Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Wahaha wrote

Oh, it's just another climate bullshit article. Haven't seen one of those before. Instead of trying to prevent what is according to them unpreventable anyway, why not focus instead on how to adapt to the predicted changes?

Gimping our own economy is totally retarded. The heat death of the universe will get this planet anyway. We should invest all our resources into leaving this planet and leaving this very universe, since it is doomed. And for that we need an economy that isn't gimped.

We need to concentrate more wealth in fewer capable hands working towards space exploration and leaving behind this death sentence planet.

1

smallpond OP wrote

A species stupid enough to consciously ruin the environment we evolved into won't survive in space, but I guess this is some sort of religious belief for you.

1

Zenen wrote

this is "the end is near" rapture ideology in peak form. I'm sorry that the sense of impending change is getting to you, but even if we do build a space ark to colonize other planets - you're not getting a golden ticket.

Don't give into apathy, it's never too late.

1

Wahaha wrote

What are you even smoking? The heat death of the universe is inevitable. It's not just Earth. It's the entire universe. Won't happen during my lifetime, but just the travel time (let's just pretend space travel was real) would take thousands of years.

We have to start somewhere, though.

The Earth is generally fine. It might get a few degrees warmer, but that will only make winter less cold. We are at the end of an ice age, so Earth warming up isn't strange. Micro plastic pollution is of much greater concern than climate change.

Maybe Earth will even warm up enough to make Antarctica a place people would want to live.

2

Zenen wrote

Is your belief in 'the inevitability of heat death' based in the same type of scientific understanding that climate scientists base their work off of? Choosing to cherrypick scientific knowledge to reinforce one's own beliefs and ignoring the rest of the data is not very scientific at all.

The Earth is probably about as fine as you and I are - which is to say not fine and actually struggling to cope with the state of modern society... unless you're actually totally fine with how everything is going?

The earth is a living being in a rather careful homeostatic balance, and saying that the only consequence of a warmer climate is like saying the only consequence of a fever (i.e. when our internal climate gets a few degrees warmer) is not needing a coat. Fevers happen when our bodies need to kill off something inside of them... and humans would be the cause and the target.

If your going strategy is to extract the resources from this planet so that we can leave and find other planets where we can do the same, I would like to point towards viral propagation and ask if that is the form of (not) life that humans need to be taking inspiration from.

Don't give into apathy, you can make a difference in the world around you!

2

Wahaha wrote

No, it is based on the laws of thermodynamics. There is no cherry picking of data, because it is not based on data points. It's just a consequence of how the universe works. The sun is burning something. Once this resource is exhausted the sun will go dark. It will never go back to providing "green energy". Everything in the universe is like that. The only way to prevent the heat death of the universe is to reverse entropy. That is like traveling back in time. Impossible.

So going to other planets isn't a solution. We have to actually leave this universe. Whether this is even possible or not, I do not know. But if we do not, we will 100% perish in the future.

The Earth is not alive. It's a rock in space. Whether it has living organisms on it or not doesn't matter to the rock in space.

1

Zenen wrote

It's a rock in space that somehow underwent abiogenesis to bring about living organisms. Separating the substrate of life from the things that grow out of it is like separating the laws of thermodynamics from the fact that the self-replication of life itself is a force that actively fights against entropy.

Also, we have no idea what creates consciousness, but we are far from the only example of interconnected neurons and synapses on the planet. Did you know that trees send signals to one-another through fungal networks that connect their roots to one another? Maybe they know something about interdimensional travel.

1

smallpond OP wrote

It might get a few degrees warmer, but that will only make winter less cold. We are at the end of an ice age, so Earth warming up isn't strange.

You can lead a brainwashed horse to water, but you can't make it drink: https://skepticalscience.com/

0

Zenen wrote

I think it would be great if we can avoid namecalling, saying that someone is "brainwashed" is essentially an excuse to de-legitimize their viewpoint rather than considering it in depth

1

smallpond OP wrote

I prefer to 'namecall' if that's how you wish to view honestly describing a situation as I see it. You can delve deep into the minds of the brainwashed if you wish, I'm sure that'll be productive.

0

takeheart wrote

I do not acknowledge "climate crisis". In fact, I believe climate politics is scarcity politics. There is less and less limit on means of production, so why all people's needs have not been satisfied yet? Wealth hoarders produce many justifications and climategate is one of them. A lot has been invested into it, and they have hard time dropping it even after many decent scientists spoke against the lie.

1

Zenen wrote

Please don't conflate the ways that climate change is coerced into a political platform with the actuality of climate change itself - they're different beasts and the reason why people's needs aren't satisfied is because the extractive resource practices that our society rely on need people with unmet needs (largely social needs) to function. What do you need?

2

smallpond OP wrote

It's amazing that there are still flat earthers and climate 'skeptics' out there. Most are just old and have decided to double-down until they die rather than admit their stupidity, but I suppose a collapsing society involves all manner of delusions.

1

takeheart wrote

Why do you think the society is collapsing? Because of liars or because of those who reject lies?

2

smallpond OP wrote

Because we are overpopulated, addicted to high-energy resources that are running out, and simultaneously destroying the natural systems that sustain us.

You strike me as someone utterly incapable of discerning lies from truth - I pity you.

−1

takeheart wrote

I do not destroy natural systems. Do you?

Overpopulation rhetoric is eugenics, it's origin are people who want others to not reproduce, to have their own genes prevail in the long run. Do you have many children? If no, you're pissing against the wind.

Only I know my capabilities. I see you're getting hostile. Why? I see no reason to get personal over these topics, especially if you value truth. You cannot tackle the truth unless you keep your head cool.

