Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Moral outrage

  1. #11
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,060
    Local Date
    12-12-2019
    Local Time
    04:20 AM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post
    OK, seriously, what's more immoral than the devastation of the planetary ecology? Especially since that will kill us all?
    I think the jury is still completely out on whether global warming is a benefit or a liability worldwide and I've not seen anyone even try to provide a balanced argument.

    How about from the point of view that perhaps the whole of northern Canada, Greenland and Siberia transform into Harvest Central as a result, before things stabilize? Does that provide a counterweight?

    The chief damage is the mass destruction of species by homo sapiens and guess what? That bit already happened over the last 50,000 years. Just go and count the remaining non-domesticated terrestrial species over that time period with an adult average weight over 50kg. Well over half of them are gone in the blink of a geological eye, and the spread of homo sapiens is the trigger which killed them all.

    You're locking the species stable after the horse bolted. If you want immoral, start 50,000 years ago. Nothing we do now will be as destructive as what we've already done.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  2. #12
    Senior Member Saint_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The High Rockies
    Posts
    3,230
    Local Date
    12-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:20 PM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    I think the jury is still completely out on whether global warming is a benefit or a liability worldwide and I've not seen anyone even try to provide a balanced argument..
    Your point: Colder countries will be able to have longer growing seasons.
    My point: Climate disasters, hurricanes, tornados, massive wildfires, desertification, and the flooding of coastlines will kill millions if not billions.

    That doesn't balance out for me.

    although...I am hoping the pressure will force mankind in space.

  3. #13
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,060
    Local Date
    12-12-2019
    Local Time
    04:20 AM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post
    That doesn't balance out for me.
    I thought you taught math. Perhaps if you lay out a rough balance sheet based on sensible possibilities we could find we're not disagreeing.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  4. #14
    Senior Member Saint_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The High Rockies
    Posts
    3,230
    Local Date
    12-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:20 PM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    I thought you taught math.
    I do teach math. And if you'd like to compare graphs, you know it would show total disaster looming.

    Perhaps if you lay out a rough balance sheet based on sensible possibilities we could find we're not disagreeing.
    I'm having trouble understanding what you would consider a "good" outcome for global disaster. Yes, I understand that certain countries would have a greater agricultural season, but vast swaths of the planet would become uninhabitable. How can that be good?

    Unless, of course you consider that there is too much overpopulation right now. (In which case, wouldn't a good nuclear war accomplish the same thing? With a nice nuclear winter to help the warming trend as well?)

  5. #15
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,060
    Local Date
    12-12-2019
    Local Time
    04:20 AM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post
    vast swaths of the planet would become uninhabitable. How can that be good?
    It depends on what you mean by vast, I suspect.

    I have no difference with you as far as the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is concerned, the increase in ppm has to be reversed and brought down to a sustainable level. That means your graph has to go negative for quite a while and it obviously hasn't yet been turned downward much less brought negative. By 2050 that graph will have turned, it will have reduced from 3 to 2 or so and still be headed downward. By then carbon dioxide will be up from the pre-industrial 250ppm past today's 410ppm to 2050CE=470ppm and still rising, but rising more slowly. I'd hope it would peak out before 600ppm and start downward. I expect a sustainable long-term level might be 400ppm but that's a matter for observation.

    So what you're trading is, perhaps, a 30m rise in sea level for a doubling of agricultural output. That's a lot of displaced people for a few generations. Is it a net plus or minus? I've no idea, but I know I don't know. I definitely know it's unavoidable. I also know it would be less of a problem for the poor if the rich were less damned selfish. Is it "vast swaths of the planet would become uninhabitable"? No, I don't think it is. It's an adjustment.

    As for overpopulation, of course there's overpopulation. If homo sapiens numbered a hundred million worldwide it would be overpopulation. If we're dickering I'll settle for ten million but that's a compromise on my part, not a desired outcome. Name me another top predator species on the planet that exceeds a million individuals worldwide. Jackals? 80,000, which is described as "large" in the Red Book. There's a lot more jackals than wolves. I'd rather have jackals than most of the people I see about me.

    There's a solution to species extinction and it involves leaving room for what currently exists to thrive. Space is the overwhelming crisis, not global warming. Leave adequate room for wildlife. And stop taking fish out of the sea while you're at it.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  6. #16
    Senior Member Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,532
    Local Date
    12-12-2019
    Local Time
    04:20 AM

    Re: Moral outrage

    Register to remove this ad.
    If you consider the amount of land and the number of major cities within thirty meters of sea level I would see at least a short term problem with the added population pressure - the "new lands" that are exposed by the rising temperature will not be habitable or productive for a fair while.

    I also think that the temperature rise is going to be far worse than you expect - once we start hitting the tipping points and the positive feedback kicks in I would expect, As Saint says, that vast swathes of the land will be desert and most of the sea will be effectively sterile.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts