You are absolutely correct about the giant boot size ecological footprint we create with every child we have. You have to be careful saying that though, you will be called a malthusian. And something about how many people you can fit into Australia or something. Most people don't have any idea what a ecological footprint is. It's ridiculous of course. Population size is going to have an impact on an ecosystem. How can anyone say any different. I realize we must tread carefully here as the so called eco fascists love the malthusian concept. It gives them an excuse for genocide. We should voluntarily have fewer children. That's how it has to be. Educating people is the way. That's my opinion
Unfortunately you are correct, but the truth is wicked. This Writer is speaking to Western mindsets about problems of population?! He said stop having kids to stop the carbon footprint! Ironically when Western countries are in birthrate decline. In his answer, he misses the culprit. Stop feeding billions of starving people in countries that don’t have the intelligence to stop reproducing. For every starving Person we feed and take care of, they have 5 more starving babies. We now have BILLIONS of more starving people. Our kindness has cost us the future and made the problem so much worse. Stop open borders and immigration from low iq groups of people who reproduce like rabbits. Stop importing fundamentalists groups of religious people from these countries. Stop doing manufacturing business in China where they pollute environments and destroy the oceans. Stop with the humanitarian aid, for the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Let nature take her course and let those humans adapt or die. For nature abhors decadence and weakness. Education cannot compete with millions of years of animal Brain programming. People will reproduce and act like parasites no matter how much schooling you enforce. And that’s the truth. Life is not a humanitarian dream, but a gauntlet of obstacles, struggle and competition. When push comes to shove, people behave like cannibals.
@@fun-with-purpose1436 education should never be enforced. In fact, enforcement is not on the table in my opinion. And closing borders within a bio sphere is just as stupid as drawing them in the first place. Eco systems don't recognize our national borders, Andrew neither do I. And the idea that our kindness is destroying the future is absurd. "capitolism" is what is destroying the biosphere. The short sighed greed that drives our leaders of industry is destroying the future. And the west and Americans especially have the largest footprint by far. We just export the worst parts of the process to the third world so our life iq consumers can pretend it doesn't exist. And they encourage those same poor fools to blame our problems on immigrants, or anybody but those most responsible, the leaders of industry.
Based on Watt's interview here (ua-cam.com/video/g1_YZZ9V3WU/v-deo.html), I'd guess he was about to talk about the clinically depressed. In that interview he also talks about how Parkinson's reduces religiosity, and conjectures that in the near future DIY CRISPR kits could give people the ability to change all this neurology in order to engineer more rationally-ethical people. (With a high likelihood of unforeseen consequences , of course.)
Have the hopeful authors never read Candide? Tend to your garden; write *interesting* stories lol. Just got done with blindsight, my first watts - holy shit.
I've been working on carbon emissions my whole adult life via transport and housing efficiency but I'm still stuck on the meat issue. Most of the emissions from cows etc represent net zero. Atmospheric carbon absorbed by grass digested by cows and farted back out is an emission but not a net emission. The other kinds of emissions associated with meat products are also associated with every other kind of food product. Taking that into account, have we truly established that there is a major difference?
The film "The Day After" is pretty bleak, dystopian science fiction and after Reagan watched it, it was screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were said to be greatly affected. Its influence was credited by Reagan himself with changing Reagan's hawk-like attitude toward nuclear proliferation. Seems that would be a more significant example than the Star Wars missile system.
Wouldn't you class that as dystopian fiction? Science fiction is normally an extrapolation of and expansion upon known sciences. The film was simply a scenario based on science fact, not science fiction.
