[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /r/ - 1289



File: 1492791400358.png (126.84 KB, 300x300, IMG_1091.jpg)

No.1289

Im no liberal by any means, but I think this is great:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/21/britain-set-for-first-coal-free-day-since-the-industrial-revolution

I'm glad to be living through major strides toward what I envisioned the future would look like. That and the advent of cryptocurrency have really impressed me.

  No.1294

Our species as a whole is pretty much at a crossroads right now where we're 50% on the road to a technology-enabled, fully-automated, clean-energy utopia -- and 50% on the road to a dystopian hellhole with a decimated and unlivable climate, only clinging to life via artificial environments.

Climate change is the most important issue facing humanity at this very moment, and we're mostly ignoring it and continuing to skullfuck the earth because people either "don't believe in science" or won't profit off of green energy. You don't have to be a "liberal" to agree that this is a great step forward.

  No.1299

Inefficient. Wasteful.

>>1294
It's precisely utopian to use pretty things because we really, really love polar bears. Utopian, as in detached from reality, absurd, juvenile, pipe-dreamish.

These chimneys are pretty, though.

How is climate change the most important issue facing humanity right now?
Wouldn't the issue of, for example, survival of said humanity in philosophical sense (and by that I mean the western civilization and its values, like, you know, universal ethics, individualism, and stuff), be more important than projected slow decrease in the state of environment, which we can't really meaningfully address in our current state of technological development?

Actually, the global warming would likely be beneficial to vegetation where I live and detrimental to competition, so wouldn't that be a profit for me and my people?
Shouldn't that make me give zero, erm, attention to that issue, leaving this problem to those primarily affected?

  No.1318

>>1299
Coal is incredibly inefficient compared to alternative sources of energy (namely nuclear energy).

Please try harder.

  No.1331

>>1318
Why would thermal efficiency be inherently important? It's not.

I've meant, obviously, financial efficiency.
There is no other kind of efficiency.

  No.1332

>>1299
>survival of said humanity in philosophical sense (and by that I mean the western civilization and its values, like, you know, universal ethics, individualism, and stuff), be more important than projected slow decrease in the state of environment, which we can't really meaningfully address in our current state of technological development?

You're talking about the inevitability of a physical aspect of our world, and saying that this physical aspect is less important than...culture? You cannot "save" previous humanity's zeitgeist because it's in its nature to change.

At the very least provide more tangible definitions of what is it that it's so important to save. Universal ethics are not important and never were, i could argue that they don't even exist. Individualism is a choice, and "stuff" is nothing.

  No.1335

>>1332
If you don't acknowledge such a thing as ethics, then what criteria do you use to assess that something is important in the grand scheme of things?
That there is a right and wrong cause of action?
Do you even make such distinctions?
Because if you do, I bet your criteria are just as prone to blind deconstruction as mine.
And if there's nothing that you propose as an alternative, then you would be just a nihilist dropping in to say "nothing really matters after all". Very useful.

Referring to the other, or rather, only, point that you've made, why do you instantly assume that my appreciation for certain ideas and a will to preserve them is of a blind, reactionary nature?
We can't, and would never want to make it so that a zeitgeist at a certain time be everlasting, because that would entail no development. We can, however, preserve some things, if we find them of utmost importance.

And yes, obviously, I tend to find things metaphysical in nature far more important than physicalities. But that is too complex of a problem to be delved into in context of energy sources, I think.

You have, to some degree, reformulated my opinion wrongly, though. If I understand you correctly, you do not find it fundamentally impossible for a thing of cultural nature to be more important than that which is physical, it is just that you perceive the physical problem, i.e. the climate change caused by traditional sources of energy, as one crucial to our survival as species.

I, for that matter, do not.
To do so, I would have to 1) believe that it is possible for a directed, unprofitable action to be simultaneously undertaken by the whole humanity, which is, obviously, a case of prisoner's dilemma. Therefore, I would simply abandon the problem as one that we have no ability to solve. 2) make a clear extrapolation of data into the future and run with it. I don't think it is an appropriate course of action. We do not know what will happen in the future and what means of solving the pollution problem we will have then, and possibly, they might dwarf all our efforts. One might say that an example of that would be the history of pollution in British rivers over the last two centuries. They have exploited the environment to develop, and, at a later point in development, they can afford to address this problem. 3) I would have to associate with every human being equally, and tie my fate to everyone that walks the Earth. I do not. I am in a quite cold climate, therefore, if the entire Africa were to be scorched by the Sun and become uninhabitable, my situation would probably still be OK. If you find that wrong, then you are making an argument employing universal ethics.
4) Even if I were 100% positive that it is a matter of humanity's survival, I would have to value our progeny's fate more than ours, since it is them who would be so affected by the climate change, not us. We won't be around to see it. I'm not saying that I don't find my progeny's future more important than my comfort, I'm just saying that I could be, and you would have to be ethically inclined to find that reprehensible. We use that approach already, just not to climate, for example, I believe that John Maynard Keynes has made an argument like that once.

  No.1336

>>1335
the last sentence sounds kind of silly. I'm sorry.
He used an argument like that once to justify his views, which are the cornerstone of economic policies of literally every developed nation.

  No.1338

>>1335
>If you don't acknowledge such a thing as ethics
I acknowledge ethics. They are important, they are also mutable, an aspect of culture and society, not a static law of nature. Ethics in japan is not the same as ethics in Brazil. Ethics in Brazil from 1800 is not the same as ethics in Brazil from 1850.

>We can, however, preserve some things, if we find them of utmost importance.

This is what i asked you to be specific about. Which you weren't, again.

My point boils down to: "exactly what aspect of ethics is more important than the physical state of our world to you".

If you do not answer that it's impossible to carry on a conversation, without specificity your whole argument boils down to the idea that ethics are static and should be maintained as they are. Which makes zero sense by the nature of what ethics are.

  No.1339

>>1338
Pretty sure that it's morality that you are referring to. Morality is subjective and specific to society. Ethics isn't.
And your answer is fully concurrent with my assessment of your Weltanschauung.
You do perceive morality as a subjective, social construct.
You deny the existence of ethics, universal right or wrong. You understand morality, you understand benefit, you understand survival, but the notion of universal ethics, this you must either twist or deconstruct.
I do not wish to offend you, but I guess that you not don't understand this notion as much as you are hostile to it.
Given that it is not specific to you, but systemic in nature, I find it to be more, as they say, problematic, than mean temperature going to increase by a degree over a couple of dozen of years.

And my answer is, exactly what makes the physical state of a world that we will not experience so important?
Besides, you know, ethics.

Again, you have either wrongly represented or wrongly understood my point. Ethics, what is right and what is wrong, that's all eternal. Not physical, not subject to thermodynamics. What is not, however, eternal, is understanding, neither is a culture that understands, because people who understand die over time, and so might their understanding with them. Similarly, God is eternal, but theology isn't.
It is the state of perception, the observance of ethical laws that I find so important.

  No.1340

>>1339
Your original point is:

>Wouldn't the issue of, for example, survival of said humanity in philosophical sense (and by that I mean the western civilization and its values, like, you know, universal ethics, individualism, and stuff), be more important than projected slow decrease in the state of environment, which we can't really meaningfully address in our current state of technological development?


All of which seem relative to society and culture. I might be wrong of course, if that is the case simply clarify what you mean by that.

What in western culture, individualism and ethics is so eternal, true and necessary to be preserved? What is universally right and wrong? You can of course ask me to research about a subject or another, i'd be willing to.

  No.1341

>>1340
I'm afraid that I will have to, to some extent.
The question of what is universally right and wrong is literally what the field of philosophy known as ethics strives to achieve.

You are right to some extent. To answer shortly, I believe that cultural, i.e. not eternal, circumstances of western civilization are, to some extent, unique among all cultures of the world, and should they cease to exist, an understanding of philosophy, among other things, would cease to exist in this world with it.

Nothing in western culture is eternal, because culture is men, and what they create, and all of that is passing.

I am of firm belief that preserving western culture is our best shot at preserving a culture of knowledge, scientific and philosophical inquiry, individual and intellectual liberty. A culture thanks to which a perception of certain eternal ideals occurs, an observance of certain rights and ethical ideals by which man's rightful treatment of others might occur. I am also convinced that should we fail to preserve it, humanity would be set back in its' intellectual ascent by, at least, a couple hundred of years.

I feel obliged to note at this point that many things commonly thought to be philosophical achievements of western civilization, many historical events that people believe are proud milestones in humanity's progress, I find purely reprehensible, and not specific to western civilization or it's nature at all.

  No.1342

>>1341
>I am of firm belief that preserving western culture is our best shot at preserving a culture of knowledge, scientific and philosophical inquiry, individual and intellectual liberty.
But what exactly is effectively harming western culture so much that it needs active protection? To the point where resources spent in the environment would be better spent in active cultural protection?

I can't see where the threat is. The planet is being effectively hurt. Western culture isn't, even if i agreed with the idea that western culture is essential for intellectual progress, which i don't.

