71–80 of 225 posts
[flagged]
If it is that much a threat, why aren't we primarily powered by nuclear? Cost can't be a factor because countries are bending over to spend hundreds of billions investing in some version of a green deal.
No compromises because it's too late for compromises they say. I wonder why
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Science is facts, cold hard facts. How do you figure?
How I "feel" about a scientific result is irrelevant to the result. (ie, if I am mad or happy, it doesn't _affect_ the result) Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.
I'm of the belief that the only thing that will accomplish the goals set out by those who care at the level of the author is actual, literal, worldwide fascism. And I also believe that climate-agnostic entities (who don't care one way or another) will be waiting in the wings opportunistically as people start to call for that fascism.
Why? The Allies fought and won WW2 without fascism. The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war. We need a WW2 scale response, perhaps with similar restrictions like rationing - only this time of carbon or flights etc. Once some nations are active, others will join. Perhaps we need to see carbon and environmental impacts baked into import tariffs to "encourage" reluctant others to j…
I'm of the belief that the only thing that will accomplish the goals set out by those who care at the level of the author is actual, literal, worldwide fascism. And I also believe that climate-agnostic entities (who don't care one way or another) will be waiting in the wings opportunistically as people start to call for that fascism.
But I agree "everyone emit less carbon and hamstring your economy" will not work without literal worldwide fascism.
I'm of the belief that the only thing that will accomplish the goals set out by those who care at the level of the author is actual, literal, worldwide fascism. And I also believe that climate-agnostic entities (who don't care one way or another) will be waiting in the wings opportunistically as people start to call for that fascism.
Why is that? Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
>but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
That's the question everyone will have to answer, and it probably boils down to the core of that person's philosophy. People who say "no" though should really consider all of the ugly side-effects that result from all-powerful authoritarian entities being able to control lives on a micro level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to sound harsh, but you're wrong because you're missing the point, and badly. The author talks about cancer diagnoses. This is an apt analogy, and there is a huge body of science for helping individuals cope with personal tragedy. Global warming is a global and personal tragedy. People will have their livelihoods ruined, and people will die. People already have, but (since this is a anglophile community)…
Do you want to feel better about the climate? Or actually fix it? I'd rather have a cold hard doctor that fixes my cancer, than feel good about dying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think we as society are going to change fast enough to combat the challenges we are currently facing? It seems that we are all just repeating past mistakes in a grander scale.
No. We will only change faster once the situation becomes dire (crop failures, heat waves you can’t fight with AC, roads and bridges failing from the heat), and there will be much suffering due to the delay. Prepare yourself if you can.
Globally, it's much worse. People are showing up from Central America because of crop failures. That is climate change induced human migration. Syria collapsed because of climate change based crop failures. The "Arab Sprint" was in large part because of agricultural productivity issues due to climate change. Large cities in Africa and south Asia are running out of water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to sound harsh, but you're wrong because you're missing the point, and badly. The author talks about cancer diagnoses. This is an apt analogy, and there is a huge body of science for helping individuals cope with personal tragedy. Global warming is a global and personal tragedy. People will have their livelihoods ruined, and people will die. People already have, but (since this is a anglophile community)…
Do you want to feel better about the climate? Or actually fix it? I'd rather have a cold hard doctor that fixes my cancer, than feel good about dying.
I'm of the belief that the only thing that will accomplish the goals set out by those who care at the level of the author is actual, literal, worldwide fascism. And I also believe that climate-agnostic entities (who don't care one way or another) will be waiting in the wings opportunistically as people start to call for that fascism.
Why? The Allies fought and won WW2 without fascism. The UK had a coalition government of the two major parties for most of the war. We need a WW2 scale response, perhaps with similar restrictions like rationing - only this time of carbon or flights etc. Once some nations are active, others will join. Perhaps we need to see carbon and environmental impacts baked into import tariffs to "encourage" reluctant others to j…
This was itself a suspension of normal democratic procedures and conventions. No elections were held in the UK between 1935 and the conclusion of the war in 1945.