Climate Change
stunet wrote:gsco wrote:ok so I think I finally get it.
People identify with being climate change "advocates", and sit around in happy little woke social groups sipping lattes feeling all socially accepted, warm and fuzzy and good about themselves, siding with each other for being so woke, politically correct and socially with the times.
And they like to gang up on and belt with a stick people who have a critical mind and question the "science", and exclude those people from their happy little woke social circles.
But people see themselves in fact as powerless victims of climate change and on the "receiving end" of it, instead of realising that it is in fact their (our) modern lifestyles and living standards that we so highly value, and our high levels of economic development and consumption choices etc, that are the causes of it.
Instead people hold on to the idea that the "real" causes of climate change are in fact evil governments, corporate greed and the neoliberal capitalist system, without realising that this neoliberal capitalist system serves only one purpose and profits in only one way: from us buying and consuming what it produces and provides. So instead of putting the guilt trip on other people and each other, they're just putting it on governments, corporations and the "system".
So climate change advocacy is really just a woke fashion statement, something woke to identify with, a way to make friends and fit in, and an outlet for emotional venting of one's hate towards the world and the "system".
Carrying on like a wanker now.
not entirely untrue though...
plenty of wonkers out there that do absolutely nothing to mediate their impact, like pretty much the entire biden administration for example...
probably same for labor
I think it's interesting that some take the developing countries apologist view, that lets them off the hook, and blames the west for all cc woes... like gsco with china - a pretty 'woke'position to take btw...
then others pretty much excuse and advocate the west doing nothing, because china is 'the biggest polluter' etc etc ...
surely there is middle ground... there is... stunet explained it up there
I think fully being an apologist for china is pretty dumb, as it ignores a hell of a lot of context... like what we (the west) didn't know when we were developing... the stubborness of our system... and the contribution that that developing has benefitted to the whole world...
conversely, I think it is pretty miserable to blame china for everything, and excuse ourselves, when you look at current consumption patterns and carbon footprints...
china, and other developing countries, actually have the benefit of not entrenching all that carbon intensive infrastucture into their system... if they choose to...
much like indonesia avoiding rolling out all that analogue phone technology everywhere, and going directly to a digital / internet rollout,it has benefitted them immensely, with large parts of indonesia now enjoying better coverage and services than much of australia
similar thing could be done with low carbon infrastructure and micro independent systems everywhere. it is happening, but not on a huge scale
for china and others to follow our path blindly is kinda dumb, and the 'excuse' only half stacks up
at the same time, developed countries could get a lot smarter by loosening regulations and encouraging more 'asian culture' in our system. for example, imagine how many surfers would use an indo style motorbike surfrack set ups, if our laws weren't so prohibitive / nanny state... I know I would...
and, on a larger scale, i think more people would bd willing to use motorbikes more generally if it was a bit safer. which could be easily done by designating motorbike only lanes like indo is doing now. I also think it would be easy and relatively cheap to even make covered lanes for motorbikes to overcome our soft aversion to bad weather
but nah, lets just pump billions and billions into the very exclusionary inequitable electric car dream, where the grid seems to be not even close to being able to cope
and lets not even count the massive carbon footprint transition to the new technology...
fwiw, I haven't done the figures, but I'd be carbon neautral to even carbon negative, but this is good luck as much as good management, as a few flukes have come together in my life, but not everyone is so lucky... and cannot be expected to do so...
having said that, there has been many (semi) conscious decisions Ive made that have lead to these flukes...
conscious decisions are good!
as is a little personal responsibility...
"reactionary
but the reactionary left rejected change, to the present detriment of those it claims to represent."
word!
muthafuckers!
word!
again...
muthafucker!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/lithiumagazine.com/2021/03/04/how-the-left-...
bonza wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:That's crazy logic you and me and others are not victims, because we get something we demand.
Problem these days is everybody wants to be a victim nobody wants to take any responsibility for anything, i guess the growing popularity of victimhood also has to do with there being a kind of power in being a victim.
I wasn‘r talking about you and me indo. Go back to my post and explain to me how I’m wrong. I wasn’t shirking individual responsibility. I was pointing out its insignificance compared to corporate power. Think about when I say victims what I mean.