2

smallpond OP wrote

My head is cool, but there's no point in laboring conversations with fools.

1

Zenen wrote

You may not destroy natural systems but you are more than likely complicit in their destruction, by supporting businesses and systems that are extractive in nature.

Overpopulation is not a problem (yet), poor allocation of resources is the problem. However, there is truth in what OP says about the lack of sustainability in our strategies.

1

smallpond OP wrote

Only I know my capabilities.

You probably believe that. The stupidity of a fool is not restricted to the external world. They are just as incapable of comprehending themselves. A significantly smarter person knows the fool better than they know themselves.

0

Zenen wrote

Watch what you project onto the people around you - even if they're internet avatars. Pity is not a helpful sentiment :(

2

smallpond OP wrote

It is helpful/kind to tell people the truth. If they choose to ignore it, it's stupid to entertain fools who cannot acknowledge overpopulation or other things that have become quite clear over decades.

1

Zenen wrote

One of the great things about a website like this is that it offers a bridge between people who live in different realities. We live in a post-truth world, which means that what is 'true' for you is not necessarily 'true' for someone else. What we can do is establish common ground between people who carry different views than us by finding things that we agree on and building on that as a foundation.

Seems like everyone in this thread agrees that national politics and governance systems are overly bloated and unhelpful towards solving the problems that we face on a personal scale, anybody disagree with that? /u/Wahaha /u/takeheart

1

takeheart wrote

That would be an understatement. It's not enough to say that governments and policy makers are unhelpful to solve problems. They create these problems. Check out "Planet of the humans 2019"

1

Zenen wrote

I don't have the time to watch a documentary, but it seems like you're on the same page as Wahaha and smallpond in the opinion that corrupt governments are creating problems for the common population and not acting with citizen's interests in mind.

Mind giving me the thesis of Planet Of The Humans?

1

takeheart wrote

Speed up the film, Zenen, quick. Click? Pic? Look, Eye, Now, Flick, Here, There, Swift, Pace, Up, Down, In, Out, Why, How, Who, What, Where, Eh? Uh! Bang! Smack! Wallop, Bing, Bong, Boom! Digest-digests, digest-digest-digests. Environmentalism? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in mid-air, all vanishes! Whirl man’s mind around about so fast under the pumping hands of publishers, exploiters, broadcasters, that the centrifuge flings off all unnecessary, time-wasting thought!

1

Wahaha wrote

The problem with government is the blatant corruption. I think the things you perceive as bloat were things added to reduce the corruption, but it isn't working.

The core problem is that democracy is an awful system, where you essentially give power to the people that have a big influence. So essentially rule of the rich by proxy of exchangeable puppets.

To solve the core problem of government being "incompetent" you have to solve the corruption, which you cannot do in a democracy.

Compare this with a monarchy where at the end of the day you have someone actually responsible. In a monarchy you at least need to keep everyone from hating you so much that they would go out and kill you. Not in a democracy. If any puppet gets a bit of heat the puppet is exchanged and then it is business as usual.

If the puppet tries doing things itself you just assassinate it.

The core problem is democracy.

It is designed to divide a people who should stand united. To divide them on as many issues as possible.

1

Zenen wrote

Okay, while I don't know if we see democracy the same way (I think that what we refer to democracy is actually oligarchy wearing a funny hat), I definitely agree that we need to do away with systems that divide populations that need to stand together and fight for common goals - the net survival & prosperity of as much life on this planet as possible is what I'm after. What banner do you want to see people unifying under?

1

smallpond OP wrote

Yes, I probably disagree with that. It's not that they're bloated, it's that they've been completely corrupted so that they no longer serve the interests of citizens. Big government is probably the only way to attempt to tackle societal problems, but unfortunately the world seems to lack benevolent dictators.

We're here on this website, that's all we need to agree on. There is no need to establish common ground.

1

Zenen wrote

I'm reading your response like you chose to interpret what I said in a controversial way so that you might have a reason to disagree with me. Regardless - I agree with you, I think that what you call 'corruption' is a consequence of what I call 'bloat'.

I also think that governance is a useful & necessary tool to getting human beings to work together... I have just never seen it scale past a city-state level without starting to collapse in on itself.

Re: establishing common ground, finding agreement is what makes the difference between this website being a platform being an excuse to get into arguments on the internet versus a place where free speech can be used as a tool to bring disparate groups into alignment so that we can talk about things like "how do we learn to self-govern and create systems that work for everyone rather than only the wealthy?"

Question: what do you think about digitalized democracy? It seems to be a way to create a "belevolent dictator" that is resistant to some of the corrupting influences that humans fall victim to.

1

smallpond OP wrote

If we're more in agreement, all good. There are many people who consider government inherently evil, and simply want as little of it as possible.

place where free speech can be used as a tool to bring disparate groups into alignment

You seem to be on some odd do-gooder crusade... I hope that feels nice. If you want to bring groups into alignment, focus on the people physically close to you who actually matter, then slowly work outwards.

This website doesn't need to come into alignment, it just needs to be a place where people can speak. It's far better that we all disagree as much as possible. Coming into alignment means becoming just another moronic circlejerk unaccepting of outsiders.

1

Zenen wrote

Yea, working on my real life communities for the most part.

I am actually trying to influence the world in what I consider to be a positive direction, maybe this isn't a great place to be spending my time and energy

1

smallpond OP wrote

Yeah, if you want all the misfits here to hold hands so you can lead us into a brighter future, I don't like your chances.

If you just want somewhere online where people can speak freely, maybe ramble is worth a little time.

0