9 ms·

>it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact Has anybody ever seriously believed that we wouldn't make it through? This just seems like

>it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact Has anybody ever seriously believed that we wouldn't make it through? This just seems like an alarmist take to me.

Symmetry 2y ago
It is an alarmist take but that doesn't meant that people haven't believed it.
EricE 2y ago
Indeed. Fear = control Control = power
DFHippie 2y ago
Here's a paradox. If people assume you are alarmist and discount everything you say -- "Oh, you way we need 100. I assume therefore that we only need 20. Here are 20." -- you need to be alarmist to get them to react appropriately. Then they attribute your exaggeration to your own deficiency, not your reaction to theirs. Anyway, that's a general observation, not a claim that any particular position is alarmist.
- vasco 2y ago
  This way of behaving in life is a very "rat each other out" choice from the prisioner's dilemma. Whenever I notice someone plays this game of shifting overton window instead of just stating what they want, specially at work, I can never take them seriously again.
  - 8note 2y ago
    Wouldn't it be better described as haggling? Weve already got a word for it, and it's the polite thing to do in a lot of cultures
    - vasco 2y ago
      It's not haggling to pretend. In haggling the goal of each person is clear and there's only dimension, price, and each participant wants an outcome to maximize in a specific direction out of 2 possible ones (price up, price down). What I mean are social situations that are way more complex like if you tell me I need to let you pass me in some queue because your grandma is dying, but turns out you just wanted to get home quicker to relax. At work there's a lot of this stuff when people exaggerate in a malicious way assuming everyone is doing it, and I can't stand it. If we're haggling I know what we're doing and I'll also haggle.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    That's a great interpersonal approach. It's my preference for sure. Be honest. People you interact with will learn that you are honest. Then you don't have to pull the long bow to convey an accurate message. It's less clear when it's groups communicating with groups for the benefit of a third party audience. If a member of the Society of the Friends of Truth says something but you hear it via a paraphrase from some AM radio bloviator, individual reputations are less at play and discourse becomes coarser. The audience thinks, "That person is a virtue signaler. Bloviator says things I like to hear. Bloviator has my back. We have the same enemies, he and I. Mr. Virtue can cram it with walnuts!" After decades of this happening, it's easy to see why people would change their rhetorical technique.
vasco 2y ago
This seems spuriously dismissive, even reading this thread you can see people think the world will end, any thread on this subject or Just Stop Oil interview should show you many people hold this view, or at least claim to.
goatlover 2y ago
Lots of people on the internet and some in the media. Some activists as well, and a few politicians, although it's unclear to what extent they really believe climate change is truly existential.
bequanna 2y ago
An entire generation of young people in the West is being force fed climate doomerism from primary school through university. They are telling these kids that the world will literally end if we don’t stop emitting carbon in a few years. Maybe the motives behind this are genuine but it’s pure indoctrination and dishonest.
feoren 2y ago
I don't believe climate change will be the downfall of human civilization, but it's not just an alarmist take. There's actual reason to believe it could be. The problem is that it's a potentially self-accelerating problem, like a nuclear meltdown. As the planet warms, more CO2 that is locked up in melting glaciers will be released, accelerating the problem. Rising sea levels could displace a significant portion of humanity, causing a level of unrest and chaos that could make it hard to muster the governmental and intergovernmental efforts that might be require to slow or stop the problem. Food scarcity could further these issues. People won't be worrying about investing in green energy if they're worrying about whether they or their neighbor will be the one who gets the last bag of rice. And my biggest concern: CO2 makes us stupider. As ambient CO2 levels rise, people can't think as clearly -- we're talking about the entire collective intelligence of the human race potentially being reduced significantly if CO2 levels rise to not that much higher than they are now. The effect is noticeable at 1000 ppm, and indoor concentrations can be 2x to 3x outdoor concentrations. Right now we're at 424 atmospheric ppm. It's not hard to imagine that worst-case increases could literally smother the brains of every human on the planet. And then civilization is literally at risk. Again: I don't ascribe much weight into the probability of that worst case. I put a lot of stock into the incredible ingenuity of humans to solve problems, once they actually acknowledge that they are problems. So I'm pretty sure we'll get through this as a species (although some coastal cities may not, at least in their current form). But the end of civilization is not merely alarmist -- it's an actual worst-case possibility that we should be aware of.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

>it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact Has anybody ever seriously believed that we wouldn't make it through? This just seems like an alarmist take to me.

