Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2022 at 10:05 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

I have not seen any studies or reports indicating this would actually happen. Furthermore, while "disruption of existing jobs/communities" is a potential problem that would be faced by a rapid shift to green energy, no one has actually looked at what steps could be taken to alleviate or eliminate such problems, merely saying "because this comes up, we aren't going to even consider this- just give up".

I don't think a rapid transition to green energy and complete elimination of fossil fuels within 8 years would be impossible. It is just absurd that we can build over 30,000 JDAM guided bombs in one year but phasing out gas cars is "hard". In general, rapid change is not impossible. If people "get the message", anything can be done. Even with widespread opposition, violence, and political shenanigans, the Soviet Union (with all that country implies as far as inefficiency goes) went from an agrarian country with little manufacturing base to a great power capable of producing thousands of tanks and planes within 10 years, and then went on to defeat Germany.

Imagine what the nations of the world in 2021 (with actual decent efficiency) could do if they put their minds to it! Of course however, "we" aren't, as such I can't help but think that people really don't care that much about things like climate change, pollution, ocean acidification, etc.

This is my personal opinion however. I am not trying to convince you to change your or anyone else's opinion, merely explaining mine as part of this discussion

This isn't a "potential problem" it is a problem, just to what extent is situational. Yes people have looked into what step can be taken to alleviate such problems, and there are no clear answers, which is why they aren't promoted often because they suck or there really isn't one. 

I also never said "there are problems with this problem, we should give up". No, I only provided reasoning that there are significant problems with a plan such as transitioning full force into some green energy revolution. Remember I'm directly addressing that in challenges like this there really are no clear-cut solutions that are perfect. Only a conglomerate collection of them that will work given time and effort. Just like the actual problem of climate change having uneven negative impact, any solution devised will also have unequal impact. 

Rapid change is possible, but it depends on the problem.

I'm sure you can think of any multitude of situations where rapid change occurs. None of them are like the current climate change problem. Because with this problem you need to get everyone to make decisions that usually go against their own direct and immediate best interests. Not only that, the actual impact isn't equally paid for by all parties, so someone who has the power to do something might have the least to gain directly in the short term to do anything. Its like having a revolution, but your going to another country to make it happen, where you don't really see any direct rewards, but pay all the price for it. (This is best compared to multiple conflicts seen after WW2, but I don't want to derail this thread with historical comparisons)

 

I think the thinking of "if only we got together and solved the problem! We aren't doing that, so people must not care!"  Overlooks too many aspects of the problem, and thus an ineffective approach to such a problem.  The problem is clear, but how we go about solving it is not. This is why there aren't really any good analogies to compare the overall problem of climate change, because its not like any other problem humanity has faced before. Revolutions happen all the time, and building a crap-ton of weapons happens all the time. A global-level human made problem isn't exactly something that is easily compared to. I've heard the closest comparisons is actually the ozone depletion issue. However the solution to that problem was essentially banning specific niche products, which is pocket change when compared to overhauling the entire global world economy and energy sector.

 

I don't bring all this up because I don't believe in climate change, or I want to "alarm" people into action against it (there's enough of that). I say this because understanding the primary problem is one thing, but understanding the multitude of problems with the solution is also important. I usually say the best way to solve any problem is understanding the problem. Its easy to rush to the first solution you can think of, but the solution you find might not solve the actual problem if the problem was too complex to understand initially. This problem is incredibly complex, hence why it isn't wise to rush to blanket statements like "people don't care", or "we can just work together!" or "too people are denial". Of course there is nothing stopping us from implementing what we know (more wind farms, more energy, more electric cars, etc) while continuing to fiddle with other underlying problems, but the key to all of them is empathy for the problem at hand. Everyone on Earth will see some of impact from this problem, and any multitude of solutions will come up with will have an unfair, unequal impact. This is something to accept and understand while continuing the march progress forward, as some people will need to "fall onto their swords", and the last thing they want to hear is they "don't get the message". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MKI said:

Rapid change is possible, but it depends on the problem.

I'm sure you can think of any multitude of situations where rapid change occurs. None of them are like the current climate change problem. Because with this problem you need to get everyone to make decisions that usually go against their own direct and immediate best interests. Not only that, the actual impact isn't equally paid for by all parties, so someone who has the power to do something might have the least to gain directly in the short term to do anything. Its like having a revolution, but your going to another country to make it happen, where you don't really see any direct rewards, but pay all the price for it. (This is best compared to multiple conflicts seen after WW2, but I don't want to derail this thread with historical comparisons)

 

I think the thinking of "if only we got together and solved the problem! We aren't doing that, so people must not care!"  Overlooks too many aspects of the problem, and thus an ineffective approach to such a problem.  The problem is clear, but how we go about solving it is not. This is why there aren't really any good analogies to compare the overall problem of climate change, because its not like any other problem humanity has faced before. Revolutions happen all the time, and building a crap-ton of weapons happens all the time. A global-level human made problem isn't exactly something that is easily compared to. I've heard the closest comparisons is actually the ozone depletion issue. However the solution to that problem was essentially banning specific niche products, which is pocket change when compared to overhauling the entire global world economy and energy sector.

I don't think the problem requires "getting everyone to do something". "Getting" everyone to do something is unfeasible, considering how hard it is to get some people to do something.

Any problem can be solved if people care enough. Wars aren't won when one person or a small group of people "get people to do something". They are won when people care and do their best. To go back to my economic modernization analogy, Japan didn't go from a country that, for all intents and purposes, had only 17th century technology, to a great power with a navy rivaling that of the United States in just 70 years "because they got everyone to do something". Everyone cared about modernizing the country and matching the West of their own volition, not because someone made them.

The uniqueness of the problem should have nothing to do with how hard it is to solve it. If there is a town with a budget equipped to handle minor flooding and it gets hit by a tsunami, the people don't panic and leave, they adjust for the conditions of the situation and figure out how to solve things. The reason I made the statements in the previous post was because right now, that isn't really happening. Goals have been set but these are not enough, at the moment warming by 2100 will be somewhere between 2.0 and 4.9 degrees Celsius- and that assumes these goals are actually pursued and don't get changed or abandoned in the first place.

