Is halting climate change beyond man's ability?
Despite the euphoria surrounding the Paris Climate Accord the world's leaders and its people have failed to act on the promises made. Few countries have legislated to start the drastic countermeasures necessary to slow down and halt global warming.
My question is: is global warming a challenge too great for humanity to handle? Is the momentum of the growth-based capitalist system too great to slow and turn around? Is the ecocentric view of the world which could galvanise the will to make sacrifices outside our nature?
I have noticed a fatalism in many people - ie 'it's too late to stop it now' or 'I'll be long gone by then' so why bother? Is this more a view of the older generation, and are younger adults ready to rise to the challenge? But even if they are, can they convince enough of the apathetic majority to win power for radical new governments in the few years before it's too late?
My question is: is global warming a challenge too great for humanity to handle? Is the momentum of the growth-based capitalist system too great to slow and turn around? Is the ecocentric view of the world which could galvanise the will to make sacrifices outside our nature?
I have noticed a fatalism in many people - ie 'it's too late to stop it now' or 'I'll be long gone by then' so why bother? Is this more a view of the older generation, and are younger adults ready to rise to the challenge? But even if they are, can they convince enough of the apathetic majority to win power for radical new governments in the few years before it's too late?
Comments (140)
Yes, and that people are trying to stop it is a sign of man’s hubris. I predict mass loss of life will come from man’s tinkering with nature long before climate change.
Euphoria? More like weary skepticism, that was my impression. And at this point there is not much hope for it.
UN Emissions Gap Report: "The 1.5°C goal is on the brink of becoming impossible"
It would be tempting to blame pigheaded denial (@Tzeentch) or special interests, but I believe it's more a symptom of the problem than its cause. The problem, in general terms, is that we as a multi-billion civilization just aren't capable of such a collective action. Technologically, averting the worst consequences would probably be within reach if we did what is required of us, but realistically it's not going to happen.
The question is on par to asking: Is the challenge of changing the global status quo of “greed is good” something that is too great for humanity to handle?
It’s not something that can be easily answered.
But I reckon that those who still have a whole life ahead of them will address the issue with motivations that differ from those who’ve become jaded by the life they’ve so far lived.
My answer: Don't know.
If it's the fact of man-made global warming, please do it elsewhere. For this thread I take it as a given that it is chiefly man's activities and their increased CO2 emissions which have caused the problem.
One problem is that almost everyone wants someone else to do something about it. Very few are prepared to do what is necessary of their own volition because it would involve radically changing their lifestyles and a massive load of inconvenience.
Another is that the moneyed elites desire only to preserve the status quo, because they see themselves as winning, and are generally too blinded by their own greed to see that they too, like everyone else will be "summoned now to deal with (their) invincible defeat".
And then, identity politics has crippled the political machine, a machine which has been intrinsically faulty from the start (insofar as it is always really in service to the plutocrats). This is because, no matter what is proposed, some lobby group that is perceived to be of sufficient significance to the outcome of the next election not to be ignored will be aggrieved by what has been proposed, and so no sensible policies are implemented, or if implemented, sustained long enough to have much, or even any, lasting effect.
People in general just really suck at seeing the big picture and making sensible plans and the necessary sacrifices to try to avert disasters whose unquestionable reality they would rather remain in comfortable denial of.
It's too great for democratic governments to handle. It might not have been, had consensus been achieved, which was the aim of Al Gore's film Inconvenient Truth. Had the advanced democracies (oh, and China) seized the moment, then it might have been possible to avert catastrophe. But unfortunately, sceptics, naysayers and the fossil fuel industry politicized the issue, split the consensus, and as a consequence paralysis ensued.
Look at Australia (from where I write). A little more then 10 years ago, there was an emerging consensus on all sides of politics that a carbon pricing mechanism should be introduced. It came within a few votes of passing, but then political reactionaries seized the moment and stole the show. Several years later, a Labor government successfully introduced a carbon tax which started to work exactly as it should have, with emissions tracking down and investment in renewable energy soaring. Again the reactionaries stepped in, won the next election, and to their eternal damnation and disgrace, dismantled this successfully-working law, which was world-leading at the time.
Now Australia has amongst the highest energy prices in the world and emissions continue to rise. A powerful bloc of reactionary shock jocks mainly employed by Murdoch continue to lead denial hysteria. It's a case study in abject failure.
So - no. When the magnificent Sydney Opera House becomes unusable in about 6-7 years, due to belng flooded by sea-water, then the political class might begin to see what a hash they've made of it. By which time, of course, it will be too late.
I know I am short-sighted and selfish. But if you think about it long and hard enough, you can't escape the realization that those who want to change climate change are also selfish and short-sighted.
Survivalists, pleasure seekers, breeders, sentimentalists, the unselfish, the long-range thinkers, and moralitarians are all short-sighted and selfish.
Ecce homo. Behold the man.
I think those are relatively minor contributing factors in the production of the current situation.
If the global mass disruptions that are now inevitable will in turn result in a global consensus of what should be done – rather than a global, tyrannical, surveillance-infused dystopia the likes of which we have never known – then research dollars will be heavily invested in carbon capture programs, along with more efficient renewable energy, etc. (One current problem is that over five percent of the global GDP is spent subsidizing fossil fuels rather than being invested in renewables.) In this optimistic scenario, although there will be extreme damage done to humanity and to life in general, there will also be a) relatively successful counter measures resulting from b) a global accord regarding (none tongue in cheek) democratic values. But all this is obviously a very big “if”, to say the least – especially since it will need to be global to have any meaningful effect. And this can only come from the people themselves.
As general rule, though, people don’t like immediate pain and suffering, so when it will hit most of mankind, things will either change for the better or for the worse. But whichever direction the change occurs, it will be significant.
As with yourself, I’m not here degrading the issue by entertaining thoughts of human caused climate change possibly being a hoax propagated by fake news. Or was it China?
In short radical de-growth. But radical de-growth is not going to happen because no one wants it, including you and me. Humans are simply very bad at recognizing limits to growth. The idea that we are in control, that anyone is in control, is a fantasy, a form of denial.
The problem with carbon capture programs is that they are predicated on "business as usual", or more accurately business intensified; and promoting them is a failure to recognize that climate change is far from being the only ecological (not to mention economic) problem we face.
Sociologists and Political scientists may have lots to say about why we humans have done almost nothing in response to the present, unfolding climate crisis.
Philosophers who specialize in ethics may have lots to say about why all people should take climate change seriously.
But original question doesn't address that topic: it asks whether stopping climate change is feasible for humans given the current state of our technology. Shouldn't someone pass this question over to a natural sciences/technology forum?
Yeah, welcome to you to.
It's not just a matter of technology, but is a question of human will, ability to coordinate global action, overcome complacency and general denialism, make sacrifices and so on...
As for social sciences not being "empirical," this simply isn't true. Social scientists gather and use data all the time.
And since when are empirical findings definitive? Newton, who was arguably the greatest physicist who ever lived, generated a physics that put humans on the Moon, but his findings did not prove to be definitive. Stephen Jay Gould did not admit to any truly definitive scientific conclusions. He wrote "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" To sum this point up, since we can't discount the possibility that new evidence will call an old theory into question, we can't call empirical findings "definitive."
Sure, but I didn't "dismiss" them; I simply put them in their proper place as I understand it.
Quoting Jim Grossmann
It's also because they address different kinds of variables: variables which are simply more variable.
Quoting Jim Grossmann
I also did not say that they are not "empirical" I said they are not "hard" empirical sciences and that there are no definitive empirical answers to their questions at present.
Quoting Jim Grossmann
It's true that no scientific finding is ever absolutely definitive, and I haven't said they are, but the findings of the hard sciences are more definitive than those of the human sciences for obvious reasons.
We cannot establish "facts" in the human sciences which can even "mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." except when it comes to the most general observations.
So, what (even relatively) definitive answers do you think the humans sciences can presently offer to the question regarding whether humans will have the "will, ability to coordinate global action, overcome complacency and general denialism, make sacrifices and so on..." to avert catastrophic climate change?
That doesn't mean it is beyond our ability to survive it. The only question we need to ask ourselves; is where do the rich people and oil tycoons hide the keys to their climate change shelters and can we get Elon Musk to start focussing on setting up something on the moon where we can send most of our children to either prepare for Terraforming mars or restoring earth?
Quoting Wayfarer
Too late for what?
Capitalism, generally, is required to grow, expand, enlarge, continue forward IF at all possible. That's not an altogether bad thing (it's not altogether good either). The coal, gas, petroleum, automobile and concrete industries are the most problematic industries, of course, and we are all its customers, one way or another.
Quoting Janus
The bitter truth is this: IF we are (or were) to succeed in limiting Global warming to 1.5ºC or 2.0ºC, we affluent people would have to relinquish our lifestyles, lock stock and barrel. We affluent consumers shrinking our consumption and CO2/methane et al by even 10% to 20 % (to pick a figure out of thin air) would be an immediate economic catastrophe which would have cascading consequences. A big drop in consumption would produce widespread unemployment and (probably) increase social instability. Yes, a transition to a low consumption could be made, but we don't have time to do it in a leisurely manner. We need now, and will need in the future, to do it very rapidly - like overnight (practically speaking).
A hard braking on consumption will be personally and collectively painful, if not fatal for some.
No leader, no national congress, no political party--nobody--wants to propose a totally demoralizing policy which will have literally painful consequences. Individuals are prone to continue forward
The economic catastrophe would be shorter and less drastic than global overheating, but it would have to be deliberately engaged.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don’t know if you can say that for a fact. It does seem to me that the effects of climate change would be far slower than an economic catastrophe in its effects.
We would switch to a vegan diet, or at least a largely vegetarian diet. Meat/fish/crustaceans would rarely appear on the table.
We would stop traveling farther than we needed to get to work (if we still had a job) and back. We would use our feet, bicycles, or public transit to get there. We would forego leisure travel beyond the distance we could get to on our own two feet or by bike. Forego air and auto travel altogether.
We would buy no new clothing, shoes, furniture, gadgets, cars, houses, appliances, etc. We would buy food and an occasional replacement item for clothing that was too ragged to use (not just too familiar--too worn out).
We would live in warmer (in hot zones) or cooler (in cold zones) houses, within the limits of safety.
ETc.
That sounds like China.
You know we are both on the same team on this. I feel we both agree that the main focus of our priorities has got to be here on earth too. That wont stop Elon Musk from trying what he has the money to try though. Not like I have a direct line to the guy to have this debate with him unfortunately. :/
Only when we had devised a new low-carbon regime could the economy expand. It wouldn't be as robust an recovery as we have seen in the last couple of centuries.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well of course ‘economic recovery’ would be viewed in a different sense. What’s an economic recovery? I imagine the effects of climate change as imagined would be different from what we have now. This is a gradual global change in geography, economics, borders, population, etc. What would be required living under conditions like that? What would population numbers be?
Edit: either way the world will not be like it is now.
We've pissed away 40 or 50 years of time that we could have been reducing our CO2/methane output and weren't. We don't seem to have another 40 or 50 years to screw around trying to decide what to do.
There is a lot of magical thinking going on. Oh, they will plant 25 trees to compensate for this flight to New York. How big do people think those trees are? 50 feet high? More like 1 or 2 feet high. It will take at least a decade before a successful tree will be big enough to absorb a significant amount of CO2.
Unless .... I daren’t say it.
What do you imagine the psychological consequences would be to this happening in such a short time. I imagine huge consequences.
What sort of system, what sort of government, would be needed to enact this. Does it mean people may have to move to seek work? Would the government take control of the movement of people? Would you have to live in areas relevant to your work or position or family size?
Has anyone really thought about this new world we’ll create?
Too late to prevent catastrophe, of course.
CNN
Probably for sure. I can foresee a lot of insecurity and despair over whether or not any of it will even work and for some, they may never get to see the fruits of their labour either through failure or a success so long-term they outlive it being recognised. However isn't this the price we all pay when fighting any form of injustice, be it small or great? William wilburforce, Abe Lincoln and others may have did their part to end the legal slave trade; but what about the practice of slavery? Its still alive, just illegal or subversively hidden in complex corporate policy designed to create hurdles in legal interpretation which creates hugely exploitative and detrimental working conditions with pitiful levels of normal pay nevermind hazard pay.
However the spirit of the justice we fight for everyday lasts as long as a human is alive who believes in justice and seeks to give this spirit the power to make us as safe as is humanly or technologically possible in all avenues of danger, be they from ourselves or from nature itself.
What exactly are we contemplating? I’d like to hear specifics, not just that sea levels will rise, but what life would be like? Not all of us live near the sea, not everyone will be affected negatively by temperature rises. People will migrate, where?
Even if this is the thing required I’m not sure if the cure is better than the disease. Can we handle such radical, quick transformation?
:up:
As I see it you got it just right, Brother Crank: that's uncommon, so well done!
Are they devastating or not? We need to know what we’re dealing with. How do you deal with potential? How radical should our response be, in response to what exactly?
Sorry it didn't open the first time so i went back. Thanks.
Ahhh to have the simple life. If only humans weren't such complicated creatures. You have me convinced about what needs to happen.
So how do we structure effective arguments and give people meaningful narratives with which to fully comprehend the beauty and complexity of the sort of life we will need to lead in order to survive? I feel that here in the West some of us may have been too brainwashed by the fantasies of infinite economic growth here on earth and the ever maladaptive money cult we are all forced to take part in.
The worst thing is; what the west has to offer is access to the cornucopia of opportunity to succumb to all manners of temptation.
Common men like myself here in the west live lives that ancient Kings could have merely dreamed of while our siblings elsewhere still struggle for what we consider basics like running safe water and central heating and real locks on our doors, with our double or triple glazing and our foamy lattes and our mobile generators we call automotives. Mark Renton tells us all to choose life but the fucker never bothered to go into what kind of kife, but his disdain for life in my home country clearly speaks for itself and speaks to my feelings on the matter too. Choose the good life but dear god figure out what good is first. For me, that is the life of balance and seeking and contributing toward external balance.
Careful; while I do see the pragmatic placement of the populations of earth argument you are trying to build and agree with the need for the effort, try not to veer too close to the caste system or if you are make sure to ingrain it with equality and egalitarianism as well as fairness and justice. I'm sure you get what I mean though.
As for a segue into hope; have you noticed the phenomenon of people becoming much friendlier with one another during terrible weather and natural disasters? The shared plight of our dangerous existence here in the universe and its nature does have a tremendous power to bring people together in amazing ways. Surviving this is going to be a major part in our moral development I feel. I think humanity will survive but I hope it is able to survive in a maturer way than our ancestors could have.
All moral debate and argument will have been for naught if the only people to rise from the ashes of our world are the rich immoral elite who drove the world to this all for the purposes of the ever consuming "More".
The sheer shame that we have always been in Eden yet put up fences to its richest pastures will be unforgivable if these Elite win. Hopefully if that is the case they will one day know future generations of theirs scorn in the very least.
If a caste system is required that's fine but it has to be for everyone and everyone has to be identified or molded into the best contributing cog in the machine of life that they can be.
Quoting Tim3003
Something that comes out of the climate change crisis is that we are not, after all, a global community. Scratch that one. We’re all states with our own interests.
Suddenly cultural differences really do matter.
Science has taken a blow to the head.
Any crisis will turn political.
We think we’re adaptable, but are we? The focus of the fight against climate change is rising temperatures, to stop or slow the increase. The culprit is carbon emissions. This is from an article Wayfarer posted:
“No plausible program of emission reduction alone can prevent climate change.”
But this from earth observatory.nasa.gov
“The levelling off (of heat) between the 1940’s and the 1970’s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War 11 ... The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gasses, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls ...”
The rush to renewables, the politicking, the media sensationalism, the focus on reducing carbon emissions blinds us to other possibilities. Maybe we’re just punch drunk, but at some stage we have to be smarter.
So I don’t think the challenge is too great, but we won’t win it the way we’re doing it.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I’m not suggesting we should do this. What I see is a totalitarian form of government because people will be required to do what is good for the state. Even now if you disagree with climate change you’re a pariah, in the future there will only be solutions, if you get my drift?
Quoting Lif3r
That’s an interesting point.
States today can chose there own way to combat climate change. But how does a state prepare for living with climate change, what form could they take that makes them different from other states except for natural resources? Unless they do have a dome. And we know who would get to live in the domes.
That's the problem, all right, and it is a fantasy. It's a sort of magical thinking.
In WWII, US production was reorganized for war production, whether the corporations owning the factories liked it or not. Rationing of staples (flour, sugar, butter, meat, oils and fats, gasoline, clothing, etc. was imposed. There was no automobile manufacture. There were "fat drives" (like bacon grease or lard, useful for making explosives), metal drives, and paper drives. Public transit (buses and trains) were very crowded because of the heavy use by 3-shift production schedules and troop transport. In the event of infectious diseases (TB, Influenza, Polio) quarantines were sometimes used; small pox vaccinations were not optional. The same thing happened in most other industrial countries.
Yes, people were frustrated at times by limited or no goods at all, There were strikes for higher wages, and the usual bitching and carping. None the less, hundred of millions of people around the world resolved to do what was necessary. It worked because the existential threat and the necessary preventive actions were clearly stated. Patriots grew some food in the back yard and reduced their consumption. In some countries, rationing lasted from 1939 to 1947 (and longer in some places).
I think that there are a 2 or 3 billion people who, if told the truth about global warming and if given clear behavioral options (like wearing shoes completely out before replacing them, buying a very limited number of clothing items per year, not eating meat, not flying, not driving, and so on) they would rise to the occasion
There are another 2 billion people, give or take, who are already effectively doing what we should all be doing because they are too poor to do otherwise. and maybe there are a couple of billion people whose reductions in lifestyle would be more limited.
People need to be told that rainforests like the Amazon, Central African, SE Asian, or NW American temperate rainforests are vital; that they are in danger of dying from destruction negative cascading effects; that they are being destroyed to grow palm for oil and soybeans to feed animals for meat. Dead rainforests produce very little oxygen, which we need to breathe. We can live without meat and palm oil (at least for a while).
People do make adjustments. Most toilets are far more efficient these days, whether people like the way they flush or not. People are much better at turning off unused lights than they used to be (individually and institutionally). They will make more changes and faster changes if they are told the truth about what will happen if they don't.
This sermon preached to the choir is now over.
I don't know exactly how you would specify "the problem". If you're referring to extremes in climate, those have been around long before man walked the Earth. Ice ages, periods of extreme drought and rain, periods of sea level rise etc. The Earth doesn't need mankind to produce such fluctuations at all. Currently the climate we're living in can hardly be considered extreme compared to situations in the past.
So I'll repeat my statement: climate change is a reality of life on Earth.
This thread is under Politics & Current Affairs. Besides, the question I'm asking is not scientific or technical, it's more about will and vision. Are we as humans intellectually and morally equiped to deal with a problem whose effects take decades and whose costs are hard to forecast. We are very good at fire-fighting, but planning long-term is hard with our short-termist electoral systems. There has not been a problem like sudden global warming in the whole of human history and it seems to me our evolutionary journey as a species has left us ill-equiped to deal with it.
However, I wonder if all is not lost, because man's great ingenuity could yet mitigate the situation. As the climate chaos worsens there will be greater pressure to invest in carbon-capture schemes. If the danger (and the economic hit) becomes clear enough we approach a war situation - accepted by everyone, where it's 'all hands to the pumps'. Then maybe billionaires who waste their cash on pointless space tourism will start chasing kudos by building reflective satellites or carbon sequestration machines of some sort. The question is when this tipping point will be reached. It can't be before such imbeciles as Trump are recognised as unfit for office even by would-be supporters. Is that coming in 2020?
Certainly, as the realization of the urgency and the severity of the problem grows, the concerted efforts to combat it will intensify and become more organized. But we have few good options left to us. Drastic scaling down of greenhouse gas production seems more and more like a lost opportunity already. Some miracle sequestration technology? That would be nice, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think the most likely optimistic scenario is that we'll just cope with the consequences as best as we can.
Yeah I get what you mean. At some point it isn't even "edgey" to be a climate change denier if it ever was and people are definitely waking up to that.
I'm okay with that form of government so long as it still gives some rights to an individual that don't conflict with our abilities to fight climate change.
Agreed. A resource conservative maintenance heavy humble existence is going to be a necessity for most if not all.
