Should I be Happy about Humanity's Demise?

[DGS49]

Planned Fossil Fuel Production Vastly Exceeds the World’s Climate Goals, ‘Throwing Humanity’s Future Into Question’ - Inside Climate News

The world’s top fossil-fuel producing nations are still planning to increase their output of oil, gas and coal far beyond what the world’s climate targets would allow, according to a new United Nations report. The findings reveal a widening gap between the emissions-cutting pledges these...

insideclimatenews.org

Let's see...an increase in the production of fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal - is a good thing for everyone currently living on this planet. It will control energy costs (which greatly impact the cost of everything else), it will help the developing world and the third world achieve their dreams of modernity (electricity, clean water, efficient transportation, increased food production, lower cooking and heating costs, etc.), and it will generally be a boon to humanity, producing not only wealth out of the ground but also jobs and general prosperity.

But there are those who say that our enjoyment of all these benefits should be curtailed. They say that our grandchildren and further generations will - I don't know - be wiped out? I'm not sure. This is all speculation, of course, and it presumes that our descendants will be too stupid to mitigate the inconveniences that could come with a warming planet - moving people around, building sea walls, expanding the use of air conditioning, and so on.

So what do yinz think? Should we shoot ourselves in the foot now - higher energy costs, etc., - for a speculative benefit to our stupid descendants a hundred year from now and beyond?

It seems fairly simple to me.

 

[Magnus]

Planned Fossil Fuel Production Vastly Exceeds the World’s Climate Goals, ‘Throwing Humanity’s Future Into Question’ - Inside Climate News

The world’s top fossil-fuel producing nations are still planning to increase their output of oil, gas and coal far beyond what the world’s climate targets would allow, according to a new United Nations report. The findings reveal a widening gap between the emissions-cutting pledges these...

insideclimatenews.org

Let's see...an increase in the production of fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal - is a good thing for everyone currently living on this planet. It will control energy costs (which greatly impact the cost of everything else), it will help the developing world and the third world achieve their dreams of modernity (electricity, clean water, efficient transportation, increased food production, lower cooking and heating costs, etc.), and it will generally be a boon to humanity, producing not only wealth out of the ground but also jobs and general prosperity.

But there are those who say that our enjoyment of all these benefits should be curtailed. They say that our grandchildren and further generations will - I don't know - be wiped out? I'm not sure. This is all speculation, of course, and it presumes that our descendants will be too stupid to mitigate the inconveniences that could come with a warming planet - moving people around, building sea walls, expanding the use of air conditioning, and so on.

So what do yinz think? Should we shoot ourselves in the foot now - higher energy costs, etc., - for a speculative benefit to our stupid descendants a hundred year from now and beyond?

It seems fairly simple to me.

Yeah, why care about our descendants and their lives? Fuck them, amIright? It's not like we owe any responsibilities to them.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, why care about our descendants and their lives? Fuck them, amIright? It's not like we owe any responsibilities to them.

meh....Fuck you is good enough for the time being.

 

[sparky]

So what do yinz think?

the human race is unsustainable......~S~

 

[Hellokitty]

Yeah, why care about our descendants and their lives? Fuck them, amIright? It's not like we owe any responsibilities to them.

Isn't that pretty much the thinking regarding the right to abortion?

 

[Augustine_]

Planned Fossil Fuel Production Vastly Exceeds the World’s Climate Goals, ‘Throwing Humanity’s Future Into Question’ - Inside Climate News

The world’s top fossil-fuel producing nations are still planning to increase their output of oil, gas and coal far beyond what the world’s climate targets would allow, according to a new United Nations report. The findings reveal a widening gap between the emissions-cutting pledges these...

insideclimatenews.org

Let's see...an increase in the production of fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal - is a good thing for everyone currently living on this planet. It will control energy costs (which greatly impact the cost of everything else), it will help the developing world and the third world achieve their dreams of modernity (electricity, clean water, efficient transportation, increased food production, lower cooking and heating costs, etc.), and it will generally be a boon to humanity, producing not only wealth out of the ground but also jobs and general prosperity.