You are missing the fact Individuals provide corporates with power.
I just think there is such a lazy view among a huge percentage of people that the government and big business have to magically fix everything, while individuals go on as business as usual.
I think you can only have this attitude if you're one of the rare ones making big lifestyle changes and actual personal sacrifices.
Just seems to be little focus on individual responsibility or change, which is weird because past environmental movements seem to be very focussed on the individual.
It's like the people posting on Facebook or Twitter whinging about capitalism and mining or exploited workers in China, while doing it on a huge platform from an apple mac or iPhone etc, it's just crazy and hypocritical.
Government legislation provides corporations with power.
Shep, you’re such a puerile petulant little ponce. Quoting some obscure 4th rate online site and I quote “ … platform in which teens and young adults…” to prove your latest bout of bum splatter…… bahahaha.
Mmm, should the AFP know about you and your creeping around websites catering for “teens and young adults”?
and you are such a pompous dinosaur
sorry its not the guardian... but you know... the guardian isn't going to tell YOU what you don't want to hear...
dude, you are the living breathing epitome of a reactionary...
the old guard, opposing change, and desperately holding onto power...
reactionary2 AWL noun (plural reactionaries) [countable] someone who strongly opposes any social or political change – used to show disapproval
Dig yourself deeper Shep
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reactionary
In ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics;[2] the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present.[3] In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of the person who is opposed to social, political, and economic change.[4][5] …. From Wikipedia
over and out dude, it was a flippant pay out that blowin and i indulged in on several occasions
but your 'reaction' is very telling...
"reactionary
but the reactionary left rejected change, to the present detriment of those it claims to represent."
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/reactionary
you really couldn't be anymore fitting in the current political context
You’re never over and out Shep just try to be factual next time okay
but it has become factual!
you prove it nearly every second post
the spectrum is broken
or more so 'shattered'
if ya haven't noticed...
indo-dreaming wrote:bonza wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:That's crazy logic you and me and others are not victims, because we get something we demand.
Problem these days is everybody wants to be a victim nobody wants to take any responsibility for anything, i guess the growing popularity of victimhood also has to do with there being a kind of power in being a victim.
I wasn‘r talking about you and me indo. Go back to my post and explain to me how I’m wrong. I wasn’t shirking individual responsibility. I was pointing out its insignificance compared to corporate power. Think about when I say victims what I mean.
You are missing the fact Individuals provide corporates with power.
I just think there is such a lazy view among a huge percentage of people that the government and big business have to magically fix everything, while individuals go on as business as usual.
I think you can only have this attitude if you're one of the rare ones making big lifestyle changes and actual personal sacrifices.
Just seems to be little focus on individual responsibility or change, which is weird because past environmental movements seem to be very focussed on the individual.
Fuck man. Big business and government are actively responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of climate change, are doing FUCK ALL to change that, and it's the common man's job to do their minuscule part, which is akin to spitting on a bushfire? You ninny.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's like the people posting on Facebook or Twitter whinging about capitalism and mining or exploited workers in China, while doing it on a huge platform from an apple mac or iPhone etc, it's just crazy and hypocritical.
Hiccups wrote:...Big business and government are actively responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of climate change, are doing FUCK ALL to change that...
lol.
We are all collectively responsible as consumers of material products and as citizens of developed nations built on the backbone of the industrial revolution, fossil fuel exploitation, and environmental decimation. It is also only fair that developing nations now aspire to this level of development and are trying to escape poverty.
Nothing changes because we as individuals keep consuming the products that big business produces and refuse to budge on our cosy developed nations lifestyle, instead sitting around as fake, pretend, inauthentic climate "campaigners" pointing the finger at and deflecting responsibility and blame to governments, business and high-population developing nations tying to escape of poverty (largely that we induced on them via colonialism and exploitation).
If one believes in and then has a concern about climate change then they should make changes to their cosy high-consumption and high-energy usage lifestyles, or get involved directly in politics campaigning for government regulatory action and incentives for technological research etc, or get directly involved in research trying to develop new technologies for climate change adaptation and mitigation.
