hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 60 of 73 FirstFirst ... 10505758596061626370 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 1456

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #1181
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,491
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    I donno how its done in Cali, but here it is based upon your water usage, its assumed that all the water you use is going come back down the drain with some added mass.

  2. #1182
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    I donno how its done in Cali, but here it is based upon your water usage, its assumed that all the water you use is going come back down the drain with some added mass.
    Just a flat lot rate for sewer hookup. I pay a separate yearly bill for water treatment. One is city, the other is county.
    meh

  3. #1183
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,430
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    Do you want more people shitting on the streets? Because this is how you get more people shitting in the streets.

  4. #1184
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    30,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    Do you want more people shitting on the streets? Because this is how you get more people shitting in the streets.
    Their fault for being poor, sewerage isn't free you know.

  5. #1185
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,413
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    Do you want more people shitting on the streets? Because this is how you get more people shitting in the streets.
    Their fault for being poor, sewerage isn't free you know.
    Well, I mean, we have to pay the maintenance of those pipes, we should look at a use fee. It’s only fair those who put more load in the system pay a bit more. It also lets us track down the restaurants responsible for “fatbergs” so they can contribute to cleanup costs. We can use a blockchain to track flushes, and the amount of waste entering the system.

    It’s not like poor people would be the biggest producers of waste, anyway. Those should be shopping malls and ballparks, stuff like that, especially large corporates with all the pooing at work that goes on.
    meh

  6. #1186
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,720
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    We can use a blockchain to track flushes

  7. #1187

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    Do you want more people shitting on the streets? Because this is how you get more people shitting in the streets.
    Fine those to death: stops shitting on streezs, doubles the community's income.

  8. #1188
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,420
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post

    The alternative to higher fuel taxes is EV, and phasing out the ICE car over time for something cleaner. I'm not sure how you expect to get there without higher taxes. Like, how do you force peopel to quit smoking, becasue they are too stupid to realize they are literally paying to kill themselves? This change over time will force the change in behavior. We've decentralized our transport in the US, for better, or for worse, and there are actually efficiency arguments to be made both ways, in terms of centralized or decentralized transport assuming you have the graph processing capability, which we now do. We still have to pay for it's maintenance, so fuel tax it is. Tax should pay for infrastructure, and most of the stuff in the US moves by road network.
    The tax should be levied on the corporations that extract the fossil fuels from the earth and refine it. Give them tax credits (even more than they get now) for transitioning away from petroleum infrastructure to electric/zero emissions infrastructure. Encouraging the entities that actually control this infrastructure to change instead of raising the prices for someone who already can barely afford to pay for gas is going to do a lot more to speed the transition to a zero-emissions economy.
    Yes, we get it, poor people can't have any responsibility for anything because they have absolutely no way to adjust their behavior because their lives have absolutely no agency.

    I'm Ok with broad based taxation to change public behavior. I think our toilets should be metered and household should be taxed on the amount they poop, but that's just me. Tax both the people and the companies if you actually want change.
    Ummmmm sewage tax is definitely a thing, just saying
    I mean, we get something taken out of our property taxes, but I'm talking a full on "You have pooped 538.4 lbs this month" smartmeter with an app and per oz fees.
    Do you want more people shitting on the streets? Because this is how you get more people shitting in the streets.
    Their fault for being poor, sewerage isn't free you know.
    Well, I mean, we have to pay the maintenance of those pipes, we should look at a use fee. It’s only fair those who put more load in the system pay a bit more. It also lets us track down the restaurants responsible for “fatbergs” so they can contribute to cleanup costs. We can use a blockchain to track flushes, and the amount of waste entering the system.

    It’s not like poor people would be the biggest producers of waste, anyway. Those should be shopping malls and ballparks, stuff like that, especially large corporates with all the pooing at work that goes on.
    NEW COMPANY POLICY: DEFECATIONS MADE WHILE WORKING WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM YOUR PAYCHECK

  9. #1189
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,979
    y'all wanna know how fucked we really are ?

    have a paper from Jem Bendell discussing the need for what he calls "deep adaptation strategies" and how it's about time to stop faffing about with pretending we can save civilization as it exists, and instead start looking at how to ensure enough of it makes it trough the next 200-300 years to not be reduced to cave dwelling savages, much of the paper is devoted to a discussion about why we seem to be terminally locked into a "it's going to be allright" consensus that a overview of the data available right now, simply does not and cannot support and how especially the scientific community is having major trouble grasping this in practice.

    it's available in audio format as well, if you prefer your depressing future scenarios in that format.

    Last edited by Liare; March 6 2019 at 09:30:50 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  10. #1190
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,886
    The reason why people pay no attention to the people shouting the end is neigh is the fact that throughout history people have been shouting that and it has never happened.

    Civilisations have collapsed, people have been wiped out by disease, genocide and war, and yet here we are rapidly approaching 8 billion strong.

    In my own lifetime there have been the following predictions of doom.

    Nuclear holocaust
    Club of Rome running out of food and resources
    Influenza pandemic
    Peak oil
    Climate change

    And on a funnier note

    Y2k bug
    2012 end of the Mayan Calender

    The other reason people switch off is how quickly the latest end-of-the-world scare gets hijacked by politics or corporate carpet-bagging.

    Plus we live in an age of change as rapid as any other point in history amyway.

    That's the problem, people crying wolf, people exploiting fear for financial or political gain, the media hyping science to the point of stupidity. No one knows who to trust and who to believe so they switch off.

  11. #1191
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,979
    that's just it Maxmillian, people are paying attention to the narrative in question, quite a lot of people. what the paper spends a lot of time exploring is why the scientific community in particular has the blinders on almost completely in the public sphere at least, in private they're a heavy drinking and depressed lot of people, we share building with em at university.

    almost everything listed by you there has a significant amount to back it up,
    the list of near misses on nuclear holocaust is a mile long and even more disturbing to read.
    food shortages induced by drought lie at the heart of the arab spring and the syrian civil war.
    the spanish fluw as literately a influenza pandemic and killed between 3-5% of the world's population, it's very much a thing that could happen.
    peak oil is very much a thing in that our society runs on cheap hydrocabons and the fact it is functionally running out it shows up as secondary effects across the board, sure shale oil exist, but even a cursory examination of the extraction costs shows it's not going to be able to sustain the west at those price points.

    but then, you usually argue for just rolling over and pretending things are fine.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  12. #1192
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    that's just it Maxmillian, people are paying attention to the narrative in question, quite a lot of people. what the paper spends a lot of time exploring is why the scientific community in particular has the blinders on almost completely in the public sphere at least, in private they're a heavy drinking and depressed lot of people, we share building with em at university.

    almost everything listed by you there has a significant amount to back it up,
    the list of near misses on nuclear holocaust is a mile long and even more disturbing to read.
    food shortages induced by drought lie at the heart of the arab spring and the syrian civil war.
    the spanish fluw as literately a influenza pandemic and killed between 3-5% of the world's population, it's very much a thing that could happen.
    peak oil is very much a thing in that our society runs on cheap hydrocabons and the fact it is functionally running out it shows up as secondary effects across the board, sure shale oil exist, but even a cursory examination of the extraction costs shows it's not going to be able to sustain the west at those price points.

    but then, you usually argue for just rolling over and pretending things are fine.
    The thing is that there is a difference between a world ending event, a species ending event, a civilization ending event, a culture ending event, an event that kills a lot of people, and a event that discomforts people.

    Often things that are a culture ending event - that would be peak oil for example - or a civilization ending event - nuclear holocaust - gets spun as a species or world ending event.

    As a former scientist myself I know how hard it is to get science into the mainstream past the politicians and the media who'll spin it to support whatever agenda they have. Climate change is a classic example where what is possibly a culture ending event that gets treated as species ending event.

    So Joe public gets constantly bombarded with hyperbole, and that hyperbole has never come true. Some, like nuclear holocaust, as you pointed out almost became a reality on several occasions, yet it didn't. Asteroids large enough to cause a mass-extinction level event fly past Earth every few years. Diseases still kill millions yet not enough to stop population growth.

    That's the problem with crying wolf all the time.
    Last edited by Maximillian; March 7 2019 at 06:16:18 AM.

  13. #1193
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,285
    Okay let's file this one under 'the situationists were right again'
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  14. #1194
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,886
    The poor Mutualists never get any love....

  15. #1195
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,285
    They didn't have a groovy deconstruction of how the media intersects with society and economic alienation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  16. #1196

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    The reason why people pay no attention to the people shouting the end is neigh is the fact that throughout history people have been shouting that and it has never happened.

    Civilisations have collapsed, people have been wiped out by disease, genocide and war, and yet here we are rapidly approaching 8 billion strong.

    In my own lifetime there have been the following predictions of doom.

