When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, — Kasperanza

I missed this one. :lol:

Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it. — Kasperanza

Good for you! It’s clearly doing wonders.

:lol:

Just as I thought. Stick with your dogma and be happy. The world is transitioning away from fossil fuels, which are 100% contributing to the climate crisis (despite your delusions), whether you like it or not. Sorry!

Whether it happens quickly enough, I don’t know.

I don't give a squawk what the climate does — Kasperanza

That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. This happens to be titled “climate change.” If you don’t care about it, next time don’t comment.


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza

So laws are "restrictions," in Ayn Rand's eyes (sorry, I mean "your" eyes), and thus restrict freedom. How quaint.

By this I gather you exempt the laws ("restrictions") that keep the wealthy in their positions of powers, like the corporation as a person (a gift from the state), patent laws, copyright laws, private property laws, etc. To say nothing of roads, bridges, police, military, subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts when they fail. All from the government. That's all fine, I assume.

Traffic laws should probably go, though. So should laws against malpractice. That's not cancer you're dying from -- it's "real freedom."

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.

Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss. — baker

Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell (the latest "libertarian" darling) videos on YouTube. I can see that. They speak with authority, are well educated, and aren't completely insane. Some things of theirs I even agree with. But when I see how their followers apply their thinking to issues like climate change or corporate malfeasance, it's fairly obvious that something's gone wrong.

If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate. — Kasperanza

I've asked you to take ten minutes to read about climate change, and you've refused. Eventually I'll just ignore you. But since 10 minutes may be a long time to some, here's literally 60 seconds worth:



You keep repeating this, and you're confused. So I'll repeat: there is no "capitalism." I don't know what you're referring to when you say that. So either explain what you mean or stop embarrassing yourself by mindlessly repeating slogans.

Second, fossil fuels (and the greed of the industry, driven by profits at the cost of society -- what some would call "capitalism") are the cause of this crisis. Using more of them is literally the opposite of what needs to happen. Do you see that or not? Clearly you don't. Which, again, is why I would recommend learning about this topic.

Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to.

Your position is literally: "Wow, it's getting really hot out -- who cares? As long as we can stay cool inside, with our air conditioners, what difference does it make what happens 'out there'?"

You're the embodiment of science illiteracy.

Here are some resources to ignore:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

And once more, for good measure:

It makes zero sense to me.
— Kasperanza

Because you're apparently completely unwilling to consider future consequences. — Echarmion

And because he apparently doesn’t read anything outside climate denial— and maybe not even that, given that the only reference given thus far has been to a YouTube video.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing.

had is your weird, baffled rage. — NOS4A2

Not enraged, and certainly not baffled. Not by you anyway.

it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. — NOS4A2

Yeah, you’re a hero. How brave.

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere. — Kasperanza

It’s comments like this that make it obvious you don’t have a clue. Excess amount of greenhouse gases produces a greater greenhouse effect. That’s not good for human beings or nature as we know it. If we have a climate like the dinosaurs, we’re toast as a a species. Which you’d know if you deign to read anything about this topic outside denialist propaganda.

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza

It’s not all due to CO2, but that’s the main driver. Methane and other gases also contribute.

It’s not solar flares or generational shifts— believe it or not, this has been considered by climate scientists. What we see is outside of natural variation. But feel free to believe that because you’ve watched a YouTube video by a well known climate denier, you’ve cracked the case. Maybe a lecture from you on why quantum mechanics is “stupid”?

Yes, stopping burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the earth’s global temperature average, which is the goal.

Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, — Kasperanza

“Under capitalism”?

The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.

There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious.

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. — Kasperanza

No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded.

You don’t see impending doom? Oh good. Your expert opinion gives me solace.

Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.

When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.

If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good. — Kasperanza

Is this a joke? Or are you a joke?

I’ll go with the latter. Oh well.

