I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, — Hanover

The promotion of which human life?
All of it, or just your tribe's?

Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle.
— unenlightened

This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available. — Hanover

Of course it is not what the science shows. Science models, and models predict, However, the common sense prediction that humans would respond to the predictions in such a way as to mitigate the effects has proven false. On the contrary, net emissions are still increasing.

And there are other factors that seem to indicate that the climate sensitivity has been somewhat underestimated. Turns out that science can be a bit wrong the 'other' way too. It is becoming clear that actual temperatures have exceeded models by some margin, and so models need to be adjusted.

However, the main problem is the time lag. The Greenhouse effect of CO2 is that it insulates, and the effects of insulation are slow, and cumulative. In geological terms, our increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been catastrophically fast, but in terms of human lifetime, the change in my seventy years lifetime has been barely noticeable.

This year we hit 1.5°C which was the recommended limit to prevent serious disruption to human life. So we have missed that target, and will almost certainly miss the 2°C target, because of the time lag of centuries and the fact that we have not even begun to reduce emissions, let alone reached net zero.

And we are already seeing disruption to agriculture, climate refugees, fighting over resources, depletion of natural resources especially forest, and the oceans, the best carbon absorbers.

But it's only just begun.

If it was just polar bears, I wouldn't mind much either, because I don't eat them anyway. But it is the whole ecosystem of the world that is being disrupted, and almost every species of plant and animal that is in decline. Your dinner plate may not be affected at first, because The US is wealthy and has a food surplus. Russia will do well because vast tracts of marginal land in the North will increase in value.

I will just repeat this;

All our worldwide human efforts at mitigation thus far have not added up to any reduction at all in net carbon emissions, but on the contrary, they are still increasing.

And if we do begin to reduce, and eventually reach zero, we will only have stopped ourselves from making things worse, but the insulating effect will continue to warm the planet for many many years to come.

There is no natural moral ought about this, as you point out. There is no natural ought about human survival, either. It is just a personal bias I have, such that I regret and mourn the folly of my species.

People are reluctant to "form an orderly queue" already at a grocery store.
How do you propose to get them to wait patiently in line for their death? — baker

I have no proposals. I expect famine, pestilence and war to do the job with maximal disorder and cruelty.

Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle. — unenlightened

The human population will fall dramatically in many countries for reasons not related to climate-change/global-warming. The following information is based on the study published in Jul 2020 called "The Lancet: World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power".

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

Population in more than 20 countries to halve by 2100: Study

The Earth will be home to 8.8 billion people in 2100, two billion fewer than current UN projections, says new study.

More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections in a major study.

Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline

China’s population will fall from 1.4 billion people today to 730 million in 80 years, said the study led by an international team of researchers, published in The Lancet on Wednesday.

By century’s end, 183 of 195 countries, barring an influx of immigrants, will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, it said.

Good news for the environment

These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions

“Our analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average,” he explained by email.

I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.

You’ve got that the wrong way round Hanover. The planet will be fine whatever we do. There might not be many people left though.

How many of those lives do you actually appreciate? — baker

:lol:

All of it, or just your tribe's? — baker

Everyone but you.

But that is all speculation, even if you think they are good guesses, still you're guessing.

That the earth is changing is clear. That we'll not adapt isn't. We're resilient because that's how Darwin made us.

We've got to admit to our biases (myself included) in constructing our narrative that fills in the blanks of what we don't know. If we start with the notion that we're a parasitic species ravaging a gentle planet, particularly barbaric in our economic and social methods of controlling resources, a coming apocalypse comes as welcome news because it can be used as argument to preemptively and radically change our society immediately. That is, the capitalistic party was fun, but it's over. Time for rehab.

My approach is to deal with the fall out when it falls out, but not because I'm reckless, but because I think your speculation is pure speculation and most likely wrong, so your solutions will be ineffective and more destructive than the disease.

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

How do you plan to do that? — baker

Through politicians actually doing what it takes instead of acting like demagogues only worried about losing votes in the next election.

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others. — baker

How do you know I'm not doing that? And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?

