Doug Casy on the Climate Change Hoax Part 2

[7Wannabe5]

People were fearful, both of this particular bear and of what its presence implied. Not even any of the elders could remember ever having heard of a polar bear near town. Several people at the table vowed to shoot it if it came near town. To Charlie, the explanation was obvious. "They're having trouble finding seals, and they've gotta eat. So they're following the caribou now." He left unsaid a far bleaker possibility that I felt sure was on everyone's mind-that this might be the start of a whole shift in the natural order of things. - Bill Heavey among the Gwich'in natives near Arctic Circle

It's easy to engage in armchair debates about climate change when your lifestyle is n degrees abstracted from core survival resources. It won't really effect any of us until Field Corn 2 goes the way of the seals. Modern farmers are businessmen who have to plan ahead and profit at slim margin over debt load.

[Riggerjack]

Submariners typically live and work in environments with > 3000 ppm CO2. Dunno if it is optimally healthy or not, but they don't drop dead on the spot.

Sure. But have you met these guys when they get oxygen again? There is no question in my mind that sub boys are more mentally damaged than the typical navy veteran. But I couldn't say how much of that is co2 related.

[IlliniDave]

Sure. But have you met these guys when they get oxygen again? There is no question in my mind that sub boys are more mentally damaged than the typical navy veteran. But I couldn't say how much of that is co2 related.

Well I did say right in what you quoted that I wasn't making claims about it being optimal or advisable, just survivable (actually C02 on subs gets as high as 10K PPM some follow-up research revealed). While we are making anecdotal amateur psychological/neurological diagnoses of submariners, the few I've known (my university had a program set up for officer candidates similar to ROTC) is that most of them were a bit, er, different, long before getting commissioned and setting foot inside a submarine. There are a lot of psychological factors that go into screening those people, and a lot in that department they have to contend with while at sea. If you think about what some of those subs carry, I'd argue that if there were any evidence that sub environments were substantially impairing crews they'd fix it. Well, at least I'd hope that.

[Riggerjack]

If you think about what some of those subs carry, I'd argue that if there were any evidence that sub environments were substantially impairing crews they'd fix it.

Maybe your experience with the military is far different than mine.

The best I would expect is a higher turnover rate. And maybe a little extra oxygen for officer's quarters. Not enough to stop the damage, (or to be noticed by the crew) but enough to reduce it to acceptable levels in career officers.

Long term survival rates are far less important to the military than short term survival rates. "Long term possible impairment? That's a VA/political problem, go talk to them."

While I do agree that government is useless, and carbon taxes are just an excuse to collect more money, climate change is not a hoax. WTF, why is this still a debate?

Because it was tangentially linked to environmentalism, and from there to policy. Thus it is political. And nothing political needs to be in the least truthful.

It's still political because who it affects, and who must pay, can still be lied about with impunity. By both sides.

When far more of my generation (X) are in the ground, it will be safe to blame us for the problem, and it will be as settled as gay marriage is today. Still some residual hostility, but a definite consensus on one side. Then we can start to look at who's interests can be sacrificed.

Any collective action based plan that starts before 2040 is just ignoring how democracy works. As for international cooperation, I see no reason for this to change at all.

At an individual level, climate has always changed, and not allowing for this is just part of our very human pattern of extrapolating the present as a likely view of the future. It works at the evolutionary level.

Until it doesn't. Even then, somebody will make the cut. Humans are less fragile than rats. But civilization isn't.

[Redo]

Because it was tangentially linked to environmentalism, and from there to policy. Thus it is political. And nothing political needs to be in the least truthful.

It's still political because who it affects, and who must pay, can still be lied about with impunity. By both sides.

When far more of my generation (X) are in the ground, it will be safe to blame us for the problem, and it will be as settled as gay marriage is today. Still some residual hostility, but a definite consensus on one side. Then we can start to look at who's interests can be sacrificed.

Any collective action based plan that starts before 2040 is just ignoring how democracy works. As for international cooperation, I see no reason for this to change at all.

At an individual level, climate has always changed, and not allowing for this is just part of our very human pattern of extrapolating the present as a likely view of the future. It works at the evolutionary level.

Until it doesn't. Even then, somebody will make the cut. Humans are less fragile than rats. But civilization isn't.

You're only looking at it from the political side. Basically the Democrats and Liberals are using climate change for votes, and the Republicans are denying climate change, also for votes. Both sides of politics are useless, so forget politics. Do you think the climate scientists are lying about this?

