Preparing for An Unfriendly Future (Climate Change, Authoritarianism, etc)

[JGP]

Crop failures: no big, because our ability to make food has never been more capable

Fresh water: mana from heaven, that shit falls from the sky

Uninhabitable zones: we got tons of room, the planet hasn't gotten any smaller

Disaster relief: all good, we got this world. unless you're brown, then we kind of got you. Sorta 

Real estate loss: trillions of dollars on the block over the next 60 - 90 years, but like Ben Shapiro says, people will just sell their homes. This and other slow rolling disasters won't affect economies

Climate refugees: if you've gotten this far in the post, I've already explained why this won't be destabilizing 

Resource and material shortages: diminishing returns, peaks, silly to worry about when neither has caused a war

Political instability: we're handling everything so well right now, I just know deep down in my human animal bones that we totally got this when everything above [and their resultant consequences] eventually comes to pass. Just vote

All that is coming. Facts.

Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug. Like armor of god or some shit, but there's a large percentage of otherwise decent people that also just bounce off this. Bills to pay. Kids to raise. If we're always deep in our feels about the future, past and present injustices, or whatever, it makes the little things in life less enjoyable for some or makes the struggle harder for others. I get the denial, for some people. 

But hey. Don't listen to me. There's maybe two to three people on this board that enjoy more privilege than I do, and unlike me, they've earned it. I got too much time on my hands. Concern about the state of the world even in the just the next few generations is a pastime. I didn't buy a home on an island, in a region with good soil [for now] that has plenty of rainfall, where the lakes and rivers are glacier fed because I am concerned or anything. Just whimsy.

 

  

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Bullshit. Find me a quote of that. As I recall, the closest to denial would be those who said the current "epidemic" of cancellations, which you have certainly expounded upon, is mainly just the old systems of shame and exclusion being turned on elites instead of marginalized people, exacerbated by the Internet.

I also recall the "cancel culture" and "woke" threads were started to identify and complain about those phenomena, because who starts a thread about a thing that does not exist?

Exactly , your definition of cancel culture is one where it basically doesn’t affect ‘real’ people , and therefore doesn’t really exist or is something anyone should care about. 
 

Anyway, totally different topic. 

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Exactly , your definition of cancel culture is one where it basically doesn’t affect ‘real’ people , and therefore doesn’t really exist or is something anyone should care about. 
 

Anyway, totally different topic. 

You can't even fairly summarize what you quoted from me. What I had said, if you could break your habit of lying about the things I said, is that these things happen, sometimes there are innocent victims, but that it's not a new phenomenon, and you and other complainers were being alarmist about it. Kind of how you're saying some of us are alarmist about global warming, though I'm pretty sure Twitter fatwas never killed a tropical reef.

But sure, your hypocrisy is a different topic.

[IFR]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

As a general trend we are bombarded with cataclysmic news every day, and are being told that things are much worse than they ever were, when in many ways that is absolutely not true. There are quite a few people here who really react strongly to being told that, i guess because there is something addictive in feeding off these apocalyptic thoughts and sense of outrage and terror.

I read the IPCC reports and keep up to date on the latest from Science Magazine and Nature. None of these sources are commonly known as exaggerated or hysterical. I observe the extent to which the world is curbing their emissions, which is quantitative, not an opinion.

I've also read quite a few history books, so I'm familiar with how humans deal with crises. 

That's really all you need to draw the conclusion that very harsh times await us.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You can't even fairly summarize what you quoted from me. What I had said, if you could break your habit of lying about the things I said, is that these things happen, sometimes there are innocent victims, but that it's not a new phenomenon, and you and other complainers were being alarmist about it. Kind of how you're saying some of us are alarmist about global warming, though I'm pretty sure Twitter fatwas never killed a tropical reef.

But sure, your hypocrisy is a different topic.

Pointing at actual examples of cancel culture  and saying it’s actually a thing in a thread about cancel culture that someone else created isn’t really alarmist is it. Compare and contrast to this thread where people are considering living in the wilderness, or numerous Covid threads where members routinely take turns trying the scare the crap out of each other, or politics threads where every world leader is a mole working for Putin. If you want to see alarmism there is plenty to go around.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

Sorry which side was sneering again?

I asked you if you thought wealthy industrial countries were likely to change their practices to avoid climate collapse. Is that a topic that interests you, or are you here just to tone police the alarmists?

[karaddin]

On 7/2/2022 at 2:18 AM, Maithanet said:

We've got a pretty strong track record that climate change doesn't go away by ignoring it. 

Yeah, my state is experiencing it's 6th major flooding event of the year and 2 years ago we got more than a month blanketed in smoke (from fires so large I still don't think the rest of the world even really gets it) which gifted is very bad to severely hazardous air quality for the entire time. I don't need to go on the internet to be told about climate change.

Both of these events are way beyond prior records

52 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Bullshit. Find me a quote of that. As I recall, the closest to denial would be those who said the current "epidemic" of cancellations, which you have certainly expounded upon, is mainly just the old systems of shame and exclusion being turned on elites instead of marginalized people, exacerbated by the Internet.

To be fair to HoI I've probably used something which can be reasonably paraphrased to that. My stance is that there is a legitimate trend in online discourse that hurts regular people which was labelled initially as cancel culture. That term was jumped on for the purposes of propaganda and the endless pages discussing it is a load of bullshit, people with power don't get cancelled in any meaningful sense that they didn't before the internet and using the phrase just furthers the desired outcome of the propaganda approach. If you want to actually talk about any underling problem, ditch the phrase and describe what you're actually talking about. I doubt I'd agree with HoI on the details anyway.

On the whole "the world is good at the moment" - in a lot of ways you're right! Crime and especially violent crime is extremely rare in Australia, I don't fear being attacked or any of that shit. That's part of why authoritarian police state shit is so uncalled for, but western governments continue to try increase police powers anyway. Medicine is amazing, the new migraine treatments in the last few years have had a huge positive impact on my health. But a collapse in the global supply chain will see me lose access to pretty much all the medications that give me a quality of life worth living. Rewinding the clock by 20-30 years would put me back in a time period I was too scared to be who I am, but I fear right wing attempts to import culture war bullshit will succeed eventually if our major cultural influence goes full theocratic fash.

So yeah, I'm not in denial of all the great things we have at the moment and there's no point in history that would be a better time for me to live in. I'd just really like us to start mitigating or avoiding the icebergs coming over the horizon so that these years don't wind up being the peak with things only getting worse again.

[Ran]

This global supply chain thing seems a very weird fear. Everyone wants the global supply chain working again, every country has suffered because of the disruption of the pandemic and a regional war, and would like to go mostly back to business. Yes, efforts will be made all around to bring a little more production back to home turf, or regional turf, just in case some other disruption happens down the road to improve the robustness of the supply chain, and as always when someone wants a modest move someone else will go to one or the other extreme, but in the end I think it's pretty clear the the global supply chain will just become more robust with more depth in production. The idea that the US or the UK is going to basically try to cut out nearly all foreign imports and become entirely self-reliant is silly on its face, while the idea that China and Asian manufacturing countries in general will just crater their economy forever for similar reasons is equally silly. 

That aside, I think the question as to whether wealthy nations will change their practices for climate change is already answered: yes. Renewables are up, sustainable food practices are rising, nearly 50% of Europeans are eating less meat than they were a few years ago, and so on and so forth. Now, if you want to ask "are they doing enough?", that's a different question and has a much more subjective answer based on your level of optimism... or, looking at this thread, unbridled pessimism. 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

Crop failures: no big, because our ability to make food has never been more capable

Fresh water: mana from heaven, that shit falls from the sky

Uninhabitable zones: we got tons of room, the planet hasn't gotten any smaller

Disaster relief: all good, we got this world. unless you're brown, then we kind of got you. Sorta 