Rapid change has occurred, albeit sloppily, in Japan, the Soviet Union, and China. If despite all of the issues those changes came with, they could still succeed, with the managerial techniques, science, and social awareness/dedication of 2021, I think solving the climate crisis is completely feasible in a short period of time (over the next 29 years), if people care.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

I don't bring all this up because I don't believe in climate change, or I want to "alarm" people into action against it (there's enough of that). I say this because understanding the primary problem is one thing, but understanding the multitude of problems with the solution is also important. I usually say the best way to solve any problem is understanding the problem. Its easy to rush to the first solution you can think of, but the solution you find might not solve the actual problem if the problem was too complex to understand initially. This problem is incredibly complex, hence why it isn't wise to rush to blanket statements like "people don't care", or "we can just work together!" or "too people are denial". Of course there is nothing stopping us from implementing what we know (more wind farms, more energy, more electric cars, etc) while continuing to fiddle with other underlying problems, but the key to all of them is empathy for the problem at hand. Everyone on Earth will see some of impact from this problem, and any multitude of solutions will come up with will have an unfair, unequal impact.

It is indeed a complex problem. But I don't think we aren't seeing a lot of action against it because it is complex, we are not seeing much because people don't care. Even during the worst phases of the current global crisis, we heard updates from pharmaceutical companies and research institutions on how they tried to search for new methods of recovery and create a vaccine. We do hear about how different companies and governments are "going to solve the climate crisis" but scientists have looked at the details of these plans and they don't really add up to what needs to be done. And there isn't any explanation of this- these companies and governments appear to want us to be fully convinced they "have it in the bag". And yet, it really isn't- we are still on track for dangerous warming, despite Tesla and 2050-2060-2070 goals. Out of 7.9 billion people, no one seems to really care, save for a few million who take part in protests. Thus I can't help but think no one really cares.

Drastic problems require drastic solutions. If we expect to somehow solve the issue of climate change within our existing understanding of economics and society, we will probably fail. The data is before us, little of what is problematic in trying to solve climate change is understudied or unknown. But if we try to think of solutions while thinking "X entity helping the wider community with nothing in return is outrageous", what can be done is severely limited.

Climate change isn't just a "I don't want hotter summers or I don't want the pretty tigers to go extinct" problem- it directly and indirectly threatens millions of lives and livelihoods. If it was the 1920s, I could see the major issues with trying to solve such an issue. But it is 2021. There are no technological or practical issues with solving climate change. It comes down to how much we are willing to do ourselves and for each other.

8 hours ago, MKI said:

I also never said "there are problems with this problem, we should give up".

I never said that you said that.

I said "Furthermore, while "disruption of existing jobs/communities" is a potential problem that would be faced by a rapid shift to green energy, no one has actually looked at what steps could be taken to alleviate or eliminate such problems, merely saying "because this comes up, we aren't going to even consider this- just give up".

"no one" not "you". "No one" refers to society in general, not the members of this forum or this discussion. It wasn't very clear, I apologize.

------

Disclaimer: I mention different ways of thinking about solutions to climate change in my response. None of these belong to any member of the forum. Terms like "we" and "one", etc. refer to humanity/society in general, not any member of the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

There are no technological or practical issues with solving climate change. It comes down to how much we are willing to do ourselves and for each other.

And yet there are problems with essentially every word in that statement.

Quite often, the question is less "how much we are willing to do" and more "how much we are willing to sacrifice", in terms of short-term growth and personal conveniences. That the quasi-religious alarmists get an outright high demanding such sacrifices only helps spur a counter-reaction ("I will not love in a pod. I will not eat bugs." et cetera).

And while people are willing to sacrifice, there is a very narrow limit of "each other". Your examples of societal transformation are generally examples of transformation as part of a struggle against someone, be it imperialism or lack of a colonial empire.

R975-975_c28ad7ae0670207a82c95dde6598be7

So you're trying to leverage the instincts that actually drive partisanship and tribalism - those that either drive me to buy Gazprom shares (once the current brouhaha boils over) or those that drive people into ragging on "climate change deniers" without leaving any energy for positive action. And there probably isn't a good outcome or a better option, because much of human social self-identification hinges on what and who your group is opposed to.

Few people are willing to sacrifice for complete strangers outside of their own tribe. Even fewer of these people are anyone of consequence.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DDE said:

And yet there are problems with essentially every word in that statement.

Quite often, the question is less "how much we are willing to do" and more "how much we are willing to sacrifice", in terms of short-term growth and personal conveniences. That the quasi-religious alarmists get an outright high demanding such sacrifices only helps spur a counter-reaction ("I will not love in a pod. I will not eat bugs." et cetera).

And while people are willing to sacrifice, there is a very narrow limit of "each other". Your examples of societal transformation are generally examples of transformation as part of a struggle against someone, be it imperialism or lack of a colonial empire.

R975-975_c28ad7ae0670207a82c95dde6598be7

So you're trying to leverage the instincts that actually drive partisanship and tribalism - those that either drive me to buy Gazprom shares (once the current brouhaha boils over) or those that drive people into ragging on "climate change deniers" without leaving any energy for positive action. And there probably isn't a good outcome or a better option, because much of human social self-identification hinges on what and who your group is opposed to.

Few people are willing to sacrifice for complete strangers outside of their own tribe. Even fewer of these people are anyone of consequence.

I think my response wasn’t entirely clear. I was not suggesting that a successful response to climate change should directly look like or take inspiration from those historical examples. The section of my response you quoted was about how people (in general, theoretically) might need to behave on a personal level, not within the context of different existing elements of society’s structure.

See here-

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Drastic problems require drastic solutions. If we expect to somehow solve the issue of climate change within our existing understanding of economics and society, we will probably fail. The data is before us, little of what is problematic in trying to solve climate change is understudied or unknown. But if we try to think of solutions while thinking "X entity helping the wider community with nothing in return is outrageous", what can be done is severely limited.

So to speak technically, within my theoretical concept, it isn’t “dirty energy workers need to become unemployed and ruin their lives for us”, it is “some dirty energy workers go into green energy, some lose their jobs. But other industries pitch in to help them find work and provide necessities in the interim”. Or not “developing country sacrifices its economy for the first world countries” it is “developing nations receive massive amounts of assistance from wealthier nations while implementing climate change measures. At the same time, the whole societies of wealthy nations either restructure themselves or just act on their own initiative to counteract any losses sustained domestically in the massive program”.

I’ll add that I think this type of “caring” is theoretically possible, and that “caring” does not require some enemy per say. The Gulf War did occur purely because the West “hated” Iraq, it was because of what Iraq did in Kuwait- which threatened both civilian lives and international interests in the region. The expenses and sacrifice of the conflict didn’t merely occur because there was an enemy- the side choosing to enter had to care about something first. In the case of climate change, while a “hatred” (enemy justifying sacrifice in struggle against said enemy) of climate change is required, this is only possible if people care about the lives and livelihoods climate change might damage or destroy. Thus I argue “caring” is what is primarily necessary to solve the issue.

Past issues, whether they be war or modernization, have required caring about one’s metaphorical “self” (in actuality, usually country in the examples mentioned so far). In the case of climate change, I argue humanity as a whole should constitute this “self” that people care for, and that should then drive people into action. “Gimmicks” like Tesla and limited green energy investment notwithstanding, nothing is really happening however, and therefore I am of the opinion that “people” (media, government, general public) don’t actually “care”, despite the alarmist articles and net-zero declarations.

———

I don’t think I have been very clear. My original comment and all posts as part of this discussion have been in relation to why I think “people” (media, government, general public) don’t care, not a monologue telling them to care.

I don’t think any of what I have proposed is actually likely to come to pass or is feasible, not because of any technical or practical issues, but merely because people don’t care- and will not care. I don’t personally mind that being the case, but I am of the personal opinion that we should be honest with ourselves about our actions on any issue, instead of sugar coating things, pretending to care, or lying. And I am not trying to force this opinion on others, I am merely explaining it as part of the discussion.

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DDE said:

I will not eat bugs.

I will not. I'm not guilty in someone's overpopulation.

Actually, Russia has never occupied something even close to the equator, so why should it?

Though, still insisting on the cultured meat. Just to avoid unnecessary kills.

Also, cultured meat = vegan cats. That's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cats fed vegetable proteins die.  

 

@SunlitZelkova - so long as China perceives itself as 'behind' the West or India feels threatened by China or pressured by the West there is virtually zero chance of either of the two largest population centers shifting dramatically over to expensive less polluting technologies in the near future.  Not that neither are completely ignoring less polluting tech - but we are talking dramatic shifts.  Even if you could get the respective governments to take a harsh stance against coal and really push industrial pollution reduction - there is a broader problem:

There are 1.88 cars/household in the US.  There are 0.41 cars / household in China and 0.23 in India.  No-one in China or India want to 'settle for less' than 'what everyone else has' (mind you, humans only ever look 'up' while making this comparison).  While China has its density in the east and is highly urban making mass transit functional, India's population is spread out across the subcontinent - much like America's.  So to think that an economically growing India is going to 'skip' the symbolism, convenience and sheer benefits of car ownership out of altruistic concern about global warming is a bit aspirational. (China's urban density and the annoyance of finding a good parking spot may make car ownership less 'necessary' for the middle class than elsewhere, much like America's Urban Millennial... OTOH like those folks may turn out to be just delayed gratification). 

Point being - you need the population to demand and accept change to expect change.*  Until and unless the consumer is both demanding cleaner energy and cleaner products and willing to delay gratification across the globe... we're not going to see a dramatic improvement in less polluting tech being the norm.

... 

Drive around California and Teslas / other hybrid or electric vehicles are ubiquitous.  Every bit as common as Toyota Hylanders (the soccer-mom car of choice in the Midwest).  In other words, less polluting is a luxury item.  A status symbol. **

 

Not saying 'we are doomed' - rather... People need to see 'less polluting' (which equals more expensive and thus slower development) as 'in their best interest' 

... 

And currently - saving the planet ranks below 'need the new i-thingy' 

 

 

*

Spoiler

I think you recognize this - but while you perceive climate change and acidification as an immediate threat, for most people it's still background noise. 

** 

Spoiler

Or is it?

Another way of looking at this, is that LA's early and relentless anti-smog campaign did have a broader effect in shaping California's culture.  The state enjoys some of the highest educational attainment of all the 50 states.  Another reading of the ubiquity and consumer demand for less polluting tech and personal choice (beyond the fact that they can afford it, and showing concern = status) is that once the population 'get's it', they begin to organically take action.

 

 

... 

Note: my point not anything negative about either China or India, rather its about human nature and self interest.  The specific vs the diffuse.  If getting a car makes my wife happy and means that I can easily get to a better job and my kids have cool shoes - I'm getting a car. 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Cats fed vegetable proteins die.  

The cultured meat is not a vegetable, it's an unicellular strain of an edible animal like cow, pig, hen, rabbit, or their genetic chimaera.
So, once the technology gets mature, this will be a usual meat just grown from a vat with the meat cells instead of killing a thinking animal.

So, the cats eating the cultured meat will be chemicaly predators, but ethically vegans.

Also, this can be grown on the algae edible substrate, so it will provide the humanity with much wider set of appropriate conditions for food farming.
Required, say, for Mars, for Vault-Tec-like vaults, for quick repopulation in case of a global or local cataclysme.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

So to think that an economically growing India is going to 'skip' the symbolism, convenience and sheer benefits of car ownership out of altruistic concern about global warming is pollyanish.

The cars are evil and should be eliminated.

The car is a device to move from one comfortable location to another comfortable location.
So, it's an excessive comfortable location and a leakage of power.

Instead of making cars comfortable and available, a quick transfer between the comfortable location should be provided, with no additional motor.

Ideally, a teleport. But until it's possible, a shorter road and a faster tram.

It looks nice and wealthy to build a cottage for every family, with a garage and several cars, but actually packing the habitat in 3d lets the road and the communication be much shorter, and a green zone much closer.

Take, say, LA with its suburban cottage areas and pack in 3d.
How many kilometers would it take to walk from the center to the green border?

Shorten the necessary road to walk by feet, reduce the unnecessary close contacts by better virtual communications, and the need in the cars will fall down
(together with the salaries inevitably falling in near future due to the total job automation, which salaries were making it possible to buy a car, lol).

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Drive around California and Teslas / other hybrid or electric vehicles are ubiquitous.  Every bit as common as Toyota Hylanders (the soccer-mom car of choice in the Midwest).  In other words, less polluting is a luxury item.  A status symbol. 

A family's personal riksha.
One human force, full bio.

