International Events VII- Afghan Catastrophe

[Ran]

I found this report from The Atlantic, quoting one of the architects of the IPCC's latest report, rather interesting as it puts some of things in perspective.  Combined with a recent re-examination of the SSP's that finds that the worst case scenarios have become increasingly remote as renewable energy has greatly outpaced the IPCC's estimates in regards to its cost, I think folks should probably start pivoting to pushing for more efforts to develop carbon capture and other renewable and green energy sources, rather than the impossible fight of asking nations (especially developing ones) to impoverish themselves through austerity.

 

[Tywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

We'd all want for our world leaders to be serious about this, but they're really not. What they're doing is picking the low-hanging fruits and then presenting such meagre agreements as significant victories. Or perhaps it's the media not doing their job properly (?). At any rate, Greta's right to present it as a disaster. That it is.

The sad truth is that if elected leaders did what was necessary they'd probably lose their next election. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Combined with a recent re-examination of the SSP's that finds that the worst case scenarios have become increasingly remote as renewable energy has greatly outpaced the IPCC's estimates in regards to its cost,

This is nonsensical. The issue with renewables isn't cost, it's the fact that the planet doesn't have enough raw materials for us to produce enough solar panels and wind turbines. And even if you think the planet does have the raw materials (there are different ways to calculate after all), the extraction and transformation of the raw materials produce CO2 and will make things significantly worse in the short run.
Oh, and also, solar panels are rather short-lived. So even if you're an optimist and you think we can cover the Sahara with solar panels, it'd still end up disastrously.

The more I read the more it seems to me that everything about renewables is actually greenwashing. Renewables remain a few percentages of the global production of energy. With lots of efforts we could possibly get into double digits.
It's unlikely we'll ever come close to 50%. And if we did, it wouldn't necessarily be good, because of what I wrote above.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I think folks should probably start pivoting to pushing for more efforts to develop carbon capture and other renewable and green energy sources, rather than the impossible fight of asking nations (especially developing ones) to impoverish themselves through austerity.

Not to attack you Ran, specifically, but the problem is that this can still pass for a rational, down-to-earth proposition.

It's the other way around: what you call "austerity" is the only way. There is no miracle solution, no technological breakthrough, nothing. Yes, there are some solutions to improve things, but since human activity itself is the source of the problem, then we have to bring that down.
The source of the problem is our monkey brains that love stuff. And I'm a monkey too, and I have lots of stuff too, but that's what needs to be changed if we want to be serious about transitioning.
As long as people will deny this, our species will be choosing collective suicide. As long as we're saying that we can't ask people to consume less, our future will remain bleak.

Edit: I have a bit of time to elaborate, so I'd like to add a few things.
"Austerity" is misleading. "Sobriety" is more accurate. Our standard of level wouldn't be downgraded exactly but "sidegraded": we would (well, could) have an abundance of different things.
For instance, with the end of planned obsolescence and the -considerable- rise in cost of devices, we'd probably have a single long-lasting easily-repairable device (PC, laptop, smartphone) per person at most, and possibly one big one per household in many cases. OTOH, healthcare produces little CO2 and still mainly relies on human work, so global universal healthcare is imaginable.
So... not "impoverishment" in my book. Though some energy-consuming luxuries will be reduced (like individual transportation).

 

[horangi]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

It's the other way around: what you call "austerity" is the only way. There is no miracle solution, no technological breakthrough, nothing. Yes, there are some solutions to improve things, but since human activity itself is the source of the problem, then we have to bring that down.

The source of the problem is our monkey brains that love stuff. And I'm a monkey too, and I have lots of stuff too, but that's what needs to be changed if we want to be serious about transitioning.
As long as people will deny this, our species will be choosing collective suicide. As long as we're saying that we can't ask people to consume less, our future will remain bleak.

Hmm I see it the other way around.  Looking over the course of our few thousand years of communal living, I'd say our chances of voluntarily implementing the austerity as a few orders of magnitude less than Doc Brown coming back from the future with a Mr. Fusion design.  So, while I agree technological solutions are a bit of a long shot, its the only shot we have.  Its probably more realistic to expect that governments work on large scale mitigating effects within their borders and to seek relative power gains by losing less than the competition. 

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, horangi said:

Hmm I see it the other way around.  Looking over the course of our few thousand years of communal living, I'd say our chances of voluntarily implementing the austerity as a few orders of magnitude less than Doc Brown coming back from the future with a Mr. Fusion design.  So, while I agree technological solutions are a bit of a long shot, its the only shot we have. 

Bollocks.

If the media stopped spreading disinformation on the topic and admitted that there is at present (November 2021) NO technological solution to climate change, only greenwashing and speculation, public opinion would turn around. It already is turning around, despite all the noise, imho because the impact of climate change is now too obvious to hide - as is the inaction of our so-called "leaders."
The reason why public opinion seems so impossible to move is precisely because the media keep fueling false hopes. As long as people think there is a decent chance of getting through this without radical change, most will indeed reject radical change.

But honestly, the argument that we humans can't change is a product of ideology and propaganda. The historical/anthropological record says otherwise. Humans are very adaptable when lives are at stake. We can cooperate, we can endure, and we can change. Giving away a few luxuries is nothing compared to the past achievements of our species. And contrary to what is commonly believed and as incredible and naive as this may sound, humans overwhelmingly tend to behave altruistically in times of crisis. We are social animals, so when shit hits the fan, we turn to the group, because individually we can't do anything. So when a lot is at stake, we cooperate. Crazy. There's even quite a few solid theories that this is why we are "smart" in the first place.
Where does this idea that we can't move away from a socio-economic structure that is only a few centuries old (and that has pretty much always been hotly contested) come from? Nothing in the past few thousand years suggests that hyper-capitalism and consumerism are "natural" for humans, and much suggests that they are but temporary mistakes. How insulting is this notion that billions of humans would collectively refuse to give up, say, the possibility of having their own car, to save the future of their children?
As long as humans love their children, our species can find the right path.
The whole idea that humans are self-interested/selfish and materialistic is a recent creation. It's at the core of the dominant ideological narrative, for sure, but anthropology and psychology paint a far-more complex picture. In truth, humans would certainly not be the dominant species if we were that self-centered and irrational ; there are various mechanisms (psychological and social) that mitigate selfishness. And it's not like we can ignore reality for very long.
The negative view of our own species is only meant to explain and legitimize the colossal inequalities generated by the current socio-economic system. But it's insidious, because it acts as a nocebo. If you think everyone is self-interested, why wouldn't you be? If you can't trust your neighbor or fellow human to give up their stuff, why would you up yours? By definition, collective action requires collective trust. This is what we lack right now. Not some technological hocus-pocus that has yet to be identified, but just enough trust in our neighbors to talk with them about what needs to be done. If we can reach that point, i.e. turn to "crisis mode," cooperate with others, and take things into our own hands, the transition can happen in a matter of years.

Point is, it's not human nature, it's ideology. And I know it's comfortable to not believe in your fellows, because that way you don't have to do anything. But it's also really easy to flip the switch in your mind, admit that you've been deluding yourself, and start thinking about what could and should be done. It's a surprising journey tbh.

[Larry of the Lawn]

@Rippounet there isn't a love button or I'd have used it.  you would be great at communicating this stuff professionally.  

[horangi]

24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Bollocks.

If the media stopped spreading disinformation on the topic and admitted that there is at present (November 2021) NO technological solution to climate change, only greenwashing and speculation, public opinion would turn around. It already is turning around, despite all the noise, imho because the impact of climate change is now too obvious to hide - as is the inaction of our so-called "leaders."
The reason why public opinion seems so impossible to move is precisely because the media keep fueling false hopes. As long as people think there is a decent chance of getting through this without radical change, most will indeed reject radical change.

But honestly, the argument that we humans can't change is a product of ideology and propaganda. The historical/anthropological record says otherwise. Humans are very adaptable when lives are at stake. We can cooperate, we can endure, and we can change. Giving away a few luxuries is nothing compared to the past achievements of our species. And contrary to what is commonly believed and as incredible and naive as this may sound, humans overwhelmingly tend to behave altruistically in times of crisis. We are social animals, so when shit hits the fan, we turn to the group, because individually we can't do anything. So when a lot is at stake, we cooperate. Crazy. There's even quite a few solid theories that this is why we are "smart" in the first place.
Where does this idea that we can't move away from a socio-economic structure that is only a few centuries old (and that has pretty much always been hotly contested) come from? Nothing in the past few thousand years suggests that hyper-capitalism and consumerism are "natural" for humans, and much suggests that they are but temporary mistakes. How insulting is this notion that billions of humans would collectively refuse to give up, say, the possibility of having their own car, to save the future of their children?
As long as humans love their children, our species can find the right path.
The whole idea that humans are self-interested/selfish and materialistic is a recent creation. It's at the core of the dominant ideological narrative, for sure, but anthropology and psychology paint a far-more complex picture. In truth, humans would certainly not be the dominant species if we were that self-centered and irrational ; there are various mechanisms (psychological and social) that mitigate selfishness. And it's not like we can ignore reality for very long.
The negative view of our own species is only meant to explain and legitimize the colossal inequalities generated by the current socio-economic system. But it's insidious, because it acts as a nocebo. If you think everyone is self-interested, why wouldn't you be? If you can't trust your neighbor or fellow human to give up their stuff, why would you up yours? By definition, collective action requires collective trust. This is what we lack right now. Not some technological hocus-pocus that has yet to be identified, but just enough trust in our neighbors to talk with them about what needs to be done. If we can reach that point, i.e. turn to "crisis mode," cooperate with others, and take things into our own hands, the transition can happen in a matter of years.

Point is, it's not human nature, it's ideology. And I know it's comfortable to not believe in your fellows, because that way you don't have to do anything. But it's also really easy to flip the switch in your mind, admit that you've been deluding yourself, and start thinking about what could and should be done. It's a surprising journey tbh.

I appreciate the optimism, and when it comes to the human species making it through the climate crisis, I absolutely believe in our adaptability.  However, I see way too many 'if' statements in your response to be hopeful about us preventing it or significantly slowing it down.  Personally I think Thucydides captures human nature a lot more accurately than Rousseau.  Honestly- if you were to black box the scenario and strip out ideological bias, if you were to skip forward in time 50 years what percent chance do you see that humanity has come together and prevented the mean temperature from going beyond +2C?  Edit to add: Ultimately, we are likely to get front row seats on seeing this play out- and I will absolutely be rooting for your side to win. 

[Rippounet]

On 11/6/2021 at 9:01 PM, horangi said:

Honestly- if you were to black box the scenario and strip out ideological bias, if you were to skip forward in time 50 years what percent chance do you see that humanity has come together and prevented the mean temperature from going beyond +2C?

I don't think +2°C is what's at stake - it's probably too late for that. I think what's at stake is to transition before we start talking about +4°C or more, because if we ever reach that point, large regions of the planet will be uninhabitable for humans, which would lead to the collapse of civilization.

This is where my position becomes a bit paradoxical. Humans are very good at cooperating in times of crisis, yes, but this is in-group cooperation. Otoh, crisis can lead to vicious competition between different groups.
As long as climate change is seen as a collective problem, the mechanisms that favor in-group cooperation in humans can be used to transition. But conversely, if things get too dire, inter-group competitive mechanisms will kick in and cooperation will break down - which means, basically, war and genocide. For better or for worse, these are two sides of a coin when it comes to human nature.

I think our civilization is what's at stake, but not for the reasons usually mentioned. Climate change doesn't directly collapse civilization. Competitive mechanisms do. At +4°C, with hundreds of millions of climate refugees and dwindling resources, devastating war pretty much becomes inevitable. In fact, an all-out nuclear exchange between two countries becomes credible.

On 11/6/2021 at 9:01 PM, horangi said:

Personally I think Thucydides captures human nature a lot more accurately than Rousseau.

As you can see, I don't subscribe to a purely rousseauesque vision of humanity. As Christopher Boehm points out in his Hierarchy in the Forect, both Rousseau and Hobbes were essentially correct - but in slightly different circumstances.

Though I have to say, Rousseau's stag hunt problem remains quite pertinent.

On 11/6/2021 at 9:01 PM, horangi said:

Ultimately, we are likely to get front row seats on seeing this play out- and I will absolutely be rooting for your side to win. 

I have this crazy notion that everyone is actually on my side - they just don't know it yet.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Nah, I am on team whatever fills evolutionary niche, once humans go extinct. 

We are basically witnessing The Tragedy of the Commons unfold in real time, right in front of us. 

[horangi]

On 11/6/2021 at 3:22 PM, Rippounet said:

I don't think +2°C is what's at stake - it's probably too late for that. I think what's at stake is to transition before we start talking about +4°C or more, because if we ever reach that point, large regions of the planet will be uninhabitable for humans, which would lead to the collapse of civilization.

This is where my position becomes a bit paradoxical. Humans are very good at cooperating in times of crisis, yes, but this is in-group cooperation. Otoh, crisis can lead to vicious competition between different groups.
As long as climate change is seen as a collective problem, the mechanisms that favor in-group cooperation in humans can be used to transition. But conversely, if things get too dire, inter-group competitive mechanisms will kick in and cooperation will break down - which means, basically, war and genocide. For better or for worse, these are two sides of a coin when it comes to human nature.

I think our civilization is what's at stake, but not for the reasons usually mentioned. Climate change doesn't directly collapse civilization. Competitive mechanisms do. At +4°C, with hundreds of millions of climate refugees and dwindling resources, devastating war pretty much becomes inevitable. In fact, an all-out nuclear exchange between two countries becomes credible.

