Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

At this rate the human race may die of boredom.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

And if the courts would allow people to sue the US or China for policy change, the two biggest sources of CO2 emissions worldwide could be brought under control. But it's never going to happen. Your words are empty.

Nations are umbrella entities. They are not the actual entities doing things that can be addressed directly. National governments create regulations and institutions for regulation individuals and (corporate) businesses. They are not themselves individuals or corporations.

Quote:

The Paris accord is weak but it's better than nothing.

Idk, I think the Paris accord creates a false sense of hope and blame. Countries that sign are able to blame countries that don't sign instead of focusing on the realities of what's causing climate change and how to solve it by changing individual and corporate behavior at their source.

Quote:

With any luck, the consequences of climate change, e.g. hurricanes, will be more intense for the US than for Europe, providing a sort of natural justice...

Europe invests and trades globally. They develop production technology that is shipped to China to produce goods that are shipped and sold to the US by corporations whose stock pays dividends to EU investors, who are under pressure to pay taxes into EU welfare states to fund pensions there.

When a French citizen complains about their pension, they are complaining about not getting enough money from the global economy, which requires growth in US and Asian markets. So European consumers and businesses are just as responsible for emissions in China and the US as US and Chinese citizens are.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

The average French citizen emits some 4 times less CO2 than the average American. That's in part because we did not invest billions into denying climate change and instead, we invested into mitigating the problem via promoting good house insulation, producing nuclear energy, developing the train infrastructure, raising the price of fossil fuels through taxation, etc. If you guys had done the same, the world would have a pretty good chance at keeping the problem under control. Instead you decided to bury your head in the sand. Your posts here are another example of that behavior. It's another form of denial: denying the capacity of nations to reform their economy so as to reduce their carbon footprint.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The average French citizen emits some 4 times less CO2 than the average American.

How much money is made and paid in taxes by investments in foreign stock markets and other foreign investments that fund and promote energy use in the US and China? Europe is upset about tariffs on selling cars and car parts to US markets because they make a lot of money on US drivers. In short, Europe has a large stake in US and Chinese business and thus energy waste.

Quote:

That's in part because we did not invest billions into denying climate change and instead, we invested into mitigating the problem via promoting good house insulation, producing nuclear energy, developing the train infrastructure, raising the price of fossil fuels through taxation, etc.

You make it sound like France is entirely self-sufficient. When you trade and invest, the businesses you trade with and invest in are part of your economy, whether they are operating within the borders you acknowledge as your 'own' country or outside of them.

Nuclear power is not sustainable, btw.

Quote:

If you guys had done the same, the world would have a pretty good chance at keeping the problem under control. Instead you decided to bury your head in the sand.

First of all, don't lump everyone together. Each individual makes his or her own choices and does what he or she does. I know US citizens who ride a bike over 10 miles to work and EU citizens who drive a car in the US to be normal even though they rode a bike in Europe.

Quote:

Your posts here are another example of that behavior. It's another form of denial: denying the capacity of nations to reform their economy so as to reduce their carbon footprint.

I deny that nations are entities with agency, yes. And it's irritating when nationalists push their national-unity POV as part of other discussions, as you are doing here.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

How is nuclueur power not sustainable?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Europe is not responsible for the carbon footprint of Americans and Chinese. We're not your masters anymore. Freedom implies responsibility.

Who said nuclear power was sustainable? But it's the only source of power outside of fossil fuels, that's big enough to sustain a modern economy. It'll help while we develop the first generation of fusion reactors. Those will hopefuly work, and be sustainable.

Quote:

I deny that nations are entities with agency, yes.

Indeed American politics are disfunctional and paid for by big oil and scores of other lobbies. So your nation lacks agency alright, but it's not the general rule.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

How is nuclueur power not sustainable?

1) It creates dependency on power that produces radioactive waste, which doesn't decay for 1000s of millennia. That builds up over time.
2) Nuclear fuel is a non-renewable fuel, and although it may last a lot longer than fossil fuels, it will still deplete over time causing problems for future generations.
3) It's just not ultimately necessary to consume so much energy. We need to build smaller, better-insulated heated zones within buildings and wear warmer clothing indoors.