I mean I grew up the American education system. I was fed your perspective my entire life and I believed it for most of my life. — Kasperanza

Believed what? Going solely on what you've said thus far, it seems very obvious to me that you really haven't taken the time to understand the (now) other point of view -- which happens to be the overwhelming consensus amongst people who have dedicated their lives to the field -- climatologists, oceanographers, geophysicists, astrophysicists, etc.

The climate is changing rapidly. We're already seeing some of the results, as was predicted years ago. This was known way back in the 50s, in fact. Exxon scientists noted it in the 70s and 80s. It's long been known that burning fossil fuels, along with agricultural practices and deforestation, will lead to a build-up in greenhouse gases -- CO2, methane, etc.

The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere.

Since the industrial revolution, we've pumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and, as isn't a surprise, the global temperature average has increased. There are graphs available that show this correlation very clearly if you're more visual (like me).

So the greenhouse gases are climbing rapidly and the climate is changing rapidly. More so than in the last 100,000 years -- and we have CO2 measurements/temperature measurements from that far too (ice core samples, etc). That's really dangerous for life on Earth, because it will effect many things -- leaving even tipping points aside.

It'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know.

I write all this out in case you're really curious. I would much prefer you read some of the links I've provided, but so be it.

I just wonder what your solution is to climate change. — Kasperanza

There are many solutions. The IPCC provides some, but I like Robert Pollin's ideas myself (he's an economist, not a climatologist -- but he starts with the premise that climate change is real and something needs to be done econimically). He outlines a plan that would require about 3% of GDP annually to enact. A smooth transition.

The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on.

Plenty of solutions, plenty of plans. Nothing extremist. It can easily happen, provided there's political will. But there hasn't been any, and for obvious reasons. The people of this country (and around the world) are in favor of it, and those numbers will continue to rise as things get worse. The IPCC and others have given us maybe 10 or 20 years to really get moving on this, and we have to start right away. There are some bright spots, but still a lot more needs to be done.

It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true.

There are no such thing as "free markets." I know Ayn Rand talks about this a lot -- but it's a fantasy. She ignores a lot of history. If you want someone a little more tricky, try Milton Friedman. He's had a much bigger impact than Rand, and has a better understanding of history. His thesis is equally flawed, though. There are no "free markets" in the world. There's only state-capitalism, which is what we have here in the US. Major intervention in markets by the state. So if an industry is largely the cause of a problem -- whether lung cancer or climate change -- and have benefited from state subsidies for decades, then the state can intervene in the opposite direction as well.

I'm not expecting you to agree, but it would be nice if you could understand some of the points that Alex Epstein makes. I don't think he's some lunatic. — Kasperanza

I'm very familiar with Alex Epstein. I'm also familiar with other very famous climate "skeptics" -- Marc Morano. James Inhofe. Myron Ebell. Bjorn Lomborg. Fred Singer. Roy Spencer. (These latter two are especially prominent in online circulation.) None of them are "lunatics" (well, perhaps Inhofe). Some are scientists (in other fields), some are politicians, some are complete industry-funded charlatans who don't believe a word of what they're saying, and some are (I imagine) pretty nice guys who are sincere in their beliefs.

Sure, you can stick exclusively with those guys if you'd like. I've been discussing this issue with their followers for years. They, much like you, don't seem to have the slightest interest in consulting any climatologist, academy, or institution that represents the vast consensus. Won't spend 10 minutes on anything by NASA, by the Royal Academy, by Nature or Science magazine or any other research journal, by the IPCC, by NOAA, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), etc. etc. etc.

I suppose that's -- what -- "open minded"?

But I guess the perspective still is on our own asses, because life on Earth will surely adapt to situations where the polar caps have melted etc. We humans on the other hand might have huge problems. — ssu

Well yes, of course. That's all I'm talking about, although a lot of people here are taking a much broader view. But I don't care as much about whether other life exists, necessarily. I care about human existence. I assumed we all do. Some like to posture about this, of course, but appearing to be above it all often leaves me with two reactions: the person is silly or sick.

I'm talking about human life, not general biological life. So in case that wasn't clear, there you go. Yes, bacteria will probably go on without us. That's little consolation to me, my grandkids, or my great-great grandkids.

And a bit more perspective to those changes: — ssu

That doesn't provide perspective at all, really. Not if we're talking about human life. Because, if you notice, we haven't been around that long. Behaviorally modern humans, maybe 200 or so thousand years. Better to look at that record. Also best to take a look at what scientists say about this and why it's important.

Well, carbon capture is also an option for the right (and oil companies) to run on too since it doesn't require a big change in the current status quo. That is probably where I imagine the lines will be drawn politically in the future. Not ideal, but frankly that would be much better than where we are now with one side accepting the problem and the other thinking that it doesn't even exist. — Mr Bee

Your point is well taken. This is why I'm hopeful but not pushing too hard for this -- I know it can be "appropriated" by those who want to see nothing happen whatsoever.

It's actually HG Wells dumbshit. — frank

Lol -- how pathetic. Can the moderators please boot this guy -- at least from this thread? He's contributing nothing, resorts to name-calling, and apparently plagiarizes without citation. Just a thought. I flagged it as well, so take a look.

We're either going to make it happen or we're dead.
— Xtrix

I don't think that's true. There's not one thing to make happen. There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. — Kenosha Kid

It's amazing that people continue on like this.

Yes, a nuclear war would probably not wipe out everyone as well. Would you want to live in that world, however? Probably not. Likewise for climate change -- if we do nothing, we're dead. Period. If we do little, there's a chance we survive in a hellish world. It does seem like the latter is a real possibility, yes.

And I never said "one thing" needs to happen. This is going to take many different changes in many different fields, involving many different countries.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.
— Xtrix

For most people, this is too abstract. It seems to me that unless people experience climate change directly, in a way that doesn't depend on trusting others, they can't really relate to it. — baker

Yes indeed. But the ozone was a bit abstract too, in a way. Easier to picture, because it was a "hole" and there was a lot of talk about it. But the other difference was that there wasn't as much of a pushback from powerful capitalist industries.

What's happening with climate denial is more on par with what Big Tobacco did when it became clear that smoking causes lung cancer: major pushback, sow doubt, undermine the science, associate it with communism or socialism, make it a matter of "freedom," etc. Some of the same lawyers who represented tobacco companies also represent Exxon, Chevron, etc.

I think that's the real culprit here. We forget that not long ago, George HW Bush, Newt Gingrich, W Bush, and John McCain would openly talk about climate change and the need to do something about it. That was up to about 13 or so years ago. The push came especially from the Koch network. This has been well documented, in fact. That's where I place the majority of blame.

Have you read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein? — Kasperanza

You mean the non-scientist/climate denier/Ayn Rand cultist who was destroyed in debate by Bill McKibben years ago? Regardless, I'm not watching a single thing you suggest until you've shown you've done the minimal amount of reading required to even be taken seriously on this topic. You remind me of a person who, because he's watched a few videos on quantum mechanics on YouTube, feels confident enough to walk into an MIT physics class and lecture the professor. Grow up.

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has. — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Shocker that this tired, stupid line gets regurgitated by you.

That's sarcasm -- not shocked at all. In case that was unclear.

In case others are reading (not you -- go back to sleep):

The latest bullshit from climate deniers is the phrase "the climate is ALWAYS changing." This way they can appear to agree when asked "do you believe in climate change?" An old and rather obvious tactic, straight from the lawyers.

But no, the climate has not "always changed." Not like this, and not since we've been around. There's a mountain of evidence that shows why it's dangerous, and why the scientists are warning us about it. They're being ignored, largely due to propaganda (in my view). Same as all the people who were duped, by tobacco companies, into believing that cigarettes were harmless -- the science wasn't "settled," after all. Exactly the same tactics, almost exactly the same people involved (see above).

NOS is right in the meaty part of the curve for Trump-voting right-wingers. Nothing shocking there, but a good example of what I was saying above about the effectiveness of propaganda.

Next up: "CO2 is good for the planet!" or "It's the sun!" or "It's water vapor!" or "It's all funded by George Soros!" etc. etc.

Most of the human race should revert to a Stone Age level. — frank

No one is- or ever has - said this is what’s necessary. This is yet another common strawman used by science deniers. It’s either catastrophe or Stone Age, according to you. Must take real effort to remain so ignorant.

But the question for philosophy is not, is it happening or is it going to be bad, but how do we need to reimagine ourselves and our societies to include our dependencies on environment? — unenlightened

Exactly right.

There's also geoengineering, which I fear will be the political right's "easy" response to the crisis once they can no longer ignore the asteroid that they've been downplaying for decades, but I don't think we're at that phase yet for them. — Mr Bee

Unfortunately I agree with you, although I’m still hopeful that the carbon removal technology can ramp up quickly. Bill Gates is on the job, after all.

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza

So sayeth the church of neoliberalism. Glad to see someone still parrots the bullshit of Ayn Rand.

Capitalism wouldn’t last one second without “government intervention,” which is obvious to anyone who doesn’t live in Friedman and Rand’s dreamworld.

121 degrees F, 49.6 C, in Canada, more associated with moose and permafrost. More than 500 deaths associated with heat, and the village of Lytton BC totally destroyed by fire.

'Climate emergency' is not political rhetoric, it describes exactly what is happening. — Wayfarer

And this is only one part of the world. We simultaneously have a drought going on here in New England, and one of the hottest Junes on record.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.

From a scientist hired by Exxon in the 80s to study the effects on climate:

“We were doing very good work at Exxon. We had eight scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals, including a prediction of how much global warming from carbon dioxide buildup 40 years later. We made a prediction in 1980 of what the atmospheric warming would be from fossil fuel burning in 2020. We predicted that it would be about one degree celsius. And it is about one degree celsius.

It never actually occurred to me that this was going to become a political problem. I thought: “We’ll do the analyses, we’ll write reports, the politicians of the world will see the reports and they’ll make the appropriate changes and transform our energy system somehow.” I’m a research scientist. In my field, if you discover something and it turns out to be valid, you’re a hero. I didn’t realize how hard it would be to convince people, even when they saw objective evidence of this happening.”

https://apple.news/A2Kt3kfswQ6WuG3CulrN58Q

Oh, things are too hot? Blast the air conditioning. Things are too cold? Turn up the heat. I don't really see why it matters what the climate does. — Kasperanza

That’s because you’re completely ignorant about this topic. If you continue to choose not to take 10 minutes to read about it, please stop trolling this thread.

It's climate CHANGE not climate destruction. — Kasperanza

Change is neither good nor bad. — Kasperanza

Then you really don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest taking literally 10 minutes, type in "climate change" in Google, pick one result -- whether from NASA or NOAA or the Royal Academy or MIT or anything you like -- and read about it. Because you're making an utter buffoon of yourself.

Climate change is happening. So what? I'm not denying that. I'm saying we should burn more fossil fuels anyway. — Kasperanza

:chin:

Yeah, and I'm not denying that smoking causes cancer. I just think we should all smoke as much as possible. Because I'm smart.

Don't you realize that you're guilty of what you just criticized me of?

You're ignoring someone who disagrees with you and only choosing to talk to people that fundamentally agree with you. — Kasperanza

No, not with me, with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the undeniable evidence. You choose to ignore all of that -- that's fine. People believe in a flat earth and deny the holocaust -- I have no interest in engaging with them either. At least not on this thread.

What I do not see mentioned above is the interests of the young as expressed by them. I'm too old to worry much. But the children of the world are looking down a real gun barrel that's pointed at them. When enough of them understand that and grasp that as a fact, then they will start to change things, and pretty quickly. Nor do I see them indulging in great patience - why should they? I give it one generation. — tim wood

An interesting point. Notice that polls of younger people (including those identifying as Republicans) show that they are much more concerned about climate change. We're also seeing movements across the globe -- Greta Thunberg, the Sunrise Movement, etc. All youth-led. That gives me great hope and is very inspiring -- but also pretty embarrassing, given that the adults have failed them so much that they have to pick up the slack.

I hope you're right, and that it takes only one generation. We'll see. I just hope that it's not too late by then in terms of salvaging a relatively decent existence.

I say we burn more fossil fuels — Kasperanza

Let the earth change; it's ridiculous to assume that we can stop it. — Kasperanza

So that makes a total of 2 or 3 climate deniers so far. My advice: go back to your echo chamber. You won't learn anything here, since you don't care to in the first place.

The news really likes to amp up "tipping points" and "earth will be venus" crap but these scenarios are usually cherry picked or blown way out of proportion. Hell, the IPCC doesn't even think "collapse of civilization" is on the trajectory despite what the Guardian articles make you think — Albero

What "cherry picking" are you referring to?

https://news.mongabay.com/2021/01/were-approaching-critical-climate-tipping-points-qa-with-tim-lenton/

Also, you may want to take a look at what the IPCC is saying about tipping points:

https://grist.org/science/leaked-un-report-warns-of-climate-tipping-points/

True, they haven't mentioned the "end of civilization," but they include various scenarios that certainly lead to that. But even if it's not the end, it would be a hell on earth. People would probably survive a nuclear war, too...should we therefore not be concerned? Is that really an argument?

In fact, their debunk here on the "Venus Earth" scenario really soothed a lot of my fears
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Not-as-scary-as-it-seems-Planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-Hothouse-Earth-state — Albero

This website is kind of a joke.

The Venus question is not meant literally.

We can nit-pick about "collapse of civilization" or anything else if we want to, but it's simply another form of denial. If you're happier because you found a website that "debunks" the "doomsday" scenarios that those awful "climate alarmists" talk about, you're welcome to. But I suggest balancing that with questions for actual climatologists, someone like Dr. Lenton (linked above) -- who has quite a different view.

The fact remains that we're already seeing signs all around us of a rapidly warming planet, and its effects are also all around us -- right now. Not off in the future -- not according to some model. There are such things as tipping points, and there is a real chance we can make the Earth a nearly-unlivable hellhole (true, maybe not exactly Venus, and people may still survive).

This "debunking" website seems to be obsessed with the fact that it may not happen for a long time to come -- centuries, even. But even there they're likely wrong, given the increase in global temperature, droughts, wildfires, floods, etc., that we're already experiencing -- and giving what scientists are warning us about, including the IPCC.

As the CO2 keeps rising (somewhere near 400 ppm), we'll see more and more warming. That's locked in for decades. We can all push to do something about it, or we can pacify ourselves by reading only what makes us feel better, and thus helping the worst outcome come true. Not a hard decision, in my view, but to each his own.

Is it already too late?
— Xtrix
I suspect it might be if one thinks of significantly slowing the process. I don't see the nations of Earth coming together in a meaningful way, but I could be wrong. — jgill

Well there's really no alternative I can see -- so you're either wrong or we're dead. What we feel about this shouldn't really matter -- rather, what is the evidence? There's little reason to believe it can't be done, in fact we know it can be. So what's the real problem? That people like you and I and others aren't pushing hard enough for it.

I'm usually an optimist but my gut feel is that democracies will reject any government that makes meaningful commitments. — Kenosha Kid

As I said to Jgill above, it's not really about gut feelings. This isn't a problem we can be optimistic or pessimistic about -- I don't think that applies. We're either going to make it happen or we're dead. I do like that cartoon though.

This however pivots on how much most of us care about future generations. At the very least the kids we're related to. — javra

Exactly.

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times?
— Xtrix

Yes. Most of the people I’m surrounded by, for starters. Then there is a fair sum of the same in government. Also in the media … — javra

Well I meant less about climate deniers and more about people who accept the science and still place it low on their priorities.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
— Xtrix

Kinda hard to say since no-one knows what the tipping points are exactly, but I think it's unlikely enough will be done to avoid very serious climate changes. — Echarmion

We do know what the tipping points are. If you're looking for something like exact numbers, you won't find it, but we have very good idea about what will trigger an irreversible spiraling.

Tim Lenton has done a lot of work on this.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

You think it's unlikely that anything gets done. So essentially we're doomed, in your eyes. Interesting perspective.

The best way is probably to organise and join in mass protests. No individual consumer level decisions are likely to be very effective. Or rather the effective decisions are very impractical and so unlikely to be adopted by enough people to make a difference. — Echarmion

I agree.

Climate change is not a disease, it's a symptom. I know quite a few doctors and they all say, while relieving the symptom has its merits, treating the disease is the primary goal!

What, in your opinion, is the disease? — TheMadFool

Depends on the level of analysis. But on the whole, aspects of human nature -- in the case, greed -- that have been magnified by a system that prioritizes private power -- namely, capitalism.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
— Xtrix
First you should define just what is the tipping point you refer to. Or what you have in mind with climate change. — ssu

There are multiple potential tipping points. See above for some links, or you can Google "climate tipping points."

Climate change in this context refers to a rapid change in the Earth's climate driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

If what this comment really implies, however, is something like "the climate always changes," then there's no sense in continuing. That's just the latest line for climate change denial, and I have no interest.

Just saw this, apropos:

Democrats have a year to save the planet.

Not really a joke...or an exaggeration.

Okay...and then what?

Is that where the story ends for you? If so, you're part of what I mean in the title of this thread. Because I'm sure a lot of others feel it's all hopeless too, and have resigned from doing anything. Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need an awakening -- including out of that defeatism.

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual. — baker

I understand that, and I'm not questioning your sincerity about it. I agree wholeheartedly that we, as individual consumers, should be doing more.

But you're also well aware that not everyone has that luxury, as in the case of India that I mentioned. They're going to continue burning coal to generate electricity, for the same reason that not everyone shops at Whole Foods. In that case it's a matter of our governments to take action and provide for their people. Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. But it's far more important, in my view, for reasons we can get into if we want.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions.
— Xtrix
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy. — baker

It's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. The emphasis, however, in everything you've said so far has been on individual actions. You went through your anecdote about clothing, for example. All that's fine. No rational person is against this. What I object to is the emphasis. If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. That doesn't mean we don't want people to continue to live sustainably.

Here's a fair analysis, if read carefully: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea.
— Xtrix
Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources. — baker

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. The former is what the industries want us to believe, as has been well documented; the latter is what is often discouraged, but is happening more and more as this issue becomes more pressing.

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.
— Xtrix

You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of insdiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin: — TheMadFool

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread. — Xtrix

There's no contradiction: I, as an individual named Mike, am not the same as the 7 billion people on earth. I'm a part of the human species, yes. That doesn't make me the human species. That's absurd, on any level, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.

Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual. — TheMadFool

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.

If we want to say that humanity is "one," there's plenty of ways in which to do so. We all have the capacity for thought and language, for example. That's fine, and seemingly true. But that's a matter of abstraction, definition, and classification.

True, one way is to claim that we are a superorganism, but I don't subscribe to that. I don't see anything like the behavior of bees or ants or any kind of striving for a common purpose -- although I think that's a fine goal.

As I said before, different concepts need to be employed when discussing group behavior. Take a basketball team. We don't say Lebron James is the team -- he's a member of the team. Or take a rock band -- Ringo Starr wasn't the Beatles, all of the members made up what was then labeled "the Beatles." When the team or the band plays together, something different happens. When we focus attention on an individual, something else happens. They're different levels of abstraction.

My entire point was that there are similarities which are important, and it's interesting to talk as if society were an individual, but to take that literally strikes me as completely incoherent.

You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified. — TheMadFool

Let's be concrete so as not to get lost in space: I'm talking about the United States in particular, because of its power in world affairs, and the individuals who are in control of the United States government, which are the wealthy. The wealthy mostly come from the business world, and are the individuals who control the multinational corporations -- which are the current form of big business. These individuals who control the corporations, and the individuals who make up the government, are the people who essentially run the world. They're also the ones currently destroying the world. I believe the reasons for this, as I mentioned, are simultaneously an addiction to material gain (one expression of greed) and an irrational system of beliefs/values. That's not a problem with the world, really -- that's a problem with a small percentage of the world, made up of the individuals with the power to influence global affairs.

To be more specific, look at Amazon, BlackRock, and Berkshire Hathaway -- and even more specifically, the individuals who control these gigantic entities: Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink, and Warren Buffett. These are real people with real beliefs and real power. Their decisions effect millions of people (and perhaps billions). They're three people.

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread.

Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices. — TheMadFool

Right, which I think is the case. This is only an analogy, though. When thinking about the collective problems of a society, different concepts need to be brought into the analysis.

Nevertheless, we can learn from the parallels. I think it comes down basic aspects of human nature and how the world effects these aspects. Currently I think the people leading the world -- the wealthy -- have been blinded by greed. They're addicted to the accumulation of capital, at the expense of all else. This is simultaneously a problem of beliefs and values, and of ignorance.

Like a person who can't stop gambling, despite wanting to stop and knowing full well he's destroying his life, the individuals steering the "ship of state" are heading right for disaster.

Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool

I think so.



I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. True, we could all stop using electricity too. We could sew our own clothes. We could all live a completely sustainable life. That's a nice dream. In the real world, it's not so easy -- not everyone has the luxury to do so, in the United States or India or anywhere else. We have two choices: we can ask millions of people to drastically alter their lives, or we can use the government (the people we've elected) to pass laws and regulations and spend money to encourage more sustainable practices by the industries that are responsible for this mess.

Some want to blame the people, others put more of the blame on the leaders of the country. I'm in the latter camp. That's not to deny that we as people have to educate ourselves, organize, resist propaganda, have informed votes, and try to live more sustainable lives. But the industries responsible for emissions -- especially fossil fuels -- deliberately want to put the onus on the masses. So did tobacco before them, and the fast-food industry, and the sugar industry, etc. After all, if we just consumed less, we wouldn't get fat. We all know the risks of smoking, so it's a conscious choice. Etc. Yeah -- if you buy all that, you'll more than likely fall in the former camp when it comes to this issue. But it's a mistake, and always has been.

I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. — Echarmion

Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. — Echarmion

I sympathize with this, and it's certainly true. But I see it as more about where we place the emphasis. Much like the nature/nurture dichotomy, how beliefs effect behavior and vice versa is essentially inseparable in real life, but can be abstracted and isolated in thought. Sometimes useful, but in my opinion not in this case.

What we care about is action, yes. Behavior. I personally don't care much about what people believe -- if they're Christian, or Republicans, or capitalists, or Satanists. I care about what they do. But it just so happens that propaganda, misinformation, and false beliefs account for much of the behavior we currently see around us -- from voting for a degenerate sociopath, to QAnon, to the Big Lie of a stolen election, to climate change denial, to a Flat Earther, etc. It's exacerbated by social media.

So this is why I stress awareness and education in this so-called "awakening." I don't think people would be doing the things they are doing if they weren't being duped by powerful corporate and political forces, especially the media. The media, after all, is where we get most of our information about the world -- whether from Washington or Iraq, from science to entertainment. How that's framed matters a great deal, and like the big tech companies, it's not neutral. There's an agenda behind a lot of this, almost always monetary.

The freer the country, the better the propaganda.

I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem... — ChatteringMonkey

It's true that information is out there, but unfortunately that doesn't mean much. That's clearly not resulting in a healthier, educated, happier society. What's needed is real education and real awareness. That has to occur from person to person, preferably in the real world, but it can happen online too.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing.

