https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWqUhvqXx8

Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — Buddha (The parable of the poisoned arrow)

This isn't the time to ask silly questions like these, your house (earth) is on fire you idiot!

All opinions welcome — SackofPotatoeJam

My opinion is that we are rapidly closing in on the point of no return, and given that peaceful attempts to resolve global warming have all but failed, violence will likely be the only option going forth.

I hope you can understand the importance of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes things you don't like to hear. Trust me, as much as it drags me down that people to this day still do not believe in global warming, I feel the best way to reach them is to allow them to share their thoughts, and get to the root of the problem by engaging in personal discussions with them. — SackofPotatoeJam

Denying global warming should be treated with complete and unconditional disdain. Freedom of speech does not preclude the public shaming and ostracizing of those who abuse it.

:fire: Welcome to the Anthropocene. :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722883

Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — Buddha (The parable of the poisoned arrow)

Nice.

:snicker:

My opinion is that we are rapidly closing in on the point of no return — _db

An active topic of debate is whether we have closed in on the point of no return or whether we have a few more weeks to screw around. I suspect that if we have not closed in on our doomsday yet, we are probably too close to back away. I find no satisfaction in that, please note.

Why is that man snickering?

Why is that man snickering? — Bitter Crank

Stifled laughter?

I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. — SackofPotatoeJam

Polite interesting discussions with people I disagree with is exactly why I joined the forum. I love how you've tried to create a space for productive conversations.

I don't think that global warming/climate change is the greatest threat to mankind. In my opinion, even if I assumed that the most dire scientific projections about the future were true, there are still more serious crises that are hurting and killing more people than climate change. Millions of people die from very preventable causes every year, and hundreds of millions suffer from poverty and malnutrition etc. We should spend our energy and money efficiently, saving as many people and doing as much good as possible.

I am hopeful that innovation will give us more power over the environment, and allow us to get the things we want (like energy) safely and efficiently. Innovation will happen even faster if some of the millions of children we can save grow up to become engineers and scientists.

I quite like the ideas in Bjorn Lomborg's book False Alarm

However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. — SackofPotatoeJam

A pattern of public hysteria has been normalised as the fitting response to an increasing number of topics - not just climate change: Race, Gender, Trump, Ukraine, Russia, China, COVID.... Any challenge to the prevailing authoritative narrative may not only be censored, but the author is often reflexively condemned to a virtual public lynching. Discourse itself has become precarious; jobs are lost, friendships severed.

This cultural pattern of behaviour is not symptomatic of a rational or scientific age - rather, it possesses a striking resonance with a medieval mind that adheres staunchly to fixed truths, doctrines, and a good v evil dichotomy.

This is exhausting, in practice fatally unproductive, emotionally infantile and suspiciously disingenuous.
Absent the active suspension of judgement no rational enquiry concerning any complex subject is possible.

It cannot be said often enough, the singular characteristic consistent with every cultural pathology is censorship. The insane manifestations of Stalin, Hitler, Christendom may have been driven by distinctly different ideologies but where they are alike is all three strictly censored and punished criticism.

The absence of dialogue is indistinguishable from the absence of thought.

On a complex matter, such as global warming, it is by definition insufficient to simply affirm evidence that aligns with your own pre-disposition - particularly when the subject is emotive. Rather, we should first genuinely and actively seek evidence to convince ourselves that the obverse is true. Only, then, can we hope to acquire a sufficient understanding that may lead to practical solutions.

Freedom of speech does not preclude the public shaming and ostracizing of those who abuse it. — _db

Well said.

If one is free to say "global warming is a hoax", then I'm equally free to say " this person is a moron and we ought not entertain their views"

Too often 'free speech' is confused with a right to be taken seriously. The right to be taken seriously is earnt, it's not a birthright.

I believe global warming is the greatest threat to mankind. — SackofPotatoeJam

I think mankind will be just fine, with or without global warming. It's perhaps the current status quo that will have to go - something for which I won't shed a single tear.

Personally, I am much more worried about pollution.

Further, it seems to me the climate debate has become increasingly politicized and securitized; two things that generally achieve the opposite of solving a problem. In a discussion so rife with ulterior motives I find it hard to trust anything that's being said.

For example, where I live the government has started to disown farmers on a large-scale, supposedly to reduce emmissions. However, it's a poorly-kept secret that the ruling political elite have long wanted to cut down the agriculture sector. So 'climate' has simply become a stick to beat farmers with.

This type of corruption fuels my skepticism.

As the summer hits, and especially for the last few years, I feel more and more uncomfortable going outside. I think most people would agree, i think it's undeniable. — SackofPotatoeJam

I'm not sure where you live. I live in a temperate climate and people complain about the same thing. At the same time, we've had heat waves to upwards of 38 degrees Celcius as long as I can remember. Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that we're so pampered with luxuries like airconditioning and temperate-regulated homes, that we're diminishing our bodies' natural ability to regulate temperature. That also happens as a natural result of getting older, and people are on average getting older.


All of this isn't to say the climate isn't changing. The climate has always been changing. I'm skeptical about the alarmism.

If one is free to say "global warming is a hoax", then I'm equally free to say " this person is a moron and we ought not entertain their views" — Isaac

You can legitimately opine that you find this opinion moronic - but if your response is to attack the speaker - "this person is a moron" - you have changed the subject from global warming to the person saying it - this is the death of discourse.

The person being told they are a moron has nowhere to go - even if they were to suddenly flip their view - they would only confirm the moronic title. This form of ad hominem is all too common and all too unproductive.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff?fbclid=IwAR1nav4uJ3G-bVk3Ci4w5yl8d-ITIivUCOCFGbjzLfsPBX0JY5jkR1HQ1M0

The smart money seems to be on nuclear, and biological catastrophe as well as climate apocalypse. Personally I predict that as soon as the smart people descend into their bunkers, the rest of us will be able to sort things out together.

However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. — SackofPotatoeJam

Climate change would be our greatest threat if we keep emitting greenhouse gasses at the same pace or even at a reduced pace. I don't think we will, not necessarily because we will reduce emissions voluntarily, but because of collapse or reduction of industrialization.

Basically the idea is that economic growth (that is linked almost 1 to 1 with energy-consumption) as we had for a couple of centuries now, is not the norm nor 'business as usual', but mostly something that was and is only possible because of burning of cheap fossil fuels. They are reliable, energy-dense, easy to use... and most importantly they also have been cheap. As they are limited and easily available stocks run out however, they will get progressively more expensive. As economic growth relies on cheap energy, it will halt and this will eventually also crash our economy because it is essentially set up around the idea of perpetual growth. Presumably all of this will stress relations in and between countries even further, probably leading to a lot of conflict and wars.

So in short my guess is that we will keep emitting for a while until we can't anymore at the cost we need, which will crash industrial globalized civilization or peg it down a serious notch... which will presumably reduce emissions even further. This will probably still amount to 2 to 3 C° rise in global temperature, which is really bad to be clear, but not that bad relative to the other problems we will be dealing with.

As economic growth relies on cheap energy, it will halt and this will eventually also crash our economy because it is essentially set up around the idea of perpetual growth. — ChatteringMonkey

This is a pretty common idea, but what is exactly the logic behind it?

What is the exact mechanism that requires modern economies to grow in order to be considered healthy?

Perpetual growth seems more like a demand of governments that need to compete with their peers (think for example the US-China rivalry; to stand still is to lag behind), compensation for extremely irresponsible fiscal policy and monetary policy and to keep afloat a system of social security that is not economically feasible in the long run.

Just some questions / thoughts your comment raised in me.

This is a pretty common idea, but what is exactly the logic behind it?

What is the exact mechanism that requires modern economies to grow in order to be considered healthy?

Perpetual growth seems more like a demand of governments that need to compete with their peers (think for example the US-China rivalry; to stand still is to lag behind), compensation for extremely irresponsible fiscal policy and monetary policy and to keep afloat a system of social security that is not economically feasible in the long run.

Just some questions / thoughts your comment raised in me. — Tzeentch

I'm no economist, but from what i've gathered one of the reasons is that we need growth to offset all the debt we accumulate.

Debt is essentially a claim on the future. Take a house loan for example, you already have the house and can live in it, but haven't yet paid for the labor, materials, value of the ground etc etc... You need money to pay it off, and you need to produce goods or services to accumulate that money. So essentially debt means you have to do work in the future to pay back something you get right away.

Taken as a whole, a lot of debt is accumulated in our economies, more and more actually, which means we will have to produce a lot of stuff in the future to pay that back. If the economy shrinks, we would have trouble making good on all those claims on the future because we produce less (that is what shrinking means in economic terms)... and presumably that would break the system.

Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but it does sound plausible to me.

if your response is to attack the speaker - "this person is a moron" - you have changed the subject from global warming to the person saying it — yebiga

Yes.

this is the death of discourse. — yebiga

Why?

The person being told they are a moron has nowhere to go - even if they were to suddenly flip their view - they would only confirm the moronic title. — yebiga

They could educate themselves, do their due diligence with regards to sources, do the work required to join the discussion in question.

