I was hoping the title would refer to, you know, our tacit "God": our unrelenting faith in gratification through material consumption; essentially unbounded and ever-accelerating growth; and the idea that we can safely ignore any non-human impact this pursuit of "happiness" may have (or for that matter, to future human generations).
When Global Warming Kills Your God
31–40 of 54 posts
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#32I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex with people for money, forced to purchase unwanted health insurance, and penalized if they don't rent or purchase a home. A person can own a piece of land for decades, and suddenly wetland regulation or a community action board can prevent them from using that la…
> forced to purchase unwanted health insurance
Very few are willing to live with the consequences of this which ought to be letting the person who didn't get health insurance die because they chose to not afford care.
If you really believe you shouldn't force people to protect themselves, you should believe you shouldn't "force" them to recover when they're sick.
Or, if you do believe they shouldn't be left to die, and that you shouldn't force them to purchase individual health insurance, a logical reconciliation of those two positions is universal health care.
> Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik?
I would agree with you here.
Reading between the lines suggests the dwindling catches are causing them to adopt more aggressive fishing measures, a vicious cycle of bad consequences. Dialing back their new fishing to earlier methods isn't imposing a burden as much as thwarting total collapse from their own changes.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#33I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
There are a couple of problems with this kind of argument. First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? (Aside from the moral issue, that's explicitly unconstitutional in Alaska.) Note that I'm talking about the fishing limits here. You mentioned forced settlement, which is, of course, a reprehensible thing. It is also a case of enforcing the law differently for different ethnic groups. Second…
>First, do we really want to have different laws for different races?
It's not about having different laws for different races. This is about different nations having different laws.
The political relationship between the United States and the indigenous peoples of the Americas is much different than the relationship between the US and its citizens. It's more akin to asking if we want different laws for people in Canada and America.
I think your second point is similarly misguided. It's not a matter of anyone being different, but whether the US has a more compelling claim to exercise sovereignty in this situation.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#34I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex with people for money, forced to purchase unwanted health insurance, and penalized if they don't rent or purchase a home. A person can own a piece of land for decades, and suddenly wetland regulation or a community action board can prevent them from using that la…
> Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik?
Maybe it would be better to ask why it is bad to impose those ( and many others not mentioned) burdens on everyone as opposed to asking why we aren't burdening everyone equally.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#35If global warming is killing your god, it may be time to find a new god. After reading the description of Yup’ik religion in the article, all I can say is that their perception of what is necessary to do is not the only possible response to the situation that faces Yup’ik people in that place. The environment has been changing throughout the existence of human beings (we know from archaeology that humankind has lived through ice ages and some major changes in sea level already), so human beings will have to go on being adaptable to face the changes that are inevitable in the environment, and think with sound judgment about how to keep some kinds of changes from happening, if that results in the best trade-offs for humankind. Religion can not be exempted from that general process of human beings reality-checking their own thinking to see if their adaptations to their environment (and adaptations OF their environment) are successful or not.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#36I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
During Prohibition, there was an exemption for sacramental wine. Surely that's a precedent for exempting a particular group from specific laws on religious grounds?
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex with people for money, forced to purchase unwanted health insurance, and penalized if they don't rent or purchase a home. A person can own a piece of land for decades, and suddenly wetland regulation or a community action board can prevent them from using that la…
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing. You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing
There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one.
Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex with people for money, forced to purchase unwanted health insurance, and penalized if they don't rent or purchase a home. A person can own a piece of land for decades, and suddenly wetland regulation or a community action board can prevent them from using that la…
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing. You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.
> You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them.
You can't really validly say that to anyone but aliens and non-citizen immigrants -- for everyone else in the country, it is their country, whether or not their ancestors came from elsewhere (which they did, at some point).
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#39I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
"We're largely to blame for.." Are we? If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.…
I can't attest to the motivation of Al Gore and the others, but I can at least tell you what the scientific consensus is.
Climate change is real. It is caused by us. The evidence is overwhelming.
"The facts are very clear: CO2 increased, temperatures have not."
A strong correlation between CO2 and temperature has been observed by several different groups using several different measurement method.
Explanation of the science and citations: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-... https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_1007... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0...
"If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures."
CO2 emissions during the industrial revolution were smaller by several orders of magnitude. We produced on the order of 3-7 million tons per year towards the start. Now, we produce 8000 million tons per year. CO2 levels have risen accordingly in those time. If you imagine plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere as a person drinking water from a cup that refills, imagine the industrial revolution adding an extra teaspoon worth of water to the cup. Now imagine today as shooting a fire hose into the cup.
Explanation and Citation: https://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=23...
"Another fact: the climate changed long before humans were around to drive Escalades."
Climate changes according to whatever factors act upon it. Earlier in our planet's history, this force was the slow, natural cycle of CO2 as plants would grow in the early parts of the year and then die and decompose in the fall and winter. In every case, increased CO2 levels resulted in increased temperatures. Now, we're adding more CO2 than anything else ever before.
Citations: https://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=22
If you rarely see a debate on the subject of human-caused climate change, it's because there is no validity to the other side. Skepticism is healthy, but there is such a thing as false balance. Just because there's another side doesn't mean it still has any valid arguments left.
That said, if you do have evidence that one or more of these papers is inaccurate, I'd appreciate the info. As you said, let the downvotes begin.
Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God
#40I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
"We're largely to blame for.." Are we? If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.…
I down-voted you. You know your facts are wrong - if you really believe them spend 10 seconds on google. You're cherry-picking your information. You throwing out buzzwords and name checks instead of information. You're appealing to scientific principle without demonstrating any understanding of such or respect for scientific consensus. You appeal for balanced debate without actually starting a debate.
Also, please don't compare facts to religious belief - you insult both.