• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

A sobering read. Time is running out regarding climate change.

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,322
126
I believe we have the capability of altering our climate. No doubt about it. I think the consequences to humanity are overblown, though. Our real issue is our population explosion, climate change is but window dressing.
Is it just because those poor not-white folks are the ones adding to the population while most white nations have a declining, stagnant or very close to being stagnant population?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,827
6,286
136
The idea is to make technology be more appealing. Let me clarifying something. When I say economics are irrelevant I mean from supply and demand the free market, whatever. I don't care if they find Santa's Elves and determine they're communists. If people want to get more stuff easier then stop cutting down the rainforests. Remember we always have some very nasty and unacceptable solutions if needed, sort of a "This is a nice village you have here. It would be a shame if there was a plague or summink like that".
And what I mean when I say economics are relevant is not that I'm concerned about my energy bills. It's that people, everywhere, are highly concerned about their own money. And most especially in this country. And these are the people who will elect the people who will decide what, if anything, we do about this. A stark choice, actually, between doing something and doing literally nothing at all because that is where one of our two major political parties is on this issue.

The cost doesn't matter because it's going to be catastrophic doesn't sell to voters. A better argument is that it's going to cost them more in the longer term if we do nothing now. Better still is to clearly articulate how it's going to directly affect them. This is something which has not been done well enough at the political level.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,593
2,753
136
I was pointing out that it is our refusal to know what we feel is why, when I say that refusal is so deep we prefer to ignore the fact of that our self hate is causing our extinction, it sounds nuts to you and you call me nuts for suggesting it. You, like the rest of the word, are in a state of denial and the reason is that in order to create self hate you have to cause terrible pain, pain we are terrified of remembering. Nobody is to blame. We had to shut down to survive as children, but it is deeply sad our species may die from this. We hate ourselves because we were forced to believe we were the cause of our parents and guardians misery just as you now blame me. I’m OK with you doing that.
I didn't call you nuts or blame you for anything.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
And what I mean when I say economics are relevant is not that I'm concerned about my energy bills. It's that people, everywhere, are highly concerned about their own money. And most especially in this country. And these are the people who will elect the people who will decide what, if anything, we do about this. A stark choice, actually, between doing something and doing literally nothing at all because that is where one of our two major political parties is on this issue.

The cost doesn't matter because it's going to be catastrophic doesn't sell to voters. A better argument is that it's going to cost them more in the longer term if we do nothing now. Better still is to clearly articulate how it's going to directly affect them. This is something which has not been done well enough at the political level.
That's why the investment in alternatives and deployment matters. Give the stuff away if necessary.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Hurricanes only punish gay people and those that support them. Not sure why NC got hit so hard last time though, and it looks like they'll be getting a bunch more unneeded rain from Michael. I, for one, would be heartbroken if the entire state washed into the sea.
Fear not. A few more disasters and the FEMA will be out in full force adding more people to imaginary 100 year flood zones which will mandate forced flood insurance onto all the people who bought FHA or VA... You know... the people who can best afford to pay to rebuild your oceanfront mansion should it incur damage...
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,024
2,540
126
I believe we have the capability of altering our climate. No doubt about it. I think the consequences to humanity are overblown, though. Our real issue is our population explosion, climate change is but window dressing.
Just what hole have you shoved your head into to come to that conclusion? Everything must be made as simple as possible but not too simple, said Einstein. Dismissing climate calamity in favor of overpopulation is just plain stupid.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
But you aren't turning off your computer, you use your thermostat and climate control in your house, you used powered transportation, etc. etc. But, you want the feel good social justice warrior high from pretending to care on the internet and hoping government feel good tickles in the form of big industry restriction that doesn't affect your life is the answer? Also, as said before, as long as our population is exploding all over the earth the way it is, all of this is just window dressing anyway.
Propaganda is a helluva drug.

Combatting climate change isn't about reducing consumption, that's a myth spread by 'conservative media' so you can use straw men to pretend you're a warrior fighting 'liberal hypocrisy.'
The actual issue is about increasing efficiency in energy production and consumption, which means we become wealthier, nor poorer as propaganda has told you to believe.
For example, modern electric vehicles are more than twice as efficient as comparable fossil fuel powered vehicles, even accounting for some coal powered electric plant, and all else being equal, are way faster and more reliable than gas or diesel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
Spyder are right on over population and save the forest, unfortunately forest can not be saved as population continuous to grow. Nothing can be done on over population unless we go for the purge movie lvl event, so what's next? We give up and let the shit hit the fan or we fight till the end? If the heroism in you want to fight you all know what to do.
Overpopulation is no more the problem today than it was 220 years ago when Malthaus said we would all die like rats, because 1 in 4 humans were farmers and he assumed that could never change.
The problem is, as then, the people who believe we can never improve, that we can never do better or be more efficient, even though the entire history of humanity consists of people doing exactly that, and then fight like hell to make sure they're not proven wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,491
2,994
126
Overpopulation is no more the problem today than it was 220 years ago when Malthaus said we would all die like rats, because 1 in 4 humans were farmers and he assumed that could never change.
Food production was already revolutionized. There are limits as to what can be achieved.

OTOH, I've no firm grasp on what effect indoor, lab style, farming will have.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,499
484
126
Obviously global warming will kill most of you. Not me, because I'm not an idiot who pretends that 2C is going to matter.

