Philosophy Now Forum

If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.

The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:33 am Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

Solve what? Climate is always going to change. Some people worry about the way they believe the climate is changing now and they see it as a problem. Others who even agree with those same predicted changes are eagerly looking forward to them. Why should one group be able to force their preferences on others.

No one can predict the future. The fact is no one knows what the climate is going to do. Any measures taken to fix a problem that may or may not ever happen is absurd.

The problem is the, "we," in your question. Who is, "we?"

You are absolutely right, by the way, about unlimited resources and, "Malthusian pessimism." The latter is motivated entirely by social/political interests, not any interest in solving any problems.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:33 am Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmSolve what?

Climate change, resulting from carbon, and other greenhouse gas emissions, in turn, caused by fossil fuel use.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmClimate is always going to change.

That's a truism - meaning it's true, but of no consequence. It's like me saying, you were always going to die - so it doesn't matter that I killed you! It doesn't have the implication you seem to think it does.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmSome people worry about the way they believe the climate is changing now and they see it as a problem. Others who even agree with those same predicted changes are eagerly looking forward to them. Why should one group be able to force their preferences on others.

There's a very large consensus of scientists who are not just worried, but alarmed at the threat climate change poses to civilisation. Already we see forest fires and floods; extreme weather that causes droughts and famines, glaciers melting and so on and on - and the reason concern about these things trumps lack of concern, is - in part, the large consensus of scientific opinion, and secondly the danger to human life and well being.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmNo one can predict the future. The fact is no one knows what the climate is going to do. Any measures taken to fix a problem that may or may not ever happen is absurd.

Everyone can predict the future. The difficult part is to do so accurately. To accurately predict the future, you have to understand the causes of effects. The physical causes of climate change are fairly simple. The thicker the atmosphere, the more heat it holds. The principle was first used to explain the surprisingly high surface temperature of Venus. So, are you saying the thick atmosphere of Venus isn't the reason for the unusually high surface temperature? Are you saying that, if we make earth's atmosphere thicker - the temperature won't change?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmThe problem is the, "we," in your question. Who is, "we?"

Humankind.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmYou are absolutely right, by the way, about unlimited resources and, "Malthusian pessimism." The latter is motivated entirely by social/political interests, not any interest in solving any problems.

So, you disagree with everything I say except where I lay into the lefties? I think I understand your reasons for disregarding climate change. You come across as a typical right wing climate change denier. Like I said above, the right have stuck their head in the sand, and hoped climate change would go away. In my opinion, this is a huge mistake - because climate change can be solved without undermining capitalism, and the opportunities that lay beyond are vast. It's just a matter of applying the right technologies.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:00 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:33 am Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmSolve what?

Climate change, resulting from carbon, and other greenhouse gas emissions, in turn, caused by fossil fuel use.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmClimate is always going to change.

That's a truism - meaning it's true, but of no consequence. It's like me saying, you were always going to die - so it doesn't matter that I killed you! It doesn't have the implication you seem to think it does.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmSome people worry about the way they believe the climate is changing now and they see it as a problem. Others who even agree with those same predicted changes are eagerly looking forward to them. Why should one group be able to force their preferences on others.

There's a very large consensus of scientists who are not just worried, but alarmed at the threat climate change poses to civilisation. Already we see forest fires and floods; extreme weather that causes droughts and famines, glaciers melting and so on and on - and the reason concern about these things trumps lack of concern, is - in part, the large consensus of scientific opinion, and secondly the danger to human life and well being.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmNo one can predict the future. The fact is no one knows what the climate is going to do. Any measures taken to fix a problem that may or may not ever happen is absurd.

Everyone can predict the future. The difficult part is to do so accurately. To accurately predict the future, you have to understand the causes of effects. The physical causes of climate change are fairly simple. The thicker the atmosphere, the more heat it holds. The principle was first used to explain the surprisingly high surface temperature of Venus. So, are you saying the thick atmosphere of Venus isn't the reason for the unusually high surface temperature? Are you saying that, if we make earth's atmosphere thicker - the temperature won't change?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmThe problem is the, "we," in your question. Who is, "we?"

Humankind.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:04 pmYou are absolutely right, by the way, about unlimited resources and, "Malthusian pessimism." The latter is motivated entirely by social/political interests, not any interest in solving any problems.

So, you disagree with everything I say except where I lay into the lefties? I think I understand your reasons for disregarding climate change. You come across as a typical right wing climate change denier. Like I said above, the right have stuck their head in the sand, and hoped climate change would go away. In my opinion, this is a huge mistake - because climate change can be solved without undermining capitalism, and the opportunities that lay beyond are vast. It's just a matter of applying the right technologies.

I have no use for any political, social, or religious ideology. My views are only for me, and I'm not interested in convincing anyone else. But I'm always interested in ideas, especially those that seem to capture the gullibility of human beings. Global warming is certainly one of those things.

So let's just look at what you said:

There's a very large consensus of scientists who are not just worried, but alarmed at the threat climate change poses to civilization.

Since when is science established by consensus. Most of the real scientific discoveries in history were in defiance of the consensus of their day. Nothing is true just because some number of individuals believe or agree with it, no matter how much supposed "authority," or, "expertise," they are suppose to have.

Already we see forest fires and floods; extreme weather that causes droughts and famines, glaciers melting and so on and on

If you study a little history you will discover that every one of these have been much worse in the past. There have been periods of warming and cooling to extremes you cannot even imagine. There are fewer floods, droughts, and famines today than even 400 years ago.

I'm afraid you've been taken in by one of the three great frauds of the day called pseudo-science which uses the methods of science and its reputation to put over political agendas which are the real danger to human life and civilization.

I certainly don't care if you want to believe these things, but even if you do, your proposed solutions would require changing others, and that cannot be done. If want to make a better world, make your own better, because that is within the province of possibility and you can truly be successful at it.

See my article, "Deceitful Trinity—Religion, Philosophy, and Pseudo-science."

It is not even clear what causes global warming. There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature increasing but there is also a correlation between manmade EMF radiation and increasing temperatures. Which is it? Scientist can test the effect that each "cause" has on a room but they don't.

In addition the rise in temperature could be caused by increased solar activity.

The scientists seem to be sleeping at the wheel (if they can even find the wheel).

the science said the ice caps would be melted by 2000 and New York would be under water and all the polar bears would drown...

-Imp

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:32 pm My views are only for me, and I'm not interested in convincing anyone else.

That super because, this thread is not about you and your beliefs.

It's about solving climate change.

If you don't believe climate change is real, I have no interest in convincing you it is.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:55 pm the science said the ice caps would be melted by 2000 and New York would be under water and all the polar bears would drown...

-Imp

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:53 pm It is not even clear what causes global warming. There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature increasing but there is also a correlation between manmade EMF radiation and increasing temperatures. Which is it? Scientist can test the effect that each "cause" has on a room but they don't.

In addition the rise in temperature could be caused by increased solar activity.

The scientists seem to be sleeping at the wheel (if they can even find the wheel).

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:17 pm
This thread is not about you and your beliefs.

It's about solving climate change.

If you don't believe climate change is real, I have no interest in convincing you it is.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:17 pm That super because, this thread is not about you and your beliefs.

It's about solving climate change.

So only opinions agreeing with your view are allowed?

OK!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:15 am
So only opinions agreeing with your view are allowed?

OK!

There's plenty of room for debate; there's just no point debating whether climate change is real or not. If you are not convinced by the science that's out there, I cannot convince you. I can tell you I'm convinced, and you say you aren't, and I say I am, and we get nowhere. Besides, whether it's true or not is irrelevant, because climate change is beginning to be taken seriously by governments and industry - and how they act on it matters.

IMO - the narrative on climate change has been dominated by left wing thought, and it's wrong. Consequently, the wrong approach is being pursued by governments, and it's an approach that will have seriously detrimental effects on society - or fail to have any impact on climate change. Or both! This is what I wanted to debate; approaches to climate change. Not whether it's real; but - assuming it is real, how best do we address it?

Contrary to the dominant belief, I argue that undermining capitalism is precisely the wrong approach; and sort of expected people to insist we must have less, pay more, tax this and stop that - and/or wipe out half of the population of earth to solve the problem. That's what happens when right minded, red blooded capitalists desert the field - and cede the battle to green commies, who define the narrative to serve their twisted political interests.

