|
|
|
|
|
by paulryanrogers
1343 days ago
|
|
> If someone tells me to significantly change my life based off their climate models, and they laughably fail [0], I have every reason to believe they don't have a good climate model What changes do you consider significant? What's your threshold for a climate model good enough to justify lifestyle changes? It seems obvious to me that we live on a finite planet with little hope of escaping limits on its resources. So looking only at potential arable land and current oil usage I'd say we're obviously not operating with sustainable lifestyles in most of the west. After all, that oil represents hundreds of millions of years of solar energy, converted to oil. We are depleting it much faster than it's being generated. |
|
I don't think all Malthusian concerns are of the same kind in terms of epistemic controversy. I could see humanity dying because of something that could have been prevented with collective action. What I don't see happening is humanity saving itself by collectively choosing to defer to the right people. It almost seems like a logical contradiction. If we do save ourselves from catastrophe by collective action I except there to be collective conviction. If we die because we were too stupid to listen to somebody then we were bound to die either way.