Also I don't want to blame baby boomers or Gen X or millennial, it's just a waste of time, I want society to stop screwing around and implement solutions.
Why wait till 2040? You're telling me if an asteroid is about to hit Earth and wipe out billions we should wait till 2040 because...democracy?

I agree that climate has always changed, but this is not natural, they've already concluded that it's due to human activity.

You're right, it's probably true that humanity will survive these upcoming extreme conditions, but what kind of life will they have? I mean we're running out of every resource on the planet (even the materials we use to make solar panels). This kind of lifestyle we currently have, it seems unlikely we will ever get to this level again.

[Riggerjack]

You're only looking at it from the political side.

No. I am saying ignore the political side. There are no solutions there.

Also I don't want to blame baby boomers or Gen X or millennial, it's just a waste of time, I want society to stop screwing around and implement solutions.

Lovely. Do you have a plan? If so, I am all ears. Even a historical precedent would do. Simply wanting people to behave differently has a poor track record. Actively forcing people to behave differently has a far, far worse track record, see the whole 20th century for examples.

Why wait till 2040? You're telling me if an asteroid is about to hit Earth and wipe out billions we should wait till 2040 because...democracy?

No. I am saying democracy is very effective at slowly changing to meet new challenges. This is a feature, not a bug. That people don't reason to their opinions, by and large. So reason won't change anyone's mind. People simply espouse the same opinions as their tribe, with few variations. Tribal opinions change at a generational pace. So by making this a political issue, we have ensured no political action until that generational pace has run it's course.

it's probably true that humanity will survive these upcoming extreme conditions, but what kind of life will they have? I mean we're running out of every resource on the planet (even the materials we use to make solar panels). This kind of lifestyle we currently have, it seems unlikely we will ever get to this level again.

I agree. So, given that action seems prudent, and government action in a helpful way seems... Unlikely, what do you propose? For me, it's a clear cut case for individuals to act, individually. This is what I keep bringing up. If you believe we are facing a problem with CC, and understand that a collective solution for 7+billion people is unlikely, what are you doing?

If you don't believe that a collective solution is beyond the capability of our existing systems, why not? I have been looking at this for years, and haven't even heard of an acceptable mass solution, so I am focusing on an individual solution. Best of luck to everyone else.

[Redo]

No. I am saying ignore the political side. There are no solutions there.

Lovely. Do you have a plan? If so, I am all ears. Even a historical precedent would do. Simply wanting people to behave differently has a poor track record. Actively forcing people to behave differently has a far, far worse track record, see the whole 20th century for examples.

No. I am saying democracy is very effective at slowly changing to meet new challenges. This is a feature, not a bug. That people don't reason to their opinions, by and large. So reason won't change anyone's mind. People simply espouse the same opinions as their tribe, with few variations. Tribal opinions change at a generational pace. So by making this a political issue, we have ensured no political action until that generational pace has run it's course.

I agree. So, given that action seems prudent, and government action in a helpful way seems... Unlikely, what do you propose? For me, it's a clear cut case for individuals to act, individually. This is what I keep bringing up. If you believe we are facing a problem with CC, and understand that a collective solution for 7+billion people is unlikely, what are you doing?

If you don't believe that a collective solution is beyond the capability of our existing systems, why not? I have been looking at this for years, and haven't even heard of an acceptable mass solution, so I am focusing on an individual solution. Best of luck to everyone else.

Alright, I misunderstood about politics.

My plans all involve using common sense:
- We need to have the one child policy worldwide, and tax people who have more than one kid. Also give tax breaks to people who don't have kids.
- Reduce over-consumption, again incentivize buying less through tax breaks.
- Get rid of cars and replace them with public transit buses and trains.

But this will never be implemented because it will break the pyramid scheme system of infinite growth we currently have. Also I'm not a billionaire or a politician, I can't change the world, so what does it matter if I have a plan?

You explained democracy, but I still don't agree with your reasoning with waiting till 2040. People in the same generation can have vastly different ideas and policies, this tribe mentality is less relevant due to the internet. You think that in 2040 all of a sudden the younger politicians will be better, I'm not so sure. If what they say about 2030, or 2 degrees above average, being the point of no return, wouldn't the younger politicians be even more corrupt?

What do I propose? You are right, individuals need to act individually. But people won't just decide to act responsibly out of the blue. Obviously no one is going to listen to a nobody, so I think we need an influential public figure that everyone likes, and have him/her educate the world about what we can do to slow down climate change. We need education about overpopulation and over-consumption. We need to experiment with new world systems that aren't based on infinite growth.

