Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
Your thinking is similar to the thinking at Versailles in 1919. The French and the English didn't give a damn about the Germans. They were content to let them starve.
Your line of thinking implies that the people's who would die en masse are just going to roll over and play dead.
Germany was a country that had previously been the best in the world at academia for a century, and the most industrialized country in the world as well. a country that contributed massively to worldwide outcomes, one of the most important.
Indonesia isn't, it could never have existed, all people who ever lived there could never have been born, and the trajectory of human life on this planet would have been identical.
now Egypt was relevant for a while 2-4k years ago but it has been utterly insignificant for a long while as well.
and btw in 1919 in Germany they didn't kill every single German. a lot survived and got really angry. they didn't actually let them starve for real. they didn't kill them all.
now if you ask me if letting a population that already demonstrated to be among the most skilled in the history of humanity become very angry at you is smart, the answer is no.
if instead you ask me if the complete annihilation of an insignificant population is going to be a problem for survivors then sorry but simply no, it won't.
if you disagree please list the problems caused by the Comanche to the American people in the last decades
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
This seems like a a significant goalpost shift, but probably a well-advised one.
I'm not going to lie to people ..... there have been 5 mass extinctions that scientists have documented in the last 450 million years. We're following the model of those mass extinctions.
I was thinking about book titles.
Last night I came up with something along the lines of cooking recipes.
The current path would be Recipe For Extinction
The people of the world have a choice. They can embrace global eco-communism or they can go extinct.
Which of those two options do you prefer ?
We will either submit or go extinct. All of those human institutions that you point to as being immovable ..... they will be overwhelmed by a global apocalypse resulting our initiating feedback loops which are unstoppable. There are greater forces on Earth than humans.
At the end of the day .....I'm just a messenger.
Nature is giving us a choice. It's eco-communism or extinction.
I honestly don't know if we're already beyond the point at which human intervention has already become irrelevant. Near term human extinction may be unpreventable.
For what it's worth, I have no inherent preference for form of government. I just want the outcome of that government to be the survival of our species.
So divine revelation led you to believe in extinction?
Even your post goalpost shift prediction requires a lot of caveats and has still yet to be proven by anything you’ve presented.
What has been thoroughly demonstrated are the oscillations between geologically recent Milankovitch Cycles which lead to the seesaw between ice ages and interglacials. We can see that the Earth's average temperature oscillated in a 5C range while atmospheric CO2 ranged between 7x and 12.5 the weight of Mt Everest.
Now CO2 equivalent (which factors in the short-term forcing associated with increase in CH4 / methane ) has risen to approximately 30 Mt Everest equivalents.
So .... if 7 Mt Everests = an ice age
And 12.5 Mt Everests = an interglacial which describes the 11,700 year Holocene prior to the year 1900
What does 30 Mt Everest equivalents of GHG's in the atmosphere mean ?
It means that we've initiated feedback loops which would likely raise average atmospheric temps by ~ 5C if we held fast at 30 Mt Everest equivalents.
But we're not. The increase in CO equivalent is ~ 0.2 Mt Everest equivalents per year. And the US government is now in the business of denying that this poses a risk and pursuing a pro-fossil fuel policy.
The greatest extinction of all was the Permian ~ 252M years ago. An event estimated to have lasted about 70k years, during which Earth's temperatures increased by 10C over a 60k year period. Or 1C per 6k years.
We've increased temperatures by 1.5C above the 1850-1900 baseline.
The latest research shows a 0.4C per decade increase in global atmospheric temperature. That equates to 1C every 25 years.
That's 240x as fast as the average warming during the Permian.
Milankovitch Cycles for the 2.6M years prior to the Industrial Revolution provide evidence of a GHG ==> Warming feedback loop.
Those loops have historically been bounded and go in reverse when the Earth orbital position pivots into a relationship with the Sun which reduces incoming solar radiation.
The historical bounding has been overridden by the massive increase in human GHG emissions .... to the point where it becomes possible for the loop to become immune to any human intervention.
Attached is a link to the Keeling Curve. It shows historical and current atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
At the top you can select a date range. If you select the 800k year option, you can see the impact of Milankovitch Cycle's best illustrated. It looks like an EKG of a heartbeat that lasts 100k years per beat.
