Extinction Rebellion

[leicsmac]

 

Last line for emphasis.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Last line for emphasis.

Yes that’s right and guess what? Everybody else had to use the horse and cart, the candlelight and iron until that day too. Because that was all that was available to them too.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yes that’s right and guess what? Everybody else had to use the horse and cart, the candlelight and iron until that day too. Because that was all that was available to them too.

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here and I don't want to misconstrue, so can you elaborate a little if you have the time and the inclination?

[Guest MattP]

 

 

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Last line for emphasis.

So now you're seriously comparing inventors, geniuses, scientists to privileged white protestors who behave like mindless lemmings and who follow a cult-like doomsday movement?

And no thought spared for the conditions of living at the time? The fact that these now famous people arguably operated in one of the worst eras in terms of dirt, emissions, life expectancy, health issues, etc.? And that the (questionable) technological progress at the time in parts enabled them to do their research?

Is that your final argument?

That's clinging onto straws at its best.

Edited 21 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here and I don't want to misconstrue, so can you elaborate a little if you have the time and the inclination?

I'm not entirely sure why you use other people's weak argumentation in order to desperately trying to make a point in favour of ER.

 

The people protesting aren't doing anything to improve the world as it is - they are participating in a mass movement, and then go home, feeling better about themselves for simply having participated. Virtue signaling by sheer presence.

When in fact, following the text you've brought forward, they should be using their spare time for more tangible results, trying to invent products or services that improve our daily lives.

One of the major aspects of discord here is that these protestors are all about words, but no own action.

 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

So now you're seriously comparing inventors, geniuses, scientists to privileged white protestors who behave like mindless lemmings and who follow a cult-like doomsday movement?

And no thought spared for the conditions of living at the time? The fact that these now famous people arguably operated in one of the worst eras in terms of dirt, emissions, life expectancy, health issues, etc.? And that the (questionable) technological progress at the time in parts enabled them to do their research?

Is that your final argument?

That's clinging onto straws at its best.

No, I'm not. Because....

 

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I'm not entirely sure why you use other people's weak argumentation in order to desperately trying to make a point in favour of ER.

 

The people protesting aren't doing anything to improve the world as it is - they are participating in a mass movement, and then go home, feeling better about themselves for simply having participated. Virtue signaling by sheer presence.

When in fact, following the text you've brought forward, they should be using their spare time for more tangible results, trying to invent products or services that improve our daily lives.

One of the major aspects of discord here is that these protestors are all about words, but no own action.

 

While this is a thread about ER, the argument can and should be applied to those actively working to make the world better through science as opposed to those who would either see us remain as we are or regress and yet call out *those* people as hypocrites.

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

[Dahnsouff]

Not convinced p*ssing off everyday working folks is helpful to anyone personally.

Campaign for increased fuel taxes on all forms of transport, unpopular I realise, but if we want to fix this crap then target where it hurts and will actually make a difference.

Or we can just wait for the expected technological miracle

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

When is the next set of protests?  Anyone know?

[Jon the Hat]

20 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Seeing as I think that what the Earth could do to human civilisation would make the greatest hits of Mao, Hitler and Stalin look like a pleasant day at the seaside, personally I'd think that anything short of a 1984-style dystopic hellhole would be better than that.

Where is your evidence for this scale of impact?  I find the hyperbole around billions dying etc the most ridiculous nonsense.  

[Facecloth]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

See that's the kind of reaction to protesters I can get behind. No physical violence, just stealing their sign and throwing it somewhere they can't get it. Taking and breaking someone's phone might be a bit harsh though.

[Mike Oxlong]

I don’t want to fvck the planet over but it strikes me that this movement has been bolstered by lots of guilty/bored pensioners

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

When is the next set of protests?  Anyone know?

 

29 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I don’t want to fvck the planet over but it strikes me that this movement has been bolstered by lots of guilty/bored pensioners

Monday: Bowls & Whist Drive

Tuesday: Bingo

Wednesday: Protests

Thursday: W.I or Rotary

Friday: Protests

Saturday: Golf

Sunday: See Grand-kids/plan next weeks protests

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

Monday: Bowls & Whist Drive

Tuesday: Bingo

Wednesday: Protests

Thursday: W.I or Rotary

Friday: Protests

Saturday: Golf

Sunday: See Grand-kids/plan next weeks protests

Izzy is one of them! Get him! 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Where is your evidence for this scale of impact?  I find the hyperbole around billions dying etc the most ridiculous nonsense.  

FWIW I find the idea of "billions" dying hyperbolic as well unless very specific conditions are met....like, for instance, if a nuclear-armed nation suddenly has a big problem sourcing food and potable water and starts a fight with another nuclear-armed nation...or perhaps just a general breakdown of civilisation over some years because we simply no longer have the aforementioned food and water to support everyone because climate change has robbed us of the growing areas and sources we need for it. It all comes down to how much strain is placed on those two specific things, really - famine and drought will kill populations pretty quickly, especially if those populations then turn to barbarism in order to keep themselves alive for a while longer. The theme here is that it's a combination of knock-on factors, started by increased temperatures, that lead to disaster, rather than one specific thing.

 

However, the most those three men managed was in the region of 60 million people as opposed to billions, so let's look a little lower for firmer ground.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1807873

 

"For example, a climate change–associated net increase of 529,000 adult deaths worldwide (95% confidence interval [CI], 314,000 to 736,000) was projected to result from expected reductions in food availability (particularly fruit and vegetables) by 2050, as compared with a reference scenario without climate change".

 

That, if we're talking about the 30 years from now to 2050, is a projection of 16 million deaths - and that is solely from lack of food, not from lack of water, climate change-related violence, or any other factor.

 

https://www.actuaries.org/CTTEES_ENVIRO/Papers/REWG_CCandMortality_final_Nov2017.pdf

 

"...based on its central (base-case)economic assumptions, the WHO projected 38,000 extra deaths per year by 2030 due to heat. This estimate relates to those over 65 years only, and assumes a fairly high level (50%) of adaptation. With no adaptation,this would have been 92,000 annually. This projection increases to a central estimate of about 100,000 extra deaths per year by 2050 (with 50% adaptation) or over 250,000 with no adaptation."

 

So, worst case scenario, 250,000 per year = another 8 million deaths by 2050, and that is only due to heat, and only covers those over-65 in age.

 

So, we're nearing the halfway mark to at least matching historical figures and we've covered only lack of food and extreme heat for the over-65's.

 

As you might expect from what I've put down here, detailed projections are rather difficult to find, but if you fill in the gaps - and if you want me to do more digging I can but I'm kind of hoping these initial papers will paint a satisfactory picture - it's not particularly difficult to suggest that the overall death toll across all humans of all ages due to climate change and the regional and global instability it will cause will outstrip that of the great dictators.

 

NB. Mao's biggest death toll - the Great Leap Forward - didn't involve much human-to-human killing at all, rather engineered famine. That, for me, previews just how effective using nature in such a way in terms of death is and how it could be used in the future on a larger scale.

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

FWIW I find the idea of "billions" dying hyperbolic as well unless very specific conditions are met....like, for instance, if a nuclear-armed nation suddenly has a big problem sourcing food and potable water and starts a fight with another nuclear-armed nation...or perhaps just a general breakdown of civilisation over some years because we simply no longer have the aforementioned food and water to support everyone because climate change has robbed us of the growing areas and sources we need for it. It all comes down to how much strain is placed on those two specific things, really - famine and drought will kill populations pretty quickly, especially if those populations then turn to barbarism in order to keep themselves alive for a while longer. The theme here is that it's a combination of knock-on factors, started by increased temperatures, that lead to disaster, rather than one specific thing.

 

However, the most those three men managed was in the region of 60 million people as opposed to billions, so let's look a little lower for firmer ground.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1807873

 

"For example, a climate change–associated net increase of 529,000 adult deaths worldwide (95% confidence interval [CI], 314,000 to 736,000) was projected to result from expected reductions in food availability (particularly fruit and vegetables) by 2050, as compared with a reference scenario without climate change".

 

That, if we're talking about the 30 years from now to 2050, is a projection of 16 million deaths - and that is solely from lack of food, not from lack of water, climate change-related violence, or any other factor.

 

https://www.actuaries.org/CTTEES_ENVIRO/Papers/REWG_CCandMortality_final_Nov2017.pdf

 

"...based on its central (base-case)economic assumptions, the WHO projected 38,000 extra deaths per year by 2030 due to heat. This estimate relates to those over 65 years only, and assumes a fairly high level (50%) of adaptation. With no adaptation,this would have been 92,000 annually. This projection increases to a central estimate of about 100,000 extra deaths per year by 2050 (with 50% adaptation) or over 250,000 with no adaptation."

 

So, worst case scenario, 250,000 per year = another 8 million deaths by 2050, and that is only due to heat, and only covers those over-65 in age.

 

So, we're nearing the halfway mark to at least matching historical figures and we've covered only lack of food and extreme heat for the over-65's.

 

As you might expect from what I've put down here, detailed projections are rather difficult to find, but if you fill in the gaps - and if you want me to do more digging I can but I'm kind of hoping these initial papers will paint a satisfactory picture - it's not particularly difficult to suggest that the overall death toll across all humans of all ages due to climate change and the regional and global instability it will cause will outstrip that of the great dictators.

 

NB. Mao's biggest death toll - the Great Leap Forward - didn't involve much human-to-human killing at all, rather engineered famine. That, for me, previews just how effective using nature in such a way in terms of death is and how it could be used in the future on a larger scale.

All these potential scenarios - projections nonetheless - fade in comparison to the increase in global population to a total of roughly 10 billion people by 2050, 2 to 2.5 billion more than today. That's about 65 million new people each year (if my calculations are correct).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

 

Also, the scencarios you quote talk of "adaptation" without going into further detail. Also excluded are advancements in new and existing technology, food processing, as well as additional agricultural grounds (we're seeing an era of forestation at present, https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html).

 

While you see the dangers of global warming, one could also see the advantages or benefits. Keep in mind that higher temperatures result in more welcoming conditions for many vegetables and fruits - provided precipitation continues to do its job, of course.

 

With regards to the death toll due to increased temperatures, it'll most definitely hit the elderly most. Now call me a cynic, but in general (exceptions proving the rule), the quality of life decreases steadily once you hit age 70 or so. So why bother about people dying that would be dying in the near future, anyway? 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

All these potential scenarios - projections nonetheless - fade in comparison to the increase in global population to a total of roughly 10 billion people by 2050, 2 to 2.5 billion more than today. That's about 65 million new people each year (if my calculations are correct).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

 

Also, the scencarios you quote talk of "adaptation" without going into further detail. Also excluded are advancements in new and existing technology, food processing, as well as additional agricultural grounds (we're seeing an era of forestation at present, https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html).

 

While you see the dangers of global warming, one could also see the advantages or benefits. Keep in mind that higher temperatures result in more welcoming conditions for many vegetables and fruits - provided precipitation continues to do its job, of course.

 

With regards to the death toll due to increased temperatures, it'll most definitely hit the elderly most. Now call me a cynic, but in general (exceptions proving the rule), the quality of life decreases steadily once you hit age 70 or so. So why bother about people dying that would be dying in the near future, anyway? 

Well, yes, the question was how many deaths wholesale climate change could be responsible for as a number, the number as a proportion of population wasn't mentioned. I don't know, you blink and suddenly the damn goalposts are over there...

 

I'd say, barring some Malthusian ideas about population control, that an increased amount of over a million deaths per year worldwide in total due to something that is eminently preventable is not a good thing...but that's me.

 

NB. Those numbers of course say nothing about the very human instability that could be caused by a sudden lack of access to food and potable water. Of course, some areas might become better for growing stuff...but that won't mean much if those areas aren't where the people that need it live and it can't be/isn't delivered to them. As has been said before, climate change doesn't have to kill a great many people directly at first, just enough that enough nations start to panic and things get ugly...and then humans go a long way towards finishing what climate change started, before famine and drought return as issues for anyone who is left.

Edited 22 October 2019 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

On 21/10/2019 at 13:48, leicsmac said:

FWIW I find the idea of "billions" dying hyperbolic as well unless very specific conditions are met....like, for instance, if a nuclear-armed nation suddenly has a big problem sourcing food and potable water and starts a fight with another nuclear-armed nation...or perhaps just a general breakdown of civilisation over some years because we simply no longer have the aforementioned food and water to support everyone because climate change has robbed us of the growing areas and sources we need for it. It all comes down to how much strain is placed on those two specific things, really - famine and drought will kill populations pretty quickly, especially if those populations then turn to barbarism in order to keep themselves alive for a while longer. The theme here is that it's a combination of knock-on factors, started by increased temperatures, that lead to disaster, rather than one specific thing.

 

However, the most those three men managed was in the region of 60 million people as opposed to billions, so let's look a little lower for firmer ground.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1807873

 

"For example, a climate change–associated net increase of 529,000 adult deaths worldwide (95% confidence interval [CI], 314,000 to 736,000) was projected to result from expected reductions in food availability (particularly fruit and vegetables) by 2050, as compared with a reference scenario without climate change".

 

That, if we're talking about the 30 years from now to 2050, is a projection of 16 million deaths - and that is solely from lack of food, not from lack of water, climate change-related violence, or any other factor.

