Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tawa]

Or we could just go on with life as normal and hope that the earth can fix itself.

While I quite frankly feel that several of the people here are overreacting and I don't really wish to discuss this at this time, I just want to tell you that this. Will. Not. Happen. To use a rather simplistic analogy: if you hit a piece of sheet metal with a hammer, is the sheet metal going to magically unhammer itself? No. You have to fix the piece of sheet metal itself.

If not, can you explain to me how, for example, more ozone is going to magically generate? Or how the greenhouse gases are going to mysteriously dissipate into nothing?

[Willfor]

The "let's blow up America" circlejerk was bad, and this "we're all doomed" circlejerk is much, much worse.

Take it to a new topic please because this is not even remotely related to the election, and yes, I realize that I was part of the problem, but now I am going to be part of the solution.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think very many people in developed countries are going to be very receptive to "You should all be living in poverty! You're using too many resources, living too long, and are too healthy!", and when they tell you that you're insane, following up by calling them "RACISTS!" is just going to piss them off more

Their receptivity is obviously going to be low, but the truth remains the truth regardless of their feelings. In any case, don't fuse my arguments with wierd, while we're of a similar mind on things I don't see much good or practicality in telling people to actually live short, diseased, ascetic lives. In that sense, telling them that it's immoral to breed is actually the much more practical and acceptable action. So consider that for all I've said I'm not even taking the most extreme position I can morally justify.

As for racism, I am not "screaming at racists", nor do I think that the idea of shifting climate concerns to third worlders actually trips across the ontological line of what we usually consider "being racist". Rather, blaming them for fecundity is a path of least resistance to escape the fear brought on by even a casual investigation into our ecological position. While racism certainly contributes to this being so easy, it is further encompassed by the eternal problem of otherization. It is not at its core thinking badly of them, though most people do look down on the global poor so it is easy to do so, but rather to soothe the cognitive dissonance of "we need to do something about humanity's impact" by placing all the responsibility of solving it on another society that you aren't a part of.

The worst part is that it also isn't completely wrong, and yes, third-worlders absolutely should not continue down the S-curve like high-pop societies already have. The thing is though, they're actually in the minority of resource consumption despite being the majority of population. That should show you more than anything else what it means for the human population to keep growing unless there's a massive global reduction in QoL.

[Shadowlord]

If not, can you explain to me how, for example, more ozone is going to magically generate? Or how the greenhouse gases are going to mysteriously dissipate into nothing?

Well, they do. Just on long timescales. There are physical or natural processes that create ozone and balance the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is when something overwhelms the rate at which those processes operate, like how fast we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Graknorke]

I don't think we are, for fear of killing innocent workers and global warming.

Since when has the USA cared about innocents or the rest of the world?

[Tawa]

If not, can you explain to me how, for example, more ozone is going to magically generate? Or how the greenhouse gases are going to mysteriously dissipate into nothing?

Well, they do. Just on long timescales. There are physical or natural processes that create ozone and balance the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is when something overwhelms the rate at which those processes operate, like how fast we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ah, yes, fair point. I was more specifically referring to it doing so in a "do nothing" scenario as proposed by OSG, though.

But seriously this should probably have its own thread.

[Shadowlord]

You may have noticed we haven't been carpet bombing ISIS-held cities and have been trying to avoid civilian casualties.

[Shadowlord]

The "let's blow up America" circlejerk was bad, and this "we're all doomed" circlejerk is much, much worse.

Take it to a new topic please because this is not even remotely related to the election, and yes, I realize that I was part of the problem, but now I am going to be part of the solution.

I have to agree, actually. This has gone on long enough.

I'm definitely done talking about it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This is easily the best discussion AmeriPolThread has had in decades.

[Graknorke]

You may have noticed we haven't been carpet bombing ISIS-held cities and have been trying to avoid civilian casualties.

I was trying to prompt some sourcing on where Obama has said it was because of climate change, except doing it in a way that made me look like I was being a dick in general rather than about the specific thing Willfor said to not post about.

And is there a general Ameripol thread?

[Wolfhunter107]

The "let's blow up America" circlejerk was bad, and this "we're all doomed" circlejerk is much, much worse.

Take it to a new topic please because this is not even remotely related to the election, and yes, I realize that I was part of the problem, but now I am going to be part of the solution.

I have to agree, actually. This has gone on long enough.

I'm definitely done talking about it.

Same here.

[Harry Baldman]

Aw. Discussion's moved on by the time I post. That'll teach me to try and post on GD.

Spoiler: Irrelevant remarks of the doomy variety (click to show/hide)

It is my opinion that we let the earth handle it's own climate since it is better at it than we are. But people don't like that for some reason.

That might be because it's a handwave at the very likely problem. The "handling" that the planet does is a tendency of many interconnected processes toward an equilibrium. The problem in this handling is that we've moved the equilibrium to the point where this will over time cause mass extinctions, collapse of a certain proportion of known and unknown natural environments and similar occurrences.

It is technically true that yes, we won't explode the planet with increased CO₂ levels, destruction of natural habitats and deleterious farming practices. As a wise man once accurately said, the planet's going to be fine - the people are fucked. Say what you will, we depend on Earth's biosphere for resources. And if we pull a goat and devour the natural habitat we depend upon because of the technology that's quite OP against other life forms, that's not going to end terribly well for us.

The Earth doesn't care, obviously, since mass extinctions happen all the time, geologically speaking. It'll continue on, to be sure. It's just that we might lose a few taxa of life in the process, most notably our relatively homogenous stock of great apes that have only limited environmental adaptability.

[Strife26]

So, new topic of discussion, then?


How about that there government support for people who got themselves into debt and can't pay it back?

[wierd]

If they cant pay it back, it is only going to waste more money through litigation to seek forced remuneration.

That is why bankruptcy is a thing.

The creditor is just as much at fault for making a bad investment. They should not be sheltered from these consequences by the legal system.

Forgiving the debt, putting a warning sign up for other creditors, and having the creditor endure the consequences of thier bad investment is the rational and sensible solution.

That is exactly what bankruptcy does.


Personally, I consider "non-dischargable debts", like the college loan problem, to be absurdity incarnate. (the very idea of a nondischargable debt incites creditors to believe that this is a pure profit, risk free investment, and to extend credit to people that should not have credit extended to them. This breeds a dangerous climate in investing, and has a chilling effect on financial liberty of debtors. I dont care how important or vital the creditor is, this way lies madness.)

[Frumple]

How about that there government support for people who got themselves into debt and can't pay it back?

... we have that, beyond bankruptcy?