More Signs Ecological Endgame Is Coming?

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I guess this thread alone shows why its going to happen. This is going to peter out with a few dozen posts while people prefer to talk about teacher's holidays.

Not that I'm looking for a 'successful' thread or anything but it shows that we collectively chose to bury our heads in the sand. We'd rather not think about it. Sure I'll be dead by the time it gets serious.

The puzzling bit is that most of us are mothers and fathers or want to be. But I don't know how anyone can in the knowledge whats most likely in stock for them or for their children. Surely even if you chose to ignore, deep down people must have a niggling feeling things aren't going quite right.

I agree. I am a parent and sometimes feel guilty for bringing children into this world. Part of this is to do with my depressive episodes that mean I am acutely sensitive to the ways of the world. While it can mean I am over exaggerating how bad things are in the world, it can also help me have a greater awareness on the state of things.

In short, most people are deluded, lacking in self awareness and ignorant to the world they live in. I have sat down with several therapists and started to give them my commentary on society. How I think its completely stupid (resources spent on protecting our planet), self destructive (wars) and apologetic for failed systems (financial services sector) in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I keep expecting therapists to say "you know you are wrong" or something on those lines, but every therapist I met said something on the lines "Its not that you are wrong, but you have to learn to live in this world".

Some people love to marvel at the greatness of humanity and its accomplishments. I think these things should be acknowledged but not at the expense of exposing our inherent weakness. Do we really value Scientists, engineers or entrepreneur's who invent things that progress humanity ? Or do we reward bottom feeders who don't really create anything but who know how to exploit the systems we currently abide by ?

I was at a recent motivational speaker conference. The speaker said that the average attention span is now 8 seconds, before you have lost somebody in conversation. Now this isn't relevant in all aspects of communication, but the graph of concentration is not going up. I bet many people didn't even get through this post!

I think the movie "Idiocracy" is a great parody of what we see today. People are too absorbed in their interpretation of the way the world is, to see how farcical many aspects of daily life really are. And now we have pathetic reactions to "major" news, people focusing on minor incidents "George Hook says ...." at the expense of practical, rational discussions on how best to educate.

EDIT: I can be as ignorant and stupid as the next person by the way. Its not that I speak from an ivory tower of smugness . . I am human and as flawed as everybody else, its just I am more aware of it!

server down wrote: »

Very few people in the west having that number kids.

I dont know about that , take a walk down any street in Ireland ...

Grayson wrote: »

Except in that movie they ask the smart guy for help and respect his opinion.

Sponsored by Carl Juniors or Brondite, cause you know, its got electrolytes . . .

Fourier wrote: »

I don't know of a scientific study accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists that states this. That's really all I mean.

The most widely accepted predictive models are bad for human civilization on certain areas of the planet, but they are way off biosphere collapse.

" We are way off biosphere collapse" ?! Do you not think that this minimising of a catastrophic impact on humanity is part of the problem ? This reminds me of how most people think they wont die or get ill. Watching climate change or disasters on TV is not necessarily "real" to people watching it. There is nothing like personal experience of something to make a tragedy real.

The world will change dramatically over the next 100 years if we don't change our behaviours or invest resources into protective measures. This is just a fact. Minimising the potential ramifications ("sure it wont be that bad")of our behaviours leads to complacency in the same way people who are warned of their lifestyle habits make no changes and end up with serious medical conditions or death.

Fourier wrote: »

No, it is an accurate statement of scientific models. None of them predict Earth developing into a dying rock, as some here have stated. As I have read most of highly cited literature on climate change I am aware of the serious challenges to human civilization predicted. I just think over the top nonsense needs to be countered as well, as it is equally unscientific.

This is like the whole "technically Ophelia should not of been a red warning" semantics crap that doesn't really help anything. Its like you are arguing for the sake of arguments sake. What benefit is it for you to point out these technical aspects? People are oblivious to climate change and dangers to humanity, how do you think it helps get people active by saying "well its not going to make earth a dieing rock".


The reason dramatic language is used ("dieing rock") is because most people aren't taking things seriously and are incapable of rational debate on a global level. People don't take notice of something that is rationally explained to them. Tabloid Journalism and sensationalist headlines are used because it more likely to get people interested. . Again, a sign that people are happy to be oblivious to this issue unless its thrown at their face in bold writing, hyperbolic language and IN CAPPS!!!!!

Saying "well its not going to be the end of the planet" allows an already disengaged humanity switch off even further.

Fourier wrote: »

Awareness of climate change is on the rise and outside of China and the USA is seen as a serious issue by the majority in most developed countries, so I don't think it is accurate to say people are ignorant in the main.

Also they are not technical aspects. Earth being reduced to an uninhabitable rock versus the actual predictions of climatological models is vastly different, not a "minor technical difference".

Should we lie for activism sake? Or present the truth so that we can prepare and plan based on what science says, rather than Hollywood scenarios.

The truth is available to anybody who has access to the internet. The level of engagement and action that is being given to it is reflective of where the majority of the worlds resources are invested.

In terms of activisms lieing for the sake of lieing, that's a bit of a red herring argument in the sense that if you cant get people to listen it doesn't really matter what information you are promoting. People lie to themselves everyday about the state of the world. "Oh Ireland is so much more progressive and socially responsible then (insert country with bad humanitarian record"". Meanwhile our resources put into resolving our homeless situation and even basic understanding of mental health issues is quite pathetic relative to the supposed wealth this country has.

Why is this relevant ? Because there is no point in having a scientifically accurate based discussion when you cant even get people to the table in the first place. The only thing most people understand or respond to is either hyperbolic headlines or reactive measures after the disaster has happened. . I think of society like a big child and sometimes you have to bang the table to get its attention!

One thing I would agree with you though is that people should be educated but the problem I see with your technique is getting people engaged. It has to start in schools. I mean when you think about it, its crazy. We get no education on financial prudency, mental health awareness or the impacts of our actions on society/earth in school. No basic grounding education to try and give us the motivations to be more involved in how our country is run. It says a lot about our values and is why there is so much apathy towards things that really do affect us.

Fourier wrote: »

This extending to a larger discussion, that I do not possess knowledge of, i.e. the appropriate way to get people involved.

My main point is that it is not factually true that Earth is doomed in any of the currently accepted models. Most scientific models predict death tolls in the thousands per year, bringing it comparable to forms of cancer, not apocalypse scenarios.

Regardless of whether this will motivate people, it is still the truth as far as we can tell and surely the actual truth should be involved at some point.

The truth is that future generations are going to pay for the decisions we make or don't make today. The truth is that we don't know for sure how severe the consequences will be.

I am not scientifically competent enough to discuss specifics, but I have listened to Ted Talks that suggested Global warming could have catastrophic consequences. I am not quoting it directly, but something like warming seas, loss of plankton , loss of fish stocks, impact to weather which impacts ability to farm and access to water. Water levels rise as ice melts. Methane Gasses locked in ice is released increasing temperature and speeding up ice melt and eventually its a process that cannot be reversed.

Human consumption/abuse of resources, cattle gases, waste, gases (industrial, cars, planes etc) only add (don't certainly reduce) to this problem.... And I believe our seas help produce a significant portion of the oxygen we need to survive. .

Your assumption is that enough will be done before it gets "too bad". Again, I heard on a Ted Talk that the agreed levels of the Kyoto protocol don't go anywhere near far enough and cant start quick enough to make any real meaningful change before it too late. This Doesn't really suggest that the world is taking things as seriously as you suggest when countries practically have to drag their own society's, kicking and screaming, into making changes to try to protect humanity.