 

https://www.actuaries.org/CTTEES_ENVIRO/Papers/REWG_CCandMortality_final_Nov2017.pdf

 

"...based on its central (base-case)economic assumptions, the WHO projected 38,000 extra deaths per year by 2030 due to heat. This estimate relates to those over 65 years only, and assumes a fairly high level (50%) of adaptation. With no adaptation,this would have been 92,000 annually. This projection increases to a central estimate of about 100,000 extra deaths per year by 2050 (with 50% adaptation) or over 250,000 with no adaptation."

 

So, worst case scenario, 250,000 per year = another 8 million deaths by 2050, and that is only due to heat, and only covers those over-65 in age.

 

So, we're nearing the halfway mark to at least matching historical figures and we've covered only lack of food and extreme heat for the over-65's.

 

As you might expect from what I've put down here, detailed projections are rather difficult to find, but if you fill in the gaps - and if you want me to do more digging I can but I'm kind of hoping these initial papers will paint a satisfactory picture - it's not particularly difficult to suggest that the overall death toll across all humans of all ages due to climate change and the regional and global instability it will cause will outstrip that of the great dictators.

 

NB. Mao's biggest death toll - the Great Leap Forward - didn't involve much human-to-human killing at all, rather engineered famine. That, for me, previews just how effective using nature in such a way in terms of death is and how it could be used in the future on a larger scale.

Its hardly extinction is it?  Even if all of these happen it would hardly make a dent in the population growth.  The world is going to have to do some serious thinking about supporting population movement I suspect, but that is decades off yet.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its hardly extinction is it?  Even if all of these happen it would hardly make a dent in the population growth.  The world is going to have to do some serious thinking about supporting population movement I suspect, but that is decades off yet.

It isn't, but that wasn't the question asked.

 

Do I think that climate change and its effects can cause global extinction of humanity? No, not unless a whole brew of dreadful circumstances occur in order and in a way that cannot be handled - the worst case scenario I can envision that is really a nonzero plausibility is a collapse of global civilisations into city-states Mad Max style due either a serious lack of food and potable water, paranoia and fighting over food and potable water, or both. That would certainly reduce the numbers of humans, but not to any level even threatening extinction, it being a whole bunch of no fun for almost everyone anyway notwithstanding.

 

Do I think that climate change can, through direct and indirect effects, cause more human deaths than any human dictator in history, even if those numbers won't make a big dent in human population overall? Absolutely, and I think that is not only possible...but should we not take action to safeguard against it, it is inevitable.

[ScouseFox]

honestly they all stink.

 

even people who support them, you would absolutely not support anything they say or do if you had to live with them on your doorstep for a week. i started stocking up on plastic straws the day these vile, pungent beings started a protest by my flat.

 

wouldn't have cared either way until then but i would honestly rather the world ended before we all clearly stopped taking showers and using a roll on of a morning. 

 

horrendous. 

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its hardly extinction is it?  Even if all of these happen it would hardly make a dent in the population growth.  The world is going to have to do some serious thinking about supporting population movement I suspect, but that is decades off yet.

Sorry, I should have got to this too.

 

You'd hope that it's at least a few decades away, but over a billion people having to up and move someplace else because they don't have enough food and water to sustain themselves would be better off being prevented in the first place , or at the very least have long term-preparations made for it, don't you think?

[leicsmac]

https://theconversation.com/climate-scientist-our-profession-is-letting-down-humanity-we-must-change-the-way-we-approach-the-climate-crisis-122479

 

Good stuff. Especially:

 

"If drought strikes in several countries at the same time, there are no guarantees that our food supply chains – in which deliveries arrive “just-in-time” to minimise costs – will not experience collapses in the next decade or two.

Yet compared to the vast amount of research focused on the uncertain impacts of global heating on humanity by 2050 and 2100, we know worryingly little about just how fragile our supply chains – or other parts of our highly efficient clockwork global economy – are in the near-term. Refocusing resources on such dramatically under-researched short-term vulnerabilities is vital, not least because it will make the climate and ecological crisis feel more close to home than abstract carbon budgets and temperature rises."

 

Such structures are often more fragile than people think and we take them for granted.

[ozleicester]

[Guest MattP]

"Civil disobedience" when you have the ballot box as a way of changing things is just extremism.

 

And if your arguments can't convince people then be certain your unrest won't either.

Edited 23 October 2019 by MattP

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

"Civil disobedience" when you have the ballot box as a way of changing things is just extremism.

 

And if your arguments can't convince people then be certain your unrest won't either.

What? you mean if you vote for someone, they'll actually do what they said they would do in order to get your vote! That's a bit radical.