Sankhyo Halder has an insanely optimistic slant in these comments a little down. While his projections are ridiculous, he does address many existential predicaments and offers "can't miss" solutions. So worth it to see his take on this existential issue on down in this comment section. A response: I'm all for mitigation for time. But: Pretty apparent the situation. My study of electric car implemention (stupid: wasteful etcetera) alone shreds foolish nonsense about replacing the combustion type at scale. For fun, Google "bunker fuel" as related to ships and the obstacles inherit in trying to legislate it out now with no logical way with existing capital and infustructure. Each day ships spew more GHGs than every vehicle in the American hemisphere. BTW, a growing splinter of professionals are now advising against purchase of EV... Or any vehicle. Maintain and fix the vehicle one has now if possible. Make sure all the emission equipment is functioning. Keep it lubed and aligned. Tires correct pressure for season and good condition. Millions of tons of tire debris are shred on roads a year and spread into the environment, so replace dried out older tires. Note: they are making plenty of tires and warehouses currently full, so not helping by not buying. Use best analysis on everything. Take care of everything you can maintain without losing its functionality. Stop buying crap. But really, it is a predicament rolling like a frieght train speeding up as it bares down on people. There is one thing though. Pretty good news actually. I'm elderly, very ill, so I won't be around 😐.
what's the point of minimizing pollutants from the engine's exhaust when the tires produce three orders of magnitude more pollutants? overall there is little difference between a car, a passenger car, that runs on unicorn farts and one that runs on standard pump gas. Both use the same tires.
I grew up in the Fifties when Science promised us a bright and wonderful future -- here we are in 2022: war in Ukraine with the threat of an expanding nuclear war; North Korea firiing rockets over Japan; riots in Iran; China on the march; global energy crisis; standard of living dropping; crime rampant. Yes, science has advanced, but humans are still humans. Nothing has changed. I'm for dystopians all the way.
It is obvious that study cited 36:21 obviously does not take into account any sort of pressures towards people abandoning fundamentalists beliefs. Which do exist. Which is why not all kinds of fundamentalism prosper, which is observable when you "go outside and take a look".
between two groups of people one playing by the rules and one violating them the latter group will dominate. It's like arguing with a toddler. Your precious reasoning holds no power over it. It will barf on you and then laugh its ass off. You must use either trickery or physical force. reasoning is usable as a method of reaching an agreement, an understanding even, only if both parties willingly and openly accept _reasoning as a method of reaching an agreement_
Mathematically they did not show how community grows tired/ can grow tired of the behavior presented by fundamentalists. In my country for at least 8 years the right side was ruling, after that time right side of the political spectrum showed everyone what they really are and there was a major movement to vote for another party. 33% is still for the right but the other side took a quite large peace of the political scene. I do not have anything against healthy right ideas but the concrete right do not jive with power :( I am talking of course about European country. I love everything by Peter and his observations while well grounded in scientific works are a good starting point to contrast them with the real life. There is always more to the life than experiments can provide us with. If everything had been so mathematically deterministic, the left would have ceased to exist ;) There is always a question of time scales, impactfulness, roles of specific actors, ideals, changing one's mind by not following logically steps of an argumentation. Predictions extend some trends and we are still not aware of workings of unknown regulatory mechanisms... that can kick in.
Massive attendance. 08:18 Six of them thinking it was a real-estate lecture and three are waiting in the AC for an Uber to take them to the airport after a local tour of a indigenous indian cave.
Did we get him on a bleak day here? Or is this optimism for Peter Watts values of that quality? My money's on the latter. Howl, oh Ginsburg of trans-humanist despair!
Whose gonna go? You? Me? How expensive do you think a ticket for a colony ship will be? Whose gonna spend the R&D money and how much profit are they gonna get? This Musk/Christ figure we imagine, would they kill everyone aboard to save the cost of a systems inspection? Even if humanity branches out from earth, it’ll be to seed a new population, not save the masses (you/me) from the consequences of industrialized capitalism.
If a 2 degree centigrade change in global temperatures is catastrophic and a 5 degree change brings on the apocalypse the chances of finding any planet even close to habitable anywhere we could reach in less than 100,000 years are extremely, vanishingly, slim. The goldilocks band is incredibly narrow.
Peter says that our views and opinions are essentially formed by a desire to fit in with the rest of society. Surely the problem with his argument here (around the 35min mark) is that the people espousing view that climate change is real, man-made and imminently catastrophic are the people holding the accepted mainstream view. Those who hold the opposing view are essentially iconoclasts.
I love Peter Watts, and I agree with him on many, many things. But I feel obligated to point out that Steven Pinker is not a neuroscientist, and also that he is an absolute hack when it comes to anything that could even be considered science adjacent.
Pinker may very well be a complete hack, but at least the argument that brains are not "truth detectors" but survival engines, does find me in agreement. I anticipate people taking it too far and assuming it means the same thing as "your brain will never complete one correct thought", which is of course complete bollocks.
@@GeorgeTsiros Agree. Pinker being presented as an authority on anything kind of sends me into a rage (have to work on that), but blind squirrels and all that.
Communists and fascists said that the bad comes from outside and there is 'them' who can be blamed. Having smth against that should not be mixed with hope policing you talk here. Could you talk about that more? I would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Communists don't want borders, so there is no outside. Communists don't want a state to coerce or oppress anyone, fascists do. Since major communists have been owners and often part of bourgeois, which you can find even today in countries like France, it is odd to say communists have an us vs them when it is simply a matter of justice. To the oppressor, equality feels like injustice. Maybe you are a victim of equality.
Hmm, I love Watts's works, but from being a reader of his blog, the man seems to be be rather pessimistic. As far as I can tell, Climate Change is not a world-ending catastrophe, merely a very inconvenient and disruptive one. The main issues, namely rising temperatures, can be mitigated quite cheaply by geo-engineering, or if all else fails a few solar shades. Water shortages leading to water wars is one of his biggest concerns, and I'm reasonably confident that de-salination tech is finally picking up enough momentum to make that an eventual non-issue. Give lab grown meat a few more years, and we'll have emissions reigned in. Solar and EV vehicles, especially the former, have attained economic parity with fossil fuels, and if the world gets over it's hangup with nuclear, that can solve the base-load problem. Or god forbid, get some working fusion. I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I try to keep myself informed, and anthropogenic climate change seems to be a side-issue to bigger problems like automation induced unemployment, or AI-related risks. TLDR; I'm willing to bet on greater than even odds that global warming/climate change, is not a serious existential threat, as per the metric of at least 1 billion attributable deaths by 2050. That includes natural disasters at a greater than base frequency, refugee crises, water wars, and civilizational collapse. If someone has good reasons for me to less blasé about it, I'm willing to hear it!
Nope. Watt's isn't pesymistic. You are, unfortunately, horribly overoptimistic... In fact, much of what you are writing is also unscientific. 1. You can't mitigate rising temperatures cheaply. 2. Water shortages won't be solved by desalination 3. There are no "solar" vehicles, and solar and renewables won't be enough without the atom. 4. Lab grown meat is still pretty much unicorn tech as much as long-term production 5. Nope, it's truly the biggest issue.
@@ChangeMakersArturKrol we actually have the technology to mitigate rising temperatures (*JUST* the temperatures, not the CO2) quickly. Shoot a billion dollars worth of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, and you're set for a couple of degrees. Of course, this is a horrible idea, because it would undoubtedly have unintended serious consequences, but it would most certainly work. Volcanoes have demonstrated it many times over. Do I think that will stop us from doing it as shit hits the fan? Of course not. It's arguably the best option we have at present, bad as it is.
@@FoxyCAMTV I'm not sure if you comprehend just how serious of a problem climate change is. The world is already experiencing more crop failures, flooding, droughts, and more-severe, more-frequent storms. Diseases and invasive species previously confined to tropical areas are migrating, destroying agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems as they go. (Not to mention, ya know, killing people). Let's be total sociapaths for a second and disregard the staggering fucking human catastrophe this is setting off... The *monetary* costs of inaction are extreme enough to literally destroy nations. Human civilization can't just pack up and move anymore. If our cities become uninhabitable, our farms no longer grow food properly, and our water supplies are gone, you'd better open your fucking wallet, because we are getting *reamed*.
What should we be scared of besides the ignorance of capitalists and politicians leading to a exponential meltdown of global climate and the earth becoming unfit for human life?
i'm so glad the audience reaction was captured
Any hope for getting the last 5min of video? I was really hoping to see the end of this.
how dare you indulge whimsical Hope is the presence of this Master of Doom?!
@@knightofbrokenglass9237in?
Thank you for telling the truth, Peter Watts. 💛 I'm dying to see the last few minutes of your talk!
finally - a doom pimp extraordinaire - you are a master sir - i'm utterly enthralled
*Rust Cohle and that guy from Utopia series finale liked this video*
You are absolutely correct about the giant boot size ecological footprint we create with every child we have. You have to be careful saying that though, you will be called a malthusian. And something about how many people you can fit into Australia or something. Most people don't have any idea what a ecological footprint is. It's ridiculous of course. Population size is going to have an impact on an ecosystem. How can anyone say any different. I realize we must tread carefully here as the so called eco fascists love the malthusian concept. It gives them an excuse for genocide. We should voluntarily have fewer children. That's how it has to be. Educating people is the way. That's my opinion
Unfortunately you are correct, but the truth is wicked. This Writer is speaking to Western mindsets about problems of population?! He said stop having kids to stop the carbon footprint! Ironically when Western countries are in birthrate decline. In his answer, he misses the culprit. Stop feeding billions of starving people in countries that don’t have the intelligence to stop reproducing. For every starving Person we feed and take care of, they have 5 more starving babies. We now have BILLIONS of more starving people. Our kindness has cost us the future and made the problem so much worse. Stop open borders and immigration from low iq groups of people who reproduce like rabbits. Stop importing fundamentalists groups of religious people from these countries. Stop doing manufacturing business in China where they pollute environments and destroy the oceans. Stop with the humanitarian aid, for the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Let nature take her course and let those humans adapt or die. For nature abhors decadence and weakness. Education cannot compete with millions of years of animal Brain programming. People will reproduce and act like parasites no matter how much schooling you enforce. And that’s the truth. Life is not a humanitarian dream, but a gauntlet of obstacles, struggle and competition. When push comes to shove, people behave like cannibals.
@@fun-with-purpose1436 education should never be enforced. In fact, enforcement is not on the table in my opinion. And closing borders within a bio sphere is just as stupid as drawing them in the first place. Eco systems don't recognize our national borders, Andrew neither do I. And the idea that our kindness is destroying the future is absurd. "capitolism" is what is destroying the biosphere. The short sighed greed that drives our leaders of industry is destroying the future. And the west and Americans especially have the largest footprint by far. We just export the worst parts of the process to the third world so our life iq consumers can pretend it doesn't exist. And they encourage those same poor fools to blame our problems on immigrants, or anybody but those most responsible, the leaders of industry.
The video cuts out at 53:10 :(
Based on Watt's interview here (ua-cam.com/video/g1_YZZ9V3WU/v-deo.html), I'd guess he was about to talk about the clinically depressed. In that interview he also talks about how Parkinson's reduces religiosity, and conjectures that in the near future DIY CRISPR kits could give people the ability to change all this neurology in order to engineer more rationally-ethical people. (With a high likelihood of unforeseen consequences , of course.)
I wanted to see the rest of the talk, but the symbolism of a sudden cut-to-black is on point.
@@ganthrithor xD
Have the hopeful authors never read Candide? Tend to your garden; write *interesting* stories lol. Just got done with blindsight, my first watts - holy shit.
Damn, this presentation gets cut. Thank you for the upload nonetheless 🐱
Wow this talk is incredible and Peter Watts is a treasure. Keep speaking the honest truth - I especially love the “stray dogs fucking” analogy 😂
More people should see and absorb this.
It stops before the end. Do you have another video?
I've been working on carbon emissions my whole adult life via transport and housing efficiency but I'm still stuck on the meat issue. Most of the emissions from cows etc represent net zero. Atmospheric carbon absorbed by grass digested by cows and farted back out is an emission but not a net emission. The other kinds of emissions associated with meat products are also associated with every other kind of food product. Taking that into account, have we truly established that there is a major difference?
I fucking love you man
The film "The Day After" is pretty bleak, dystopian science fiction and after Reagan watched it, it was screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were said to be greatly affected. Its influence was credited by Reagan himself with changing Reagan's hawk-like attitude toward nuclear proliferation. Seems that would be a more significant example than the Star Wars missile system.
Wouldn't you class that as dystopian fiction? Science fiction is normally an extrapolation of and expansion upon known sciences. The film was simply a scenario based on science fact, not science fiction.
@@christianzilla That's a valid point. Quite right.
@@erikmchatton it's a good story though. I didn't know that.
Does anyone know the authors he refers to on the Network Analysis paper? I didn't catch the names.
Sankhyo Halder has an insanely optimistic slant in these comments a little down.
While his projections are ridiculous, he does address many existential predicaments and offers "can't miss" solutions. So worth it to see his take on this existential issue on down in this comment section.
A response:
I'm all for mitigation for time.
But:
Pretty apparent the situation. My study of electric car implemention (stupid: wasteful etcetera) alone shreds foolish nonsense about replacing the combustion type at scale.
For fun, Google "bunker fuel" as related to ships and the obstacles inherit in trying to legislate it out now with no logical way with existing capital and infustructure.
Each day ships spew more GHGs than every vehicle in the American hemisphere.
BTW, a growing splinter of professionals are now advising against purchase of EV... Or any vehicle.
Maintain and fix the vehicle one has now if possible. Make sure all the emission equipment is functioning. Keep it lubed and aligned. Tires correct pressure for season and good condition. Millions of tons of tire debris are shred on roads a year and spread into the environment, so replace dried out older tires.
Note: they are making plenty of tires and warehouses currently full, so not helping by not buying. Use best analysis on everything.
Take care of everything you can maintain without losing its functionality. Stop buying crap.
But really, it is a predicament rolling like a frieght train speeding up as it bares down on people.
There is one thing though. Pretty good news actually. I'm elderly, very ill, so I won't be around 😐.
what's the point of minimizing pollutants from the engine's exhaust
when the tires produce three orders of magnitude more pollutants?
overall there is little difference between a car, a passenger car, that runs on unicorn farts and one that runs on standard pump gas.
Both use the same tires.
I would still like to read third Blindsight book somewhere before the end though :)
just so im not unsane... You all also can not see his slides, right?
Not even a little bit 😂
I grew up in the Fifties when Science promised us a bright and wonderful future -- here we are in 2022: war in Ukraine with the threat of an expanding nuclear war; North Korea firiing rockets over Japan; riots in Iran; China on the march; global energy crisis; standard of living dropping; crime rampant. Yes, science has advanced, but humans are still humans. Nothing has changed. I'm for dystopians all the way.
> when Science promised us a bright and wonderful future
did you believe them?
There are fewer conflicts and less poverty now than ever and life expectancy is up. I'm worried about automation/wealth gap and the climate though.
@@fredriksvard2603Not true
@@KneeSlice1775 yes
@@KneeSlice1775publicly available data disagree with you
In light of recent 23.12.23 blog post on Peter's blog I see how the language is trawled for more and more aphetic adjectives :(
It is obvious that study cited 36:21 obviously does not take into account any sort of pressures towards people abandoning fundamentalists beliefs. Which do exist. Which is why not all kinds of fundamentalism prosper, which is observable when you "go outside and take a look".
between two groups of people
one playing by the rules
and one violating them
the latter group will dominate.
It's like arguing with a toddler. Your precious reasoning holds no power over it.
It will barf on you and then laugh its ass off.
You must use either trickery or physical force.
reasoning is usable as a method of reaching an agreement, an understanding even, only if both parties willingly and openly accept _reasoning as a method of reaching an agreement_
2020: The real world got mad and decided be a dystopia out of resentment.
Mathematically they did not show how community grows tired/ can grow tired of the behavior presented by fundamentalists. In my country for at least 8 years the right side was ruling, after that time right side of the political spectrum showed everyone what they really are and there was a major movement to vote for another party. 33% is still for the right but the other side took a quite large peace of the political scene. I do not have anything against healthy right ideas but the concrete right do not jive with power :( I am talking of course about European country.
I love everything by Peter and his observations while well grounded in scientific works are a good starting point to contrast them with the real life. There is always more to the life than experiments can provide us with. If everything had been so mathematically deterministic, the left would have ceased to exist ;) There is always a question of time scales, impactfulness, roles of specific actors, ideals, changing one's mind by not following logically steps of an argumentation. Predictions extend some trends and we are still not aware of workings of unknown regulatory mechanisms... that can kick in.
Why is the volume all over the place?
He's waving his microphone all over the place
I see inkblots all over the place, but I wouldn't criticize :p
Mic technique
Massive attendance. 08:18 Six of them thinking it was a real-estate lecture and three are waiting in the AC for an Uber to take them to the airport after a local tour of a indigenous indian cave.
There was room for me in the audience ...
Did we get him on a bleak day here? Or is this optimism for Peter Watts values of that quality? My money's on the latter. Howl, oh Ginsburg of trans-humanist despair!
I've yet to read a peter watts novel that doesn't end hinting world ending catastrophe... (personally that's why I love him)
Talk about bad timing - what "different group of people" did he speak of at 53:00?
The clinically depressed. You can see him talk about it in more detail in his interview with Masters of the Universe.
Two words : Super Orion . It's time to flee this planet . So loooooong
Whose gonna go? You? Me? How expensive do you think a ticket for a colony ship will be? Whose gonna spend the R&D money and how much profit are they gonna get? This Musk/Christ figure we imagine, would they kill everyone aboard to save the cost of a systems inspection?
Even if humanity branches out from earth, it’ll be to seed a new population, not save the masses (you/me) from the consequences of industrialized capitalism.
If a 2 degree centigrade change in global temperatures is catastrophic and a 5 degree change brings on the apocalypse the chances of finding any planet even close to habitable anywhere we could reach in less than 100,000 years are extremely, vanishingly, slim. The goldilocks band is incredibly narrow.
Optimism? Last refuge of the incompetent. I'm most likely not going to make it to 2050, I'll likely not make it to 2030. That's likely a mercy.
no. You will live to see everything collapse and you will enjoy it.
@@GeorgeTsiros wtf dud?
Peter says that our views and opinions are essentially formed by a desire to fit in with the rest of society. Surely the problem with his argument here (around the 35min mark) is that the people espousing view that climate change is real, man-made and imminently catastrophic are the people holding the accepted mainstream view. Those who hold the opposing view are essentially iconoclasts.
😂 it’s not popular to deny climate change but it is certainly popular to care not to do much about it. Lip service isn’t the same as doing anything.
The same believers think we can tech our way of of climate change. Deniers are actually more sane in that regard.
I love Peter Watts, and I agree with him on many, many things. But I feel obligated to point out that Steven Pinker is not a neuroscientist, and also that he is an absolute hack when it comes to anything that could even be considered science adjacent.
Pinker may very well be a complete hack, but at least the argument that brains are not "truth detectors" but survival engines, does find me in agreement. I anticipate people taking it too far and assuming it means the same thing as "your brain will never complete one correct thought", which is of course complete bollocks.
i'm sorry for writing "but" twice in succession
@@GeorgeTsiros Agree. Pinker being presented as an authority on anything kind of sends me into a rage (have to work on that), but blind squirrels and all that.
why do I no longer get notified of responses to my comments? 😥
Schill
400 ppm is closer to the environment where most life evolved. "Pre-industrial" 240 ppm is a recent phenomenon.
sure, most life
just not _us_
Snowball earth is the real environmental apocalypse, and it happens more often.
Love this guy's books but his bias is showing.
I’m optimistic that there is a Creator. Intelligence comes from intelligence, not rocks.
