3 ms·

Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. And yes, there will be a delay as

by loceng 3y ago

Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. And yes, there will be a delay as part of evolutionary process for when plants and wildlife can adapt - for plants that are better adapted or capable of adapting to hotter temperatures-different climate will adjust - so indeed at minimum reducing the pace at minimum can be useful; and deploying technologies to slow down the increase we have arguably bumped up at least a little bit [remember the distance that Earth to the sun we are is the biggest factor of temperatures, and where are we in that 1000s of year cycle at the moment?] will help, but we could also prepare to pollinate and manage new growth areas with plants/life we know can adapt; the US policy makers on the side of believing climate change is a life-or-death urgent consideration want to spend $40+ trillion "fighting" it - so getting simply helping the Earth adapt, which is what we should be doing because it's unknown exactly how much our changing CO2 levels will actually impact things, is a no-brainer to do regardless - to create more life, to maximize it; and I also believe Elon is correct that Earth can sustain another 10x the current human population - however that will require succeeding in battle against industrial complexes and authoritarian wannabes who're involved in regulatory capture. "Alternative solution: we should stop buying from them so they will not generate that co2." Absolutely a good strategy to stop rewarding that behaviour, if that's the best course of action to not destabilize the world too much - which may not be a good idea to potentially force the CCP-China's hand into highly aggressive or bad-harmful behaviour. But do you think the inflationary policy, money borrowing, $34 trillion in debt, and people currently struggling in the US and West in general will be able to handle the massive increase in costs of goods that will happen if that happens?

yetihehe 3y ago
> Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. We will have more life, but less humans and probably our civilisation will not survive. Apart from that, earth will be fine, so we should do as we please and put as much pollution as we want to?
- Kerb_ 3y ago
  Well, a bunch of the other dominant species would die too, but "life" referring to the construct of individual contained chemical reactions sustaining themselves will surely continue, which is basically the same thing
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'. We may survive as a species. But our civilization will not survive the destabilization it causes. E.g. folks depend on fish for a large part of the planet, from coastal waters. Kill the reefs (which we've made a good start on), the coastal ecosystem collpases (california crab anyone?) and not thousands, not millions but hundreds of millions of people starve. Then what? Some kind of global rescue effort? Not hardly. Look at the last wave of 10,000 refugees, how every European country was winging about 'we can't accept a thousand! It's too much!' Now add four zeroes to that number. Get the picture?
- loceng 3y ago
  "Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'." This is a straw man argument. I didn't say it costs too much, I was stating options for how and where money may be better spent. And if you haven't observed yet that the free market - save for regulatory capture - is far more efficient than government at most efficiently distributing resources where needed, then "you" aren't paying enough attention.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    The free market is crippled by 'the tragedy of the commons' when it comes to anything whatsoever that isn't simple self-interest. "Somebody else should do that" is typical, or more likely "If I spend anything on a social good, I will be less competitive and go out of business" Solving problems like this are precisely where government, with all its flaws, is essential to doing it at all.
    - loceng 3y ago
      It goes one step further than you're thinking though: the government will become corrupted by the worst of the worst for-profit tyrannical bad actors, which is precisely why it's the free market - people en mass - who must actually address these common issues and right the ship. It starts with industrial complexes forming an unfair advantage, leading to regulatory capture that selfishly sets up rules to benefit the industry's profits at the cost of people, society, the environment. As part of that regulatory capture the industries lobby to get politicians of their choosing into positions of decision making, those politicians progressively are more clever-deceptive and more authoritarian. These two sides of the same coin is fascism.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
You seem to be ignoring the human cost, or maybe you just haven’t thought about it. Under your scenario, millions will die and millions more become migrants destabilizing the governments in the temperate zones. Maybe you are fine with that, a lot of us are not.
- loceng 3y ago
  Huh? How under my scenario do millions die like how you stated? What assumptions did you insert in order to conclude with an ad hominem straw argument? If you're willing to implement policy that increases the cost of energy then you're also in support of killing off the poorest, right? Jordan Peterson has regularly brought this up in this argument points against the current strategy of CO2 taxes, etc - which are actually worse for the environment because then people can't afford the less polluting energy sources, and then they burn wood - worse for environment for pollution, worse for their own health, and it destroys forests.
  - Tadpole9181 3y ago
    Oh, good, we're citing Jordan Peterson now.
    - loceng 3y ago
      Oh, good, HN is showing it's ideological-uncritical side - smearing/attacking individuals rather than argument points. Good job!
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Your claim that people will switch from fossil fuels to wood rather than electricity needs some evidence, not just a theory from some random talking head. It’s possible that some people might, but how many?
    - loceng 3y ago
      Firstly, this "random talking head" theory is based on basic-foundational economics: when costs go up, less people can afford those costs - and if it's survival related, they will cut down trees if that is available for heating and cooking. There also is legitimate research showing that once people earn "$5,000" per year minimum then they are able to actually start caring about non-selfish, holistic-society wide problems - otherwise survival rightly has them concentrating on themselves; which I hope logically makes sense to you, and you don't require me to dig up the link(s)? Second, what source(s) are acceptable-authoritative to you, e.g. what source(s) will you actually believe? Do you also think those people are properly or correctly accounted for? It's why we should work from first principles of logic, and where zero or very near zero people (and I don't mean millions of lives being an acceptable number) are ; do no harm.

