4 ms·

I wouldn't call the changes "smaller". Climate change is an existential threat. Possibly the greatest one we've ever faced, certainly the greatest since WWII an

I wouldn't call the changes "smaller". Climate change is an existential threat. Possibly the greatest one we've ever faced, certainly the greatest since WWII and so far we're definitely NOT rising to the occasion.

smitty1e 4y ago
To quote the Instapundit: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear.
- chki 4y ago
  "There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear." And who is doing the controlling? Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness? Isn't it much more likely that the many crises we perceive are a product of imperfect human perception and the enormous development of mass media instead of an enormous conspiracy theory?
  - HKH2 4y ago
    > Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness? It's easier to rule happy people. If you want to control them, you can lull them into inaction with vices, then control them with fear. We're all individuals; divide and conquer.
    - chki 4y ago
      Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies. I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralyzed. The connection between - media producers make money by grabbing attention - grabbing attention is easier if you create threats and crises --> the media tends to overblow things seems so much more straightforward.
      - HKH2 4y ago
        > Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. 'Rule' is a neutral word. I meant it in the way that a ruler generally tries to do good for their subjects because on some level they have to. 'Control' is negative and implies no concern for subjects because the subjects have no recourse. > Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies. If you've been awake in the past 3 years you will have seen obvious government overreach. You can justify it if you want to, but it's clearly gone way beyond public health concerns. > I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralysed. I'll assume you're American. What percentage of Americans do you think use psychiatric medication or drugs (including alcohol) on a regular basis?
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting. Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity! The other side of it lately has been creating crisis that divide and conquer society. Most of the "crisis" in the past several years have been terribly polarized. Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc.
    - chki 4y ago
      >I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting. Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity! I think that's much more reasonable. I wouldn't agree with you that it's "most" but sure, that's certainly happening to some amount. >Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc. This part however, I don't buy. That's a conspiracy theory. Who exactly is carrying out this nefarious plan? And how do they manage to have that much influence to be able to do that in most countries?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- thorncorona 4y ago
  What is that bar for you? What issues led you to this opinion that they’re overblown?
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    > "What is that bar for you?" See first sentence of my post. Those demanding sacrifices might start with themselves.
gruez 4y ago
Climate change might be the greatest challenge we've ever faced, but it's hardly an "existential threat" (ie. something that threatens our existence). Even under the worst IPCC forecasts, there won't be enough land lost (eg. by flooding or desertification) to wipe out humanity. Don't get me wrong, billions dying or displaced would be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, but isn't something that threatens our existence.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Exactly, it does always irk me when people call it an existential threat to humanity. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem. But it won't wipe us out. Some areas will also become more habitable (eg Siberia) The mass migration of people across borders as a result of climate change might cause wars that are such a threat though. But still I don't consider climate change itself as such.
  - RhodesianHunter 4y ago
    I said an existential threat, not an existential threat to humanity. For the majority of us, and for our nation, it is indeed an existential threat. Regardless, the pedantry is unwarranted.
- danny_codes 4y ago
  There is a risk that plants can't adapt fast enough to climate change and die off, causing a domino effect. Phytoplankton, for example, produce 50% of the earth's oxygen. So if they go, well, we might be along for the ride.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat. If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago

smitty1e 4y ago

To quote the Instapundit: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear.

chki 4y ago
"There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear." And who is doing the controlling? Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness? Isn't it much more likely that the many crises we perceive are a product of imperfect human perception and the enormous development of mass media instead of an enormous conspiracy theory?
- HKH2 4y ago
  > Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness? It's easier to rule happy people. If you want to control them, you can lull them into inaction with vices, then control them with fear. We're all individuals; divide and conquer.
  - chki 4y ago
    Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies. I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralyzed. The connection between - media producers make money by grabbing attention - grabbing attention is easier if you create threats and crises --> the media tends to overblow things seems so much more straightforward.
    - HKH2 4y ago
      > Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. 'Rule' is a neutral word. I meant it in the way that a ruler generally tries to do good for their subjects because on some level they have to. 'Control' is negative and implies no concern for subjects because the subjects have no recourse. > Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies. If you've been awake in the past 3 years you will have seen obvious government overreach. You can justify it if you want to, but it's clearly gone way beyond public health concerns. > I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralysed. I'll assume you're American. What percentage of Americans do you think use psychiatric medication or drugs (including alcohol) on a regular basis?
- vinyl7 4y ago
  I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting. Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity! The other side of it lately has been creating crisis that divide and conquer society. Most of the "crisis" in the past several years have been terribly polarized. Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc.
  - chki 4y ago
    >I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting. Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity! I think that's much more reasonable. I wouldn't agree with you that it's "most" but sure, that's certainly happening to some amount. >Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc. This part however, I don't buy. That's a conspiracy theory. Who exactly is carrying out this nefarious plan? And how do they manage to have that much influence to be able to do that in most countries?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
thorncorona 4y ago
What is that bar for you? What issues led you to this opinion that they’re overblown?
- smitty1e 4y ago
  > "What is that bar for you?" See first sentence of my post. Those demanding sacrifices might start with themselves.

gruez 4y ago

Climate change might be the greatest challenge we've ever faced, but it's hardly an "existential threat" (ie. something that threatens our existence). Even under the worst IPCC forecasts, there won't be enough land lost (eg. by flooding or desertification) to wipe out humanity. Don't get me wrong, billions dying or displaced would be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, but isn't something that threatens our existence.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Exactly, it does always irk me when people call it an existential threat to humanity. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem. But it won't wipe us out. Some areas will also become more habitable (eg Siberia) The mass migration of people across borders as a result of climate change might cause wars that are such a threat though. But still I don't consider climate change itself as such.
- RhodesianHunter 4y ago
  I said an existential threat, not an existential threat to humanity. For the majority of us, and for our nation, it is indeed an existential threat. Regardless, the pedantry is unwarranted.
danny_codes 4y ago
There is a risk that plants can't adapt fast enough to climate change and die off, causing a domino effect. Phytoplankton, for example, produce 50% of the earth's oxygen. So if they go, well, we might be along for the ride.
- solarmist 4y ago
  Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat. If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago