This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I know this is not your stated belief, but how would climate change lead to the collapse of society in the lifetime of anyone currently living?
Are there any people who believe in climate change so strongly they are willing to move to a rural area?
I know there are many people who say they believe climate change is a serious threat and yet buy expensive oceanfront property.
Agriculture. If we can't grow wheat and maize efficient enough we are fucked.
But this isn’t happening. Every year the caloric surplus generated by humanity is greater. The temperature increasing by 2 degrees in one century won’t change that. In fact higher temperatures and more co2 will likely lead to even greater agricultural production. It certainly hasn’t hurt so far. While some regions will suffer it will be made up for (and then some) by gains in other regions.
Despite this, I think climate change is an important problem. To me, the environment matters for its own sake, independent of humans.
I believe climate change will ultimately be solved in the 21st century by carbon removal technology that will cost less than 0.1% of global GDP per year.
More options
Context Copy link
The world can ride out one or two bad harvests(although some Africans will be fucked), and wheat and corn both grow well enough under hot conditions. Shifting rain patterns might require some fields to relocate but catastrophism is entirely unfounded; climate change’s impact on agriculture will be more from retarded carbon restrictions than from actual climactic conditions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are various potential scenarios for how fast climate change will progress. Some of them involve various tipping points being passed, like AMOC circulation collapse, that could cause rapid changes in climate within 10-40 years. In any case, if it does happen, climate change could cause massive refugee outflows and knock-on political effects that could collapse multiple world governments in short order. Add on to that mega storms and heatwaves battering the less affected regions. Additionally, many people who follow climate change also are concerned about decreased energy return on investment causing at least a partial collapse of industrialized society.
In 1970, the Bhola Cyclone killed at least 300,000 people in Bangladesh. Fortunately, weather-related disasters are getting much less deadly, not more. There's very little reason to think this won't continue.
That said, as global incomes increase, refugee flows will continue to worsen regardless of the weather. Once people escape extreme poverty, they gain the means to emigrate.
This is a concern. In terms of EROI, renewables suck. My guess is that a lot of the solar being installed in California right now is actually negative EROI. Once you max out on solar, more solar just creates an unusable surplus.
But will this cause governments to collapse? I really doubt it. California can afford to be stupid about energy because they are so incredibly rich. It's true that renewables will make us poorer and more miserable. But governments can and do pivot when things get out of hand. In 2022, Germany started mining lignite again rather than shut down their economy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The only total collapse climate change scenario I’m familiar with is the ‘methane bomb’ / clathrate gun hypothesis that a huge amount of trapped methane could be released from the ocean which could rapidly kill off sea life (plankton, kelp etc) and spiral into a huge temperature rise in only a few years. I think that’s considered quite unlikely though, the IPCC officially declared it so.
The more obvious point is that if we really end up facing such a disaster, we'll just geoengineer a solution. The only reason we don't pursue it now is piety, but it's hard to imagine billions of people just letting themselves die because the IPCC says it would be wrong to stop climate change.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link