Btw, an idea for green downshifters.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

People need to see 'less polluting' (which equals more expensive and thus slower development) as 'in their best interest' 

Imho, you usually tend to overestimate the human intelligence and goodwill.
(At least in 90% of cases, including their co-operation in the situation of a WW-like cataclysme and limited personally available resources).
That's your bourgeois mentality. You tend to believe in a human rationalism.

Only being forced, these post-monkey species can be ruled for the better and cleaner world.
That's how the idea of meritocracy has appeared. Not most of people understand words, and most of them do it wrong. Proven many times by history.

Most of people don't follow the "better choice", they follow the "common choice", even when they are sure it's not what they want.
They are a herd species, they are afraid to feel like an outcast even if nobody knows they that have chosen other than others.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

the cats eating the cultured meat will be chemicaly predators, but ethically vegans.

Are you saying the cat, eating the rat, is unethical?  

 

Is the lion that eats a wounded gnu unethical?

 

I certainly do not feel unethical when I eat a slice of beef.  On the other hand, if someone handed me a lab-grown burger... I'm gonna feel a bit queasy about it!

 

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Imho, you usually tend to overestimate the human intelligence and goodwill.

This is my predjudice.  I agree.  I also refuse to give up on 'my fellow man'

15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

You tend to believe in a human rationalism.

I do... and yet I also recognize that empiricism is prevalent.  Oddly, a great part of my rationalism in my later years arises because of lessons learned from my empirical youth!  (What's the old saying?  "The wise man learns from other's mistakes, the average man from his own, and the fool never learns?")  I had to experience stuff for myself, which I like to think gives me a bit of empathy for those who, likewise, want to see the proof in the pudding.

 

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Most of people don't follow the "better choice", they follow the "common choice", even when they are sure it's not what they want.
They are a herd species, they are afraid to feel like an outcast even if nobody knows they that have chosen other than others.

Very interesting that you bring up this truth.  I've been watching a cool program recently about the First Peoples.  Largely focused on human migration from Africa... and how 'modern' humans leaving Africa ran into already existing populations of cousin-species occupying Europe and Asia.  A common thread in this series is 'The Explorer'. 

What factor drives some people to look at the hills on the horizon and wonder 'what is on the other side?' - while others (so many others) look to those same hills and just find comfort knowing their world is bounded by protecting high ground?

I've always been one of the 'what's over there' people... and yet the community I've settled in (and am raising my children in) is generationally stagnant.  To the extent that my wife can trace her ancestors in this state back to the early 1700s (must be understood from the American perspective to appreciate).  My kids go to school with children whose great-grandparents went to the same school - some have relatives who attended the school in the late 1800s.  That is bizarre to me.  My people going back 4 generations wandered from state to state, with each successive generation living distant from the prior.  So my kids live in a dichotomy...  One parent with deep roots, another with none... and their friends think my kids are odd because their dad comes from a different state!

 

 

All of which is to say that I am painfully aware how common is the 'follow the common choice' phenomena.  It is deep and comforting and frankly, in some cases, mandatory if you want to participate in society.  The 'pressure to fit in' is subtle and pervasive - which is what I've been trying to communicate to folks here: when the 'common' desire is for less pollution, it will be almost impossible to justify continued pollution.  It's why I have pointed out the clear skies pictures from India and China as a factor that has phenomenal potential to have those societies create their own groundswell of consumer demand for a cleaner and healthier environment.

I mean, the alternative is being nanny-nagged by rich Americans... and I'm sure you know quite well how that goes over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Are you saying the cat, eating the rat, is unethical?  

I can't remember the last case when I saw a cat eating a rat.

Mostly they eat cows, pigs, chickens, and other cattle from the human food and "whiskas".

Usually they either scare the dungeon rodents  with their smell or bring them for trading.

45 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Is the lion that eats a wounded gnu unethical?

They don't make humans do it.

45 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I certainly do not feel unethical when I eat a slice of beef. 

The reducing of unnecessary casualties is a question of style, like keeping room clean.
Additional cows can be always killed later if needed.

***

(About the humans)

<snip>

+1

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Soft Russian Kitties.  You guys love them too much. 

Just the urban and suburban rodents are toxic and inedible.

Also all of them drink milk (so, stimulate the cows to increase the methane production), and it was shocking to read on this forum that in other countries they don't.

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

My cats always had to bring me treats - like lizards, snakes, birds and rodents, all to prove her love!

Maybe she just hopes to teach the humans trading.  1 Lizard = 1 whiskas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The cultured meat is not a vegetable, it's an unicellular strain of an edible animal like cow, pig, hen, rabbit, or their genetic chimaera.
So, once the technology gets mature, this will be a usual meat just grown from a vat with the meat cells instead of killing a thinking animal.

So, the cats eating the cultured meat will be chemicaly predators, but ethically vegans.

As far as I know, the difference is largely vitamin A.  Source it from plant proteins (not beta-caroteen.  That's just a precursor that plenty of mammals including humans and dogs can use to create vitamin A) and you'd be able to create vegan cat food without the issue of providing animal flesh.

Granted, I'd assume that eventually rats will stowaway to Mars (along with other assorted vermin) and the cats will go back to being their normal serial-killing selves.  Seems pretty pointless feeding them vegan if they kill multiple times that mass in critters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Granted, I'd assume that eventually rats will stowaway to Mars (along with other assorted vermin) and the cats will go back to being their normal serial-killing selves.  Seems pretty pointless feeding them vegan if they kill multiple times that mass in critters

A non-eaten dead rat would be found very quickly in a pressurized base by smell.

And sometimes by a short circuit in the life support system when it bites a cable, as usually.

So, probably the rats can't be a stable source of food for the Martian cats.

And as well, the cultured meat can be provided in any place of the Earth regardless of soil condition..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I mention different ways of thinking about solutions to climate change in my response. None of these belong to any member of the forum. Terms like "we" and "one", etc. refer to humanity/society in general, not any member of the forum.

I understand none of this is personal, don't worry about that. I only provided my own personal standpoint on the subject as a way to provide some background, as I planned to use myself as an example later. As its easier to talk about things on an individual, as its less complex and simpler to understand compared to say "a government isn't doing anything". I'm also sure my own personal choices aren't isolated, unique or even novel, so I think I can use myself as a solid starting point. But I'll use myself as an example at the end of this post. I want to first go over the idea of governments are the ones not doing anything, which confusingly your using the term of "people". I'll stick with the idea governments are the ones that don't care. 

