Climate change

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

 

But then i remember the universe will cease to exist from expansion and heat death and i think "meh".

If you really want a massively bleak outlook, look at the wiki entry for "Timeline of the Far Future". Fascinating in a really horrible way.

Edited 20 February 2017 by leicsmac

[Bobby Hundreds]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you really want a massively bleak outlook, look at the wiki entry for "Timeline of the Far Future". Fascinating in a really horrible way.

Top Monday motivation stuff this.

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

So solipsism edging towards a style of nihilism then? Interesting, thank you.

 

I can see why that worldview would be appealing to a certain mindset, even though I really disagree with it. Being something of an optimist I think that humanity has the potential to, in time, render themselves pretty much extinction proof through careful application of technology. Perhaps you would consider this mode of thought a little absurd, but beyond myself and my own death I really want to see humanity succeed in the future as we have so much potential as a species. Hence my stance here - I really think humanity as a whole (no group, no nation, just the species as a whole) is more important than any one life, and that attitude would be how we would survive when the going gets tough. Of course, self interest and helping out others doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, either.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think it's odd at all. Altering your lifestyle to help humanity after your death is something you can do just for the sake of the species, not because some cosmic entity will reward you/punish you after death etc or because you'll get to see it thanks to that entity.

 

Why do you need to brand it? Nihilism would suggest I care about nothing other than myself on the basis god doesn't exist, that's no true at all, I can't care about the future of the earth because I wont be part of it and as Bobby Hundreds said, if you know anything about entropy you'll know that the universe will cease to exist eventually. I do care about what I know however; family and friends etc. Solipsism, not sure I'm using the right definition of this word, but absolutely not, there's a difference between saying what will and wont exist long after i'm dead and what does or does not exist today.

 

The end of the human race is as inevitable as the end of my life. I can only logically care about climate change if I can draw a difference between the people who will be wiped out at the end of the human race, had we fought climate change and the people who will be wiped out at the end of the human race had we not fought it. I can not draw a difference thus I will not be doing anything to fight climate change.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Benguin said:

 

Why do you need to brand it? Nihilism would suggest I care about nothing other than myself on the basis god doesn't exist, that's no true at all, I can't care about the future of the earth because I wont be part of it and as Bobby Hundreds said, if you know anything about entropy you'll know that the universe will cease to exist eventually. I do care about what I know however; family and friends etc. Solipsism, not sure I'm using the right definition of this word, but absolutely not, there's a difference between saying what will and wont exist long after i'm dead and what does or does not exist today.

 

The end of the human race is as inevitable as the end of my life. I can only logically care about climate change if I can draw a difference between the people who will be wiped out at the end of the human race, had we fought climate change and the people who will be wiped out at the end of the human race had we not fought it. I can not draw a difference thus I will not be doing anything to fight climate change.

Yeah, people are too complex to pigeonhole for the most part, I shouldn't have done that. Though I'm sure people who have studied these things have come up with a name for every way humans see the world, given how we like to study how we think about such things.

 

From your second paragraph I think we have a fundamental disagreement in how we see the future of humanity. You arm to think that the extinction of humanity is an inevitability - and on a long enough time scale, of course it is. We already know enough about the far future of geological and astronomical activity for that to be known to be the case. However...I do think there are things that humans can do, as a species, in order to hold that fate off for much, much longer than might be expected if we just stood by and did nothing. Not using the capability we have, the ingenuity and the hard work, simply because we think it's all going to come to an end one day, seems a little sad to me (though I know you're not exactly advocating doing nothing). But, again, I can see why people think that way. One life, and make as much of it as you can, right?

 

(This might be veering off topic some btw, but it's a fascinating discussion and thanks for highlighting your viewpoints.)

[Benguin]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, people are too complex to pigeonhole for the most part, I shouldn't have done that. Though I'm sure people who have studied these things have come up with a name for every way humans see the world, given how we like to study how we think about such things.

