I meant to write this earlier, but I thought the above exchange was some of the greatest comedy on this forum. The optimist of ignorance, Kim O'Hara, "how dare you not believe that the scientists and engineers cannot solve climate change," and the denier par excellence, alex123, "there is no human induced climate change, it is a hoax, the paid representatives of the industries responsible told me so!"
There is a sci-fi writer, Daniel Quinn, who wrote an interesting scenario about an ape that can talk and communicates to humans. That ape who unfortunately as all good things, doesn't exist, says there are givers and takers, and that humans in our culture are takers because they only take, take, take and don't put back into the earth to replace what they have been given. Even if I form an "environmentally responsible" lumber company and replant a sapling for every tree felled it is still taking. A forest is an evolved eco-system that takes thousands of years to develop depending on complex interactions between simple flora, trees, insects, mammals, watersheds, etc. Humans cannot create forests, but we can re-plant a monoculture of factory like saplings for whatever we damage we do to the carefully evolved forests.I have never met anyone in my whole entire life who actually gave anything to the earth. And probably as always are lots of dishonest people posting here, but the honest ones know that all the people they ever met are thus "death dealers"(as another sci-fi depiction of reality called imaginary monsters because in the cinema they cannot sell honest portrayals of humans as monsters doing what they do best liquidating everything till it becomes money). People think giving is giving birth to more consumers, so they too can live pseudo life in front of screens and prod them to "do well in school," so they can "compete for equality"(Ivan Illich): READ: earn more more money upon graduation so they can consume and kill more. Infact the distinction parents and children is no longer very useful, there are just guardians of future consumers(parents) and consumers in training(who instead of working to become full consumers, go to the intermediary of school and beg their parents in order to consume). So you cannot expect future generations to be better, they will only be worse until the hydra consumes itself.
The problem is not technical, and can never be solved by scientists it is cultural, civilizational and spiritual. For so many decades we have heard warnings about environmental destruction and climate change. We could have devolved our disgusting complex civilization of death. We could have transitioned back to the bicycle, maybe even animal transport(though as a vegan I am opposed to this) and the foot as the dominate modes of transport. Instead I just rode my bicycle for about 30 miles and I saw only two other cyclists! But when I was at a parking lot of a commercial gym it was full of people who drove there, mostly to use stupid cardio machines because they are too fat, want to tone, want to get shape! Duh, of course if you rely on machines that unlock the stored potential of gas and consume a disgusting amount of high calories and wasteful animal foods, of course you will have society full of people who resemble beached whales and always join the gym(for a few months until they quit)! But under our societal values and social system this "waste" makes the most sense, why run or walk outdoors, or why bicycle outside to get places? Wasting as much resources as possible, exchanges the most amount of money, so it must be good. We could have built passively heated and cooled buildings that use thermal mass and not air conditioning or heating like earthships and straw bale houses. We could have adopted as a society a whole foods vegan diet, centered mostly on starches and grains, the cheapest, least energy intensive to cultivate and least polluting foods. But what expends less resources and creates less monetary exchange is the least desirable as far as our human created rules are concerned.
The more of the world everyone around you consumes and mounts on their walls, their shelves, put in their garage the happier they pretend they are. "I have a fleet of expensive cars, hopefully people will like or envy me now." The more wasted materials and entropy they create, the better they will convince themselves they are as people. I just watched an interesting documentary called Affluenza(1997) and they said consumption was once defined as being similar to destruction and that it was a synonym for tuberculosis. But now the opposite is so firmly established you can never convince all the rabid consumer-destroyers anything else, it will take a veritable nuclear holocaust or a mass die-off thanks to human created climate change to hopefully create stasis on the earth thousands or perhaps a million years later after our cursed species is tamed by our own stupidity and suicidal implosion. I see my co-workers everyday walking to their cars just to drive a few hundred feet around the yard because they are too lazy or apathetic to use their feet. There is no hope on a grassroots or leadership level. Either our culture will destroy the ability to sustain life on earth or we will destroy ourselves from our voracious death wish. Personally, I hope I live to see the day the supermarkets around me one day have no food shipments, maybe from a Hurricane that makes Hurricane Sandy look mild, and thus the society of disgusting of invalids have their life support cut off suddenly. Even if such an event would mean my death, at least I would get to really live for a few moments enjoying all the entropy coming to a boil.
All I know is that people in advanced economies don't want to really live. So that is why our culture despite so many warnings has done nothing. Like I said, no scientists could or will ever save us, we just had to consume less, and we already choose to cause a planetary crisis instead. Infact scientists are mostly autistic like imbeciles. They only concern with themselves with ancillary technical issues and cannot ask questions dealing with ontology, or question the parameters of their profession or their societal role. Really in the first place people only become research scientists because of the prestige and comparatively higher pay, that is to consume more! We needed the people who want and do the opposite, but they have no social power!
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.