5 ms·

Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and com

Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and complicated for us to understand or control, not an assertion that global warming isn’t real or whatever you think he said. Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people

palata 2y ago
> Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  Why are you bringing up Trump and climate denial when I've already said that I think climate change, extinctions, and other environmental damage is caused by humans and that we need to take action to fix it? Who are you arguing with?
  - palata 2y ago
    This thread is following: > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. Which was a response to me saying that humans make the conditions worse for all species. It is literally denial of our responsibility in the climate change and current mass extinction. The author of that comment also said: "Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior", which is explicit denial. You came to defend that point by saying "Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb"". So my answer is explaining to you how I don't think this is the classic "anyone smart thinks exactly like I do so you must be dumb". Maybe you are not clear with the position you were defending?
    - subjectsigma 2y ago
      > Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior Oh, I didn’t see that comment, he made it lower down. I disagree with that. But I wasn’t defending that, I was replying to his original comment, which was completely reasonable
      - palata 2y ago
        Denying that we make the conditions worse for other species, in a context where we explicitly talk about biodiversity loss and climate change, is not reasonable. It's denial.
itishappy 2y ago
> Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming. I'd argue that's a saner default assumption. Mass extinctions are not a human creation. They're natural events, like the plague.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming You’re ignoring the energy intensity of GDP and lifestyle intensity per capita, each of which varying within historic ranges flips your outcome across zero. Add to that the largest emitters facing declining populations before immigration and I’m not sure what your point is.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    My point is that we have some evidence that humans don't always improve things, so "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. Nothing more, we're but one element of a chaotic system.
    - subjectsigma 2y ago
      > "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. It's not an assumption, it's the only option. Unless you think extreme and nonsensical ideas like population restrictions or voluntary extinction are viable (as in, people will go along with it and it will actually work), people have to come up with a way to stop climate change. The fucking elephants aren't going to do it.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Trying, failing, and many of us dying are also on the table. There's no target number where climate change will magically be solved, and our population has been doubling roughly every 25 years. Unfortunately we're starting to see other demands for our attention. The next billion people might all be climate scientists, who knows, but they just as well might all end up fighting over constrained resources instead. My point with the "mass extinction aren't a human event" comment is that the Earth does not privilege us in the slightest. Exponential growth is not natural. Extinction events are natural.

palata 2y ago

> Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.

subjectsigma 2y ago
Why are you bringing up Trump and climate denial when I've already said that I think climate change, extinctions, and other environmental damage is caused by humans and that we need to take action to fix it? Who are you arguing with?
- palata 2y ago
  This thread is following: > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. Which was a response to me saying that humans make the conditions worse for all species. It is literally denial of our responsibility in the climate change and current mass extinction. The author of that comment also said: "Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior", which is explicit denial. You came to defend that point by saying "Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb"". So my answer is explaining to you how I don't think this is the classic "anyone smart thinks exactly like I do so you must be dumb". Maybe you are not clear with the position you were defending?
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    > Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior Oh, I didn’t see that comment, he made it lower down. I disagree with that. But I wasn’t defending that, I was replying to his original comment, which was completely reasonable
    - palata 2y ago
      Denying that we make the conditions worse for other species, in a context where we explicitly talk about biodiversity loss and climate change, is not reasonable. It's denial.

itishappy 2y ago

> Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming. I'd argue that's a saner default assumption. Mass extinctions are not a human creation. They're natural events, like the plague.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming You’re ignoring the energy intensity of GDP and lifestyle intensity per capita, each of which varying within historic ranges flips your outcome across zero. Add to that the largest emitters facing declining populations before immigration and I’m not sure what your point is.
- itishappy 2y ago
  My point is that we have some evidence that humans don't always improve things, so "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. Nothing more, we're but one element of a chaotic system.
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    > "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. It's not an assumption, it's the only option. Unless you think extreme and nonsensical ideas like population restrictions or voluntary extinction are viable (as in, people will go along with it and it will actually work), people have to come up with a way to stop climate change. The fucking elephants aren't going to do it.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Trying, failing, and many of us dying are also on the table. There's no target number where climate change will magically be solved, and our population has been doubling roughly every 25 years. Unfortunately we're starting to see other demands for our attention. The next billion people might all be climate scientists, who knows, but they just as well might all end up fighting over constrained resources instead. My point with the "mass extinction aren't a human event" comment is that the Earth does not privilege us in the slightest. Exponential growth is not natural. Extinction events are natural.