A video you all must see (Global Warming)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In this video, some guy uses probabilistic risk management to argue in favour of action over inaction concerning global warming - the beauty of his argument is that it does not matter whether or not global warming is actually occurring or being caused by humans, only that the costs of inaction will be greater than the costs of action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

I highly encourage everyone to encourage everyone they know to watch this video.

Vanguard1917, I'm looking at you.

[RedAnarchist]

Didn't he do a similar video a while back?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Didn't he do a similar video a while back?

Yes, this is an expanded and improved version after lots of feedback.

[Coggeh]

I think that he doesn't give much analysis really , economic harm will always hit workers the hardest but we do need to fight global warming and only through socialism etc can we do both ...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that he doesn't give much analysis really , economic harm will always hit workers the hardest but we do need to fight global warming and only through socialism etc can we do both ...

The immiseration of the proletariat is fine price to pay for saving civilisation - immiseration cannot possibly be as long-lasting or far-reaching as the worst consequences of climate change. You're using your ideology as a comfort blanket - not good. Try thinking for a change. The more that people are aware that doing something is better than doing nothing regardless of the truth of global warming, the more people will be inclined to pressure both governments and corporations to act in the interest of humanity as a whole. Nothing revolutionary will come of it, but I think ensuring that we aren't up to our arses in melted icecap is a sensible option, no?

[Vanguard1917]

Of course we need action. The question is: what should this action entail? The response of the environmental movement is that we need to make cut-backs, reign in economic development, practice more austerity, and all other sorts of backward-looking 'initiatives'. They call this 'action' - but it's actually inaction, since it in reality calls for doing less than for doing more.

The best way to defend ourselves from natural threats is through more economic and social development. The simple truth is that the more developed we are, the less vulnerable we are to natural threats.

We need far greater investment in cleaner energy supplies, like nuclear power, so that we can provide an abundance of energy while releasing less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We need to see mass industrialisation in the developing world; agricultural societies are far more subject to the destructive aspects of nature than industrial societies. We also need mass infrastructural development worldwide: natural disasters always hit worse those societies with poorly developed infrastructure. In a word, we need to continue moving forward - and at a much faster rate than we currently are, faster than what capitalism is able to provide. One thing is for certain: mankind never solved anything by going backwards, slowing down or standing still.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Great Video, Noxion. Thanks for posting it!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In the long term, VG1917, I agree with your above post, but I think in the short term we are going to be forced to make cutbacks on our quite frankly absurd rates of consumption - and this is not going to be imposed by some dicatorial nanny-state greenie government, but by the simple fact that pretty soon oil will be too expensive to pull out of the ground, and our collective hands will be forced if we want to ensure that we can preserve civilisation long enough to sort out our political and economic situation in a post-oil world. Climate change will also force us to change our ways, unless we want Al Gore's worst nightmares to come true.

Yes, a better developed society may indeed be able to deal with environmental catastrophe better, but that kind of relies on the worst not hitting until the rest of the world has caught up with the first world, and I think it morally bankrupt to gamble millions, maybe even billions, of lives on such an unconfirmed outcome.

[Vanguard1917]

In the long term, VG1917, I agree with your above post, but I think in the short term we are going to be forced to make cutbacks on our quite frankly absurd rates of consumption - and this is not going to be imposed by some dicatorial nanny-state greenie government, but by the simple fact that pretty soon oil will be too expensive to pull out of the ground, and our collective hands will be forced if we want to ensure that we can preserve civilisation long enough to sort out our political and economic situation in a post-oil world. Climate change will also force us to change our ways, unless we want Al Gore's worst nightmares to come true.

The solution is not to call for reductions in consumption. The solution is to step-up production. If we're indeed consuming more oil than we can afford to, then the obvious solution is to demand far greater investment in the production of other sources of energy.



Yes, a better developed society may indeed be able to deal with environmental catastrophe better, but that kind of relies on the worst not hitting until the rest of the world has caught up with the first world, and I think it morally bankrupt to gamble millions, maybe even billions, of lives on such an unconfirmed outcome


We can't organise a society around hypothetical threats. The standard environmentalist line says: no matter how detrimental our green recommendations may be, they're not worse than burning in the hellfire of 'climate chaos'. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be used to try to justify all sorts of extremely reactionary policies - such as restraining industrial progress, attacking modern agricultural technology, and even outlawing life-saving pesticides (DDT).

The environmentalists want humanity to practice restraint. They talk about 'action' and 'change', but they're in reality highly conservative. They're terrified of change and they want to protect the present against the supposedly uncertain future.

[jake williams]

The immiseration of the proletariat is fine price to pay for saving civilisation - immiseration cannot possibly be as long-lasting or far-reaching as the worst consequences of climate change. You're using your ideology as a comfort blanket - not good. Try thinking for a change. The more that people are aware that doing something is better than doing nothing regardless of the truth of global warming, the more people will be inclined to pressure both governments and corporations to act in the interest of humanity as a whole. Nothing revolutionary will come of it, but I think ensuring that we aren't up to our arses in melted icecap is a sensible option, no?
THANK YOU!

This is something I've been really uncomfortable with lately (environmentalism v. communism), it's really been giving me trouble and you've articulated my views well.


About the video though, the words going on in my head again and again were "Pascal's Wager". He's right on a bunch of points, but what he basically is saying, and/or SHOULD be saying is "With the approximate risk analysis, weighing our uncertainties and the probabilities of various outcomes, the most likely best course of action is one that involves a lot of societal restructuring to combat climate change".

All he's really saying, I think, is that while human-caused climate change isn't a certainty, that given the "expected outcome" (which is the composite of a whole bunch of data, encompassing the probabilities and their distributions of different changes in environmental variables) if no action is taken, the "expected outcome" is better if we do something, in fact quite a lot of really radical things. It's all game theory and probability and data management, although is model is flawed, if I remember my game theory correctly, because I believe game theory, um, whateverthey'recalled grids like that, posit equally likely outcomes. I forget all this, anyone a math geek? Or maybe I'll wiki it in awhile, but right now I'm exhausted.



ed: Much of my point is, especially in response to the above ^ post, Vanguard's... you can actually sit down and do the math on this, or at least you "could", theoretically. You could actually do a meta-analysis of all the climate studies, and economists' studies, actually work out all the potential outcomes, accounting for probabilities and margins of error and so on, you could actually sit down and figure out a sort of, most likely best possible course of action, I mean, it's ridiculously complicated to do it perfectly, it's practically impossible, but it's conceivable, and with reasonable approximation, given the relative certainty, and like he points out in the video, grave importance, of knowledgeable experts' predictions, the general answer is pretty clear.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The solution is not to call for reductions in consumption. The solution is to step-up production. If we're indeed consuming more oil than we can afford to, then the obvious solution is to demand far greater investment in the production of other sources of energy.

Well, hopefully we'll build enough enough nuclear power plants and expand other non-oil-based energy production soon enough to prevent an energy gap occurring, however much Greenpeace screams. But I wouldn't bet money on it, lots of people people have bought into the propaganda that radiation = t3h ebul, no matter how much of it there actually is.


We can't organise a society around hypothetical threats.

Climate change is more than hypothetical. The absolute least you could say about it is that is a definite possibility. Once Florida is underwater, only the truly stupid will go on to deny it.


The standard environmentalist line says: no matter how detrimental our green recommendations may be, they're not worse than burning in the hellfire of 'climate chaos'. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be used to try to justify all sorts of extremely reactionary policies - such as restraining industrial progress, attacking modern agricultural technology, and even outlawing life-saving pesticides (DDT).

Just because the greenies abuse such reasoning for their own ends does not mean it is invalid.


The environmentalists want humanity to practice restraint. They talk about 'action' and 'change', but they're in reality highly conservative. They're terrified of change and they want to protect the present against the supposedly uncertain future.

Look, the majority of human industry produces pollution. Unless we come up with a way of reducing the impact of that pollution, increasing industry will have detrimental effects upon the environment.

Now, reducing the amount of industry also happens to reduce the amount of pollution, but it is simplistic to demand that, which I believe you realise. There are other ways and we should investigate them, but not having an inside track on the environmental movement I cannot share your certainty that the true aim of the environmental movement is to reduce the quality of human life as you seem to say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917 (pushing Exxon's interests even more):



The solution is not to call for reductions in consumption. The solution is to step-up production. If we're indeed consuming more oil than we can afford to, then the obvious solution is to demand far greater investment in the production of other sources of energy.



The solution is to smash the capitalist system.

Or, it is to us non-Exxon apologists.

[jake williams]

The solution is to smash the capitalist system.I'm almost certain that smashing the capitalist system is a necessary part of the solution (short term, obviously long term capitalism, at least, must be abolished).

[pandora]

I agree with Vanguard on the following point:
Of course we need action. The question is: what should this action entail? ....The response of the environmental movement is that we need to make cut-backs, reign in economic development, practice more austerity... this 'action' - is actually inaction, since it in reality calls for doing less than for doing more.

However I disagree with his/her opinion here:

The best way to defend ourselves from natural threats is through more economic and social development. The simple truth is that the more developed we are, the less vulnerable we are to natural threats....
In a word, we need to continue moving forward - and at a much faster rate than we currently are, faster than what capitalism is able to provide.

The simple truth is that we must move away from Leninist idealism of Industrial philosophy of 1917, or we will face extinction as a specie.

This is true of the right more so than the left, as Cuba has already recognized the benefits of socialism as a tool to promote environmental salvation: rooftop gardening, and other environmental actions.

Global warming is a fact, not a fallacy. Having spoken to those directly affected by hurricanes, I can tell you that infrastructure is ripped apart like tinker toys in the eye of the storm.

What is so disgraceful is that there are those who value economics above the life of every human being on the planet, it is as Albert Einstein said, "I know not how World War III will be fought or why, only that WWIV it will be fought with sticks and stones."

Vanguard's rationalization is keenly out of step with the Indigenous People's Movement, a prodominatly environmental Leftist movement world wide, which is leading a healthy cry against a system that is sick, stoic, and dying a very visceral death.

One might want to decide when the chips fall as they will lie what side one will be on, with the peasants in the mountains having to get water from a stream, with a few modernities, or with the establishment stealing resources from the last refuges of hope on this planet.

It seems those in the West who are in the cities are the most ignorant of the Indigenous people's fights in every jungle and forest against the IMF and World Bank who see even Indigenous languages as a threat against Capitalism. World Bank has it's side clearly disdained. Do you?

Also, for the record, healthy environments are more able to adapt to climate change than unhealthy or unsustainable environments. Nature is able to adapt and change quickly, pavement is not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hi, Pandora, welcome back!

[Vanguard1917]

Well, hopefully we'll build enough enough nuclear power plants and expand other non-oil-based energy production soon enough to prevent an energy gap occurring, however much Greenpeace screams. But I wouldn't bet money on it, lots of people people have bought into the propaganda that radiation = t3h ebul, no matter how much of it there actually is.

As long as the left campaigns against nuclear energy, and against development in general, tailing the reactionary green movement, we will not see demands made for the mass investment in nuclear energy that we need.


Climate change is more than hypothetical. The absolute least you could say about it is that is a definite possibility. Once Florida is underwater, only the truly stupid will go on to deny it.

Climate change is not a possibility; it's a fact of life. Climates are always changing and human society is capable of adapting.

One thing is clear: we are in far better position to deal with climate change today than we have ever been - precisely because we are today more developed than we have ever been. This suggests that the way to stregnthen our defences against climate change is through further development.


Just because the greenies abuse such reasoning for their own ends does not mean it is invalid.

I would argue that such reasoning is not only invalid, but also extremely dangerous, no matter who's using it. To repeat, we really can't organise society around theoretical future dangers. Human beings need to play for high stakes. That's how progress happens. The mindset of the environmentalist is a conservative one precisely because it's hostile to change on the grounds that the future is uncertain and that what we call progress is only likely to make matters worse.


Look, the majority of human industry produces pollution. Unless we come up with a way of reducing the impact of that pollution, increasing industry will have detrimental effects upon the environment.

But advanced insdustrial technology is cleaner than ever before. If we halted industrial progress, we would also halt technological progress.

Also, it is an undenniable fact that industrial societies are far, far less vulnerable to changes in temperature - along with all natural threats - than non-industrial, agricultural societies.

This one article put it really well ('How about building nuclear reactors in Africa?'):

'rapid economic growth would be enormously beneficial to the Third World, as well as bolstering its ability to tackle climate change. Economic growth would enable Africans, Asians and Latin Americans to share the benefits of prosperity that we in the West take for granted. It would also give them the resources to reduce their vulnerability to climate change. A subsistence farmer clearly has little flexibility to react to changes in his environment. A modern city-dweller, by contrast, has access to networks and resources to protect himself from the climate. Why should anyone die of heatstroke if they live in an air-conditioned building? How can there be drought if there are the resources to build desalination plants? Why should malaria continue to be a threat with modern preventative measures and hospitals?'

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2040/

pandora:


The simple truth is that we must move away from Leninist idealism of Industrial philosophy of 1917, or we will face extinction as a specie.


Actually, the human species is in a better position today than it has ever been. There has never before in human history been a better time to be alive than to be alive today. We are living longer, healthier and safer lives than ever before - and not just in the West but worldwide. Contrary to environmentalist claims, our environment has never before been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today.

This is as a result of economic, industrial progress. The point is to take this progress even further - much further.