Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 331 to 337 of 337

Thread: Climate Change Thread

  1. #331
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,615

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).
    You're only saying that to oppose the liberal, admit it!


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #332

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    I do not think we can "conserve" our way out of this one. Assuming that it is anthropomorphic (and the large bulk of research suggests that it is) we can certainly mitigate things and work for long term improvement, but we are not in a position to reverse a century and a half of impact overnight.
    We could negate it if we mobilized like the Wehrmacht were marching on Moscow (reports that the Germans had crossed the border and beyond were long ignored for some reason...). Continuing as we are is permitting a total overrun. Unfortunately, climate change is much less concrete and discrete than a human threat; our psychology works against us. What do you think the prospects are for the political process to produce responsible and decisive action? If we need to feel more pain to be spurred to action, then that's an admission of defeat IMO. The whole descending into warlordism with the fragmentation of the modern world-system seems likelier than the kind of spontaneous comity convenient to many sci-fi narratives.

    What a waste of human prospects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The liberal group generally supports the traditional basis of science, ie. evidential research, scientific method, etc. The conservative group generally supports faith-based arguments with a scattering of minority-supporting scientists (which is the opposite of how peer review is supposed to work). The democracy of peers is supposed to be based on a growing consensus of informed opinions that are qualified to pick through evidential-based arguments. Unfortunately, the democracy of nations means most people are not qualified to pick through these arguments, but get an equal vote to those who are, and overwhelm and overrule scientific arguments. Democratic but religious nations such as the US get to see this in the clearest form, but the US right is exporting this to elsewhere as well.
    You would be mistaken to attribute all of it to the genuine skeptical recalcitrance of those conservatives allegiant to faith and religion. Many American Republicans, at least in the elite, understand quite well the trends and their implications - it's just inconvenient to their masters in the business community, except where intervention can be called for to shield their assets.Notice how the latest phase of WSJ-tier messaging has been that climate change is somehow good or tolerable because there are potential business opportunities to be found. This is no argument; some human can find a business opportunity at the bottom of the crater of a thermonuclear blast, or comet impact. The balance of positives is lopsided.

    Useful article on right-wing climate environmentalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tenor.gif 
Views:	13 
Size:	998.0 KB 
ID:	22722
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  3. #333
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,895

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    @Seamus Fermanagh, I hope you don't mind me asking. If I remember correctly, you were never a fan of the anthropomorphic argument. This last reply suggests that this opinion may have shifted. I am curious to what may have contributed to this.
    There was always a good prima facia case for anthropomorphic climate change. The earlier efforts to computer model to "prove" it were chancy, since the models themselves could not replicate known results when preceding data were fed in. The modeling has gotten better. Moreover, ice cores and tree rings and the like are providing a better "fossil" picture of the temperature shift. I have yet to see an absolute proof of causation, but the correlation is so strong as to make it hard to believe that human agency isn't at least partially responsible. Facts are stubborn things.


    Just because the anti-capitalist/'corporations are always evil crowd' are bandwagon-ing an idea to further their own agendas does NOT mean that the concept being used is necessarily false -- though I doubt you could get the current US administration to agree to that.



    And, Pannonian, I have nothing against reasonable measures to conserve. I do go around my house shutting lights off, setting the thermostat at a level where it does not run 24 hours a day in a vain effort to keep my Florida home at 70 farenheit etc. I am of the belief, however, that draconian conservation is more about anti-capitalism than eco-protectionism. We DO need to shift our power generation and build for a less carbonized future, but I think incentivized R&D is the stronger route choice.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #334
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Just because the anti-capitalist/'corporations are always evil crowd' are bandwagon-ing an idea to further their own agendas does NOT mean that the concept being used is necessarily false -- though I doubt you could get the current US administration to agree to that.
    Anti-capitalists aren't bandwagoning anything. Leftists like Murray Bookchin have been writing about environmental issues since the 60's. There's no point in building a classless worker's utopia if it all gets destroyed by global heating.

    Not to mention global heating is caused by industrialization, which was brought on by capitalism, and just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions. I think there's a strong case to be made that the shift to a de-carbonized economy will require drastic changes to our economic system.
    Last edited by Tuuvi; 07-01-2019 at 02:21.

  5. #335

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuuvi View Post
    Anti-capitalists aren't bandwagoning anything. Leftists like Murray Bookchin have been writing about environmental issues since the 60's. There's no point in building a classless worker's utopia if it all gets destroyed by global heating.

    Not to mention global heating is caused by industrialization, which was brought on by capitalism, and just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions. I think there's a strong case to be made that the shift to a de-carbonized economy will a require drastic changes to our economic system.
    Correct, but if you look at the names that dominate the list of energy companies that are a root source of our energy pathways, a few countries dominate. The "really existing" socialism of Russia, China, and India, driven as it was by the development imperative, has a bad record for rapid and reckless environmental degradation (and carbonization). If we want a decent scenario for the world, we have to invent structures and practices never before seen. At least on the scale needed.

    But it remains incumbent on Seamus to explain how "incentives" can resolve the contradiction between:

    1. Capitalism incentivizes concentration of wealth and power.
    2. Capitalism empowers the largest private actors to regulate government regulation of its incentives.
    3. The current trend of climate change entails a drastic change in our way of life, certainly not voluntary, not necessarily guided by any particular government plan, not necessarily according to the wishes of eco-primitivists, but simply falling out of future economic and political facts in a warmer world. Our trade and consumption-oriented way of life as we know it WILL vanish on current trends.
    4. Given the distribution of energy consumption and population growth, climate change cannot be checked without unprecedented cooperation between the largest firms and most populous nations.

    Please Seamus, distinguish between "is", "ought", and "will be" here. For our purposes I'm concerned about causality, not morality; fundamentally the question of whether or not capitalism will or has failed us is distinct from whether or not some other purported system is optimal or superior. What happens if the forces and incentives of modern global capitalism are inherently vicious?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 06-30-2019 at 23:06.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  6. #336
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,983

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Correct, but if you look at the names that dominate the list of energy companies that are a root source of our energy pathways, a few countries dominate. The "really existing" socialism of Russia, China, and India, driven as it was by the development imperative, has a bad record for rapid and reckless environmental degradation (and carbonization). If we want a decent scenario for the world, we have to invent structures and practices never before seen. At least on the scale needed.

    But it remains incumbent on Seamus to explain how "incentives" can resolve the contradiction between:

    1. Capitalism incentivizes concentration of wealth and power.
    2. Capitalism empowers the largest private actors to regulate government regulation of its incentives.
    3. The current trend of climate change entails a drastic change in our way of life, certainly not voluntary, not necessarily guided by any particular government plan, not necessarily according to the wishes of eco-primitivists, but simply falling out of future economic and political facts in a warmer world. Our trade and consumption-oriented way of life as we know it WILL vanish on current trends.
    4. Given the distribution of energy consumption and population growth, climate change cannot be checked without unprecedented cooperation between the largest firms and most populous nations.

    Please Seamus, distinguish between "is", "ought", and "will be" here. For our purposes I'm concerned about causality, not morality; fundamentally the question of whether or not capitalism will or has failed us is distinct from whether or not some other purported system is optimal or superior. What happens if the forces and incentives of modern global capitalism are inherently vicious?
    Everyone should play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

  7. #337
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,395

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Correct, but if you look at the names that dominate the list of energy companies that are a root source of our energy pathways, a few countries dominate. The "really existing" socialism of Russia, China, and India, driven as it was by the development imperative, has a bad record for rapid and reckless environmental degradation (and carbonization). If we want a decent scenario for the world, we have to invent structures and practices never before seen. At least on the scale needed.
    I'm in the camp that sees China and the USSR as "state capitalism" rather than a real socialist transformation, but ultimately I still agree, socialism as it was conceived of in the past can't serve as a model for the future. Any anti-capitalist political project has to include environmental sustainability as one of its core objectives, along with the abolition of class domination.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO