Why has politics become even more extreme?

[shimerra]

The planet isn't dying nor is it becoming less hospitable to humans. There's absolutely no reason nor evidence to believe your premise. The exact opposite is true, we're actually making it more hospitable for people and this one of the reasons why the population is going up.

Year over year trends show increase global temperature which will impact weather, sea level, and farming. Multiple cities are in fact already planning for water shortages and rising sea levels and even the markets including insurance and construction/housing are taking notice. For example in many coastal cities investors are buying up/jacking up the price of a lot of previously undesired higher group/further from the ocean specifically because of those concerns. For a free market man you sure like to ignore what it says.

Many ocean environments alone are having mass die offs because of ocean acidification and temp increases and current trends show the problem worsening not getting better. I know you'll deny the causes but the problem doesn't just not exist because you lack the intelligence to notice it. Alaska for example had to close one of its fisheries for the first time ever because ocean temps are too high and the fish are dieing off.


There is tons of evidence you're just a partisan hack and willfully ignorant. Not knowing your age the only solace I'll have is that you'll live long enough to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

[PC2]

You want to tell that to the people living in areas at risk of sinking into the sea?

Yes absolutely and for the following reasons;

- Even if all the ice on the planet melted it's not possible that the sea level could engulf the large majority of land.
- We're not even remotely close to a point where there is a shortage of space that civilization can occupy.
- The sea level rise is only 3.3mm per year and even if that rate tripled it would still take multiple centuries to melt all of the ice. Which is quite slow.

So over the long run the population of coastal areas will indeed have to move up a bit in elevation, but the timespan is so long that it's not conceivable that anyone could be surprised or be unable to plan for it far ahead of time. If somebody wants to invest in a building that is near the beach and they want the building to last for a hundred years, then yes, that person would eventually be disappointed. But it's the investors responsibility to plan for the future and if they make irresponsible choices then they deserve to lose their building.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Yes absolutely and for the following reasons;

- Even if all the ice on the planet melted it's not possible that the sea level could engulf the large majority of land.
- We're not even remotely close to a point where there is a shortage of space that civilization can occupy.
- The sea level rise is only 3.3mm per year and even if that rate tripled it would still take multiple centuries to melt all of the ice. Which is quite slow.

So over the long run the population of coastal areas will indeed have to move up a bit in elevation, but the timespan is so long that it's not conceivable that anyone could be surprised or be unable to plan for it far ahead of time. If somebody wants to invest in a building that is near the beach and they want the building to last for a hundred years, then yes, that person would eventually be disappointed. But it's the investors responsibility to plan for the future and if they make irresponsible choices then they deserve to lose their building.

Great example of climate awareness vs climate hysteria.

[Elegiac]

Yes absolutely and for the following reasons;

- Even if all the ice on the planet melted it's not possible that the sea level could engulf the large majority of land.[
- We're not even remotely close to a point where there is a shortage of space that civilization can occupy.
- The sea level rise is only 3.3mm per year and even if that rate tripled it would still take multiple centuries to melt all of the ice. Which is quite slow.

So over the long run the population of coastal areas will indeed have to move up a bit in elevation, but the timespan is so long that it's not conceivable that anyone could be surprised or be unable to plan for it far ahead of time. If somebody wants to invest in a building that is near the beach and they want the building to last for a hundred years, then yes, that person would eventually be disappointed. But it's the investors responsibility to plan for the future and if they make irresponsible choices then they deserve to lose their building.

Translation: "I literally don't give a shit about the fact that the majority of people on the planet live on the coastlines and that a seemingly innocuous sea level rise will in fact end up being hugely expensive in terms of money, time, and suffering."

Newsflash, sweetheart, just because you live in the Midwest doesn't mean climate change isn't going to impact you. Hope you have decent flood insurance.

[Heran]

Great example of climate awareness vs climate hysteria.

Okay so those cities have to adapt. If they don't that's their own fault and if people invest there it's their own fault for investing near the beach. I can't force them to implement the solutions.

How do we adapt?

Oh, yeah?

He didn't respond at all how we should adapt to rising sea levels. He also suggested moving millions of people to invade another country as their own go under to the sea.

[Elegiac]

Great example of climate awareness vs climate hysteria.

You're posting in defense of someone who believes that extrapolation of data is equivalent to "prophecy".

'Climate awareness', don't make me laugh. Climate change deniers don't even have self awareness let alone awareness of the climate.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes absolutely and for the following reasons;

- Even if all the ice on the planet melted it's not possible that the sea level could engulf the large majority of land.
- We're not even remotely close to a point where there is a shortage of space that civilization can occupy.
- The sea level rise is only 3.3mm per year and even if that rate tripled it would still take multiple centuries to melt all of the ice. Which is quite slow.

So over the long run the population of coastal areas will indeed have to move up a bit in elevation, but the timespan is so long that it's not conceivable that anyone could be surprised or be unable to plan for it far ahead of time. If somebody wants to invest in a building that is near the beach and they want the building to last for a hundred years, then yes, that person would eventually be disappointed. But it's the investors responsibility to plan for the future and if they make irresponsible choices then they deserve to lose their building.