I advocate for harnessing the energy of magma - by drilling through hot rock, close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. As far as I can tell it's technologically feasible, and there's a virtually limitless amount of energy - we could use instead of fossil fuels, and to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. Instead, it's stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving cars, pay more, have less. That's not a future I want to bequeath to subsequent generations.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:12 am I advocate for harnessing the energy of magma - by drilling through hot rock, close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. As far as I can tell it's technologically feasible, and there's a virtually limitless amount of energy ...

Sounds very interesting. Quite seriously, you might study what is already being done in the field of geo-thermal energy. I am also quite serious when I suggest pursuing the techhnology yourself. Why not be the one who makes this a practical technology. Don't just advocate it, do the research and make it happen.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:12 am I advocate for harnessing the energy of magma - by drilling through hot rock, close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. As far as I can tell it's technologically feasible, and there's a virtually limitless amount of energy ...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:41 amSounds very interesting. Quite seriously, you might study what is already being done in the field of geo-thermal energy. I am also quite serious when I suggest pursuing the techhnology yourself. Why not be the one who makes this a practical technology. Don't just advocate it, do the research and make it happen.

I'm not entirely ignorant of what's being done in the field of geo-thermal energy, and describe my approach as "magma energy" for good reason. Most 'geothermal' is in fact hydrothermal - which is to say, tapping into underground hot water - that under pressure can reach 2-300'C. I'm talking about temperatures in excess of 700'C - the temperature necessary to produce dry superheated steam. The thermal expansion of super heated steam is tremendously powerful. Uncontained, it causes earthquakes. My plan is to contain the liquid in pipes running through very hot rock, and harness all the energy of that thermal expansion. The roadblock for me is a lack of money. I can't go much further without the money to hire people and equipment. If I had the money, I would do it myself. But I don't mind someone else getting the glory, just so long as it gets done.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:33 am If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.

The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

In one word, 'greed'.

'The love of money' is why 'we' keep doing wrong.

Or, more correctly, 'the love of money' is third, in the list of reasons why 'we' keep doing wrong and do not change for the better.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:24 am
In one word, 'greed'.

'The love of money' is why 'we' keep doing wrong.

Or, more correctly, 'the love of money' is third, in the list of reasons why 'we' keep doing wrong and do not change for the better.

In that case - great, because the economic opportunities in a high energy - prosperous sustainable future are vast beyond imagination. And the opportunity cost of failing to secure the future is effectively infinite. So, if human beings were driven purely by greed, magma energy is where the money is; an effectively free, limitless source of energy - how could any good capitalist pass that up?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:24 am
In one word, 'greed'.

'The love of money' is why 'we' keep doing wrong.

Or, more correctly, 'the love of money' is third, in the list of reasons why 'we' keep doing wrong and do not change for the better.

In that case - great, because the economic opportunities in a high energy - prosperous sustainable future are vast beyond imagination. And the opportunity cost of failing to secure the future is effectively infinite. So, if human beings were driven purely by greed, magma energy is where the money is; an effectively free, limitless source of energy - how could any good capitalist pass that up?

Anywhere where adults can make more money, in the days when this is being written, then they usually will not pass that up.

But, I never mentioned anywhere that human beings are driven purely by greed. And, if anyone thinks or believes they are, then they are very sadly mistaken.

Human beings used to not be greedy at all, and, in the future human beings will relearn how to not be greedy again, and so can be not greedy again. But in the meanwhile adult human beings will keep being greedy, leading to the destruction of their one and only home, and thus leading to their own demise.

Luckily, however, human beings will make a change, for the better, once they learn how to, and, are on their "last legs", as they say.

Any, individual, human being who does not envision death in the near future will just keep doing what they are doing, even if it is to their own detriment. However, any human being who is on their "last legs" and is told that they are about to die, but were also told that there is something they could do, which was very simple and easy to do by the way, that would further their life, then they would want to hear it, and will want to do it. Human beings, collectively, are no different at all.

So, the closer we, collectively, become to our own demise, the more people will want to 'listen', and will want to 'change', for the better, and the more people that will want to do this. So, the more destruction we do to our one and only home, the sooner the True change, for the better, will come.

Also, and what can be clearly seen here is even though I said that 'greed', the love of money, is why human beings have not yet solved the, so called, "climate change", you still INSTANTLY went into 'greedy mode', and responded with it all being about money, and gaining more of it.

This is a prime example of just how much 'the love of money' was embedded into the adult human being.