I have far more time for people who either don't believe the "science" (what a complete joke that term is nowadays), or don't care about human-accelerated climate change or think that it matters*, and just keep living their lives as they want and see fit. At least they are living authentically.
*The earth has always fluctuated between climate and temperature extremes mostly due to the changing ellipticity of the earth's orbit. Homo sapiens have always had to deal with the consequences of this phenomenon of climate change for the hundreds of thousands of years they have been in existence. It's impossible to prevent climate change.
It's going to happen no matter what so does a slight and temporary acceleration of it by current humans really matter?
The current fashion statement climate change advocacy seems like a whole bunch of woke bullshit to me.
That's stoopid... of course an environmental movement will be a political movement... goes without saying
Anyhoo, an old friend of mine reckons the weather and floods etc are being "engineered"! I kid you not! You seen how big weather systems are... huuuge. Yep man can control weather now! Nup.
It's so sad how many people have gone down this rabbit hole.
Had plenty of friends share me stuff which I've had to dispel. Gets me so angry.
Yeah otherwise intelligent people going bonkers... he explained to me chemtrails... but wouldn't you need an awful lot of chem to influence the shape and intensity of those systems? Yes I've heard of seeding but this is way different. I reckon warmer air holds more moisture or so I'm lead to believe. And anyhoo, how many pilots you need for this "engineering" ? No whistleblowers? World wide events! Not a whisper? He says... it's the gubbament!
Well there you go, Malcolm Roberts comments on Swellnet. Jeebus.
blackers wrote:Well there you go, Malcolm Roberts comments on Swellnet. Jeebus.
Very funny
Hiccups wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:bonza wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:That's crazy logic you and me and others are not victims, because we get something we demand.
Problem these days is everybody wants to be a victim nobody wants to take any responsibility for anything, i guess the growing popularity of victimhood also has to do with there being a kind of power in being a victim.
I wasn‘r talking about you and me indo. Go back to my post and explain to me how I’m wrong. I wasn’t shirking individual responsibility. I was pointing out its insignificance compared to corporate power. Think about when I say victims what I mean.
You are missing the fact Individuals provide corporates with power.
I just think there is such a lazy view among a huge percentage of people that the government and big business have to magically fix everything, while individuals go on as business as usual.
I think you can only have this attitude if you're one of the rare ones making big lifestyle changes and actual personal sacrifices.
Just seems to be little focus on individual responsibility or change, which is weird because past environmental movements seem to be very focussed on the individual.
Fuck man. Big business and government are actively responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of climate change, are doing FUCK ALL to change that, and it's the common man's job to do their minuscule part, which is akin to spitting on a bushfire? You ninny.
Ha ha no surprise you dont get it.
You know when fossil fuel companies will stop selling fossil fuels?
When the demand isn't there, you want them to stop mining oil, gas, coal or even reduce, change you own habits and seek alternatives where possible.
BTW. Many fossil fuel companies are also the biggest investors in renewables because they aren't silly they diversify and follow the money, Adani is a great example being the single biggest private provider of solar energy in the world and not by a small margin.
"You don't get", says the dimwit who doesn't *get* anything, ever. Keep worshiping late stage capitalism as it chokes the planet, you disgraceful corporate bootlicker.
.
Hiccups wrote:"You don't get", says the dimwit who doesn't *get* anything, ever. Keep worshiping late stage capitalism as it chokes the planet, you disgraceful corporate bootlicker.
See this is what I'm talking about just more dumb irony, whinges about capitalism and big business and its effect on the planet, while actually posting online via the internet, on some mass produced smart phone or PC, using programs/platforms all only possible because of everything you claim to despise but ironically through your actions support.
I just wish you people put your money where your mouth is and just turned your back on mainstream society and went and lived off grid and offline in some commune in whop whop, or moved to the utopia you dream of be it North Korea or Venezuela or whatever or wherever .
Indo is a huuuge fan of late stage capitalism.
AndyM wrote:Indo is a huuuge fan of late stage capitalism.
Im not even sure i believe in it, to imply you are in the late stage of something implies you are near the end of something, and capitalism in developed democratic countries is very unlikely to end because all the alternatives are far worse and history shows they always fail.
Read a book Indo, for fuck's sake.
On marxist/socialist conspiracy theories?.
No thank you.
Here you go indo. From some commie website.
https://writetorebel.com/2016/05/22/debunking-the-iphone-argument/ wrote:"A common argument given by capitalists to socialists is that we enjoy the benefits of capitalism, and so it is hypocritical to speak out against it. This is often phrased as something like “Tweeting against capitalism on an iPhone made by capitalism? LOL.” This argument is, to be blunt, incredibly fucking stupid.
For one thing, it says nothing about whether socialism is actually desirable. Enjoying the benefits of capitalism does not invalidate the socialist position. It does not follow from the fact that, “Capitalism made the iPhone” that capitalism is moral or that socialism is not. Just as it does not follow from the fact that abolitionists wore cotton picked by slaves that slavery is moral or that we should not try to abolish it.
Secondly, we do not choose which society we are born into. We do not have control over the fact that we live in a society where in order to survive, let alone lead a happy existence, one must purchase commodities and earn a living with which to gain the means to do so. We are not exercising free choice when we buy things, as we cannot not buy things and lead our lives. We are not free not to go without commodities. We are not free to go without capitalism when we live under it, even if we disagree with it.
However, we are free to buy certain commodities over others. A socialist may be a hypocrite if they chose to buy blood diamonds from Sera Leone, as they do have a free choice about whether or not to purchase those diamonds. But the Internet is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity of life. Imagine trying to get a job or stay abreast of current events without reliable access to it. The extent to which a socialist is a hypocrite is the extent to which they have money, and thus free choice to purchase certain items.
It’s worth noting at this point that capitalism did not, in fact, make the iPhone. Labor did. The ‘-ism’ merely determines who gets paid. Also, most of the technology present in the iPhone actually originated in the State sector, not the so-called ‘free market.’ As Mariana Mazzucato writes in an article for New Scientist, “In [Apple’s] early stages the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the internet, GPS, touchscreen displays and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) bankrolled the internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS. So, although the US is sold to us as the model example of progress through private enterprise, innovation there has benefited from a very interventionist state.” It is not the case even in theory that capitalism or ‘the free market,’ made the iPhone. At least, not the sort of capitalism people who make this argument usually advocate for. (That version of capitalism has never existed and cannot ever exist, but we’ll get into that another time)
I would also like to mention that slave labor is used to mine cobalt in the Congo, which eventually makes its way into iPhone batteries. Does this mean that when capitalists use an iPhone, they support slave labor? Of course not. Socialists don’t make that argument against you, so why would you make it against them?
My last point is that just because someone is against a given economic system, that does not mean that one is against everything in it or everything that flows from it. I can be in favor of iPhones and laptops and the Internet, all while being against capitalism as a whole. I’m not against everything capitalism does, just certain aspects, which I wish to abolish. Things like wage labor, poverty, and alienation.
But to put it in such absolutist terms, “Either you approve of everything within a given system or you are against everything within it,” is a false dichotomy. This argument holds no water, so please, capitalists, stop making it.
TLDR? See the last paragraph.
"But to put it in such absolutist terms, “Either you approve of everything within a given system or you are against everything within it,” is a false dichotomy. This argument holds no water, so please, capitalists, stop making it."
As for this
indo-dreaming wrote:Im not even sure i believe in it, to imply you are in the late stage of something implies you are near the end of something, and capitalism in developed democratic countries is very unlikely to end because all the alternatives are far worse and history shows they always fail.
What's the ultimate fail? I'd say it's rendering the planet uninhabitable, which capitalism has nearly finished doing, and if you want to find out how that works, well here's the Youtube suggestions for "capitalism climate change", cos I know you won't read anything.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=capitalism+climate+change
Blaming capitalism for human accelerated climate change is just not valid.
Major contributors to the problem are China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc, and these are not capitalist economies.
Also, the industrial revolution and burning of coal started in Britain well before it resembled the capitalist liberal democracy it is today.
Actually the industrial revolution and resulting demand for, and hence need for mass production of, the new products it was able to produce is one of the main things that spurred on the development of capitalism and new forms of economic, social and political organisation. Everyone desired the prosperity the industrial revolution promised.
More generally, all throughout history civilisations faced environmental pressures due to their population sizes and current levels of technologies. This has occurred for thousands of years, well before the idea of capitalism.
Whether we fix it(keep it at bay)or not the Earth will be just fine once we are gone. Arrogance of humans. It’s amazing what our species has achieved but our rise or demise will not register but a blip on the Earth’s timeline.
.
Polluter pays. Its a pretty simple, standard modern economic concept. But you know woke socialists and shit.
Don’t mention the (carbon tax) war.
True! But it matters not in the (our)end.
Indo and GSCO are copping out.? It’s up to individuals? Hahaha. As others have said it’s required of governments to sway the change. Mandate, legislate, restrict and incentivise for change. It’s not going to happen fast with the current system. Could I care less. No. Blip on the big scale. We are gone anyway. Always were.
Do you have children, Seeds?
Yes I do
The earth will be just fine, obviously it’s a matter of how much value you put on mitigating disruption and human suffering.
I believe the issue is the rate of change? But I just read that once in a woke”vomit” CSIRO article. Pretty sure there was some math in there though. So yeah there’s that.
That may be so - though personally I wouldn't consider 50 million years "not that long ago" in a conversation about human habitation.
The current 'fluctuation' perfectly marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, meaning it's almost certainly due to emissions released since then. On that point alone, we have some obligation to our immediate generations.
bonza wrote:I believe the issue is the rate of change? But I just read that once in a woke”vomit” CSIRO article. Pretty sure there was some math in there though. So yeah there’s that.
CSIRO are just part of the elites controlling the narrative.
Oh dear.
Based on the EPICA graph, we're currently living in an upswing in average temperatures that started about 20,000 years ago, and the actual temperature has fluctuated wildly around that average the whole time, as it is now.
Humans have accelerated the current upswing above its natural rate. That seems beyond doubt from the "science" (just vomited again).
But the point is, to blame it on things like liberal democracy, capitalism, communism, big business, governments, developing nations, etc, is ridiculous. The industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels resulted in new products, material prosperity and way of life that everyone desired the world over, regardless of the form of political, economic, social, etc, organisation and of who owns the means of production.
Modern day capitalism has put profits above all other corporate responsibility. Most of the stuff you’re posting is mindless uninformed dribble. Adding woke strategically to each post makes you look like a tosser. GSCO, please stop being an Uninformed tosser
Was just down the beach. Ocean level is higher now than a few hours earlier.
Global warming is here !
We are all going to perish. Go long floatie stocks.
Dunno what those mining companies are whinging about, a bobcat and a couple of lads on shovels and this place will be good as new in a weekend.
soggydog wrote:Modern day capitalism has put profits above all other corporate responsibility. Most of the stuff you’re posting is mindless uninformed dribble. Adding woke strategically to each post makes you look like a tosser. GSCO, please stop being an Uninformed tosser
Thanks for your kind comment.
I think you're exactly correct (even the part about me being a tosser posting mindless dribble) and actually prove my point.
The whole underlying principle of capitalism/market economies is the profit motive: Businesses earn a profit when they provide a product or service that consumers demand (want or desire), in a cost effective way. In that way capitalism provides exactly what the people want - including all the modern luxuries, material goods, conveniences, etc, that make our living standards so high and our quality of life so good, most of which arose out of the industrial revolution and burning fossil fuels.
Communism/socialism also attempts to do this satisfaction of consumer demand, just in a different way, via a different means (state coordination and control).
I think what you're really trying to say that businesses, in their pursuit of profit, often act unethically, including damaging the environment. But unethical behaviour is not an argument specifically against capitalism because this behaviour occurs in every walk of life - even in...heaven forbid...omg...shock horror...wait for it..."science" (vomit).
Capitalism is evidently a very efficient, nimble and responsive system via which to allocate resources to producing what people want (more efficient than communism/socialism) - so good that it even produces a massive range of products and services that people keep buying even when these people know full well that they are destroying the environment buy purchasing and consuming them!
Power to the people!!!
"these people know full well that they are destroying the environment buy purchasing and consuming them!"
Hence the need for intelligent government intervention.
What’s your solution gsco. What should we do? Is there a role for Government?
.