121–130 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US use of units is worse than the UK. Said from a proudly metric country, New Zealand, where everyone knows their weight in kilograms and height in feet and inches.
at least it's not stones
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn’t pay a nickel more for gas to save their own kid.
You are a chipmunk. Every second is met with immense risk of predation, whether cat or hawk. Yet you must still seek food, mate, and water. You must "live in the moment", ignore future hypothetical dangers, and simply live. You must be in your territory, defending it daily from others. You must live knowing the cat sleeps 50 feet away. Future dangers must be misty, put out of mind, lest you become paralyized with fea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn’t pay a nickel more for gas to save their own kid.
You are a chipmunk. Every second is met with immense risk of predation, whether cat or hawk. Yet you must still seek food, mate, and water. You must "live in the moment", ignore future hypothetical dangers, and simply live. You must be in your territory, defending it daily from others. You must live knowing the cat sleeps 50 feet away. Future dangers must be misty, put out of mind, lest you become paralyized with fea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The disingenuous people who discredit climate change will do so no matter how serious people act. There is no point in changing behavior on their account.
The point is to convince people who are undecided. Using information that's known to be false or weakly supported is then short-sighted and counterproductive, because enough false predictions will turn up that those undecided will tune out entirely
But where does such information originate from? Is laypeople just making it up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course we do, you just gave an example. In fact if we truly didn't, then there would be no problem.
You have sailed past the point. There were so, so many cod it was hard not to catch a bunch. That isn’t a metric, it’s an indicator that most likely meant vast unseen numbers. The tip of the iceberg is a metaphor for a reason, though it may become an anachronism within our lifetimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn’t pay a nickel more for gas to save their own kid.
You are a chipmunk. Every second is met with immense risk of predation, whether cat or hawk. Yet you must still seek food, mate, and water. You must "live in the moment", ignore future hypothetical dangers, and simply live. You must be in your territory, defending it daily from others. You must live knowing the cat sleeps 50 feet away. Future dangers must be misty, put out of mind, lest you become paralyized with fea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.
Weakening predictions until they become unfalsifiable seems like an odd approach to being taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are a chipmunk. Every second is met with immense risk of predation, whether cat or hawk. Yet you must still seek food, mate, and water. You must "live in the moment", ignore future hypothetical dangers, and simply live. You must be in your territory, defending it daily from others. You must live knowing the cat sleeps 50 feet away. Future dangers must be misty, put out of mind, lest you become paralyized with fea…
I get you but I think most people are really very selfish when the negative externalities of their actions are diffuse. You don’t see an individual your actions harm, but the harm is real.
And the premise is the same. If you could empathize with every person, very directly, you'd be immensely depressed. Imagine if you could literally feel the pain of every human in agony. Heck, imagine if you could feel the pain of every being in the universe. How would you not sink into a deep depression? How would you not fear every move you make?
If you felt every person dying this minute in a car crash, would you ever climb in a car? Would you even leave your house, if you felt every person who tripped and fell on stairs?
Danger must be diffuse. Empathy must exist, but also must have bounds. Just as we must be aware of the future (store food for the winter), and cannot let that drive be interfered with by distant, non-crystallized danger from the future, we cannot let empathy overwhelm our capacity to empathize beings in our immediate mental space.
By the way, this isn't saying we don't need to act. We do. However, understanding the motives behind how people behave, why they do so, and what drives them is important.
And this behaviour is quite important still. We have a massive industry around farming, for example, canning, this sort of thing. However with the further and further collapse of international shipping, and with the US withdrawing (over the last 20 years) from patrolling the world's waterways for free, shipping danger is slowly increasing as time goes on.
And of course shipping is a larger and larger concern in terms of environmental impact. Ships currently use the dirtiest, foulest, most horrid oil you can find. We've already switched to cleaning that up a bit (with perhaps unforeseen outcomes), but the entire concept of shipping massive quantities of "stuff" around is somewhat silly from an energy and environmental concern.
So we're going to slowly be moving back to local first, and that means canned food. Frozen food, such as vegetables, isn't tenable if you have to freeze them in August, and keep them frozen until June next year, at first crop.
We already have a lot of canned food, but my point is, the concept of 'manage your own food supply' is going to be a growing concern. And there was a time, a mere 100+ years ago, where most of the planet had to can their own food, and if a community ran out? Well, that was it, there was nothing to eat.
My point is, the concept of immediate danger must always supersede distant/diffuse danger.
Keep that in mind, and a lot more traction can be had.
Does it solve all the problems? No. But if you know the why of a thing, you're closer to solving the thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weakening predictions until they become unfalsifiable seems like an odd approach to being taken seriously.
So make predictions about stuff that happens next year and be right about them. The problem is that strongly predicting what will happen in 30 years has always been wrong so far. My point is just focus on what you know. Anyone can say whatever about 30 years from now and ride that for the next 29.
No it hasn't, this is climate change denialist nonsense. In fact no less a figure than ExxonMobil correctly predicted the trajectory of global CO2 levels and corresponding increase in warming as far back as the 1970s and their predictions remain accurate today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warming will kill off most of the systems these animals depend on within 30 years.
Why put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.
No it hasn't.