Air-conditioning is almost completely unnecessary, except for people whose health prevents them from adapting to hotter temperatures. Mainly people use a/c for comfort and because they don't want to wear season-appropriate clothing due to their dress-code traditions.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Europe is not responsible for the carbon footprint of Americans and Chinese. We're not your masters anymore. Freedom implies responsibility.

Business implies responsibility. If you are selling cars and car parts in the US, or making money by investing in companies that do, you are no less responsible for the harm they do than any US investor who invests in those same business activities.

Quote:

Who said nuclear power was sustainable? But it's the only source of power outside of fossil fuels, that's big enough to sustain a modern economy. It'll help while we develop the first generation of fusion reactors. Those will hopefuly work, and be sustainable.

Fusion is also not a a good idea. We have simply become too dependent on industrial power. We need to re-tune our industrial economies to levels of power usage that are harmonious with the living biosphere that absorbs CO2 and circulates it naturally.

Quote:

Quote:
I deny that nations are entities with agency, yes.

Indeed American politics are disfunctional and paid for by big oil and scores of other lobbies. So your nation lacks agency alright, but it's not the general rule.

You are ignoring what I said. American politics are not separate from global politics any more than any other national government. Nations are just jurisdictions that were created to give people the idea that they are being ruled by their own 'kind' in hopes that they would submit to authority more readily.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Business implies responsibility.

I'm French. We sell zero cars on the US market.

Fusion is a very good idea if we can pull it off.

Quote:

Nations are just jurisdictions that were created to give people the idea that they are being ruled by their own 'kind' in hopes that they would submit to authority more readily.

I disagree. Nations can do a lot. China is a clear example of that. The Chinese government is behind all their recent progress.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Fusion is a very good idea if we can pull it off.

Abundant power encourages shirking of innovation and conservation. The reality is that we already have a fusion reactor for our planet called the sun. We have the ability to use solar power more effectively and efficiently, but we don't because the concentrated version of it provides a bigger kick. It's like people who don't like fruit because it's not as sweet as candy. We get spoiled economically, meaning as long as we have money and power to buy with the money, we don't work to curtail waste. Waste, including energy waste, causes harm. You can't think it is possible to just dump tons of energy into the biosphere and not have it cause problems, even if CO2 isn't being released. H2O is also a greenhouse gas, for example, but generally the planet evolved to receive a certain amount of heat via sunlight and then cool in winter. We are disrupting all sorts of natural energy processes, including ecosystems, by introducing artificial (waste) heat, light, noise, etc. We should be working to minimize all that invasive energy and industry to allow nature do what it has evolved to do sustainably over extremely long periods of geological time.

Quote:

Quote:
Nations are just jurisdictions that were created to give people the idea that they are being ruled by their own 'kind' in hopes that they would submit to authority more readily.

I disagree. Nations can do a lot. China is a clear example of that. The Chinese government is behind all their recent progress.

Ok, so the centralized power that has operated in the name of China as a nation has done some positive things, but we will probably also figure out through time that they've made mistakes and exacerbated long-term problems. No human regime/authority is perfect. We are always learning from our mistakes and improving, that is if we are humble enough to do so.

Nations don't ultimately matter in a good global society. They are only a pragmatic means of controlling people who rebel against government when the government isn't identified with their own 'national identity.' If people were all good, they would do the right thing and obey anyone who told them to do something that was right and good, regardless of nationality/ethnicity. The principle of self-governance by individual liberty would render national jurisdictions moot if it was fully functional. Only because people fail at liberty do they require governance, and only because they resist governance do they require national identification with their government.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Nations don't ultimately matter in a good global society. They are only a pragmatic means of controlling people who rebel against government when the government isn't identified with their own 'national identity.'

The what now? So tell me something, before the arrival of the nation states, did the world exist in complete anarchy and mayhem? And what you are basically saying here, or at least that's how I read it, is that the governments of nations only exist as a pragmatic means of suppressing minorities...

livinglava wrote:

If people were all good, they would do the right thing and obey anyone who told them to do something that was right and good, regardless of nationality/ethnicity.

And the one at the top of that hypothetical hierarchy of yours... who is telling him what is right and good? Also, what do you define as being 'right and good'? Following the law? Laws can be pretty bad...

1 Reply

@najmelliw,

najmelliw wrote:

The what now? So tell me something, before the arrival of the nation states, did the world exist in complete anarchy and mayhem? And what you are basically saying here, or at least that's how I read it, is that the governments of nations only exist as a pragmatic means of suppressing minorities...

I explained it. If people could govern themselves responsibly, they wouldn't need to be governed. When and where they can't/don't, they need to be governed and it is difficult to govern them because they are resistant to authority, even when it is reasonable authority. So in order to trick people into submitting to authority, nationalism and even democracy are (ab)used as a way of making people submit to governing authority more readily, i.e. because they feel that they are being governed by a government of their (ethnic/national) peers, and/or because they feel they are being governed by people who were elected in a fair election.

Quote:

And the one at the top of that hypothetical hierarchy of yours... who is telling him what is right and good? Also, what do you define as being 'right and good'? Following the law? Laws can be pretty bad...

Yes, laws and ruling authorities can be bad. Governing power can be abused, as can any and every other form of power/authority as well. Still, you should ultimately have enough sense to realize that it would be possible for people to live together in peace and not harm each other or the environment if they were all sane, and wise, and fully willing to live responsibly.

0 Replies

Those who seek authority, and power over others are usually assertive to a fault, often not at all wise, and often far from sane. Both feudalism and capitalism--the bastard child of feudalism--provide abundant examples of this.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

We have the ability to use solar power more effectively and efficiently, but we don't because the concentrated version of it provides a bigger kick.

That's not true. Plenty of people use solar power... The two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

the centralized power that has operated in the name of China as a nation has done some positive things

Yes, China has a functional government, a very useful thing to have. It helps them move by leaps and bounds...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
We have the ability to use solar power more effectively and efficiently, but we don't because the concentrated version of it provides a bigger kick.

That's not true. Plenty of people use solar power... The two are not mutually exclusive.

Some examples:
1) people use electric dryers instead of hanging their laundry in the sun because it takes less space, effort, and dries quicker. If they use solar power to dry their clothes, they would prefer to store it in a battery and deploy the energy faster by powering a dryer.
2) The sun heats the land and the tilt of the planet causes winter, which produces cold/cool air. Forest also produce cool breezes. Nevertheless, people like combustion-temperatures as a heat source because it represents a faster release of stored up solar power. Also, they like cold refrigerated air more than cool natural breezes for the same reason. This is the same reason they like concentrated sugar/candy more than naturally-sweet fruits.

Concentration of extensive energy into intensive forms impresses people as a form of power. Industrialism reinforced the human lust/greed/worship of power and that's why we are addicted to it now and that is why we find it difficult to be satisfied with technologies that go at the speed of nature, such as hanging up laundry to dry and allowing a cool breeze to gently wisp out of a forest and through the open windows of a building or breezeway.

Quote:

Quote:
the centralized power that has operated in the name of China as a nation has done some positive things

Yes, China has a functional government, a very useful thing to have. It helps them move by leaps and bounds...

[/quote]
But centralism requires oppressive levels of repressive power to stifle dissent. This creates cultures of underground resistance that grow through time and people become stressed and aggressive due to the repressed dissent.

What's more, when a centrally empowered regime forces major projects through, they may find at a future point that they made mistakes that they could have recognized earlier if dissent hadn't been repressed.

Generally I think the Chinese policy is beneficial of requiring dissent to be constructive instead of a lot of negative ridicule of government, which toxicifies US public discourse, for example. But I'm afraid that the culture of fear the repression creates may stifle the ability to think critically and thus come up with constructive suggestions about how to make things better in the long run.

If you look at the drive for stronger central government in the US, the very mechanism for increasing centralized power, i.e. tax-spend socialism itself generates loads of wasteful economics and resistance to positive change. E.g. people are always scheming and coming up with short-sighted ways to trigger government funding, which actually deters people from looking at the big picture and broader ramification and consequences.

