4 ms·

There's plenty of them to go around and are plenty of adaptations for when there wont be anymore. You ignored 90% of what you replied to.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
It's simply taken on faith that we'll find such resources, in such great abundance that we'll never run out of them, that we're not decades away from cooking the planet beyond livability.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Its the same kind of faith as the sun rising tomorrow. The universal constant of human history is finding new resources to exploit and manipulating our environment, the scope of which grows exponentially by the century. Why do you think this will suddenly change, without precedent? There is no reliable science behind 'cooking the planet beyond livability'. We already have adaptations (carbon extraction) for that even if it were true.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    If you're going to handwave away climate change and the resultant catastrophes as "not real" then I see no point in engaging further. I don't know if you meant carbon capture when you said extraction, but that's vaporware. Sudden change, without precedent... sounds like a black swan event, which ironically we have a term for. But there is precedent. Many civilizations before us have collapsed due to lack of resources, or mismanagement, or expanding so much they became unmanageable; this would just be the first time a globally connected civilization did so. Exponential growth tends to become sigmoidal the further out you look, so you're taking it on faith that human history is the exception to the rule. You are convinced we are at the knee of an exponential curve and I am convinced we've already flattened into sigmoid.
    - corbulo 4y ago
      We aren't the exception to the rule even remotely. Macroevolution is eternal growth. Its been around for quite some time. Life finding ways to adapt to differing resource ratios. I'm not handwaving away anything; i'm admiring billions of years of clear precedent. You're handwaving away all of that precedent based on extreme pessimism and alarmism that has no basis in any evidence to date. Simply because climate change exists doesnt mean its the most extreme version cooked up by a crackpot journalist.
      - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        "Macroevolution is eternal growth" - what is this supposed to mean? Beehives keep growing infinitely, civilizations always advance? Forget previous civilization collapses, remember we're in the middle of the sixth mass extinction. As for "eternal", that's a bold claim to make for all the eternity that hasn't happened yet. I can just as easily say you're handwaving away the pessimism based on precedent. Precedent holds, right up until it doesn't.
        corbulo 4y ago
        >Beehives keep growing infinitely, civilizations always advance? No, it means there are always adaptations. I defined what it means. The precedent is what has evidence. Your pessimism doesn't have evidence to support inhabitable conditions within a few decades unless we initiate an authoritarian world government to control all growth and control the climate. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        >evidence to support inhabitable conditions within a few decades unless we initiate an authoritarian world government to control all growth and control the climate. I'm assuming you meant uninhabitable conditions. And that you're putting words in my mouth.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

It's simply taken on faith that we'll find such resources, in such great abundance that we'll never run out of them, that we're not decades away from cooking the planet beyond livability.

corbulo 4y ago
Its the same kind of faith as the sun rising tomorrow. The universal constant of human history is finding new resources to exploit and manipulating our environment, the scope of which grows exponentially by the century. Why do you think this will suddenly change, without precedent? There is no reliable science behind 'cooking the planet beyond livability'. We already have adaptations (carbon extraction) for that even if it were true.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  If you're going to handwave away climate change and the resultant catastrophes as "not real" then I see no point in engaging further. I don't know if you meant carbon capture when you said extraction, but that's vaporware. Sudden change, without precedent... sounds like a black swan event, which ironically we have a term for. But there is precedent. Many civilizations before us have collapsed due to lack of resources, or mismanagement, or expanding so much they became unmanageable; this would just be the first time a globally connected civilization did so. Exponential growth tends to become sigmoidal the further out you look, so you're taking it on faith that human history is the exception to the rule. You are convinced we are at the knee of an exponential curve and I am convinced we've already flattened into sigmoid.
  - corbulo 4y ago
    We aren't the exception to the rule even remotely. Macroevolution is eternal growth. Its been around for quite some time. Life finding ways to adapt to differing resource ratios. I'm not handwaving away anything; i'm admiring billions of years of clear precedent. You're handwaving away all of that precedent based on extreme pessimism and alarmism that has no basis in any evidence to date. Simply because climate change exists doesnt mean its the most extreme version cooked up by a crackpot journalist.
    - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      "Macroevolution is eternal growth" - what is this supposed to mean? Beehives keep growing infinitely, civilizations always advance? Forget previous civilization collapses, remember we're in the middle of the sixth mass extinction. As for "eternal", that's a bold claim to make for all the eternity that hasn't happened yet. I can just as easily say you're handwaving away the pessimism based on precedent. Precedent holds, right up until it doesn't.
      - corbulo 4y ago
        >Beehives keep growing infinitely, civilizations always advance? No, it means there are always adaptations. I defined what it means. The precedent is what has evidence. Your pessimism doesn't have evidence to support inhabitable conditions within a few decades unless we initiate an authoritarian world government to control all growth and control the climate. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        >evidence to support inhabitable conditions within a few decades unless we initiate an authoritarian world government to control all growth and control the climate. I'm assuming you meant uninhabitable conditions. And that you're putting words in my mouth.