New technology with new renewable low carbon energy sources with many contingencies will most likely still be relied upon heavily and I think we would be fighting a losing battle to call for pure abstinence of anything but the fossil fuel and dirty fuel aspects of it all.
However it should go without saying that we need to change our relationship with technology and restructure how we see it's utility. The kind of utility we need is not the kind of access to easy living we have become used to and the lazy cult of "making things easier". We can use our technology to potentially make any lifestyle streamlined and efficient if not easy and completely safe. Whether that is energy consuming technology or human energy technology like old style plows. All it really requires is the will to see it through and change our behaviours if we want to survive. The will to do all this will grow; I just hope it doesn't take so long that governments only wake up to the problems when politicians or their loved ones start dying of heat stroke, malnutrition, dehydration and diseases associated with these conditions. :/
But then maybe the duty of philosophers in this time is to finally take up the burden of leading by example by really taking the "Leading" part seriously. People crave philosopher leaders and they are idolized in fiction well enough for us to see this is true. At some point, we have to realize when the armchairs need to be left and the podium needs to be mounted. Else some judgemental philosopher of the future is going to have the ability and strong argument to label those of us alive today as "The Great Moral Apathists" obviously the great part will be a joke about the magnitude of our apathy. There is no greater injustice in this world than Apathy as all other injustices spring forth from this one. A lot of people like to talk openly about their views on what they call "Psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists like they are the real problem. It isn't, it is everyone else's full apathy of what is really going on that allows the mental and physical crucibles to exist in childhood that create these demographics.
How people expect children to all believe in justice when we cant give every child justice is beyond me. Now I know that every now and then some psychopaths are born broken to the rest of us. We need to be aware though that the criminality and immorality that come from these individuals isn't always related to their neurochem in fact it rarely is. Genes only decide how a person will respond to certain environments but the environments will always be a string contributing factor in what that person ultimately becomes. Non criminal but clinical psychopaths genuinely aren't all bad. All talents and dispositions have a context they fit symbiotically into. Take the list of professionals that have high levels of some of the more positive traits of sociopathyy and psychopathy which have been manufactured by their training; I want a surgeon who can genuinely not see me as a person and see me as a machine to be fixed if they are going to be performing surgeons on me as this is how the most successful surgeons operate. Bedside manner is a seperste skill and some great surgeons are still able to be good at this and see you as a person when checking up on you after surgery. Competitive fighters can go from focussing pure hatred on a rival to embracing them with respect and love upon completion of their bout and the sheer psychopathic positive thinking and focus you get from Shaolin Monks is terrifying in its consistency yet positive presence.
Not all psychopaths are criminals by nature, they are criminal by environment. Our brains give us all the capacity to turn off and shut out different peoples to our empathy. Its a defence mechanism we use which does have its uses still. It is maddening to try and empathise with everyone all the time.
It is up to us however to be rational enough to know when the defence mechanism is actually increasing the levels of danger we are in. Apathy toward climate change is an extremely maladaptive defence mechanism as it will not avert the crisis here. This isn't some starving child on the other side of the world we are forcing ourselves to ignore for sanities sake, its all children everywhere that are at risk. Insanity is ignoring that now.
Climate will change; it has done so for billions of years, and it will continue to change long after we’ve gone. The idea that the climate of a location would remain within our choice parameters is ridiculous. But the accelerated change we’re experiencing, drying out some habitats and flooding others, and the extinction-level impact this has on the already reduced, threatened and divided habitats of the planet’s diverse wildlife, is still mostly our doing.
But - oh, no! Now our lives might be under threat! Well, maybe not under threat, as such. It’s not like we’re facing extinction. Scarce resources, maybe. Flood, fire and famine, war, genocide, coup d’etats, countries in economic collapse, environmental refugees, perhaps even poverty, exploitation and corruption on a national level - this will be the human impact. But most of that is already happening around us. Many of us will gradually need to adjust our diet, where we live (here in Australia, at least), our lifestyle, occupation, etc. It will be inconvenient and frustrating... and someone else’s fault.
And we will be sad to hear that another species needs our help to escape extinction, that we can’t find Nemo on the Great Barrier Reef anymore, and that people and animals and trees are dying around the world without ‘good’ reason. But we’ll get used to it, won’t we? We’ll adjust, as we always do, as a species.
We can’t fight climate change. To fight it is to refuse to accept that climate changes - that it should change - as if it’s the change that threatens us, as if it’s us that’s most important. It’s the wrong focus. We need to be more aware of what is really happening without fearing it, to connect with what is happening, and to collaborate with it. All of it. A good start would be to stop referring to it as ‘climate change’ - it’s humanity that we need to halt...
This is all very well said! You're right, the man made version of climate change we are facing now was made a reality due to the same old injustices most of us have been fighting for our entire existence. Consistent morally progressive leadership I feel is something we have never truly had as a species as well as consistent humility and responsibility in leadership too. I wouldn't mind certain leaders so much if they just had the balls to do what is right and admit mistakes or admit to lies and save us all time in deciding whether or not to give them another chance or not. There needs to be much more trust and assumption of forgiveness when it comes to callousness. Intent is certainly a contributing factor in judgement of wrong doers and if its a genuine mistake from a fallible human at least have the decency to own it and let people make informed decisions about forgiveness, forgetting or justice. If the form of justice wasn't so violent and aggressive as it is now maybe this would be easier for people to do. As it is too many people spend so much time trying to micromanage how people perceive them and its boring and totally inauthentic. I like the narrative of being in a debate with someone and wondering whether or not you or they are the "Bad guy" in this. More often than not the end of that narrative is usually realising we aren't all so different deep down. These social failures and successes are what define us really. Failure is certainly character building but we get to decide in what way this shapes our character. Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to what we do.
Right. To arrange life on a different orb, sustainable, continued life for humans, would take such a humongously huge human effort, that it's waaay easier to decimate the local population on Earth, delcare a moratorium on pregnancies, and carry on with business as usual.
Social change is impossible, much like overcoming insurmountable techinical difficulties. Of these man faces one on Earth, the other, in space. But Social Change has been achieved over and over again with brute force. Christianity changed the social landscape of Europe and then later much of the world, and Chrisitanity spread via the sword, let's face it. Communism turned 1/4 of the world's population into true atheists, and let's face it, Lenin et al did it with the sword. America eradicated legal slavery, and let's face it, with the sword.
I don't know what would precipitate an equal measure to social change in overcoming technical difficulties, such as complete lack of resources, such as oxygen and an atmosphere, or water, on the Moon or on Mars, or conquering the distance needed to travel to other solar systems' livable planets. Brute force won't cut the mustard. The only way out of this planet within our lifetime down to our grandchildren's life, inclusive, as far as I am concerned, would be 1. a soon upocoming invasion of Earth by a super-intelligent, benign and benevolent race from outer space, 2. Computer technology taking off in capability in both physical and mental like a rocket ship, surpassing all humanly intelligible and / or 3. A mutation in humans or in another species on Earth that would result in a much more intelligent, capable biological being.