by loceng 3y ago

yetihehe 3y ago

> Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. We will have more life, but less humans and probably our civilisation will not survive. Apart from that, earth will be fine, so we should do as we please and put as much pollution as we want to?

Kerb_ 3y ago
Well, a bunch of the other dominant species would die too, but "life" referring to the construct of individual contained chemical reactions sustaining themselves will surely continue, which is basically the same thing

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'. We may survive as a species. But our civilization will not survive the destabilization it causes. E.g. folks depend on fish for a large part of the planet, from coastal waters. Kill the reefs (which we've made a good start on), the coastal ecosystem collpases (california crab anyone?) and not thousands, not millions but hundreds of millions of people starve. Then what? Some kind of global rescue effort? Not hardly. Look at the last wave of 10,000 refugees, how every European country was winging about 'we can't accept a thousand! It's too much!' Now add four zeroes to that number. Get the picture?

loceng 3y ago
"Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'." This is a straw man argument. I didn't say it costs too much, I was stating options for how and where money may be better spent. And if you haven't observed yet that the free market - save for regulatory capture - is far more efficient than government at most efficiently distributing resources where needed, then "you" aren't paying enough attention.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  The free market is crippled by 'the tragedy of the commons' when it comes to anything whatsoever that isn't simple self-interest. "Somebody else should do that" is typical, or more likely "If I spend anything on a social good, I will be less competitive and go out of business" Solving problems like this are precisely where government, with all its flaws, is essential to doing it at all.
  - loceng 3y ago
    It goes one step further than you're thinking though: the government will become corrupted by the worst of the worst for-profit tyrannical bad actors, which is precisely why it's the free market - people en mass - who must actually address these common issues and right the ship. It starts with industrial complexes forming an unfair advantage, leading to regulatory capture that selfishly sets up rules to benefit the industry's profits at the cost of people, society, the environment. As part of that regulatory capture the industries lobby to get politicians of their choosing into positions of decision making, those politicians progressively are more clever-deceptive and more authoritarian. These two sides of the same coin is fascism.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

You seem to be ignoring the human cost, or maybe you just haven’t thought about it. Under your scenario, millions will die and millions more become migrants destabilizing the governments in the temperate zones. Maybe you are fine with that, a lot of us are not.

loceng 3y ago
Huh? How under my scenario do millions die like how you stated? What assumptions did you insert in order to conclude with an ad hominem straw argument? If you're willing to implement policy that increases the cost of energy then you're also in support of killing off the poorest, right? Jordan Peterson has regularly brought this up in this argument points against the current strategy of CO2 taxes, etc - which are actually worse for the environment because then people can't afford the less polluting energy sources, and then they burn wood - worse for environment for pollution, worse for their own health, and it destroys forests.
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  Oh, good, we're citing Jordan Peterson now.
  - loceng 3y ago
    Oh, good, HN is showing it's ideological-uncritical side - smearing/attacking individuals rather than argument points. Good job!
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Your claim that people will switch from fossil fuels to wood rather than electricity needs some evidence, not just a theory from some random talking head. It’s possible that some people might, but how many?
  - loceng 3y ago
    Firstly, this "random talking head" theory is based on basic-foundational economics: when costs go up, less people can afford those costs - and if it's survival related, they will cut down trees if that is available for heating and cooking. There also is legitimate research showing that once people earn "$5,000" per year minimum then they are able to actually start caring about non-selfish, holistic-society wide problems - otherwise survival rightly has them concentrating on themselves; which I hope logically makes sense to you, and you don't require me to dig up the link(s)? Second, what source(s) are acceptable-authoritative to you, e.g. what source(s) will you actually believe? Do you also think those people are properly or correctly accounted for? It's why we should work from first principles of logic, and where zero or very near zero people (and I don't mean millions of lives being an acceptable number) are ; do no harm.