5 ms·

I would like to register a contrary prediction: I think things will be basically okay even under fairly extreme climate change. I understand that many people m

I would like to register a contrary prediction: I think things will be basically okay even under fairly extreme climate change. I understand that many people may disagree with this prediction and some of those people will disagree with even communicating this prediction, as they will see it as boosterism for our decadent industrial society. However, I think if we are interested in what is true, we need to allow ourselves to conceive of such things as human civilization continuing on without much fuss.

nerdponx 3y ago
This is a bit like driving drunk and believing that things will be OK because until now the road has been mostly clear and you've only swerved a couple of times. It's totally possible that things will turn out not so bad, you'll get home without hurting yourself or anybody else, and you'll sleep it off. Or you will murder somebody in cold blood with your car. Worth the risk?
wredue 3y ago
As far as well can tell, all of the previous mass extinctions were due primarily to climate change. Your prediction has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that we are currently at the beginning of a mass extinction event. It’s not that there will be a mass extinction if we don’t stop. It’s already started my dude.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  You could just as easily argue that "things will be more or less fine" is highly evidence based (things have been fine in the past) and in contrast millenarianism has an awfully bad evidentiary track record. A mass extinction event is underway, but it's not just starting. We are not at the beginning. There is this idea that the premodern world was "basically natural", but the reality is that 70% of animals larger than 45kg that were present in North America when humans arrived are already extinct. There is no Eden to go back to or preserve. The world hasn't been in equilibrium since hominid intelligence started taking off and our only constant is change.
tomohelix 3y ago
This is a bad attitude to have when you consider the cost of being wrong. If you hope for the best and only plan for the best, you won't survive when it actually turns out to be bad. And for the most part, most expert agree it won't be "ok" and more likely to be "shit" to "we are completely fucked"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
trobertson 3y ago
An adaptation of the "narcissist's prayer" for climate change deniers: --- Climate Change isn't happening And if it is, it isn't that bad. And if it is, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not our fault. And if it is, we didn't mean it. And if we did, you should have stopped it. --- Your comment is on line 3. > we need to allow ourselves to conceive of such things as human civilization continuing on without much fuss. There is a large difference between "conceiving of possibilities" and burying our heads in the sand. Climate Change is not a new phenomenon, we've known about it for 50 years (and the oil companies have known for longer). We have decades of research telling us that climate change will drive extreme weather. We have decades of research predicting the effects it will have on human civilization. None of this is new info. The "alternate possibilities" have been considered and disproved a long time ago. We know, without ambiguity, what's happening.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  My meta point is that the moral urgency of the discussion has reached such a fever pitch that if, hypothetically, you were wrong about something - perhaps that the effects will be different than your expectations, perhaps that human ingenuity will overcome the challenges, perhaps that some other, bigger problem will rear it’s head - you have no mechanism left to tell. If that sounds like the narcissists prayer to you then so be it.

nerdponx 3y ago

This is a bit like driving drunk and believing that things will be OK because until now the road has been mostly clear and you've only swerved a couple of times. It's totally possible that things will turn out not so bad, you'll get home without hurting yourself or anybody else, and you'll sleep it off. Or you will murder somebody in cold blood with your car. Worth the risk?

wredue 3y ago

As far as well can tell, all of the previous mass extinctions were due primarily to climate change. Your prediction has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that we are currently at the beginning of a mass extinction event. It’s not that there will be a mass extinction if we don’t stop. It’s already started my dude.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
You could just as easily argue that "things will be more or less fine" is highly evidence based (things have been fine in the past) and in contrast millenarianism has an awfully bad evidentiary track record. A mass extinction event is underway, but it's not just starting. We are not at the beginning. There is this idea that the premodern world was "basically natural", but the reality is that 70% of animals larger than 45kg that were present in North America when humans arrived are already extinct. There is no Eden to go back to or preserve. The world hasn't been in equilibrium since hominid intelligence started taking off and our only constant is change.

tomohelix 3y ago

This is a bad attitude to have when you consider the cost of being wrong. If you hope for the best and only plan for the best, you won't survive when it actually turns out to be bad. And for the most part, most expert agree it won't be "ok" and more likely to be "shit" to "we are completely fucked"

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

trobertson 3y ago

An adaptation of the "narcissist's prayer" for climate change deniers: --- Climate Change isn't happening And if it is, it isn't that bad. And if it is, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not our fault. And if it is, we didn't mean it. And if we did, you should have stopped it. --- Your comment is on line 3. > we need to allow ourselves to conceive of such things as human civilization continuing on without much fuss. There is a large difference between "conceiving of possibilities" and burying our heads in the sand. Climate Change is not a new phenomenon, we've known about it for 50 years (and the oil companies have known for longer). We have decades of research telling us that climate change will drive extreme weather. We have decades of research predicting the effects it will have on human civilization. None of this is new info. The "alternate possibilities" have been considered and disproved a long time ago. We know, without ambiguity, what's happening.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
My meta point is that the moral urgency of the discussion has reached such a fever pitch that if, hypothetically, you were wrong about something - perhaps that the effects will be different than your expectations, perhaps that human ingenuity will overcome the challenges, perhaps that some other, bigger problem will rear it’s head - you have no mechanism left to tell. If that sounds like the narcissists prayer to you then so be it.