Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom - Page 16 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

It is a completely unreasonable and untenable "solution." And counterproductive to boot. On a global scale I anticipate the next year to be one of extremely high direct human destruction of the environment brought on by completely avoidable scarcity. As people, mainly in developing countries, will not have reliable access to energy and food, they will invariably resort to hunting wildlife for food and burning habitat for energy.

You may not know this because of the western media blackout, but Netherlands is the second biggest agricultural exporter in the world. And their government announced strict austerity measure to meet climate change objections that will result in massive worldwide food shortages on a scale comparable to the Ukraine war.

The bold already happens.

The underlined is inflammatory.

What would your solution be? Or do you think nothing can be done?

Last edited by Doctor Zeus; 07-30-2022 at 07:09 PM. Reason: lol italics

Quote

07-30-2022 , 07:11 PM

#377

Doctor Zeus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 11,959

FWIW I 0% accept what you are saying with respect to the food shortage comparison with the Ukraine war.

The produce flowers and meat.

Their measures will cut meat production which is western world calorie intake.

Quote

07-30-2022 , 07:54 PM

#378

TheNoGod2

banned

Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 282

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus

The bold already happens.

The underlined is inflammatory.

What would your solution be? Or do you think nothing can be done?

The solution would be to make sure cheap energy is abundant. Not a perfect solution, but will work much better than deliberate scarcity, which will cause much faster environmental destruction.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 01:16 AM

#379

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus

What's your point?

That its impossible to persuade them, so we should force it?
Or that its too hard to force them to change, so, we should let everyone achieve prosperity for a very short time?
Or that we should look for a different solution, that allows us all to live in prosperity whilst changing nothing?

Or something else?

I have no recommendations except that no solution should be based on expecting people to lower their goals when more than ten percent of the world have exceeded those goals.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 01:26 AM

#380

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 13,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNoGod2

The solution would be to make sure cheap energy is abundant. Not a perfect solution, but will work much better than deliberate scarcity, which will cause much faster environmental destruction.

Cheap energy should equal increase in production and consumption no ?
We already used close to 2 earth a year in ressources .

And u think cheap energy will slow down destruction ?
I guess it depends on what kind of destruction u talk about .
It ain’t that easy peasy as u seem to think …

Quote

07-31-2022 , 03:47 AM

#381

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I have no recommendations except that no solution should be based on expecting people to lower their goals when more than ten percent of the world have exceeded those goals.

So you are effectively ruling out a solution and think we should prioritise achieving "goals" over having an environment that can supports life.

Its this type of knuckle dragging idiocy that ensures WAAF.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 05:27 AM

#382

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 13,765

It’s funny how easy people forget there is no alternative after our environment is gone .

Quote

07-31-2022 , 07:21 AM

#383

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

If we aim for a modest growth rate of 3% global GDP, that means in 24 years humanity will consume double what it does now.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 07:58 AM

#384

pocket_zeros

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 4,414

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNoGod2

How is that working out? Is there any specific African country you can name that has clearly benefitted from going green like this and is well on the road to property?

The purpose of the agreement with respect to developing countries is to prevent them from materially adding to world pollution without impinging on their right to develop. It's not a growth stimulus or prosperity plan.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 08:13 AM

#385

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

The world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people.

If you want to wonder why some people starve, just consider the obesity problem in USA for a few seconds.

However climate change will end this capacity for production.

By 2050:

The US’s Midwest region will see at least a 20% decline in corn production.

Brazil will see a 16% drop in corn production.

Indonesia will see a 20% drop in corn production

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/c...-it/crops.html

Last edited by O.A.F.K.1.1; 07-31-2022 at 08:19 AM.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 08:18 AM

#386

washoe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2019 Posts: 8,526

Yeah and we could have superclean and save energy, only nobody is interested in that since nobody could enrich themself anymore.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 09:00 AM

#387

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

So you .... think we should prioritise achieving "goals" over having an environment that can supports life.

Its this type of knuckle dragging idiocy that ensures WAAF.

I didn't say that at all.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 09:03 AM

#388

TheNoGod2

banned

Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 282

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocket_zeros

The purpose of the agreement with respect to developing countries is to prevent them from materially adding to world pollution without impinging on their right to develop. It's not a growth stimulus or prosperity plan.

How is that going?

Quote

07-31-2022 , 09:09 AM

#389

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I didn't say that at all.

Its the extension of what you said.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 09:12 AM

#390

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

There is no system of maintenance of the eco system viable for human life which does not involve regulated/managed consumption.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 10:08 AM

#391

washoe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2019 Posts: 8,526

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

Its the extension of what you said.

he said you can't limit others when you already met your goal. jeez man, why do you have to misinterpret everything?

this is logical. you can't order one child of yours to starve to death by preventing it from advancing, while you are giving your other child a lifetime all-you-can-eat guarantee at the bellagio. makes sense?

you're in happy place and you want to prevent others from getting there? this is an ethical problem.

Last edited by washoe; 07-31-2022 at 10:14 AM.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 10:20 AM

#392

pocket_zeros

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 4,414

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNoGod2

How is that going?

I have no idea. Your original post said it was unfair for developing nations to be asked to stay pre-industrial for the sake of climate control. I replied with how the Paris agreement addressed that by not precluding them from developing but instead provide subsidies to let them develop using cleaner energy. In other words, what you said industrial nations were asking was factually incorrect. If you'd like to learn more about how the Paris agreement is faring in practice with respect to these nations then I suggest some independent research into the matter.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 10:50 AM

#393

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by washoe

Yes and we let all children have an all you can eat guarantee at the bellagio, then that means we all ultimately die.

No one said I had to stay in my happy place or whatever spew you are talking about.

We cant all consume the way westerners consume, it means death.

Does this mean westerners can just sit pretty and tell others to starve, off course not.

By implication of everything I have argued, westerners will have to change their consumption as well, try reading and thinking at the same time.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 12:14 PM

#394

TheNoGod2

banned

Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 282

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 12:52 PM

#395

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNoGod2

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Quote:

westerners will have to change their consumption as well, try reading and thinking at the same time.

QFT.

Americans should already be curbing their consumption, their excessive weight is someone else's severe to the point of death weight deficit.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 02:34 PM

#396

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by washoe

he said you can't limit others when you already met your goal.

I didn't say it is an unethical goal. I said that it is probably doomed to failure if you, at the present time, expect individual humans to be persuaded through arguments.

Maybe they could be if there was first a worldwide push to dramatically reduce inequality. If that succeeded, people would be much more likely to go along with reducing their aspirations for the sake of the planet.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 02:57 PM

#397

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 13,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The problem is too many people believe in fairy tail instead of reality .
U can’t argue with those people .
Without a planet there is no human .

I guess they try to achieve to be the last to reach heaven and close the doors behind them .
Without earth , there is no more soul to reach heaven .

Quote

07-31-2022 , 03:09 PM

#398

washoe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2019 Posts: 8,526

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I didn't say it is an unethical goal.

I know you did not. You only stated whats fact.

From what I understood is that you meant is only that. One side reached its goal while the other one did not.

That the west reached its goal of comfortable living, while the rest of the world did not reach that goal yet is a fact.

To prevent them now from reaching any targeted goal would mean "preach water, drink wine" imo.

But anyway, you did not say that, you only said the underlined part imo.

Last edited by washoe; 07-31-2022 at 03:15 PM.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 03:11 PM

#399

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

QFT.

Americans should already be curbing their consumption, their excessive weight is someone else's severe to the point of death weight deficit.

I don't disagree that there is pretty near a straight line correlation between growing Western obesite and other forms of over consumption and the suffering of others, but I see no way to change that path short of some science miracle.

As Western over consumption continues the arguments that the rest of the world must not be denied catching up, will only continue.

Quote

07-31-2022 , 03:21 PM

#400

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuepee

The point I was trying to make was in contrast to oh noes if we go green people will go hungry, when in fact we produce enough food to feed everyone and more, the problem is that we eat it all.

If climate change is left unchecked there wont even be enough food to make us all fat, so god knows what happens to the poors then.

Quote

Page 16 of 48

First

6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 36

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 16 of 48

First

6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 36

Last