/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org

(37.17 KB 600x600 towel.jpg)
Anonymous 07/29/2020 (Wed) 13:33:29 No. 729481
Redpill me on climate change. How bad is it really? Does anyone even know?
(1.61 MB 640x6261 11218[1].jpg)
>>748767 How do you get the trillion price tag? Asking for a friend. The workers alone would cost more.
>>748782 Thousands of F-35 fighters or 24 people on the moon? I'd pick the fighters thanks.
>>748782 Is this an ad?
>>748770 >imagine not making your own spore syringes with your own mushroom farm I'm not into mushroom growing. But let's say you started from one syringe. How many syringes can you make with the yield of that first syringe?
>>748781 "carrying capacity" is unscientific horseshit which has been repeatedly debunked and disproven. The entire concept told us we would be starved by 2000 and the neo-Malthusians would become our rightful overlords. Don't get your science from the fucking Club of Rome.
>>748792 It will be more useful when China start WWIII.
>>748782 It's right back here if you actually bothered to listen to it >>748659
>>748782 >The workers alone would cost more. Evidently not according to your image. Do you even read?
>>748834 $57.8 billion is the price tag for one people.
>>748809 Realistically you could make one syringe with each mushroom fruit. They spread spores in units of one, unless the mushrooms tend to grow in clusters, in which case each individual mushroom is likely too small to make a syringe.
>>748705 >>748819 I knew you had it in you!
>>748842 And for only one year. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that you can hardly get a man on the moon for an entire year just like that.
Things that aren't real: Anime Mushrooms Climate change
>>735901 >a social system that doesn't require literal endless exponential growth USSR was about growth. In the 60s, even some americans feared that it could exceed them in growth. >and abandons the profit motive, allowing us to allocate social resources to repairing environmental damage without requiring more production elsewhere Ok, you can have growth without profit motive. From where are the extra resources going to be taken? If you have a zero growth policy, you must be able to manage the economy even better than planned economy that allows growth. And if there's no incentive to effectivize where it can be effectivized, then the ROI won't matter. So instead of letting every kind of production be subject to a potentional effectivizing, you will only have stagnation. The solution will probably be some kind of mix. Part 5-year plans and part someone making a nice profit on some way to desalin sea water.
>>748812 it absolutely is not. malthus's specific point was inaccurate, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the general concept of carrying capacity.
>>748812 Ecologist here, carrying capacity is very real. Stop getting your science from contrarian youtubers.
>>749022 Growth and sustainability should be coupled together. Growth shouldn't exceed carrying capacity. Carrying capacity can only be overcome through acquisition of new lands and resources. New land and resources can only be acquired through space colonization. Space colonization can only be achieved through sustainable growth.
>>749566(me) Also this is a good rule of thumb for any species. The idea that humans are to puny to impact the environment is ridiculous. Considering plant based life caused a mass global extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
>>749559 Malthus' point was accurate for a species largely limited to its own labor for getting resources to survive, that is, 99.999% of species that have ever existed. Malthusian cycles and catastrophes are absolutely a thing that is observed in other species. Humans are primarily different in our capacity to develop technology.
>>749022 The USSR was also powerhousing out of being a backwards as hell pre-industrial hellhole. Other countries will also require considerable growth that will have to come from somewhere. There's other forms of growth and development that aren't just pulling resources out of the earth and adding them to society.Developing collectivization and improving access to already existing assets effectively adds to people's consumption capacity without significantly adding to the demand for production. There's also the fact that vast amounts of material are ripe to be recycled but simply aren't under capitalism because it's often cheaper to simply extract raw resources on lines already designed for that. Obviously there will still be some amount of growth and development, there is not a necessity for maintaining zero-growth all the time. The important point is that we can do it in a sane, safe, and reasoned manner, instead of the utter chaos of capitalist forced development at all costs.
>>749686 well, he was specifically applying it to humans. there's a case to be made that we aren't actually different at all and our capacity to develop technology is mostly a short-term, one-time boost that depends entirely on fossil fuels, kind of like a new habitat or niche opening up for a species, the growth potential of which is then exhausted within a couple generations, leading to a crash, if the growth was unsustainable. i don't believe this is a truly existing limitation; technology could actually make a difference. but so far we've done literally nothing to suggest this isn't exactly what's going to happen, or that we're capable of using technology intelligently to engineer stability and sustainability for ourselves. the reality is we're headed for a major population shock, and given how badly we've wrecked the very specific kind of environment we depend on, and the timescales involved in the natural environment restabilising itself after disruption, we're not likely to survive as a species long enough to ever recover from it. we might have another hundred thousand years with population levels and living conditions considerably lower than in the prehistoric era before there's a new dynamically stable ecological state that would enable us to rebuild civilization, and then quietly go extinct like we almost did so many times back then, and like our cousin species did, having lost the knowledge and goal of civilization thousands of generations ago.
bad enough that you can't be redpilled on it. there are only blue and black pills.
>>749806 I think technological development is more of a way out than a lot of people want to give it credit for. Vastly increasing recycling programs, measures taken to increase rates of reforestation and species recovery, and even measures as exotic as albedo manipulation are not off the table. We could probably save a lot of polar ice by simply introducing reflective/emissive panels for the sake of rejecting heat. There are a great many options that aren't explored not because they are not useful but because they're not monetarily profitable.
(252.54 KB 894x1138 (you).png)
>>749845 even if that would be exactly what i looked like while typing it, doesn't mean i'm not right.
