‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
The leap in temperatures over the past 13 months has exceeded the global heating forecasts – is this just a blip or a systemic shift?
Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.
In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.
Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.
You're viewing a single thread.
The reason nothing will be done is because the only realistic option we have to save our planets ability to sustain life is economic degrowth.
We don't have enough of the minerals we need to go fully nuclear or renewable and even getting close would use up vast amounts of the very same energy were looking to save in the first place.
As the record levels of equality directly after ww2 showed, economic degrowth due to nearly all the men being at war, only results in the loss of the super rich which is why they'll never allow economic degrowth.
We all work too much, produce too much and pollute too much. Worse, we're all forced to produce the very wealth thats used to force us into wage-slavery and kill our planet.
The answer is and will always be the strategic refusal of labour, above what we need to survive and have a good quality of life. This, by default, will result in economic degrowth.
Want to sit around and do nothing to save the planet? Well, now you can.
Uranium is extremely common on Earth. What minerals are we lacking to go nuclear? If you were arguing that we need to switch the type of reactors we use, I could see that. A lack of fissile material isn't an issue.
If I remember correctly, we don't have enough of it to go fully nuclear with our current energy demands. More so, we've mined nearly all of the soil thats anything above 0.02% uranium. As such, not only do we not have enough on the planet, getting it and refining it would almost defeat the whole point of doing so in the first place.
It is a problem in that there might be plenty of it but that doesn't mean there's enough.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we have to go back to the stone ages. Its just that we can't afford the super rich anymore.
Pretty sure there's enough weapons grade plutonium to run the US for 100 years in decommissioned nuclear weapons alone.
I think 100 years is enough time to build pumped hydro storage and renewables like solar/wind.
The problem is that there a major, major shortage of one of the isotopes needed to re-enrich weapons grade uranium (pu 238). Thats before you get to the vast energy inefficiency of doing it which isn't a problem, if you're just decommissioning them anyway and you don't care about energy consumption. However, in this instance, you would need to worry about energy consumption as well as the isotope there won't be enough of to convert even a fraction of it.
Again, even if you had 100 years, there aren't enough of the specialist minerals needed for hydro storage and renewables.
Essentially theres" a hole in our bucket."
The only answer is degrowth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html
specialist minerals needed for hydro storage and renewables
What specialist materials are we talking about? Wind, solar, and pumped hydro use primarily copper, silicon, carbon, and concrete.
I'm not saying it can't be converted or that the amount couldn't, if refined, potentially fuel America for a number of years. So, I'm not sure what the link was for. I said its not feasible, due to the inefficiency of doing it on mass.
What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don't have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won't help, if you can't convert motion into electricity.
Even then, copper looks to be facing an impending shortage. More still, refining enough silicone to supply the world with and keep up with increased demand of energy would have a colossal carbon footprint, almost big enough to cancel out the benefit. You'll have to start refining soil thats 0.000000000001% silicone before you got even halfway through. Yeah, we have loads of these things but getting enough of it, in a pure enough form, to power the whole world simply isn't realistic.
We can't keep up with the speed that we increase our energy usage with the resources we have on the planet. Its a circular problem with only one solution. I'm not saying we have to go back to the primitive. We just have the treat the planet as though its resources are finite.
They'll sell us any flavour of distraction other than "work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more." Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.
You seem to be trying to push a narrative that I don't oppose as if I do. I support degrowth but your reasons are flawed.
Pumped Hydro, solar, and wind don't really use lithium, nickel, or cobalt. Those are mostly used in NCM Liion cells that none of these use. Permanent magnets would probably be the biggest headache tbh.
Idk why we'd need silicone, we're not making sex toys here. /s silicon is most common in sand and rocks, something there is plenty of basically everywhere.
I don't care what you're saying for this circular problem. I've literally not addressed it once because I agree with you, I just don't agree with your reasoning.
Neo magnets would be an issue to scale, but there are previous generation magnet material that will work just fine. It’s not as strong is all.
Most of the big generators on the grid don't even have permanent magnets. They use electromagnets. This means they need some electricity to be added to get them started up, but once they are running they are self-sustaining. Normally that initial jolt is provided by backup generator or by battery.
The posts are interesting (I didn’t look at all of them) but I am weary of accepting all the conclusions drawn. S/He states a lot of facts, but then does a “therefore it must be (this)”
Pushing a narrative is an interesting description of it.
You have to be able to store energy from renewables. How do you plan to store it without those? How to you plan for the shortfall of natural energy compared to energy consumption when you can't meet it with nuclear?
I'm saying you because you're claiming my reasons are flawed. I'm glad we agree on degrowth though.
Its late here and maybe I got confused. I thought I was talking about refined silicon though. Even though that's still wrong lol.
If you're refuting my reasons for degrowth on the basis that we can use nuclear and renewables to get around it, then its a circular problem. The energy needed to make enough to do it, with our current energy usage, with a rising population would cause so much carbon emissions. They're just so inefficient.
What would your reasons for degrowth be then? I'd genuinely like to know.
Go read my other comment. Batteries don't need rare materials for grid scale storage. It's the small ones in phones that need things like Nickel, Cobalt, and Lithium to be as energy dense as possible. Grid storage began phasing out Nickel and Cobalt a while ago and will eventually phase out Lithium as Sodium batteries get better and cheaper.
Current nuclear is a sad joke compared to what we learned we could do even 50 years ago. The initial investment for nuclear is always expensive, but the pay off is cheap energy for like 40 or 50 years. While it does release CO2 to make new reactors there are ways around even that. Using less or no concrete would be a great start. Making iron is kind of hard though, I will give you that. Maybe we will have to switch to aluminum or something.
Consumer electronics are probably the biggest problem we can't solve right now. That's why we need devices made to last and things like the right to repair. Getting rid of individual vehicles would really help too, as trains can accept power straight from the grid without needing huge batteries.
But they haven't phased them out and we have nothing close to the grid storage we would need to switch to renewables. Even then, they will never provide the amount of energy we need to meet current usage.
At our current rate of usage, we will run out of viable uranium sources within 80 years. If we switched the worlds energy to nuclear, it wouldn't last 5.
The only realistic option is for the world to use less.
They’ll sell us any flavour of distraction other than “work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more.” Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.
It's really telling that this is regarded as such a terrible thing by almost everyone.
Thank your local homeless person for doing their part in degrowth and underconsumption. Socrates and Jesus were finally vindicated. They really are the saints here.
What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don't have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won't help, if you can't convert motion into electricity.
We literally don't need any of those. Grid scale storage I don't think has used Nickel and Cobalt for some time, as the best way is to use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries which need fewer replacements (longer cycle life) and are less volatile (explosive). Sodium batteries remove the need for even Lithium. Sodium is many times more abundant btw. As bad as they are Lead Acid batteries are also an option, as well as many other battery technologies made with less rare earth materials. Heck you could just do pumped hydro and not worry about batteries at all.
You also don't need any of those materials to make electricity from motion. A generator is a fairly simple device needing only coils of wire and a few moving parts. Some need permanent magnets but even that isn't hard really. Storing power was always the problem, not making it.
Likewise current reactors are a joke in terms of fuel efficiency. Basing any estimate on current reactor technology being used is kind of silly, as we already know we can do so much better. The majority of earth's nuclear fuel is in fertile materials, not fissile materials. We have known this for a long time by the way. Decades ago countries like the USA and Japan were doing research into reactors using U-238, more than 100 times as abundant as U-235. It has been demonstrated that breeder reactors for Plutonium from U-238 are feasible even 50 or 60 years ago. The reason we don't do this is because U-235 reactors were determined to be cheaper, and probably safer. I think sacrificing some safety and cost is necessary when up against something like climate change. With modern technology I am sure safety issues could be reduced or eliminated. Likewise Thorium is a thing, but that's more experimental than U-238 to Plutonium technology.
If we are talking about solar panels: just don't. Solar panels are mostly glass and silicon. I believe some rarer materials are needed to make them as efficient as they are now, but that doesn't mean they are actually needed. In fact why bother with solar panels at all? They aren't even the most efficient way of turning solar power into useful energy. Solar systems that work using mirrors to heat molten salt have their own energy storage built-in, and don't require exotic materials, and are more efficient anyway. They might require more investment, or be more complex to deploy, but overall they are a great option.
Degrowth might be necessary in the short term. Long term wise though humanity very much has room to grow further. We haven't even talked about mining the moon yet, and if we can't do that we are very much screwed anyway. Being dependant on one planet is horrifically bad for long term survivability. You think climate change is an extinction level event? Try a gamma ray blast from a pulsar.
All you've really demonstrated is that you don't understand technology specifically renewables and nuclear. There is a real concern with lack of rare materials, but not for renewables. The real issue is computers. Modern computers and especially smartphones need a lot of rare things. So constantly replacing your smartphone might not be practical anymore, and things like battery life and processing speed might actually get worse for a while as we are forced to use alternative materials. Not really a huge deal in the scheme of things though.
Also thinking the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate is hilarious. They use more resources per person obviously, but the number of them is also really small. If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes. Don't get me wrong oil executives are a real issue because of how they effect government policy and the behaviour of the rest of society. They do deserve a significant share of the blame. Not every rich person is an oil executive though. Having ultra rich people around is bad but this isn't the reason why.
You don't need any of those things....well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about......
Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it'll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. Thats before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.
You're attempting to argue that I don't know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you're talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.
The fucking moon
No wonder you found it so funny. I never said "the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate." Honestly, you're hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.
You've failed so hard at an "akshually" but please do carry on. As I guessed, you're against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.
Just want to leave this here, in case you choose to delete it later
If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes
You don't need any of those things....well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about......
Nickel in generator coils? What? They are mode from copper. Sometimes aluminum because it's cheaper than copper. The majority of nickel isn't even used in things like batteries, it's used to make steel alloys like stainless steel and heat resistant alloys used for engine parts. Also you keep pretending all of these material aren't recyclable. Metals can be reshaped an indefinite number of times. It's like arguing you can only use water once.
Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it'll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. That's before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.
I am not talking about a pipedream. I am talking about something that was actually implemented in the soviet union. This isn't Thorium that has never had a commerical implementation that was successful. Both of these reactors are still operational:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
There is even a third one that has now been decommissioned, but still operated for around 20 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
You're attempting to argue that I don't know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you're talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.
The fucking moon
You're lost again. I am talking about doing that in the long term after we have decarbonized.
No wonder you found it so funny. I never said "the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate." Honestly, you're hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.
Given you kept talking about the elite and how they can't exist in your degrowth scenario, it seemed to me that blame was implied. I am not being dishonest here. If anything you are the one changing goal posts by doing the whole I didn't say that routine when it's clearly implied.
You've failed so hard at an "akshually" but please do carry on. As I guessed, you're against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.
Yes. Did I not say it isn't necessary in the long term? I thought I stated it pretty clearly. I don't support long term degrowth anymore than I support shrinking the human population long term. Maybe the population of earth specifically, but not the population of all humanity.
I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you've found something you can't dispute.
Good job there isn't a copper shortage coming ...
Oh wait
Nickel is used in the alloys needed in wind turbines and solar panels.
Theres no factual basis to what you're saying. You're just declaring utter bollocks to be thus and such.
Youre saying they don't use uranium or are you trying to move the goal posts again?
Oh, I see, mining the moon is a solution for when we've already fixed the problem. No wonder it was so confusing.
it seemed to me that blame was implied.
No, you just made that up and its not implied. They can't exist without vast amounts of excess labour being undertaken. Im saying its two birds with one stone. That doesn't mean I'm saying that they made all the emissions. If that's genuinely what you read from those words then you have a problem. Youre just grasping at straws here.
It took a long time to drag out of you.
Well, far be for me to have to explain to you the finite nature of the planet you find yourself on. Who knows, maybe perpetual growth on a finite planet is possible? Maybe all the scientists and the laws on entropy are wrong and youre right? Maybe thats a thing that could happen in the real world?
I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you’ve found something you can’t dispute.
Omg, yeah, you got me. I can't dispute that there are more "lower" and middle class people in the world. Well done you.
we need to get rid of them anyway, but do we have enough nuclear fuel, when combined with renewables+batteries, for base load?
Sure, I'm all for getting rid of them but it really seems to be the only option. It really won't be that bad. It'll just mean we can't all take the piss with energy, lose the super rich, eat less meat and do a lot less work.
Its that we've all been made to see the idea of degrowth as something terrible because the rich would be the first thing to go. You just can't have the rich without a vast amounts of excess production.
Please think about this: why shouldnt working less and polluting less be the first thing we should try, if we really wanted to save the planet etc.?
I completely agree, but I also think we should be pursuing every avenue of possible solution simultaneously, some of which might be energy intensive. I have the feeling we are far more climate-fucked than is immediately apparent.
Uranium is extremely common on Earth.
I wouldn't be so uncritical about this. Depending on rate of consumption (and data source) the world's Uranium supplies will last for about 50 to 200 years. (The latter a low demand scenario based on current consumption rates.)
Technological advancements may push these limits. Possibly even into 10.000 to 60.000 years, when filtering active substances from seawater, which is currently quite a timeframe to consider it long-term sustainable even for a limited resource. However, we're not there yet.
We also use thorium which is much more abundant than uranium.
Thats WAY too expensive and takes way to long to build. Renewables are the answer. Sun, wind.
Not enough rhodium and rubidium on earth to achieve that.
Since when do you need either of those to build a wind turbine? We are talking about very simple machines here, plenty of ways to build one.
Need those for solar. They specified sun and wind.
You don't need photovoltaics to use solar power. Never heard of the solar power tower? Or the ones using molten salt for heat storage?
The earth receives just over 1 billion watts of raw energy from the sun daily. Using that energy to boil steam to turn tubines caps that energy generation ability to 105,566,992 watts of power if we capture all the solar radiation that hits earth.
Humanity currently uses 17.5 terrawatts of power daily. How do you make up the 99% shortfall? Little hint, wind and hydroelectric isn't enough to make up that gap. Nuclear is currently our only option outside of asteroid mining.
Edited: I read the number wrong.
Humanity currently uses 17.5 terrawatts of power daily.
This makes zero sense. Do you mean terrawatt hour daily, or do you mean terrawatts averaged over a day? Terrawatts are a measure or power, not energy. Watts are joules per second. You can say you average a certain power in watts over a day.
Anyway since you can't be trusted with basic physics apparently I am going to work it out myself.
We generate around 180,000 TWh per year according to our world in data. That's about 493 TWh per day if we assume 365 days a year. That's the same as 1774800 terrajoules per day. Since we are looking for joules per second (watts), we can then divide by the number of seconds in a day, which is 86400 seconds. This gives us 1774800/86400 = 20 TW. So you somehow got close to the right anwser without actually understanding the units involved.
The part where you are actually way off the mark is the 1 billion watt figure. According to MIT the sun actually gives us 173,000 TW continuously, or 173 PW (pettawatts). So 20 TW is tiny in comparison. Obviously I don't expect us to capture all of that, but we are talking about things that aren't even in the same units, nevermind order of magnitude. How you managed to get this so utterly wrong I have no idea. Just looking at it I can tell that number isn't right, as China are planning to have 1200GW of solar capacity (that's 1200 billion watts) by the end of 2024 according to The Guardian.
Solar power towers are reported between 12% and 25% efficient at demonstration scales according to wikipedia. Yet you are claiming just above 1% efficiency. This dosen't sound like a great deal, but if you look into it photovoltaics aren't doing that much better. It turns out that current commerical products only offer around 21.5% according to this wikipedia article. This varies a lot depending on how old the panel is (they degrade), how it was built, what proportion is shaded, if it moves to track the sun and so on. Both of these technologies have room for improvement. Panel efficiency can vary anywhere from up to 40.6% down to as low as 8.2% wikipedia.
Edit: You have made youself an example of why we need more scientific and numerical literacy. How you got numbers so hilariously wrong is truly beyond me.
Got the numbers wrong because I relied on a quick search and got bad sources, apparently. I wasn't claiming 1% efficiency, I calculated it at a generous 28%. The 1% is what was being produced vs what DDG said we needed.
No you didn't. 28% percent of 1 gigawatt is 280 megawatts. I was incorrect to say 1%, but you didn't exactly get it right either. 106 megawatts (or 105,566,992 watts as you put it, which is weirdly specific) is closer to 10%. I beg you check both your sources and your maths in future before you reply to someone.
the reason nothing will be done
nothing will be done peacefully. plenty could be done.
see, the ultra rich die either way. either they kill everyone, including themselves, and end all life, or someone kills them. those are the only two outcomes here.
I mean, i guess they could just fuck off and stop being super rich. fuckerberg could be a creepy robot man who lives above his kinda cringe MMA dojo or something, but they're not going to do that. I don't think they're psychologically capable of it.
Remember the Titanic sub? How those rich guys thought they knew more than scientists and engineers? When they died, I realized that was exactly what they were doing with our planet. They will kill us all for their ego and hubris. Quite clearly. That's why they are building their bunkers and super cities and not allowing governments to actually address this issue - they think they'll come out on top. And there's evidence they've thought this since at least the 70s, so this implies a couple generations of them plotting to kill us.
then governments can;t be trusted with the future of humanity. which I think I agree with.
but it's not just their ego and hubris; it's also their paranoia and addiction.