When the power of social spending is allowed to recede, it triggers a broader trend of cutting back expenditures which stimulates efficiency at the individual level and other local levels. These cutbacks cause individuals and localities to become more self-sufficient, which makes them less responsive to centralized control, but it also gives them the power to accomplish life with less resources, which is ultimately better for the economy and sustainability.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Nevertheless, fusion power and solar power are not mutually exclusive, and it's a good idea to pursue both.

Quote:

But centralism requires oppressive levels of repressive power to stifle dissent.

Which is one of the reasons why democracy is generally thought of as a more sustainable system.

Quote:

a lot of negative ridicule of government, which toxicifies US public discourse,

You're guilty of that yourself, when you say that "Nations are just jurisdictions that were created to give people the idea that they are being ruled by their own 'kind' in hopes that they would submit to authority more readily."

1 Reply

‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters
By John Schwartz, NYT, Nov. 19, 2018

Global warming is posing such wide-ranging risks to humanity, involving so many types of phenomena, that by the end of this century some parts of the world could face as many as six climate-related crises at the same time, researchers say.

This chilling prospect is described in a paper published Monday in Nature Climate Change, a respected academic journal, that shows the effects of climate change across a broad spectrum of problems, including heat waves, wildfires, sea level rise, hurricanes, flooding, drought and shortages of clean water.

Such problems are already coming in combination, said the lead author, Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He noted that Florida had recently experienced extreme drought, record high temperatures and wildfires — and also Hurricane Michael, the powerful Category 4 storm that slammed into the Panhandle last month. Similarly, California is suffering through the worst wildfires the state has ever seen, as well as drought, extreme heat waves and degraded air quality that threatens the health of residents.

Things will get worse, the authors wrote. The paper projects future trends and suggests that, by 2100, unless humanity takes forceful action to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, some tropical coastal areas of the planet, like the Atlantic coast of South and Central America, could be hit by as many as six crises at a time.

That prospect is “like a terror movie that is real,” Dr. Mora said.

The authors include a list of caveats about the research: Since it is a review of papers, it will reflect some of the potential biases of science in this area, which include the possibility that scientists might focus on negative effects more than positive ones; there is also a margin of uncertainty involved in discerning the imprint of climate change from natural variability.

New York can expect to be hit by four climate crises at a time by 2100 if carbon emissions continue at their current pace, the study says, but if emissions are cut significantly that number could be reduced to one. The troubled regions of the coastal tropics could see their number of concurrent hazards reduced from six to three.

The paper explores the ways that climate change intensifies hazards and describes the interconnected nature of such crises. Greenhouse gas emissions, by warming the atmosphere, can enhance drought in places that are normally dry, “ripening conditions for wildfires and heat waves,” the researchers say. In wetter areas, a warmer atmosphere retains more moisture and strengthens downpours, while higher sea levels increase storm surge and warmer ocean waters can contribute to the overall destructiveness of storms. [...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/climate/climate-disasters.html

0 Replies

Well, that was very cheerful. The process is obviously accelerating. Just a few years ago, I posted a report about the potential break-up of the Antarctic ice shelfs. This was no more than six or seven years ago. At that time, they said the process would begin in a period of between fifty and one hundred years down the road. From July of last year: An Antarctic iceberg nearly the size of Delaware — one of the largest on record — has broken off. Hurry up folks, don't miss the party!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Like wather forecasts, I dont think any prediction out beyond one week will have any verity upholding it. Nature will always **** with your math.
Thats why I get a kick out of these clowns who deny science yet hang profound concluions on Bayesian Statistics.

0 Replies

"This is a faster increase [in megafire frequency] than even the most pessimistic researcher had a decade ago. It's even shocking to most grizzled observers. There are things to do, but even if we did those we might only have four megafires a year instead of eight."
-- Bill Stewart, co-director of the Center for Forestry at the University of California, Berkeley

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-paradise-regained-experts-european-approach.amp

0 Replies

Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know