>>749590 People ITT would retardedly argue that plant-life causing extinction-level climate change events means this process is natural and therefore it is not so bad that humans have done the same in a fraction of the time. Truly retarded, perhaps we deserve to die?
>>749842 >>749842 If the whole labor force of mankind were turned to a comprehensive plan to solve this crisis we could save the world and maybe one day create a paradise on Earth
>>749881 We do but we won't.
>>749842 >I think technological development is more of a way out than a lot of people want to give it credit for. who exactly? that technology will somehow save us without fundamental societal change seems to me to be the mainstream position, along with denialism. the people rejecting that narrative don't think technology, especially in the less usual, more broad meaning of the term, isn't a part of the solution. reforestation isn't generally seen as a technological solution but an ecological one, but even beyond that, agricultural reform and other such manipulations are considered societal and ecological than technological. even recycling isn't seen as a technological fix, even though making it work will require tons of research and new technology. i don't think ice sheets aren't being covered because there's no money in it. the relatively few people who take the problem seriously aren't motivated by money. i think it more likely that they correctly estimate that advocating for such interventions is a strategic dead end. they can only buy time, which is desperately needed, but completely pointless in isolation, and can even be counterproductive, given that the biggest problem rn is that people are acting like frogs in a kettle. if credible geoengineering projects like covering ice sheets were constantly appearing here and there, if there was a whole ecosystem of them, they might have the potential to help without doing critical damage. but a couple projects in isolation are only going to offer reassurance and distraction to a certain type of person who might otherwise be serious. there's also the context of a long line of greenwashing scams.
>>749881 no one deserves to die and have everyone they love die for being stupid.
>>749906 If we don't purge the world of stupidity we won't ever get a productive society.
>>749881 I have long lost any tears for humanity’s future. You fucking brainlets are virus with shoes that deserves what’s coming.
>>750212 if you think the most important goal of a society is to be productive and that people can be made less dumb through purges, start with yourself. you are engaging in very simplistic, emotional and gullible reasoning.
>>750223 Kill or sterilize people with low IQ. High IQ people remain. Average IQ go up. If you can't understand that, you are just too dumb and we don't want you in our ideology. Get the fuck out.
>>750235 >Kill or sterilize people with low IQ. >destroy lower-level workforce Just educate people for christ's sake, China did it and guess what, their average iq got up.
>>750240 Education doesn't raise IQ, which is genetically inherent
>>749899 Another issue that that talking about measures to save say specifically the arctic or the amazon right now is like talking about installing smoke detectors in a house that 3/4ths of the way burned down, there's no point as both systems have entered death spirals and like you said, individual actions like that don't mean anything without the broad global systemic changes
>>750245 nope, that's called pseudo-science
why was this bumplocked
>>750249 If education has an impact on IQ, why haven't more countries heavily invested in education?
>>750252 We already have 500 posts
>>750253 ....because most can't? Most socialist countries have and do, but capitalist countries don't. You know why? Because lower-iq people make better wageslaves
It isn't going to destroy civilization or humanity but it'd be nice to have commusocialism now instead of trying to do it in blade runner 2049
>>750253 Because it's a meaningless number nobody gives a shit abuot a part from /pol/yps?
>>750257 >Because lower-iq people make better wageslaves
>>750282 >intelligence >meaningless Spoken like a true brainlet
>>749806 I think the climate collapse will be akin to the bronze age collapse. Won't be the end of humanity but a huge set back. Billions are going to die and what remains of humanity will be clinging to the artic circle. Technology won't be entirely lost due to literacy rates being much higher.
>>750245 not even the most blatant pseudoscientist would claim that, dumbo charles murray would not claim that
>>750647 after the bronze age collapse humanity was infinitely better off than it will be if we can't prevent the collapse. we had a whole unpolluted planet's worth of pristine, stable ecosystems to fall back on.
>>749718 >The USSR was also powerhousing out of being a backwards as hell pre-industrial hellhole. Other countries will also require considerable growth that will have to come from somewhere. True. But their mistake was that they didn't switch to consumer products. >There's other forms of growth and development that aren't just pulling resources out of the earth and adding them to society.Developing collectivization and improving access to already existing assets effectively adds to people's consumption capacity without significantly adding to the demand for production. Regarding collectivization: The important questions are what and how deep? Because mining and steel production isn't sensitive to economic plans. It's basically a bunch of STEM-problems. Agriculture is a totally different thing, as it relies on tacit and knowledge. Just the different soils can you devote entire libraries to. And still not say the last word. A good grazing field for sheep and goat such as steep rolling hills may not be suitable for cows, as they may break their legs there. Optimize farming is something that should be done in concert with the farmers and play to their vested long-term interests. >There's also the fact that vast amounts of material are ripe to be recycled but simply aren't under capitalism because it's often cheaper to simply extract raw resources on lines already designed for that. Obviously there will still be some amount of growth and development, there is not a necessity for maintaining zero-growth all the time. The important point is that we can do it in a sane, safe, and reasoned manner, instead of the utter chaos of capitalist forced development at all costs. Yeah, a lot of things are impossible to repair by yourself and so on. But there's plenty of branches where the state intervention regarding the goods-as-such are a bare minimum. Consider synths. There's the voluntary MIDI-standard. And then there's general standards such as conforming to the electric mains, general consumer protection and pattern protection. Disregarding this, synts doesn't exists as any state is concerned. And the second hand value of them are often so high and the second hand market so vibrant that by itself it is a safeguard against waste.

Delete
Report

no cookies?