 

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think I have been very clear. My original comment and all posts as part of this discussion have been in relation to why I think “people” (media, government, general public) don’t care, not a monologue telling them to care.

I don’t think any of what I have proposed is actually likely to come to pass or is feasible, not because of any technical or practical issues, but merely because people don’t care- and will not care. I don’t personally mind that being the case, but I am of the personal opinion that we should be honest with ourselves about our actions on any issue, instead of sugar coating things, pretending to care, or lying. And I am not trying to force this opinion on others, I am merely explaining it as part of the discussion.

The idea governments don't care is somewhat true at a certain level. But the reasoning behind why they do, or don't care ultimately is a similar reason why an individual wont care. 

Both sensible entities made by humans, ran by humans, for humans. This by itself is the underlying issue, that governments magically are dictated by different laws, and incentive than an individual. I'll use the 2 the generic government structures, the extreme-authoritarian with near absolute power, and a more free-market economy. I'll also use the idea that this government's economic is stable, has significant buying power and technology level. Such governments don't really exist at these extremes but they provide a solid starting point and are easy to understand without any real-world implications. 

The other key thing people, and governments both fall prey to is comprehending the long term impact of their decisions. This is especially true with an invisible problem that gradually gets worse, and the worst case effects wont affect those alive today, let alone those in office right now.

 

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But other industries pitch in to help them find work and provide necessities in the interim”. Or not “developing country sacrifices its economy for the first world countries” it is “developing nations receive massive amounts of assistance from wealthier nations while implementing climate change measures. At the same time, the whole societies of wealthy nations either restructure themselves or just act on their own initiative to counteract any losses sustained domestically in the massive program”.

There is minimal incentive to shift industries into long term "green" industries from classical "dirty" industries. Building factories to pump out wind farm equipment isn't cheap, nor does it have much overlap with whatever a coal plant is setup to do. Not only are the actual humans/areas where coal plants are being ran different than where you'd actually invest to build/setup wind farms, but their workforces would require retraining. Immediate rewards for any economy don't really exist in this.

Its vastly easier/cheaper to just build a wind farm where its most economical viable and higher people locally. 

In an authoritarian government these issues of "winners and losers" don't matter much, as the government will prevent any issues from arising to public awareness, and quell any protests about these decisions. However, they still need to pay for all of this, which again doesn't make much financial incentive when dirty industries already exist and are cheap. 

In a free-market you have even less incentive to migrate to green industries if natural "dirty" industries are cheap (which they usually are).

End result: Governments of all kinds don't have incentive to do anything

There is the idea that short term gains will be overshadowed by long term problems of climate change. But, as I mentioned before about the individual,  the governments who have the most power to do something about it, will also pay for it unequally in terms of the impact of climate change. If you take my hypothetical country and assume it will see minimal impact from climate change, there really is no financial incentive to switch to green energies

If you take a country that would have a significant problem with climate change, you'd also have to consider the simple problem that most governments can't consider future problems of that scale. Politicians would care more about their upcoming term than an issue 100 years down the road. What this means in regards to action depends more on the people who would vote/support. However, again there is no incentive to do anything beyond do what politicians always do, which is talk about action. This is until serious problems start arising, and their supports start asking for action. However, at that point its too late to actually do anything.

 

So then we end up where we need to consider how individuals consider what "action" their governments should be doing should include. I'll now move on and change this hypothetical from an individual considering what "action" is from their government, to something even more simpler. What could an individual would consider action from themselves. This would serve as an allegory, where every personal decision could be akin to a policy decision, without needing to consider all the problems a government would have with actually executing those decisions. This would also overlook the differences with different governments, as a free-market government would have even less power to execute such decision without direct financial incentive. 

 

---

 

And now lets take me, and "drink the cool aid" and believe it is my personal goal to be as green as possible. Again, this can serve as a high level allegory for what decisions a government could take. I will assume I want to keep my current state of "living in the modern world", as going "backwards" and living a non-modern life isn't an option. 

1. I don't drive a gas powered car anymore, I bought an electric one that costs more upfront, more to repair (due to limited part availability), longer to charge, and has more limited "fill-up" places than my older car. I also don't see any net carbon savings until I drive the car for a number of years. Upfront I've lost more money, and actually have done worse for the environment.

2. I believe in solar energy, and thus setup my own solar panels for my house. This not only is expensive, but it also is yet another thing that has environment impact to build. I again have spent more money upfront, and did more environmental impact buy getting solar panels, which again will require longer term investments to make up.

3. I know natural gas is worse for the environment so I ban them from my house. I can't do anything about the existing infrastructure, but I don't have to use it. Instead I install an electrical stove and heater. Now my power bill is significantly higher as it combines the rates from the gas hookup. For the sake of the argument I'll say I generally save some money doing this, rather than potentially get hit with worst costs, as this is dependent on my local power infrastructure and less on my actual individual decisions.

4. I know the beef industry impacts the climate through cow farts, so I decide to skip out on beef entirely. I also know other industries have their own carbon impact such as poultry and port. So I go full vegetarian and buy local. Not only do I need to eat more to keep up my calory intake, I'm also paying more for food that isn't mass produced. Overall I do see immediate carbon gains through doing this, but I'm less happy doing it as I can't have a burger. Its true this diet transition away from beef could be done a multitude of ways, but this is a generic simple example.

5. I now work from home, thus saving on the cost of energy for even charging my car. Now those costs are shifted to whatever costs for power, internet, and home computer setup I needed to do my job from home and offset all the costs to the grid. (lets assume for the sake of the argument these have net carbon savings compared to going into work to do whatever job I used to do)

6. I no longer fly anywhere, as planes have significant carbon footprint, and there are no alternatives. The only vacations I take are "green", where I use my electric car and charge on the grid

7. I change jobs to now work for green industries, so I'm directly involved in building the infrastructure to support the green revolution. I took a massive pay-cut to work at this job however as the non-green industries paid better as they are more established and have deep pockets.  (this pay cut is a hypothetical and only semi-reasonable and exists primarily to serve as a bridge back through the allegory)

8. Finally, I no longer work/pay for anything related to high carbon industries. This could be from the obvious such as gas/coal, to more nuance industries like stuff built with non-recyclable plastic and general consumerism. I also don't buy anything new and try to recycle as much as possible.

