on second note I like the idea of planning for a rebuild now, but in that case I would need to know just how far along in crisis we go before the ecosystem reaches an equilibrium that gives us the opportunity to rebuild. Are we to the point where we are forced to live in space? Are there people still on the ground that survived? How many, where are they, and what will they need to get back on their feet?

No need to announce your exit. If you would like to have a discussion then discuss otherwise move along.

And lastly, is anyone here considering that it is not smart to have a weapon in the event of mass migration, starvation, illness? You know... during the bullshit that my children and their children and your children are going to be forced to deal with now that we have 2 decades to resolve it before it's too late yet the nations have their thumbs shoved so far up their own asses that they are likely not going to fix it in time.

the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.

You are trolling? Do I really have to write a thesis for you on how to google a word before you make a claim that is incorrect on a forum that revolves around definitions?

The branch of knowledge is surviving climate change.
The study is how to.

And it is in the category of current affairs because it happens to be in progress.

Accuse me of being a terrorist because I know well enough not to bet my life on someone else and to prioritize my family's survival over risking their safety to assist others in the event of global catastrophe?? That's just gross. Really disappointed.

What is it too early to be concerned? Is that what it is? Because newsflash: that ideology is what got us here in the first place. Oh who cares about the smog billowing into the air it's not hurting anything yet. Oh let's just waste all of these resources and build a bunch of useless shit so we can feel comfortable and better about ourselves, nevermind the heaps of it dumping into the ocean and rivers! I'll be too old to see it anyway.

So when do you make the move to protect your family? When it's too late or when the predictions don't look good?

I dont even see why I have to explain this line of thought. It seems like common sense to take measures now to protect future generations from an oncoming catastrophe that we have all already determined is going to take a miracle to curve. This is the next logical step in the event that this miracle does not happen.

I did not say to take weapons into public. Go gaslight someone else, Tim. Or we can talk about your neurosis of projecting disgusting assumptions onto people you know absolutely nothing about.

So the climate is supposed to start killing hundreds of millions of people by 2080 and I'm just supposed to pretend like it doesn't matter because concerning myself with survival measures in the event makes ME a fool? Oh okay.

wow can you please say something useful?

I already know your stance on climate change NOS, and I am uninterested in watching you flail aimlessly in the dark.

the notion that I wish for doomsday is absolutely preposterous and a complete uneducated assumption of my character.

so you just expect that to magically change based on which disney movie?

So yeah it is useful to have in and of itself, but of no use if not applied to something.

I feel like "critical thinking" is just another way of saying "don't fool yourself, you still probably don't fully know all of the answers."

I agree with unenlightened

ah, the willfully ignorant and unconstructive approach.

I feel like I could speak to you infinitely and it would do no good because you refuse to face reality.

regardless of whether or not these are world ending circumstances, one would be an idiot to consider that our current ways are intelligent in general.

But whatever, enjoy you trash and waste. I hope it did you a great service while the next generations are stuck living with and fixing the obvious fuck ups.

Silly to say "everything is fine" when everything is indeed not fine.

that the bulletin of atomic scientists isn't a credible source and that there is no reason for concern.

your conspiracy either makes you brilliant or a complete idiot, and I think we all know where most conspiracy lands on this spectrum.

No offense.

Go look in a convenience store. The epitome of wastefulness to fulfill cravings for sugar, nicotine, alcohol. Prepackaged trash just for you.

Sure it all looks great on paper right now. "Useless shit for everybody, hurray, we can exploit other countries and improperly utilize energy and resources "

But isn't that entire premise just completely idiotic in the long term? Where is the self sustainability in a system that is isolated to sheer addiction curing for lack of it's ability to harness the sun or use other means for responsible energy and it's distribution?

Do we even really need all of this energy? I mean great I can watch Netflix and bullshit with the philosophy forum and I can drive to work because I got me one of them oil fart machines. What's the point of all of this shit if it's just run on advertising ?

I think the best thing to do is appreciate the concept of consciousness and life and to preserve it and continue it to the best of our abilities in order to share it with more potential future beings.

And of a handful of companies' willingness to exploit it.

Here's how it works in real time:

Know what your target market wants to hear, and tell them that they have a problem. "You are bored and uninformed"

Tell them that your product will provide it. "Buy a TV"

Repeat

We cant say fully that consumption of useless products is completely at the fault of the consumers either.

Advertising is psychologically proven to be incredibly effective. Essentially our excessive wasteful spending and consumption is the product of our own psychological woes.

sorry I just now read what you wrote.

As for the societal overhaul that is required to see any progress in this notion, it goes without saying. Something big is going to need to happen in order to solve both over consumption and unsustainable global warming conditions. I am saying that reduction in the former can help to limit the latter, but I am by no means saying that it is an easy ideal to instill in society.

Less money sounds interesting. It could potentially reduce waste. This would have to come with lowered prices of good and services as well, but wouldn't the ratio of consumption still be the same if everyone had less money? That doesn't necessarily change the spending power if the prices meet the same premise. It's sort of just a reversed inflation that is suggested, at least the way I understand it.

I have thought about trying to make responsible consumption trendy. Viral. Displayed on television and youtube in homes and communities. But how to do it in a sea of people who don't want that? A massive amount of money and power who's concern is that we buy copious amounts of useless stuff.

I have also thought of outlawing fiscal currency altogether. If we keep the premise of capitalism the same, where people are capable of trading their items, but we remove the intermediary then people will have to work directly for the resources that they wish to consume. People would have to stop working for the oil and plastics community and start working for items that actually retain value. Working for a TV company would be pointless because you can't eat a TV and the TV company would have to be able to provide food and medicine as well.

Idk these are just ideas. Obviously much of humanity is concerned with solving these problems and no one quite has.

Oh I see he was quoting me as an example of mass hysteria, even though the doomsday clock of the bulletin of atomic scientists is 2 minutes to midnight, and mass hysteria is warranted, because let's face it the politics are shit, the economic structure is shit based on selling useless shit to shit people for their addictions, and the planet is scheduled to catch fire.

But please tell me why there's no reason to be concerned.

This already exists. It's called therapy and drugs.

why did you @ me? I dont even know what page to go to in order to see the rest of the conversation. I saw what you quoted, but not why.

I think I am proposing that it also boils down to our willingness to participate in it.

And in return a new product becomes available that is wasteful?
Thus perpetuating the cycle.

Are you saying it boils down to greed?

so you are saying that people are chasing success more than survival?

The idea being "if I create this product people will flock to it, I will become wealthy and that will solve everything."?

I wouldn't disagree that a big part of the issue is the sheer number of humans, but our unwavering desires to accumulate unnecessary products is a massive environmental issue.

The factories, the products, the materials, the shipping and transportation exhaust, etc

sushi, the resolution provided is to revert to less consumption. Of course I haven't come up with the end all be all solution for how to accomplish this. If I had I would be rich, the problem would be solved, and there would be no need to address it at all.

You keep coming to me saying "well you must figure out exactly how to solve the problems you present"
But if I could do that, then I would.

I ask you all to help me think about it in hopes that one of us will.

Unless!
Unless you have a total replacement that actually makes sense. You can throw out the system entirely if there is a completely new system that actually works out, and I would be happy to hear it.

But you can't expect people to naturally understand how to coordinate or cooperate without guidelines of some sort. It simply doesn't work out. Especially if you omit law altogether. Then it becomes the individual's responsibility to take justice into their own hands. How many times can you expect that to work before it totally collapses the entire society?

I'm gonna say 3, you rob me, I rob you, you shoot me, gang wars ensue, justice becomes in the eye of the beholder and not in the eye of predetermined agreements. Why would anyone revert back to a system of lawlessness when they can simply adhere to predetermined morality teachings that have come before us to solve these issues and make changes or alterations as seen fit by the society?

I just see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Modify, alter, expand... well sure.
But to throw it all out completely?
I'm sorry but pride and honor over complete control of the entirety of your individual life is a farce.

You belong to a community called Earth, so pay attention and don't pretend you are alone.

Well at least we agree on something.

Yes, but not at the expense of others.

Invest in gold and guns. Production is going to slow way down. Governments and economic institutions are going to change and fail. People will be fighting for their place in survivable conditions.