Here's the thing I can be sympathetic to the plight of climate activists, but many times it strikes me as having a lot of uncomfortable parallels to the end of days Christian millenialists that got big in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Both meet the criteria of
- Believe that we are rapidly headed for an end of the world catastrophe
- Believe the only way to avert catastrophe is by everyone in the world suddenly making massive (unrealistic) changes to the way they live and how society functions.
- Seem more interested in evangelizing and catastrophizing than actually convincing people.
- Want to use the power of the state to force others to live in the way that will avert the imminent crises.
- Get incredibly upset when anyone questions, (even well intentioned) their beliefs and proposed solution.
Like that guy from the government who told us that our building was structurally unsound and we all had to leave. What a drastic solution and he was completely dogmatic about it. He reminded me so much of the other guy who went around telling everyone the sky was going to fall on our heads.
While I can see that you might experience these as uncomfortable parallels, there is a big difference you could consider: That climate activism is based on scientific research.
The cigarette lobby used science to question the link between smoking and cancer.
Try looking up "Most Doctors smoke Camels" to see how much we can trust the experts who only have our best interests at heart and would never tell falsehoods for a payday
> climate activism is based on scientific research
Yes, but often “based on science” like biopics are “based on real events.” Activism presents no error margin whereas the actual science does, and very often activism extends into alarmism where it presents end of the world scenarios which the science doesn’t present. Activists too often present the future scenarios assuming no adaptation whatsoever, like a flooded Miami where no one has moved to higher regions. The science itself is increasingly skewed too, such as the recent forest fire study where larger drivers of forest fires like arson are ignored in order to make publication more likely.
based on scientific research, much like communism and scientific management and phrenology and racism. meanwhile climate models are not capable of predicting the past given current conditions, produce wildly incompatible results, and operate on a model of the earth that is pathetically simplistic, ignoring cloud coverage (which has 3-20x the magnitude of effects of carbon) solar variability and wind patterns. the world might end as we know it for it is clear that crucial features of the earth are changing at a rapid pace, especially oceanic currents, but it will happen in a way that completely surprised most people, if not climate scientists that are aware of the limits of their models.
> ignoring cloud coverage (which has 3-20x the magnitude of effects of carbon)
This is like complaining that tidal models are useless because they ignore waves, which have a larger effect on water height than tides.
(The same analogy applies to claims of the form "how can we possibly predict the climate decades ahead of time when we can't predict the weather 2 weeks from now")
Racism is real. And crt provides good insight with high degree of predictibility as to how our system of laws work to assist existing racial inequalities.
In any case, this feels like you're building a strawman.
Braj I spent 9 months surrounded by bushfire smoke and I live in a traditionally no fire rainforest region. Imma get the shits if you don't take this as seriously as I do because the consequences of not doing so have reared their heads to me far more than they have to you.
But you'll keep brushing it off as not as serious as it is despite the facts saying otherwise. It's pretty frustrating to deal with. Hence the amped up responses.
Even assuming (and that's a big if) we're able to keep this planet within 'safe operating conditions', consider 2 scenarios:
a) We minimize our impact, keep well within that range, limit global warming, protect biodiversity, don't fish the oceans empty, etc etc. Or
b) We do as we please, f* up things big time, leaving it to future generations to deal with the fallout of an uninhabitable planet.
Don't you think we have at least some responsibility to hand over this planet to future generations via scenario a) ?
Our generation is 8 billion currently. Generations that follow, are some unknown multiple of that. Potentially trillions of people (if humanity survives long enough).
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock
So I have considerable sympathy for -especially young- climate activists, given how much we're bashing away at their life support system. And that of their children, grandchildren & great-grandchildren.
We don't own this planet! We're just short-term guests here. Caretakers at most. Even for those who consider humans 'owners' of this planet, it's still shared with other humans & animals.
Every human problem is in essence a problem of energy abundance. We need to embrace all technologies that let us unlock more energy wielded per capita, preferably without harmful side-effects like pollution, but where there exist side-effects they must be weighed against the benefit, instead of being categorically banned.
The latter, without an alternative source of energy, just means people will be worse off. Greenlash is already a thing in many developed countries that have tried to set unrealistic policy goals. In my opinion, the focus on net-zero should really be a focus on a clean, abundant, and cheap energy source -- like fusion, if it can be realized. Instead, it seems like the current focus of net-zero is on how to divide the energy we can currently produce and in what way.
It is immoral to ask or force the global poor living in yet-to-be-developed countries to not raze their forests for agriculture or other use, when it is the same path that every developed nation has already trod; and besides, they aren't going to listen either way, when their own livelihoods are at stake. The way out of the problem is through: through more energy.
> cheap nuclear is a fallacy that many fall for (Jevons paradox)
Jevons paradox does not apply here. All of human progress has basically been about being able to use more energy per capita. You're right that people will always need more energy -- if they want to progress.
A call for higher marginal energy prices effectively means that you're declaring that this is as good as humanity will ever be, and nobody would need anything better (in the sense that "640KB ought to be enough").
> a billionaire is just another guy who used to have a lot of property
If that property can shoot, then they’re qualitatively different. Robotics is, for the first time in human history, threatening to decouple control over a population with force projection capability.
Rich people have always been able to buy Castles, forts, even battleships
The difference being security guards you have manning the castle fort or ship expect a weekly salary and robots are a one and done purchase.
Everything to too nuanced and uncertain in the effect of details for most leaders and followers to act upon. So we'll just end up reacting to whatever happens as though it was inevitable. "Turning the ship" is a common metaphor, this is more or less turning the entire fleet and it'll be messy and too late if it needed to be turned.
I am not a climate change denier and I believe humans have contributed significantly to it with green house gases. That said. This headline and article are way over the top and give the deniers another article to point to as climate hysteria. Where on earth did it used to be habitable by humans but no longer is? There must be some if this article is true. I can't think of any.
Does the article actually mention that parts of Earth are no longer habitable already, or just that the conditions are moving into that direction? The title of this post seems to indicate the latter.
It says "human activities have breached safe levels for six [out of 9] of these boundaries and are pushing the world outside a “safe operating space” If we are over a majority of the set points but there is no inhabitable area to point to, then maybe the set points are wrong.
It is just a way to quantify something very elusive. The point is we are doing a lot of harm without any consideration for our actions. Profits over all.
Thanks. I had ChatGPT Plus read it and then asked questions. I now understand the problem. It's similar to the methane release from Siberia, a run away effect that can't be reversed. These are other modes of run away effect.
Crossing 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries would not necessarily mean that parts of the Earth have become uninhabitable for humans, but it would signify a very high level of risk for abrupt and potentially irreversible environmental changes. These changes could severely disrupt the Earth's systems that make the planet habitable in the first place.
The concept of planetary boundaries is designed to identify the "safe operating space" for humanity. Crossing multiple boundaries increases the risk of triggering non-linear, abrupt environmental changes on a continental to planetary scale. These could include extreme weather events, loss of freshwater resources, collapse of ecosystems, and other severe disruptions that could make life increasingly difficult for humans and other species.
Both meet the criteria of
- Believe that we are rapidly headed for an end of the world catastrophe
- Believe the only way to avert catastrophe is by everyone in the world suddenly making massive (unrealistic) changes to the way they live and how society functions.
- Seem more interested in evangelizing and catastrophizing than actually convincing people.
- Want to use the power of the state to force others to live in the way that will avert the imminent crises.
- Get incredibly upset when anyone questions, (even well intentioned) their beliefs and proposed solution.