O/T:- Climate Change

[SwalePie]

New thread for Climate Change debate.

[Newish Pie]

Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post

It's the 'whatever actions' part that worries me. What if governments announce sweeping changes to our way of life? What if we're no longer allowed to use personal cars, or if certain products are rationed or banned (like meat, for example). What if you have to ask for permission to fly somewhere? What if non-compliance means you don't get access to basic public services? Where's the line?

These are all good questions and valid concerns. How the burden of trying to leave within our means is shared is a difficult question, and if we're not very careful, the richest who've benefited most from unsustainable practices will continue largely as before, and the burden will fall on the poorest, both within each country and globally. We do need to eat less meat, and we do need to fly less.

But there's loads we can do on those issues before we even need to think about bans and compulsions... we don't need everyone to go vegan, we need people to try to eat less and better meat. More chicken, less beef. Small changes. Veggie food is miles better than it used to be. I eat less meat than I used to. Small changes. We can reduce the environmental cost of flying through more and better rail travel, and reduce unnecessary business travel for meetings that can now take place remotely.

These are issues that need to be discussed, debated, and decided. But if we don't take more action, climate change and the knock-on effects of climate change will simply impose sweeping changes to our way of life, and has started to do so already. It would be a mistake to think that we can just decide that such decisions are too difficult to take or to face, and that if we ignore it, it'll all just go away.

If it's a totalitarian government people are worried about, it's not obvious to me why that's more likely in a country that tries to prepare for and mitigate climate change compared to one that just ignores it and has to face worse consequences unprepared. People are right to feat totalitarian governments, but people should also fear anarchy... societal breakdown, failed states, chaos... whether in this country or in others. We've already seen the price of failed states.

[JoePass]

Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post

It's the 'whatever actions' part that worries me. What if governments announce sweeping changes to our way of life? What if we're no longer allowed to use personal cars, or if certain products are rationed or banned (like meat, for example). What if you have to ask for permission to fly somewhere? What if non-compliance means you don't get access to basic public services? Where's the line?

These are all good questions and valid concerns. How the burden of trying to leave within our means is shared is a difficult question, and if we're not very careful, the richest who've benefited most from unsustainable practices will continue largely as before, and the burden will fall on the poorest, both within each country and globally. We do need to eat less meat, and we do need to fly less.

But there's loads we can do on those issues before we even need to think about bans and compulsions... we don't need everyone to go vegan, we need people to try to eat less and better meat. More chicken, less beef. Small changes. Veggie food is miles better than it used to be. I eat less meat than I used to. Small changes. We can reduce the environmental cost of flying through more and better rail travel, and reduce unnecessary business travel for meetings that can now take place remotely.

These are issues that need to be discussed, debated, and decided. But if we don't take more action, climate change and the knock-on effects of climate change will simply impose sweeping changes to our way of life, and has started to do so already. It would be a mistake to think that we can just decide that such decisions are too difficult to take or to face, and that if we ignore it, it'll all just go away.

If it's a totalitarian government people are worried about, it's not obvious to me why that's more likely in a country that tries to prepare for and mitigate climate change compared to one that just ignores it and has to face worse consequences unprepared. People are right to feat totalitarian governments, but people should also fear anarchy... societal breakdown, failed states, chaos... whether in this country or in others. We've already seen the price of failed states.

Simple answer, scrap all net zero.

[TheBlackHorse]

... government realise they can't carry on with the climate change con. Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant. The science lobby have had their fingers in the till for long enough. The change is due to effects of the sun, something we can do f-all about.

[Another one]

I blame Thatcher.

[Newish Pie]

... government realise they can't carry on with the climate change con. Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant. The science lobby have had their fingers in the till for long enough. The change is due to effects of the sun, something we can do f-all about.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it's caused by human actions. These conclusions have been reached not as a matter of faith, but by using the same scientific method that's underpinned every aspect of human progress and development.

The idea that it's just scientists with their "fingers in the till" is just a conspiracy theory. Or wishful thinking.

[OchPie]

Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant.

CO2 is at over 400 parts per million. Phosgene gas can be deadly at 2ppm.

Climate always changes. It is changing much faster because of CO2 levels. Science is about as certain as it's possible to be that this is the case.

As the IPCC says with my emphasis:

"Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020."

[Elite_Pie]

Simple answer, scrap all net zero.

When it comes to being simple, nobody beats you.

[Old_pie]

All well and good but who knew you could get two points for a draw in the EFL Trophy?

[Woodypie]

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it's caused by human actions. These conclusions have been reached not as a matter of faith, but by using the same scientific method that's underpinned every aspect of human progress and development.

The idea that it's just scientists with their "fingers in the till" is just a conspiracy theory. Or wishful thinking. Or fiddling while Rome burns, which was also bad for CO2 emissions. I wonder what the impact of producing all that soya stuff is Vs. meat? The reason Rishi is doing this is blatantly obvious and nothing to do with seeing the light - he misguidedly thinks that because ULEV is unpopular in London and saved a Tory arse in a bye election the same will hold true for the rest of the country and save his arse. I think he is wrong.

[OchPie]

I wonder what the impact of producing all that soya stuff is Vs. meat?

Perhaps ironically, most of the world's soy crop goes to feed animals for meat (and dairy).

[TheBlackHorse]

"Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020."

If 99.9% of the science lobby believe it to be true doesn't make it right. It's a good game for the politicians (short term) to appear to have a semblance of control; which suits them for their short term jollie ...

[OchPie]

If 99.9% of the science lobby believe it to be true doesn't make it right.

True, but it does make the level of counter-evidence required to say it is wrong really quite high.

[Magpies1959]

Things like being told the coral reefs are dying due to bleaching, caused by Co2, only to find that it is cyclical, and 5 to 10 years later they have replenished, does sort of make it easy to disbelieve anything else we are told.

[OchPie]

Things like being told the coral reefs are dying due to bleaching, caused by Co2, only to find that it is cyclical, and 5 to 10 years later they have replenished, does sort of make it easy to disbelieve anything else we are told.

It'd be nice if that were what happened.

Some coral recovers from bleaching, and some doesn't. The more bleaching happens, the harder it seems to be for coral to recover in general. The average interval between bleaching events has halved between 1980 and 2016.

The worst fears about coral have not come to pass, but coverage continues to decline. It's been cut in half in the pasts 70 years.

[Magpies1959]

It is what happened, but you would always know better.

These so called experts, always give a worse case scenario, but it is always taken as what will actually happen. The pandemic being a prime example. All designed to scare the Florist out of us.

[SwalePie]

It is what happened, but you would always know better.

These so called experts, always give a worse case scenario, but it is always taken as what will actually happen. The pandemic being a prime example. All designed to scare the Florist out of us.

6,918,076 deaths to date would make me consider the Covid-19 pandemic (I presume you meant that one) fairly serious.

[BigFatPie]

Sunak rowing back on manifesto promises. The fans of democracy who insisted the will of the people must be carried out after the EU referendum will be furious.

[SmiffyPie]

Think he might well be pandering (if it is pandering and not electioneering? Or are they the same??) to the current will of the people. Manifesto promises are written in sand (by all sides) and unhappy (poor) voters trump them.

