5 ms·

The world will not end, just change. Maybe for the better? E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again! We know what needs to be done

by tomp 3y ago

The world will not end, just change. Maybe for the better? E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again! We know what needs to be done. Build nuclear! But unfortunately anti-growth “green” parties and activists (like you I presume) have been pushing anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, stopping progress. Nothing can be done on an individual level, so quitting your job or not having kids is completely pointless. Only top-down action (less regulation) can solve the problem. So vote!

rajanaccros 3y ago
I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction, wet bulb temperatures and not enough power to cool will affect and kill millions of people N/S 30deg of the equator. My alarmist talking points it to actually engage people like you and who have similar thoughts that think they can't do anything. You absolutely can. And it is time to be alarmist. Not being so is not working. My point is to work to restructure society at any level you can, to educate, and to stop this myth of perpetual growth GDP as the only indicator of success. It is killing everything. > E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again! We have a perfectly good world as is, and you want to gamble everything on this?
- tomp 3y ago
  Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C. Actually even with solar we can do that (it’s night power that would remain a problem). No solution that requires degrowth, less energy, lower GDP or lower human quality of life, is acceptable to me. Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death. Alarmism and promoting degrowth and/or stupid policies (paper straws, anyone?) just further increase the public backlash against “green” movement, so I guess it’s a good thing?!
  - rajanaccros 3y ago
    You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is technical, as many naive people believe, but will not solve the issue. We have planetary boundaries and "renewables" and nuclear will not solve those issues. More AC, means for CFCs that will still impact the environment. More growth means more extraction for wind/solar and other technologies that will impact the environment. These are not solutions to our issue. Nothing else is working. Alarmism is supposed to get people to actually act, because otherwise they take your (ignorant) positions on sitting back and keep growing. The next idea you have for a great startup, a way to make money, something for your individual advancement, please go back to imperative #1 -- nothing is going to matter as we kill everything on this planet. People become really defensive when they hear they have to change due to climate catastrophe. I get it. It's not fair. But it is necessary. If people read the alarmist language (not just from posters like me, but alarmist language from scientists who tend to use neutral language in their reports), then they will have to deal with the fact that the have a direct causal link to our children's and the next generation's death due to their inaction. At that point, the person is not just ignorant, but sociopathic. If we continue on this path, it will be humanity's ruin.
    - tomp 3y ago
      Technology literally means getting more value from the same amount of inputs. Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them. Not to mention offworld resources. Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere, and how to spread good agritech to poor, non-democratic countries (hint: Europe produces tons of food sustainably using minimal resources, and is actually regrowing forests!). But I'd bet on further technological development and economic growth any time, my own life and that of my child(ren), rather than embrace degrowth and the associated (19th century) poverty, hunger, child mortality, etc. that comes with it. Degrowth is literally murder.
      - 3y ago
omegabravo 3y ago
I'm confused how _only less regulation_ can solve the problem. Famously, companies love less regulation so they can do what they want without consequence. Good regulation, is quite effective. Just hard.
jamilton 3y ago
How could less regulation possibly help? Negative externalities need to be captured, how else can that be done but with more regulation?
palata 3y ago
> Maybe for the better? Eventually, maybe. For most species, humanity collapsing is definitely a good thing. Now in your lifetime... I would rather bet for mass migrations, famines, wars and global instability. But yeah, voting is important, because given how most people vote, they are not aware of the problem.

by tomp 3y ago

rajanaccros 3y ago

I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction, wet bulb temperatures and not enough power to cool will affect and kill millions of people N/S 30deg of the equator. My alarmist talking points it to actually engage people like you and who have similar thoughts that think they can't do anything. You absolutely can. And it is time to be alarmist. Not being so is not working. My point is to work to restructure society at any level you can, to educate, and to stop this myth of perpetual growth GDP as the only indicator of success. It is killing everything. > E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again! We have a perfectly good world as is, and you want to gamble everything on this?

tomp 3y ago
Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C. Actually even with solar we can do that (it’s night power that would remain a problem). No solution that requires degrowth, less energy, lower GDP or lower human quality of life, is acceptable to me. Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death. Alarmism and promoting degrowth and/or stupid policies (paper straws, anyone?) just further increase the public backlash against “green” movement, so I guess it’s a good thing?!
- rajanaccros 3y ago
  You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is technical, as many naive people believe, but will not solve the issue. We have planetary boundaries and "renewables" and nuclear will not solve those issues. More AC, means for CFCs that will still impact the environment. More growth means more extraction for wind/solar and other technologies that will impact the environment. These are not solutions to our issue. Nothing else is working. Alarmism is supposed to get people to actually act, because otherwise they take your (ignorant) positions on sitting back and keep growing. The next idea you have for a great startup, a way to make money, something for your individual advancement, please go back to imperative #1 -- nothing is going to matter as we kill everything on this planet. People become really defensive when they hear they have to change due to climate catastrophe. I get it. It's not fair. But it is necessary. If people read the alarmist language (not just from posters like me, but alarmist language from scientists who tend to use neutral language in their reports), then they will have to deal with the fact that the have a direct causal link to our children's and the next generation's death due to their inaction. At that point, the person is not just ignorant, but sociopathic. If we continue on this path, it will be humanity's ruin.
  - tomp 3y ago
    Technology literally means getting more value from the same amount of inputs. Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them. Not to mention offworld resources. Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere, and how to spread good agritech to poor, non-democratic countries (hint: Europe produces tons of food sustainably using minimal resources, and is actually regrowing forests!). But I'd bet on further technological development and economic growth any time, my own life and that of my child(ren), rather than embrace degrowth and the associated (19th century) poverty, hunger, child mortality, etc. that comes with it. Degrowth is literally murder.
    - 3y ago

omegabravo 3y ago

I'm confused how _only less regulation_ can solve the problem. Famously, companies love less regulation so they can do what they want without consequence. Good regulation, is quite effective. Just hard.

jamilton 3y ago

How could less regulation possibly help? Negative externalities need to be captured, how else can that be done but with more regulation?

palata 3y ago

> Maybe for the better? Eventually, maybe. For most species, humanity collapsing is definitely a good thing. Now in your lifetime... I would rather bet for mass migrations, famines, wars and global instability. But yeah, voting is important, because given how most people vote, they are not aware of the problem.