Entire countries can just go up and move(Bangledash being the biggest example), which does not support your argument that land is not getting less hospitable, when it is.

But hey, i'm sure Australia is going to enjoy having these sort of fires every year from now.

[Elegiac]

Entire countries can just go up and move(Bangledash being the biggest example), which does not support your argument that land is not getting less hospitable, when it is.

But hey, i'm sure Australia is going to enjoy having these sort of fires every year from now.

I like how the response from wealthy people of European descent to the issue of climate change is yet another variation of colonialism/imperialism.

Talk about a one trick pony.

[JohnBrown1917]

Oh, yeah?

He didn't respond at all how we should adapt to rising sea levels. He also suggested moving millions of people to invade another country as their own go under to the sea.

I'm sure India and China will love all the muslim refugees, which they in no way will be put into camps or anything.

[Endus]

Yes absolutely and for the following reasons;

- Even if all the ice on the planet melted it's not possible that the sea level could engulf the large majority of land.
- We're not even remotely close to a point where there is a shortage of space that civilization can occupy.
- The sea level rise is only 3.3mm per year and even if that rate tripled it would still take multiple centuries to melt all of the ice. Which is quite slow.

As to the first; literally no one has argued that. What has been pointed out is that human settlements are often on coasts, and as a result, those currently at risk number somewhere around 300 million. As in, "at risk of having their home destroyed" at risk, not just "my city might have some flooding but I'll be fine". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z#Abs1

As to the second; fundamentally irrelevant, since the costs of building up currently undeveloped territory is immense. Again, literally no one suggested we were "running out of space".

And for the third; that's incredibly rapid, in geological terms. While it will take centuries for the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps to both melt, that just underscores that climate change and rising sea levels is an ongoing risk that isn't going away any time soon.

So over the long run the population of coastal areas will indeed have to move up a bit in elevation, but the timespan is so long that it's not conceivable that anyone could be surprised or be unable to plan for it far ahead of time.

Tell that to the people who've already seen homes destroyed or homelands rendered uninhabitable. Climate refugees aren't a hypothesis about a distant future; it's already a thing; https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-12-...ion-first-time

Your entire argument is about attacking straw men to mislead people from the very real risks.

[Mormolyce]

Because of billions of dollars being pumped into reactionary propaganda by crooked elites all over the world to try to retain and expand their grip on power.

- - - Updated - - -

But hey, i'm sure Australia is going to enjoy having these sort of fires every year from now.

I am seriously considering moving to Canada.

But then I guess I'll be crushed by a glacier or something.

[PC2]

Tell that to the people who've already seen homes destroyed or homelands rendered uninhabitable.

Okay so this particular argument is the "it's already happening" argument which I take issue with. I reject it for two reasons;

1. It is each individual/family/investor's duty to be responsible for where they decide to put their house and money. Coastal cities are still being developed which means that they don't consider the sea level to be a significant problem, which it's entirely up to them to decide if they want to develop infrastructure near the coastline or if they want to move those funds towards higher elevation investments. I have no control over that and I can't tell them what is the right or wrong choice, and I can't force them to stop building too close to the beach.

2. Civilization will always be about a struggle between economic growth and decay(entropy as well). Life is never about avoiding this problem as it's impossible to do so, instead what it's about is solving problems and creating value at a faster rate than the value that is being lost. Essentially you can think of civilization as being about the economic surplus between these two issues. This is why it doesn't matter that "it's already happening" because this same issue has already been happening all throughout human history and it will always be the same for all future generation regardless of the unique issues that exist for each era. Every generation believes that their problem is a special problem that will put an end to economic growth(ie decline), but that is never the case. In each case it's just another ordinary problem that is solved by continuing the creation of an economic surplus. So as long as our strategy is growth-based then it is the correct strategy everybody should be in agreement with. There's a common saying that *if your not growing your dying* which is accurate because there is no such thing as a sustainable equilibrium.

[Mormolyce]

The planet isn't dying nor is it becoming less hospitable to humans. There's absolutely no reason nor evidence to believe your premise. The exact opposite is true, we're actually making it more hospitable for people and this one of the reasons why the population is going up.

I mean, it is literally dying.


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...sis-extinction

And no, the population spike is not because we're making the world more habitable. It's because of lower infant mortality globally due to improvements in medical care.

[Endus]

Okay so this particular argument is the "it's already happening" argument which I take issue with. I reject it for two reasons;

1. It is each individual/family/investor's duty to be responsible for where they decide to put their house and money.

This isn't an argument against the reality. It's just you wanting to see people suffer harm due to encroaching climate change.

It's also uninformed, because coastal cities are, in a lot of cases, actively engaging in climate change adaptation. Speaking as someone who has worked directly with city officials in helping explore such options. And not just major cities, either.

2. Civilization will always be about a struggle between economic growth and decay(entropy as well).

"It's okay if people die" isn't a strong argument.

As in other threads, you're just pushing climate change denier bullshit. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Mostly centered on Stage 3; Deny it's a Problem.

[PC2]

I mean, it is literally dying.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/ym9NfJU.png[img]
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...sis-extinction

And no, the population spike is not because we're making the world more habitable. It's because of lower infant mortality globally due to improvements in medical care.

If you read my post again you'll see that I specifically referenced what is hospitable for *humans*, I make no claim that the growth of civilization won't be correlated with a decline in other species. In fact I'd be shocked if there wasn't some necessary and minimum amount of reverse correlation.

One additional comment about your graph that directly relates to why I chose my avatar is that we should avoid making inductive assumptions that a trend will always continue. In this case the implication is that the historical trend will continue until everything is dead, which is fallacious reasoning. Similarly though, just because human civilization has made massive progress and growth in the last 5,000 years since it started that also doesn't mean it will automatically continue, it depends entirely on how much effort each person puts into problem solving.

This also applies to any trend including political extremism, it can continue or it can decrease. It all depends on how calm and reasonable people decide to be, personally I say that we should advocate for calmness over extremism.

[Elegiac]

If you read my post again you'll see that I specifically referenced what is hospitable for *humans*, I make no claim that the growth of civilization won't be correlated with a decline in other species. In fact I'd be shocked if there wasn't some necessary amount of reverse correlation.

Fun fact, hun, reduction in biodiversity is a bad thing.

Or are you claiming to be an expert in ecology, now?

One additional comment about your graph that directly relates to why I chose my avatar is that we should avoid making inductive assumptions that a trend will always continue. In this case the implication is that the historical trend will continue until everything is dead, which is fallacious reasoning. Similarly though, just because human civilization has made massive progress and growth in the last 5,000 years since it started that also doesn't mean it will automatically continue, it depends entirely on how much effort each person puts in problem solving.

This is a very wordy way of phrasing "I don't have an opinion".

[PC2]

Fun fact, hun, reduction in biodiversity is a bad thing.

Or are you claiming to be an expert in ecology, now?

No a reduction in biodiversity isn't always a bad thing if it correlates with the growth of civilization. For example humans have had to plow over the species that used to live where are cities and roads now exist. We've had destroy massive amounts of native plant life in order to free up the space for agriculture which is artificial and not natural. Making dams and reservoirs has also been highly destructive to the prior ecology, but the reality is we need all of these things to make progress.

This is a very wordy way of phrasing "I don't have an opinion".

Why do say that? I have many opinions but what I don't have, and nobody has, is a crystal ball that can predict the future. Lines on a graph can't determine the future and we should avoid making assumptions that a trend will always continue and that the future will continue the same as it has in the past.

[szechuan]

No a reduction in biodiversity isn't always a bad thing if it correlates with the growth of civilization. We've had destroy massive amounts of native plant life in order to free up the space for agriculture which is artificial and not natural. Making dams and reservoirs has also been highly destructive to the prior ecology, but the reality is we need all of these things to make progress.

At-least now we know you don't care about the Environment and Animals as long as Humans have something to Gain from it.

Lines on a graph can't determine the future and we should avoid making assumptions that a trend will always continue as it has in the past.

Says the person who ignores Scientific Data.

[Draco-Onis]

No a reduction in biodiversity isn't always a bad thing if it correlates with the growth of civilization. For example humans have had to plow over the species that used to live where are cities and roads now exist. We've had destroy massive amounts of native plant life in order to free up the space for agriculture which is artificial and not natural. Making dams and reservoirs has also been highly destructive to the prior ecology, but the reality is we need all of these things to make progress.

That is false we learned really early on that doing these things have had awful consequences not just on the environment but for ourselves. We've suffered from massive loss of land mass that have become deserts, disease, invasive species over run, water shortages and irrigation problems, floods. It seems you are unfamiliar with the number of problems these highly destructive practices have caused which is why modern adaptation have to take environmental impacts into consideration.

Most modern countries now take a lot of factors into effect before making such changes because of said history of back firing.

[Elegiac]

No a reduction in biodiversity isn't always a bad thing if it correlates with the growth of civilization. For example humans have had to plow over the species that used to live where are cities and roads now exist. We've had destroy massive amounts of native plant life in order to free up the space for agriculture which is artificial and not natural. Making dams and reservoirs has also been highly destructive to the prior ecology, but the reality is we need all of these things to make progress.

And the processes you're describing invariably result in long term consequences that end up threatening civilization, because reduction in biodiversity means that a singular point of failure becomes significantly more likely to cause large scale ecological consequences.

This is literally why the Potato Famine was a thing. Hundreds of thousands of people needlessly starved to death because biodiversity in crops wasn't profitable for 'civilization', and then because intervention was seen as unnecessary owing to the "price of progress".

In short; people of your mindset engender all the worst sorts of practices that mark a civilization - slavery, famine, and genocide.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do say that? I have many opinions but what I don't have, and nobody has, is a crystal ball that can predict the future. Lines on a graph can't determine the future and we should avoid making assumptions that a trend will always continue and that the future will continue the same as it has in the past.

Again, a very wordy way of phrasing "I don't have an opinion".

You're preaching a form of intellectual agnosticism that really doesn't jive with the fact that people who seriously study the sciences are more than capable of assessing trends and determining probabilities.

Like do you just have a moral opposition to the idea of risk assessment or something? Lol.