it's important to note scientists are not all in unison on this topic. The fact the media want you to thnk so should be a red flag, in my opinion. They create a fear that only instills a panic that forces you to accept their solution. These solutions should be rationally discussed and not stampeded into.
        suture 4y ago
        I haven’t studied the issue so my opinion doesn’t matter. It seems to me that there will need to be far fewer people in the future in order to have a planet worth living on. I think all policies not designed to ensure this outcome will fail. So for me policy doesn’t matter since none of the ones I’ve read about have this as their goal. Mine is a minority opinion. Maybe even and extremist one!

by suture 4y ago

zmgsabst 4y ago

What makes it irrelevant? You have an unstated assumption that a change to the current political systems and organization is fundamentally catastrophic, but I’m not sure I agree. If the only impact is political, so what?

suture 4y ago
Life today evolved over time and adapted to the changes of the planet. Present day life is not adapted to living on the planet as it was millions of years ago. Rapidly increasing the heat of the planet and rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 will cause biological disruptions. It will also cause disruptions for societies as we too have adapted our current ways of life for a climate that increasingly doesn’t exist. The political impact is one of civilizational collapse. Some people are not nihilists and want to avert this.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > It will also cause disruptions for societies as we too have adapted our current ways of life for a climate that increasingly doesn’t exist. Okay — can you quantify “disruptions”, because that comes across as a “scare word” that just means “things will change”. > The political impact is one of civilizational collapse. Some people are not nihilists and want to avert this. Okay, how exactly? That last sentence, where you impeach the character of people who disagree with you, makes me think that this is political tribalism and an excuse for totalitarianism rather than a scientific point. Which has been my experience of people “fighting global warming”: they’re more interested in the excuse to reform society to their totalitarian vision than the science.
  - suture 4y ago
    I didn’t impeach anyone’s character. Me, I tend toward nihilism. I believe the only outcome is going to be massive political disruptions. I think things must get much worse before anything meaningful will be done. Hence my vote for Trump. I voted for the apocalypse. As I see things right leaning people in the U.S. burry their head in the sand and think everything will be just fine. Left leaning people tend to think that driving a Prius is a meaningful action toward the problem and in a sense equally burry their heads in the sand. My views on this are not normative to any major political group in the U.S. One thing that ought to be indisputable is that massively increasing the energy into the weather system will cause major disruptions before the system stabilizes into a new normal (equilibrium).
    - j2bax 4y ago
      I love a good out of left field comment! People are so quick to assume and paint everyone with an extremely blunt brush. We'd all be better to not do that and engage in meaningful conversations with each other rather than rely on what we think we know about everyone's political associations.
    - starkd 4y ago
      There are environmentalists who have notably pulled back on the global warming alarm bells. Shellenberger and Lomborg are two notable examples. They still agree with the science, but think the rhetoric only inflames things and leads to unnecessary panic. Not saying they are right, but it's important to note scientists are not all in unison on this topic. The fact the media want you to thnk so should be a red flag, in my opinion. They create a fear that only instills a panic that forces you to accept their solution. These solutions should be rationally discussed and not stampeded into.
      - suture 4y ago
        I haven’t studied the issue so my opinion doesn’t matter. It seems to me that there will need to be far fewer people in the future in order to have a planet worth living on. I think all policies not designed to ensure this outcome will fail. So for me policy doesn’t matter since none of the ones I’ve read about have this as their goal. Mine is a minority opinion. Maybe even and extremist one!