Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[TimG]

Ok. So cultures can change. What makes them change ? Are there other factors that we should be looking at, such as wealth, geopolitical factors, historical factors ? I think we know the answer.

What changes is the people themselves become willing to accept change. No outside factors can speed up that process.

[wyly]

But their culture left them prone to bankrupt ideologies ? And then their culture got better ?

it's getting off topic but China's culture hasn't changed at all, a short period of experimental economics is not cultural...is each time we switch governing ruling party along with a different economic approach to be considered a cultural change?

[TimG]

The human race won't disappear, but our descendants as they try to crawl out of the climactic and technological hole we dug out of greed, selfishness and laziness will gaze in wonder at us. We need to change, and we need to do it now, and we can't rely on the fool's hope that someone in the next fifty or a hundred years will magically make cold fusion work or whatever.

Instead you want to rely on the fools hope that government funding will magically make wind, solar and EVs viable? If things are as bad you say we are screwed no matter what. If you want to hedge our bets we should forget about CO2, worry about oil and use coal to electrify out transport sector. What is wrong with that strategy?

[ToadBrother]

What changes is the people themselves become willing to accept change. No outside factors can speed up that process.

If history is a guide, people don't accept change, it is usually thrust upon them.

[Michael Hardner]

What changes is the people themselves become willing to accept change. No outside factors can speed up that process.

And what causes that "culture change" if not an outside factor ?

Let's be clear here, though: it seems to me you're saying that a culture is the sole (or primary ?) factor in the prosperity of their people ?

Comparative history is a tricky game, and I just want to get your claim straight.

[TimG]

it's getting off topic but China's culture hasn't changed at all, a short period of experimental economics is not cultural...is each time we switch governing ruling party along with a different economic approach to be considered a cultural change?

Having the cultural foundation that can support an industrialize society is a prerequisite. After that their needs to be the right economic policies. But the economic policies are also the responsibility of the society. Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Let's be clear here, though: it seems to me you're saying that a culture is the sole (or primary ?) factor in the prosperity of their people?

No. I am taking the extreme view to constrast with your implication that 3rd world poverty was entirely fault of the 1st world. Life is always more complicated and defies simplistic generalizations. However, culture is an extremely important factor that often gets overlooked. Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

The human race won't disappear, but our descendants as they try to crawl out of the climactic and technological hole we dug out of greed, selfishness and laziness will gaze in wonder at us. We need to change, and we need to do it now, and we can't rely on the fool's hope that someone in the next fifty or a hundred years will magically make cold fusion work or whatever.

the human race very nearly disappeared once before about 70,000 years ago caused by a short term ecological collapse, our very existence was on a knife edge...our technology now allows us to overcome a great deal but with any civilization collapse the technological advantage disappears with it, without technology we live in a precarious existence...we may not be so lucky to escape the next ecological collapse...and the next ecological collapse if it is the result of global warming will not be a short term unlike the last event...

[Michael Hardner]

No. I am taking the extreme view to constrast with your implication that 3rd world poverty was entirely fault of the 1st world.

I'll point out for a second time that I didn't state that.

If you'd care to retract it at this point, my appreciation for your debating style would improve measurably. How about it ?

[TimG]

This is the quote:

That is indeed an approach. We discussed it early on in the thread, I think. If AGW starts to cause some of the worst-case scenarios - then we're looking at a 1st-world-caused phenomenon (maybe 2nd world too) impacting the 3rd world. Not that that hasn't happened before (see: history of economics, world military history, history of the world) but could the 1st world BEAR the GUILT ? (Yes, they could.)

You state quite clearly that the 3rd world's inability to adapt to climate change is something the 1st should feel guilty about.

You also ignore the fact that the 3rd world has benefited a lot from industrialization. They would be a lot worse off today if the 1st world had not emitted all that CO2.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

the human race very nearly disappeared once before about 70,000 years ago caused by a short term ecological collapse, our very existence was on a knife edge...our technology now allows us to overcome a great deal but with any civilization collapse the technological advantage disappears with it, without technology we live in a precarious existence...we may not be so lucky to escape the next ecological collapse...and the next ecological collapse if it is the result of global warming will not be a short term unlike the last event...

The population situation was considerably different then. I'd argue that once we had basically migrated to every corner of the world by about 10,000 years ago, it was impossible to wipe us out. I think we'd survive, but our current civilization will not.

[bush_cheney2004]

The "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die" plan. I guess if you don't give a damn about your descendants, why not?

Tomorrow we will die, and the mortality will be from far more preventable and natural events that we already accept compared to this absurd crusade against global warming climate change.

[dre]

This is the quote:

You state quite clearly that the 3rd world's inability to adapt to climate change is something the 1st should feel guilty about.

You also ignore the fact that the 3rd world has benefited a lot from industrialization. They would be a lot worse off today if the 1st world had not emitted all that CO2.

So Mike said...

That is indeed an approach. We discussed it early on in the thread, I think. If AGW starts to cause some of the worst-case scenarios - then we're looking at a 1st-world-caused phenomenon (maybe 2nd world too) impacting the 3rd world. Not that that hasn't happened before (see: history of economics, world military history, history of the world) but could the 1st world BEAR the GUILT ? (Yes, they could.)

Hes clearly talking the guilt beared by us if our behavior impacted the 3rd world in a negative way.

And you attribute this position to him...

your implication that 3rd world poverty was entirely fault of the 1st world.

Thats horse shit... what gives?

[Michael Hardner]

Hes clearly talking the guilt beared by us if our behavior impacted the 3rd world in a negative way.

Of course there would be guilt. That doesn't mean it's our fault, though. Would you deny we feel guilty about things today that aren't our fault ?

[Michael Hardner]

This is the quote:

You state quite clearly that the 3rd world's inability to adapt to climate change is something the 1st should feel guilty about.

I didn't say we should, I said we would.

[TimG]

I didn't say we should, I said we would.

Point taken. I read more into then was there.

That said. My point is we have absolutely no reason to feel guilty for developing a technology society which has raised the standard or living for all humanity (some more than other albeit). This society also gives us the tools we need to adapt.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Point taken. I read more into then was there.

That said. My point is we have absolutely no reason to feel guilty for developing a technology society which has raised the standard or living for all humanity (some more than other albeit). This society also gives us the tools we need to adapt.

Ok. I can't say your view is not consistent. It is simple, and if I knew history better I might engage you more on this. I'll leave that to others.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course there would be guilt. That doesn't mean it's our fault, though. Would you deny we feel guilty about things today that aren't our fault ?

Why is there such guilt or fault? Just because you choose to internalize this "emotion" (from Tea Party thread)?

I certainly do not embrace such guilt. Guilt is a manmade construct with narrow context....and ironically, it is not found in nature.

[TimG]

I certainly do not embrace such guilt. Guilt is a manmade construct with narrow context....and ironically, it is not found in nature.

Guilt probably has an evolutionary basis because it helps maintain social rules which enhance survival. Unfortunately, it is often used a tool to manipulate people into doing things that are against their self-interest.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is there such guilt or fault? Just because you choose to internalize this "emotion" (from Tea Party thread)?

I certainly do not embrace such guilt. Guilt is a manmade construct with narrow context....and ironically, it is not found in nature.

I don't know why it's there. What's your guess ?

[scribblet]

Well, it seems Mars is warming too, and dang, the Inuit and Greenland are loving it LOL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know why it's there. What's your guess ?

Guilt is a self serving and societal check on behaviour, like remorse. Psychopaths are associated with the absence of guilt, but this is arbitrary at best. As indicated by another member above, it is often used to manipulate others, even when there is no reason to feel "guilty".

In all but the narrowest legal context, guilt is psychological baggage...some are forever crippled.

Edited October 2, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, it seems Mars is warming too, and dang, the Inuit and Greenland are loving it LOL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Yep....I've watched Mars' polar caps grow and shrink to smaller extremes over the past 7 years (since the very close 2003 opposition). Must be all those cars on Mars!

[Michael Hardner]

Yep....I've watched Mars' polar caps grow and shrink to smaller extremes over the past 7 years (since the very close 2003 opposition). Must be all those cars on Mars!

My feeling is that this is just one of those "flyers" that will die soon enough. There would be a lot of work to be done to correlate the temperature changes on Mars to those on Earth.

[Argus]

some shift in arable land will occur but far more will be lost than gained, other than in the far north if there is arable land to be found it's already being used for something now...people make the common mistake looking at a map and think that's all arable, far from it...look at a map of Canada that shows our actual arable land and it amounts to very little relative to the entire country, and most of it is already in use or is being lost to urbanization(southern ontario)....

The question, from a Canadian perspective, is will we have more arable land under a warmed planet or less?