We're GW Doomed Anyway, So Who Cares About Murder?!

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Global Warming has finally been reliably consensusly presented as our doomsday device that is irreversibly ticking us into oblivion by the year 2100.

Even the following “hopeful” article shows our situation to be pretty much hopeless, as without one-child family negative population growth implemented immediately, even the most drastic “conventional” solution is simply a fantasy.

The result?

If we’re all gonna die anyway, we are no longer valuable with regard to our very lives.

So now it’s every hedonistic man for himself, no matter who you kill in the process.

Eat, drink and screw Mary, for tomorrow you shall die.

So, what is it that will keep the masses from throwing all morality out the window during the mass hysteria of the end times that are nearly here?

Many will predict that mass hysteria is inevitable, complete with murderous rioting for super scarce basic needs decades prior to the final curtain.

Are you sure you don’t want to change your mind about having only one child?

“GAME OVER ON GLOBAL WARMING?”

Los Angeles Times (online).

Action would have to be radical – but climate change can be slowed.

By Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 5, 2007

Everybody in the United States could switch from cars to bicycles.

The Chinese could close all their factories.

Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern.

But all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming.

A landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Friday, warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.

There is still hope. The report notes that a concerted world effort could stave off the direst consequences of global warming, such as widespread flooding, drought and extreme weather.

Ultimately eliminating the global warming threat, however, would require radical action.

To stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide — the primary contributor to global warming — CO2 emissions would have to drop 70% to 80%, said Richard Somerville, a theoretical meteorologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.

Such a reduction would bring emissions into equilibrium with the planet’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The last time the planet was in balance was more than 150 years ago, before the widespread use of coal and steam engines.

What would it take to bring that kind of reduction?

“All truck, all trains, all airplanes, cars, motorcycles and boats in the United States — that’s 7.3% of global emissions,” said Gregg Marland, a fossil fuel pollution expert at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

Closing all fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants worldwide and replacing them with windmills, solar panels and nuclear power plants would make a serious dent — a 39% reduction globally, Marland said.

His calculation doesn’t include all the fossil fuels that would have to be burned to build the greener facilities, though.

Trees could be planted to absorb more carbon dioxide. But even if every available space in the United States were turned into woodland, Marland said, it would not come close to offsetting U.S. emissions.

“There is not enough land area,” he said.

The United States accounts for nearly a quarter of the carbon dioxide released each year, according to government statistics. China, in second at about 15%, is gaining fast.

If the rest of the world returned to the Stone Age, carbon concentrations would still rise.

Carbon does not dissipate rapidly. Some is eventually absorbed by oceans and plants, but about half stays in the atmosphere. And there is no easy way to get it out.

Maintaining current levels would require reducing worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20 billion tons a year, federal statistics suggest.

For some perspective on that number, consider an icon of the green movement: a 2007 Toyota Prius. Driving it 12,000 miles releases 4,200 pounds of carbon dioxide.

If hybrid cars replaced all 245 million cars in the United States — more than a third of the cars in the world — the carbon savings would be less than 3% of the needed reduction.

Rapid industrial development in some of the most populous nations has compounded the problem. Their burgeoning emissions could swamp environmental gains in other countries.

In India, carbon dioxide emissions increased 39% between 1993 and 2004 — nearly double the global rate. The figure was 36% in Indonesia. China, which saw a 45% rise, now opens a coal-fired power plant every week to 10 days.

Given the scale of the problem, experts see no realistic way to lower the concentration of atmospheric carbon.

In fact, Robert Socolow, a carbon mitigation expert at Princeton University, said that even if the entire world stopped burning fossil fuels, carbon wouldn’t approach pre-Industrial Revolution levels for several hundred years.

The only possibility now is to slow the buildup of carbon. If emissions can be reduced enough, the gradual process of warming can be stretched into centuries.

From this perspective, there is some hope. Though the savings from any one measure may look small, in combination, they could add up to something significant, experts said.

There is no shortage of ideas.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said high-efficiency appliances and other products in the Energy Star program last year eliminated greenhouse gas emissions equal to the pollution from 23 million cars.

“As a citizen, each of us has an opportunity to make a difference,” he said Friday after the release of the U.N. report.

He urged people to use compact fluorescent light bulbs, which provide the same light as a standard bulb on two-thirds of the energy.

Replacing one standard light bulb in every U.S. home would prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars.

Tips from TerraPass Inc. of Menlo Park, Calif., include going back to clotheslines.

The company, which promotes alternative energy, says eliminating a family’s dryer could save electricity equivalent to 1,016 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Socolow said the ultimate solution might rely on technology.

He said his research suggested that by improving energy efficiency now and phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, carbon concentrations could remain within safe levels.

The biggest polluter, he said, should lead the way: “The U.S. is going to have to decarbonize.”

alan.zarembo@latimes.com

Times staff writer Karen Kaplan contributed to this report

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Global emissions

–

Carbon dioxide is the largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is expected to rise steadily in the coming decades.

–

Greenhouse gases, 2001

–

Carbon dioxide*: 82%

–

Other carbon dioxide: 2%

–

Other gases: 2%

–

Nitrous oxide: 5%

–

Methane: 9%

–

*From fossil fuel combustion

Global CO2 emissions by fuel type, 2006

–

Oil: 40%

Coal: 40%

Natural gas: 20%

–

Source: Department of Energy

2

Does impending death turn senior citizens into crazed murders? Does it turn terminal patients into rapists? Global Warming may be scary, but it need not rob us of our dignity. Its just a new version of the same old story - we’re all going to die.

I for one haven’t tried death yet. Who knows, I may enjoy it.

3

No, as these people usually lack the energy for raping and murdering.

Those who riot and rape, pillage, plunder and murder are usually less physically encumbered.

They’re younger, stronger, sheepier, run-of-the-mill … about 85% of the population.

You speak as someone who thinks he has a modicam of control over his behavior as he faces certain death.

But I do like the way you think.

Yeah, but we all imagine that will be at old age, and that allows us to defer thinking about it so that we can be productive and recreate.

Come the year 2060, many young people will begin to realize that as they get warmer, their life-span will get shorter.

When death approaches sooner than later, many are going to want to pretend to be old and retire so that they can enjoy what little time they have left.

Since they can’t do that and continue to earn a living, some are going to be compelled to steal en masse.

We can’t imprison everyone!

And then, of course, all those who seek wealth and a high climb up the ladder of “success” will no longer find such rewarding. Who’s going to sacrifice all of their remaining hours to run and manage businesses, businesses that bring us our food?! :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

It doesn’t look good.

Yes, that would appear to be the case, at least you haven’t succeeded in trying it. :wink:

I doubt it.

The processes of premature death are usually pretty painful.

And just when the pain ends, so do you, and then you aren’t there to enjoy the lack of pain.

I’d lose the cavalier attitude toward premature death, if I were you.

It isn’t real.

4

Global Warming: The biggest overblown hoax since the days of “oh noez! we’re all gonna nuke eachother.” Lol or dare I even say it, Y2K.

5

What was the number, 113?

113 countries’ scientists all concur on the recent report that global warming caused by humans is real and deadly disastrous in its imminet consequences.

Wow, that’s pretty much a scientific community consensus about this very difficult reality.

I know that denial is the way many have been taught to deal with difficult realities.

But if we are to solve this obviously very real problem, we have to discard denial as a way of copoing with difficult realities.

So for those who can’t do that yet, let’s, “for the sake of argument” :unamused: , assume that the problem is real.

That’s likely, all recent consensus reports considered, a pretty good assumption … even if we don’t like what that means.

Oh, and my brother is a computer programmer, and he explained Y2K to me. It was a very real problem that needed to be solved.

Just like global warming is a very real problem that needs to be solved.

The difference, is that an unsolved Y2K was probably not fatal.

6

Every human that’s ever been born will die (in all likelihood), so nothing has really changed. And your gloom and doom is unwarranted- while stopping all emissions wouldn’t stop the continued warming trend, it would seriously mitigate it. The rate of acceleration would decline.

But even if we continued to barrel toward the edge of the cliff, it’s very unlikely that all humans would die. Agriculture would be severely damaged, and certainly the technology we have now wouldn’t be adequate to feed 9 billion people. Ignoring for the moment new technology to halt the warming or grow food in other ways (eg under sea, in caverns, new genetically created plants, etc) we’d see populations decline dramatically. But humans are very adaptable. I think the species would survive, albeit with far lower numbers than we have now. Which wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing.

7

Well, we all never seriously thought, I would imagine, that the whole human race would be dying off so soon.

Now we have been given a potential end date: 2100, when the 7% temperature increase will melt Greenland and a ton of other glaciers and overflow the oceans and flood the land, and heat-up vegetation to death, and asymptotically accelerate an end to the ozone that will first irradiate us all sterile followed immediately by irradiating us all dead … .

We used to think that we’d “never” end as a species, that dead humans would be replaced by new ones to some ratio of continuing our species.

I think that the impact of being given an imminent “date of death” for our species by a pretty reliable source, assuming we don’t take drastic steps to forestall it, is a rather impactful diagnosis.

I can’t help but wonder if, as Kubler-Ross says, when presented with the shocking diagnosis of death, denial (and isolation) is the first stage that sets in quickly after the initial shock.

“My” gloom and doom?

According to the report, virtually nothing we can practically do will stop the catastrophe, only, at best, delay it.

Don’t look at me – it’s the report that’s laden with gloom and doom.

But … what if gloom and doom is a normal and healthy reaction to the report?!

After all, the prognosis given, as the linked article in this thread concurs, is pretty gloomy, pending doom seeming to understandably have that effect.

It appears I’ve just moved more swftly out of the denial phase than most.

Agreed.

But … how practical do you think it will be to stop all emissions?

Do you think we’re even going to stop 10% and still feed and clothe people?

Do you think American business owners have some unimplemented ace up their sleeve hiding in their technical warehouse that they can now suddenly activate to keep production at survival levels and reduce carbon emissions by 86% as the report recommended?

We don’t have the wherewithall to cut these emissions without damaging the economy to a fatal degree.

If you think 9/11 cost the Dow a significant drop, just wait until all those for-profit companies go belly-up trying to cut their carbon emissions.

Wall Street won’t care about what happens to us.

It will only care about what happens to the dollar.

Yes, perhaps a few hardy specimens would be able to survive … what the dinosaurs didn’t.

Something new may eventually spring forth, as, apparently, “always”.

But what about Star Treking around the galaxay in the year 2360?

If humanity et al, including our four-footed food, is just about gone, there goes our productivity.

Those spaceships aren’t going to build themselves out of fantasized material.

My point, is that what is about to happen is catastrophic, apparently beyond the comprehension of many.

That a handful might survive en mutation is hardly a thought of relief.

Hell, we’d be lucky to feed a handful of people … with other than high-mountain nuts and berries there, Yogi.

Our present production picinic baskets will be pretty scarce … as will Ranger Rick, not to mention there won’t be any Jellystone Parks … or people to visit them.

Indeed, and that’s putting it mildly.

To date, the “solutions” you reference here … don’t come close to existing.

Tick tock.

We need to get out of the denial stage fast … or we’ll all be gone, maybe even before the tick has tocked if the estimaters errored and the date of death is really 2050.

After all, China had the report reworded from words of 99% certainty to words of 90% certainty.

Who knows what else was similarly spun?

The actual due date, maybe, to avoid immediate panic in the streets?

Slowly over many thousands of years, yes.

But rapidly, over a few mere decades?

I done tenk so, Loosey.

One, maybe two, three even?

Hopefully they’re not all of the same gender … or gay … or lacking in cloning training … … and then there’s cloning’s replicative fade … and that in-breeding retardation thing … … .

Ehh … I don’t know about that, Doc.

Sounds like a rather Elmer Fuddish perspective with regard to the reality of the situation.

The immediate implementation of one-child families is our only humane chance of beating this.

The question is, how long will it take enough to realize that.

Hopefully not before no-child families are required …

… And hopefully not before even this type of a solution would fail to save us.

After all, I’d hate for one of the solutions to be a laboratory Ebola that targets specific races to quickly lower emissions by lowering the population that requires the production that produces those emissions.

If we’re near the end, that kind of horrific genocide … will actually be lauded … by the race that remains.

Better is to begin the humane solution now … than to give governments the scientific excuse to create that Ebola.

We all need to move past denial … and fast.

8

Tell me, Sabrina - do you understand the notion of being wrong?

9

Your obvious obsession with me is topically irrelevant.

Please do your best to post on topic.

Thank you.

10

I think the overposting is not helpful for the discussion of the topic, nor how the discussion has been frayed.

There has been instances of a breakdown of morals and civil order during past disasters, most notably during the 14c Plague as well as with the American Indians after the Europeans came.

Alot of the breakdown will go relatively unnoticed, because the nations that are the media darlings (the west) will not bear the worst brunt of the environmental change and they will have the money to buy their way out of the worst.

The poorer countries, however, will bear the brunt of it. As it is, those with over population problems are already seeing this dystopian scenario playing out, but an astronaut wearing diapers is alot more interesting to us than the thousands who die everyday due to environmental issues.

11

Is it possible, conceptually, for you to be wrong? Do you understand the possibility that Global Warming is a partial and temporary phenomenon? Do you grasp the fact that scientists have made millions of incorrect predictions, but have a vested interest in hyping this cause as it maintains their authority and funding?

12

It doesn’t take much to get you to pretentiously hedge your bet. :laughing:

Your predisposed cynicism is amusing, SIATD, … but a common denial mechanism, and, in this instance, a dangerous one.

But, since you like cynicism so much, here’s a playground for you: http://i-cynic.com. Have fun.

As for this thread, I have taken the position in the discussion that the 113 nations’ scientists have, in effect, presented a consensus conclusion that does, despite being watered down by "Oops! :blush: " countries like China, indeed reflect an accurate state of environmental affairs.

Now if you have some legitimate scientific claim and support to the contrary, feel free to present it in another thread.

This thread is about the effect of the reality of the doomsday diagnosis on the morality of humanity as the imminent end grows nigh.

13

Wasn’t there a large panel of scientists a couple years ago claiming that the earth was going into another ice age. Must have changed their mind. :wink:

14

Order. Some people will keep it, others will not.

I do not doubt there will be ‘mass hysteria… complete with murderous rioting for super scarce basic needs’, or at least something along those lines, but then, I don’t find myself moved by it in the slightest. We’re all human after all; I strongly believe, its the most natural thing that could occur with such circumstance.

Personally, I liked the study about the Ozone Layer, which is apparently, slowing, regenerating - and is expected to be once again ‘full’ in the next 50-60’ish years. An interesting read to say the least, especially with all the latest sensational articles from other scientific studies going about.

Granted, no matter what we do, we are fubar - I always thought we knew this, with the question only being; what would end up killing us all first.

In a world of block-buster movies, high tech luxuries and more then enough government propaganda; we have been desensitised to anything (on a grand scale sense) that is less then going to war.

China is invading? We’ll fight! …Stop using cars and such or the world is slowing going to kill us through Global Warming? Pfft, this is just like the time you said aliens exist and governments are covering it up! Go smoke some more pipe, hippy!

We’re not blind, but to quote Liquid - ‘We seem to have forgotten how to see.’

15

Many asinine statements, Sabby. You don’t think we adapt quickly, rather needing thousands of years? You ever hear of air conditioning, aircraft or computers? We’ve already had thousands of years, which means new things spring forth in months or years.

And if we’re doomed, why do we have to get past denial? That’s moronic. If we can do nothing, why bother?

As far as “Elmer Fuddish”, I can’t begin to imagine what the fuck that might mean.

16

Ad Hominem.

Ad Hominem.

Ad Hominem.

Even though they have, across the past 30 or 40 years of climate study, said a dozen completely contradictory things? You know, like the info that initially showed the hole in the ozone layer being dismissed as anomalous, the fact that we’re told we’re going into an ice age but also that the world is heating, the fact that they use ‘climate change’ interchangeably with ‘ecological catastrophe’ even though they mean two quite different things…

I advise you to read Michael Crichton’s very entertaining conspiracy theory book ‘state of fear’.

In other words: no, you cannot even conceive of the possibility of being wrong about this, you presume your conclusion before even discussing it (yet again).

What, if anything, do you think that you contribute here?

17

Scientists often purposefully misinterpret data, lie, and hype irrelevant things in order to get funding. This is 50% of the global warming problem, the greed for money.

The other 50%, yes, its slowly happening, but it is a cycle between hot and cold with the minimum and maximum increasing with time. Very, very slowly. So slow that I don’t give a fuck.

18

Yeah, that’s it- the whole Global Warming thing is a hoax perpetrated by the ultra rich, ultra powerful scientist lobby! =D>

I don’t have raw data, but I suspect the lobbyists for Big Oil spent more on coke and hookers in a weekend than the scientists get in a year.

19

One thing that always confused me about the conspiracy theories about how scientists are ovehyping global warming for funding is that it really doesn’t pan out . . .

  1. Funding comes from the Government
    a) The claims of global warming are independent of which government
    is independent of which government is in power
    b) The government is in the pocket of big business
    c) Therefore, environmental reseach funding gets cut during
    conservative administrations
    d) Large companies (Exxon, being the most shameless) offers money
    to scientists willing to dispute Global Warmings.

So . . . Scientists are manipulating data to get rich by undermining their funding support, alienating the government, and rejecting big money from companies? All while working in academic labs, which pay 1/2-1/3 as much as Industrial labs? If there is a secret cabal of funders somewhere, do tell me because I’d love the money!

  1. Because science changes, it must be wrong!
    a) New technologies allow for new interpretations
    b) Old models get displaced when new data comes along

It was originally thought that we should be entering a period of cooling soon. Actually, the best evidence we have right now suggests that it would be occuring right now were it not for the impact of humans. The old model was based on the idea that humans can’t have an impact of global temperature. So, yes, there is natural change in the weather, but it should be going down right now, not up!

Also, with the Ozone, while there is some repair going on, it isn’t repairing itself at a rate faster than it is being damaged. The removal of CFCs helps give it a breather, but most of what was originally thought to be repair is actually just a shift in location of where the hole is.

20

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, … acceptance.

Obviously some are further along the road to acceptance than others.

The sooner we can all get to acceptance, the sooner we can seek treatment for our diagnosis and get well.

The longer we delay – in denial, anger, bargaining and depression – the less likely we will seek treatment before it’s too late.

Tick tock.