 

From your second paragraph I think we have a fundamental disagreement in how we see the future of humanity. You arm to think that the extinction of humanity is an inevitability - and on a long enough time scale, of course it is. We already know enough about the far future of geological and astronomical activity for that to be known to be the case. However...I do think there are things that humans can do, as a species, in order to hold that fate off for much, much longer than might be expected if we just stood by and did nothing. Not using the capability we have, the ingenuity and the hard work, simply because we think it's all going to come to an end one day, seems a little sad to me (though I know you're not exactly advocating doing nothing). But, again, I can see why people think that way. One life, and make as much of it as you can, right?

 

(This might be veering off topic some btw, but it's a fascinating discussion and thanks for highlighting your viewpoints.)

 

Yeah, I should clarify I in no way discourage or condemn people who work against climate change. I completely understand your point about it being a little sad, having the ability to do something and choosing not to on the basis that ultimately what difference will it make. I used to think it was better to do something but as I got a bit older I became more drawn to the conclusion that the only ascertainable benefits of sacrifice or selflessness are over matters within ones life. I think this is where we are different, you gain something from the knowledge you are helping the future of the human race, whereas I see nothing to be gained.

[leicsmac]

A mathematical view:

 

'If I hear one more person say 'we don't know how or how much the climate will change in response to CO2 emissions', 'therefore we shouldn't work to prevent CO2 emissions', I'm going to clap my hands in a fit of sass.

 

It's not an argument - you have to say, "but my probability distribution is mostly that the impact will be small". Not that it's *widely distributed*!!! A wide range of possible outcomes is a horrible thing.

 

It's like saying

"I have no idea how dangerous this cancer is, so I'm not getting treatment."'

 

Hits the nail on the head regarding the argument that we shouldn't do anything because we don't know enough.

 

[Webbo]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A mathematical view:

 

'If I hear one more person say 'we don't know how or how much the climate will change in response to CO2 emissions', 'therefore we shouldn't work to prevent CO2 emissions', I'm going to clap my hands in a fit of sass.

 

It's not an argument - you have to say, "but my probability distribution is mostly that the impact will be small". Not that it's *widely distributed*!!! A wide range of possible outcomes is a horrible thing.

 

It's like saying

"I have no idea how dangerous this cancer is, so I'm not getting treatment."'

 

Hits the nail on the head regarding the argument that we shouldn't do anything because we don't know enough.

 

If someone said to you "you might have cancer or you might not, so we're going to cut your leg off just in case" would you say fair enough?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If someone said to you "you might have cancer or you might not, so we're going to cut your leg off just in case" would you say fair enough?

I'm not really sure about that analogy Webs as there is very little ambiguity about the rising level of CO2 emissions and that they will have an effect on the environment. The only question is what kind of effect - the possibility that this 'cancer' could actually end up being beneficial in some way notwithstanding.

 

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure that choosing to reduce CO2 emissions constitutes a permanent crippling in the way that removing a leg would. Economies are much easier to adapt and repair than environments are.

 

I see your point about the possible ambiguity and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though.

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I'm not really sure about that analogy Webs as there is very little ambiguity about the rising level of CO2 emissions and that they will have an effect on the environment. The only question is what kind of effect - the possibility that this 'cancer' could actually end up being beneficial in some way notwithstanding.

 

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure that choosing to reduce CO2 emissions constitutes a permanent crippling in the way that removing a leg would. Economies are much easier to adapt and repair than environments are.

 

I see your point about the possible ambiguity and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though.

What's your opinion on fracking seeing as the scientific consensus is that it's safe?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What's your opinion on fracking seeing as the scientific consensus is that it's safe?

From what I can tell the EPA has said it's safe when done right, but a significant number of the scientists within the EPA disagree. They've also agreed that it doesn't cause widespread environmental damage, but could be responsible for local contaminations that have occurred if you get shit wrong. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

 

There's an awful lot of conflicting information about (depending on which source you use). There's a reddit thread I just found (yes, I know, but there's some fascinating points and links on there) discussing the possible consensus: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/49d4w9/what_is_the_scientific_consensus_on_fracking/

 

So...my opinion is that it's probably less damaging than coal mining and processing, and done right it can work well, but you need to be bloody careful and there are better, less potentially damaging alternatives out there that we should be looking to get going with when we can (which is happening to a degree).

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39365690

 

This is just one of the clear and substantiated effects. At the risk of coming over all Big Nige...are people going to remain ostriches until it's too late?

[whoareyaaa]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39365690

 

This is just one of the clear and substantiated effects. At the risk of coming over all Big Nige...are people going to remain ostriches until it's too late?

Normal people don't have the time to worry about this sort of stuff as the majority are trying to survive as it is. Blame the government not the people

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Normal people don't have the time to worry about this sort of stuff as the majority are trying to survive as it is. Blame the government not the people

Fair enough, but in a democracy those 'normal' people are at least partly responsible for the government they elect and the decisions it makes.

 

And in all fairness finger-pointing isn't going to do much other than make people feel a little bit better about themselves if/when the kak hits the fan.

[whoareyaaa]

On 24/03/2017 at 14:06, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, but in a democracy those 'normal' people are at least partly responsible for the government they elect and the decisions it makes.

 

And in all fairness finger-pointing isn't going to do much other than make people feel a little bit better about themselves if/when the kak hits the fan.

'partly responsible' what like 1%! its not like they have a great deal of choice either is it and the decisions are in no way taking the public into consideration.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, whoareyaaa said:

'partly responsible' what like 1%! its not like they have a great deal of choice either is it and the decisions are in no way taking the public into consideration.

Oh, I don't deny that those in power are perfectly happy with disregarding what's to come just so they can hold onto that power for a bit longer.

 

I just think that people's apathy plays into it too - I mean, does the guy in the street really care about something that's going to cause massive problems a century from now when he's got bills to pay tomorrow? That's the attitude that helps allow those in power to keep doing as they do. There's not enough noise on this particular matter, possibly because the media doesn't really drive it as a threat.

 

[whoareyaaa]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, I don't deny that those in power are perfectly happy with disregarding what's to come just so they can hold onto that power for a bit longer.

 

I just think that people's apathy plays into it too - I mean, does the guy in the street really care about something that's going to cause massive problems a century from now when he's got bills to pay tomorrow? That's the attitude that helps allow those in power to keep doing as they do. There's not enough noise on this particular matter, possibly because the media doesn't really drive it as a threat.

 

Yea I agree with you but when the media is controlled by the government its basically out of our control which is sad.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

Yea I agree with you but when the media is controlled by the government its basically out of our control which is sad.

I think if there's one thing we can certain of it's that Trump doesn't control the US media

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think if there's one thing we can certain of it's that Trump doesn't control the US media

Certainly not most of it, anyway.

 

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

Yea I agree with you but when the media is controlled by the government its basically out of our control which is sad.

I actually think that in some cases that it is the other way round.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I actually think that in some cases that it is the other way round.

100% this.

[Rincewind]

The media is owned/run by those who are friendly with those. in power. Who knows what is said behind closed doors? 

[Webbo]

35 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

The media is owned/run by those who are friendly with those. in power. Who knows what is said behind closed doors? 

Well Trump is in power so unless he told them to campaign against him during the election and ridicule and castigate him since, behind closed doors, that theory doesn't hold water.

[Izzy]

In the grand scheme of things, I really can't get excited about climate change. I'm sure it's very important but it's not top of my list of things to worry about in today's world. Sorry and all that...

[China Black]

The government needs to do a lot more to combat the issue of global warming. They have a duty of care to future generations that are yet to be born

[Wymsey]

15 minutes ago, China Black said:

The government needs to do a lot more to combat the issue of global warming. They have a duty of care to future generations that are yet to be born

Glad they've got a bit of a strong stance against fracking personally.

 

They've done well on road tax and other vehicles emissions expenses and penalties to road users; but think the big-four etc supermarkets and medium to well-known retailers in particular could do more in the way they operate to try and reduce its impact on the local environment - such as more fuel-efficient delivery fans and warehouse lorries etc.

 

Some advise customers to reuse any plastic bags etc, but only a handful explain what efforts they're making to improve the outlook of the environments during any working hour - whilst many only reveal how their food is prepared in the right ''natural'', ''free from preservatives'' way but forget the bigger picture of climate concerns.

Edited 25 March 2017 by Wymeswold fox

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

It is happening, albeit slowly. I won't bother us, but we need to be concerned about future generations.