 

At this point you might think something along the lines of "wow this guy is serious", except if you noticed ever single point has a bolded negative cost to what I'm doing. Nearly half of what I'm doing just pushes costs to the gird, which may or may not actually be prepared for what I'm doing. If the grid runs on gas/coal then I could actually be harming the environment more. Or worse, the grid isn't even ready for what I'm doing and it crashes, now suddenly I can't cook food, buy anything, or even use my car! Furthermore, I can't go on vacation via plane, train, or boat, nor can I eat what I want. 

 

Sure this is an individual example, but as I mentioned originally this is an allegory for a government. I purposely threw in 7, as that is usually what most people think governments could do, but as I mentioned earlier there is a financial cost to transition to green that is paid for by governments. The rest are what even the most fanatical person/government could do, and all of them have negatives that range from "wow no meat that sucks!" to "I'm about to die because the grid failed and I have no heat!!".

I'm sure you can find holes into these points, or point out flaws within them but I gave them more high level examples of why "action" from people, or even governments isn't clear cut. The idea that "action" is what we need only works if the action they need to perform actually works. Even in the best cases there is a price to be paid for. I'm sure you'd argue all these prices are worth paying for, but I'm also sure you'd agree if I actually did all of these things listed above, I'd be "doing a lot". And ultimately you forgot the biggest point not listed. I did these things, and paid for them in a multitude of ways but my neighbor didn't. 

But then my neighbor owes me nothing and can do whatever they like, and there is literally nothing I can do about it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MKI said:

6. I no longer fly anywhere, as planes have significant carbon footprint, and there are no alternatives. The only vacations I take are "green", where I use my electric car and charge on the grid

It's more accurate to say that travel and speed have significant energy costs. Commercial air travel is actually pretty efficient. It is mass transit, after all. In many cases, it's more efficient per passenger mile than driving a car. But traveling long distances at high speeds necessarily requires energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2022 at 5:49 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Point being - you need the population to demand and accept change to expect change.*  Until and unless the consumer is both demanding cleaner energy and cleaner products and willing to delay gratification across the globe... we're not going to see a dramatic improvement in less polluting tech being the norm.

... 

Drive around California and Teslas / other hybrid or electric vehicles are ubiquitous.  Every bit as common as Toyota Hylanders (the soccer-mom car of choice in the Midwest).  In other words, less polluting is a luxury item.  A status symbol. **

 

Not saying 'we are doomed' - rather... People need to see 'less polluting' (which equals more expensive and thus slower development) as 'in their best interest' 

... 

And currently - saving the planet ranks below 'need the new i-thingy'

Regarding developing countries- the situation I described in my earlier post in which people "actually care" assumes the way people interact with each other is so radically different that such problems wouldn't exist. India and China would still get automobiles in that scenario.

------

Well, I guess it depends on one's personal perspective.

If a person only cares about CO2 emissions and other pollution if it is in their personal best interest, is that really "caring about it"? If I only volunteer to help out at the homeless shelter because I got paid $1000 to, can I actually say I "care about the homeless"?

I agree that the situation you describe is the reality. But I question whether using "incentives" to bring about action on climate change would actually qualify as people "caring" (my original comment claimed people probably don't actually care that much about climate change).

On 1/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, MKI said:

I want to first go over the idea of governments are the ones not doing anything, which confusingly your using the term of "people".

Basically by people I did not mean the definition/concept of "people" in the context of society and popular use, but the population of human individuals in a given area.

On 1/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, MKI said:

End result: Governments of all kinds don't have incentive to do anything

There is the idea that short term gains will be overshadowed by long term problems of climate change. But, as I mentioned before about the individual,  the governments who have the most power to do something about it, will also pay for it unequally in terms of the impact of climate change. If you take my hypothetical country and assume it will see minimal impact from climate change, there really is no financial incentive to switch to green energies

If you take a country that would have a significant problem with climate change, you'd also have to consider the simple problem that most governments can't consider future problems of that scale. Politicians would care more about their upcoming term than an issue 100 years down the road. What this means in regards to action depends more on the people who would vote/support. However, again there is no incentive to do anything beyond do what politicians always do, which is talk about action. This is until serious problems start arising, and their supports start asking for action. However, at that point its too late to actually do anything.

The following is in relation to how governments behave.

If an incentive is required, do they really care? See my analogy in the reply to JoeSchmuckatelli above. I still see no technical reason why action can't start now, or at least serious discussion on how to properly respond.

If you look at past great disasters, like the Great Leap Forward or Bengal famine of 1943, they didn't occur because "nothing could be done". There were little actions that moved towards such a crisis and nonactions that ignored the potential crisis, because it was in the government's "personal" interest or because doing something was not in the government's "personal" interest. And then disaster strikes. Not because "nothing could be done", but because no one cared or tried.

On 1/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, MKI said:

Sure this is an individual example, but as I mentioned originally this is an allegory for a government. I purposely threw in 7, as that is usually what most people think governments could do, but as I mentioned earlier there is a financial cost to transition to green that is paid for by governments. The rest are what even the most fanatical person/government could do, and all of them have negatives that range from "wow no meat that sucks!" to "I'm about to die because the grid failed and I have no heat!!".

I'm sure you can find holes into these points, or point out flaws within them but I gave them more high level examples of why "action" from people, or even governments isn't clear cut. The idea that "action" is what we need only works if the action they need to perform actually works. Even in the best cases there is a price to be paid for. I'm sure you'd argue all these prices are worth paying for, but I'm also sure you'd agree if I actually did all of these things listed above, I'd be "doing a lot". And ultimately you forgot the biggest point not listed. I did these things, and paid for them in a multitude of ways but my neighbor didn't. 

But then my neighbor owes me nothing and can do whatever they like, and there is literally nothing I can do about it.

The following is in relation to how people (private individuals) behave, but also discusses how people (private individuals) should behave in relation to their government and "entities" (i.e. companies). The word "action" in this portion of the response refers not only to personal action but also includes actions like "lobbying/campaigning" towards governments or entities by individuals or groups of people (private individuals).

I agree action isn't clear, but if it isn't clear, then people (private individuals) should either discuss together or research on their own what action is necessary. This is not happening right now, as evidenced in an earlier reply.

We have the data on climate. We have the data on ocean acidification. We have the data on numerous aspects and problems of society. We can do something. Even if we don't know right now, we can research and determine what is necessary. As this isn't happening, I can't help but think that people don't really care.

The thing I mentioned regarding past disasters and how action should be taken in the reply above regarding government applies on the personal level as well. It wasn't just the government that either chose to make decisions that contributed to a potential crisis or ignored problems- people, too, either ignored warning signs, deliberately made decisions that contributed to the potential crisis, or just didn't care.

Unlike in the era those past disasters occurred in however, information is readily available, and climate change is a widely recognized issue. I can't help but think such non-action (including lack of discussion or research on action) is further evidence supporting my personal opinion that people simply don't care.

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

can I actually say I "care about the homeless"?

If you gave up better opportunities, yes.  Think about all the lawyers making less than starting teacher salary to do criminal defense work.  Believe it or not, those folks make Constitutional Law that protects all of Americans' rights (I know the guy who argued 'Batson').  So yeah, merely because you gain some benefit (pay) does not eliminate the doing of good works.

39 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

care that much about climate change

Reasoned self interest - is still an interest.  

 

39 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

my personal opinion that people simply don't care

I really think you should revisit @MKI's earlier point about people not grasping yet what to do about it, in a way that does not cause greater harm.

This, too, is salient:

 

On 1/17/2022 at 1:00 PM, MKI said:

I usually say the best way to solve any problem is understanding the problem. Its easy to rush to the first solution you can think of, but the solution you find might not solve the actual problem if the problem was too complex to understand initially. This problem is incredibly complex, hence why it isn't wise to rush to blanket statements like "people don't care", or "we can just work together!" or "too people are denial". Of course there is nothing stopping us from implementing what we know (more wind farms, more energy, more electric cars, etc) while continuing to fiddle with other underlying problems, but the key to all of them is empathy for the problem at hand. Everyone on Earth will see some of impact from this problem, and any multitude of solutions will come up with will have an unfair, unequal impact. This is something to accept and understand while continuing the march progress forward, as some people will need to "fall onto their swords", and the last thing they want to hear is they "don't get the message". 

...

There is too much good that has come out of our rapid advance from the 1850s.  The costs are becoming apparent - but don't seem high enough yet that we must revert to 1800s levels of industry.  Think about modern medicine, modern sanitation, the quality of life of billions... all of those are good things - and yet the cost.

I think the key point is 'change'.  We are anticipating climate change.  Not, exactly, disaster.  We don't yet know the costs of that change... but we also don't know whether that change also presents new opportunities.

Like MKI - I think it foolish to rush into 'solutions' when we are still discovering the parameters of the problem.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If a person only cares about CO2 emissions and other pollution if it is in their personal best interest, is that really "caring about it"?

Does it matter?

The physics really don't care what our motivations are.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Like MKI - I think it foolish to rush into 'solutions' when we are still discovering the parameters of the problem.

We rushed into the problem without understanding what we were doing. Why not try to rush into a solution without understanding what we are doing? Is that likely to be worse?

I mean, yeah, it could possibly be worse. It turns out that decades of rigorous forest fire suppression may not have actually been a good thing for forest ecosystems that evolved in the presence of forest fires.

The key here is that the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is cumulative. And it stays there for up to 1000+ years. So every year we do nothing about it while further studying it is a year's worth of CO2 that is almost certainly going to outlive not just every person on this planet but quite possibly every nation on this planet.

The sooner we start doing something about it, the easier it will be to deal with the fallout that we have already banked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

We rushed into the problem without understanding what we were doing. Why not try to rush into a solution without understanding what we are doing? Is that likely to be worse?

In Chernobyl they rushed into solution by dropping the bags with sand and boron from helicopters, to absorb the neutrons.

Soon it appeared that they just pushed the radioactive dust up and made the things even worse.

***

Happily, the story had an unexpected happy end.

The mutated and ill animals appeared very soon in the local forests.

But as most of the people had left the territory, it became a natural shelter for wolves from neighboring forests, they came and ate every mutant which were expectedly weaker than healthy animals.

The wolves were mutating itself, of course, but the mutawolves were immediately eaten by other wolves.

So, currently there is no mutated fauna (and flora) at that place.

So, the natural self-regulation process has repaired the damage.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

In Chernobyl they rushed into solution by dropping the bags with sand and boron from helicopters, to absorb the neutrons.

Soon it appeared that they just pushed the radioactive dust up and made the things even worse.

***

Happily, the story had an unexpected happy end.

The mutated and ill animals appeared very soon in the local forests.

But as most of the people had left the territory, it became a natural shelter for wolves from neighboring forests, they came and ate every mutant which were expectedly weaker than healthy animals.

The wolves were mutating itself, of course, but the mutawolves were immediately eaten by other wolves.

So, currently there is no mutated fauna (and flora) at that place.

So, the natural self-regulation process has repaired the damage.

So what you're saying is that our future is to be eaten by aliens from outside the damage zone- off planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

So what you're saying is that our future is to be eaten by aliens from outside the damage zone- off planet.

No, what I'm saying is that it's very hard to predict multifactor stochastic events, and London is not ccover with horse manure to roofs, as it was predicted by the previous generation of ecoalarmists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

It turns out that decades of rigorous forest fire suppression may not have actually been a good thing for forest ecosystems that evolved in the presence of forest fires.

The key here is that the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is cumulative. And it stays there for up to 1000+ years. So every year we do nothing about it while further studying it is a year's worth of CO2 that is almost certainly going to outlive not just every person on this planet but quite possibly every nation on this planet.

The sooner we start doing something about it, the easier it will be to deal with the fallout that we have already banked.

Agree.  

It is interesting to me that (in the area of forestry management) - I'll read articles and watch programs showing that researchers are learning from the First People's experience with controlled burns and other management practices (these are often Canadian-driven programs - with US understanding being a lot more fragmented and less coherent).  They regularly comment on forest diversity - much of which has diminished, detrimentally, in the last 100 years or so and the difference between old-growth forests and those recovered from extensive logging.  Mostly these are fairly simple, common-sense recommendations that, if enacted, could make the forests more productive, safer and economically viable than present.  Then, despite all of this, (and now, shifting to the US context) you find the administrative and regulatory environments, along with land-use laws, water rights and local traditions effectively make change impossible.  (also, to some, any fire = bad)

 

...

