Politicians, lobbies and rich ambitious entrepreneurs. These three do not care anything about of climate change or if you die of cancer due to pollution. They calculate how many lives die due to their business. After making a calculation, they see is completely worthy to still destroying the world because it is so profitable.
The fight against climate change or Paris agreement only could be possible if it is interesting for the richest authorities of the world.
The money and economic affairs come first that health issues.

they — javi2541997

:up:

The profit driven world economic system which puts profits over people at every point.

We call it capitalism.

Who is to blame? — Prishon

Everyone knowingly contributing to it. That means all Westerners since the introduction of the issue to the public in the 90s and most the rest of the world since the 2000s. Now I know most people would prefer to blame politicians and the elite, and indeed they are to blame, arguably more than the rest of the population, but we must remember that a lot of people in the middle-class use machines exarcebating the problem.

Is it even useful to ask if there is a blame? — Prishon

No, it isn't because it does not help us solve the issue. We can continue the blame game forever
but that won't stop the climate from changing.

is climate change that bad ? — Prishon

Yes, it causes natural disasters.

Yes, it causes natural disasters. — Hello Human

Yes indeed. Or maybe UN-Natural disasters. A forrest fire (also occuring more and more) and floodings took place in all of history. But the way they do now is disturbing balance. Like that mechanized fishing of the worldseas.

By and large Murdoch is to blame, because he is the singular reason why anglo-saxons in general and Americans in particular are so ignorant about climate change. Their ignorance is fabricated by FAUX News and co. And this fabricated American ignorance is what prevented the world from acting sooner.

The profit driven world economic system which puts profits over people at every point.

We call it capitalism. — StreetlightX

Is it possible, do you think it's plausible, that capitalism is just a way freedom manifests itself and, conversely, could it be that socialism is authoritarianism in disguise?

If you're entirely ignorant about anything ever, sure.

Is it possible, do you think it's plausible, that capitalism is just a way freedom manifests itself — TheMadFool

Nice story! When the wife arrived I already thought "ohooh...".And yes. The goose got killed.

But thats the other comment. Im not sure I see to whom you address it. To the people not seeing the shit behind a growing greedy capitalism or the shit behind socialism.

Now is capitalism a way to express freedom? Yes, insofar material needs are addressed. If done in the right way (everybody equal access, no one working like slaves, good healthcare, education, and homing for everybody, etc.) I dont see a difference with socialism. Socialism (or communism) dont allow for being rich though (although millionairs are abundant in China, their socialism being that all resources should be people-owned?). The Internationale is a great song. Im not sure though if the red pill shows the reality behind socialism. There is also a red pill for capitalism. If a few people own half of the worth of the global money spent every year while that wife on the other side of the street can make ends meat (800 euro per month) then something is wrong. Not to mention the effect a growth model of economy (more more and more) has on Nature.

When I can do what I want to do, I'm all in favour of freedom. But when you are doing what you want to do and it's ruining my vegetable patch, your freedom has become vicious. I'm starving, and you are to blame. One might expect socialists to be better at maintaining the common good of a stable climate, but I see little evidence. It seems that the greed is everywhere. As covid demonstrates, my holiday is more important than your health.

The OP's question reminds me of the Buddhist Parable Of The Poisoned Arrow.

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. — Wikipedia

It also brings to mind the butcher's moral puzzle: If people didn't eat meat, butchers won't kill animals. If the butcher didn't kill animals, people won't eat meat. Who's to blame? The butcher? No, he's killing animals for us. Us, the nonvegetarians? No, we only eat meat because the butcher's made it available. The butcher can't stop killing animals because we demand meat; we can't stop eating meat because butchers make it available. Vicious cycle!

:up: "Used as directed", like ciggies, booze & military-industrial-complexes, filthy lucre fundamentalism is hazardous to your health and well being (i.e. commonwealth) in the medium-to-long run.

The difference with me and the arrow-struck hero being that I trie to remove the arrow. Knowing who shot the arrow and how the arrow is shot and how it has hit in the first place can be helpful.

Humans have been using or "damaging" the planet for millennia. Bronze Age mines continue to pollute. Using resources is what people do.

Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then.

You didn't invent petroleum-based transportation, I didn't invent coal-based electrical generation, but we are all now complicit. My modest lifestyle wastes energy, generates more than my share of CO2, and so does yours, cost likely.

The trouble is, we are enmeshed in a complex system of energy production and use which we can not simply opt out of--especially not in large numbers. While other arrangements are possible, I can not imagine how we would bring alternate arrangements into existence without bringing on a catastrophe we want to avoid.

We all need to stop consuming most of what we consume. When we all do that, the economy will collapse and in short order there will be nothing to consume, and the credits on the screen will roll as the audience files out into eternity.

We missed the best opportunities to manageably rework our economy we were going to get 30 or 40 years ago (when global warming became clearly certain).

The difference with me and the arrow-struck hero being that I trie to remove the arrow. Knowing who shot the arrow and how the arrow is shot and how it has hit in the first place can be helpful. — Prishon

The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. — Wikipedia

If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then. — Bitter Crank

Thats the usual reply. Its only Natural to destroy the surface of the planet. Who cares? The Earth wont stop to travel around the Sun and life will always find a way. Of course. But not my kind of barren life. All is directed to the short term profit. But people are ratio-endowed. Thats Natural too. I bet you have a big car and lots of material posession! For which I dont blame you by the way...

The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him — Wikipedia

Not if he had tried to remove the arrow (climate change).

Cyclic relation between people in democracies and their government.

Gov't doesn't educate population, population elects gov't who continues not to educate population. This gov't then allows corporations to pollute.

Educated worldwide populations would vote for policies creating global regulation and governance structures which could curb the actions of corporations.

My rather simple analysis. It doesn't tackle the problem of non democratic systems.

Thats the usual reply. Its only Natural to destroy the surface of the planet. Who cares? The Earth wont stop to travel around the Sun and life will always find a way. Of course. — Prishon

In our present form, we had been on earth for what... 400,000 years, give or take 15 minutes, without doing much damage. As stone-age hunter-gatherers our presence was no more significant than other mammals. Still, we were exceptional enough to produce technology (stone tools, cooked food, spears, and the like) which enabled us to become a top predator.

At some fairly recent period in time--less than 20,000 ago--we changed. We developed the tools and skills to exploit resources more profoundly. We began to settle, to dig, and build in more significant ways. By 12,000 years ago, we started to cultivate and settle, to build small villages, and later larger, higher stone walls. We found nuggets of copper and began shaping them into ornaments and tools. Then we started digging deeper. We built with wood and stone.

We were not very many, and the earth was very big. Our footprint was slight, but we were accumulating new abilities. By 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 years ago--take your pick--we were set to take on the world.

Still, the major damage didn't begin until we harnessed metal machines to coal and oil--just yesterday in our history. Nothing in our experience as a species predicted how consequential steel, coal and oil would be.

But not my kind of barren life. All is directed to the short term profit. But people are ratio-endowed. Thats Natural too. — Prishon

We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. And if we can do the calculation, we can't usually motivate immediate behavior change for distant benefit--maybe a century or more in the future.

So yes, we evolved to become a huge nuisance for the planet, but we can not be other than what we are. Yes, we are sort-of rational, but not rational enough to change our short-term, let alone our long-term behavior. Is that OK? No, but that's where we are.

Is there an applicable solution? That's the $64,000,000,000,000,000 question,

I bet you have a big car and lots of material posession! For which I dont blame you by the way... — Prishon

Gees, where did that come from?

Actually, I have never owned a car. As for lots of material possessions, it's mostly books and ordinary household stuff. It's more than I need or want, but in 75 years, one accumulates stuff which is much more a burden than an asset.

Actually, I have never owned a car. As for lots of material possessions, it's mostly books and ordinary household stuff. It's more than I need or want, but in 75 years, one accumulates stuff which is much more a burden than an asset. — Bitter Crank

It was not my intention to insult you! I merely stated that to provoke... And I didnt know you are 75 already. So sorry about that!

I dont ful-heartedly agree though. Something is nagging but Im not sure what. Do you know how many people lived on Earth back then? 10 000 years ago or so?

Great answer by the way!

Do you know how many people lived on Earth back then? 10 000 years ago or so? — Prishon

There were not many humans "back then", depending on which "back then" you are thinking of. Generally speaking, the Paleolithic populations of humans were very small.

Estimates are very rough. But my understanding is that for most of the Paleolithic Period total human populations were very small. During the "population bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, the total population of humans was reduced to maybe 10,000 to 30,000. Something happened (the Tuba Volcano cold snap, maybe) that killed off a lot of people. We are all descendants of the people surviving that event.

After the climate recovered, total human populations would still have remained small -- under a million at any one time. Why not more people, faster population growth? Hunter-gatherers were not able to reproduce abundantly. Their lifestyle did not allow for rapid reproduction; breast-feeding, for instance, slows down reproduction and at this time children were probably breast fed for several years. They were very mobile. Everyone expended a lot of energy providing food, warmth, and shelter.

One estimate is that during warm Paleolithic intervals between ice ages, the population of inhabitatal Europe might have been only 1 person per square mile--a pretty thin population.

Sometime after 10,000 years ago (like... 8,000 years ago) population started to grow more rapidly. Try this article.

Gesus!!! A wholelottafucking going on back then

Once we figured out how to do it, we couldn't stop.

Once we figured out how to do it, we couldn't stop. — Bitter Crank

If only they had invented condoms too back then. I used to think that people saying the Earth is over populated were totally wrong. Im not so sure now!

Nature.

Who is to blame? We know already what. Is it even useful to ask if there is a blame? I mean, is climate change that bad? — Prishon

Yes, it is that bad and yes, there is something to blame: the fossil fuel industry and, more generally, short-term concern for profits encouraged by capitalism.

Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then. — Bitter Crank

We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. — Bitter Crank

:clap:

Once we figured out how to do it, we couldn't stop. — Bitter Crank

As one wag said, "We're the only complex, non-servo computing mechanism created by totally unskilled labor."

Anyway, all who have, or have had choice, are to blame. Some more than others. Blame is useless unless it is accompanied by punishment beyond that experienced by all who otherwise suffer consequences resulting from the blameworthy act. If the punishment is there, sufficient to dissuade the actor and would-be actors, then it's all good. Otherwise, we are stuck with "I told you so's" or getting on with making the best of the remainder of the day.

I agree with Xtrix, that the fossil fuel industry is largely to blame. But part of that industry are the shareholders who hide behind the big government skirts of the corporate veil. A lot of these folks have stock lost in the morass of 401ks, mutual funds, IRA's, etc. Myself, included. It's part of the open conspiracy to fuck the planet, largely under the lie of "for the children."

And yes, some of those kids will look back on us from their dystopian hot house and say "They didn't know any better back then."

:up:

The ones NOT to blame: all indigenous people living in harmony with Nature. Also non-indigenous ones living on the brink of starvation, being terrorized by western, science-based weaponry, the Tssr Bomba, of which mad scientist Teller is the father (not even thinking he might have done something wrong, like papa Oppenheimer) is the ultimate example. One flash, and gone is everything.