To protect the environment there are physical measures to be taken, resources to be spent and work to be done. These resources, as i understand, do not seem to interfere with culture in any way. Even if i agreed with your point of view, i cannot see how environmental change helps or hurts your views in any way.

  No.1343

>>1341
Moreover, since I believe that there is right and there is wrong, and since experience shows that what I find worth preserving is not just a quirk of cultural climate, the things about culture which I hold dear seem to be more than flavor; rather permeating through times, and still, not exactly inevitable and purely stemming from nature. That's why I believe that some parts of the western civilization can, should, and must be preserved, and remain in existence in spite of everchanging zeitgeist.

  No.1344

>>1342
What binds these issues is that one is the most important issue facing humanity at the moment, and one is not. It is this statement I've primarily taken issue with.

Your statement on spending resources "in environment" or "in active cultural protection" smells of government interventions and central planning. I hope it is not what you were hinting at.

The relation between these two issues is as follows - the countries of the European Union and US seem to be the only countries, besides Japan, that take the issue of global warming so seriously. And I think that we agree that governmental intervention is the only thing big enough to aim at influencing the climate change. They hinder their own economies to prevent usage of coal.
The result is their own economical setback in competing with other markets.
They are less efficient.
They burden the prospering of their populations, all caused by a sort of a psychological phenomenon - call it savior complex, pathological altruism, denial of own identity, many attempts of describing the inherent problem have been made, these are some of proposed diagnoses.
Whatever it is, it's only a part of the problem that I perceive within these populations.
And yes, I very much so perceive the western civilization to be harmed. I do not understand how you could not. Many western nations will become minorities in their own countries much, much earlier than polar bears will die out. Minorities in democratic countries, thus their political thought will be marginalized with them.
And I don't believe that their replacement gives a flip about polar bears.

Not to mention my earlier opinions about actions that could be taken against global warming, their futility, and the rationale behind them.
To me, to say "the climate change is the most important issue that humanity faces" is exactly the symptom of the disease of mind that spans across populations of the western world. The global warming is not important in comparison to other problems that we are facing, and energy spent on it is energy wasted, even if it could've been used on simply making more profit.
Does the desire to prevent the planet from being hurt warrant the suicide of the west?
Or, to make the point more general, should the west undertake it's own extinction to improve the material status of other civilizations and their members?
I don't believe that it should.

What exactly is doing the harm? Well, the decline in birth rates could be named, among other things, but is it a cause in and of itself? A symptom, rather. I am convinced that a corruption within the western culture is a cause behind demographic decline. That failure to perceive, failure to understand some of the values that I wish to preserve is a cause of decline. And what causes ideas and observance of them in people's minds to be harmed? Well, ideas fight ideas, and you make them gone from society with governmental action, changes in academia and education, propaganda, you instill conflicting ideas in mass media. You ridicule, you offend, and you take resources and persecute those who hold them.

So, to sum it up, to believe that climate change is the worst thing happening is a symptom of something that I believe *is* the worst thing happening.

  No.1346

>>1344
I begin to understand your point, however there are a few contradictions.

You mention that the state of the world beyond your lifespan is not a big concern for you, but shouldn't the same view be applied to cultural changes? Certainly you will die long before western culture dies, unless something absurd happens.
And even if you don't, you will most definitely be able to live your life within a community that holds to these values all around you. Your individual experience will, most likely, not change in your lifetime.
Shouldn't you disregard the slow cultural change in the same way you would the deterioration of the world for the next generations?

Also i can't help but ask you, what specifically are these western values? For example i believe most people should be free to make any decision as long as they don't actively harm or bother someone else (drugs, sexual preferences, etc). The freedom to live your live however you prefer, and the responsibility for your actions is a central piece of how i live my life. That is one of the things i value, i cannot pinpoint what would be the equivalent for you, these western values so worth protecting.

It may be worth mentioning that i'm not from north america at all, maybe these values would be obvious for a citizen.

  No.1349

>>1346
I have not said that it is not of concern to me, but that one has to have certain convictions of philosophical nature to be concerned about it, which would not logically be held by, say, an atheist materialist.

I hold some things to be, in a way, more important than my life, or, at least, not in service to my comfort. The extensions of my identity, such as a family, a nation, a race, civilization. My personality, my beliefs, my Weltanschauung, all of these things are a certain way due to them. I am part of them just as they are an extension of myself. Not to say that they override individual aspect of man, there simply are different aspects to a person than the individual aspect.
Similarly, a person might tie their personality to a certain idea and hold it as something that defines them and warrants comfort, pleasure, profit, and other values of individual nature, to be relinquished.
Not out of fear of divine retribution or eternal damnation, but out of will for something to prosper or for idea to spread or be adhered to.

I am not an American as well.
Western values are often said (and I would, at least partially, concur with that) to be a mixture of Greek philosophy, Roman law and Christian religion. This is far from perfect of a description and all of these have been vastly expanded upon after their conception. These can, and do, include freedom of speech, which, even when adapted by non-western countries, quickly dies out; division of religious and political power - obviously, we obviously see that it is not present in Islam or Judaism, where religion is tied with law, in the first case, or nation in second, and secular non-western countries, eg. communist countries, say, China or North Korea, are secular in name only - state is the religion, and other religions in traditional sense are outlawed. Some post-colonial countries are secular democracies, but that is either, in part, adaptation of western ideas, or these countries are unstable relics of colonialism and deemed to change their shape. Equal treatment in court proceedings, idea of universal justice.
Moral reprehension and legal opposition to slavery is a big one, and it is only due to Christianity and Christian empires that this practice in its unconcealed form has been eradicated. What's interesting, it does make a resurgence in many places where from the power of these European countries has retreated.
Treatment of women also seems to be an issue tackled differently in western countries.
These are political in nature, because they are easier to pinpoint. Many more will show when you compare between, say, religions, or history of science, or both. The idea that the Universe is something with unchangeable, logical, non-conflicting rules and laws of physics seems to originate in Greek natural philosophy and continue with Christian scholars. The evidence to that being somehow more western; that is, the comparison of contributions to science among different cultures, seems to be overwhelming.
I will not enumerate all ideas that I perceive to be exclusively western and ideas that stem from western countries and are reluctantly adapted anywhere else, I hope that you get the idea of what I have in mind.

  No.1363

Thatcher is jumping up and down in her grave

  No.1364

>>1349
>Moral reprehension and legal opposition to slavery is a big one, and it is only due to Christianity and Christian empires that this practice in its unconcealed form has been eradicated.

What was colonization? What was the triangle trade?

  No.1367

>>1289
It makes me sad that you feel the need to preemptively defend yourself against charges of liberalism for suggesting that clean air is a good thing.

  No.1383

File: 1492905290484.png (97.04 KB, 200x134, cargo.jpg)

What makes me sad is that people buzz about the coal and the cars, masturbate to Thorium reactors and Teslas, while the worst climate change agents that fuarrrk up _your health right now_ are NOX and SOX, produced by high-temperature combustion of heavy fuels by cargo ships

> Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

See also http://my.pages.de/cargo

Ethics, morality, blah blah blah. NOX! You are breathing NOX!

>>1335
> believe that it is possible for a directed, unprofitable action to be simultaneously undertaken by the whole humanity

Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

  No.1384

>>1383
>NOX and SOX, produced by high-temperature combustion of heavy fuels by cargo ships
cargo ships also do the biggest amount of heavy lifting regarding transportation by far. if you would put that into relation its probably not as bad as you think.

  No.1388

>>1331
Geothermal, onshore wind, and hydro to a lesser degree are financially competitive with the cheapest, dirtiest coal, oil and natural gas.
Nuclear costs about the same as cleaned coal and is much better for the environment, but it isn't competitive with dirty coal, oil, and gas.
Oil is the cheapest when it's cheap, but prices are prone to serious fluctuations.

This comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source with preference given to current data over projections. Particular reference to the EIA studies at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. Oil price piece from https://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/crudeoil/spot_prices.php

  No.1405

If anyone really gave a crap about free energy we'd be using ocean thermal and the Dymaxion world power grid.

  No.1430

>>1335
I find it ironic that you write

>I am in a quite cold climate, therefore, if the entire Africa were to be scorched by the Sun and become uninhabitable, my situation would probably still be OK.


But then later write (in >>1344, which I assume is also you)

>Many western nations will become minorities in their own countries [...]


Where do you think the millions of people in Africa (to not mention people of the Middle East, and Pacific Islanders), whose place of residence becomes threatened due to climate change, will go?

The world is already over-inhabited in some sense, and perpetuating a way of living that actively hurts the environment (and thus leads to less inhabitable land) will certainly not help the situation. And you or your decadents will most certainly be affected, regardless of where you live.

See for example http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/

Apologies if I happened to compare two comments by two different people.

  No.1432

>>1363
Hopefully because she was accidentally buried alive.

  No.1439

>>1294
i think it's overplayed. weren't we supposed to be extinct by now, going by their original estimates? co2 levels have been a lot higher in the past than they are now, and there was still life on earth. i'm not afraid

  No.1440

>>1439
Who's "original estimates"?