This form of ad hominem is all too common and all too unproductive. — yebiga

That's an empirical claim. Is it unproductive? Do you have some reason to think so?

I think it's equally likely that failure to exclude poorly researched positions from the debate ends up swamping it with nonsense, occupies everyone's time pointing out the most basic errors and so does more to stifle debate that exclusory behaviour would.

I'm skeptical about the alarmism. — Tzeentch

I think this is one of the main concerns for many. Alarmism is creeping into many discourses, actually.

Public discourse often is held hostage by loonies. Not that people listen to them, they don't (as they obviously are loonies), but by them being picked up by the opposing side. The loonies are the people who are pointed out and said to represent "the other side" in the debate. As if there would be these masses of "climate change deniers" (or climate deniers) or those that want to use "Climate change" as this vessel for radical socialist agenda. Yeah right.

But if you can find an example of them in the social media, there has to be huge swarms of them! :roll:

I'm skeptical about the alarmism.
— Tzeentch

I think this is one of the main concerns for many. Alarmism is creeping into many discourses, actually. — ssu

At this point, I am highly skeptical about anyone who pretends not to be alarmed by climate change. These 'non-alarmed' folks are just trying to ignore the problem, to reassure themselves.

Mind you, it is because they didn't want to sound 'alarmist' that the IPPC has somewhat systematically toned down its language and scenarios for decades. And now it appears that the problem is worse and growing faster than they said it would. So all this drama about 'alarmism', all these snowflakes afraid of their own fear, contributed to our doom.

These 'non-alarmed' folks are just trying to ignore the problem, to reassure themselves. — Olivier5

I don't think so. At least me I think that climate change is a real problem for us and it has been happening already for a long time. And will be to us and the next generation after us. But the World will not end. That's the point.

But the World will not end. That's the point. — ssu

The world will not end, but our world of permanent growth will end. That's the point. The belief in progress, in the indefinite growth of science and the economy, will end. Total population will shrink. Total economic output will shrink. It may well be that science will shrink as well.

Cui bono from climate change alarmism?

The world will not end, but our world will. That's the point. — Olivier5

Oh, but that's call change. Like in climate change.

And I'm not so sure climate change will kill you and all of your family. Or mine.

Have a look at Pakistan right now. Climate change already kills, and will kill many more. At the hardship menu, we're just nipping off the aperitive right now.

Cui bono from the truth?

Denying global warming should be treated with complete and unconditional disdain. Freedom of speech does not preclude the public shaming and ostracizing of those who abuse it. — _db

Sharing a wrong opinion is an abuse of free speech?
If anything, abusive speech is an abuse of free speech.

Yohan Cui bono from the truth? — Olivier5

Is that a rhetorical question?

And so do children from malnutrition in the Sahel region, and people in the conflicts there, where part of the reason is surely climate change. A lot more than the official bodycount in Pakistan as of now. But then, when we look at the statistics about people killed in famines:



Or then the statistics of natural disasters:



Those tell a different story, not of climate change or it's impact, but simply that our society can handle problems such as climate change better now than hundred years ago. And this isn't denialism, I'm not denying that climate change is a serious problem, only that it's not a existential problem for human kind. The year 2100 or 2200 there will very likely be humans around. That's the alarmism I'm talking about.

So, do you think you and your family will die directly or indirectly because of climate change?

Those numbers are a bit disingenuous SSU. It's not now that matters most or the positive trend up till now (as if that trend is automatically going to continue/is empirically proven!).... It's the future impacts of climate change that are the real problem. We only have had what, 1.1 or so increase in temperature as of now? The problems are already being felt now, but the real problems only start with 1.5°, 2° C increase in 10 or 20 years, and then it could get really tough by the end of the century if we get to 3° or more... for centuries to come.

Not being an existential problem is a very low bar. I know there's people focusing especially on existential risk, for humans to survive as a species, but frankly I couldn't care less about "the species" if the world is turned into an arid hothouse where most of the other species have died off and only small portions of the globe are really livable without technological assistance. Seriously, I don't get this type of reasoning, it's like saying to someone you will lose most of your limbs, your eyes, your stomach etc, but don't be alarmed we can keep you alive just fine by hooking you up to this machine for the rest of your life.

The year 2100 or 2200 there will very likely be humans around. That's the alarmism I'm talking about. — ssu

There will be humans around in 2200, I agree. The question is: How many? Already scores of youth are opting for not having kids because of CC.

BAU is not going to help anyone. We need to be alarmed.

do you think you and your family will die directly or indirectly because of climate change? — ssu

Nothing impossible there. It happens to many folks already.