[the_anticlough]

6,918,076 deaths to date would make me consider the Covid-19 pandemic (I presume you meant that one) fairly serious.

So glad you're around to say these things, Swale. I know you write it as a poster and not a moderator but you do a bloody good job at checking the misinformation on here :)

[SmiffyPie]

So glad you're around to say these things, Swale. I know you write it as a poster and not a moderator but you do a bloody good job at checking the misinformation on here :)Yes. At times the things that people deny and arrive at conspiracy theories is mind-numbing.

[Elite_Pie]

If I were you enjoy the large onions and your family mate. Cheers QP.

Thank you QP, I'm enjoying both as usual, especially this fine specimen:

https://i.postimg.cc/qMT1fgYT/onion-2.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

It weighed in at 1.56 Kg or 3lb 7oz in old money. I've grown a couple of bigger ones, but this is the most aesthetically beautiful. Perfectly proportioned, and curves in all the right places. It's been a variable summer over here, but generally quite good for growing. Just a hobby for me, but when crops fail due to extreme weather in places like Africa it becomes literally a matter of life and death.

But some won't care, because they're Africans.

[the_anticlough]

Yes. At times the things that people deny and arrive at conspiracy theories is mind-numbing.

Well said mate. Yes, the truth's taken a battering with the likes of Trump and Johnson - but it's based on taking people for fools and most people aren't!

[SmiffyPie]

But some won't care, because they're Africans.What a ridiculous thing to say.

[the_anticlough]

https://i.postimg.cc/qMT1fgYT/onion-2.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


I'd get your right testicle checked out - something's not quite right there

[Elite_Pie]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

I wish it was. They are a small and diminishing minority, but they definitely exist.

[Elite_Pie]

I'd get your right testicle checked out - something's not quite right there

Funny you should say that, I went to the doctor and told him the left one had shrunk.

[the_anticlough]

I'm surprised your missus doesn't buy you some trimming scissors for the right one.

[kill_the_drum]

6,918,076 deaths to date would make me consider the Covid-19 pandemic (I presume you meant that one) fairly serious.

Genuine question; does anyone know of a person that died directly due to Covid?
I know of 4 people that died (my grandad being one) and were stated as a Covid death, purely because they had Covid when they died. It played no part in them dying!
My grandad had terminal cancer and was 6 months past the doctors estimated life expectancy. He went into hospital when he took a turn for the worst. He died 5 days later and was classed as a Covid death.
He tested negative when he first arrived at the hospital and was tested again after he passed away!

[Elite_Pie]

Genuine question; does anyone know of a person that died directly due to Covid?

Impossible to put a specific number on it but the fact that average deaths worldwide jumped markedly during Covid should tell you something.

What we knew very early is that those most at risk were the elderly with underlying medical conditions. That's why it was criminal to allow untested people back into care homes, where the vast majority who lived there were the elderly with underlying medical conditions. A lot of them probably didn't have a lot of time left, but they didn't need to die before their time.

[Magpies1959]

So people are happy to think that the media, and government hype surrounding covid, and the actual impact the virus had were about equal? Why do you think as KTD alludes to, that covid deaths were reported as 'dying within 28 days of testing positive for covid', and not OF covid. Purely to inflate the figures.

[Elite_Pie]

So people are happy to think that the media, and government hype surrounding covid, and the actual impact the virus had were about equal? Why do you think as KTD alludes to, that covid deaths were reported as 'dying within 28 days of testing positive for covid', and not OF covid. Purely to inflate the figures.

If you don't believe the figures, why did global death rates suddenly increase when Covid was around?

Do you accept that the jump was down to Covid?

If not, what else caused it?

[SwalePie]

Genuine question; does anyone know of a person that died directly due to Covid?
I know of 4 people that died (my grandad being one) and were stated as a Covid death, purely because they had Covid when they died. It played no part in them dying!
My grandad had terminal cancer and was 6 months past the doctors estimated life expectancy. He went into hospital when he took a turn for the worst. He died 5 days later and was classed as a Covid death.
He tested negative when he first arrived at the hospital and was tested again after he passed away!

Yes a very good friend of mine died from Covid-19 in 2021 (not 'with Covid-19'). He was a happy and otherwise healthy 57 years old.

[OchPie]

I didn't lose anyone directly but three friends lost a parent each. The ONS did differentiate between deaths of people with COVID and where COVID was a contributing factor to the death. The numbers were really not that very far apart.


It is what happened, but you would always know better.

These so called experts, always give a worse case scenario, but it is always taken as what will actually happen. The pandemic being a prime example. All designed to scare the Florist out of us.

I only always know better because I bother to check, because it's part of my work. I and everyone I know would be delighted if climate change wasn't a thing. Unfortunately it's impossible to ignore.

What the media does with climate scenarios is annoying and I don't necessarily disagree that they sensationalise rather than try to provide clear information, but it's my observation that the closer people are to the science, the more scared they are. This isn't a case of billionaires chuckling about the gullibility of everyone else.

[Woodypie]

Genuine question; does anyone know of a person that died directly due to Covid?
I know of 4 people that died (my grandad being one) and were stated as a Covid death, purely because they had Covid when they died. It played no part in them dying!
My grandad had terminal cancer and was 6 months past the doctors estimated life expectancy. He went into hospital when he took a turn for the worst. He died 5 days later and was classed as a Covid death.
He tested negative when he first arrived at the hospital and was tested again after he passed away! Yes, my brother, in September 2020.

[OchPie]

Yes, my brother, in September 2020.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

[slack_pie]

I don't personally know of anyone who died as a direct result of COVID, but no doubt lots of people do.

One thing is clear though - the government deliberately falsified the data to make the pandemic seem worse that it actually was. The question is, why?

Going back to the climate change issue, this is my major concern - that governments will hijack what is certainly an important issue and blow it out of all proportion, so they can introduce new laws and conditions that would otherwise be unacceptable to the public. They'll stoke fear until people are begging the government to control what we're allowed to do, where we're allowed to do it, and when.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that increases the government's control over our lives is fundamentally bad for most people - except in very extreme cases where top-down control is the only way to implement necessary changes. Is climate change one of those cases? No idea, but I think a lot of people no longer trust the government to act in our best interests.

[Dspig]

i thought this was about Climate? ah well..... i'll go to the covid thread & maybe it continues there....

[jackal2]

i thought this was about Climate? ah well..... i'll go to the covid thread & maybe it continues there....

The climate changed...

[sidders]

The climate changed...

What a witty fellow J2, but if wit was tit you wouldn't need a bra.

[MarcusCole]

If you don't believe the figures, why did global death rates suddenly increase when Covid was around?

Do you accept that the jump was down to Covid?

If not, what else caused it?

Perhaps it was due to all the medical facilities being closed to everything other than Covid. My uncle had all his cancer treatments cancelled, guess what happened to him, he miraculously died with Covid. What do you think happens when you remove access to medical facilities for a population, but yes it has to be Covid.

[jackal2]

What a witty fellow J2, but if wit was tit you wouldn't need a bra.

Nice to see you're keeping abreast!

[Newish Pie]

I don't personally know of anyone who died as a direct result of COVID, but no doubt lots of people do.

One thing is clear though - the government deliberately falsified the data to make the pandemic seem worse that it actually was. The question is, why?

Going back to the climate change issue, this is my major concern - that governments will hijack what is certainly an important issue and blow it out of all proportion, so they can introduce new laws and conditions that would otherwise be unacceptable to the public. They'll stoke fear until people are begging the government to control what we're allowed to do, where we're allowed to do it, and when.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that increases the government's control over our lives is fundamentally bad for most people - except in very extreme cases where top-down control is the only way to implement necessary changes. Is climate change one of those cases? No idea, but I think a lot of people no longer trust the government to act in our best interests.

I don't think it is at all clear that the government deliberately falsified the data. There are plenty of cases where it's genuinely difficult to tell whether someone died of or with COVID, and when, in the middle of a global pandemic, the distinction doesn't matter a great deal. It's a medical records coding issue, and it seems an odd issue to focus on, when the overall number of deaths vs expected deaths tells a pretty clear story.

Two things I'd say about COVID and accusations about over-hyping. The first is that at the start, there was a lot that we (scientists, medics) didn't know about COVID. They knew about coronaviruses more generally. But they didn't know about levels of transmissibility - hence the early focus on surface washing, which proved later not to be so necessary. We also didn't know how best to treat patients. The second is that a lot of early predictions were based on not doing anything/taking no steps. But we did take steps to reduce the spread, and we did get better at treating people, and we were lucky in the way that the virus mutated so far. Or at least it could have been much worse.

More generally - there is an issue around the climate crisis, how it's reported, and how people campaign. This is true of absolutely every issue that everyone campaigns on. There's a dilemma - if you don't make it seem bad, people are less likely to respond. On the other hand, if you make it seem too bad/hopeless, people will regard it as a lost cause. There is some good news amidst all the bad news about the climate crisis and our response - much more power is generated through renewals, and we've had major culture changes towards recycling and minimising waste. These aren't nothing. We've also got some interesting technological interventions coming down the line that may help - carbon capture etc.

Problem is, some campaigners are resistant to reporting good/better news on climate (and perhaps COVID and other issues too) because they think it'll make people complacent. It was interesting reading what people said in the other thread about feeling hopeless and that nothing we could do could make a difference. We need to get the message - yes, there's a climate crisis. Yes, it's caused by human activity. No, we can't stop it, but yes, we can still reduce the damage.

I'm interested in this argument about government control. Genuine discussion to be had about how we share out the burdens of climate change fairly. But there's a paranoia in the air sometimes (not Slack Pie, I don't think, whose post is more nuanced) about everything being an excuse or pretext for government overreach or takeover. It's a very American argument... this idea that government is bad and will always overreach and will inevitably try to control everything. They also mistake trying to control what corporations do with controlling what citizens do. It's probably to do with their history and their national story of escaping colonial oppression, but our national story and relationship with our government is quite different.

There's no evidence for the idea of creeping totalitarianism. Yes, the government did take emergency powers during COVID, but then it relaxed them again. During WWII we had much greater restrictions on civil liberties, including rationing, which were all subsequently relaxed. And although we can all point to instances of police overreaction during COVID, generally policing was by consent and with a minimum of legal force.

Think it's fine to worry about what sacrifices people will have to make to avoid the worst of the climate crisis and about how that burden will be divided and how those decisions will be taken. But it's possible to do that without going down a paranoid rabbit hole.

[OchPie]

One thing is clear though - the government deliberately falsified the data to make the pandemic seem worse that it actually was. The question is, why?

Honestly, I think the question is "why is this clear?".

Counting COVID deaths is really hard. Asking "what is a COVID death" isn't nearly as straightforward as it might at first seem. You catch COVID, it has impacts all over the body, short and long term. You get over COVID, maybe it's damaged something sufficiently you still later die of it. Or you die while with COVID because it made you more susceptible to something underlying. Or you had COVID but a comorbidity was always going to finish you off anyway. How do you account for those things?

The UK government took some naive decisions which it later changed, some of which reduced COVID death numbers (e.g. imposing a 28 day cutoff from a positive test). In truth, it's pretty widely accepted that death numbers were probably understated if anything, especially early on when testing was difficult.

Similarly with climate change, the research needed to say it is happening is not simple. The mechanisms are pretty simple to explain, but the Earth has various feedback mechanisms, some of which dampen climate change and some of which accelerate it, and it's not easy to model how they interact. Those of us championing more EVs have to face that in the short term this may well increase warming because it also removes particulate matter from the air.

However very very few serious scientists now doubt climate change. The weight of evidence is absolutely massive. Contradictory evidence is tiny. There's still lots of argument around the edges, about how this or that system works or on the impact of a particular ecosystem or activity. But the change itself is happening, and it is happening because of us.

[SwalePie]

I don't think it is at all clear that the government deliberately falsified the data. There are plenty of cases where it's genuinely difficult to tell whether someone died of or with COVID, and when, in the middle of a global pandemic, the distinction doesn't matter a great deal. It's a medical records coding issue, and it seems an odd issue to focus on, when the overall number of deaths vs expected deaths tells a pretty clear story.

Two things I'd say about COVID and accusations about over-hyping. The first is that at the start, there was a lot that we (scientists, medics) didn't know about COVID. They knew about coronaviruses more generally. But they didn't know about levels of transmissibility - hence the early focus on surface washing, which proved later not to be so necessary. We also didn't know how best to treat patients. The second is that a lot of early predictions were based on not doing anything/taking no steps. But we did take steps to reduce the spread, and we did get better at treating people, and we were lucky in the way that the virus mutated so far. Or at least it could have been much worse.

More generally - there is an issue around the climate crisis, how it's reported, and how people campaign. This is true of absolutely every issue that everyone campaigns on. There's a dilemma - if you don't make it seem bad, people are less likely to respond. On the other hand, if you make it seem too bad/hopeless, people will regard it as a lost cause. There is some good news amidst all the bad news about the climate crisis and our response - much more power is generated through renewals, and we've had major culture changes towards recycling and minimising waste. These aren't nothing. We've also got some interesting technological interventions coming down the line that may help - carbon capture etc.

Problem is, some campaigners are resistant to reporting good/better news on climate (and perhaps COVID and other issues too) because they think it'll make people complacent. It was interesting reading what people said in the other thread about feeling hopeless and that nothing we could do could make a difference. We need to get the message - yes, there's a climate crisis. Yes, it's caused by human activity. No, we can't stop it, but yes, we can still reduce the damage.

I'm interested in this argument about government control. Genuine discussion to be had about how we share out the burdens of climate change fairly. But there's a paranoia in the air sometimes (not Slack Pie, I don't think, whose post is more nuanced) about everything being an excuse or pretext for government overreach or takeover. It's a very American argument... this idea that government is bad and will always overreach and will inevitably try to control everything. They also mistake trying to control what corporations do with controlling what citizens do. It's probably to do with their history and their national story of escaping colonial oppression, but our national story and relationship with our government is quite different.

There's no evidence for the idea of creeping totalitarianism. Yes, the government did take emergency powers during COVID, but then it relaxed them again. During WWII we had much greater restrictions on civil liberties, including rationing, which were all subsequently relaxed. And although we can all point to instances of police overreaction during COVID, generally policing was by consent and with a minimum of legal force.

Think it's fine to worry about what sacrifices people will have to make to avoid the worst of the climate crisis and about how that burden will be divided and how those decisions will be taken. But it's possible to do that without going down a paranoid rabbit hole.

Well put.

[OchPie]

There's no evidence for the idea of creeping totalitarianism.

What scares me is that it seems to me, it's often the people complaining loudest about the concept of totalitarianism who seem to embrace the slow realisation of it. GB News is against free protest - supporting government moves to cut protest, and complaining about the existence of Just Stop Oil (and not just their more extreme tactics). It has been one of the mildest critics (and showed outright support) of the Online Safety Bill. It demands an end to "wokeness" in every aspect, including those calling for it - a direct attack on free speech.

For what it's worth, I don't worry about elections being effectively stopped if any of the current lot in the UK win in 2024/25, while I do think that's a very real risk if Trump is reelected.

[jackal2]

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it's caused by human actions. These conclusions have been reached not as a matter of faith, but by using the same scientific method that's underpinned every aspect of human progress and development.

The idea that it's just scientists with their "fingers in the till" is just a conspiracy theory. Or wishful thinking.


If scientists are correct that human behaviour is on course to bring about our own self-destruction, then perhaps the people really with their "fingers in the till" are those who have calculated how much money can be made from exploiting the comically naive premise that humans are capable of mustering the willpower and co-ordinated, collective worldwide action to reverse climate change.

The most likely motivation for the 'green agenda' is savvy capitalists who have realised that, while we await the inevitable, there's a lot of money to be made from exploiting humanity's collective state of denial about where we're headed. It's a cash cow there to be milked, even if it's farts are also contributing to global warming!

[Mark_Ross]

New thread for Climate Change debate.

Sorry folks, but this debate is depressingly familiar in its futility. People are entrenched either on the one side or the other, and there's virtually zero movement between.

All I'll say is that most people seem to be perfectly happy to trust science (and its spin-off technology) for 99% of their everyday lives - the exception being something for which they have a very strong emotional response... a "gut" feeling... and another conspiracy is born.

see also:
Religion / supernatural, also extra-terrestrial visitors
{versus Evolution through natural selection, & their non-existence}

[the_anticlough]

The most likely motivation for the 'green agenda' is savvy capitalists who have realised that, while we await the inevitable, there's a lot of money to be made from exploiting humanity's collective state of denial about where we're headed. It's a cash cow there to be milked, even if it's farts are also contributing to global warming!

I think discussion of climate change on this site over the last week or so has been a King Solomon moment.

You know, when he settled a dispute over two women claiming to be the mother of baby by saying he would cut that baby in two...

The shocking level of misanthropy by those saying they don't care about future generations of humanity not being able to enjoy the kind of lives we've been able to live...

It really shows what these people are about, shrivelled-up hollow shells of human beings, most likely hollowed out by the very systems they defend so mindlessly with their conservatism.

[drillerpie]

Sorry folks, but this debate is depressingly familiar in its futility. People are entrenched either on the one side or the other, and there's virtually zero movement between.


People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

[jackal2]

The shocking level of misanthropy by those saying they don't care about future generations of humanity not being able to enjoy the kind of lives we've been able to live...

I'm sure there are those with a misanthropic view that they simply don't care about future generations, but I doubt there are that many, and I certainly think it would be unfair just to categorise all climate change sceptics under that banner.

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Yes, that no doubt includes climate change sceptics (who presumably might not even try!) but it also includes many of the people who accept climate change is happening and purport to be living greener lives but only at a superficial level. You don't have to look too far to find people who say all the right words about living in a more environmentally-friendly way and do certain low-level gesture-type things that are consistent with it, but who then fly on holiday each year or keep three cars outside their house.

Then there's the whole global issue of countries like ours who in the past gleaned huge economic benefits from our industrial revolutions turning around to countries like China and saying "sorry, you can't have your own industrial revolution because we've now decided it is dirty and polluting". Unsurprisingly, the Chinese (and others in a similar position) tell us to get stuffed and build another batch of new coal power plants!

Are all these people misanthropes consciously and deliberately blighting future generations, or are they simply human beings being human beings: selfless at times, selfish at others. Perhaps as an imperfect species we're pre-programmed to self-expire as many other species have before us?

[BigFatPie]

People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

In the 70s and 80s there were big debates on smoking and we can probably guess who would have been which side on that one as well.

The parallels between that issue and climate change are quite striking, in both the science was settled for years but the waters were deliberately muddied by industry shills going round saying it wasn’t actually as bad as those uptight scientists said it was and also promoting smoking as a ‘freedom’ issue, with those wanting restrictions as being part of the ‘nanny state’.

Nowadays of course climate denialists, both paid and unpaid, have many more platforms to spread their nonsense, and their unscientific claims are proving harder to discredit. Sunak’s disgraceful announcements yesterday are of course a massive backward step.

[MarcusCole]

Sorry folks, but this debate is depressingly familiar in its futility. People are entrenched either on the one side or the other, and there's virtually zero movement between.

All I'll say is that most people seem to be perfectly happy to trust science (and its spin-off technology) for 99% of their everyday lives - the exception being something for which they have a very strong emotional response... a "gut" feeling... and another conspiracy is born.

see also:
Religion / supernatural, also extra-terrestrial visitors
{versus Evolution through natural selection, & their non-existence}

I sort of see where you are coming from but I see there are being three camps on this

1st extremist view - There is a Climate Emergency and extreme measures must be taken and d@mn and consequences.

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

3rd Extremist view - Its all a lie

[slack_pie]

Honestly, I think the question is "why is this clear?".

Counting COVID deaths is really hard. Asking "what is a COVID death" isn't nearly as straightforward as it might at first seem. You catch COVID, it has impacts all over the body, short and long term. You get over COVID, maybe it's damaged something sufficiently you still later die of it. Or you die while with COVID because it made you more susceptible to something underlying. Or you had COVID but a comorbidity was always going to finish you off anyway. How do you account for those things?

The UK government took some naive decisions which it later changed, some of which reduced COVID death numbers (e.g. imposing a 28 day cutoff from a positive test). In truth, it's pretty widely accepted that death numbers were probably understated if anything, especially early on when testing was difficult.

Similarly with climate change, the research needed to say it is happening is not simple. The mechanisms are pretty simple to explain, but the Earth has various feedback mechanisms, some of which dampen climate change and some of which accelerate it, and it's not easy to model how they interact. Those of us championing more EVs have to face that in the short term this may well increase warming because it also removes particulate matter from the air.

However very very few serious scientists now doubt climate change. The weight of evidence is absolutely massive. Contradictory evidence is tiny. There's still lots of argument around the edges, about how this or that system works or on the impact of a particular ecosystem or activity. But the change itself is happening, and it is happening because of us.

I agree that it's not easy to pinpoint exactly what was the cause of someone's death when there are multiple factors involved. But back in 2020, if a terminally ill cancer patient contracted COVID on their death bed, that data point was presented to the public as a COVID death, not a cancer death. Now, that was either a deliberate attempt to inflate the numbers and, in the words of Matt Hancock, "scare the pants off" the public, or it was rank incompetence. Take your pick.

[the_anticlough]

People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

The majority of that will be accounted for by the underlying, unifying principles that make up a person's worldview (or backyardview ; ) ). So it's not necessarily tribalism or propaganda. If someone's applying, say, compassion or fatalism on one issue, they're most likely to bring it to bear on all the others too.

[the_anticlough]

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done



The 'middle of the row, can't be so far behind, can it?

The information has been there for decades, it's clear what needs to be done, and the sooner it's implemented the less catastrophic it'll be for the poor suckers who had the misfortune to follow generations trained to be selfish and indifferent

[Newish Pie]

I'm sure there are those with a misanthropic view that they simply don't care about future generations, but I doubt there are that many, and I certainly think it would be unfair just to categorise all climate change sceptics under that banner.

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Yes, that no doubt includes climate change sceptics (who presumably might not even try!) but it also includes many of the people who accept climate change is happening and purport to be living greener lives but only at a superficial level. You don't have to look too far to find people who say all the right words about living in a more environmentally-friendly way and do certain low-level gesture-type things that are consistent with it, but who then fly on holiday each year or keep three cars outside their house.

Then there's the whole global issue of countries like ours who in the past gleaned huge economic benefits from our industrial revolutions turning around to countries like China and saying "sorry, you can't have your own industrial revolution because we've now decided it is dirty and polluting". Unsurprisingly, the Chinese (and others in a similar position) tell us to get stuffed and build another batch of new coal power plants!

Are all these people misanthropes consciously and deliberately blighting future generations, or are they simply human beings being human beings: selfless at times, selfish at others. Perhaps as an imperfect species we're pre-programmed to self-expire as many other species have before us?

I agree that not all climate crisis deniers are misanthropes, but some are, and many won't admit it until they're pushed. Including on this board, people happy to admit that they don't much care if the human race goes extinct, and by implication don't much care about the suffering caused as society and modern industrial society breaks down. I'm not sure why the rest of who do care should pay them or their opinions much attention.

I'm more optimistic about the power of humans to turn things round, certainly enough to make it worth doing. Ultimately, we're social animals, and we take our cues from those around us and how they behave. We reach tipping points, and behaviour and attitudes change. In many of our lifetimes, it's gone from being socially unacceptable not to be homophobic to the opposite. See also: most racists who feel the need to argue that they're not racists in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Because it's not socially acceptable.

Speaking as someone who is very concerned about the climate, but who nevertheless flew to the US for a holiday, I'd say it's not about a small number of people being perfect - being environmental monks - but about a lot of people doing a bit better. That all adds up.

I also don't think the main source of change will be individuals making individual choices. It'll be government policies, it'll be industry, it'll be government regulation for industry - the attempt to make individuals primarily responsible for climate change is often a pretty grubby attempt to deflect responsibility from where it really lies. We can blame individuals for their car use, or we can ask why they use their cars - is public transport not good enough or too expensive, is active travel like cycling or walking too dangerous or difficult?

There's so much government could do... the UK housing stock is very poorly insulated and very inefficient. What we need is a government programme to improve the quality of home energy efficiency. This will reduce energy use, will improve human health, will reduce poverty, and will create jobs. And most of the worst housing stock is in the poorest areas where the jobs are most needed. So many wins. It's madness that we've not done it... it's such an obviously good idea, it shouldn't be a left/right issue.

I guess I'm optimistic because when I look at all that humans have accomplished... it's pretty impressive. We can coordinate and cooperate when we need to.

I absolutely agree that we need other countries to do their bit too, and developing countries absolutely have a case when they say to the west: look, you got where you are now by polluting the planet and you're saying we can't do the same to improve our people's living standards?! Part of the answer is in giving them access to technology and cleaner ways to achieve the same objectives. The other part of the answer is taking leadership and setting an example. In the case of China, I'd also point out that a lot of China's production is actually manufacturing stuff for countries like the UK. Not all of which we need.

It may be that I'm completely wrong about this, and intransigence and "you first-ism" will doom us all. But we have to try.

[drillerpie]

The majority of that will be accounted for by the underlying, unifying principles that make up a person's worldview (or backyardview ; ) ). So it's not necessarily tribalism or propaganda. If someone's applying, say, compassion or fatalism on one issue, they're most likely to bring it to bear on all the others too.

Fair points, it could be that, but I'm not sure that explains it all. One poster has already stated he's zen about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (climate change) but is at the same time very worried about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (Russian nukes).

This doesn't make sense, yet I bet if you asked a large number of climate change sceptics, the vast majority would have the same position on Ukraine.

I think something more is happening here.

[drillerpie]

I don't think it is at all clear that the government deliberately falsified the data. There are plenty of cases where it's genuinely difficult to tell whether someone died of or with COVID, and when, in the middle of a global pandemic, the distinction doesn't matter a great deal. It's a medical records coding issue, and it seems an odd issue to focus on, when the overall number of deaths vs expected deaths tells a pretty clear story.

Two things I'd say about COVID and accusations about over-hyping. The first is that at the start, there was a lot that we (scientists, medics) didn't know about COVID. They knew about coronaviruses more generally. But they didn't know about levels of transmissibility - hence the early focus on surface washing, which proved later not to be so necessary. We also didn't know how best to treat patients. The second is that a lot of early predictions were based on not doing anything/taking no steps. But we did take steps to reduce the spread, and we did get better at treating people, and we were lucky in the way that the virus mutated so far. Or at least it could have been much worse.

More generally - there is an issue around the climate crisis, how it's reported, and how people campaign. This is true of absolutely every issue that everyone campaigns on. There's a dilemma - if you don't make it seem bad, people are less likely to respond. On the other hand, if you make it seem too bad/hopeless, people will regard it as a lost cause. There is some good news amidst all the bad news about the climate crisis and our response - much more power is generated through renewals, and we've had major culture changes towards recycling and minimising waste. These aren't nothing. We've also got some interesting technological interventions coming down the line that may help - carbon capture etc.

Problem is, some campaigners are resistant to reporting good/better news on climate (and perhaps COVID and other issues too) because they think it'll make people complacent. It was interesting reading what people said in the other thread about feeling hopeless and that nothing we could do could make a difference. We need to get the message - yes, there's a climate crisis. Yes, it's caused by human activity. No, we can't stop it, but yes, we can still reduce the damage.

I'm interested in this argument about government control. Genuine discussion to be had about how we share out the burdens of climate change fairly. But there's a paranoia in the air sometimes (not Slack Pie, I don't think, whose post is more nuanced) about everything being an excuse or pretext for government overreach or takeover. It's a very American argument... this idea that government is bad and will always overreach and will inevitably try to control everything. They also mistake trying to control what corporations do with controlling what citizens do. It's probably to do with their history and their national story of escaping colonial oppression, but our national story and relationship with our government is quite different.

There's no evidence for the idea of creeping totalitarianism. Yes, the government did take emergency powers during COVID, but then it relaxed them again. During WWII we had much greater restrictions on civil liberties, including rationing, which were all subsequently relaxed. And although we can all point to instances of police overreaction during COVID, generally policing was by consent and with a minimum of legal force.

Think it's fine to worry about what sacrifices people will have to make to avoid the worst of the climate crisis and about how that burden will be divided and how those decisions will be taken. But it's possible to do that without going down a paranoid rabbit hole.


I think you're right about it being a very American perspective. Their constitution was written in the late 1700s and is a snapshot of English political thought at the time, which was a reaction against the absolutism of the century before (the 1600s was the century of absolute rulers in France, the UK and elsewhere) so avoiding tyrannical government was very important at the time.

While it has been a constant in American politics, I think it has gone more into the mainstream in recent years, arguably with good reason on some levels. But I agree with you that people don't always take into account what small government means in practice.

Philosphers divide freedom into positive and negative freedom, which can be loosely translated as freedom from something (or everything) and freedom to (do something, or everything).

Small government (or almost no government, in the libertarian tradition) means freedom FROM pretty much everything, but it drastically reduces your freedom TO do things, because without a government giving you an education, health care, police protection, transport, you are unlikely to have the positive freedom to realise your potential in life.

[the_anticlough]

Fair points, it could be that, but I'm not sure that explains it all. One poster has already stated he's zen about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (climate change) but is at the same time very worried about the extinction of the human race and life as we know it (Russian nukes).

This doesn't make sense, yet I bet if you asked a large number of climate change sceptics, the vast majority would have the same position on Ukraine.

I think something more is happening here.

I actually think so too. My first post was just to qualify yours a bit.

Supporting a football club is one of the most tribal things you can do. Even so, I don't wallow in that. I tell myself it's conditional (although we know it's not :) )

But seeing grown adults approach other more serious subjects with the same reflex tribalism (including voting in general elections) is just so wrong. Falling into line with 'our side' as if it's like supporting a football club. It's not supposed to be like that of course, we should also be using our minds and consciences to figure difficult questions out for ourselves. So yes, there should be more variance in opinions across the range of subjects and 'taking sides' as such should be left for the sillier stuff like footy

[Newish Pie]

I think you're right about it being a very American perspective. Their constitution was written in the late 1700s and is a snapshot of English political thought at the time, which was a reaction against the absolutism of the century before (the 1600s was the century of absolute rulers in France, the UK and elsewhere) so avoiding tyrannical government was very important at the time.

While it has been a constant in American politics, I think it has gone more into the mainstream in recent years, arguably with good reason on some levels. But I agree with you that people don't always take into account what small government means in practice.

Philosphers divide freedom into positive and negative freedom, which can be loosely translated as freedom from something (or everything) and freedom to (do something, or everything).

Small government (or almost no government, in the libertarian tradition) means freedom FROM pretty much everything, but it drastically reduces your freedom TO do things, because without a government giving you an education, health care, police protection, transport, you are unlikely to have the positive freedom to realise your potential in life.

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today. ;)

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

[upthemaggies]

This discussion seems to have turned into a "Look how kind and caring I am" circle jerk.

How about a hypothetical choice of scenario's with a crystal ball to show the result 200 years from now....

Plan A (most countries signing up to an agreement) - Population is 3 billion in 2223, but everybody related to you are amongst the 5 billion plus that don't make it.
Plan B (Individual countries take matters into their own hands) - Only half a billion survive to 2223 but these include all of your offspring and relations' offspring.

Anybody who would pick Plan A is either a liar, has no kids or hates themselves.

On the Nuclear War v Climate Change question.
Nuclear war means we take everything out with us, the Earth may never recover and it's also going to be a horrific way to go out for most who won't die instantly. Climate change isn't going to happen overnight and other species will adapt. Can't believe I'm having to explain the difference with that one.

[drillerpie]

That's one more reference to Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts' than I was expecting to read here today. ;)

There's a line in the Simpsons... Homer says something about gun ownership being allowed for two reasons... killing dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. Something like that. Sums up the spirit of it.

I've got a theory that in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) we gave the libertarian laissez-faire minimal government thing a go and decided that it didn't work. For anyone. Not for the minnows (obviously), but not for the pikes either.

We ended up with the famine in Ireland; slums and squalor and unspeakable poverty in the cities; and conditions and child labour in factories so appalling that it was too much even for the powers that be, who were compelled to intervene to try to stop the race to the bottom. You've also got the shock caused by the struggle to find enough fit men to sign up for the army during the Boer War. The realisation that industrialisation requires more engineers, and a global trade empire required administrators and clerks, and all that needs education.

Then you get governments bringing in regulations and inspectors and minimum standards, and the growth of trade unions fighting for workers' rights. Pre-WWI you get the first origins of the welfare state, and then after WWII the Beveridge Report and the welfare state proper.

I'm not quite sure why the American experience followed such a different path. Probably a more rural economy... slavery... shortages of labour keeping wages higher? The Federal system making government seem much more remote?

The other thing that puzzles me... let's assume for the sake of argument that someone had aspirations to run a totalitarian-style government, or at least a more totalitarian one in the UK. Does anyone seriously think that our governmental structures, civil service, police, intelligence services, would be in any way capable of it? I'm thinking less about competence (though that's part of it) and more about sheer capacity.

Good post, agree with all of it.

100 years ago or more we all had way more freedom from, but a lot less freedom to.

[upthemaggies]

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I do neither and that's my personal choice, none of my business to tell anybody else what to do, but I'm seeing a lot of people talking themselves up on here as morally superior and I'm wondering if that's all it is. Talk.

[drillerpie]

This discussion seems to have turned into a "Look how kind and caring I am" circle jerk.

How about a hypothetical choice of scenario's with a crystal ball to show the result 200 years from now....

Plan A (most countries signing up to an agreement) - Population is 3 billion in 2223, but everybody related to you are amongst the 5 billion plus that don't make it.
Plan B (Individual countries take matters into their own hands) - Only half a billion survive to 2223 but these include all of your offspring and relations' offspring.

Anybody who would pick Plan A is either a liar, has no kids or hates themselves.

On the Nuclear War v Climate Change question.
Nuclear war means we take everything out with us, the Earth may never recover and it's also going to be a horrific way to go out for most who won't die instantly. Climate change isn't going to happen overnight and other species will adapt. Can't believe I'm having to explain the difference with that one.

Is there a nice, humane way to arrive at human extinction? I imagine all ways by definition involve a dystopian fight for dwindling resources in inhospitable conditions.

Any evidence to say the earth may never recover, whatever that means? Or are you just freestyling there?

Are you zen about human extinction but not zen about plant extinction? Or animal extinction?

Sorry but for me your position is at best contradictory, at worst a case of: one version of the same event possibly happening to you therefore bad, the other version probably not happening to you but to someone else, therefore zen.

[upthemaggies]

Is there a nice, humane way to arrive at human extinction? I imagine all ways by definition involve a dystopian fight for dwindling resources in inhospitable conditions.

Any evidence to say the earth may never recover, whatever that means? Or are you just freestyling there?

Are you zen about human extinction but not zen about plant extinction? Or animal extinction?

Sorry but for me your position is at best contradictory, at worst a case of: one version of the same event possibly happening to you therefore bad, the other version probably not happening to you but to someone else, therefore zen.

We've never had a global nuclear war before so it's anybody guess. I'd bet on it turning out worse than climate change though.

I'm not a massive fan of humans, no. I do prefer plants and animals, mostly.

[Elite_Pie]

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

[drillerpie]

We've never had a global nuclear war before so it's anybody guess. I'd bet on it turning out worse than climate change though.

I'm not a massive fan of humans, no. I do prefer plants and animals, mostly.

Ok so it was just a guess.

As I said before, I don't think there's a nice way and a nasty way for billions of people to go extinct.

[Mark_Ross]

In the 70s and 80s there were big debates on smoking and we can probably guess who would have been which side on that one as well.

The parallels between that issue and climate change are quite striking, in both the science was settled for years but the waters were deliberately muddied by industry shills going round saying it wasn’t actually as bad as those uptight scientists said it was and also promoting smoking as a ‘freedom’ issue, with those wanting restrictions as being part of the ‘nanny state’.

Nowadays of course climate denialists, both paid and unpaid, have many more platforms to spread their nonsense, and their unscientific claims are proving harder to discredit. Sunak’s disgraceful announcements yesterday are of course a massive backward step.

Good point BFP.
I think the parallels between the old smoking debate (science finally / tragically victorious) & the ongoing anthropogenic climate change debate are striking.

[Mark_Ross]

I sort of see where you are coming from but I see there are being three camps on this

1st extremist view - There is a Climate Emergency and extreme measures must be taken and d@mn and consequences.

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

3rd Extremist view - Its all a lie

RE: 1st extremist view
At what point does a crisis become an emergency?
Are people extremist to believe that we cannot simply set aside the issue any longer - something has got to be done... now.

[upthemaggies]

Ok so it was just a guess.

As I said before, I don't think there's a nice way and a nasty way for billions of people to go extinct.

I expect it will resemble the 1970s Mouse Utopia experiment, at least for the West.

[upthemaggies]

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

That's for you to decide. Who else has the authority to be judge and jury?

[Elite_Pie]

That's for you to decide. Who else has the authority to be judge and jury?

In that case, I'll sit on the fence.

[Newish Pie]

How many posters here do not eat meat and do not drive?

I do neither and that's my personal choice, none of my business to tell anybody else what to do, but I'm seeing a lot of people talking themselves up on here as morally superior and I'm wondering if that's all it is. Talk.

I'm not seeing anyone talking themselves up as being morally superior. But as I've said before, if we're serious about climate change, it's not about an individual purity competition but about structural level changes. While there's a role for individuals thinking about their personal contribution, ultimately responding to climate change needs governmental and international policy changes and proper leadership.

[BigFatPie]

I eat meat and I drive. I much prefer a chicken curry to a vegetarian curry, and my annual mileage is now down to around 3,000 miles. I use public transport when I can, but sometimes it's not available. I would like to see those in power recognise that climate change is real and take appropriate action. If my carnivorous instinct and petrol pollution costs me a bit more, I won't complain because I can see it's for the greater good.

Does that make me a hypocrite or not?

The charge of hypocrisy is an easy cop out for those with no interest in changing the status quo. (You like immigrants so much put them in your house etc).

Of course issues like immigration and climate change can’t be tackled on an individual basis, only at governmental level. I’m going to see my daughter in Malaysia in a few weeks, I would have no problem if those flights were stopped/taxed out of existence.

[drillerpie]

I expect it will resemble the 1970s Mouse Utopia experiment, at least for the West.

Never heard of it so looked it up.

Lack of space leading to overpopulation and breakdown of social order, then subsequently senseless violence, cannibalism, males stop protecting their females, mothers abandon their young prematurely, deviant behaviour becomes the norm, and finally individuals burrow into the ground to avoid this **** show and live like hermits without reproducing until the species eventually goes extinct.

To clarify, this is your expected outcome for the nice version of human extinction, the one that you are zen about, and you are surprised people ask you to explain this position. Do you feel that's an accurate summary?

[upthemaggies]

Never heard of it so looked it up.

Lack of space leading to overpopulation and breakdown of social order, then subsequently senseless violence, cannibalism, males stop protecting their females, mothers abandon their young prematurely, deviant behaviour becomes the norm, and finally individuals burrow into the ground to avoid this **** show and live like hermits without reproducing until the species eventually goes extinct.

To clarify, this is your expected outcome for the nice version of human extinction, the one that you are zen about, and you are surprised people ask you to explain this position. Do you feel that's an accurate summary?

No I don't, I think the most important part of that experiment that's worth highlighting, being relevant to where we're at right now, is the narcissism and hyper***ual activity, followed by a***uality," bit.
With that in mind, perhaps we're already drawing towards the conclusion of this experiment and the most unpleasant parts are already behind us, if we can avoid the blinding light / melting skin / lethal radiation dose scenario.

Practically all creatures that have ever been have met their end in suffering. That's life and the physical world. Most either starve, succumb to sickness or are picked off by predators. We don't live in a Cbeebies world where everything is nice and cuddly.

[upthemaggies]

The charge of hypocrisy is an easy cop out for those with no interest in changing the status quo. (You like immigrants so much put them in your house etc).

Of course issues like immigration and climate change can’t be tackled on an individual basis, only at governmental level. I’m going to see my daughter in Malaysia in a few weeks, I would have no problem if those flights were stopped/taxed out of existence.

So you need to be told what to do with no choice in the matter. You don't take any personal responsibility for your own actions.

I can see right here why collective guilt trips are so appealing to certain sections of society.

[Jampie]

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Not really. There's no real need to drastically alter lifestyles, "just" switch out a few energy sources. And it's in full swing right now. There's still transitional costs to bear and the fossil fuel companies, their paid shills and useful idiots are making all the noise they can, but honestly I think the majority just aren't listening anymore.

Could all backslide again. The Trump years in the US were particularly bad for that, hopefully we don't see a repeat.

[drillerpie]

No I don't, I think the most important part of that experiment that's worth highlighting, being relevant to where we're at right now, is the narcissism and hyper***ual activity, followed by a***uality," bit.
With that in mind, perhaps we're already drawing towards the conclusion of this experiment and the most unpleasant parts are already behind us, if we can avoid the blinding light / melting skin / lethal radiation dose scenario.

Practically all creatures that have ever been have met their end in suffering. That's life and the physical world. Most either starve, succumb to sickness or are picked off by predators. We don't live in a Cbeebies world where everything is nice and cuddly.

Ok so the mouse thing was more about social commentary of modern day Western society than about human extinction from one of the scenarios we were talking about.

And we could already be past the no space to live in / senseless violence and cannibalism phase.

