PeterGibbs
Well-Known Member
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?
I rush to sympathise with your efforts to lay out a cogent argument against the banter of the small and very sad band of those who wish to be heard but have nothing to say. A plea to you and similar souls not to be deflected/deflated !
The world's capacity to accommodate its ever expanding human population seems to have been studiously avoided by just about every branch of intellectual activity for centuries. No doubt because death was all around. The Rev Malthus spoke long ago and many, no doubt believing the issue would self-correct, were happy to see it shuffled off into the long grass.
The rise of the nation state, and competing political and religious systems, resulting in macro and micro wars have dominated thinking and, whilst there is growing popular involvement in the climate change issue, I fear the main thrust of human development, with its emphasis on economic growth, better health/longevity, personal security and material comforts will continue to drive macro development in precisely the same direction. This economic model, with its pressure for higher living standards and the resulting demands and competition for resources, is so ingrained that it appears unstoppable. So you have to ask, what is the endgame?
Climate change was and will be so inevitable, it seems to me, that I wonder at the resistance (?delayed shock) today. Evidence was being collected years ago, and a compelling body or research compiled even in the ‘80’s. And even those who don't want to invest time reading charts and studying data, can relate to the issue intuitively. Did folks think the smogs of the ‘50’s were just local incidents, banned by the passing of the Clean Air Act? Are so many unquestioning as to where all the effluent from coal and oil goes?
My broader concern now is that all the work we are putting in to reduce the use of the carbon based systems in our lives merely makes way for yet further expansion of the human population. So just delaying the crunch. The Oil producers are committed to exploiting their reserves to maintain political stability (!) so will deplete resources as fast as possible. We face the exhaustion of all oil reserves over the next 3 generations. The price mechanism will not change the imperatives, so ingrained is the need. Life will just get tougher for the disadvantaged. Stress levels will rise. The loss of this feedstock will have profound and sad consequences, assuming we have got over the "nuclear itch" and resolved energy resources. If not, the combined loss of oil as a feedstock and energy source will lead to a very stressful 22nd century.
How could it be otherwise? What cogent (forget fanciful) propositions can be mustered to counter these trends? Whilst human behaviour can be adapted with time, human nature, and its insistence on the religious / freedom of conscience right to reproduce and control/dominate neighbouring cultures, will end in chaos. Who in their right mind can quibble with minutiae in Al Gore’s methodology, when the issues he has so valuably pointed up and conclusions he draws are so momentous?
PWG
I rush to sympathise with your efforts to lay out a cogent argument against the banter of the small and very sad band of those who wish to be heard but have nothing to say. A plea to you and similar souls not to be deflected/deflated !
The world's capacity to accommodate its ever expanding human population seems to have been studiously avoided by just about every branch of intellectual activity for centuries. No doubt because death was all around. The Rev Malthus spoke long ago and many, no doubt believing the issue would self-correct, were happy to see it shuffled off into the long grass.
The rise of the nation state, and competing political and religious systems, resulting in macro and micro wars have dominated thinking and, whilst there is growing popular involvement in the climate change issue, I fear the main thrust of human development, with its emphasis on economic growth, better health/longevity, personal security and material comforts will continue to drive macro development in precisely the same direction. This economic model, with its pressure for higher living standards and the resulting demands and competition for resources, is so ingrained that it appears unstoppable. So you have to ask, what is the endgame?
Climate change was and will be so inevitable, it seems to me, that I wonder at the resistance (?delayed shock) today. Evidence was being collected years ago, and a compelling body or research compiled even in the ‘80’s. And even those who don't want to invest time reading charts and studying data, can relate to the issue intuitively. Did folks think the smogs of the ‘50’s were just local incidents, banned by the passing of the Clean Air Act? Are so many unquestioning as to where all the effluent from coal and oil goes?
My broader concern now is that all the work we are putting in to reduce the use of the carbon based systems in our lives merely makes way for yet further expansion of the human population. So just delaying the crunch. The Oil producers are committed to exploiting their reserves to maintain political stability (!) so will deplete resources as fast as possible. We face the exhaustion of all oil reserves over the next 3 generations. The price mechanism will not change the imperatives, so ingrained is the need. Life will just get tougher for the disadvantaged. Stress levels will rise. The loss of this feedstock will have profound and sad consequences, assuming we have got over the "nuclear itch" and resolved energy resources. If not, the combined loss of oil as a feedstock and energy source will lead to a very stressful 22nd century.
How could it be otherwise? What cogent (forget fanciful) propositions can be mustered to counter these trends? Whilst human behaviour can be adapted with time, human nature, and its insistence on the religious / freedom of conscience right to reproduce and control/dominate neighbouring cultures, will end in chaos. Who in their right mind can quibble with minutiae in Al Gore’s methodology, when the issues he has so valuably pointed up and conclusions he draws are so momentous?
PWG