Some of you are swamped by the information, can't see the forest for the trees and just started believing all the alarmist propaganda.

You lack the needed brain cells to decipher the information and started believing nonsense like that the coral reefs would die. News flash: There is nowhere near a 2C margin on coral reef survival and you're an idiot if you believed that.

Chicken little the sky is falling. It will only stop if we oppress society a little more because they're not being the good little workers who contribute to the rich As Much As They Could.

What is really going to happen? Humans, like me and not you chicken littles, and crops, and coral reefs, that can tolerate a trivial little mere 2C rise will flourish because all the inferior species that couldn't handle a trivial little 2C rise will die.

Goodbye weaklings. I won't miss you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jayzds

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Obviously global warming will kill most of you. Not me, because I'm not an idiot who pretends that 2C is going to matter.

Some of you are swamped by the information, can't see the forest for the trees and just started believing all the alarmist propaganda.

You lack the needed brain cells to decipher the information and started believing nonsense like that the coral reefs would die. News flash: There is nowhere near a 2C margin on coral reef survival and you're an idiot if you believed that.

Chicken little the sky is falling. It will only stop if we oppress society a little more because they're not being the good little workers who contribute to the rich As Much As They Could.

What is really going to happen? Humans, like me and not you chicken littles, and crops, and coral reefs, that can tolerate a trivial little mere 2C rise will flourish because all the inferior species that couldn't handle a trivial little 2C rise will die.

Goodbye weaklings. I won't miss you.
User name checks out.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
Propaganda is a helluva drug.

Combatting climate change isn't about reducing consumption, that's a myth spread by 'conservative media' so you can use straw men to pretend you're a warrior fighting 'liberal hypocrisy.'
The actual issue is about increasing efficiency in energy production and consumption, which means we become wealthier, nor poorer as propaganda has told you to believe.
For example, modern electric vehicles are more than twice as efficient as comparable fossil fuel powered vehicles, even accounting for some coal powered electric plant, and all else being equal, are way faster and more reliable than gas or diesel.
Consumption is a big part of it, the earth doesn't care what side of the political spectrum points it out since it doesn't make it any less relevant because the increase use of fossil fuels and oil derived products is the direct result of consumption which creates pollution,

the threat to profits is what's behind pollution deniers of which climate change is one of the end results and both producers and consumers are responsible regardless of party affiliation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+and+consumption&client=firefox-b-1&ei=l_69W6f0OsWOggfx8p6wBQ&start=20&sa=N&biw=1067&bih=676

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/semi.2016.2016.issue-213/sem-2015-0109/sem-2015-0109.xml
Abstract
There is clear evidence that human beings have contributed to climate change through their patterns of consumption, and, it could be argued that, since we are part of the problem then we must be part of the solution. The apparently good news is that people report that they have very positive attitudes to environmentally-friendly products and they also consistently say that they are prepared to adapt their behavior to ameliorate the effects of climate change.

However, numerous studies have found little behavior change on the part of consumers. This study investigates this critical issue experimentally. It does this by exploring whether self-reported attitudes to low carbon products, or alternatively implicit attitudes to such products (measured using an associative task and not requiring self-report), predict consumer choice of products varying on a range of dimensions including environmental consequences, in an experimental context where time for selection was also systematically varied.

We found firstly, in line with previous research, that human beings have explicit and implicit attitudes that are not correlated. Secondly, in terms of brand choice, we found that consumers are particularly sensitive to both brand information and value in their selection of products, particularly under time pressure. Organic/eco brands are, however, much less favoured, especially under any time pressure, where processes that are more automatic prevail. Thirdly, color-coded carbon footprint information can influence choice even under time pressure but only for those consumers with a strong positive implicit attitude to carbon footprint.

The conclusions from this research are that humans beings may well have a “divided self” when it comes to the environment and climate change, and this underlying “dissociation” in attitude (implicit versus explicit) might be critical to their behavior as consumers. This concept of the“divided self” may help us understand why relatively little has changed thus far with regard to more sustainable consumption, but might open up new lines of enquiry about how we might attempt to promote more sustainable consumption in the future.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,093
1,048
136
So what you're saying is you are a frog, and this pan is fine?
So long as we're clear that you enjoy a slow boil and would only notice if it was immediately damaging.
It's not going to boil, it's just a demand for more money and more control. What are the newest numbers? 100+ trillion $$$$ ?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,491
2,994
126
It's not going to boil, it's just a demand for more money and more control.
See, we could debate the merits of what to do in response to CO2 emissions, to alleviate your irrational fear of collaborative effort, but to have an honest discussion of the solution(s), we would first need common ground in recognizing their necessity.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,093
1,048
136
So passing high school chemistry makes one a sheep? How interesting..
Being a gullible and unquestioning herd animal makes you a sheep. As i've said before, it's about money and control. The money is the 10 -12 Trillion dollars the cause demands, your diet and political policy authority is what they want control over.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown

"Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses."
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
Being a gullible and unquestioning herd animal makes you a sheep. As i've said before, it's about money and control. The money is the 10 -12 Trillion dollars the cause demands, your diet and political policy authority is what they want control over.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown

"Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses."
Fuck the world, I want my steak.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY