Climate Change - Bad News

[Bishnu Aryal]

The planet will be just fine after we're gone and environmental conditions change, species die off, others evolve and thrive. This endless dance played out for hundreds of millions of years before us, and will do so afterwards, the biosphere has survived worse than what we can dish out and I suspect will also do so again.

 

[Falvlun]

The planet will be just fine after we're gone and environmental conditions change, species die off, others evolve and thrive. This endless dance played out for hundreds of millions of years before us, and will do so afterwards, the biosphere has survived worse than what we can dish out and I suspect will also do so again.

Why cause mass extinctions and make our environment harder to live in when we don't have to? I simply don't understand this sort of apathy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why cause mass extinctions and make our environment harder to live in when we don't have to? I simply don't understand this sort of apathy.

This sort of apathy arises out of an understanding of the reality of the human race.

 

[Falvlun]

This sort of apathy arises out of an understanding of the reality of the human race.

Are you referring to the reality that the human race will someday go extinct?

If so, then it still doesn't make sense. Why hasten our extinction?

I mean, we all know we are going to die one day. That doesn't mean that we should go swimming in radioactive water.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you referring to the reality that the human race will someday go extinct?

No, I'm referring to the reality that I, as an individual, can have no meaningful impact when measured against the flood of humanity as a whole which, as a species, does not have the capability of curbing our own growth or expansion, nor the capability to enact or enforce the species-wide regulations and restrictions which would be required to limit our use of planetary resources, both organic and inorganic.

 

[Falvlun]

No, I'm referring to the reality that I, as an individual, can have no meaningful impact when measured against the flood of humanity as a whole which, as a species, does not have the capability of curbing our own growth or expansion, nor the capability to enact or enforce the species-wide regulations and restrictions which would be required to limit our use of planetary resources, both organic and inorganic.

Humanity has made changes before. I don't see why it can't occur again.

Of course, if no one ever tries, it won't ever happen.

(Though, it has been shown that governmental investment and support of clean energy does impact the rate at which such technological advances are adopted by citizens. So, at least in this specific conversation, I believe your pessimism to be misplaced.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Humanity has made changes before. I don't see why it can't occur again.

Of course, if no one ever tries, it won't ever happen.

(Though, it has been shown that governmental investment and support of clean energy does impact the rate at which such technological advances are adopted by citizens. So, at least in this specific conversation, I believe your pessimism to be misplaced.)

Whereas I find your optimism to be inspiring, yet flawed.

 

[Aquitaine]

I guess it just boils down to the conflict between Optimism and Pessimism, as to whether or not "I" can make a difference.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess it just boils down to the conflict between Optimism and Pessimism, as to whether or not "I" can make a difference.

Or whether or not it makes you feel good to believe that you're making a difference.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Whereas I find your optimism to be inspiring, yet flawed.

While I agree that most of humanity is no better an a virus, consuming and breeding until terminal exhaustion of the resources We are both capable of destroying the environment's suitability for our species, AND we are capable of fixing it or at least mediating the damage.
However, to do so we need to NOT be purposefully missinformed of the reailty, so that our "leaders" and the masses do not sit idlely on their own hands.

A good and achievable start would be to draw up a law dictating what the word "NEWS" means as a form of media. Those that babble their way away from science, math, and truth must be labelled/branded as "opinion" or "humor" shows. News is boring, takes time to be investigated, and has no bias other than to lean hard against stations/shows/journals/individuals who would willfully mislead via fear-mongering, etc....
Fox "news" would cease to exist within the week. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly would be FORCED to introduce and sign off each segment with phrases like Welcome to the Rush Babbling Comedy Hour, or "This is Bill O'Reilly signing off from an hour of non-sensical lies and distortions. Goodnight."

With real information, humanity can act for everyone's benefit.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

With real information, humanity can act for everyone's benefit.

Individuals, on occassion, can act for everyone's benefit. Humanity, as a collective, has the IQ of a turnip and the self-control of a masturbating orangutan. Regulating and defining information is a nice idea. However, it ignores the fact that most people, and humanity as a whole, make their decisions based off of greed, fear, and cognitive biases which rationalize those decisions, not an objective measure of the factual quality of information.

 

[YmirGF]

Individuals, on occassion, can act for everyone's benefit. Humanity, as a collective, has the IQ of a turnip and the self-control of a masturbating orangutan. Regulating and defining information is a nice idea. However, it ignores that fact that most people, and humanity as a whole, make their decisions based off of greed, fear, and cognitive biases which rationalize those decisions, not an objective measure of the factual quality of information.

Just so. Failure to appreciate this foible of the human experience can lead to frustration and depression.

 

[Aquitaine]

Or whether or not it makes you feel good to believe that you're making a difference.

Indeed.