And you are one of the people he's deriding in the talk
He should go on tour with Greta Thunberg
Communists and fascists said that the bad comes from outside and there is 'them' who can be blamed. Having smth against that should not be mixed with hope policing you talk here. Could you talk about that more? I would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Communists don't want borders, so there is no outside. Communists don't want a state to coerce or oppress anyone, fascists do.
Since major communists have been owners and often part of bourgeois, which you can find even today in countries like France, it is odd to say communists have an us vs them when it is simply a matter of justice.
To the oppressor, equality feels like injustice. Maybe you are a victim of equality.
Scientific information should build the tools of prosperity, not recommend depopulation.
you're funny
Hmm, I love Watts's works, but from being a reader of his blog, the man seems to be be rather pessimistic.
As far as I can tell, Climate Change is not a world-ending catastrophe, merely a very inconvenient and disruptive one. The main issues, namely rising temperatures, can be mitigated quite cheaply by geo-engineering, or if all else fails a few solar shades.
Water shortages leading to water wars is one of his biggest concerns, and I'm reasonably confident that de-salination tech is finally picking up enough momentum to make that an eventual non-issue. Give lab grown meat a few more years, and we'll have emissions reigned in.
Solar and EV vehicles, especially the former, have attained economic parity with fossil fuels, and if the world gets over it's hangup with nuclear, that can solve the base-load problem. Or god forbid, get some working fusion.
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I try to keep myself informed, and anthropogenic climate change seems to be a side-issue to bigger problems like automation induced unemployment, or AI-related risks.
TLDR; I'm willing to bet on greater than even odds that global warming/climate change, is not a serious existential threat, as per the metric of at least 1 billion attributable deaths by 2050. That includes natural disasters at a greater than base frequency, refugee crises, water wars, and civilizational collapse. If someone has good reasons for me to less blasé about it, I'm willing to hear it!
Nope. Watt's isn't pesymistic. You are, unfortunately, horribly overoptimistic...
In fact, much of what you are writing is also unscientific.
1. You can't mitigate rising temperatures cheaply.
2. Water shortages won't be solved by desalination
3. There are no "solar" vehicles, and solar and renewables won't be enough without the atom.
4. Lab grown meat is still pretty much unicorn tech as much as long-term production
5. Nope, it's truly the biggest issue.
@Toxic Delirium Nope. You're delirious, as you've kindly noticed yourself ;)
@@ChangeMakersArturKrol we actually have the technology to mitigate rising temperatures (*JUST* the temperatures, not the CO2) quickly. Shoot a billion dollars worth of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, and you're set for a couple of degrees. Of course, this is a horrible idea, because it would undoubtedly have unintended serious consequences, but it would most certainly work. Volcanoes have demonstrated it many times over.
Do I think that will stop us from doing it as shit hits the fan? Of course not. It's arguably the best option we have at present, bad as it is.
Your "solutions" are nothing but more problems.
@@FoxyCAMTV I'm not sure if you comprehend just how serious of a problem climate change is. The world is already experiencing more crop failures, flooding, droughts, and more-severe, more-frequent storms. Diseases and invasive species previously confined to tropical areas are migrating, destroying agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems as they go. (Not to mention, ya know, killing people).
Let's be total sociapaths for a second and disregard the staggering fucking human catastrophe this is setting off... The *monetary* costs of inaction are extreme enough to literally destroy nations. Human civilization can't just pack up and move anymore. If our cities become uninhabitable, our farms no longer grow food properly, and our water supplies are gone, you'd better open your fucking wallet, because we are getting *reamed*.
Warmer is wetter is better for life
Plants were starved for carbon until we unlocked it.
Warmer is wetter, wetter is more prosperous..
A sunshade is far cheaper than any remedy.
The upcoming el niño the next year is going to turn all southern US into a death valley. Then we'll talk .
Nice speech but...Boo-hooo 😁😆🤣 He sounds so scared. Scared of all the wrong things.
What should we be scared of besides the ignorance of capitalists and politicians leading to a exponential meltdown of global climate and the earth becoming unfit for human life?
This one is going to be tiger food.