Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

How would you define leftism Lucifer ?

I’m not a big fan of Nietzsche, but he nailed it when he said, “When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back.”

Climate scientists are staring into the abyss. It’s not good for them.

Once you discover the truth of the apocalypse, it’s much better to take a step back rather than continue staring.

The apocalypse has always been an externalization of an internal, spiritual truth, and it’s just one truth among many. But if you stare at it, it becomes the only truth. The one truth to rule them all.

Even if all of NN’s trusted sources suddenly changed their forecasts to something benign, the climate prophets wouldn’t budge. They would claim conspiracy instead. That’s how you know it’s not actually about the data. The data just opened the portal, but once you see, you can’t unsee.

You are so eager to engage in oneupsmanship that you fabricate imagined scenarios in which you can criticize others.

My "trusted sources" are world recognized experts in their respective fields whose names are known by only a tiny fraction of the population.

They're aren't going to suddenly change their forecasts to something benign absent something dramatic.

Something dramatic would be one of the 3 following developments ....... humans invent synthetic photosynthesis, human engage in attempts at climate geoengineering, a gigantic volcanic eruption.

Otherwise, the science is rock solid. There is no cogent alternative explanation which competes with the scientific consensus.

Even for the empiricists, the need for a savior is to become more salient.

Can you put that sentence into a form of English which is more easily understandable ?

I don't know what it is you're trying to say.

I’m curious if you have a back up plan or are you putting all of your eggs in the global communism basket?

It's not like I'm a huge fan of communism.

I just think it's the only way we survive as a species.

I'm a survivalist. Life > Death in my book.

Part of the back and forth is instructive.

It led to a question which people can't answer. They tell me I'm wrong, but they can tell me the process by which they arrived at that conclusion. They offer conclusions with no observational foundation.

It helps clarify some of the emphasis of the book. The contrast between those who have a basis for their conclusions and those who do not.

I'm strange.

I'm loyal to my species. I come here and put a stake in the ground and say that the survival of the species should be at the apex of human objectives.

I can't get other people to join me in saying that's a worthy top priority.

Help me out .... I want to do some research ..... what's more important to you than the survival of our species ??

Maybe the reason I want life to go on is that I enjoy life.

Is it possible that deep down, most people are miserable and bitter enough to want it all to end ?

So ... we're all familiar with fossils. We understand that fossil fuels are the residue of organisms which died long ago.

A fossil does not have to be a piece of an animal. In the Antarctic, they pull up ice cores which have air bubbles trapped in them from when the ice formed from snowfall. Those air bubbles are also fossils.

I'd like to consider another kind of fossil. The kind you put in a time capsule and leave behind for someone else to find in the future.

I'd like to ask anyone reading ..... what would you tell the children of the future about what you were thinking when we tipped off these chain reactions that land in their laps ?? Maybe some day, people will unearth these electronic conversations and wonder what people were thinking.

You honestly think that I am triggered by this thread? Nothing in the world could be further from the truth. I don't think any thread in the history of this forum has ever raised my blood pressure by more than a point or two for more than a minute or two, and this isn't one of them.

I believe that the current generation of humans will be be judged very harshly by history for the last 40 years of climate policy.

You have offered plenty of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. And it is intuitive and logical that those changes will be cause vast problems. But in fairness to others, you haven't really provided any compelling evidence for your ultimate conclusion that humans are literally on a path to go extinct in the next few decades.

The bolded is an interesting philosophical question, but convincing people in the abstract of the importance of that objective isn't particularly difficult.

Getting them to agree on a global scale to a process (or form of government) for achieving that objective, on the other hand, is enormously difficult -- orders of magnitude more difficult than getting them to agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and that the consequences are likely to be severe.

On this latter point, I am hopelessly pessimistic. Take two scenarios in which an extinction level event is unambigious and the time line is certain. I'm thinking of a verified large asteriod heading toward earth that is twice as large as the one that caused the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event or an unambiguous and unstoppable alien invasion that is on its way but won't arrive for one hundred years (i.e., the arrival described in The Three-Body Problem). In either scenario, I have zero confidence that human civilization could agree on a proposed response, much less agree on a common form of government to address the problem.

And who do you think will be blamed, the populations that have been reducing their emissions per person since 20 years ago, or those who are skyrocketing them currently?

because nut nut is trying to tell those who already do sacrifice themselves immensely "for the climate" (europeans, canadians) to do mooooore while those who aren't giving the slightest **** and are massively increasing their emissions get 0 blame

Moreover even if nut nut wants "global communism" he doesn't advocate for a very easy way to reduce currrent emissions: a complete ban of immigrations from poor countries to rich countries. Every time an immigrant moves here, he emits more. Anyone who actually gave a **** about emissions would start by interrupting that source of increases, especially given it does not decrease the quality of life of voters, so it would be a very easy sell politically.

That is just an example as to why we know, FOR A CERTAINTY, advocates for emission controls ACTUALLY don't give a **** about emissions. They want to control our lives, not emissions. Otherwise immigration from low emitting countries to high emitting countries would be COMPLETLY banned (or at least they would ask for that every day) and considered a heinous moral crime against the climate, OBVIOUSLY.

Another example would be asking for nuclear 24/7, but they don't do that either. It's like they ON PURPOSE avoid all ways to reduce emissions that would be compatible with "living as we always did". It's like they, ON PURPOSE , use the excuse of emission controls to actually achieve something else.

Sorry to derail but I don't think this is true.

The ecological systems of China, Europe, Africa and much of Americas as we know them today are results of literally thousands of years of essentially primitive terraforming and extinction of species we simply didn't care for. In some cases, the results were clearly undesired (deforestation and overgrazing => desertification of Saharas (at least accelerated it).

Yet, few people are judging people of any era "very harshly" for their treatments of the environment.

I could make some broader hypotheses based on this observation but I just want to make the empirical assertion that, historically, later generations tend to just accept the conditions of their inherited environments (lands) and don't spend too much time/energy juding their forerunners.

On a completely different topic, it's probably true that boomers' economic/tax policies that favor hoarding of assets and disfavor affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods are major contributors to the unaffordable housing crisis. But outside of this forum and some really left wing circles, you wont' find a whole lot of people "judging" the boomers harshly. I believe a lot of that is people who came after the boomers have more or less internalized the tax/economic incentives as normal and rather blame something much more current and alien to themselves (the ultra wealthy stealing from us now, rather than our parents (boomers) trying save (hoard) for retirement)

Let's unpack your words very carefully.

I didn't say that humans will go extinct in the next few decades. I believe human civilization as currently constructed will collapse in that time frame unless humans can miraculously geoengineer the climate.

As far as being on a path to extinction ..... we've literally always been on that path if one's time horizon is long enough. The Earth has a finite lifespan.

so you believe that in 2055, life in Tokyo will be dramatically different than today? like no law and order, no electricity, running water and calories available like today? (if we don't engineer the climate).

is that your prediction? riots and Street gangs in Tokyo and a collapse in normal life in 30 years? 50?

What the heck happened to you as a child Lucifer ? Did someone drop you on your head ? From the roof of a 4 story building ?

Have you not been complaining about personal attacks???

Since I've never represented a standard of certain extinction in a few decades ..... I want to lower the bar to the following ...

Likely civilization collapse in a few decades.

As I have indicated, I can't rule out humans coming up with an invention such as synthetic photosynthesis or some other geoengineering success. But I find both unlikely.

Some degree of humility informs us that we can't be certain about the future.

He called me a liar.

There is apparently no moderation here which enforces civil boundaries.