Real estate loss: trillions of dollars on the block over the next 60 - 90 years, but like Ben Shapiro says, people will just sell their homes. This and other slow rolling disasters won't affect economies

Climate refugees: if you've gotten this far in the post, I've already explained why this won't be destabilizing 

Resource and material shortages: diminishing returns, peaks, silly to worry about when neither has caused a war

Political instability: we're handling everything so well right now, I just know deep down in my human animal bones that we totally got this when everything above [and their resultant consequences] eventually comes to pass. Just vote

All that is coming. Facts.

Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug. Like armor of god or some shit, but there's a large percentage of otherwise decent people that also just bounce off this. Bills to pay. Kids to raise. If we're always deep in our feels about the future, past and present injustices, or whatever, it makes the little things in life less enjoyable for some or makes the struggle harder for others. I get the denial, for some people. 

But hey. Don't listen to me. There's maybe two to three people on this board that enjoy more privilege than I do, and unlike me, they've earned it. I got too much time on my hands. Concern about the state of the world even in the just the next few generations is a pastime. I didn't buy a home on an island, in a region with good soil [for now] that has plenty of rainfall, where the lakes and rivers are glacier fed because I am concerned or anything. Just whimsy.

 

  

Crops need water. It falls from the aky but not always where needed. And increasingly too much of it is falling at certain times. Not helped by us straightening rivers.

Drought is already a big issue, and will only get worse in a lot of areas. Flooding will compromise the quality of drinking water in other areas.

Did Ben Shapiro say who exactly was going to buying all this soon to be underwater property?

 

[karaddin]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

This global supply chain thing seems a very weird fear. Everyone wants the global supply chain working again, every country has suffered because of the disruption of the pandemic and a regional war, and would like to go mostly back to business. 

To be fair that one isn't near the top of my list, but it had been discussed in this thread so I wanted to include that as another point of how current good things having some degree of vulnerability. Very little is manufactured in Aus as far as I'm aware and I've been effected by medication shortages on half the meds I take in the last couple of years so it on the radar.

On the whole the global logistics chain has optimised for maximum efficiency during a period of booming global prosperity which makes sense. But that's come with the weakness of not being as resilient as it probably needs to be going into the future. I hope, and expect, that those lessons will be taken to heart and we will dodge that ice berg at least.

[JGP]

@Derfel Cadarn No, but there's always Aquaman.

[A True Kaniggit]

55 minutes ago, JGP said:

@Derfel Cadarn No, but there's always Aquaman.

Can’t trust him.

Khal Drogo would murder us all. 

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

in the end I think it's pretty clear the the global supply chain will just become more robust with more depth in production.

I don't think this is clear at all, but this is one of those issues which is ingrained in a vastly different geopolitical structure that it cannot be fairly debated. Outright dismissing global production becoming a major issue I think is naive, but time will tell.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Now, if you want to ask "are they doing enough?", that's a different question

And the more important question. The answer, according to even the very conservative IPCC, is a resounding no. Not even close.

Linked below is an interesting research paper on lead in the atmosphere. You can subscribe to pnas or enter the doi in scihub. Either way, it is worth reading. In this article, it is estimated that 170 million Americans today had their IQ lowered by an average of 3 IQ points per American due to lead exposure.

Scientists knew full well the deleterious consequences of lead exposure, and yet it was extremely difficult to regulate. We are having a similar problem now with microplastics. But the end result for lead was that capitalism prompted humans to deliberately and on a massive scale (this research paper only measures extent and effects on Americans: lead exposure is a global issue) make ourselves stupider. 3 IQ points is significant, so not just a little stupider, but to a dramatic extent. 

Society is reactionary. As the consequences of climate change become more severe, correspondingly our behavior will change. However, the problem with things like climate change is that it’s a latent issue. The damage has already been done before short term response can correct it. That sets it apart from a lot of issues that humans have been confronted with.

But again, I don't have to convince anyone. Time will.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118631119

[Luzifer's right hand]

59 minutes ago, JGP said:

@Derfel Cadarn No, but there's always Aquaman.

He defeated his own people because they wanted us to stop polluting and overfishing the oceans.

A win for the good guys!

[JGP]

@A True Kaniggit

 

Maybe. Wrong iteration of the King of Atlantis.

I was riffing off this guy:

 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

@Derfel Cadarn No, but there's always Aquaman.

Was that the film where the Sahara was apparently an ocean just prior to the founding of Rome?

And the Atlanteans evolved to breathe underwater (and some evolved into fish) in the minutes/hours it took for Atlantos to tumble into the sea?

[Kalbear]

Really good thread by Cory doctorow on supply chains and the bull whip effect and why the diversification of the supply chain is probably not going to happen all that much:

 

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

China would get its arse handed to it, if it invaded Taiwan.

I would rate China's chances of victory if it invaded Taiwan tomorrow at around 40-50%. In five years, probably around 60%, in ten years around 80%. The only way Taiwan can mitigate that is if it did something like acquired nuclear weapons.

In order to win a major military conflict, you need a huge economy, a large military, air superiority, the willingness to endure mass casualties, and relatively short supply lines. These are all things that Russia has fucked up over Ukraine and China would not fuck up over Taiwan, at all. Mounting a seaborn invasion against determined resistance is extremely challenging, but if China is willing to sacrifice thousands of troops to do it, it is likely they would eventually succeed. Then the supply lines being water-based, with China enjoying likely naval superiority in the region as well as a massive resupply capacity, actually becomes an asset. The American ability to intervene against a Chinese invasion is currently formidable but in a few years time, when China's navy outnumbers the US navy and the technology gap is even closer than it is now, will be significantly reduced.

The past calculus has been that China would not be willing to risk a major conflict with the United States and would also prefer to reintegrate Taiwan peacefully rather than risk levelling the island (in particular, Taiwan's formidable chip manufacturing capacity). That calculus I believe is changing, with China's geopolitical ambitions increasing to consider establishing itself as the Asian hegemon, removing the United States completely from the region, and the country is more willing to consider severe economic damage to achieve that goal if they think they can do it in a reasonable timeframe.

If there is a change in the Chinese leadership before that happens, (with Xi recently turning 69, not impossible) it might well be that the next leader is much more focused on the economy and climate change and is willing to return to the status quo. Otherwise I think the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are greater than they have ever been and will increase further in the coming years.

[Ran]

34 minutes ago, IFR said:

The answer, according to even the very conservative IPCC, is a resounding no. Not even close.

If "enough" is "0 degree warming", sure, but that ship sailed. 2.5 degrees is entirely possible, and indeed the IPCC estimates tend to not track well with actual advancements in reductions in emissions through renewable uptake, so while you may call them conservative, I think they may not be conservative enough given that their estimates . But even at 2.5 increase, truth be told that leaves of the world with a larger, more prosperous global population than today, even though there will certainly be turmoil as well (but when isn't there turmoil?)

 

41 minutes ago, IFR said:

But the end result for lead was that capitalism prompted humans...

The former Soviet Union had the same problem. "Capitalism" did not prompt them to use leaded gasoline and leaded paint and the like. It was what seemed to be the most effective technology to solve problems at that time, problems that did not care how your economy was managed, and they were wrongly convinced that the amounts would not cause a problem.

[Conflicting Thought]

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

But even at 2.5 increase, truth be told that leaves of the world with a larger, more prosperous global population than today, even though there will certainly be turmoil as well (but when isn't there turmoil?)

what? am i misunderstanding or are you saying a 2.5 temperature increase is a good thing for the worold or not that bad as it sounds? 

when isnt there turmoil?....goddamn thats cold. and i think you are underestimating  a little bit the "turmoil" that is happening and is going increase by allot...i think.