This is true, but try telling it to a human: "You gotta stop being, man. Your time is up, give way to cockroaches, bloodsuckers and tapeworms. Sit down, shut up, extinc** yourself."
But I am more concerned about the fear that the whole thing of climate change is sustaining. Rulers operate on mass control, and in many systems, it is fear. We feared the AIDS epidemic. Before that, we feared the Cold War. Before that we feared God. Before that whatever. There is always unnecessary fear, which is necessary for sustaining the status quo, which benefits the ruling class. So the oppression continues, because, basically, people are too stupid. I tried to tell people: "Don't fear climate change. It's a shmafu." They wanted to stone me. (It was on another philosophy forum.) I tried to tell street preachers: "Don't fear the Lord. He is shmafu." They wanted to stone me. (It happens on an ongoing basis in my hometown. I am the wrath of street preachers here.) I tried to tell people in my old country, Hungary, when it was communist: "Hey, don't fear that the Amys will drop the bomb. They ain't shtuppid." They did not try to stone me, because my father stopped me from saying this, with the wisdom of his words, "son, you don't want to spend the rest of your days in a psychiatric institution looking like something that the cat brought in."
** extinc == verb, backformation of "extinct" (adjective). Neologism.
While everything that you wrote up to this point is very reasonable, this is pure sophistry. It's like saying "you can't fight death." A truism, of course, if you state it like this, out of context. But if you say it while watching a toddler drown in a bathtub, anyone would be in their rights to bash your brains in.
Honestly the best place I can think of is probably inland of Greenland.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yeah, but it got a response.
I’m not saying that you can’t turn the tide on the effect of climate change - what I’m saying is that when you frame it as a ‘fight against climate change’, you will lose. You have to approach it differently - stop trying to make the world do what we want it to do, but rather listen and pay attention more, and then give the world what it needs from us.
Don’t just stop being anything - start being what the universe needs, instead of being human just for the sake of it, for the glory of it, or for the perks. We are not the ultimate goal, as such. We can be the ultimate solution, though - humanity has the capacity to facilitate a sustainable world. We’ve evolved not to maximise survival, dominance or proliferation, but to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. The more we focus on this, the more we recognise that the rest of the universe is open to it - and needs this from us, more than anything else we can do.
To be honest, I’m not putting much stock in authorities to ‘lead’ on this, or anything. As long as survival is a major goal, authorities won’t have the courage to lead. And we have had morally progressive leadership, but they’ve notably led from the bottom, not from the top, and ‘consistent’ is a pipe dream in an ever-changing world. If we’re to make this kind of change, it has to be a groundswell that influences authorities, not the other way around. I think as a rule we rely too much on authorities to make these decisions for us, as if we can’t choose to stop burning fossil fuels on our own, but need to be forced into it (and then complain about it).
Like @god must be atheist says, we need to stop being hampered by fear. We need the courage to own our mistakes in the face of violent and aggressive justice in order to demonstrate that justice is overly violent and aggressive, and wrong doers are mistreated. And we need to recognise that we’re the bad guy in this, in order to repair our failures.
One thing that Trump has done is make it painfully clear that the POTUS has never had to earn the respect and authority we’ve given them.
A warmer planet is a more energetic planet. Warmer oceans and atmosphere have more energy to impart to storms and thus stronger more violent weather and storms lie ahead. Changes in climate will change crop and agriculture patterns and regions.
There will be major dislocations of populations from many costal areas and as always the poorer sections of the planet will suffer more disruption, political unrest and economic stagnation.
We have not even taken the most basic steps of stopping subsidies for oil exploration, closing off federal land and wildlife preserves to exploration, in fact movement has been in the opposite direction. We should cease new oil and fossil fuel exploration immediately, allow the price of oil to rise and make competing renewable energy sources more cost comparative as well as expend large sums on battery technology and renewable sources. See any evidence of that?
Having said all this, life on the planet will not cease to exist and humans will not likely go extinct. The planet and life on it have survived more severe disruptions in the climate due to natural cycles. That is not an excuse for doing nothing for there will surely be major loss of life and severe stress on our political and social structures and human civilization as we currently know it is not assured. We have arisen and thrived in a certain climatic and geological environment and we should be much more careful than we are being, and have been about altering that environment in this way and this rapidly.
IMHO.
Climate change is already flooding the coasts of low-lying countries like Bangladesh. Water is also getting high in Venice, Italy. Most of the hottest years on record occurred in the 21st century. Killer storms are becoming more frequent and severe.
Yet none of the big carbon emitters, including the USA and China, seem to be doing much about this. One reason is that Big Oil can't wait for the Arctic ice to melt and open up the Arctic Ocean floor for oil drilling. Another reason is that the public is being disinformed by Big Oil and Republican noisemakers. Still another reason is the denial that springs from fear. Not many people talk about the fact that our civilization can't sustain itself in its present form. But the popularity of post-apocalyptic fiction, like "The Walking Dead," may be a sign of this fear IMO.
There's a lot of points between 'business as usual' and 'total extinction'. The world is barreling towards a massive population boom at the same time that it's facing environmental catastrophe. And 'catastrophe' is not too strong a word, either.
I think the real crisis will manifest as economic collapse. Modern capitalism is intrinsically connected with (among other things) the discovery and exploitation of vast reserves of fossil fuel. And it's also based on the expectation of perpetual growth. So estimates of long-term returns on investments, forward values, and the like, are all based on the illusory idea that growth can continue forever; all the lines point upwards. When it really becomes undeniable that this is not the case, I think it will trigger a financial collapse, as everyone scambles to call in their debt and the whole house of cards comes down. It came close to happening on September 18th 2008 already. That will be end of capitalism as we know it. It might not be the end of the world but it might be the end of the world we know.
I think this is a possible scenario. An alternative scenario is that all debt will have to be absolved when it becomes obvious that there is not sufficient available energy to run and maintain the system and upkeep its infrastructure. This scenario is one in which we would see increasingly frequent and sustained blackouts and brownouts and fuel shortages which will lead to food shortages and general panic.
Some more info:
Might as well try and adjust the strength of gravity.
The point is, global debt is at such a level that it cannot be simply absolved or forgiven. I'm no economist, but my understanding is that all the advanced economies are so highly leveraged (i.e. have so much debt), that the effect of sudden de-leveraging can't help but be catastrophic. And the form that will take is that the banks will close, and there will be no money; currencies will lose their value. That's what economic collapse looks like. Think today's Venezuela on a global scale.
The basic problem is, our generations have 'spent the future'. When the next generation comes of age, they will find the larder is well and truly bare.
Those are the 'worst case scenarios'. I'm truly hoping they don't come to pass. (I have a grand-daughter, 2, and a grand-son, 9 months. They will hit their twenties around 2040 which according to the UN will really be the climate crunch.) The only sliver of hope I have, is that there are a lot of very serious and well-informed people and agencies who are also aware of this, and who are taking it deadly seriously. Unlike the clowns and buffoons who currently occupy high office in Australia and the U.S. who have not the least notion of what is bearing down on us.
Be sure to do your research before you put a down payment on a lot in Greenland. There are no inland lakes to speak of. I saw once a National Geographic Society map from the 1960s and it showed the elevations and sea floor of the bottom of the ocean. I now forgot if it had been a map of the Arctic or of the Atlantic ocean.
At any rate, Greenland is mainly land, but lots of sea. From a rough estimate of my old memory, it is 60 percent land and 56 percent sea. (Rounding.) Just kidding. 40 percent sea. Its elevated land above sea level resembles a human's left ear, or a letter C in mirror image. The centre of Greenland is a huge bay, or it would be, if the ice melted. There are high mountains in the ridge of the C, and most likely lots of fast rivers. But there is not much standing water, at least not as much as one could expect of a complete landmass cover of the island that is under ice.
A politician's meausre of success is getting elected. Another way to measure how successful he is would be the achievements he proposes and creates for the betterment of his constituents, but that metric is actually considered with disdain by many current politicians.
In retrospect, bad and good politicians are remembered, and the mediocre ones are not. Bad and Good are measured by the good they achieve for their people.
But nobody ought to expect a politician to act responsibly and smartly. He completely exhausts his brian cells with the running for office, which is a gruelling two months, after which he NEEDS to relax for four years in order to gain enough mental and emotional energy to sustain himself through the ensuing next upcoming election.
When you cast your ballot, you are not voting for the best man for the job, but you're voting for the best Marketing team. And you know what one of my favourite philosophers said about marketing (of modern times)? "Marketing is next to grand larceny."
All these were platitudes, of course, and I hadn't expected to say anything new that all of us hadn't already known. It just felt good to say this. It's out of my system now, I can breathe a bit lighter now.
This is true. It is also true that migration is not precipitated by climate change, but artificially overpopulating a land that is unable to support a huge amount of people that are now there.
Case in point: Islam demands what Christianity does: have kids, as many as you are able to produce. Christians turned their back on this tenet of their faiths, but Muslims (mostly) have not. So they get government subsidies to populate their countries... not tvs cars and monuments to live in, but enough flour and water to bake some bread-like substance that's enough to not starve to death.
Have you ever seen a movie about the Middle East? Not a Hollywood movie, but a movie made by the locals. These movies show grazing heards of goats. They drive the goats for miles in desert conditions to find a spot with grass on it, then they heard the goats back home for the night.
There is clearly not enough arable land to sustain the billion Arabs in the Middle East.
Of course, and naturally, their human drive will make them look for lands where they can survive. This is not a miracle and I can't blame them for it.
But the long-and-short of it is, that to the day I haven't heard of any land or region, except for one, which has been hit by climate change that made living impossible for all who live there and the people have to fight wars to survive.
The one such area is not Ethiopia of Eritrea, but Darfur.
Then again, I talked to an Indian feller here in Canada, and he said he had come from South India, which is desert now, but it used to sustain people very nicely when he was growing up.
I don't know, honestly, whether the desert in South India was formed by overfarming and overgrazing, caused by overpopulation, or it was caused by climate change.
Disclaimer: I don't know the number of Arabs / Muslims in the Middle East. I wrote a Billion as a personal estimate.
Disclaimer: I have no proof or evidence that the governments in the Middle East support their people to have kids and give them food to survive.
Disclaimer: I am not positive if the "goat pastures" situation applies to all, or most, of the Middle East, and I am not sure how much land there is actually capable of growing food.
Well, electricity is created in most of the western world by at least 50% nuclear fission energy. Transportation energy, you're right, is mainly fossil fuel, but battery-driven cars will rely increasingly on nuclear energy. Airplanes can't fly on batteries yet, they have too high a mass/energy output ratio.
The debt crisis is yet another thing. I don't think anyone ownes the debt. I have been thinking about this for a decade, and other than a faulty theory, I haven't come to a satisfactory explanation how that is possible. All debts, public and private, are supposed to have a debtor. But they all don't. The Gov (the fed in the USA) dish out oodles and tons of money annually to cover their deificit. They used to issue bonds and other instruments to lenders, to cover their debts, the Govs used to do that. But I fear the practice has been abandoned, since the USA went off the gold base, and now every country is into printing bills head over heals.
Money is only worth as much as everything else, in a sense: as much as someone else is willing to pay for it. If you are willing to give a litre of your refined gasoline for a dollar twenty Canadian, so be it. If you are willing to give up ownership of your house for a million Canadian dollars, in the Toronto area, so be it.
This system is not as volatile or fragile as one may want to think. People are gullible, and this time it's a GOOD thing that they are. Money is basically worthless, but nobody knows that. It is literally not worth the paper it is printed on. But we believe it is, and that sustains our economies.
~ World Nuclear Association.
Quoting god must be atheist
Currency is a treaty or an agreement, for sure. Stop believing in it, and it becomes worthless. Right now it's not, but if that were to happen, it would be a catastrophe, unless you're set up to be completely self-sufficient (which few of us are).
Rather Laconic, Lif3r, but how I interpret your reply (may need to be adjusted, but your lazy one-word reply is too short to fine-tune my understanding of it) is that to survive global warming, you need to live on Greenland, because it has glaciers.
But that's precisely the point of global warming: glaciers are melting, and not re-forming.
If global warming continues, after a certain point there will be no glaciers.
No glaciers, no inland lakes, only fast-moving creeks and rivers on the steep slopes of the young mountain ridges. IF (that's a big if) there is rain to sustain the water supply of creeks and rivers.
Quoting Wayfarer
Thirty countries have power reactors. There are 195 countries.
I'm sorry to say, but I am afraid that your rebuttal does not make sense statistically. What you are doing is taking the total amount of nuclear power plants and devide their electricity production by 195 extant countries; thereby declaring 10% involvement in creating electrical energy. Whereas the nuclear power plants supply nuclear energy to only 30 countries.
I did not say that the world's electricity comes 50% from nuclear energy. That's a necessary inference (but false) to substantiate the argument you made.
That is true.
And it may be closer than it appears in our rear-view mirrors.
Not because of global warming; but because of the trade deficit to China.
China has been supplying goods to the USA and to the world for US dollars. Now China is sitting on top of a huge amount of US dollars in their possession. What can they do with it? They can't buy goods, because their domestic supply of manufactured goods is way cheaper than the prices they'd need to pay to other countries. Can they buy food, land, and energy? Sure, to a certain point. China has been buying up cheap real estate around the whole world: in Australia, in Africa. Maybe in America, and Europe, I suspect they would but I have no knowledge of that.
So after they bought up what they possibly could, what will be their American dollars worth? And let's face it, the world economy is hugely dependent on the stability of the US dollar.
