eclectron wrote:and ten from derABC2019 wrote:I'm not pretending, it's a reality. In fact we don't care about the planet, it's the human condition that we are generally concerned about.
This distinction makes absolutely no sense other than to introduce calculating and foul smelling cynicism.
Everything is absolutely linked on this planet, my boy!
To speak of anopheles is to speak of the human being, to speak of CR, it is to speak of the human being, to speak of the forest, it is to speak of the human being ... and vice versa.
yeah ... calculating and smelly cynicism ... as you go ... who laments not having any more bears or wolves hanging around our houses?
ABC2019 wrote:what bothers me is that I have not seen the proof that the means that it would take to effectively stop CR would not have much worse consequences on society than what we would like to avoid. .
Because you are not considering the right solutions, it is not for lack of talking about it. Nothing forces you to follow the shit.
ouh there I am far from following the shits as you say, otherwise I would also be a panic about global warming, which I am not!
I do not have the excessiveness to think that I can answer everything, so I am satisfied to observe that there is no advanced society which functions without fossil, and that suddenly the so-called exit scenarios fossils remain essentially a dead letter. I'm not the one who got angry that we didn't do anything, even Greta said !!
Between this undeniable factual finding, and a guy I don't know on a forum who assures me that it is possible, I have the right to hesitate without being cynical and smelly right?
ABC2019 wrote:to tell the truth no, I don't see what is illogical to ask what is the real societal cost of CR, and what would be opposite the cost of the measures it would take to avoid it. On the contrary, it seems to me quite logical questions to ask.
What is illogical is to challenge anticipatory measures (which do not really take place in addition ) on a CR which has not yet taken place significantly (1, x ° C).
On the pretext that today the consequences are not yet dramatic, there would be no need to do anything?
I would just like to be given the arguments that lead to the conclusion that it must be done, instead of giving me the conclusion without the arguments.
Anticipating shit before it happens, do you understand what that means?
yes provided that
a) I was still a little quantified "shit" (there are different sizes)
b) I was given a little quantification of what to do to avoid it.
There's nothing extraordinary about that, I think your life has been a long series of choices between advantages and disadvantages, it's the normal way of doing things, I don't see why you're yelling at me if I say that is the same for the climate.
And that would perhaps provide an answer to Greta's questions in addition.
Because in practice, I reassure you, everything happens as if you were right, nothing is done to fight against CR (in a significant way) and we absolutely do not envisage really durable solutions, at the right scale .
The resolution would assume another saving and since there are only reasonable capital-responsible managers around the tables, nothing goes towards solving the problems.
it's business as usual, see Dennis Meadows
Wake up!
it doesn’t go the way we want, maybe just because it makes more sense than it does, for the very simple reason that I mentioned: it’s that the measures to be taken would ultimately have more disadvantages than advantages. This explains very simply why no one takes them, and I'm still waiting to see the reasons why this simple explanation would be false.