d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > First It Was Soup Cans
Prev123411Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 54,736
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 1,463.83
Oct 22 2022 09:33am
deaths are a pretty minor inconvenience
Member
Posts: 54,117
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Oct 22 2022 12:38pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 22 Oct 2022 15:38)
Traffic jams happen all the time. You can hardly blame the protesters for an accident like that.

Honestly we are heading to a doomsday scenario with global warming with no signs of stopping. This is a pretty minor inconvenience compared to what's going to happen.

Wellll.... by now, it has become very obvious that the decadent, unruly plebs in the Western world are not willing to give up their unsustainable standard of living in favor of sufficiently radical climate action. Against this backdrop - do you think abolishing democracy would be justified once a large enough expert consensus emerges that doing so is the only remaining option to stave off this doomsday scenario?

--------------------------

Quote
Among those to cheer on the soup throwers was fellow activist Morgan Trowland, who saluted their soup throwing and other acts of vandalism and calls for militant action, as well as embracing ideas like "unlimited migration northwards for all africans";
https://twitter.com/morgantrowland



Need I say more?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 22 2022 12:43pm
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Oct 22 2022 02:42pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 22 2022 03:45am)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/18/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-portrait-gallery-climate-emergency-fund

Last week the group "Just Stop Oil" had two skinny pink haired activists throw cans of soup at Van Gogh's Sunflowers, before gluing themselves to a wall. The group vowed "more protests are coming". Among those to cheer on the soup throwers was fellow activist Morgan Trowland, who saluted their soup throwing and other acts of vandalism and calls for militant action, as well as embracing ideas like "unlimited migration northwards for all africans";
https://twitter.com/morgantrowland
Well Morgan Trowland joined in on one of those direction actions;
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20176123/bridge-eco-protesters-blood-on-hands-deaths-two-women/

He and another member of "Just Stop Oil" scaled the Queen Elizabeth II bridge and attached themselves to the cables to stop all traffic. They issued a set of demands including that the UK government halt all oil and gas licenses. They caused a 6 mile long traffic jam and 2 hour delays for motorists. During the height of the traffic jam, one vehicle trying to pass on the shoulder crashed into a stranded motorist and the good samaritans trying to help her, critically injuring three people. Emergency vehicles were unable to reach the victims due to the congestion for a full 40 minutes, with 2 people dying and 1 seriously injured.

Fortunately, this story has a silver lining. The average adult in England has about a 12.7 tonnes CO2 equivalent carbon footprint per year. Given that the dead included a mother of 4 in her 50s and another woman in her 40s, we can expect that a full ~70+ man-years were shaved off their carbon footprints which may save the global climate as much as 889 tonnes CO2e. The drawback is that because the injured man has a broken back, he may be paralyzed and thus require greater public resources and a larger carbon footprint, but that could always be solved by euthanizing the undesirables with more direct measures. So at least we can all salute the efforts of these brave soup throwing radicals as they save the world from the horrors of climate change

Dude I respect your opinions and usually your posts are spot-on. But honestly I wish you would use sarcasm less. I am sure you could have made your point equally well without sarcasm.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 22 2022 02:48pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 22 2022 01:38pm)
Wellll.... by now, it has become very obvious that the decadent, unruly plebs in the Western world are not willing to give up their unsustainable standard of living in favor of sufficiently radical climate action. Against this backdrop - do you think abolishing democracy would be justified once a large enough expert consensus emerges that doing so is the only remaining option to stave off this doomsday scenario?
--------------------------
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/733039667050905600/4HIy5M0F_400x400.jpg
Need I say more?


To some degree there needs to be an allowance for executive action based on negative consequences the remediation of which is not popular democratically.

For instance we have a mechanism in the United States to suspend habeus corpus during war time..

To what degree you suspend depends on the negative consequences and what needs to be done. Our fundamental issue in tmental issue in the West is not democracy but corporate influence over democracy. In France a few years ago there was a citizen's council that was formed to make recommendations to the government about how to remediate fossil fuel dependence. When the recommendations were brought forth And weren't popular with fossil fuel dependent companies companies the entire thing was shoved under the rug by macron.

When the issues are spelled out to the public outside of propaganda by fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dependent companies the solutions are overwhelmingly popular But when you have decades and hundreds of billions of dollars of propaganda that tends to get deleted out

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 22 2022 02:50pm
Member
Posts: 54,117
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Oct 22 2022 03:03pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 22 Oct 2022 22:48)
To some degree there needs to be an allowance for executive action based on negative consequences the remediation of which is not popular democratically.

For instance we have a mechanism in the United States to suspend habeus corpus during war time..

To what degree you suspend depends on the negative consequences and what needs to be done. Our fundamental issue in tmental issue in the West is not democracy but corporate influence over democracy. In France a few years ago there was a citizen's council that was formed to make recommendations to the government about how to remediate fossil fuel dependence. When the recommendations were brought forth And weren't popular with fossil fuel dependent companies companies the entire thing was shoved under the rug by macron.


But that's part of the crux: who will get to decide "what needs to be done"? Elected officials? Experts? Citizen councils? Even if one were willing to give up on the democratic process in favor of climate action, this choice is not trivial or straight-forward.

The last part of your reply seems to dodge the issue. You're making it sound as if the main problem standing in the way of climate action is that a bunch of nefarious corporations stop governments from implementing policy which is actually popular, or would be popular if not for decades of big oil propaganda. I can absolutely see why you would like to frame the problem in this fashion, it's really convenient for someone from your political corner.