What? What do you think a government is?
a monopoly on the use of violence, for the purpose of entrenching inequality. also sometimes they build infrastructure so we don't kill them, because actually controlling people with violence is profoundly inefficient.
It’s not so much Zuck and Elon, it’s the people above them. If the oil companies, banks, or military industrial complex wanted Elon gone he would be erased in less than 24 hours. They are the ones controlling the strings, and all they want is more power.
just using them as examples because we know their names and a bit of their character. they COULD abandon their shit, stop fucking people over, stop trying to have control, and just be on the shitty side of normal people, and nobody who didn't have to interact with their sleazy asses would fucking care.
except my argument is that they genuinely can't. not because we wouldn't let them, nto because it wouldn't work, but because their brains are broken and they are incapable of letting go, and the only future we will ever get must be taken from their cold dead hands.
That makes sense. Thank you for responding.
Have you seen this person's posts on Reddit?
https://www.reddit.com/user/backcountrydrifter/
They have some interesting sources and connections for how Elon maybe plays a part in all this. I don't buy everything they say, but they do have good interviews and articles explaining Epstein, Trump, Putin, and MBS, and even Elon and how they relate. It's worth perusing if you have time.
I wouldn't be surprised if Elon is a little untouchable because of his Saudi connections (and yes I do think MBS would order a hit on him no problem, but he's doing a service for them rn). And Zuck owns Meta which has the most users on its social sites worldwide iirc. Modern day currency isn't always in capital- these days attention and clout are worth a LOT. Ad revenue is worth a lot. Less and less people are watching TV, so propaganda has to get in front of viewers in unique ways now.
The answer is and will always be the strategic refusal of labour, above what we need to survive and have some quality of life. This, by default, will result in economic degrowth.
It's at the point where I don't accept the label of being human. Humans lack the logic and morality I identify with.
What are you then? A primate? A posthuman?
I'm a living being who does not want to associate with humans.
Autistic people are more likely to be Therian (identify as partly non-human and non-humanoid animal): Therianthropy: Wellbeing, Schizotypy, and Autism in Individuals Who Self-Identify as Non-Human, Clegg et al., Society & Animals 2019.
Looking at some brief descriptions of the terms (I'm only mildly aware of them) there is also the related group of Otherkin, who identify as not fully human, but do identify full with human-like sapience. The personal experiences of a 'Machinekin' (identifying as part sapient robot) are presented in _ Exploring Other-Than-Human Identity: Religious Experiences in the Life-Story of a Machinekin _, Shea, S.C, 2020, published in Religions. Neve discusses the relationship between autism and feeling othered in terms of gender and non-human Machinekin identity first hand.
Searching for autistic and otherkin, I find regular discussions in autistic spaces about how people believe their otherkin and autistic identities and experiences overlap. Much of this is in Autism / Neurodivergence discords, which can't be searched. However, these discords provide a managed group of fellow travellers with information that doesn't leak out to search engines. Nevertheless, some discussion about this is searchable. Here's one comment:
Alienkin. So much wrong planet syndrome. Hi, yes. Not alien, definitely relate to alienness though.
So much of my life spent asking "Why do neurotypicals do X thing?" only to later find out that they do it because it's done, it's their social identity. If their social identity mows the lawn, they mow the lawn. It doesn't matter that there's a cost of noise pollution and ecological destruction. They do it because their social identity does it. If their social identity revolved around jumping off of cliffs, they'd do that too. It's why there's so much "acceptable" ritual sacrifice, war, and other such horrific acts of atrocity throughout human history.
So I definitely relate to alienness. To do something "because it is done, the done thing" is the most utterly bizarre and strange concept to me. I understand to do something if it might be ethical, or kind, or clever, with an accompanying reason. But because "it is done?" It's bizarre.
Another discussion is titled "Does being autistic feel like being a robot who is trying to learn how to be human?" Top responses agree to this, giving various explanations of why it occurs, or how it feels, including:
I feel more like I'm missing a sense. It's like in every interaction in a group there is a second conversation only I can't hear that tells people when It's their turn to speak and elaborates on what the person means. I'm watching everything and analyzing everything to try to figure out what everyone else is getting that I'm not.
and
Yea kinda, or like an alien, who forgot his human handbook on scp147, if you have seen the show resident alien, I related a sadly large amount to the alien.
and
That’s why folks called me Dr. Spock growing up. I come from Vulcan, live long and prosper
There are questions about this on sites like Quora, with responses like "I've known since I was a kid that I had autism, so this might not relate to me. However, as a kid, I called myself an alien in this world. It's probably common when it comes to robots, but I was an alien to this world."
Unless you are legitimately an alien or a cat or something that somehow got on Lemmy (and I apologize if this is the case), then you are a human. You can't identify your way out of being a member of this species.
The fact my fellow autistic people are disidentifying from humanity is extremely concerning. Even worse I can understand why given the behaviour of so many humans being what it is. Plus constantly being marginalized in human societies doesn't help.
The solution though isn't to stop identifying as being human and pretend to be something else. The solution is to re-evaluate what being human is. Too much emphasis in popular culture is placed on humanity or being human as some positive thing where someone who is truly human couldn't be the villain or the mass murderer. The reality is the human race is broad and doing a genocide is just as human as inventing the vaccine for TB. Those things we can do because we are human, with human capabilities. Another animal wouldn't think to make a vaccine, or to do a genocide, they do what they because of instincts, learned behavior, and survival.
Unless you are legitimately
I'm legitimately someone who has no emotional connection to humans as a group.
The solution though isn't to stop identifying as being human and pretend to be something else.
Fun fact: a lot about what it means to be humans is also pretending to be human. Apart from the observable biological / genetic / genealogical classification differences, everything else about humanity is entirely created by humans, and they can disagree about many features of it.
I have no interest in that pretence. I do not identify with humans. If you want to change that, endorse society / the majority to attempt to feed all children. That's my moral benchmark for when I will feel like I align with human principles.
Another animal wouldn't think to make a vaccine
I am absolutely and completely sure that time and space are both infinite, and therefore the chance of us being the only intelligent life is zero.
I am also absolutely and completely sure that, given that time and space is infinite, and cosmological time involves the destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process, that humans are - given an objective view of cosmological time - no more important than any other animal. We, and all our works, are just as transient.Fun fact: a lot about what it means to be humans is also pretending to be human. Apart from the observable biological / genetic / genealogical classification differences, everything else about humanity is entirely created by humans, and they can disagree about many features of it.
Humanity is a species. Homo sapiens. Anyone claiming otherwise has fallen into the trap set by movies and popular culture about inhumane actions, dehumanizing the other, and every other time people who are homo sapiens are not teated as humans.
I have no interest in that pretence. I do not identify with humans. If you want to change that, endorse society / the majority to attempt to feed all children. That's my moral benchmark for when I will feel like I align with human principles.
There is no single moral standard for our entire species. In fact while I am here I will say there is no proof for any kind of morality even existing in the objective universe. It's an entirely made up concept. If we ever encounter aliens of what have you there is a good chance they have radically different behavioral standards for their species than ours.
I am absolutely and completely sure that time and space are both infinite, and therefore the chance of us being the only intelligent life is zero.
I am also absolutely and completely sure that, given that time and space is infinite, and cosmological time involves the destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process, that humans are - given an objective view of cosmological time - no more important than any other animal. We, and all our works, are just as transient.Well that escalated quickly. You went from plausible science to making up bullshit very quickly.
destruction and rebirth of the existence of matter itself in a cyclical process
Yeah you apparently don't know much about modern physics.
Weather or not aliens do exist changes nothing about the fact you are human. You can't escape that incontrovertible biological fact. Don't even try. Stop listening to society cry "oh the humanity" and actually look at the facts. Humanity is just an intelligent species, not a moral standard to cling to or something to turn around and reject.
Thank you for telling me you don't respect my Buddhist beliefs, it's been very interesting.
Very good job at making me want to identify with humans more, as well.
I had no idea you were Buddhist. Yeah I don't respect epistemological claims of any religion without evidence and neither should you. I am not going to treat Buddhism any better than Christianity just because they got a few things right regarding mediation. There are two things you should always remember: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Edit: the fact you thought you had me cornered there is hilarious. The "you don't respect my beliefs" card doesn't work when making unscientific claims, or just in general when talking to a rational person.
Yeah I don't respect
I can see.
A rational person can see that major features of a moral system can be defined by objective reasoning. If I prefer to live than to die, killing is wrong. If I prefer to have my needs met rather than neglecting, helping others to meet their needs is correct. If I prefer health... I prefer to be treated with respect... and so on.
Asserting that there are aliens who prefer to die, kill, feel pain, die of starvation, be sick, be treated without respect etc. does not seem realistic as it is not logically possible. How long would those aliens survive? We can only surmise aliens who ignore these facts, which is perfectly understandable, because ignorance is a common state. Someone who pretends that hurting other is moral because "I'm better" is not being objective, which is why living beings clearly spend so much time rationalising.
In this sense, Buddhism's ethics have some striking parallels with those of Classical Greek philosophers, esp. Socrates.
This is a distraction. This whole conversation started talking about you not identifying as human, and me pointing out that human is just a biological category. To believe otherwise is to buy into propaganda written by humans directed and directed at other humans who's behavior they want to influence in some way. You still haven't actually countered this argument.
Though I will say you seem to be confusing natural selection, individual or group desires, and morality with each other. You need to get you're head straight on what the differences are before you start making arguments about morality. I would argue that objective morality doesn't exist. You're kind of right about how subjective morality came to be, but you might want to work on the details. Plenty of animals even on earth sacrifice themselves for their children, as the aim in natural selection isn't survival or the individual but survival of the genes. People have used this lens to explain things like racism and genocide as preserving people with similar genes to yourself, but I would have no idea if that is actually the case as I am not an evolutionary biologist.
Is this the start of a furry fic
Autistic people identify as non-, or other-than- human in other ways than furry, e.g. Machinekin or Alienkin.
Me? I just don't want the label of human, because I don't respect human society.
You don't have to be autistic for any of this. Also, never said the only other option besides human was furry. I merely ASKED if this was the start of a furry fic due to the romantic tension and pacing of the comments
I kind of hate this kind of narrative here.
Yeah, capitalism is shit etc... but let's get to the real root cause: we're all still animals, and want our pack to be the best. The root issue isn't money, it's power. Many societies wouldn't mind degrowth if it didn't mean all the others would bury them & dance on their grave.
If one single country would actually degrow, all the others would dominate it financially, loot it for all its worth, and unless it can completely 100% sustain itself without outside trade (pretty much impossible in our globalized society), it would mostly collapse. And even if it could sustain itself, the power imbalance would be so huge we'd run in all other kinds of issues soon (hey, why not just conquer that country that is pretty much powerless now?)
Imo we're all just animals knowing we're headed for extinction, but at the same time it's a big game of chicken on the road, the first to stray from this path will get fucked in so many ways by all the others who see their chance to improve their situation... And imo capitalism isn't the cause of that, but one of the results of this. It's just another way for us to compete and try to fuck eachother over like the animals we still are.
So either we get to some near global agreement on how to get out of this situation, or we just keep doing far too little since... what's the point of trying to improve things if it just means you get annihilated by those that don't, and things will remain the same despite your best efforts...
So either we get to some near global agreement on how to get out of this situation, or we just keep doing far too little since… what’s the point of trying to improve things if it just means you get annihilated by those that don’t, and things will remain the same despite your best efforts…
I feel like the way out is global and cultural in nature, and I think it's in progress now, in fact we're doing it now, talking about this on Lemmy. This wasn't practical, wasn't being done outside of "elite circles" before a decade or so ago. This global conversation is going to take some time and have bumps, but it's happening, this is novel on this planet.
What I hope comes of this, and seems to be happening, perhaps slower than I'd like, is a paradigm shift in the way we think about ourselves, others, our communities, our situation, and our goals. We need a new "mythology" that allows us to live on this planet sustainably, and it only needs to be true enough and could even be done transparently and with purpose.
I feel like our species is in a existential battle and almost nobody (at least on the left-ish) is talking strategy. As if any valid strategy (e.g. "capitalism", "communism", "competition", "religion", "growth" "zero sum" etc) has been identified by the 1960s and we're all just battling amongst 20th century ideas for domination.
I'm thinkiing stuff like this (sorry for the poor organization of my thoughts, to lazy to cleanup)
Define some axioms/statements that are mostly true and fairly agreeable, not based in faith, not limited by materialism.
- Most people would be happy to just live and thrive and don't feel a need to dominate others or hoard resources
- There is a tiny number of people who do feel a need to dominate and/or hoard
- We are all vulnerable to propaganda
- Nobody is inherently better or more deserving than anyone else
- Nobody is entitled to the time or labor of anyone (except a child being entitled to their parents)
- Nobody actually knows the meaning of life or the nature of reality (not even materialists).
