I am not necessarily saying this is inevitable, nor am I saying that it is the end of humanity. I'm just trying to think ahead in order to plan for possible outcomes based on public information. I don't see how it is a waste of effort unless the entire thing is a lie, in which case I will be thoroughly impressed with the organizational skills required to do so.

I don't see how it is a waste of effort unless the entire thing is a lie, — Lif3r

It is a lie of sorts. Not with any organisation behind it, but a strange phenomena, in my opinion, inherent in humans. Maybe the Salem witch hunts would be a very small version of this. Globalisation, mass media, the internet, etc. have created the same thing on a global scale. Global madness really.
However if you genuinely feel the way you do I can understand your response. But can you be sure you’re not a victim?

so you believe NASA is lying about their data and climate change is not real or a product of human waste?

if humans evolve into robots then so be it. We aren't complaining about our evolution from monkeys. "Gah I wish I still had copious amounts of ass hair"

We can still exist as robots and just be better versions of ourselves and whichever line of evolution is meant to be will be. It's still a better alternative to roasting alive or starving out or one of the other hundred ways we could all go due to our biological needs.

I have no reason to think NASA is lying about anything. Do I believe climate change is real? Not in the way it’s being reported.

prove it.

If your data outmatches NASA I will believe you.

If your data outmatches NASA I will believe you. — Lif3r

I’m not asking you to believe me.

If, in an effort to combat climate change, coal mines and coal fired power stations were closed down for one generation, then circumstances required them to be opened again, would those skills to run them have been lost?

Well. flesh-and-blood humans aren't, I think, likely to survive the capitalist climate Gotterdammerung, so if we want something to survive, robots seem the best bet, if we create them such that they evolve. — iolo

I am excited about reading your explanation of that statement.

I am excited about reading your explanation of that statement. — Athena

Well, I assume we write into the basic programme the ability to change in response to changing conditions. It is, after all, how our own evolution worked, and well within current possibilities, surely?

The fact that you suggest particular books to read that would “change” my mind means you’ve already put me in a particular camp, where I approve of mindless destruction in the name of capitalism. — Brett

Heavens no, I wasn't thinking that. I just know when we (all of us) have different opinions it is usually because we have read different things. :lol: I am one of those obnoxious people who is so sure of what I believe to be true, that I am sure if others were working with the same information they would agree with me. :grin:

It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are. — Brett

:lol: Your assumptions fill me with the joy of laughter. I will point out the Christians thought the Greeks were pagans and it is the Greeks who gave us philosophy and put us the path to science. They began with nature-based gods and goddesses. I think that was important to the development of their thought. The Greeks were not as materialistic as the Romans and unfortunately, although the Greeks gave the more barbaric Romans the bases of civilization, it was the materialistic (a belief in matter) Romans and then the Christians who became dominant. I see nothing incompatible with Greek paganism and science. And yes, I feel strongly about a consciousness that is in harmony with nature rather than a strongly materialistic consciousness.

Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past. — Brett

No people are not healthier than they were. 30 years ago that was true, but recently the health of younger people has gone to hell. Our government with its new focus on profits is not protecting us as it did when it first created controls of our food supply. The problem with diabetes has rapidly increased and we have spread it to third countries with products such as sodas. I am so ashamed of us. Restaurant meals are commonly not that healthy and commonly the servings are way too much. At Least Shari's, a northwest restaurant chain, gives people information of the calories in a meal.

Increasing Mortality and Declining Health Status in the USA ...
www.hhpronline.org › articles › 2018/10 › increasing-mortality-and-decli...
by S Bezruchka - ‎Related articles
Oct 11, 2018 - The National Center for Health Statistics reports that life expectancy is declining, and infant mortality is increasing 1. The reported life ... — S Bezruchka

What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association. — Brett

As I said, you haven't read what I have read. If you did you would not be arguing.

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear. — Brett

When you are interested in knowing facts let us know. Only when people such as yourself are working with the facts, can we resolve serious problems. Going on "faith" in the pharaoh, or any other ruler who is supposed to have the power of keeping things in balance and pleasing the gods, or faith in technology and our new leaders is no better than past faiths.

We the people must take the responsibility of being well informed, and if you were, you would not speak of having faith, instead of facts. When a young child runs into the street screaming about the dangers of running into the street will do absolutely no good unless the child is old enough to know the meaning of all those angry words. Today our adults need to stop trusting and working on faith, and accept responsibility for learning and then acting on informed decisions. Unfortunately, education for technology has not prepared the young for growing up and taking responsibility. Education has become just bull shit about our superiority and how technology can resolve every problem, and prepared the young to be dependent on authority, on the "experts", instead of preparing them to be their own authority. I am stating this as a national, politically driven problem and culture change that is not good for us or the world.

Well, I assume we write into the basic programme the ability to change in response to changing conditions. It is, after all, how our own evolution worked, and well within current possibilities, surely? — iolo

I think that is a wrong assumption. Only if we value a study of history do we keep ourselves as informed as we need to be. Unfortunately, with education for technology came disrespect of the elders because today we so much smarter than older people. Like every generation, our young think they are smarter only unlike previous generations we have turned the young against their elders in favor of faith in technology.

Unfortunately, I have a college education and burn with resentment towards some of my professors. Had I been young I would not have known better than to sit in awe of them. As an older student, I was often horrified by what they said. Not only do some of them insist information for papers be from the abstracts, but it must also be less than 10 years old. With this mentality, our university government document library emptied its shelves of the books recording government documents. Today no one can find information without knowing exactly what to look for and depending on a librarian to retrieve that information that is electronically stored. No more sitting with the old books and discovering what is in them. This is like blinding the whole population! I am horrified by what has been done. Information today is as controlled as when the Church had power. It is just a different set of people controlling it.

May all those who remember when things different raise their hand.

The best way to survive is to survive in as large a functioning community as possible - — Bitter Crank

Maybe. In the modern world of science-tech unquestioned faith, culture is possibly tending toward delusional sociocentrism...people are seemingly oblivious to the human rights violations being committed against personal privacy.. Transhumanists and people who think there is something special about the modern era with its slightly desultory science/tech-determinism, believe so as a kind of promissory physical savior for humankind ( perhaps neuralink will save those who have the implant, lol) have fairly naively attributed fictive images about working together.

It's true hunter-gatherers have worked together from the start. And this is where standardization began also...whoever failed in their part bringing down the game was probably sacrificed. Which points to a problem not directly related to the thread...having more to do with what can go wrong when people subscribe to survival of a group: neuroses, anger, hatred, violence. Only the individual survives or dies.

Ultimately, what will be valuable is nonphysical, untradable non things....skills. And yes, it starts with primitive survival skills all the way up to modern engineering skills. It's impossible to predict what you will have access to materially to feed you flesh and stay warm.

This being the case, you have to assume you'll have access what sun and earth provides (however, the sun may be behind a permanent and dense cloud) and nothing else. A solar still works well in precipitating water from your own urine if you have no other way of getting it. To the extent one knows no bushcraft whatever and is completely dependent on the market, he is akin to a neonate. He may not be a child in the human, pseudo-environment...but in the only environment, he is. Note: this isn't to offend anyone here, I also am lacking in ability to take care of myself in the one environment, and as such am like a babe. For me though, it doesn't feel right not knowing how to care for myself. Learning all from making cordage, pots, fire, and water, to putting together circuits may be on the bucket list. Not the bucket list that involves more infantile consumption...a list that has the drift of satisfying that primal need of self-governance and autonomy, a satisfaction which leads away from the loop of neurotic dependence on a fabricated system; though we are always dependent on the environment for survival...our species has come to see it fit to spread the one environment with its own idealistic overlay, a fabricated, fictive, pseudo- environment. This is why the more man succeeds, the more he pollutes. Instead of saying the GDP has gone up, why not say pollution has gone up? Pollution = success; pollution of clear understanding leads to pollution of the organism-environment. Stimuli from a fictive environment have repercussions in the only one.