But that's not actually the case. Any countermeasures which go far enough to really stop global warming (and not just silence the conscience of the green-minded) would clearly be highly unpopular. You don't have to take my word for it, it is the veteran climate activists themselves which are stressing that to stop climate change, we must drastically reduce our consumption, our individual mobility, live in much smaller houses, eat far less meat and so on and on. And that's not even talking about open questions like climate reparations or the resettlement of climate refugees.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 22 2022 03:05pm
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 22 2022 03:06pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 22 2022 04:03pm)
But that's part of the crux: who will get to decide "what needs to be done"? Elected officials? Experts? Citizen councils? Even if one were willing to give up on the democratic process in favor of climate action, this choice is not trivial or straight-forward.

The last part of your reply seems to dodge the issue. You're making it sound as if the main problem standing in the way of climate action is that a bunch of nefarious corporations stop governments from implementing policy which is actually popular, or would be popular if not for decades of big oil propaganda. I can absolutely see why you would like to frame the problem in this fashion, it's really convenient for someone from your political corner.

But that's not actually the case. Any countermeasures which go far enough to really stop global warming (and not just silence the conscience of the green-minded) would clearly be highly unpopular. You don't have to take my word for it, it is the veteran climate activists themselves which are stressing that to stop climate change, we must drastically reduce our consumption, our individual mobility, live in much smaller houses, eat far less meat and so on and on.


That's true now because we are 50 years passed when we should have started solving this problem. This entire time those nefarious corporations have absolutely engaged in a multi billion dollar propaganda war.

We are now so far gone that it would require incredibly drastic measures to stop which would probably be pretty unpopular.

Anthropomorphic climate change was well supported as early as the 1970s.. It was 1st hypothesized in the late 1800s that increased carbon dioxide emissions would warm the planet And By the early nineties it was beyond all rational dispute


Still solving this problem isn't as complicated as people think it is. This period building out public infrastructure on electric lines For mass transit powered by nuclear plants For base load and wind solar and geothermal for excess load Along with mass reclamation of wetlands and forests rests because they are the most efficient methods of carbon capture and the problem is basically solved.

The problem is this is a pretty expensive order and people like their cars like their cars. The solution isn't complicated but it does require implementation on a global scale and nobody wants to do it without a guarantee that everyone else will also do it

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 22 2022 03:13pm
Member
Posts: 50,806
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,846.00
Oct 22 2022 03:11pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 22 2022 04:06pm)
That's true now because we are 50 years passed when we should have started solving this problem. This entire time those nefarious corporations have absolutely engaged in a multi billion dollar propaganda war.
We are now so far gone that it would require incredibly drastic measures to stop which would probably be pretty unpopular.
Anthropomorphic climate change was well supported as early as the 1970s.. It was 1st hypothesized in the late 1800s that increased carbon dioxide emissions would warm the planet And By the early nineties it was beyond all rational dispute


Well given that the only effective mitigation measure would be a massive campaign of depopulation followed by population growth controls I could see it would be seen as drastic and unpopular.
But for some reason I always found arguments about futurists being notoriously myopic more compelling than the arguments for getting the ovens warmed up, and thus embraced the inevitability of adaptation.
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Oct 22 2022 03:12pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 22 2022 02:06pm)
That's true now because we are 50 years passed when we should have started solving this problem. This entire time those nefarious corporations have absolutely engaged in a multi billion dollar propaganda war.

We are now so far gone that it would require incredibly drastic measures to stop which would probably be pretty unpopular.

Anthropomorphic climate change was well supported as early as the 1970s.. It was 1st hypothesized in the late 1800s That increased carbon dioxide emissions would warm the planet And By the early nineties it was beyond all rational dispute


Allow me to translate. This means anthropomorphic climate change is so unassailably true that anybody who disagrees is stupid or wrong or irrational or not a real scientist.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 22 2022 03:14pm
Quote (JessiWan @ Oct 22 2022 04:12pm)
Allow me to translate. This means anthropomorphic climate change is so unassailably true that anybody who disagrees is stupid or wrong or irrational or not a real scientist.


As of the 1990s that is absolutely the case. We are so far beyond questioning whether anthropomorphic climate change is happening that it's comical. we have internal memos and models from Exxon in the 1970s almost perfectly modeling anthropomorphic climate change out to the 2000 so they could predict shipping lane changes.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 22 2022 03:15pm
Member
Posts: 54,117
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Oct 22 2022 03:15pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 22 Oct 2022 23:06)
That's true now because we are 50 years passed when we should have started solving this problem. This entire time those nefarious corporations have absolutely engaged in a multi billion dollar propaganda war.

We are now so far gone that it would require incredibly drastic measures to stop which would probably be pretty unpopular.

Anthropomorphic climate change was well supported as early as the 1970s.. It was 1st hypothesized in the late 1800s That increased carbon dioxide emissions would warm the planet And By the early nineties it was beyond all rational dispute


You're engaging in circular logic. Today, the necessary technological solutions to decarbonize our society without losing significant living standard clearly do not exist yet. Your argument basically is that these technological solutions would already be available today if we hadn't stalled on the research at the behest of fossil companies. But if that was the case, then investing into the corresponding R&D now would mean that the technological solutions which bail us out of our predicament would arrive in 20-30 years - and thus that super-radical climate action is not necessary.

On the other hand, if such technological solutions are fundamentally impossible, then the "sacrifice and restrictions"-approach that the climate activists are demanding at the moment would be inevitable in the long run.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123411Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll