4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen... The problem is, of course, that i

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen... The problem is, of course, that immigration turns it into a tragedy of the commons: Population A won't reduce their birth-rate, if that just means population B will take their place, and the strain on their local environment won't be reduced: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-... Europe needs immigrants, young and committed and eager to learn. They are the future taxpayers who will support an ageing population - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/12/the-guardian-view-on-global-migration-its-part-of-europes-future https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/12/the-gu...

baremetal 3y ago
How much weather data do you think it would take to be able to predict the weather 100 or 1000 years from now? People who have never trained a neural network nor attempted to model the weather or any large system might be inclined to believe current climate modeling. Unfortunately we lack the data to do so with any precision or accuracy. And I'm not convinced by someone yelling at me to trust experts. I can reason well enough on my own to know that we lack the data to know if humans are causing global climate changes or if these are just natural progressions.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  There's a lot more in that wikipedia article than just climate change. But even on climate change, suppose as you say there was reasonable doubt - given the potentially devastating consequences of human CO2 emission that we have not yet ruled out, shouldn't we take the precautionary principle? I.e. limit emissions until we are reasonably sure about how much harm they'll cause.
  - baremetal 3y ago
    I think we should have discussions on these things, but I don't trust some self appointed entities to have mine nor anyone else's best interests at heart, other than their own. In other words I am suspicious of the motives of the people pushing the agenda. And they have done little to allay my fears, instead it seems to be increasingly militant in their rhetoric. And I don't believe for a minute that the people advocating that we reduce our standard of living intend on sharing in that reduction. I think they are hypocrites. When I see them raising their own animals or having a garden then I might believe them. Instead they try to tell me that we should eat bugs instead of raising chickens, despite chickens being more palatable and emitters of 0 green house gasses compared to insects at 2g/kg.[1] Chickens also eat kitchen waste. We don't have kitchen waste at my house. If they instead advocated for things like that, things that make sense and have a tangible benefit today, they would have more credibility. Not to mention the mental health benefits of returning to the earth and being closer to nature. Instead they come up with these half baked authoritarian notions and seem intent on ramming them through. 15 minute cities, eating bugs, and owning nothing. zero emissions. no gas powered engines. and on and on it goes. Qui bono? Just taking things away and providing no real solutions. Battery powered earth moving/farming equipment is not feasible, for example. I don't take kindly to being ruled by people with less sense than I have, who refuse to include the very "stakeholders" that they are making decisions for. And who use force to impose their will. [1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh...
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      If your condition is removing the influence of the WEF and other unelected, supranational organizations, I certainly won't argue against that. Just note that their hypocrisy is irrelevant - it won't diminish the problems the rest of us will suffer from continued damage to the environment.

baremetal 3y ago

How much weather data do you think it would take to be able to predict the weather 100 or 1000 years from now? People who have never trained a neural network nor attempted to model the weather or any large system might be inclined to believe current climate modeling. Unfortunately we lack the data to do so with any precision or accuracy. And I'm not convinced by someone yelling at me to trust experts. I can reason well enough on my own to know that we lack the data to know if humans are causing global climate changes or if these are just natural progressions.

Bran_son 3y ago
There's a lot more in that wikipedia article than just climate change. But even on climate change, suppose as you say there was reasonable doubt - given the potentially devastating consequences of human CO2 emission that we have not yet ruled out, shouldn't we take the precautionary principle? I.e. limit emissions until we are reasonably sure about how much harm they'll cause.
- baremetal 3y ago
  I think we should have discussions on these things, but I don't trust some self appointed entities to have mine nor anyone else's best interests at heart, other than their own. In other words I am suspicious of the motives of the people pushing the agenda. And they have done little to allay my fears, instead it seems to be increasingly militant in their rhetoric. And I don't believe for a minute that the people advocating that we reduce our standard of living intend on sharing in that reduction. I think they are hypocrites. When I see them raising their own animals or having a garden then I might believe them. Instead they try to tell me that we should eat bugs instead of raising chickens, despite chickens being more palatable and emitters of 0 green house gasses compared to insects at 2g/kg.[1] Chickens also eat kitchen waste. We don't have kitchen waste at my house. If they instead advocated for things like that, things that make sense and have a tangible benefit today, they would have more credibility. Not to mention the mental health benefits of returning to the earth and being closer to nature. Instead they come up with these half baked authoritarian notions and seem intent on ramming them through. 15 minute cities, eating bugs, and owning nothing. zero emissions. no gas powered engines. and on and on it goes. Qui bono? Just taking things away and providing no real solutions. Battery powered earth moving/farming equipment is not feasible, for example. I don't take kindly to being ruled by people with less sense than I have, who refuse to include the very "stakeholders" that they are making decisions for. And who use force to impose their will. [1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh...
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    If your condition is removing the influence of the WEF and other unelected, supranational organizations, I certainly won't argue against that. Just note that their hypocrisy is irrelevant - it won't diminish the problems the rest of us will suffer from continued damage to the environment.