A lone wolf would have many advantages in surviving. Advantages that would be as though he didn't exist to others. He could live with no trace, taking what he needed when he needed it and then merging with shadow. And if they were a renaissance person, they could secretly build up more of what was need to survive alone. Really, upon reflection, it seems obvious this would be the one case (doomsday) where everyone is out for themselves, and only individuals can survive....no one survives for the individual. Interpersonal conflict would most likely increase to a pitch that few really got along. In this case, the more benevolent human being would keep to himself avoid the ineluctable internecine skirmishes. Your friends and enemies would be interchangeable over short periods of time. All this is hard to imagine in today's media and tech driven pseudo-environment. Or maybe it wouldn't. All the foulness, in terms of sadism, you see in comments in online social platforms would become manifest in the one and only environment.

Its weird isn't it that all these folk like me are coming up with this domesday cult ourselves individually and yet the message is identical each time. Oh I know why, because it's informed by science. There have been a number of scientific warnings over the last few weeks that the Greenland ice cap is now going to collapse, even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, it will still melt. Have you put your house on the market yet? I suppose you could build your ivory tower upwards as the water rises.

No people are not healthier than they were. — Athena

You must get over the idea that America is the world.

Restaurant meals are commonly not that healthy and commonly the servings are way too much. — Athena

That’s a problem, isn’t it? Things are so bad they have to eat in restaurants.

Its weird isn't it that all these folk like me are coming up with this domesday cult ourselves individually and yet the message is identical each time. — Punshhh

It’s not so weird. It seems weird that so many people, men and women, fell in behind Hitler but they did.

“All these folk”. On this forum or worldwide? I don’t think I’ve seen those statistics.

There have been a number of scientific warnings over the last few weeks that the Greenland ice cap is now going to collapse, — Punshhh

This story might help you appreciate the complexity of issues like the Greenland ice cap, I know it may not satisfy your concerns but it’s worth mentioning just to keep things in perspective.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190719135545.htm

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist.
— Brett

When you are interested in knowing facts let us know. Only when people such as yourself are working with the facts, can we resolve serious problems. Going on "faith" in the pharaoh, or any other ruler who is supposed to have the power of keeping things in balance and pleasing the gods, or faith in technology and our new leaders is no better than past faiths. — Athena

I don’t know if you failed to read this carefully or purposely misconstrued it.

It’s not faith in “the pharaoh” I mentioned but faith in ourselves, in who we are. What else could there be, who else should we have faith in? I don’t see how my faith in people is evidence of taking no interest in facts. Then you go on to blame me for something you made up.

The US project Iceworm has become exposed from the ice cap now. It turns out that the whole ice cap moves, flows like a glacier, which is why they abandoned the station in 1963. It adjusts to the pressures, or lack of them around the periphery. So provided the ice continues to melt around the edge it will surely collapse. Also the Arctic Ocean is warming at over twice the rate of elsewhere due to less reflectivity from less ice. A positive chain reaction, it looks like we will soon find the north west passage after all.

I predict in 5 years the ice cap will be discovered to have breached far quicker than predictions allowed for.

I have no reason to think NASA is lying about anything. Do I believe climate change is real? Not in the way it’s being reported. — Brett

Here is an article from INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS that provide a survey of what has been published in the last 10 years about climate change.

Believe it or not, but at least this is the sort of thing which causes my alarm about the future.

I appreciate your post, but there’s no point in trying to remind me that I’m ignorant and uninformed. I’ve being thinking about this since 2006; “An Inconvenient Truth”, when I believed it. Now I don’t.

I doubt very much that you are either ignorant or uninformed. Where did the global warming narrative really begin to unravel for you?