I'm doing what the IPCC recommends: no kids, no cars, no planes, and no meat. In the future, when I'm financially independent, I want to get into permaculture farming. What else can I do individually?

[IlliniDave]

Maybe your experience with the military is far different than mine.

The best I would expect is a higher turnover rate. And maybe a little extra oxygen for officer's quarters. Not enough to stop the damage, (or to be noticed by the crew) but enough to reduce it to acceptable levels in career officers.

Long term survival rates are far less important to the military than short term survival rates. "Long term possible impairment? That's a VA/political problem, go talk to them."

Okay, they have a fleet of subs loaded with ICBMs roaming the oceans manned by crews drunk from oxygen deprivation and CO2 poisoning. Sort of makes the climate worries moot.

[Salathor]

My plans all involve using common sense:
- We need to have the one child policy worldwide, and tax people who have more than one kid. Also give tax breaks to people who don't have kids.
- Reduce over-consumption, again incentivize buying less through tax breaks.
- Get rid of cars and replace them with public transit buses and trains.

A world-wide one-child policy would be absolutely devastating, orders of magnitude more punishing to people worldwide than global warming over virtually any timescale. You and Thomas Malthus would probably have a lot to talk about, though.

EDIT: I realize I may not have explained fully. The modern economic system would be shattered by an aging population (see Japan for a voluntary version of this) and the agrarian society that would HAVE to replace it can't function without labor.

[Redo]

A world-wide one-child policy would be absolutely devastating, orders of magnitude more punishing to people worldwide than global warming over virtually any timescale. You and Thomas Malthus would probably have a lot to talk about, though.

EDIT: I realize I may not have explained fully. The modern economic system would be shattered by an aging population (see Japan for a voluntary version of this) and the agrarian society that would HAVE to replace it can't function without labor.

Yes it would be devastating for the economy. Worse than global warming? I don't know about that. But this damage can be absorbed (through cultural shift), for example in India, children are expected to take care of their parents in old age. This is how it should be, you shouldn't rely on government to bail you out financially in old age. And we won't have to worry too much about labor thanks to automation.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I’m having 2 children just to defy Augustus

[prognastat]

Even 2 children worldwide would statistically lead to a shrinking population. You need just over 2 on average for growth.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I’m having 3 children just to defy prognastat

[stand@desk]

A one child policy is not the answer. We have seen this before (aborting the less desired sex in utero for instance). Also, with 5G, population decline may just happen on it's own.

No population = no society. It's like telling a tree it can only grow one limb. Great analogy eh!?

But if there is a war or famine or Pig Flu that comes along, wouldn't it have been nice to have a bit more population to support the entire city, country, civilization? Like what Taleb was talking about with redundancy. It's anti-fragile. One child policy = very fragile way to support a society.

[Riggerjack]

My plans all involve using

Government. In the same way others before you have suggested. Have you seen how that has worked out so far? I won't get into the flaws in your assumptions, though if you want me to, we can go down those roads. They have been covered here before.

You explained democracy

I didn't. I probably should, but there is more than I can sum up in a post. I don't think we should wait, or will. I think it will take until 2040 for demographics to change enough to get a large enough consensus for a government solution. That solution will be as effective as Obamacare was in controlling health care costs. If that's what you are looking for, it should be along about then. Plan your victory party now, the best venues may be at higher elevations...

Also I'm not a billionaire or a politician, I can't change the world, so what does it matter if I have a plan?

If your plan is good enough, when you impliment it, people will choose to emulate you. For instance, Jacob had a better plan, and to some degree, we are all following a similar path. Do you understand the difference from simply trying to dictate the behavior of others? One path gets people motivated, the other gets people killed. Any child could propose changes that everyone should have to conform to, and often they do.

This is not a problem to be solved with the same level of thinking that created the problem.

But people won't just decide to act responsibly out of the blue.

Uh huh. Stop worrying about what other people will and won't do. Be concerned about what you want to do. There is no saving everyone from everything. The best you can hope for is to help people save themselves. And you won't even do that if you are busy herding cats.

In the future, when I'm financially independent, I want to get into permaculture farming. What else can I do individually?

How about starting with more learning, to see what hasn't worked in the past. Then try to save yourself. How well you do that has everything to do with whether anyone would follow your lead.

If people wouldn't follow you willingly, what makes you think you could herd them, or should?

[Redo]

You keep saying I'm trying to dictate the behavior of others, I'm not. I'm not a Hitler freak trying to sterilize everyone. I'm just saying to incentivize people to make better choices through taxes.

Government. In the same way others before you have suggested. Have you seen how that has worked out so far? I won't get into the flaws in your assumptions, though if you want me to, we can go down those roads. They have been covered here before.

You are right there are plenty of flaws.

I didn't. I probably should, but there is more than I can sum up in a post. I don't think we should wait, or will. I think it will take until 2040 for demographics to change enough to get a large enough consensus for a government solution. That solution will be as effective as Obamacare was in controlling health care costs.

I think even in 2040, with this broken system, there is no solution. There are only band aid fixes.

If your plan is good enough, when you impliment it, people will choose to emulate you. For instance, Jacob had a better plan, and to some degree, we are all following a similar path. Do you understand the difference from simply trying to dictate the behavior of others? One path gets people motivated, the other gets people killed. Any child could propose changes that everyone should have to conform to, and often they do.

Sounds good on paper, but in practice I'm not so sure. Also, not to throw shade at Jacob, but I was on this path before I read his book, and I'm sure plenty of people are on this path because it just makes sense. There are places in the world where saving 50% of your income is considered normal.

Uh huh. Stop worrying about what other people will and won't do. Be concerned about what you want to do. There is no saving everyone from everything. The best you can hope for is to help people save themselves. And you won't even do that if you are busy herding cats.

+1, you're right.

How about starting with more learning, to see what hasn't worked in the past. Then try to save yourself. How well you do that has everything to do with whether anyone would follow your lead.

I think it'd be easier to focus on what has worked in the past, there are too many things that haven't worked. But I get your point.

[Redo]

A one child policy is not the answer. We have seen this before (aborting the less desired sex in utero for instance). Also, with 5G, population decline may just happen on it's own.

No population = no society. It's like telling a tree it can only grow one limb. Great analogy eh!?

But if there is a war or famine or Pig Flu that comes along, wouldn't it have been nice to have a bit more population to support the entire city, country, civilization? Like what Taleb was talking about with redundancy. It's anti-fragile. One child policy = very fragile way to support a society.

I mentioned it because of overpopulation. If we had underpopulation and at risk of losing society, then people should be having 3+ children.

[7Wannabe5]

I actually agree with Redo, a worldwide one child policy is the only good plan IMO. Devastating to the economy... by what metric? While asset prices would drop, standard of living would rise sharply. I mean think of all the nice homes that would now be vacant, farms and everything else would have to support half the population.

OTOH, consider Detroit. Nice homes left vacant do not stay nice for very long. The mayor just announced ambitious plans to demolish another 20,000 houses this year. The nice neighborhood where my Grandmother lived in my childhood now looks like the backdrop for a post-apocalypse movie. Similar holds true for rural towns with declining populations. No people, no tax base, no services, loss of what we usually are talking about when we talk about civilization and standard of living.

[Tyler9000]

<Sigh> The rapid devolution of this thread from discussing the optimum CO2 concentration for plants and humans to arguing for the enforcement of a worldwide one child policy is a pretty good reinforcement of my belief that dictatorial political intervention is a far greater long-term risk to human society than climate change. Too much CO2 will make submariners a little loopy, but what's the maximum concentration of smug that they can tolerate without killing each other off?

[Gilberto de Piento]

The United Nations forecasts that our population will grow from seven billion to eleven billion in this century before leveling off after 2100. But an increasing number of demographers around the world believe the UN estimates are far too high. More likely, they say, the planet’s population will peak at around nine billion sometime between 2040 and 2060, and then start to decline, perhaps prompting the UN to designate a symbolic death to mark the occasion. By the end of this century, we could be back to where we are right now, and steadily growing fewer.

Populations are already declining in about two dozen states around the world; by 2050 the number will have climbed to three dozen. Some of the richest places on earth are shedding people every year: Japan, Korea, Spain, Italy, much of Eastern Europe. “We are a dying country,” Italy’s health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, lamented in 2015.

But this isn’t the big news. The big news is that the largest developing nations are also about to grow smaller, as their own fertility rates come down. China will begin losing people in a few years. By the middle of this century, Brazil and Indonesia will follow suit. Even India, soon to become the most populous nation on earth, will see its numbers stabilize in about a generation and then start to decline. Fertility rates remain sky-high in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Middle East. Even here, though, things are changing as young women obtain access to education and birth control. Africa is likely to end its unchecked baby boom much sooner than the
UN’s demographers think.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/21 ... ll-bricker

A ton of great charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth