The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It proves the point that we need to respond to our climate crisis.

So where in the ipcc report did they prove that we have to respond to the climate crisis now?
I have been reading this latest report and the only way anyone is going to draw that conclusion is if they control F search for the most sensational parts of the report, take those out of context, blow them way out of proportion and ignore all the other content.

[freebeard]

I always find it funny when the greatest minds like Stephen Hawkin say we must colonize space to survive. Maybe he is talking about some other event than climate change but...

Why is it funny? He might have been talking events in the collective consciousness of the species, or it's extroversion into 'cyber'-space.

[redpoint5]

My wife is practically minded, so she rightly points out when things aren't practical, like going to space.

Of course, sustaining human life outside of Earth is completely impractical... until it isn't.

That said, we aren't even extensively utilizing living on the oceans, or in them, or in the ground. We're just scratching the surface at the moment.

One thing Scott Adams brought up is that we could build spaces that were inviting regardless of where they are located. If we had walls that were "screens", our view could be whatever we wanted, even if living underground. Cities underground sounds pretty good considering it's protected from environmental conditions, and maintains a constant temperature.

[freebeard]

My wife is practically minded, so she rightly points out when things aren't practical, like going to space.
...
That said, we aren't even extensively utilizing living on the oceans, or in them, or in the ground. We're just scratching the surface at the moment.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things (accomplishments and aspirations), not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." — JFK

No steampunk floating cities?

[All Darc]

What about old TV (90's) documentaries about the marvelous of medicine in the close future, showing cure of diabetes, regeneration of difficult tissues, cure for baldness, safe effective apetite blockers to effectively avoid obesity, scarless healing?

Here we are in 2019 and medicine only offers garbage.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I saw an old TV show made in 1999, that particular episode was about the future 10 years later in 2009. So in 2009 almost all the cars were electric. I thought that was funny as there was only 1 mostly electric car for sale by 2009.
They say hindsight is 2020, I say hindsight is a bich.

[redpoint5]

When I talk about riding the 4-wheeler fast because I enjoy having fun, my wife responds "I like having fun too; I just have a different threshold for fun". It sums up the difference between our personalities. She would rather do something well within her capabilities, even if it's a repeated task, and have people compliment her competency. I'd rather do something at the limit of my ability, and not repeat mundane things much.

I end up spending time upgrading things around the house, while she ends up doing a little more of the daily household tasks. I'm constantly striving to improve the way common tasks are executed, while she's just executing the tasks.

Going to the moon was the way to win against the USSR though. Perhaps we need to feel there is an existential opponent to compete with to get us to "do the other things".

I understand that those who view climate change as an existential threat would react similarly to when we viewed the USSR as an imminent existential threat, so I also understand the vitriol hurled at people who question the magnitude of the threat. I expect a similar reaction to "what's so bad about communism and gulags".

[All Darc]

Human nature it's a warlord. Only really effor in a goal to make sh...t.
Dispute, defeat... that's human f...cking nature.
NASA born as result of cold war. Cold War run away and NASA today it's almost a beggar.

Human try to defeat other nations, and the planet it's a living room with two kids in a fight, and as the animals they are, they forgot to avoid damage the room.

The nations that don't give a damn to ecology have less expanses in industry and international relation for economics. That's the key point. The lack of conscience and the fact they put greed and evil above the future of mankind.

Inernation deals for ecologic purposes and boycout to nation that don't follow it, would be a way, but when giants like USA refuse to sign... we have a problem.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Going to the moon was the way to win against the USSR though. Perhaps we need to feel there is an existential opponent to compete with to get us to "do the other things".

I understand that those who view climate change as an existential threat would react similarly to when we viewed the USSR as an imminent existential threat, so I also understand the vitriol hurled at people who question the magnitude of the threat. I expect a similar reaction to "what's so bad about communism and gulags".

[redpoint5]

All Darc- try setting aside the half-empty glass and take a sip from the half-full one sometime.

Humanity's nature is sufficient to move forward in time, so it's not entirely corrupt.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Population is not an issue IF we live WITHOUT waste. All these things are driven by the WAY WE THINK about how we live - if we straighten that out, it doesn't matter how many people there are.

I guess if we could get to a place where we lived with the ultimate efficiency of an ant colony or Borg hive we would be able to feed and shelter 20 billion humans for a few thousand years. At the expense of most other life forms.

[All Darc]

Population it's a problem. Waste increases the harm a given population number can do, but population it's always a issue.
Just the task to feed many bilions of people, this task alone, it's already a issue.