[todayiamme]

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words;

"The planet is fine....

The people are fucked."

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&...

Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.

[jbooth]

Well, lots of other species, too, but yeah, in case there's any confusion: Nobody's saying that global warming will lead to the end of the planet as a mass of rock that supports life in some form.

But if we care about how convenient it is to live on? Then global warming is worth trying to avoid, probably.

[nice1]

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

[todayiamme]

It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor.

It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will kill this civilization.

In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out;

1) Environmental damage

2) Climate change

3) Hostile neighbors

4) Friendly trade partners

5) The societies response to it's environmental problems

What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice.

The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the problem; you can't have one without the other.

So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to survive beyond a few decades.

Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...

[jacoblyles]

>It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it

That sounds like alarmism to me.

You can find examples of writers worrying about running out of the specific resources industry used at the time running back to the 19th century. The modern environmentalist movement has predicted apocalypse like clockwork every ten years dating back to 1960.

The current environmentalist movement is much more well-funded and professional. I guess time will tell if that means they are more accurate.

I'm not familiar with Diamond's book, but it's worth pointing out that the civilizations he examines are at a much earlier phase of technology. Individual differences often confound authors who try to paint historical trends with a broad pen.

[todayiamme]

Actually, he backs up his claims with pretty hard data. He draws conclusion from a wide variety of metrics and evidence like core samples, records, tool use, geological standing, possible trade relations, genetic sampling etc.

You really need to read him. Check his wikipedia page out ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond )

>>>are at a much earlier phase of technology<<<

Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?

[jacoblyles]

>"Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?"

The difference between human society before 1800 and today is huge.

[jonhendry]

Nevertheless, we can't wish new, needed technology into existence. Sometimes it develops quickly, sometimes it doesn't.

[M1573RMU74710N]

Well first of all, this statement is complete BS.

"Alarmism" is a loaded term...of course it has a bad track record. If it turned out well, it wouldn't be called "alarmism" but foresight.

So, no duh. It's like saying "Murder has a really bad track record".

It's highly arguable that this is "alarm-ism"...that would imply it's a knee-jerk uninformed reaction, when in fact this is a scientific consensus coming from years of research.

So what matters is: this is science.

You can apply some loaded term to it...but it is science.

...and science has a pretty good track record overall. Also, science is constantly improving it's own ability and therefore track record.

Is it infallible? no...but if you want to start pulling out stuff about "track records" it's pretty silly to bet against the science.

[jshen]

yeah I know, nukes aren't really dangerous are they?

Just to be clear, the parent argument is that people have been saying that our activities are dangerous for a while, but nothing really bad has happened yet. That's like saying no one has detonated a nuke yet so we shouldn't worry about nuclear proliferation.

[ceejayoz]

Underestimating problems has a bad track record, too.

[jasonkester]

Ah, but it's only the overestimated ones you hear about.

Africanized Killer Bees, Asteroid Impact, Global Warming, Mayan Calendars, etc. Another new one comes down the pike every 5 years, and it's always going to end the world in the next 20 years. Fortunately, they're almost always blowing the downside way out of proportion.

[M1573RMU74710N]

Well here's the problem.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The "overblown" ones you're talking about are overblown by the MEDIA.

There are basically no scientists in the relevant fields saying we need to freak out because we might get hit by an asteroid tomorrow.

It's a possibility, and we need to study it and prepare for it...but to say it's overestimated or overblown (by the people who matter) is just not true.

Global Warming on the other hand, has a huge majority of scientists in the field agreeing that we are contributing to it, and if we don't stop there are serious consequences.(note that the consequences are gradual and completely realistic).

Your comparison is flawed: you're comparing something like an asteroid strike which would be devastating and perhaps impossible to stop, but also extremely extremely unlikely, with Global Warming which is gradual and pretty well demonstrated to be occurring....it's also dishonest in claiming that those things were "overblown" (and/or the nature thereof).

Then there's the Maya thing which is just a complete joke, and the Killer Bee thing, which again was something that serious scientists brought up as a (valid) concern, but nobody was ringing huge alarm bells screaming it was the end of the world.

[tsiki]

Pretending sound scientific research is alarming has much, much worse record (see the past 'debates' over whether CFC's contribute to ozone depletion or whether cigarettes are bad for human health).

The first IPCC assesment report was published 20 years ago. It would take copious amounts of confirmation bias to pretend they're being alarmist.

[jonhendry]

I'm sure someone said something like that at Pompeii around 79 AD.

[eduardo_f]

Wrong do-gooders are more dangerous than evildoers.

[eduardo_f]

I don't think I have said anything that merits down-voting...