And you phrase that I'm only acting like this to justify to be mean, which is an intentional misinterpretation of what I actually do. I am mean because that's what apologists deserve as they are actively standing in the way of necessary change. Collectively these people form the political public opinion that holds these necessary changes back and in turn they are indirectly responsible for any deaths linked to the rapidly changing climate. I am very much in the right to treat them accordingly:

If you are told that certain paths ahead will result in people dying and societies getting destroyed and that there's a path to take to avoid all that, and you actively choose to not take the path to avoid it, but not only that you actively try to sabotage anyone trying to change it, as well as spreading disinformation denial of all of it even being an issue; then that's a deliberate act of sabotage that has a direct link to the consequences that could have been avoided.

It's like if you have a drunk person in front of you who says he's going to drive home and you know that this path will go past a school. There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can. You have the choice to support one of these opposing sides; to support the person who tries to talk sense into the drunk by pushing aside the one trying to get him to drive. But you could also support the other person and push aside the one trying to talk sense into the drunk.

Neither of your actions in that scenario leads to you directly being the one running over and killing kids. But it's quite clear that your actions help push a certain line of opinions towards an action that would quite possibly do that. Why wouldn't anyone put you into partial blame for what happened if kids got run over by the drunk?

This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly. So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass. The ones who are the really entitled people in all of this are the ones who don't want to change their ways and actively fight against anything that would require them to do so, even if not changing would lead to kids getting run over in the future.

And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people? — baker

As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work. It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.

If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed. It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated. So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes. But then again, people would vote some idiot into power that would just push for ignorant policies. If we can underline the immorality of regular people acting against necessary change, then we can at least create a cultural foundation of the morality of regular people within this subject matter and as I've exemplified I have no problem calling them immoral and people should stop beating around the bush on this as well.

There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can. — Christoffer

Because you weren’t nice enough.

Instead of saying “hey I agree this is important, but your approach may be counterproductive — anyway, here are some possible solutions” they focus exclusively on feelings. Why? Because they don’t understand the issue anyway, and refuse to take the time to learn.

Because it’s a public Internet forum, everyone feels entitled to a seat at the table, pretending to contribute with doozies like “this all doesn’t feel quite right to me, we’ll get out of it somehow” to “Science isn’t always right” to “It’s a sham” to “Climate activists are mean.”

There’s only two reasonable ways to deal with such people: ignore them or point out their stupidity, in the harshest way possible so that they hopefully go away. In the real world, there’s a very different approach. One I’ve been assuming for years and which works well. (Which is why it’s hilarious to be given “lessons” from Buddhist wannabes.)

The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Since there's no debate about the science as the science is clear, why would it therefor be about economic policy as a form of a capitalist/anti-capitalist dichotomy? Isn't it more or less a question of morality? I.e what's the moral action for us to collectively take? With the right strategy and effort, the damage of rapid policy change would be microscopic against the reality of not doing anything to mitigate climate change.

I don't see how there should be any debate other than about what's the best mitigation strategy. The debate should be about which actions are the best, and how to incorporate them into society in the best way. Like, new green industries that not only mitigate climate change, but also generate new jobs. How high carbon taxes would push industry people who are only interested in their balance sheets and bank accounts to actually change towards mitigation. When and where nuclear energy is better than solar, wind and sea and so on...

If the debate centers around the science, then it's pointless. If it centers around some capitalist/anti-capitalist political debate, then it's also pointless. In this subject matter the science is real and proven and economic philosophy just lead to navel-gazing about people's preferred world views. Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.

To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. — Hanover

Not at all. Unless one defines capitalism as exclusively the most destructive form ever known. Other countries are doing much better than we are, and they’re working within a mixed economic system too.

So it’s a false dichotomy. But should capitalism be abolished in all its forms? One can only hope.

But that is all speculation, even if you think they are good guesses, still you're guessing. — Hanover

Yes. That's the nature of prediction. Like the timetable predicts the train times, but sometimes shit happens instead. So ignore the timetable?

Yes, It's almost as if the Chinese government had planned it. Their population will decline as productivity increases, stabilising at a level their agriculture can sustain. No such good news though for Africa, India, S. America or Indonesia, unfortunately.

Yes, It's almost as if the Chinese government had planned it. Their population will decline as productivity increases, stabilising at a level their agriculture can sustain. No such good news though for Africa, India, S. America or Indonesia, unfortunately. — unenlightened

There is a growing consensus that environmental problems, particularly the effects of climate change, pose a grave challenge to humanity. Pollution, habitat destruction, intractable waste issues and, for many, deteriorating quality of life should be added to the list.

Economic growth is the chief culprit. We forget, though, that environmental impacts are a consequence of per capita consumption multiplied by the number of people doing the consuming. Our own numbers matter.

A radical rethink of the global economy is needed to address climate change. In relation to population growth, if we can move beyond unhelpful ideologies, the solution is already available.

People are not stupid. In particular, women are not stupid. Where women are given the choice, they restrict the number of children they have. This freedom is as basic a human right as you can get.

Women will show the way, if only we would let them. — The Conversation

A recent study suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.

Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services, rather than concentrating their efforts on demonizing oil and gas. This is especially important in places like Africa, India, S. America and Indonesia.

Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services — Agree-to-Disagree

What makes you think they aren't? Some of us are so smart we can walk and chew gum at the same time!

For example:— https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12687/matrilineal-matriarchy

Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services
— Agree-to-Disagree

What makes you think they aren't? Some of us are so smart we can walk and chew gum at the same time! — unenlightened

What have you done to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services?

What brand of gum do you chew? :grin:

What have you done to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services? — Agree-to-Disagree

Well back in the day, I was involved with a collective that supported a women's health group that was being trained by a maverick doctor in secret in the subtle art of very early abortions by aspiration, which was and still is an illegal intervention that women can use to control their fertility. but I am not going to share further details with you because - make up whatever idiotic reason you like.

I can chew gum, but I don't because it is a filthy habit.

Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.

Precisely, if civilisation is to survive intact, the priorities should be these. The twin path of reduction in the severity of climate change, the transition to zero carbon asap and the bold strategies of mitigation globally.

This will in itself be a gargantuan task. While not following this course will result in more severe climate change. More radical mitigation. With the added complication of civilisation collapse, initially local collapses, but followed by wider systemic collapse.

Or in other words, we have no choice if we want to preserve the achievements of civilisation, rather than return to the Bronze Age.

The preservation of capitalism would only be where it can help in this task.

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-carbon-emissions-are-set-to-decline-years-earlier-than-expected-cfc99dd2?mod=mhp

China’s Carbon Emissions Are Set to Decline Years Earlier Than Expected

China’s rollout of 300 gigawatts of new wind and solar power last year was for the first time enough to cover its new electricity demand

Don’t worry, here in the U.K. we will be saved by the cold blob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_blob

That is quite the achievement considering how much the West has been exporting it's heavy industry to China.

Somehow, I am not totally reassured.

Somehow, I am not totally reassured.

It will give us a bit of breathing space on the climate front. But won’t protect us from civilisation collapse. But I think we’re alright. We will be dead and buried by then.

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
— baker

How do you know I'm not doing that? — Christoffer

Because you're sticking to your old guns.

And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?

??
I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.

You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.

This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.

For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.

So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.

But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?

As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.

Given the strategies used so far ....

It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.

I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.

If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.

How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?

It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.

I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.

As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.

Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.

So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.

There you go, outsourcing responsibility again.

How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet.

—

That is quite the achievement considering how much the West has been exporting it's heavy industry to China. — unenlightened

I’m surprised by this too. Given that the Republican Party line is now “we can’t do anything because China is emitting more than anyone”, I wonder how this pans out— and what their next bullshit excuse will be.

They can't do anything about climate change because ... climate change!

You heard it here first.

A recent study suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average. — Agree-to-Disagree

It's not all that new, been a tendency for some time (also in religious demography). The "Idiocracy (2006)" movie takes a humorous shot at that (not really the best movie, but, anyway).

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. — Hanover

But there's no shiny happy people around you.

How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet. — Mikie

You and your imagination.