Jump to content
Kalbear

What shouldn't be done...about climate change

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Everything you’ve just said is wrong. And rather than dispute the idea of you suffering a lack of sympathy, and empathy for your fellow man it simply gives credence to the idea. Population by itself is not the main driving force for climate-change. Africa’s entire populations alone trump the US and Europe’s. It’s the latter two who plays a much bigger role in terms of climate change. 

Literally everyone in Africa could drop dead right now and it’d not make significant dent to in addressing the problem at all. 

The solution is for the biggest contributors to climate needing to significant changes to be done to the systems that govern their people’s everyday lives.

And, please, don’t try to sanitize the potential deaths and suffering of of tens of millions, Hell perhaps billions with the quaint term of it being depopulation. 

I’m sure the masses of people who flee from their homes because of climate-change would dread the type of “sympathy” or empathy you’re displaying being the attitude adopted by the people they’d be begging sanctuary from. Telling them that their deaths are good for the world won’t be seen as sympathetic.

And, the earth will be here regardless of if the human species lives or not. It has been here billions of years before us likely it’ll be here long after we’re dead. Hell life would likely still be here. Hell perhaps even intelligence may rise and that species would not see the end of humanity as ruining the earth. Humanity is not ruining the earth with climate-change. It’s merely fucking over its’ own prospects. 

It really isn’t. But human beings must themselves as totally unique in all aspects. Only we could effect the environment-ignoring all the species that actively try to make the area they find themselves in suitable to their needs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

Beavers chop down trees to make dams to use as shelter.

Animals besides humans effect effect their natural environment. Saying otherwise simply displays, ignorance, hubris, or most likely both.

No, I’m sure he’s totally genuine in his views.

That we should do nothing or simply not worry about the effects of man-made climate change because other problems exist in the world, and too big a problem for us to grapple with.

It’s a fairly apathetic approach to the problem that imo is worse than full blown denial of it. 

And I’m assuming he’s talking about this: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/

So being Violent, disruptive, loud, civil, or polite, doesn’t seem ever acceptable when trying to bring awareness or actions regarding climate-change. Like the things you’ve mentioned are literally the most inoffensive, least disruptive things, one could do in relation to this problem and it is still derives mockery and disdain from you.

Exactly, almost seems like he is arguing in bad faith... Hmm, nah, HoI wouldnt do that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So being Violent, disruptive, loud, civil, or polite, doesn’t seem ever acceptable when trying to bring awareness or actions regarding climate-change. Like the things you’ve mentioned are literally the most inoffensive, least disruptive things, one could do in relation to this problem and it is still derives mockery and disdain from you.

If XR’s goal has been to win public support  to their cause, then they’ve had some pretty mixed results and many of their tactics and methods seem poorly thought out. Unsurprisingly.

Disrupting public transport is a sure fire way of annoying people and turning them against you. Stopping cancer patients getting into hospitals and and making sick people walk to get treatment doesn’t win people over.

The Yoga stuff was an amusing example of the sort of person who would be pretty representative of an XR member and it certainly doesn’t represent your working class Londoner. The more the movement appears to be just a lot of over reacting hippies, middle class white people who don’t need to work for a living, the less likely your average person is going to side with them. 
 

( and having had to work next to many an XR protest I can tell you I was surprised at just how little support they get from anyone I know. Even my most left leaning progressive colleagues talk about the annoying hippies outside.

Im pretty supportive of their movement to be honest, something has to be done. But the more the movement comes across as a bunch of crusty, reactionary art students who don’t have anything better to do, then the more poorly they will be received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If XR’s goal has been to win public support  to their cause, then they’ve had some pretty mixed results and many of their tactics and methods seem poorly thought out. Unsurprisingly.

It isn’t and never was. It is to disrupt the economy to get government to act. 

Honestly, not entirely unreasonable given the majority of populace’s opinion often is less likely to get government to take the necessary steps to do something than the economy being disrupted.

As much as people look back at the achievements made during the American Civil rights movements being the total result of peaceful protest, there was also a lot of riots, boycotts, and ways to force government action that did not rely on the majority of the populace’s approval to the movement.

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Disrupting public transport is a sure fire way of annoying people and turning them against you. Stopping cancer patients getting into hospitals and and making sick people walk to get treatment doesn’t win people over.

But again they’re not trying to win people over.

They’re trying to inconvenience the people who have power to the point where they have to take more adequate steps in addressing the problem.

The majority of Britains recognize Climate-change to be happening. That still hasn’t translated into society taking much of the radical steps needed to address it, especially the steps the XRs recognize to be necessary. 

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The Yoga stuff was an amusing example of the sort of person who would be pretty representative of an XR member and it certainly doesn’t represent your working class Londoner. The more the movement appears to be just a lot of over reacting hippies, middle class white people who don’t need to work for a living, the less likely your average person is going to side with them. 
 

Lol, honestly, I find the insinuation of preaching while doing Yoga overreacting to be pretty laughable given again given the severity of the problem it quite frankly is under-reacting to the problem. 

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Im pretty supportive of their movement to be honest, something has to be done. But the more the movement comes across as a bunch of crusty, reactionary art students who don’t have anything better to do, then the more poorly they will be received.

And there were those who were supportive of the movements of the Suffagergetes, American civil-rights activists in the 60s,who agreed something should be done, but continuously wagged their tongue at the groups being hurt for well not being more civil in their protests. And then proceeding to mock those who did conduct themselves civilly anyway as being out of touch, snobs. For example, those rich-northern white boys don’t truly know southern blacks the way southern whites do would often be the cry of segregationists. The suffergetes are just out of touch rich white women. Wanting to be able to vote? Poor women have to worry about raising their kids. 

Also, climate-scientists, have been ringing the bells for what needs to be done for decades now. Respectable, clean-cut, non-hippieish, people, who speak calmly have been mostly saying what radical steps need to happen in order to avoid massive loss of life, and most of their recommendations have been ignored. The most non-disruptive, least intrusive steps, taken because the truly effective approach would be far more costly. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It isn’t and never was. It is to disrupt the economy to get government to act. 

Then what they're doing is even more futile than I thought. In New York, this group disrupted traffic on Broadway near the Charging Bull. It makes sense as a means of bringing attention to something, but in terms of disrupting the economy, both this and the incident with public transport is like a mosquito on the body of an elephant except several orders of magnitude smaller.

21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They’re trying to inconvenience the people who have power to the point where they have to take more adequate steps in addressing the problem.

Do people who have power in the UK use public transport? Around here, even mayors get motorcades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Then what they're doing is even more futile than I thought. In New York, this group disrupted traffic on Broadway near the Charging Bull. It makes sense as a means of bringing attention to something, but in terms of disrupting the economy, both this and the incident with public transport is like a mosquito on the body of an elephant except several orders of magnitude smaller.

Do people who have power in the UK use public transport? Around here, even mayors get motorcades.

Do you understan how protesting works?. If you disrupt  public transport, you generate a lot of pressure. Its by no means insignificant and it can cause some serious problems to the goverment. 

You second "point", makes no fucking sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Do you understan how protesting works?. If you disrupt  public transport, you generate a lot of pressure. Its by no means insignificant and it can cause some serious problems to the goverment.  

Disrupting public transport on a citywide scale where the city is sufficiently large would generate some pressure, yes. Messing with a single train in a city with more than 10 lines plus commuter rail and buses... not so much.

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

You second "point", makes no fucking sense. 

If you want it rephrased, these people are not doing anything that has any impact on the people in power. At best (like in New York), they're entertaining and at worst (like in London), they make the day of some random set of people who have no power to change anything somewhat worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Disrupting public transport on a citywide scale where the city is sufficiently large would generate some pressure, yes.

Hmm, @Rippounet I’m pretty that would be quickly called terrorism yes?

Actually, you’re complaint here seems to be a step away from your initial complaint. It seems more an issue with tactics than overarching strategy of EXs.  That they’re not sever enough in pursuing their strategy. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm, @Rippounet I’m pretty that would be quickly called terrorism yes?

Yes.

And it's even possible to wonder whether some measures taken officially against "terrorism" (with very broad definitions in the texts) could not easily be applied to pretty much any form of radical environmentalism.

Which is why a group like XR that emphatically wants to be non-violent and law-abiding will find its actions severely limited - to the point where it will sometimes resort to stupid forms of action.

Of course at this point, any violent or illegal action could be unproductive since it could turn public opinion against it, not to mention the fact that it could give law enforcement a solid reason to crack down on the organization itself.

But in the face of global inaction, how long will that be the case? I cannot bring myself to condone violence, but the threat of violence against certain corporate interests could go a long way toward corporations actually changing some of their worst practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the fucking German Agriculture lobby DBV asked thousands of farmers to block numerous roads today in protest of a half-assed law suggesting that they might consider obeying European standards in regards to liquid manure and use of pesticides and herbicides... sometimes in the future. Fuck this world and the power of big companies over the fears of small farmers...

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading about the latest IPCC report...

It's bad... It seems we're now heading for +7°C by 2100.

And historically speaking the IPCC reports have been rather prudent, and more often than not the worst-case scenarios are the ones coming true, with even a few (melting of the ice poles, rising sea levels) being worse than all the predictions.

For instance, some cautious predictions originally talked of +2,5m... We're now considering scenarios of +60m to +70m!

And I keep wondering... When does "terrorism" against the corporate interests responsible for this become the sensible course of action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I started reading about the latest IPCC report...

It's bad... It seems we're now heading for +7°C by 2100.

And historically speaking the IPCC reports have been rather prudent, and more often than not the worst-case scenarios are the ones coming true, with even a few (melting of the ice poles, rising sea levels) being worse than all the predictions.

For instance, some cautious predictions originally talked of +2,5m... We're now considering scenarios of +60m to +70m!

And I keep wondering... When does "terrorism" against the corporate interests responsible for this become the sensible course of action?

If I may..

Which report are you referring to? The AR5 or similar do not hold 7 degrees as a realistic endpoint in a 100 years. I don't even think it's within the error bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

Which report are you referring to? The AR5 or similar do not hold 7 degrees as a realistic endpoint in a 100 years.

They do now.

These are major headlines on Le Monde's website today. Le Monde is France's major newspaper, comparable to Britain's Guardian or Germany's Spiegel.

You have two articles. And holy cow but they were not behind a paywall a couple of hours ago...

The first one explains that the most pessimistic predictions have come true because scientists have -all in all- underestimated how much CO2 is produced anually (the article mostly blames China for that underestimation).
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/10/23/rechauffement-climatique-comment-la-realite-a-pris-la-science-de-vitesse_6016624_4355770.html
It's a pity there's a paywall now because there were graphs that everyone could easily read...

The second one explains that +7°C is the new worst-case scenario according to French climatologists (about a hundred researchers), and whose new model will be the basis of the next IPCC report (apologies for my mistake here).

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/09/17/jusqu-a-7-c-en-2100-les-experts-francais-du-climat-aggravent-leurs-projections-sur-le-rechauffement_5511336_3244.html

Edit: though as I reread the beginning of the article... +6,5°C to 7°C by 2100 is the prediction according to their new model, but it's only +1°C above the previous predictions so...

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds more in line with what I know, thanks!

..not that it isn't bad news, or that the news on climate in general aren't bad, just that they haven't worsened that much in the last few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2019 at 8:24 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Everything you’ve just said is wrong.

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 7:05 PM, polishgenius said:

Are you doing a bit? Most of those things you listed are either not as dangerous as climate change, or just complete bullshit (there's a long way to go before war between the US and China is inevitable. And what the fuck is dangerous axial tilt?). But even if every single one of them was a clear and present danger that still wouldn't mean we should be blase about billions of people dying. 

The collapse of the global economy will likely occur within 2 years.

Axial tilt is the wobble from the Earth's normal rotation about it's axis, it changes, due to gravitational and solar pressure - look it up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php it likely has more effect on climate than anything Western humans currently do.

Billions of people dying is now inevitable, get used to it and organise your own way forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 5:56 PM, Liffguard said:

This is not even remotely true.

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 11:12 AM, Pecan said:

I do agree that human population levels are sort of the elephant in the room. You can't expect to have a population of 10+ billion that consume at the level of Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, etc., and also expect to have a livable planet. We can talk about clean energy and sustainability all we want, but I'm skeptical that anything we can do (green new deal or whatever) will make any real difference in what will happen in the next 50-100 years. If humans do somehow muddle through the next few centuries, I suspect we'll come out the other end with a much smaller population.

It's not only population but ageing demographics - we are heading fir a once in a 1000 year conundrum. Economic and civilization collapse.

Look, I don't mind the climate fundamentalists - their hearts are basically in the right place - but they don't seem to recognize the relationship between our species population levels and the environment. They want to cry about saving the future with ridiculous dreams that do not take reality into account. I see little difference between them now and the apocalyptic fundamentalists at the time Christianity was rising in Rome.

Here is the reality - Western nationalism is gathering to oppose corporate globalism at a time both the economy and planet is fucked. There is no easy way out. Communist classism (identity politics) will lead to most of us being sacrificed for the elites to survive.  Nationalism will lead to global war. Pick your poison. The future is about to get messy and those running around promoting the Paris Accord have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ummester said:

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

"Nature" isn't a thing in and of itself. It's a word we use to describe a lot of different phenomenon. What does it mean to say a human "takes" from nature? Is this taking different from when a leaf extracts energy from sunlight, or when a sloth eats a leaf?

I fully concede that many aspects of human behaviour, both present and past, are harmful to other organisms, often on a very large scale. But organisms causing harm to other organisms is itself natural. Organisms have caused harm to other organisms in the past on a scale that dwarfs what humans are currently doing. Organisms alter the environement in which they and others live all the time.

My point is not to defend human activity that causes harm by leading to climate change (among other things). I'm just pointing out we're a part of nature, not above it, not separate from it, not an aberration. Our existene does not "oppose the natural environment" by its fundamental nature. Actions cause harm, not the mere fact of existence. And if our actions cause harm, we can choose different actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×