Can we similar mass-measures to mitigate climate change as we've taken w Covid?

Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
8,973
Location
England
I hesitate to post it, but the grundiad has a thing about the cost of covid that makes for depressing reading.

Part of the problem is that those African countries bought into the globalisation narrative and
concentrated on providing products for export or servicing foreign tourists, rather than looking to
become more self sufficient regarding essentials. This makes them vulnerable to external shocks.

And if they are unwilling to curb population growth of 2.5% a year, well, poverty is inevitable.
 

Senethro

Overlord
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
6,188
Location
The cutest of cephalopods
Part of the problem is that those African countries bought into the globalisation narrative and
concentrated on providing products for export or servicing foreign tourists, rather than looking to
become more self sufficient regarding essentials. This makes them vulnerable to external shocks.

And if they are unwilling to curb population growth of 2.5% a year, well, poverty is inevitable.

The globalization narrative imposed upon them, or else they get Cuba'd.
 

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,283
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
It's not nearly as politically palatable as the covid-19 changes, which are already being framed as 'the elite trying to increase control'. We accepted changes from covid-19 in order to save our parents. AGW concerns are mostly about poor people far away. We already know that people won't voluntarily make changes to mitigate climate concerns, and they seem to be completely unwilling to vote for them as well.

It's very likely not going to be an existential threat to any nations that post here, but it's definitely going to cause a lot of unnecessary poverty AND a strong drag on growth. We're well-within the stage of the crisis where our current level of effort is insufficient.
 

Samson

Deity
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
15,598
Location
Cambridge
It's very likely not going to be an existential threat to any nations that post here
I am not convinced. If much of the tropics become uninhabitable, and the "rich" nations that post here cannot find a way of continuing to exist without letting these billions of people in then there is a good chance they will not continue to exist. They are not looking like they are capable of dealing with the few thousand who are coming now (many displaced by climate change), how are they going to handle 5 orders of magnitude more?
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
8,973
Location
England
You are one of 50 people on a lifeboat designed for 20 people.

There are 200 people swimming in the water who are tiring and will drown.

If you let them on, the lifeboat will sink and every one will drown sooner or later.

If you don't let them in, those in the water will die quite soon.

That is the dilemma with climate change meeting over population or vice-versa.


If the rich states allow tens/hundreds of millions in from uninhabitable places; it will
destroy their societies, and starvation will, in the long time, duly occur in the rich states

If the rich don't allow tens/hundreds of millions in; those refusniks will die in the medium term.

The logic consequences of (a) free movement of people and no borders and (b) no population
control is that people will move from poor parts of the worlds, until the poverty and death rates
are equalised. i.e. everybody is equally poor and premature death is the norm, old age a rarity.
 

Samson

Deity
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
15,598
Location
Cambridge
If the rich states allow tens/hundreds of millions in from uninhabitable places; it will
destroy their societies, and starvation will, in the long time, duly occur in the rich states
The core of the problem is why you think this is.

If you mean purely the capacity for the world to feed the population then that is certainly a, if not the, critical problem we need to solve with climate change. However I do not see it as insurmountable. Just by reverting to a largely plant based diet we could feed somewhere like double the world's population. Exactly how we maintain that in the face of changing precipitation patterns and temperature changes is something we will have to work on, but I have a certain amount of confidence we can do it.

If you mean that that level of immigration will cause such a shock to the society that it will be destroyed then that is what I am talking about. We should be treating the current waves of migration as a training exercise to see how we can absorb diverse populations into our bits of the world in a way that makes us stronger rather than weaker. If we cannot do it now we really will not be able to do it in a few decades when we need to.

The other option, your "don't let them in", means turning the mediterranean into a moat, and eastern Europe and southern USA into a fortress, with people dying on the other side. While that may be possible when there are only thousands on the other side, I do not see it working when there are hundreds of millions or billions. Not working in this case means something like armed invasion, and there are a lot more people in the global south than in the rich corners of the world like Europe and USA. That is when it really gets existential.
 

Zelig

Beep Boop
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
17,259
Location
Canada
Existential can be used like that, but it can mean other things, eg. Iran is considered an existential threat by Israel not because they may wipe out humanity but they may wipe out that particular polity. Climate change could most certainly precipitate WW3, could cause a breakdown of global trade, could in the more general sense cause "The Collapse of Complex Societies". That is threatening the existence of the world as we know it, even if the human race may not go extinct.

That seems like the same usage of “existential” to me. Climate change is an existential threat to Kiribati, not to humanity.

Talking about third-order existential risks isn’t very compelling - the indirect risks of climate change precipitating a civilization-ending WW3 are pretty much just proportional to the amount of change to the world that climate change imparts, not its actual positive or negative impact.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
8,973
Location
England
The core of the problem is why you think this is.

I am just one old person of insignificant influence and power, and I do not see how what I think is a problem.


If you mean purely the capacity for the world to feed the population then that is certainly a, if not the, critical problem we need to solve with climate change.
However I do not see it as insurmountable.

Sadly I lack your optimism.


Just by reverting to a largely plant based diet we could feed somewhere like double the world's population.

The vegans really love this point. Not sure it is true. But even if true, it doesn't help if the worlds population doubles, and the
inhabitable land halves. A quadruple increase would be required. And how do you do that while achieving zero carbon?


Exactly how we maintain that in the face of changing precipitation patterns and temperature changes is something we will have to work on, but I have a certain amount of confidence we can do it.

Optimism. It is possible that advances in genetic engineering (e.g. increasing the efficiency of photo-synthesis) may help, but there may be calamities there to


f you mean that that level of immigration will cause such a shock to the society that it will be destroyed then that is what I am talking about.

Well, yes; that is what I see as existential.


We should be treating the current waves of migration as a training exercise to see how we can absorb diverse populations into our bits of the world in a way that makes us stronger rather than weaker.

I don't see the issue as being the diversity. The UK has already absorbed a great deal of diverse people during my lifetime.
The problem is the sheer numbers to feed and house. Consider the 25 to 35 generation who've often put off having children
because they need two incomes to pay the rent and have no hope of getting a mortgage. Is a host population that has
de facto adopted a 2 child policy going to sacrifice its prospects for those who have shown no such reproductive restraint?


If we cannot do it now we really will not be able to do it in a few decades when we need to.

Precisely. And I do not think that we can do it now.


The other option, your "don't let them in", means turning the mediterranean into a moat, and eastern Europe and southern USA into a fortress, with people dying on the other side. While that may be possible when there are only thousands on the other side, I do not see it working when there are hundreds of millions or billions. Not working in this case means something like armed invasion, and there are a lot more people in the global south than in the rich corners of the world like Europe and USA. That is when it really gets existential.

There are already hundreds of millions in Africa.

You are an internationalist who doesn't believe in much in borders, but others have different views.
I am not sure they will like the philosophy of capitulation and surrender for fear of an armed invasion.
A policy of Mediterranean Moat and Fortress Europe may prove more popular with the masses than with you.
 

Samson

Deity
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
15,598
Location
Cambridge
A policy of Mediterranean Moat and Fortress Europe may prove more popular with the masses than with you.
I cannot argue with any of your points, but I fear this much is very true and may be the downfall of civilisation. I am going to stick to my optimism though, if only because the other option is not good for me.
 

Ferocitus

Deity
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,568
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
I cannot argue with any of your points, but I fear this much is very true and may be the downfall of civilisation. I am going to stick to my optimism though, if only because the other option is not good for me.

If it gets too hot to live on the surface, the Boring Company will be able to quickly provide housing for all of Elon Musk's loyal, devoted Mole People.
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,943
Even here in Canada these people exist in a decently large number. Our vaccination rate is fairly high, but there's a surprisingly large number of people who refuse to get vaccinated. These problems seem a lot higher in certain American states.

Canada is 10% ahead of USA as a whole, and actually worse in vaccination rate than some US states (a significant chunk of US northeast states are > 80% 1st dose). You are about 8% better than Florida, lol.

Draconian measures have a lot of cost for not much apparent marginal benefit, and that will also be true for climate change. Using the COVID approach for climate is like asking us to fail.
 

warpus

In pork I trust
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
53,050
Location
Stamford Bridge
Ontario - At least one dose 80.2%, two doses - 76.4%, three doses - 3.1%

Florida - At least one dose 71.8%, two doses - 61.4%, three doses - no data

It's closer than I thought, but the "two doses" amount is the kicker. That's the most important number here, and in the case of Florida for instance it's quite a bit lower than the province I live in.

The real measure of course is ICU unit overloading and so on.

If mandatory vaccinations are "draconian", then our positions are so far removed from each other that it's not even worth having a conversation about this. Mandatory vaccinations have been a thing for a long time, for a good reason
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,943
It's closer than I thought, but the "two doses" amount is the kicker. That's the most important number here

Not really, no.

While both doses are important, first dose is likely more impactful than 2nd. More importantly, if the talking point is "these people are crazy because they refuse vaccination" like you were saying, it does not make sense to include people who willingly started the vaccine process as "antivax morons", as you described it.

The real measure of course is ICU unit overloading and so on.

This number is useful, but it's not a good proxy for vaccines. Age of population, relative health, and other factors (including baseline capacity + organizational ability to scale it up) will influence to what extent ICUs overload. You could have half the vaccination rate and still overload ICUs less, if the capacity is different enough.

When you stratify by age, state performance looks different too.

If mandatory vaccinations are "draconian", then our positions are so far removed from each other that it's not even worth having a conversation about this.

If you don't have discussion, what do you have?

The problem is that even right this instant, vaccine mandate requirements outstrip the availability of non-emergency vaccines by a wide margin. We're seeing lawsuits even in the US military, which allegedly has baited/switched FDA approved vaccines with non-approved (including tampering with labels). I don't know if those hold water, but it remains a fact that more places are mandating vaccines than supply of non-experimental vaccines can keep up.

Noting that, you cannot cite this

Mandatory vaccinations have been a thing for a long time, for a good reason

as a legitimate refutation of challenges to the COVID mandates specifically. They are new drugs with some known and still some unknown risks. There are assertions about how dangerous they could possibly be, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know for certain. Instead we just have a pretty good idea. Same goes for COVID's short/long term risks. For many people, it is reasonable to look at the risks and conclude being better off with the risks of the vaccine + probably a milder version of the disease than the risks of the disease w/o the vaccine. Reasonable, as in they can make that choice themselves.

Remove the legal immunity wrt these vaccines and give some long-term data and THEN we can talk about how these "have been a thing for a long time".

~~~

This actually has some overlap with the arguments surrounding "green energy". Including the reality of how "green" or not some of the renewable sources are at present levels of technology. If solar + energy storage worked as well as it does in Rimworld or something, nobody should be using anything else unless they're in the poles. But that's not how the tradeoffs go, in reality. In fact for the time being, the arguments in favor of "green energy" are weaker than experimental vaccines :/.

It's also not obvious that forcing economic damage from draconian "environmental" regulations will net long-term environmental benefit. Especially with non-compliance in extremely significant parts of the world and how this could influence innovations that make lower emissions more realistic.

Also shouldn't be ignored completely, either. Just like lockdowns were a bad idea wrt COVID, that doesn't mean all measures were a bad idea. Same for environmental stuff. If we do nothing about it, then even if the most pessimistic predictions are wrong, we can still expect to pay a heavy toll in economic damage from global warming. The best policy would be something between over and under regulation, but good luck finding solid data or getting anybody to agree with exactly where we need to be to avoid both.
 

warpus

In pork I trust
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
53,050
Location
Stamford Bridge
If you don't have discussion, what do you have?

I mean, I tried. In the end it's pointless going back and forth with somebody who is at the very other edge of the argument and potentially did not reason themselves to that location either.
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,943
I mean, I tried.

Maybe in the sense that children who hate broccoli "try" to eat it, perhaps.

and potentially did not reason themselves to that location either.

Well, one of us has given reasons so far. It's also decoupled from reality to say anybody here is "at the very other edge", considering the conversation up to now. Do you think nobody is opposed to the vaccine entirely or something? If you don't believe that, how is anything in this thread "at the other edge"?
 
Top Bottom