Are you arguing that this problem -- namely, global warming -- was inevitable, given the availability of the resources and the appropriate technology? — Xtrix
big brains, language, social organisation and tool use — apokrisis
plant — apokrisis
But most of the Earth’s animals are domestic - pigs, cows, chickens. Likewise the Earth’s vegetation is largely cultivated fields and managed forestry tracts.
So it’s all under human thumb. Vaclav Smil can provide you with the numbers. Plants are either dependent on us for their growing conditions or are shivering in the corner as rainforest is converted into beef pattie pasture.
It would be funny if it weren’t so literally true. — apokrisis
I guess no one's done studies/conducted research on how plants have responded (genetically/physiologically) to increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere. — Agent Smith
CO2 sensing and CO2 regulation of stomatal conductance: advances and open questions
Higher than ambient CO2 concentrations mediate a closure of stomatal pores in plants and conversely, low CO2 concentrations trigger opening of stomatal pores. Respiration in plant leaves in the night (dark) causes a rapid rise in the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) in leaves and measurements indicate that CO2 levels can exceed 600 ppm (Figure 1A) CO2 [1]. Moreover intercellular CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) can rapidly drop to below 200 ppm in the light [165±58 ppm] [1].
In parallel to the diurnal oscillation in Ci, global CO2 levels have risen exponentially [2, 3] since the advent of the industrial revolution (Figure 1B). April 2014 was the first month in recorded history to have consistently had CO2 levels above 400 ppm. This increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in leaf Ci.
Stomatal pore apertures respond to these changes in Ci [4, 5]. A longer term effect of the continuing [CO2] rise is the down-regulation of stomatal development in the leaf epidermis [6]. This developmental response was first discovered almost 3 decades ago [6], and has been subsequently confirmed with evidence in the fossil record [7, 8]. While a preponderance of species exhibit this response, some species show either an opposite effect or are unresponsive to elevated CO2 concentrations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707055/
You mean the thermodynamic imperative as the blind will to power, and humanity as the vessel of its ultimate expression? — apokrisis
Oh how meaningless this existence we are condemned to live!
Hey, there is definitely an antinatalist telling of this story for you to enjoy too. :starstruck: — apokrisis
Modern civilization is like a juggernaut, and the idea that anyone is at the helm and in control of its trajectory is a mass delusion. — Janus
The problem with this is not so much the inequality per se (which is a problem, to be sure), but the extremely lopsided distribution of power. — Manuel
However, if we are forced into being simple, because otherwise we either factor in or factor out too much, then I'd say this is very much heavily related to the deregulations and massive power gains given to private corporations in the 80's, continuing to this day. — Manuel
I think society is too complex to single out one or two factors which we can use to explain our current situation. — Manuel
But, as I said, society is more complex than this, so there are too many factors to analyze to make this into a "theory" or explanation. — Manuel
rapid decarbonization — Janus
But, then what about the "third world"? — Janus
Democratic governments will not promote energy frugality, because they know it will be unpopular. — Janus
Well we can hash that out some time on the climate change thread perhaps. — Xtrix
I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. — Janus
This means that politicians won't tell people that if we want to ameliorate what seems likely to be the catastrophic effects of human induced global warming, then the best solution would be to use as little energy as possible, and consumes as little as possible. — Janus
The problem is only really that the heat can’t escape if we wrap the planet in a carbon blanket. So official thinking is not anti-growth. It is about how to maximise growth rates given this physical constraint. — apokrisis
The basic problem is there are are just too many of us, all aspiring to the high life now. — Janus
Of course. The greenie calculation was that the carrying capacity of an ecologically pristine Earth was a max of around half a billion - living on permaculture and PV panels.
But what is the politics of selling that equation to the masses?
Doesn’t it become rational to say instead what the fuck, let’s jam the foot to the floor and just blast the rig through this shit, honey, in best Hollywood style.
If you just looked at the tech, it was always possible to believe we could outrun fate. — apokrisis
The delusion still persists. I mentioned Musk and geoengineering. That is only going to be a scaled up version of the private enterprise escapade where a fishing boat dumped iron sulphate in the cod fishing grounds off Canada - an ecological “win-win” in increasing plankton growth and carbon capture.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering — apokrisis
A quick solution, I like it; quite unfortunate that it doesn't appeal to you or to me. — Agent Smith
The 3rd world will have to be the bigger man so to speak. — Agent Smith
There it is, the dark side of democracy. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.