I'm not really able to follow your train of thought on this one.

[upthemaggies]

Ok so the mouse thing was more about social commentary of modern day Western society than about human extinction from one of the scenarios we were talking about.
.

We'll most likely drive ourselves into extinction long before the climate does.

"Calhoun himself saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of humankind. He characterized the social breakdown as a 'spiritual death'."

Obviously this applies more to the west, currently.

[Newish Pie]

We'll most likely drive ourselves into extinction long before the climate does.

"Calhoun himself saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of humankind. He characterized the social breakdown as a 'spiritual death'."

Obviously this applies more to the west, currently.

Well, there are reasons for optimism. Firstly and most obviously, humans aren't mice. Or lobsters.

Secondly, if the issue is overcrowding, humans have lived in much more overcrowded conditions than most people in the west do currently. Industrial revolution era slums packed more people into less space than is permitted now. Ancient cities (Rome etc) also packed huge numbers of people into very small areas. Both had whole families sharing rooms etc. Not saying that doesn't still happen - it does, especially in bedsits and B&Bs and temporary accommodation because of the shortage of social housing - but this is much less common. And if we're saying that overcrowding is a problem, there are solutions to that which involve building more homes and making better and more equitable use of existing housing stock.

[jackal2]

Practically all creatures that have ever been have met their end in suffering. That's life and the physical world. Most either starve, succumb to sickness or are picked off by predators. We don't live in a Cbeebies world where everything is nice and cuddly.

Brutal, but ultimately true.

As emotional beings we constantly try to put that reality to the back of our minds whether it's through fear for ourselves or future generations, and a hell of a lot of money is made by selling ideas/solutions offering to push that reality back or make it go away, but the truth is that we're self-destructive and finite, both individually and collectively. There probably is a kind of 'zen' to be found in being able to accept that truth rather than fighting it, but I'm not sure many people - me included - have reached that stage of acceptance yet.

When you look at the climate change case in its most simple form it's not a very logical one: "Human beings are destroying the planet... so we must work harder to preserve human beings".

I know we consider ourselves to be the most 'intelligent' species in existence - having defined for ourselves what 'intelligence' is, like judge and jury in our own court - but if the first part of that sentence is true, then the second part of the sentence arguably isn't the most logical solution!

[BanjoPie]

Humans biggest predators are Humans :(

[jackal2]

Humans biggest predators are Humans :(

Yes, but for my part I won't eat a human as long as I'm provided with a steady supply of pizza.

[Elite_Pie]

When you look at the climate change case in its most simple form it's not a very logical one: "Human beings are destroying the planet... so we must work harder to preserve human beings".

I know we consider ourselves to be the most 'intelligent' species in existence - having defined for ourselves what 'intelligence' is, like judge and jury in our own court - but if the first part of that sentence is true, then the second part of the sentence arguably isn't the most logical solution!

That's about it, human beings will eventually cause the extinction of human beings! I can see why UTM isn't too bothered about it, because we are powerless to stop it happening. I'm not one for religion, but of the Christian 'seven deadly sins' I think greed will be the cause.

"As defined outside Christian writings, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth".

There is more than enough money around to solve the majority of the problems, but most of that money is held by the greedy few. Unfortunately the greedy few are the ones who hold the power and make the rules, so basically we're f@cked!

At least I got to see us become The Oldest Football League Club in the World again.

[drillerpie]

Brutal, but ultimately true.

As emotional beings we constantly try to put that reality to the back of our minds whether it's through fear for ourselves or future generations, and a hell of a lot of money is made by selling ideas/solutions offering to push that reality back or make it go away, but the truth is that we're self-destructive and finite, both individually and collectively. There probably is a kind of 'zen' to be found in being able to accept that truth rather than fighting it, but I'm not sure many people - me included - have reached that stage of acceptance yet.

When you look at the climate change case in its most simple form it's not a very logical one: "Human beings are destroying the planet... so we must work harder to preserve human beings".

I know we consider ourselves to be the most 'intelligent' species in existence - having defined for ourselves what 'intelligence' is, like judge and jury in our own court - but if the first part of that sentence is true, then the second part of the sentence arguably isn't the most logical solution!

I think the reason why that isn't a logical case is because it's a deliberate misrepresentation of the case. To really put the ecological / climate change case in its simplest form, it would actually be something like:

"Human beings are destroying the planet, so human beings should stop destroying the planet"

Which is perfectly logical.

I agree that it is a classic 'tragedy of the commons' situation, and human nature causes these situations to arise quite often, but humans do also have a tremendously sophisticated capacity for cooperation and rule making to try and fix these situations.

As regards the part of UTM's post you quoted, I'm not sure what we can take from it. If we take the idea of '**** happens to other species, so will happen to us too' then why bother trying to fix anything?

I also don't know how useful it is for us to look at other species, as we are so different. Should we be modelling ourselves on other species? Would life be better if we did that? I don't think so. Why have hospitals if most other species don't? Why have football? Why have laws? Why have conversations about ideas?

For UTM: I feel by going from a specific question about two scenarios, to experiments with mice, to **** happens this is not CBeebies, to macro-level thoughts about a***uality and lack of spirituality in Western societies, we are moving away from the original point.

Not to say that I don't think it's all interesting, because I think it is, but personally I don't feel like I've got a convincing answer to my original question (however much importance that may or may not have for you!)

[upthemaggies]

Not to say that I don't think it's all interesting, because I think it is, but personally I don't feel like I've got a convincing answer to my original question (however much importance that may or may not have for you!)

Yeah, sorry about that. I can't remember what the original question was and I do have a tendency to pull back and see a much bigger picture based on a far wider time frame, with nobody having any idea what I'm going on about.

As this is a match day, I'm not feeling the inclination to get into it right now. Maybe we'll come back to it.

[jackal2]

To really put the ecological / climate change case in its simplest form, it would actually be something like:

"Human beings are destroying the planet, so human beings should stop destroying the planet"

Which is perfectly logical.

I agree that it is a classic 'tragedy of the commons' situation, and human nature causes these situations to arise quite often, but humans do also have a tremendously sophisticated capacity for cooperation and rule making to try and fix these situations.

'Tragedy of the commons' is a great metaphor to use. Humans do have a sophisticated capacity for cooperation and rule making to fix situations, but in this case I think that even if a growing number of humans are exercising restraint, they will still be supplanted by an equally significant number who won't, for a variety of reasons.

There could be three categories:

1. Those genuinely exercising restraint in line with scientific advice;
2. Those exercising some restraint (e.g. superficial gesturing or partial compliance) but then fundamentally undermining that in other ways;
3. Those ignoring the scientific advice entirely and exercising little or no restraint at all.

I suspect the most populated category is number two, both in terms of individuals and governments, and that this will probably continue to be the case, human nature being what it is. Without doubt, the number of people in category one is gradually growing, but some of those 'transferring in' are people/countries who've already banked the benefits of previously operating in categories two or three for a long time, so they're not really in a position to stand in judgement over others, like Western countries (most of whom aren't doing enough to be in category one anyway) having the brass neck to ask countries like China to be less polluting.