- Our own conscious experience is all we can be certain of, nobody knows any absolute truths
- The most logical assumption is that others' experience is similar to my own
- I don't want to suffer or be coerced, I don't feel others are entitled to cause me to suffer or coerce my behavior
- It's ok to defend myself against those trying to harm or coerce my behavior, dominate or hoard at my or my community's expense
- If I cause another to suffer or coerce their behavior I should expect a response
--> The goal of these axioms is not to get everyone to agree to them, it's to blaze a new path that can evolve into the way, to plant a seed that can inspire moving in new directions.
A set of explicit stated axioms allows taking the next steps and figure out how to evolve into a sustainable culture. Clear eyed strategy and goals are why the Heritage Foundation is making progress and the left is not.
Strategy like this could allow a better understanding of who and what the actual threats are and identify appropriate responses to them.
--> The "global agreement" will not be a formal inter-governmental thing, it will be loosely coupled set of cultural evolutions spurred by global conversations happening now.
I feel like the way out is global and cultural in nature,
I agree that it starts with a sense of a global community. Instead of people considering themselves a citizen of their homecountry, they need to switch to the mindset of being a citizen of Earth.
We now have the technology to get past the language barrier, so it is more possible to get people together, talking about our future as a species more than anytime in our history.
One thing that could help is some sort of globally available social media, or forum that automatically translate to the language of the reader. Imagine if a Chinese person could post something in Chinese, but English speakers could read and respond in English, and vice versa.
One point I have to disagree on is the point you made about nuclear energy. Its untrue. If we switched to primarily using nuclear energy we would be able to successfully power the majority of the species using that technology. Its fear that stops us. Everyone is worried about another Chernobyl or Fukushima. When the logical course of action would be to find tectonically stable sites for any nuclear facilities. That'd be number one to solving a lot of meltdown concerns. The other would be to use well researched and planned designs. Chernobyl was a faulty design for a reactor that should never have been allowed to be produced.
Lookup Thorium reactors. Those are the true future of nuclear technology. Thorium is also abundant when compared to Uranium or Plutonium. It does not have the same weaponization issues. It does not produce the same high levels of radiation. It is also safer to handle and store once depleted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Thorium-fueled_reactors "Using breeder reactors, known thorium and uranium resources can both generate world-scale energy for thousands of years. "
Literally with nuclear power we can power the whole world for the next 2,000 to 3,000 years. Possibly longer. It's fear that holds us back on this.
Yes and majority of time and expense that goes into building nuclear reactors is due to regulations, espeically NIMBY/fear based regulations. They have to hire teams of special lawyers for these and cases last years. That's why when you see people describing the cost and time of building these, they always start at the planning stage which can include years of legal battles.
And these lawyers are usually nuclear engineers who went to law school afterwards, so they are pretty expensive to staff.
Biggest thing against nuclear power is the cost associated with it. Other, sustainable sources of energy like wind and solar, combined with hydrogen and batteries, are way cheaper due to their simplicity. Thorium reactors are a nice idea but need so much development (costs) that they will take a while to become a reality, if ever at all. Probably nuclear fusion will be available sooner than thorium fission for power generation, which also needs decades of development. And then there's still the problem of nuclear waste. Maybe not a huge problem, but still one without a viable solution.
nuclear energy we would be able to successfully power the majority of the species using that technology
But that energy will be used for what? To mine for more minerals, create more waste, destroy more land, and make more species extinct? Our problem is not a shortage of energy nor is it even a problem of the efficiency or cleanliness of the energy. It's a problem of our species living far beyond the sustainable bounds of the planet.
For carbon sequestration, which also needs to happen. Not only do we need to not put out more carbon into the atmosphere, but we also need to sequester atmospheric carbon. A LOT of it.
We are living beyond several planetary bounds but if we made our energy not release carbon, it would be a huge start. Harm reduction is valid.
For carbon sequestration, which also needs to happen.
Agree, but I think virtually all methods typically talked about are nonsense. Using massive fossil resources to design, build, and maintain giant machines or many smaller machines will ultimately do little to slow ecological collapse even if it does reduce carbon somewhat after some years needed to break even on production. The only sequestration method I've ever heard about that makes any sense to me is neighborhood scale production and use of biochar (and avoiding buying any sort of purpose made biochar device that required fossil resources to produce and ship to you). I make biochar in my backyard fire pit (which is a low smoke design) with used coffee tins (i.e. trash) and use the resulting biochar and ash in my compost.
Harm reduction is valid.
Agree, Any and all scientifically backed methods to allow us time for degrowth should be considered. I'm not convinced nuclear energy should be a significant part of this though, too many downsides and risks.