Symmetry 2y ago

It is an alarmist take but that doesn't meant that people haven't believed it.

EricE 2y ago

Indeed. Fear = control Control = power

DFHippie 2y ago

Here's a paradox. If people assume you are alarmist and discount everything you say -- "Oh, you way we need 100. I assume therefore that we only need 20. Here are 20." -- you need to be alarmist to get them to react appropriately. Then they attribute your exaggeration to your own deficiency, not your reaction to theirs. Anyway, that's a general observation, not a claim that any particular position is alarmist.

vasco 2y ago
This way of behaving in life is a very "rat each other out" choice from the prisioner's dilemma. Whenever I notice someone plays this game of shifting overton window instead of just stating what they want, specially at work, I can never take them seriously again.
- 8note 2y ago
  Wouldn't it be better described as haggling? Weve already got a word for it, and it's the polite thing to do in a lot of cultures
  - vasco 2y ago
    It's not haggling to pretend. In haggling the goal of each person is clear and there's only dimension, price, and each participant wants an outcome to maximize in a specific direction out of 2 possible ones (price up, price down). What I mean are social situations that are way more complex like if you tell me I need to let you pass me in some queue because your grandma is dying, but turns out you just wanted to get home quicker to relax. At work there's a lot of this stuff when people exaggerate in a malicious way assuming everyone is doing it, and I can't stand it. If we're haggling I know what we're doing and I'll also haggle.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  That's a great interpersonal approach. It's my preference for sure. Be honest. People you interact with will learn that you are honest. Then you don't have to pull the long bow to convey an accurate message. It's less clear when it's groups communicating with groups for the benefit of a third party audience. If a member of the Society of the Friends of Truth says something but you hear it via a paraphrase from some AM radio bloviator, individual reputations are less at play and discourse becomes coarser. The audience thinks, "That person is a virtue signaler. Bloviator says things I like to hear. Bloviator has my back. We have the same enemies, he and I. Mr. Virtue can cram it with walnuts!" After decades of this happening, it's easy to see why people would change their rhetorical technique.

vasco 2y ago

This seems spuriously dismissive, even reading this thread you can see people think the world will end, any thread on this subject or Just Stop Oil interview should show you many people hold this view, or at least claim to.

goatlover 2y ago

Lots of people on the internet and some in the media. Some activists as well, and a few politicians, although it's unclear to what extent they really believe climate change is truly existential.

bequanna 2y ago

An entire generation of young people in the West is being force fed climate doomerism from primary school through university. They are telling these kids that the world will literally end if we don’t stop emitting carbon in a few years. Maybe the motives behind this are genuine but it’s pure indoctrination and dishonest.

feoren 2y ago

I don't believe climate change will be the downfall of human civilization, but it's not just an alarmist take. There's actual reason to believe it could be. The problem is that it's a potentially self-accelerating problem, like a nuclear meltdown. As the planet warms, more CO2 that is locked up in melting glaciers will be released, accelerating the problem. Rising sea levels could displace a significant portion of humanity, causing a level of unrest and chaos that could make it hard to muster the governmental and intergovernmental efforts that might be require to slow or stop the problem. Food scarcity could further these issues. People won't be worrying about investing in green energy if they're worrying about whether they or their neighbor will be the one who gets the last bag of rice. And my biggest concern: CO2 makes us stupider. As ambient CO2 levels rise, people can't think as clearly -- we're talking about the entire collective intelligence of the human race potentially being reduced significantly if CO2 levels rise to not that much higher than they are now. The effect is noticeable at 1000 ppm, and indoor concentrations can be 2x to 3x outdoor concentrations. Right now we're at 424 atmospheric ppm. It's not hard to imagine that worst-case increases could literally smother the brains of every human on the planet. And then civilization is literally at risk. Again: I don't ascribe much weight into the probability of that worst case. I put a lot of stock into the incredible ingenuity of humans to solve problems, once they actually acknowledge that they are problems. So I'm pretty sure we'll get through this as a species (although some coastal cities may not, at least in their current form). But the end of civilization is not merely alarmist -- it's an actual worst-case possibility that we should be aware of.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]