O/T:- Climate Change

[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.