I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect. — ChatteringMonkey

But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita (of the major emitters, unless you count Canada as a major emitter at #7, but that's arguable). That's significant. There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies.

But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH.

It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems. — ChatteringMonkey

China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal.

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal."
— Xtrix
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products. — baker

Production of products comes from major industries, which we use the state to regulate/subsidize/monitor, etc.

Radically decreasing consumption isn't the real issue, although we've been taught to believe it is. So we can stop eating meat, use better lightbulbs, shop at the Farmer's Market, reuse, recycle, get solar panels, etc. -- and it won't do a thing. Even if millions do so. The major emissions come from industry, what gets produced in that industry and how it gets produced. Other countries seem to do it all just fine, with little emissions per capita next to ours, and it's not because the people shut off their lights or are all less materialistic -- it's because their governments put measures in place that reduces emissions -- public transportation systems, renewable energy investments, etc.

It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments.
— Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such? — baker

Are you really asking how legislation and trillions of dollars of investments would change carbon emissions? I gave some examples above. Take public transportation. That would be a huge investment, and would save us a lot of pollution and a lot of traffic. People are in favor of it, but aren't given that option -- because investments haven't been made in it, unlike in other countries. Ask yourself why. It's not because of the stupid, ignorant, greedy masses. Likewise with electric cars -- we could very easily subsidize these to lower the costs, and invest in EV stations all over the country. Biden is proposing measures for that as we speak. That's been delayed for decades for a simple reason: the oil, gas, and automobile industries don't want it. That wasn't a choice the people made.

We can go on and on.

The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those. — baker

Yeah, this is just a mistake.

Maybe the law has no power over murderers and thieves...? Of course legalization has the power to change a country's collective behavior -- there are plenty of examples.

Yes, but the entire premise is faulty. There's no reason to believe the economy is "collapse," in fact there most economists think it'll result in much more growth. It's a couple industries that need to especially be dismantled, and several practices we need to end or find alternatives for. All are available. But it'll take money and political will. The more we pressure them into it, the better chance we have -- since clearly they won't do it on their own.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." It has almost nothing to do with individual sacrifices, as we're lead to believe. It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. These decisions lie in the hands of our leaders, who need to be held accountable. The public didn't choose any of this directly, these are decisions made by people with "special interests," and they simply have more power to influence the world than the vast majority of us. That can change very quickly. Won't be easy.

P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)

Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:

C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.

For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid? — javra

This is excellent. I commend you.

But how could that help??

If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?

One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable. — baker

It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.

People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker.

This is already underway, as I mentioned. It's not just theoretical -- it's happening. But it's not happening quickly enough, and I don't think the fundamental dogma (the religion of neoliberal state capitalism) has been questioned as much as it should be -- although even that is changing.

Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.

Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.

I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me. — NOS4A2

Yes, which is a reality — a reality you want to equate with Nostradamus and Revelation.

Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. — NOS4A2

Whether you’re confident or not is irrelevant. Talk to a few experts and survey the evidence— Google “climate tipping points,” etc. See how confident you are then. Is it guaranteed? No. But we should all be acting like it is; if we don’t act that way, and don’t treat it like the emergency it is, we’re dead. That’s obvious. I hope that isn’t the case— but I’m not confident about it.

Only general comments. I think he nails it, really.

His views on Paul, his analysis of priests, his calling Jesus the leader of a “Buddhistic peace movement,” etc etc. All very different from what you’d hear anywhere else, even today — let alone the 1880s. With such style, to boot.

One of his most polarizing works, I’m sure. But to me one of the most important.

Three or four times, plus once via audiobook. (But that's over the course of 20 years.)

This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche. — Joshs

Yeah, or this -ism or that -ism. (Someone's taken philosophy classes.) All well and good, and I like to classify and define and read and interpret dead thinkers too.

But that's not really this thread. So try the next assignment: try mulling things over for yourself, in particular the real world you're currently living in. Then try to identify the problems, and ask what can be done to solve them -- and where you fit in with those solutions.

That's really the crux of this thread.