There is a real problem with our approach to this - carbon offsets is just a way to continue polluting, while mouthing about doing something beneficial.  I'd much rather see policies enacted that put the costs on the polluters (yes, even on me) making cleaning up the source a key part of the equation, rather than enabling 'technologies' that purport to scrub CO2, methane and other GH gasses from the atmosphere.  Seeding the ocean or clouds or whatever isn't solving the problem - and as you point out with our past and continued 'fire suppression solution' can have longer-term negative impacts that aren't recognized at the start of the campaign.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

If you gave up better opportunities, yes.

Within that analogy, it is assumed the hypothetical helper did not give up better opportunities. But to get back to climate change, while certainly one who chooses expensive solar panels over the cheap existing electrical grid does "care" about the environment, there still remains the wider issue of CO2 emissions and what everyone else is doing. The grassroots do-gooders won't solve the problem alone.

I now realize the analogy I made was poor, because there are different levels to the problem. One can buy solar panels instead of using the regular electrical grid and indeed be said to care about the environment but at the same time, if they don't really mention the issue to their friends and don't really mind the current rate of CO2 emissions, they could be accused of "not caring".

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Reasoned self interest - is still an interest.

Yes, but is it real interest? My original statement merely proclaimed that it is not, contrary to the statements of many a poll taker, politician/government official, and news organization.

Now one might say "but people make such courtesy statements all the time", but I find this to be especially egregious because it potentially involves millions of lives and billions of livelihoods.

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I really think you should revisit @MKI's earlier point about people not grasping yet what to do about it, in a way that does not cause greater harm.

This just takes me back to one of my other statements- if people don't know what to do, they should either hold serious discussion or conduct serious research to figure out what needs to be done. This is happening nowhere right now.

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There is too much good that has come out of our rapid advance from the 1850s.  The costs are becoming apparent - but don't seem high enough yet that we must revert to 1800s levels of industry.  Think about modern medicine, modern sanitation, the quality of life of billions... all of those are good things - and yet the cost.

"Deindustrializing" is not an actual solution to the problem, it would cause lots of problems as you mention. It is the fact that there are basically three types of proposed responses to climate change- either "Go BaCk tO 1400s tEcHnolOgy NOw!!11!111", "everything is fine", or "this problem is a hoax"- that makes me think people do not actually care. These proposals seem to be based purely on emotion- not actual research. The goal set by the Paris agreement (no more than 2 degrees Celsius of warming) was actually based on science, but no one is really following through on the agreement (that is where the "2030" deadline comes from).

If someone produced a report stating that it would be impossible to reduce global warming below 2 degrees Celsius without significant harm to the economy and thus people's lives and livelihoods, I would concede that they cared about the issue and took it seriously. But what is happening right now, across all different types of response, is the equivalent of a cop being told that a bank a mile away is being robbed, and then making one of the following responses- "SOMEONE CALL THE ARMY", "there is probably already an officer en route so it is fine", or "yeah right".

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I think the key point is 'change'.  We are anticipating climate change.  Not, exactly, disaster.  We don't yet know the costs of that change... but we also don't know whether that change also presents new opportunities.

"Change" is merely the word that got chosen, the physical action that will take place will be widespread. Just because I might call decapitation "height change" does not mean it is any less severe (not to say that climate change "will" be as extreme as decapitation).

I have not seen any reports indicating climate change "might" not cause a disaster. The food supply for millions will likely be threatened by both loss of arable land and the pressure of expanding population. Ocean acidification would further exacerbate the problem. This could even expand to developed countries. This is just going off of increased average temperatures, the status of global agriculture, and what we know about ocean ecosystems. It doesn't include the more extreme potential effects. It won't be some apocalyptic end-of-society event, and billions will be just fine; I am not trying to sound alarmist. I am merely explaining this under the assumption that large numbers of people dying preventable deaths at all is a "disaster".

I am not saying that "will" happen, because I can't literally predict the future, but that is what the data and trends are pointing towards. The current 2050-2060-2070 goals won't stop it, and naïve assumptions about food security won't stop it either- thus I am of the view people don't really care.

To be clear, this part of the reply is not a tirade intended to get you or others to "start believing", all are entitled to their opinion on what should be done, what is acceptable, even what might happen, etc. I am just responding to a statement I have not seen any evidence supporting, in a manner intended to support my argument as part of this discussion :)

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Does it matter?

In the actual world, no, but this mini-discussion started and continues to be about whether people actually care about climate change or not. One side argues they do, and that we don't see much action because of how complex the problem is. I argue we don't see much action because people don't care.

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

We rushed into the problem without understanding what we were doing. Why not try to rush into a solution without understanding what we are doing? Is that likely to be worse?

I think so. Willy nilly CO2 emission reductions will cause issues like the ones seen in China not long ago. "Climate remediation" would probably be a total disaster, and won't stop ocean acidification and continued loss of arable land as a result of mass consumption of beef.

But, the "parameters of the problem" are basically known. We already have data on the parameters of other economical and societal issues. There isn't really any more needed to put together an image of what might happen, and likewise, not much more needed to figure out a safe and efficient response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

that makes me think people do not actually care. These proposals seem to be based purely on emotion- not actual research.

My turn for an analogy:

I'm a smart guy.  I love science and space.  I routinely come here and ask what must seem like incredibly dense questions to those who have studied physics and have the maths to understand cosmology (I can only guess what @K^2 thinks every time I ask an outlandish question about gravity, relativity, etc).

So... theoretically, if I cared I could go back to school, try to figure out where my disconnect was in Algebra and Geometry and resolve that to give me a chance at cracking Calculus and then move on to Physics and Astronomy to follow my passion.  

But that stuff is hard, man... and I've got a lot on my plate.

-- Were someone to make the argument that 'I don't care' about science, or physics or cosmology, they'd be dramatically wrong.  The answer to 'why' I haven't gone back to do the research and learn the maths isn't 'don't care' its 'don't have time or capacity' given all my other requirements of daily life.

...

Contrast this with someone with less education and lower wattage.  They don't 'not care' simply because they haven't done the research.  They have massively over-competing needs that fill their daily lives.  Usually immediate needs that require much more attention than the diffuse possibility of future harm because of the habits of 7 billion people and decades of incremental growth and trillions of dollars worth of legacy technology still powering all of it.

 

(Would love to answer more - but I have to go get my wife's tires changed)

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...