5 ms·
The author of that Climate Casino post has some... strong views. So you might want to bear this in mind when reading his analysis: "The human cancer is destruc
by ablation 2mo ago
The author of that Climate Casino post has some... strong views. So you might want to bear this in mind when reading his analysis:
"The human cancer is destructive to every living thing, as humans continue to eat the planet into oblivion. As someone who values “everything else,” I would be one of the first to rally behind the NTHE philosophy if it had any scientific basis at all. I want the human cancer gone from this planet."
https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/unfortunately-the-end-of-the-world https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/unfortunately-the-end-o...
- Loquebantur 2mo agoPeople in the climate movement are rarely professional PR folks. Weaponizing their personal faults against the objective subject matter they talk about is disingenuous anyway? You cannot deduce factual correctness from how "holy" the messenger is.
- ablation 2mo agoI wasn't aware I had weaponised their personal faults, or indeed claimed that what they said was indicative of being a personal fault. I read his post, and then read some more of his writing, and simply felt it would be worth posting what I read in this thread. For me at least, it was a useful experience that changed some of what I was reading into the commentary surrounding the data. YMMV.
- vpribish 2mo agoGlad you did. It’s just reasonable behavior to me
- strken 2mo agoWanting every living human being to die and our species to go extinct ("NTHE" stands for "near-term human extinction") is a little beyond not being professional PR folks.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt reads to me as a prediction, not a desire: if we don't prevent NTHE then NTHE will happen.
- strken 2mo agoIn the context of "I want the human cancer gone from this planet" and the rest of that blog post, I am confident that it's a desire. Probably a desire for a peaceful fading out of the human species rather than a violent one, but it's still far beyond PR naivety.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 2mo agoHuman cancer certainly means careless humans.
- birksherty 2mo agoIt's humans who are doing this to themself and every other species on earth. So it's true.
- simiones 2mo agoPer the article, the NTHE "movement" are doom sayers, not doom pushers. That is, the NTHE people are people who predict that humanity and most complex life on Earth will be killed off by global warming by 2030 (used to be 2026), through a somewhat convoluted but unavoidable series of consequences of the polar ice cap melting completely (in their theory). There is no indication that the NTHE people want this outcome to happen, it's just the outcome they think is already unavoidable. Now, the author's position is both more and less nihilistic. The author also seems to think that human extinction is unavoidable, but he thinks the timeline is much more dragged out. He also seems to think that this is actually the preferable outcome at this point, given that global warming is our own fault, and that the only thing we should do is try to make it so that the planet is as well as it can be after we are finally gone.
- elcritch 2mo agoIt's additionally not clear that TFA is a copy of the Climate Casino (CC) post. It's on the same topic, possibly spurred by the CC. Yes it uses the same graph (which I presume CC also didn't make), but otherwise the content and writing is very different. It's less detailed, possibly LLM written, but also more approachable. I guess re-posting about a salient topic is now just "AI copyright theft".
- MrBuddyCasino 2mo ago[flagged]
- brikil 2mo agoTo be fair, the planet is gonna be fine in the long term. It's the human race that's in danger... so maybe a win-win from his perspective??
- rcMgD2BwE72F 2mo agoThe planet as a rock in space is not something they care about (and you know it). Life (especially sentient animals), on the other hand…
- MarkusQ 2mo agoRight. Specifically, "I want the human cancer gone from this planet." That's a kind of caring, but probably not the sort you were trying to imply.
- throw4847285 2mo agoHey, that's Ian Malcolm's line in Jurassic Park! “Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.” But I don't think it's all that interesting of an argument. When people say save/destroy the Earth, they mean humanity. Call that arrogance, but it's true.
- bryanrasmussen 2mo agoSo, because he's a nutter the graph shouldn't be front page news is the argument then? That'll teach him. He will learn the regret the day he dared say "hey, this graph means we're all gonna die if we don't do something! Look at it!" because we outsmarted him by refusing to look.
- ablation 2mo agoYou seem to be projecting onto me far more than my words literally state. I neither stated nor insinuated anything of the sort.
- luddit3 2mo agoThe argument is that when a data point comes from a source with such an obvious bias, the data point is called into question.
- kelseyfrog 2mo agoThe beautiful thing about evidence is that it's able to be evaluated on its own merit. Adding heuristics trades accuracy for speed. It's fine to be overloaded and rely on heuristics, but let's call them what they are, shortcuts.
- virgilp 2mo agoWell before I knew he was a nutter, it strikes be that the graph starts in 1991. Feels like we should should have more data than that, and that the same graph would be more powerful if it started in 1800 and showed the same thing (or at least, earlier in the 20th century, surely we must have data from the 1950s at least? probably earlier?) Not saying that the data is not concerning, or that climate warming isn't real, BTW. I'm just saying this particular graph feels fishy.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoBecause he's a nutter, you should not take his word for it that a 3.5 sigma event (1 in ~2000 for a normal distribution) in the temperature of a particular ocean region means we're all gonna die if we don't do something.
- QuantumGood 2mo agoThe most powerful humans, and human systems, often score very low on stewardship and empathy. While "cancer" triggers as opinionated, using a less-charged analogy I think should probably make a similar point.
- cuu508 2mo agoWhat analogy might work better, i.e., be less charged but as precise?
- cratermoon 2mo agoAgent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
- dylan604 2mo agoOne of my favorite worded bits of machine logic about humans. All of the sci-fi tropes have it. The "I, Robot" movie has similar "my logic is undeniable" comment about the same conclusion of the humans being the problem. I just really liked Agent Smith's specific comments
- masfuerte 2mo agoWe will reach some kind of equilibrium. It is literally impossible for things to continue as they are.
- pocksuppet 2mo agoHe is wrong, by the way. Most animals multiply until they exceed carrying capacity, then die off in massive numbers, then repeat. They may find a long-term equilibrium. The current boom in human population, and a subsequent die-off that has not yet happened, were predicted back in the 1970s.
- andy_ppp 2mo agoI can understand the desire to be concerned about the climate systems that keep earth habitable for humans starting to break down might come with some extreme views. It seems almost thinking we can continue as normal given the predictions of climate scientists are now coming true, is the extreme views. I worry that these climate scientists might have under egged their estimates due to a “sensible mindset” rather than following the data and we could be in for a horrifying next 30-50 years.
- adrianN 2mo agoOptimistic of you to assume it’ll only be fifty years. Do you expect humans to adapt that quickly? The climate will be messed up for centuries at least
- dylan604 2mo agoWhere do you get the "centuries at least" bit? The hole in the ozone layer "repaired itself" much faster after humans made changes. There's no more acid rain in Los Angeles after humans made changes. These all happened within my lifetime. We also saw during covid lock downs how quickly things changed from the sudden slow down in human activity.
- quickthrowman 2mo agoChanging refrigerants and propellants away from fluorine chemistry and installing desulfurization equipment on coal plants are both many orders of magnitude easier than reducing the amount of hydrocarbons we burn globally to the point where the temperature increasing is stopped or reversed. One of them requires the entire global population cooperate to burn fewer hydrocarbons. The examples you mentioned were handled in the US by regulating power plant operators and chemical manufacturers.
- dylan604 2mo agoThe point is that if humans would change, the Earth would change quickly. The way the first comment was worded made it sound like the Earth would need that time and not that humans will drag it out that long. That's a given. The Earth will snap back fairly quickly if the pesky humans would just get their shit together.