If you select the 70M year option, you can go back to the last significant extinction event which occurred ~ 55M years ago .... The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum.
https://www.bing.com/copilotsearch?q=gra...
Attached here is the graph of atmospheric methane concentration.
Concentrations of methane are much smaller than CO2, but on a molecule by molecule basis, the warming impact is much larger.
Concentrations for 800k years were very consistent. Generally around 0.5ppb (parts per billion). Now they have increased to 1.9ppb.
When you examine the two graphs above, you see the trajectory of the curve.
In the last century, it's a vertical spike.
The planet is extremely sensitive to GHG's. If there were none, the planet would be 30C colder, the oceans would be frozen and there would be life.
So ... we're doubling them in a geologic instant. Not so smart.
We're cooking the planet and acidifying the ocean.
We're on a trajectory for extinction. Geologic history provides ample evidence for mass extinctions.
We may not be committed to it, but someone has to produce evidence equivalent to a working set of brakes in an automobile heading downhill toward a cliff.
In the absence of a reasonable presentation of a working brake, then extinction is the default outcome.
Global eco-communism is the brake I propose.
Synthetic photosynthesis could work .... but I don't know if humans are capable of creating fake plants which sequester CO2.
When you look at the distance between the hash marks at 1960, 1980, 2000 and 2020 .... you can see that the distance is growing at each 20 year interval.
Despite the warnings, we find ourselves in a situation where the increase in GHG's is accelerating.
At some point, we become a car pointed downhill toward a cliff with no breaks.
In such a situation, it may be advantageous to steer the car into a collision with another car or drive it into a ditch or a hillside rather than go off a steep cliff which is almost certainly fatal.
In the first post of this thread, I introduced a few quotes from the Game Of Thrones.
Now I'm reminded of the last words of the Mad King, Aerys Targaryen ..... "burn them all".
That's the attitude of the people making bank selling fossil fuels. That's Trump & company.
Perhaps we've reached the point where the opposition has no more bullets in their chamber.
The combination of those charts of CO2 and CH4 and the question about where the brakes are in the car of capitalism.
No one can even suggest a phenomena which would result in stopping the car.
If I'm going to write a book, maybe I should lead with those charts and the car with no brakes analogy. It seems to be effective at silencing the dissent.
+1.5c in 25 years is not even a blip in geological time but it is a generation in human time and there is a lot humans can do... and even non-human species can do to adapt.
Lobsters for example have been migrating northward from their older habitats for example on eastern coasts of the US for decades... net result on humans? Frankly not much. Cheaper lobsters maybe? Canadians have been getting a boom in lobster production as the population migrates north from Maine into Canadian waters.
Your other points can be addressed similarly: global/geological outliers are of such a large scale as to either: 1. not matter for human life times. 2. provide more than enough time for humans to adapt.
The critiques I made in my last post are generally applicable to much of the climate change/global warming literature.
+1.5c in 25 years is not even a blip in geological time but it is a generation in human time and there is a lot humans can do... and even non-human species can do to adapt.Lobsters for example have been migrating northward from their older habitats for example on eastern coasts of the US for decades... net result on humans? Frankly not much. Cheaper lobsters maybe? Canadians h
I don't find posts like these useful as they are vague.
You assert that there is a lot humans can do and that we have plenty of time to adapt. But you don't list a single suggestion which halts the accelerating increase in GHG's.
In your view where are the brakes ? Please list one potential meaningful adaptation .....
I don't find posts like these useful as they are vague.
You assert that there is a lot humans can do and that we have plenty of time to adapt. But you don't list a single suggestion which halts the accelerating increase in GHG's.
In your view where are the brakes ? Please list one potential meaningful adaptation .....
he says adaptation, you answer "brakes".
Adaptation means that the warming "will be what it will be", and the climate change as well, but the actual effect on our quality of life won't be as tragic as you claim, not even close, because we are good at adapting.
I don't find posts like these useful as they are vague.
You assert that there is a lot humans can do and that we have plenty of time to adapt. But you don't list a single suggestion which halts the accelerating increase in GHG's.
In your view where are the brakes ? Please list one potential meaningful adaptation .....
I thought he was saying that there were a lot of things humans could do to adapt to a changing environment.
