06-06-2024, 02:01 PM
This post was last modified 06-06-2024, 02:02 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
I find it impossible to believe that humans haven't engaged in thoughtless exploitation of the environment. I also find it impossible to believe that any one species can 'destroy' the balance that life has established over eons.
Yes, human profit seeking has exacerbated the abuse wantonly. In most aspects of the argument, I find it difficult to excuse the efforts of industrial-scale enterprises. The shifting of the food cycle, the simpleton techniques of assuming that petrochemical fertilizers are somehow 'adequate' for changing agricultural outputs to something "better." The notion that if a fume or gas pollutant isn't immediately visible, it may as well not exist for us to worry about. That whatever is accessible in the way of natural resource it should be all but sucked dry for sale "right now." None of these things is excusable and yes, are contributory to the demolition of a balance long in the making.
But to say that we 'caused it' has a direct implication. That we can fix it. We can't. We broke the cycle.
And we can't simply pretend that by recycling cans, sweating more in the summer, and shivering more in the winter is going to "fix" it, not matter how much "virtue signaling" is offered up by the people who want your money to pretend they are 'fixing it for you.' Part of the problem here is that people are posturing to 'sell' a fix. And it always boils down to them being comfortable and you not. Every virtue signal media production is a 'marketing' piece for someone's "initiative"... (which you should please support' and 'talk up' among friends because 'virtue signaling' is contagious.)
The real problem that no one seems to focus on sufficiently is industry. Most of the media I see talks about the 'sacrifices' we must all make, the things "we" must change... while industry gets a pass to continue consuming more and wasting more than all of us combined... and they do all that for immense profit... which they share with the people who appoint regulators... and produce media.
Also, there is another very important thing we always fail to comprehend as media consumers. These scientists, statisticians, ecologists, climatologists, etc., not only don't know everything, they also evidently, maintain that what they don't know doesn't matter. The media speaks of their sources and contributors as if they were godlings of knowledge... they are not. Look at any climatologist and ask them how the temperature rise we are measuring on this planet compares to the rest5 of the planets in the solar system... most will stare at you blankly. It doesn't matter to them... only that we have to "do" something about man's contribution.
I predicted quite a while back that we should expect to hear justification for purposeful pollutant aerosol dispersal, and lo and behold, here it is cemented. People, meaning commerce, will try their best to convince us that there is some safe chemical they can dump into the atmosphere... and our representatives will put us into debt for the "billions" need to do it. But even that represents us, once again, engaging in the same behavior that got us here. It's a sad fantasy, but someone must say it.
I fear the anthropomorphic rationale for global climate change. We are not the globe, just part of it. Do we impel the damage forward by our machinations? Yes. Were we greedily short-sighted by exploiting the natural world for gain? Yes. In what way is 'shaming' the population actually helping? None, none at all. Shame the industrialists and economists, and policy makers and regulators... it's their bailiwick to bear the shame... don't let the technocracy use it's media friends to shift the blame to us.
(Got a bit carried away there... We will survive this. Doom is good for entertainment... but I would rather 'live' life, not unduly 'fret' over what I have no responsibility for.)
Yes, human profit seeking has exacerbated the abuse wantonly. In most aspects of the argument, I find it difficult to excuse the efforts of industrial-scale enterprises. The shifting of the food cycle, the simpleton techniques of assuming that petrochemical fertilizers are somehow 'adequate' for changing agricultural outputs to something "better." The notion that if a fume or gas pollutant isn't immediately visible, it may as well not exist for us to worry about. That whatever is accessible in the way of natural resource it should be all but sucked dry for sale "right now." None of these things is excusable and yes, are contributory to the demolition of a balance long in the making.
But to say that we 'caused it' has a direct implication. That we can fix it. We can't. We broke the cycle.
And we can't simply pretend that by recycling cans, sweating more in the summer, and shivering more in the winter is going to "fix" it, not matter how much "virtue signaling" is offered up by the people who want your money to pretend they are 'fixing it for you.' Part of the problem here is that people are posturing to 'sell' a fix. And it always boils down to them being comfortable and you not. Every virtue signal media production is a 'marketing' piece for someone's "initiative"... (which you should please support' and 'talk up' among friends because 'virtue signaling' is contagious.)
The real problem that no one seems to focus on sufficiently is industry. Most of the media I see talks about the 'sacrifices' we must all make, the things "we" must change... while industry gets a pass to continue consuming more and wasting more than all of us combined... and they do all that for immense profit... which they share with the people who appoint regulators... and produce media.
Also, there is another very important thing we always fail to comprehend as media consumers. These scientists, statisticians, ecologists, climatologists, etc., not only don't know everything, they also evidently, maintain that what they don't know doesn't matter. The media speaks of their sources and contributors as if they were godlings of knowledge... they are not. Look at any climatologist and ask them how the temperature rise we are measuring on this planet compares to the rest5 of the planets in the solar system... most will stare at you blankly. It doesn't matter to them... only that we have to "do" something about man's contribution.
I predicted quite a while back that we should expect to hear justification for purposeful pollutant aerosol dispersal, and lo and behold, here it is cemented. People, meaning commerce, will try their best to convince us that there is some safe chemical they can dump into the atmosphere... and our representatives will put us into debt for the "billions" need to do it. But even that represents us, once again, engaging in the same behavior that got us here. It's a sad fantasy, but someone must say it.
I fear the anthropomorphic rationale for global climate change. We are not the globe, just part of it. Do we impel the damage forward by our machinations? Yes. Were we greedily short-sighted by exploiting the natural world for gain? Yes. In what way is 'shaming' the population actually helping? None, none at all. Shame the industrialists and economists, and policy makers and regulators... it's their bailiwick to bear the shame... don't let the technocracy use it's media friends to shift the blame to us.
(Got a bit carried away there... We will survive this. Doom is good for entertainment... but I would rather 'live' life, not unduly 'fret' over what I have no responsibility for.)