A friend who reads deeply about climate change and economics has commented that there are some objections that can be raised against both the manner in which global warming is reported and to the conclusions which may be drawn. There are conflicting reports on the same issue -- whether, for instance, China's performance in reducing emissions (or the USA performance, or anyone else's) is not meeting, meeting, or exceeding some targets.

Sometimes the avalanche of information is overwhelming and one has to withdraw from contemplation of the details just to save one's sanity. And sometimes the avalanche is repetitious -- the same findings are presented again and again as news.

I wonder, for instance, how accurate the accounts of CO2 emissions are. When I read a report that says that so many gazillion tons of CO2 or methane are being added to the atmosphere, I wonder just how did they calculate that figure? CO2 may be the better measurement -- take published fossil fuel production figures, calculate how much CO2 is produced per ton of coal or oil, and multiply. Fine. But methane is much trickier.

Gas bubbles are coming off the bottom of lakes in northern Canada and Siberia and collecting under the ice. Poke a hole in the ice, light a match, and you get a flash burn of flaming methane. Did anybody check this out 50 or 100 years ago? Is there a change? Or methane in the Arctic Ocean: was it there 100 years ago? When the Nautilus navigated under the polar ice (some 60+ years ago, give or take a couple) did they discover any thing unusual, like big bubbles? (they weren't looking, I would imagine.). l

The changes I believe in the most are changes I can see around me: noticeably warmer winters; plants leaving out and blossoming something like 2 or 3 weeks than usual -- for the last 10-15 years. Fewer flying insects; fewer birds, etc.

I'm a believer, but there are "issues" in the information. It's sort of like the problem of AIDS and HIV back in the 1980s: Public Health people wanted people to get concerned, and they were successful: The people who were least at risk were by far the most anxious--the worried well. Gay men, the most at risk group, drew their own conclusions from their experience, and many were fatalistic. It is difficult to shape successful messages for different groups of people. Some people never did get good information.

I can’t remember when my doubts began or what started them. I do remember beginning to see a lot of reports appearing with very loose language, claims that began with words like “Its possible”, or figures “suggest”.

I also began reading about scientists who were excommunicated because they disputed uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, or had accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct”, or who claimed that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstated the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes were not alarming.

Then I saw large amounts of money entering the picture, generalisations made about percentages, averages, of heating over long periods and historical figures on temperatures being altered. So many of the predictions made never happened and the horror stories that began to appear became standard forecasts, even though they were based on a worst-case scenario and unlikely to happen.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned in your post.

Eventually I was called a denier. What could I do, I was.

I can’t remember when my doubts began or what started them. I do remember beginning to see a lot of reports appearing with very loose language, claims that began with words like “Its possible”, or figures “suggest”. — Brett

If the language was more precise, you'd now be complaining that forecasts did not come true. Something you are, in fact, already doing.

I also began reading about scientists who were excommunicated because they disputed uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, or had accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct”, or who claimed that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstated the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes were not alarming. — Brett

And have you looked up the actual cases, looked at the professional records of those scientists? Everyone who claimed to have been "excommunicated" I ever looked up was either not actually a climate scientist or an obvious hack.

Then I saw large amounts of money entering the picture, generalisations made about percentages, averages, of heating over long periods and historical figures on temperatures being altered. So many of the predictions made never happened and the horror stories that began to appear became standard forecasts, even though they were based on a worst-case scenario and unlikely to happen. — Brett

Large amounts of money? Compared to the money the oil lobby spend? I doubt it. What did you "see" exactly? Bank records?

God, you’re so predictable, every one of you.

God, you’re so predictable, every one of you. — Brett

So are you. Never a single answer.

I don’t know if you failed to read this carefully or purposely misconstrued it.

It’s not faith in “the pharaoh” I mentioned but faith in ourselves, in who we are. What else could there be, who else should we have faith in? I don’t see how my faith in people is evidence of taking no interest in facts. Then you go on to blame me for something you made up. — Brett

I believe there is a good reason to have faith in humans, but that is conditional and we have met those conditions. That means our faith in humans is no better than past faiths, because the faith does not go with the necessary conditions for that faith. Do you want to argue unconditionally we should have faith in humans? How about why should we have faith in humans?

In a 1920's newspaper an article warned... "Given our know oil supply and rate of consumption, we are head for economic disaster and possibly war." All industrial economies collapsed and the world went to war. Following that, we dramatically increased our consumption of oil, and today people argue we have all the oil we need. I think the people who make that argument are poorly informed. Now convince me of why I should have faith in them.

I think that is a wrong assumption. Only if we value a study of history do we keep ourselves as informed as we need to be. Unfortunately, with education for technology came disrespect of the elders because today we so much smarter than older people. Like every generation, our young think they are smarter only unlike previous generations we have turned the young against their elders in favor of faith in technology.

Unfortunately, I have a college education and burn with resentment towards some of my professors. Had I been young I would not have known better than to sit in awe of them. As an older student, I was often horrified by what they said. Not only do some of them insist information for papers be from the abstracts, but it must also be less than 10 years old. With this mentality, our university government document library emptied its shelves of the books recording government documents. Today no one can find information without knowing exactly what to look for and depending on a librarian to retrieve that information that is electronically stored. No more sitting with the old books and discovering what is in them. This is like blinding the whole population! I am horrified by what has been done. Information today is as controlled as when the Church had power. It is just a different set of people controlling it.

May all those who remember when things different raise their hand. — Athena

Well, the last few generations of Elders, having left us up Shit Creek without a paddle, seem to me to deserve about as much respect as some Chinese geese we once had to keep the lawn down - we lost track of them in the grass! I think that we need to distinguish very clearly between the material of history and the other subjects and those who have control of education. When I was a kid in the Rhondda, after what had been done to our people, about the only person we respected was Paul Robeson, and when I was in Cambridge about the only person I respected was Leavis, the great critic, who didn't much respect anyone else. It was a place full of rich snobs from public (your private?) schools, many on closed scholarships, and I was in perhaps the worst of all the colleges in that respect, so my reactions were just boredom and contempt. Isn't the stuff you are talking about available on the internet? An amazing amount of material does seem to be. I'm not unsympathetic with your views, but I feel that each generation is now adapted to the technology it is supposed it will be living with, and it cuts down on generational contacts, because capitalism will see to it that technology goes on developing fast. Wouldn't designing humanoid robots and bowing out with dignity be a preferable approach?

Then I saw large amounts of money entering the picture, generalisations made about percentages, averages, of heating over long periods and historical figures on temperatures being altered. So many of the predictions made never happened and the horror stories that began to appear became standard forecasts, even though they were based on a worst-case scenario and unlikely to happen.
— Brett — Brett

So many of the predictions are happening, the language of scientist is has gotten stronger and the warning now says the changes are happening faster than expected. Where on the earth do you think wildlife is safe from the devastation of human activity?

Humans increased species extinction rate by 1,000 times, new study says. Plant and animal extinctions are occurring at a rate of at least 1,000 times faster than the time before humans, a new study says. ... On a pre-human earth, the death rate was 0.1, but that number spiked to between 100 to 1,000.May 29, 2014
Humans increased species extinction rate by 1,000 times, new ...
https://www.pbs.org › newshour › science › animal-extinctions — PBS

Walter Youngquist is a geologist who explains what we have done to the planet and the threats to natural habits and humans in his book GeoDestinies. How well do you understand the minerals essential to agriculture and where did you get your information?

How about the rain forest. If you want us to believe you are well informed, tell us why the forest are important and what is happening to them. What happened to trees in the US and why did it happen? How about what happened to the trees on Easter Island and the impact that had on the island. Tell us you know and instead of attacking us for believing we have some very serious problems. Give us reason to agree with you.