
Sissyl |

Indeed, we do determine what happens. Glad to see you've stopped writing off anthropogenic global warming. :)
Sadly, what it seems we've determined is a catastrophic change to the global climate.
If you had read what I wrote back in the day, you would know my position. It hasn't changed. The green movement f~$*ed up its data checking and communications. Politics ruined things for them. We absolutely need expanded nuclear to deal with the problem, and the greens fight that. And above all, to even have a shadow of a chance, we need to keep society democratic. Again, the greens fight that, what with their "pause from democracy", their silencing of opposing viewpoints, and so on.
Cheers.

![]() |

And above all, to even have a shadow of a chance, we need to keep society democratic.
Ok, I'm curious. Why?
In the abstract, what is it that makes you think a democratic society is automatically more effective in making the fairly massive social changes that are likely part of any quick solution (whether these social changes are just changes in the way we allocate research money and industrial priorities or more fundamental changes in the way that we live, social change pretty much HAS to be part of the solution)?
In the abstract I can certainly see the merits of some kind of "benevolent dictatorship" or, at the very least, something approximating a democracy at war, a democracy with huge emergency powers (analagous to what happened in WW2. The Manhattan Project would likely NOT have been possible in a "normal" democracy)

Orthos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Because a democratic society at least has a chance (not a guarantee, but at least a chance) of not having a tyrannical authoritarian regime that provokes revolts and conflicts from below - thus taking time, money, effort, and attention away from the bigger problem because people are tired, angry, and frustrated with the oppression and overbearing nature of their rulers - and also has a chance of having a system of checks and balances that will keep those rulers on high from deciding that they have better uses for the power they wield that buy more into their own short-term personal interests than those of society and the world at large.
It's far from a perfect system and - as we can clearly see today - is not without its flaws and pitfalls, but it's certainly better than many if not most of the alternatives.

thejeff |
Because a democratic society at least has a chance (not a guarantee, but at least a chance) of not having a tyrannical authoritarian regime that provokes revolts and conflicts from below - thus taking time, money, effort, and attention away from the bigger problem because people are tired, angry, and frustrated with the oppression and overbearing nature of their rulers - and also has a chance of having a system of checks and balances that will keep those rulers on high from deciding that they have better uses for the power they wield that buy more into their own short-term personal interests than those of society and the world at large.
It's far from a perfect system and - as we can clearly see today - is not without its flaws and pitfalls, but it's certainly better than many if not most of the alternatives.
It's certainly better in general, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it's necessarily more effective than an authoritarian regime at reacting to a crisis. History provides plenty of example of authoritarian regimes mobilizing their entire resources very effectively. Nazi Germany building a war machine. Soviet Russia turning from a backwater to a world power.
Of course, keeping them on the right track is a challenge, but then so apparently is doing so in a democracy.It's also worth pointing out that Sissyl phrased it as "keep society democratic", but much of the world is not democratic and climate change is not a problem that can be addressed by the "Free World" alone. China being the most obvious case. So when I say I don't think democracy is strictly necessary to deal with climate change, I'm not saying I'd be fine with a dictatorship in the US or in European democracies, I'm saying we don't have to conquer China and impose a democracy on it first.
Which is good, because that would be impossible. (Mind you, I'm all for encouraging Democracy in China, but that's for its own sake, not to stop global warming.
All that's theoretical though. There's no plan for such. No one's working towards some kind of authoritarian Green regime. It's a perennial theme in some circles, but it's hard to tell what it's even based on. Often it just seems to be the modern version of anti-UN "New World Order" b&+!#@$#.

thejeff |
So in any case I say we get Dwayne Johnson, Betty White, David Tennant and Haley Atwell in a movie about the end of the world and how they might save us all.
Maybe build a portal to Earth-616?
More likely we just get erased and restored as part of some Marvel Multiverse cataclysm.
I blame Franklin Richards for our current troubles.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

So in any case I say we get Dwayne Johnson, Betty White, David Tennant and Haley Atwell
And Bridget Regan!
in a movie about the end of the world and how they might save us all.
Betty leads an A-Team like posse from heroes from different time periods, who have been brought by time rift to the end of humanity to save them with cookies, whupass, and ultimate cosmic shenanigans.
Maybe build a portal to Earth-616?
I love the Marvel universe, but quite frankly, I don't see if it will be better for us by going to a world where there are creatures capable of devouring whole planets, etc. etc.

Irontruth |

Orville Redenbacher wrote:As long as it takes 40 years im good.There's a reasonable chance things are going to get bad before then. I thought I'd have a decent chance of not getting hit by the worst of it, but I'm less optimistic than I used to be.
Even if the worst of it doesn't hit where I live, all the people from Florida are going to be migrating to new homes. Some of them will come here.

Smagnavast the Black |

It's time for all of us to accept the fact that we're not going to survive the mass extinction that's already underway. Humans will not survive another century.
Unless a billionaire has a plan to live underground for millennia, and conveniently decommissioned all nuclear plants and stored the waste safely, humans are already extinct.
Yes, we did it to ourselves.
I'm sorry, too.
I've been screaming about this since the 80's. No one gave a f$$! then, and no one does, now.
We're going extinct. We need to deal with that fact.
The advantage of living in a classic fantasy setting of course is that if anyone develops some kind of sentient object, it's just another weird curiosity, and not something which anyone's (usually) in any hurry to hook up to world-spanning systems it can switch off or work other mischief with to bring down civilizations once it draws unfortunate conclusions regarding its creators.
And even if that does somehow happen, a bunch of men and women with swords will be along to hit it and make the problem go away in about five minutes.
The disadvantage of living in a classic fantasy setting is talking cabbages of course. Please do not speak to me about those. They're worse than the singing cockroaches.

Cabbage Guy |

A highly regarded expert wrote:It's time for all of us to accept the fact that we're not going to survive the mass extinction that's already underway. Humans will not survive another century.
Unless a billionaire has a plan to live underground for millennia, and conveniently decommissioned all nuclear plants and stored the waste safely, humans are already extinct.
Yes, we did it to ourselves.
I'm sorry, too.
I've been screaming about this since the 80's. No one gave a f$$! then, and no one does, now.
We're going extinct. We need to deal with that fact.
The advantage of living in a classic fantasy setting of course is that if anyone develops some kind of sentient object, it's just another weird curiosity, and not something which anyone's (usually) in any hurry to hook up to world-spanning systems it can switch off or work other mischief with to bring down civilizations once it draws unfortunate conclusions regarding its creators.
And even if that does somehow happen, a bunch of men and women with swords will be along to hit it and make the problem go away in about five minutes.
The disadvantage of living in a classic fantasy setting is talking cabbages of course. Please do not speak to me about those. They're worse than the singing cockroaches.
MY CABBAGES!!

Goth Guru |

I've come to the realization that the reason I cannot astral project into the future to get the winning numbers is because I get stuck at my death. I have climbed up a mountain to escape the flood waters. I watch the stars go out as volcanic smoke spreads through the sky. Then the sparks and volcanic glass rain down on me ending my awful life.
The rich and powerful who fled into bomb shelters will not survive the hundreds of years long ice age. They will reincarnate as naked mole rats and will resume the long climb of evolution. I on the other hand will never return to this horrible mess called reality. If Equestria does not exist in some other dimension, I will help create it. At least I and other few good people have something to look forward to.
This is my final offer. If God tries to make me come back here, I'm heading off into the outer darkness and going till my soul disintegrates or something.