Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 241

Thread: We're all gonna die (The climate change thread)

  1. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,748
    Quote Originally Posted by sandydandy
    I wish I knew what the solution was. I can only regulate my own behavior. Recycle more, pollute less. But is it enough?
    This is true to an extent, but you can also vote for people that will regulate others' behaviour as well. I try to do my part, but I also know that in a world where companies are driven by quarterly reports and shareholders, long-term goals aren't really a thing anymore, which is why you need some governmental regulation as well. I always think of the free market as springs and governmental regulation as dampers. You need both, and the job is to fine tune the two to work together.

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,468
    Good analogy, spring and dampers, we most definitely need both to have a good suspension system.

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by sandydandy View Post
    Itís a little tough to replicate without his notes that were confiscated and probably under lock and key, or maybe destroyed.
    Science is in the business of revealing whatís true. Weíll figure it out eventually. Corrupt bankers and government can only suppress the truth temporarily. If itís not pseudoscience, surely somebody will eventually figure it out.

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    Thatís right, we canít focus on any single approach. To lose weight, we canít just focus on restricting dietary intake..., especially if weíre dealing with a Ďgrowingí kid. Yeah, human population has been growing pretty rapidly, but surely we wonít continue to grow... most countries have low birth rate now... and China doesnít even have enough girls... so pretty sure weíll see a global population drop soon. Then itíll be much easier to reduce pollution!
    Dont agree with your logic...
    even with dropping birth rate, increases in life expectancy in China and India could mean population increases over the next 20 years even just with "replacement" (ie 2 kids per couple). Basically the number of generations alive increases. Its not till the average age of having kids increases (which happens with more women doing post-highschool education) that this will go down.

    Also the living standard, energy use and CO2 generation can easily increase in many 3rd world countries. Large sections of Asia (think Indonesia) and most of Africa. If they even got to half what the 1st world countries are doing then its going to be catastrophic. When a billion people want to double/triple their energy requirements its hard for us to say "no" when we have enjoyed that for the last 50 years.

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Dicknose View Post
    When a billion people want to double/triple their energy requirements its hard for us to say "no" when we have enjoyed that for the last 50 years.
    Not exactly the same, but this push for bullshit "not-meat meat" really pisses me off. Great, now people have suddenly and conveniently developed a conscience and advocate a return to processed food which, conveniently, can be used to make corporations which YOU control a ton of money? Go fly a kite. Or else they can eat their processed meat while everyone else who's been deprived of it can have some for a change.

  6. #126
    Ask me about my bottom br
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    3,734
    My feelings exactly Ydubs. It's not a problem of consumption or production or distribution; it's all three at the same time!
    Last edited by FaultyMario; May 26th, 2019 at 09:11 AM.
    acket.

  7. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,468
    DN, I think itís not very likely that weíll be able to reverse climate change significantly within the next 20 years. My point is sooner or later, population will dwindle, perhaps even due to climate change itself..., then humans will naturally emit less carbon. One way or another, weíll have to change...

    I also think itís fine if each nation wish to reduce carbon emissions if they want, but why should we deny 3rd world nations the same path we ourselves took?

    Same with nukes. We have them and use them and threaten other nations who want to develop them. Why donít we destroy our nukes 1st and lead by example?

    Once we develop an even superior weapon, weíll be able to lead by example. Likewise, once we developed a more viable tech that can put away fossil fuel for good, we wonít be needing that Paris accord.

    Money and power talks. Morality is only good on paper.

    If humanity lives only by morals, there would be no need for God to send Jesus this way.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 26th, 2019 at 09:00 AM.

  8. #128
    Ask me about my bottom br
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    3,734
    We do live by morals, it's only that you seem to forget that some of the principles for morality in the western world come from the 18th Century European tradition of liberalism. It's not just Mediterranean Abrahamic religion that which underpins our relations for commerce and power.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. the ability to own goods) often come into conflict with each other, specially because western legal frameworks favor the individual's rights over rights of the collective, and the environment is one of those things that can't be owned by individuals and its benefits and burdens are very fucking difficult to distribute fairly among the members of the collective.
    acket.

  9. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,468
    You seem very eager to educate me as if Iím some sort of dumbass. Okay, I can admit Iím a dumbass.

    So can you explain to me who gets to decide how itís fairly distributed? The moral liberal politicians in our governments? Are you sure liberal politicians cannot be bought by big corporations and they operate on morals alone?

    As you said, it fucking difficult, so under such circumstances, do you believe most people will choose to do whatís morally right or whatís good for them financially?

    I really donít understand what is there to argue about.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 26th, 2019 at 09:37 AM.

  10. #130
    Ask me about my bottom br
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    3,734
    States.

    On the side of consumption you find what you've described above as a moral issue. Each individual ought to look at their own personal compass to decide whether they want to live a 'good' life. Persons are motivated not just by the value of wealth, and those values are reinforced by their communities. Look at us, we give each other shit because we tend to hold each other in high regards, and we want our discussions to be above the usual shitslinging of social media.

    Then on the side of production, we've learnt that since business are only motivated by profits you can't rely on them to do anything other than actions to benefit the income of their shareholders. So instead of ethical principles for them, we impose regulation. That's the only way to make it work. And that's what YW was saying, the impulse behind non-animal meats is profit. Plain an simple. so: "Go fly a kite", if you're putting forward a business expect it to be treated and taxed as a business. Because regulatiio, taxation and control are the only things that work in the relationship between governments (the representatives of the collective) and money-making enterprises.

    Distribution is a whole other mess. Who gets to decide that the billions of poor people in the global south should eat "not-meat meat"? If the argument is that since there are billions of them and producing and consuming "meat meat" is costly for the collective, giving meat to billions of people would be worse for the whole than allowing rich folk to eat their cowboys and their tomahawks. That is not solved at the community level or with taxation like the other two problems. This one requires solutions we haven't yet figured out. And this needs universal principles. Whatever is going to solve that problem goes deeper than the morals of the god of Abraham or any other societal principle, this requires a global compact, one which we've never had before.
    acket.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •