Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Have you seen it?
Messiah
Failed Experiment
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.slide.com/r/UbRcpYza4D-3dPsFUQI5feJai8Zravuh[/url]
Comments
Worf
- First the foursquare graph is far too simplistic there as are various degrees of "action" and various degrees of "inaction". He also assumes that the "draconian" actions that could prevent climate change lead [i]only[/i] to economic hardship. He is not thinking deep enough in this regard. Think of it this way, one of the most significant influences on the environmental "load" humans place on the earth comes from simple population growth. The likely reality is that dramatic reduction in population is one of the few ways to have a true impact on the global enviroment. Reduce the number of humans on the face of the earth by 1/6 and your dramaticly lowered the amount of load. The policies it would take enact such a change are well beyond draconian.
- The other fault is the assumption that the effects climate change, more specificly global warming, are all negative. It is likely, that there are any number of positive aspects of climate change, such as longer growing seasons in the temperate zones, which can help remove food production pressures off of more ecologicly diverse tropic zones.
- Finally, while not a fault in his logic, the call to arms at the end for changes in public policy is misdirected. Real, dramatic changes in the direction of humanity rarely come from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. If he wants real change it has to happen at base level of the population through a combination of additude changes and market-driven improvement.
While I don't really disagree with his conclusion, I don't think his logic is nearly as sound as he beleives it to be.
Jake
[/QUOTE]
So what you are suggesting is that we need more wars, more incurable diseases to be able to affect climate change? Others suggested reducing cow farts and banning low cost airlines. I think there are a few less drastic measures that can help like energy alternatives and education.
[QUOTE]- The other fault is the assumption that the effects climate change, more specifically global warming, are all negative.[/QUOTE]
What may be happening is a shift in climates. On the other hand we are about to get the coldest winter in years in my area. So my question is, where is global warming when you need it?
With rising gas prices we may actually get people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
It may be a bit rash, but outright eliminating a good portion of the population [B]would[/B] dramatically reduce our impact. We can research ways to lessen the impact of upwards of six billion people on the planet, but that doesn't change the fact that they are all trying to survive on it, drawing from its pool of resources simultaneously. Massive population centers just by themselves are studies in micro-scale environmental systems. Simply by existing, they dramatically alter the way weather patterns would have previously functioned. Technology which effectively solves a limiting factor of societal expansion tends to cause a rapid burst following its mainstream establishment, which leads back into the handicaps first encountered.
I'm not trying to say that an extermination of life is the right thing to do, but that they may actually be the only [B]true[/B] solution.
Brazil I think is near 0 on adding carbon to the air.
America's corn gas is political. It is all about the votes.
I don't use ac. Ceiling fans are good enough.
That said, if climate change is indeed a human caused problem, we need to acknowledge that not only will we be unable to reduce the population, but that it will continue to grow at a dramatic rate (9 billion by 2050). Any solution the intends to reverse climate change must take this factor into account.
Jake
[EDIT]Add line in italics
We've all played Civ II... we need to start building that space ship!
if only because they are vastly superior desert/savanna animals for Australia, which do not f#$^ Australia's ecosystems...
You want to know why you don't see 'Roo Products anywhere but Australia for the most part ?
Quite simple really... kangaroos are on the 'Endangered' list. Hence no trade in 'Roo products...
We've opened the 'Roos range by about 1100% by putting in water/bores. There are probably more 'Roos in Australia than at any time in fairly recent recorded history.
Sadly... the people in charge of deciding which animal is 'Endangered' and which isn't, are based in the USA.
There have been rumours circulating that they have also been surreptitiously backed by the US domestic beef/meat companies in this position. Oh irony of ironies...
The name "global warming" is a bit misleading. A more accurate name would be "global increasing-the-energy-level-of-the-climate-system."
[QUOTE=Chaosed;167123] Brazil I think is near 0 on adding carbon to the air.[/QUOTE]
Only because they have the Amazon, and they're working on that one...
With regards to farms, I'm personally holding out for meat grown in tanks. Lots of meat, hopefully significantly less to no waste products. It probably won't be quite the same, but it'll still be meat.
So is "secretary of defense." :D
The basic logic still stands, however. Add to that one little thing: How many chances to we get? We seem to have only one planet, don't we? If we screw this one up too badly, what hope have we to get any others?
Also while some say that for example Finland could get climate of northern Germany there's major point missing from that. Sunlight. Spring is pretty much only time of year where growing season could extend, while autumns could get warmer they're just too dark for much anything to grow well. (btw, currently sun sets about 4pm, -5C and 10cm of snow in here)
And then if floods and droughts become more common those could in average more than negate benefits of longer growing season.
[QUOTE=Sanfam;167120]It may be a bit rash, but outright eliminating a good portion of the population [B]would[/B] dramatically reduce our impact.[/QUOTE]Effect of that would depend greatly on where that elimination would happen, if 1/6th of humans from poorest end would disappear I don't think that would have any significant effect. But 1/6th from most consuming end... That would certainly have big effect on mankind's environmental load.