    Nuclear holocaust
    Club of Rome running out of food and resources
    Influenza pandemic
    Peak oil
    Climate change

    And on a funnier note

    Y2k bug
    2012 end of the Mayan Calender

    The other reason people switch off is how quickly the latest end-of-the-world scare gets hijacked by politics or corporate carpet-bagging.

    Plus we live in an age of change as rapid as any other point in history amyway.

    That's the problem, people crying wolf, people exploiting fear for financial or political gain, the media hyping science to the point of stupidity. No one knows who to trust and who to believe so they switch off.
    Interesting that you forgot to mention the one threat on which mankind swiftly responded upon and remedied the situation thereby: the ozone hole.

  17. #1197
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    The reason why people pay no attention to the people shouting the end is neigh is the fact that throughout history people have been shouting that and it has never happened.

    Civilisations have collapsed, people have been wiped out by disease, genocide and war, and yet here we are rapidly approaching 8 billion strong.

    In my own lifetime there have been the following predictions of doom.

    Nuclear holocaust
    Club of Rome running out of food and resources
    Influenza pandemic
    Peak oil
    Climate change

    And on a funnier note

    Y2k bug
    2012 end of the Mayan Calender

    The other reason people switch off is how quickly the latest end-of-the-world scare gets hijacked by politics or corporate carpet-bagging.

    Plus we live in an age of change as rapid as any other point in history amyway.

    That's the problem, people crying wolf, people exploiting fear for financial or political gain, the media hyping science to the point of stupidity. No one knows who to trust and who to believe so they switch off.
    Interesting that you forgot to mention the one threat on which mankind swiftly responded upon and remedied the situation thereby: the ozone hole.
    Living in Australia I am well aware of the Ozone hole, but I could have added DDT and a whole bunch of things that were likely to kill a lot of people but were not civilization or world ending.

    And replacing group single chemical like CFCs is nothing compared to the scope and cost of de-carbonizing the world economy.

    I have a simple rule when it comes to doomsayers - if they rule out certain solutions then they aren't serious. Climate change here in Oz exposes this where we are told that if we don't take drastic action then we'll all be reduced to Mad Max levels of survival, and then the same people shouting doom immediately rule out nuclear power or limiting population growth by cutting immigration levels as acceptable solutions.

  18. #1198

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    The reason why people pay no attention to the people shouting the end is neigh is the fact that throughout history people have been shouting that and it has never happened.

    Civilisations have collapsed, people have been wiped out by disease, genocide and war, and yet here we are rapidly approaching 8 billion strong.

    In my own lifetime there have been the following predictions of doom.

    Nuclear holocaust
    Club of Rome running out of food and resources
    Influenza pandemic
    Peak oil
    Climate change

    And on a funnier note

    Y2k bug
    2012 end of the Mayan Calender

    The other reason people switch off is how quickly the latest end-of-the-world scare gets hijacked by politics or corporate carpet-bagging.

    Plus we live in an age of change as rapid as any other point in history amyway.

    That's the problem, people crying wolf, people exploiting fear for financial or political gain, the media hyping science to the point of stupidity. No one knows who to trust and who to believe so they switch off.
    Interesting that you forgot to mention the one threat on which mankind swiftly responded upon and remedied the situation thereby: the ozone hole.
    I have a simple rule when it comes to doomsayers - if they rule out certain solutions then they aren't serious. Climate change here in Oz exposes this where we are told that if we don't take drastic action then we'll all be reduced to Mad Max levels of survival, and then the same people shouting doom immediately rule out nuclear power or limiting population growth by cutting immigration levels as acceptable solutions.
    I can get your general take, but I'd agree with them that the two examples you state, wouldn't help in combating climate change.

    Nuclear power is replacing one problem with another, as its a finite resource. Research on more effective usage of/extraction from renewable energy would come to a halt. And that's letting aside any other issues with nuclear power.

    And cutting immigration levels might help AU a bit perhaps, but overall wouldn't change a single bit. The "proper" solution for that would be global population control, i.e. China's One Child policy.

    That's my admittedly uneducated personal opinion on those two topics.

    The issue with climate change and mankind's dismissive approach to it is that it requires drastic actions on a global scale. Now! And that doesn't happen. And it won't happen within my lifetime, I'm afraid.

  19. #1199

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    admittedly uneducated
    That much is evident.

  20. #1200
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,330
    TIL scientists are all a bunch of drunks, because someone used to share a building with them at uni. Also we need to put in perspective that climate change threatens to destroy our civilization, not our entire species. Gotcha. Funny thing is these points came from opposite sides in the same debate.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •