[asg70]

That’s the thing, to counteract climate change and general resource exhaustion the economy needs to slow down, contract.

Why stop there? Overshoot being what it is, to get ahead of collapse we'd best destroy civilization and wipe out billions of humans. Is that a realistic advocacy position? In other words, there's no real acceptable intervention. It doesn't pass go just to suggest a contracting economy let alone population limits or genocide programs. The path of least resistance is just letting nature take its course. In the meantime there are only small measures that buy us time here and there or offer us short-term adaptation and are benign enough not to face pushback. But hey, even there the right is impeding things (think New Green Deal type measures).

[Newfie]

Well you were doing pretty good until the last sentence.

[asg70]

So you're all for mass genocide, then, but insinuate that the republicans are the worst of the worst is wrongthink? Alrighty then.

[Ibon]

So you're all for mass genocide,

I don't know about you guys but here is my position

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAji6fEsmzg

[Newfie]

So you're all for mass genocide, then, but insinuate that the republicans are the worst of the worst is wrongthink? Alrighty then.

Who are you talking to? And if it’s me you should put up something to substantiate your claims.

[asg70]

So you're all for mass genocide, then, but insinuate that the republicans are the worst of the worst is wrongthink? Alrighty then.

Who are you talking to? And if it’s me you should put up something to substantiate your claims.

Hard to tell what you meant when it was really little more than a veiled ad hominem meant to dismiss my point and grind the discussion to a crashing halt. Look. I don't like an obsession on politics either but I just posted in the other thread about Trump rolling back methane regulations so it's worth pointing these things out. Just because it's probably too late to save us doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders over our leaders hitting the accelerator.

[Newfie]

Nice try at deflection, didn’t work.

You accused me of favoring one party over another, which is false. You just shot your mouth off in a unjustified vile attack.

When you pause and compose you can make good posts.

[rockdoc123]

Part of the problem here is the polarized sides in the various arguments. There are certain things that most agree on:

1. oil is a non-renewable substance that eventually will become limited to the point it can no longer match demand nor provide fuel and other products the world currently thrives on

2. possible renewables such as electricity from water power or wind, nuclear etc. cannot in a short period of time offset the need for oil without a serious reset in expectations, one that is not likely possible.

3. renewables can supplant much of fuel needs currently supplied by fossil fuels, there is further work to be done regarding storage etc but this is doable with dedication to the effort

The solution (which is something I have been saying for over a decade) is to offer as many tax deductions as possible to companies looking at renewable power sources and especially storage. Giving them money upfront will result in exactly what happened with Obamas payment program to his cronies....the money dissappears and no solutions offered. There needs to be a completely independent auditor that looks at safety and environmental impact of all renewables including the impact of wind turbines on erosion, avion flight patterns etc given that replacing oil with something that is actually going to create the same amount or more damage should not be an option. As more of the oil used as fuel is supplanted with renewables that leaves more oil to be used for petrochemicals and other needs. This will not only lessen the need to produce large quantities of oil but also increase the life span of the resource. Once the momentum increases in the renewables as power source area it will take off further, eventually replacing the vast majority of fossil fuel use for power.

Having views that are widely juxtaposed only results in nothing getting done. This is something that is solvable.

[asg70]

Nice try at deflection, didn’t work.

I've lost track of what the heck you're talking about. All I'm gleaning from things like this is general animus and condescension towards me on your part. If you want people to take the high road then practice what you preach.

[asg70]

The solution

There's two different things here. There are ideal-world prescriptions and then there are viable platforms based on how the world actually works and how the normies sway with the breeze.

As much as we disagree, we are more clued in to the reality of the situation than normies. So what we'd support and what they'd support are two different things. It doesn't really accomplish much for us to sit around the campfire and prescribe solutions if our prescriptions are acceptable to only 0.00001% of the population.

My personal wish would be for the government to be a technocracy. To ascend to positions of power would be mostly a function of intelligence. You can see how democracy of late has done the opposite. GW Bush and Trump are both mental incompetents. Even Trump's own exiting cabinet stream feels this way about him, that he's perhaps so dumb that he should be forced out of office. I say this not to bash Trump as much as to indict the entire democratic experiment insofar as we get the government we deserve.

If you step back enough the picture that emerges is a bleak one, namely that people are, generally, dumb, selfish, and driven by tribal loyalties of one brand or another. This has the net effect of creating the situation we have now, i.e. tragedy of the commons.

It's rare to have philospher kings who galvanize the public to do positive things. This is why there is so much nostalgia for someone like JFK. More often than not leaders ascend to power by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Brain-stem motives lead to yeast in petri dish outcomes. So for the most part I don't see leaders as leading as much as being a product of the current zeitgeist.



So when we have threads here and people say "this is the solution, I've been pushing it for x years" doesn't there come a time where you concede that such solutions are effectively hopeless due to a lack of support beyond a small clique of clued-in doomers?

I'm all for people spitballing ideas but in the end it's just pissing in the wind. We sit around in our silo preaching to the converted while the Amazon burns and Greenland melts.

When I venture out into the world I know where I can apply some body-english to the problem, at the voting box or through personal consumption habits, and I do that as a matter of sheer principle. But at the same time I have to concede to the ultimate hopelessness of the situation as a whole whether we hit the wall at 50 or 150mph.

[onlooker]

As much as we disagree, we are more clued in to the reality of the situation than normies. So what we'd support and what they'd support are two different things. It doesn't really accomplish much for us to sit around the campfire and prescribe solutions if our prescriptions are acceptable to only 0.00001% of the population.

Agree with what Asg is saying. On this site we may disagree on the particulars of timing and detailed solutions but we all pretty much see that our species is up against very intractable problems and limits. And that drasic measures should be entertained. Finally, since I have been a member here, I perceive that most of us have come to concede that harrowing consequences are baked into the cake now ie. inevitable.

[Newfie]

Nice try at deflection, didn’t work.

I've lost track of what the heck you're talking about. All I'm gleaning from things like this is general animus and condescension towards me on your part. If you want people to take the high road then practice what you preach.

ASG WROTE

So you're all for mass genocide, then, but insinuate that the republicans are the worst of the worst is wrongthink? Alrighty then.

[Newfie]

As much as we disagree, we are more clued in to the reality of the situation than normies. So what we'd support and what they'd support are two different things. It doesn't really accomplish much for us to sit around the campfire and prescribe solutions if our prescriptions are acceptable to only 0.00001% of the population.

Agree with what Asg is saying. On this site we may disagree on the particulars of timing and detailed solutions but we all pretty much see that our species is up against very intractable problems and limits. And that drasic measures should be entertained. Finally, since I have been a member here, I perceive that most of us have come to concede that harrowing consequences are baked into the cake now ie. inevitable.

This would seem to be the case.

On the one hand everything seems hopeless, and perhaps it is. If it is hopeless the one might as well ignore the consequences and party on.

I prefer to think, against all rational observation, that we might get lucky, that something might occur that saves us from ourselves. Maybe a well placed meteor strike or a particularly nasty virus or something new. But something that stops our consumption in its tracks and allows some breathing room.

I don’t know we will get lucky but I intend to stay alive as long as possible so as to take advantage of that good luck should it come along. Also I want to be here to help my kids if that is possible, help them to prepare for and survive the bottleneck.

In the meantime we try to live a reasonably low impact life, and also attempt to educate folks when possible. I’m luck that I’ve developed a reasonable approach that allows me to also lead an enjoyable life.

Conundrums upon conundrums.

[Outcast_Searcher]

With Trump in there things will be good for the next 15-20 years.

Um, yeah. Trump is almost single-handedly throwing us into a recession with his trade-war nonsense. So he can't even kick the can on extending BAU properly.

And though one of the dem candidates would be different, and in some ways better -- with the general mess in the beltway (the 535 congressfolk and the interests they serve), another POTUS isn't going to magically transform things for the better.

The CBO is looking at $1 trillion plus deficits on average through 2029. I don't see a democrat changing that meaningfully.

Either side pretending that only their side can run things well is way beyond credibility by now. BOTH sides have failed badly, which IMO, is one of the primary reasons a clown like Trump could get elected.

[asg70]

I'm all for:

a) rolling back citizen's united

and

b) fostering the development of 3rd parties

Until then, the system is what it is.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Look. I don't like an obsession on politics either but I just posted in the other thread about Trump rolling back methane regulations so it's worth pointing these things out. Just because it's probably too late to save us doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders over our leaders hitting the accelerator.

And Trump is NOT the entire GOP, now is he? And I'm real pissed about him doing things like that, and his climate denial is one of several reasons I couldn't vote for him.

As I recall, Nixon cranked up the EPA. There are "green" republicans, who are for timid measures re climate change and the environment, just like the bulk of the mainstream dems are only for timid measures -- because to be for strong measures means the mainstream which doesn't want to diminish its standard of living, won't re-elect them, generally.

You insinuating Trump represents the mainstream GOP re climate change would be like me claiming the loony left like AOC and Sanders represent the mainstream democrats -- basically nonsense.

And again, as a moderate, I come down on various policies of BOTH the hard right and hard left, so it's not inconsistent for me to criticize aspects of both the left and right.

I agree with Newfie that you were doing fine on the post upthread about where we are headed in time -- until the last sentence -- where you got political and unreasonable.

[Outcast_Searcher]

[
On the one hand everything seems hopeless, and perhaps it is. If it is hopeless the one might as well ignore the consequences and party on.

I prefer to think, against all rational observation, that we might get lucky, that something might occur that saves us from ourselves. Maybe a well placed meteor strike or a particularly nasty virus or something new. But something that stops our consumption in its tracks and allows some breathing room.

As much as fast crash doomers hate to acknowledge the power of technology to change things, technology IS something that can (and I think will) buy us time, re climate change.

For example, re removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in large quantities, powered by green energy is already possible. It's NOT a question of whether that can occur -- it's only a question of what it costs. As more companies / scientists investigate this as it becomes more obvious it will be necessary, the price drops.

Presumably the price will keep dropping over time. We KNOW the problem will worsen over time. It's only a matter of time until such technology is applied for remediation.

One example:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/67374275 ... atastrophe

...

Now, do I think this will "solve" climate change, given human nature? Absolutely not!

But do I think it can buy humanity significant time (to find other technologies, perhaps get serious about down-sizing, etc)? Yes I do. It might buy, say, a generation or so. And follow-on technologies and policies in that generation might buy another generation or so, etc. And that could go on for awhile.

At greater and greater overall expense, and with diminishing returns over time, of course, which is why I don't expect it to "fix" the problem long term.

...

There is a BIG difference between BAU and "stopping our consumption in its tracks". Heck, if things get bad enough and robots mitigate the labor issue for dealing with the elderly, maybe a universal one child only policy would help a lot over time re the population, for example.

[Cog]

Underneath all of this talk about mitigation are petty tyrants who just can't wait to control other people's lives.

[EdwinSm]

I tried to have a detailed look at the charts, but they are so small it is hard to make out recent years in any detail, and not all of them are produced on a larger scale in the linked article.

However, on the one about democracy, there seems to have been a fall in recent years. The chart on vaccination at first glance seemed to fall, but when I used a magnifying glass I was not sure whether it has leveled off or was showing a slight fall, anyway it has stopped improving.

So it looks like we reached Peak Democracy before we reached Peak Oil. And Vaccination percentage appears to be on a plateau, which will lead to more health complications as the actual number of those not vaccinated is rising as the total world population is still rising (eg recently four European countries loosing their "measles free" status).

[Newfie]

Underneath all of this talk about mitigation are petty tyrants who just can't wait to control other people's lives.

And running it all are commercial tyrants who DO control other people’s lives.

I have to note that in most cases folks have ceded that control and they have the power to take it back.

So do you have titular control or freedom if you have ceded it to big business?

The guess what I’m arguing for is that people wake up and regain control of their lives, their children’s future. The nutncases in charge are no better than Joe6 pack, and maybe we’ll be worse.

My other alternative would be to change the voting age to be between 10 and 15, before we seem to loose our collective minds.