[QUOTE=Stingray;167119]What may be happening is a shift in climates. On the other hand we are about to get the coldest winter in years in my area. So my question is, where is global warming when you need it?[/QUOTE]Well, if you have longer and stronger heatwaves you sure have to have also colder weather for average to stay same. :D
Here in Finland last winter... well, that time of year when winter should be, was half of the time kinda wet and quite greenish and then summer was pretty much half of summer.
with a good five billion lives no longer in the picture, population centers are now significantly smaller and generally less impactful. More small villages can exist with smaller, more self-contained and self-sufficient substructures can pop up within the world. Humanity's technological advancement from that point on would be minuscule compared to what we have these days, and I'm certain more health problems would manage to come up, but the global ecosystem as a whole [I]should[/I] be better off.
Now the matter of extermination has other concerns, too. Would the existing infrastructure be left intact for the newly reduced population to utilize, or would it be wiped clean? perhaps something between.
Enough thoughts of genocide... :p
Also while some say that for example Finland could get climate of northern Germany there's major point missing from that. Sunlight. Spring is pretty much only time of year where growing season could extend, while autumns could get warmer they're just too dark for much anything to grow well. (btw, currently sun sets about 4pm, -5C and 10cm of snow in here)
And then if floods and droughts become more common those could in average more than negate benefits of longer growing season.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying, and in a good likelyhood is that your assumptions are right. What I was trying to point out is that for his logic to working correctly, the "worse case senario" (WSC) in the lower right quadant has to be significantly worse than the WSC in the upper left quadant. His logic only "infaliable" if all parties can agree on what the WSC is, hence the crux of the "global warming" debate. Subtle changes to the WSCs significantly alter the course of action because the gradiation of just four quadrants doesn't adquately cover all the senarios.
I also added the remark concerning population reduction not because I may or may not know that it would make a difference, but to point out that if indeed the WSC in the lower right quadrant is indeed significantly worse than the upper left WSC, then the measures required to mitigate that senario may not be much better, again creating a problem with the use of a simple four quadrant structure to prove the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.
Let me just say, I am not against many of the actions that humanity may need to take. I am against the authors singular call for "policy changes" which in the long run will have little effect either way. Real change will be market driven...
Jake
As for oil, with all the amazing and usefull things it can do, the most stupid thing we can do with it is to burn it for fuel.
With so many factors effecting the globe right now its going to be very hard to tackle each of them effectively.
Natural carbon cycle is for carbon to decline. Burning coal puts carbon taken out of the air back in. Back to a carbon level before humans we are going.
Brazil is fuel self selfsufficient. Ragan set us way back when he removed Carter's solar panels. Had to keep Big Oil rich.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBy8dEtiCc4"]Video Response 2[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqikCEzP7w"]Video Response 3[/URL]
And brazil isnt quite self sufficent either.
Rape seed is actually the most efficent biofuel sorce.
Anyways, he's overlooking one important dyamic of the whole "global depression" thing. Last time we had a major global depression it was a major catalyst in some dinky little event we like to call, "World War II" some people might have seen something about it on the History Channel? Without the great depression, the facist parties in Germany, Italy, Hungary and Romania might never have gained power.
So under worse possible outcomes catagories for draconian action is "ending of freedom return of surfdom and global thermonuclear warfare" Im all for the global thermonuclear war thingie though.
Seriously what would we call a system of goverment where only the eliets had access to technologicly advanced goods and services?
I think I heard about that. Something about Germany being pissed about losing the football years earlier?
The second one really [i]was[/i] World War II. As in, the sequel. It wouldn't have happened without World War I. Germany gave up, so the people were sure that if they just kept fighting, they could've won the war. Meanwhile, everybody started printing money and sticking it in their ears, until the whole system had to fall apart for anyone to realize how horrifically unstable it really was.
Oh, and we threatened the Japanese in the previous century, so they decided to beat us at our own game.
I don't think either scenario applies to today. We're a ways away from anyone getting built up and belligerent enough to kick off a major knock-'em-down planetary conflict.
The second one really [i]was[/i] World War II. As in, the sequel. It wouldn't have happened without World War I. Germany gave up, so the people were sure that if they just kept fighting, they could've won the war. Meanwhile, everybody started printing money and sticking it in their ears, until the whole system had to fall apart for anyone to realize how horrifically unstable it really was.[/quote]
Yes, and germany was forced to pay war reparations, having to borrow from the USA to be able to pay it was probably a cause of much bitterness.
[QUOTE=David of Mac;167455]Oh, and we threatened the Japanese in the previous century, so they decided to beat us at our own game.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the American and Japanese Imperialism in the pacific brought them to a head when The states decided to cut the oil and resources to Japan.