Surely we aren't doing that. We (ie. us discussing here - not mankind as a whole) are trying to find ways to let the world do what it wants, rather than assuming we have the right to alter it for our own short-term economic ends. What does the world 'need from us'? To be left alone?
And then we get into the whole issue of rights: ie. do we as the dominant species have the right to alter the eco-system if we want to (by design or by negligance). Or do other species have the right to their un-molested existance alongside us?
Surely a big part of the problem is over-population. ourworldindata.org
Would sticking to a ceiling of (say) 7 billion humans on earth keep the effects manageable? And if so, should we prioritise aiming for this? The forecasts of world food shortages over this century seem to be based on another 3 billion Africans being around by 2100..
Sorry, I thought that was obvious.
Will they? No, I doubt it. The majority is too focused on bullshit to actually see it through until it's too late.
Can humanity survive climate change? In my opinion yes, but survivability will become more and more difficult for the common person because eventually it's going to take bunkers with high tech air filtration systems and stockpiles of supplies.
Also I'm looking to rent a room in a bunker of this sorts in the event of this incident if anyone knows anyone.
The climate change problem hasn't been framed in the way people understand - the one and only, universally comprehensible carrot-and-stick model. If there's nothing to gain or nothing to lose people will simply refuse to spend time and energy on it.
I think scientists and some other groups are giving it their best shot at dangling the carrot and waving the stick but the carrot is too small and the stick seems so far away that most people are not in the least bit bothered by it.
Climate change, if real, will require work proportionate to its cause i.e. the response must be global in scope. We then face the uncomfortable fact that the word "global" reflects geography but not politics which is divided to such an extent that it thwarts the unified effort necessary to respond to the problem.
Nothing that complicated - I just googled it and 10% came out.
What do you think will happen if, when debts are called in and they cannot be paid, they are not absolved? War of all against all for money, when there will already be shortages of food, water and what we would consider to be essential services?
The alternative scenario I proposed was one where, out of the necessity brought about by increasing resource scarcity, fuel shortages, power outages and so on, governments step in and force absolution of debt in order to head off the total financial meltdown which would result from everyone attempting to call in what is owed to them. It would be ironic if civilization were to be totally destroyed by mere money!
What would be the alternative to absolving debt? Total collapse of any and all government, property ownership, and even the minimal infrastructure which would be needed to slow the crisis to somewhat manageable levels?
Obviously it's impossible to predict and not easy to even imagine how things will unfold, but I think there will be martial law in any case.
To use my own terminology, Earth System Disruption (ESD) is driving Human System Destabilization (HSD). Preoccupied with the resulting political chaos, the Human System becomes even more vulnerable and incapable of ameliorating ESD. As ESD thus accelerates, it generates more HSD. The self-reinforcing cycle continues, and we find ourselves in an amplifying feedback loop of disruption and destabilization.
From this article.
You’re correct. Some people prefer to see denial when facts are laid at their feet. The first post is badly worded - there is no doubt that the Earth’s climate goes through changes.
In that sense ‘halting climate change’ is completely beyond humanities current capabilities. In term of reducing the impact of humanities effect on the climate, obviously we have the capacity to lessen our impact in some ways.
I imagine the OP is looking to explore ways of either changing current attitudes, educating and/or exploring hypotheticals that could tackle future problems. Under these criteria I’d say the thread has largely failed to economics and education.
The quicker we get to 11 billion the better our chances of cutting to the quick of human societies and tackling ‘destabilizing’ factors.
The future is hazy and growing more hazy by the day. Humanity is just learning to walk.
Here in the UK we have a solution, just leave. Globalisation is controlling our powers of self determination, so I propose we leave the planet and leave then to sort it out themselves. Just get it done.
Sorry for the confusion - this was in reference to mankind as a whole. I recognise what we’re trying to do here.
I think what the world needs from humanity in general is our advanced capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. It’s not about leaving everything alone, but about reducing a tendency to ignore, isolate and exclude out of fear.
Quoting Tim3003
Objectively speaking, any right we think we have must be extended to all species equally - otherwise it isn’t a right - it’s a privilege. The question is not ‘do we have the right?’ - it is rather: Can we exercise that right without ignoring, isolating or excluding the rest of the eco-system’s right to the same? That doesn’t offer much in the way of rights.
Where the differences occur is in our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. This is not a privilege, but a reponsibility. One we seem to be ignoring, for the most part.
In the first precedent of its kind, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (where, as our reliable sources tell us, no one takes global warming seriously) mandated that the country cut emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. (The first ruling was actually passed in 2015, and now the Supreme Court made it final.)
I have high hopes for Australia finally coming on board.
Can we reduce emissions? Sure. It's just not likely that we'll choose to do it.
On the bright side, primates evolved during a hot spell on earth caused by CO2 emissions. If you look at extinction events, cold is much more dangerous to life than hot.
If we don't act now, future generations will find themselves in irreversible (in the short term) circumstances. A proportion of humanity would be able to cope with this (although many might die along the way), but if the mass extinction event goes to far, it won't be pleasant.
Also I don't think we can predict where the line is which we could cross resulting in runaway climate change.
Without wanting to dampen your cheery mood ( excuse the pun), sea levels are already set to rise between 10 and 50 metres over the next 2-300 years(difficult to estimate the rate of this rise). So most of the large cities around the world will be unliveable. So where are those billions of people going to go, and what will they eat?
Permafrost. Scientists believe that's happened before.
Quoting Punshhh
A warmer climate jump starts evolution. It's going to be the opposite of an extinction event, which is a potential source of danger for humans. Societies that maintain the ability to create vaccines will survive. The others will die out.
Quoting Punshhh
Source?
Quoting Punshhh
Many will die of disease and starvation.
Not precisely, no; but we can make guesses. For instance, there are a lot of lakes and Arctic Ocean floors from which methane is bubbling up, the product of bacterial decomposition of organic material.
Methane in the atmosphere traps much more heat than CO2, and as the arctic warms (faster than mid latitudes), more and more previously frozen vegetable matter will rot and more and more methane will be out-gassed. The more methane, the faster the arctic warms, the more methane. This is the sort of feedback loop that will produce a tipping point where the atmosphere has warmed enough, that some other large change will cascade into being--probably much to our disadvantage. One of the cascade possibilities is a rapid increase in Greenland ice melting, flushing too much fresh water into the ocean to maintain the conveyor belt of warm gulf salt water on top glowing north, and cold arctic salt water flowing south. If and when this happens, the prevailing westerlies that pick up gulf heat crossing the north Atlantic will turn cold and Europe will become much colder (despite global warming). @John Gill
At the same time, the NYT has published photos of methane gas plumes coming out of natural gas and fracking operations that are much, much bigger than anyone was previously aware of.
Quoting frank
You are assuming the vaccine-wielding nations won't have starved before they sickened from novel viruses. The extinction of insects has already begun, and many of the evaporating species of insects are pollinators--not just honey bees, but they are the most familiar.*** About 35% of our food supply depends on pollinators -- fruits, nuts. seeds, and vegetables. Things like apples and orange, carrots, peanuts, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. [no more French fries]. Rice, wheat, and corn are self-pollinators and would continue in production without bees. Then again, corn, rice, and wheat production will probably be significantly reduced by heat, drought, and unseasonable rain, a shortage of fertilizers, and eventually (owing to the demise of abundant petroleum) a lack of fuel for ag. equipment.
***(I suspect that nasturtiums--a salad plant developed in France--are pollinated by earwigs. The beautiful and edible blossom has a sharp mustard-like scent and are often obscured by the foliage. Earwigs are the only animal I have ever seen crawling around in the blossoms.)
In conclusion we are, in all probability, totally screwed.
I accept that "runaway climate change" is a vague concept with varying definitions. Also that it is unlikely that human activity would result in a permanent runaway state like on Venus, but it could easily become runaway for a few hundred thousand, or millions of years.
My source is broadcasts by David Attenborough, although I have heard most of these concepts from many sources.
Sure, and an asteroid could collide with the earth and put a giant crater where North America is now.
But if you're saying that this could happen due to climate change, this is where I ask: what do you suggest we do about it? Being all bound up in fear isn't going to change things. The climate doesn't care if you're full of angst. So beyond a gesture: what's your plan?
Quoting Punshhh
As I explained earlier, primates evolved at a time when the earth was so warm there were no polar ice caps. It's not going to get warmer than that. What did you think was going to happen? The oceans would just boil away and the earth would turn into a small star or something?
Yes, I know about the bees. Much of that is because of widespread insecticide use. Insecticides tend to breed insecticide-resistant species and a warmer climate has already started doing this:
These are yellow jacket super colonies that have multiple queens. It's believed that warm winters are the cause.
Please don't post any more pictures of giant yellow jacket colonies. I can stand a few small round hives on the ceiling of the garage, which I generally let live, but giant house-invading, car-engulfing super-colonies look too much like the Supreme Growth of science fiction nightmares.
As to what we're going to do about it, well we can hope that world leaders will get together soon and start to formulate some plans. It's not looking very promising at the moment, but once there is money to be made in the green economy things might improve. More worrying though is the lack of foresight in regards to sea level rise. There are still many sea level developments continuing, along with building in flood plains. I wonder when real estate values will start falling on low lying property.
Have you considered how easily a civilisation can fall into a free for all between warlords? There is plenty of evidence in the historical record. Any high tech development, or industry will be straight out of the window. We will be straight back to a medieval lifestyle if we're lucky. Large areas will probably descend into waring states like Syria, or Somalia, or worse.
So we can probably agree that large numbers of people will die, there will be great suffering and injustice. Experiences which don't lend well for mutual cooperation. There is in fact as I'm sure you are aware, great suffering already, around the world and climate change has barely begun to affect the environment so far.
So we are going back to a primitive existence in short order, unless drastic action is taken soon to reduce global warming and it may be to late already. Agreed?
Quoting Punshhh
It might be interesting to compare the number of cities affected by sea levels to those so far removed they experience nothing. It’s also worth remembering that cities do not produce their own food, so they would get food from the same sources they always do.
And why warlords?
Warlords are the natural socio-cultural state when a civilisation collapses, is it not?
I don’t think there’s any point bringing up facts and figures with you because you’ll just dispute that and it becomes an endless conversation of referencing. I resist your posts because I regard you as part of a destructive movement that does no one any good. What began as a worldwide discussion on temperature figures escalated into a doomsday view of life. To help clarify my position I’m copying my post to @Athena.
“It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are.
Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past.
What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association.
“Even if the changing weather patterns did not lead to our doom, our refusal to live with the limits of our environments and the limits of the planet, will take us down. Just as every civilization before us fell, including the fall of Rome and South American civilizations.”
It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear.”
According to John Steinbeck they'll starve and die of disease and it will be discovered that one family had some canned peaches and didn't share with everybody else in the shanty town and everybody got a gastric disorder called skitters from eating too many apples. All the while California poured truckloads of milk into the ocean and slaughtered and burned pigs and the vigilantes would identify where homeless people had planted potatoes on the side of the road and harass the government relief camps because they're socialist and then Rose-of-Sharon suckled a dying bum at her breast and Leadbelly was like: Washington is a bourgeois town. And then there was a war and Americans tried to help Europe and now everybody thinks that was a giant fucking mistake because Europeans hate us and we shouldn't have bled one drop for those assholes because they sure as fuck wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. The end.
I get that you think I haven't thought about this at all. That's not true. I realize hard times are ahead for humanity. And the human species could cease to exist tomorrow. It's good to think of that from time to time. Tomorrow the asteroid might come and it will all be gone. How would you spend the day if you knew that was true? What would you do? Whose eyes would you want to stare into?
Anyway, my point was that it's better to keep the predictions in the range that climatologists accept. Too many people go overboard and nothing positive comes from that.
Would it be exploitative billionaires using populism to extract large amounts of money out of a country,(UK for example) causing civil unrest, so they can hide away in some lair.
Would it be mass migration on the borders of northern countries by people fleeing unbearably hot fire ravaged tropical countries.
Some massive catastrophic event.
As for your questions, I would carry on as normal, perhaps have a few sips of my favourite tipple and adopt the brace position. People like all other animals simply relax and accept the inevitable when faced with unavoidable destruction. Rather like drowning it is, a pleasant way to go.
Ahh, I see you and Brett saw me going overboard. I don't think I did, where might we differ?
Quoting Punshhh
Yes.
Is that because of human resilience in adversity, or that climate change won't be that bad after all?
Both.
And what is the elevation of your house (assuming you are a home owner)?
Yes the world will be very different in 500 years. Yes there will be a lot of pain and bloodshed aling the way. That's enough.
Perhaps an irreversible cascade of greenhouse gas emissions is more appropriate. I expect to the folk on the ground the distinction would be of little concern.
Perhaps we should spare a thought for those millions, or billions, who will suffer, or have no hope of leading the comfortable lives we lead. Indeed perhaps we should be shedding a tear for the millions suffering today, admittedly not due to climate change, but rather man's inhumanity to man. Somehow I don't see the gathering climactic extremes we are beginning to experience helping these people, only exacerbating it further.
And when the rich and powerful, the exploiters, wake up and realise that they need to prepare their bunkers. What of the billions, who are currently just about managing, then?
Quoting Punshhh
I live across the road from the beach.
Quoting Punshhh
Capitalist swine.
one: The term "hard" as in "hard sciences" has no scientific meaning.
two: re: your words: "We cannot establish "facts" in the human sciences which can even "mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." except when it comes to the most general observations."
Oh, BS. Psychologists have arrived at many specific conclusions that have many applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_psychology
four: No, you didn't order anyone to shut up. You just tried to stuff the words "shut up" into my mouth. Disingenuous much?