But there are those who say that our enjoyment of all these benefits should be curtailed. They say that our grandchildren and further generations will - I don't know - be wiped out? I'm not sure. This is all speculation, of course, and it presumes that our descendants will be too stupid to mitigate the inconveniences that could come with a warming planet - moving people around, building sea walls, expanding the use of air conditioning, and so on.

So what do yinz think? Should we shoot ourselves in the foot now - higher energy costs, etc., - for a speculative benefit to our stupid descendants a hundred year from now and beyond?

It seems fairly simple to me.

When you are profoundly ignorant about something, of course it seems simple

 

[Moonglow]

I find it to be entertaining to seeing the once proud and powerful in desperation when just a few years back they thought they had us in a chokehold...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, why care about our descendants and their lives? Fuck them, amIright? It's not like we owe any responsibilities to them.

Exactly!
They don't need a decent standard of living based on cheap reliable energy.
They need expensive, unreliable energy.
Anything we can do to reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.1 degrees is
worth it, no matter the cost or economic damage.

 

[Crick]

Let's see...an increase in the production of fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal - is a good thing for everyone currently living on this planet. It will control energy costs (which greatly impact the cost of everything else), it will help the developing world and the third world achieve their dreams of modernity (electricity, clean water, efficient transportation, increased food production, lower cooking and heating costs, etc.), and it will generally be a boon to humanity, producing not only wealth out of the ground but also jobs and general prosperity.

You ignore the cost of putting all that CO2 into the atmosphere.

But there are those who say that our enjoyment of all these benefits should be curtailed.

No, they do not. They say we should do our best to stop emitting CO2. That is not the same thing.

They say that our grandchildren and further generations will - I don't know - be wiped out? I'm not sure.

They will suffer the consequences of our inaction. Many will die but many more will suffer. The cost will beggar nations.

This is all speculation, of course

Speculation is a conjecture without evidence. That is NOT what we have here. We have enormous amounts of evidence. This is a very widely accepted scientific theory.

and it presumes that our descendants will be too stupid to mitigate the inconveniences that could come with a warming planet

Inconveniences? Is that what you call it? And are you expecting our descendants to be grateful that you ignored the problem we could have dealt with and passed it on to them with far greater expense and far greater urgency?

- moving people around, building sea walls, expanding the use of air conditioning, and so on.

Why is it you want them to do that and not us?

So what do yinz think? Should we shoot ourselves in the foot now - higher energy costs, etc., - for a speculative benefit to our stupid descendants a hundred year from now and beyond?

It seems fairly simple to me.

If you saw yourself in a movie you'd think what a pathetically irresponsible villain. Nobody is that lacking in basic decency.

 

[buttercup]

"Inside Climate News"

I've said this before, but again... the true environmental movement was hijacked by corrupt powers who have been using it as a tool for their own global agendas.

When you look into the history of it, it's very interesting, especially when you see what's at the root of it all. This documentary is excellent, I highly recommend watching it for anyone who's interested in this topic:

 

[Oddball]

You ignore the cost of putting all that CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, they do not. They say we should do our best to stop emitting CO2. That is not the same thing.

They will suffer the consequences of our inaction. Many will die but many more will suffer. The cost will beggar nations.

Speculation is a conjecture without evidence. That is NOT what we have here. We have enormous amounts of evidence. This is a very widely accepted scientific theory.

Inconveniences? Is that what you call it? And are you expecting our descendants to be grateful that you ignored the problem we could have dealt with and passed it on to them with far greater expense and far greater urgency?

Why is it you want them to do that and not us?

If you saw yourself in a movie you'd think what a pathetically irresponsible villain. Nobody is that lacking in basic decency.

 

[Crick]

Sorry, I didn't watch that show very often. Well... ever.

 

[Magnus]

meh....Fuck you is good enough for the time being.

You wish. But sorry. I don’t swing that way.

 

[Magnus]

Isn't that pretty much the thinking regarding the right to abortion?

Nope. Not even close. Let me know if you are still confused.

 

[Oddball]

You wish. But sorry. I don’t swing that way.

You're this fucking boring IRL, aren't you?

 

[Magnus]

You're this fucking boring IRL, aren't you?

The answer is still NO.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You ignore the cost of putting all that CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, they do not. They say we should do our best to stop emitting CO2. That is not the same thing.

They will suffer the consequences of our inaction. Many will die but many more will suffer. The cost will beggar nations.

Speculation is a conjecture without evidence. That is NOT what we have here. We have enormous amounts of evidence. This is a very widely accepted scientific theory.

Inconveniences? Is that what you call it? And are you expecting our descendants to be grateful that you ignored the problem we could have dealt with and passed it on to them with far greater expense and far greater urgency?

Why is it you want them to do that and not us?

If you saw yourself in a movie you'd think what a pathetically irresponsible villain. Nobody is that lacking in basic decency.

They will suffer the consequences of our inaction. Many will die but many more will suffer. The cost will beggar nations.

Beggar them today, so that China can still increase their CO2.
Sounds like typical leftist economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Inside Climate News"

I've said this before, but again... the true environmental movement was hijacked by corrupt powers who have been using it as a tool for their own global agendas.

When you look into the history of it, it's very interesting, especially when you see what's at the root of it all. This documentary is excellent, I highly recommend watching it for anyone who's interested in this topic:

Cheap, reliable energy.
I can think of worse things.

 

[Crick]

I find the prospect of global warming, the possibility of a second Trump administration and the demise of a republican party concerned with responsible governance all a bit depressing. But then I think "I'll be dead before it gets really bad".

 

[Dadoalex]

Planned Fossil Fuel Production Vastly Exceeds the World’s Climate Goals, ‘Throwing Humanity’s Future Into Question’ - Inside Climate News

The world’s top fossil-fuel producing nations are still planning to increase their output of oil, gas and coal far beyond what the world’s climate targets would allow, according to a new United Nations report. The findings reveal a widening gap between the emissions-cutting pledges these...

insideclimatenews.org

Let's see...an increase in the production of fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal - is a good thing for everyone currently living on this planet. It will control energy costs (which greatly impact the cost of everything else), it will help the developing world and the third world achieve their dreams of modernity (electricity, clean water, efficient transportation, increased food production, lower cooking and heating costs, etc.), and it will generally be a boon to humanity, producing not only wealth out of the ground but also jobs and general prosperity.

But there are those who say that our enjoyment of all these benefits should be curtailed. They say that our grandchildren and further generations will - I don't know - be wiped out? I'm not sure. This is all speculation, of course, and it presumes that our descendants will be too stupid to mitigate the inconveniences that could come with a warming planet - moving people around, building sea walls, expanding the use of air conditioning, and so on.

So what do yinz think? Should we shoot ourselves in the foot now - higher energy costs, etc., - for a speculative benefit to our stupid descendants a hundred year from now and beyond?

It seems fairly simple to me.

the old Midas commercials
"You can pay me now or pay me later"
And later will cost a lot more.

A few degrees delta and the US midwest stops being the breadbasket of the world and becomes the Great American Desert. If you've been in Kansas during a drought you know what I mean.

Meanwhile warming of the oceans will will kill many of the food species and reefs resulting in a big decrease in seafood availability.

Now you may think that we can use new technologies to overcome this but that's what they were saying 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. But, when any new technology is opposed politically as solar and wind, when lifestyle changes are opposed because you want yours, well, I'm sure you can see where this ends.

Still, who gives a damn. We've jerked around the last 40 years pretending there isn't a problem or that we'll be able to solve it but, It is doubtful, absent a major killoff of 30-40% of humanity within the next 20 years, that the earth will be capable of supporting large mammal life much beyond 2100.

But wh cares as long as we get ours, right?