4 ms·

You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount l

by danaris 9mo ago

You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by with less." You made an extremely strong claim, that for every lost place to fish, we will, definitely, necessarily, be granted another. That is what I was responding to. Indeed, I quoted it in my first message here.

lelanthran 9mo ago
> You said >> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You are correct, I did say that, but that's because the probability of that is so close to 1 that it's not worth splitting hairs about. Can that fail to happen? Sure, but for the planet to heat up even by an exceptionally high 10c and have few places near the average is a vanishingly small possibility, and would almost certianly require a change in the earth's orbit. > and provided no basis for that claim.
- danaris 9mo ago
  But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't "all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another spot that was not viable will become viable". And there is zero basis for that. So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it?
  - lelanthran 9mo ago
    > So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it? Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not. My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition. Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies. I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely. My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread. You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time. These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse." I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.
    - danaris 9mo ago
      I was 100% clear what I was arguing against from the very start. > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You doubled down, changed the subject, and moved the goalposts. If you had said what you claim to be your point 12 hours ago, rather than strawmanning my posts as claiming that all arable land would disappear at once, then perhaps we could have had a different conversation. (I'd still disagree, but at least it would've been different.) ....also, what the hell is so wrong with being emotional about the collapse of modern human civilization, caused by very preventable factors that we've known about and been screaming about for literally longer than my entire life? Is acting like a Vulcan supposed to make you morally superior or something...?

by danaris 9mo ago

lelanthran 9mo ago

> You said >> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You are correct, I did say that, but that's because the probability of that is so close to 1 that it's not worth splitting hairs about. Can that fail to happen? Sure, but for the planet to heat up even by an exceptionally high 10c and have few places near the average is a vanishingly small possibility, and would almost certianly require a change in the earth's orbit. > and provided no basis for that claim.

danaris 9mo ago
But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't "all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another spot that was not viable will become viable". And there is zero basis for that. So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it?
- lelanthran 9mo ago
  > So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it? Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not. My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition. Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies. I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely. My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread. You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time. These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse." I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    I was 100% clear what I was arguing against from the very start. > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You doubled down, changed the subject, and moved the goalposts. If you had said what you claim to be your point 12 hours ago, rather than strawmanning my posts as claiming that all arable land would disappear at once, then perhaps we could have had a different conversation. (I'd still disagree, but at least it would've been different.) ....also, what the hell is so wrong with being emotional about the collapse of modern human civilization, caused by very preventable factors that we've known about and been screaming about for literally longer than my entire life? Is acting like a Vulcan supposed to make you morally superior or something...?