As you can see, I don't subscribe to a purely rousseauesque vision of humanity. As Christopher Boehm points out in his Hierarchy in the Forect, both Rousseau and Hobbes were essentially correct - but in slightly different circumstances.

Though I have to say, Rousseau's stag hunt problem remains quite pertinent.

I have this crazy notion that everyone is actually on my side - they just don't know it yet.

Honestly, I cant find fault with anything you've written.  I hope you are correct and we can all choose the Stag over the cheap game, even if I think its a low likelihood of outcomes.  Growing up with Star Trek TNG as the 'model' for future societies, I am definitely on board for 'your side'.   The last few years however have been a bit of a wake up call for just how far removed my hopes are from those that sit 20 miles out of the city limits.  Ultimately, I'm a federal bureaucrat, and cynicism is kinda part of the job. 

[Liffguard]

On 11/6/2021 at 10:41 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nah, I am on team whatever fills evolutionary niche, once humans go extinct. 

We are basically witnessing The Tragedy of the Commons unfold in real time, right in front of us. 

This actually reinforces @Rippounet's point, because the commons was actually a perfectly viable way of managing land and resources for a long time. The commons were then enclosed and vast numbers of people displaced, and the entire concept of the tragedy of the commons was invented as propaganda to support this project. Humans are capable of managing the commons under the right circumstances. We have been before. The idea that humans will inevitably compete with each other to take more than their fair share is ideology and propaganda.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 11/7/2021 at 10:00 AM, Liffguard said:

This actually reinforces @Rippounet's point, because the commons was actually a perfectly viable way of managing land and resources for a long time. The commons were then enclosed and vast numbers of people displaced, and the entire concept of the tragedy of the commons was invented as propaganda to support this project. Humans are capable of managing the commons under the right circumstances. We have been before. The idea that humans will inevitably compete with each other to take more than their fair share is ideology and propaganda.

I don't share @Rippounet 's optimism.

We have a not insignificant number of people belieiving the commons is doing fine, no matter what we do to it, or are questioning the existence of the commons. Right now, we can't even convince enough people to get a mildly incovenient jab, because freedumb. Tackling the climate crisis will require a way bigger personal contribution than that. I hope to be proven wrong. 

[Zorral]

An update on the revolutionary experiment [BREXIT],  from the perspective of someone whom it affects.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2021/11/an-update-from-the-revolutiona.html#more

[Heartofice]

14 hours ago, Zorral said:

An update on the revolutionary experiment [BREXIT],  from the perspective of someone whom it affects.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2021/11/an-update-from-the-revolutiona.html#more

Brexit from the perspective of a remainer. Useful.

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Brexit from the perspective of a remainer. Useful.

Brexit affects remainers. 
Unless Arron Banks or any of the other billionaires hiding their money in off-shore accounts write an article, you’re unlikely to see many extolling the actual benefits of Brexit. Should there ever be any.

[Zorral]

Forum members who might like to know more about David Graeber will find this NY Magazine overview of the thinker-scholar's life of interest.  At the top there's a photo of him from 1977.  Ooo la la la! wasn't he a hottie!  

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/david-graeber-dawn-of-everything.html

 

[A wilding]

And apparently the latest casualty of Brexit is the au pair system. Basically, well off British families can no longer get cheap child care from abroad.

https://www.ft.com/content/edab73d0-8c3e-4c94-80f3-09afd302fd0f

But somehow I can't get too upset about that ...

[DMC]

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

And apparently the latest casualty of Brexit is the au pair system. Basically, well off British families can no longer get cheap child care from abroad.

Well how are men supposed to cheat on their wives now?!?

[IheartIheartTesla]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/10/china-and-the-us-announce-plan-to-work-together-on-cutting-emissions

Finally, some positive news coming out of COP 26 (and also very intersting, based on our methane discussion so far)

Quote

The remarkable turnaround came as a surprise to the UK hosts, and will send a strong signal to the 190-plus other countries at the talks. China and the US will work together on some key specific areas, such as cutting methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – and emissions from transport, energy and industry.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Indeed, as already discussed, methane from fossil fuel sources is a big problem that needs to be dealt with. Fortunately cutting fossil fuel extraction and use will have an automatic impact on methane emissions without having to actually do anything to specifically target methane. Unfortunately I don't know that cutting fossil fuel use and extraction is what they have in mind to deal with methane from that source, so they will do something to specifically target methane, which while important is not really addressing the main problem.