• god must be atheist
    Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 450 power reactors

    electricity is created in most of the western world by at least 50% nuclear fission energy.
    — god must be atheist

    Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 450 power reactors.

    ~ World Nuclear Association.

    Thirty countries have power reactors. There are 195 countries.

    I'm sorry to say, but I am afraid that your rebuttal does not make sense statistically. What you are doing is taking the total amount of nuclear power plants and devide their electricity production by 195 extant countries; thereby declaring 10% involvement in creating electrical energy. Whereas the nuclear power plants supply nuclear energy to only 30 countries.

    I did not say that the world's electricity comes 50% from nuclear energy. That's a necessary inference (but false) to substantiate the argument you made.
  • god must be atheist
    Currency is a treaty or an agreement, for sure. Stop believing in it, and it becomes worthless. Right now it's not, but if that were to happen, it would be a catastrophe, unless you're set up to be completely self-sufficient (which few of us are)Wayfarer

    That is true.

    And it may be closer than it appears in our rear-view mirrors.

    Not because of global warming; but because of the trade deficit to China.

    China has been supplying goods to the USA and to the world for US dollars. Now China is sitting on top of a huge amount of US dollars in their possession. What can they do with it? They can't buy goods, because their domestic supply of manufactured goods is way cheaper than the prices they'd need to pay to other countries. Can they buy food, land, and energy? Sure, to a certain point. China has been buying up cheap real estate around the whole world: in Australia, in Africa. Maybe in America, and Europe, I suspect they would but I have no knowledge of that.

    So after they bought up what they possibly could, what will be their American dollars worth? And let's face it, the world economy is hugely dependent on the stability of the US dollar.
  • Tim3003
    stop trying to make the world do what we want it to do, but rather listen and pay attention more, and then give the world what it needs from us.Possibility

    Surely we aren't doing that. We (ie. us discussing here - not mankind as a whole) are trying to find ways to let the world do what it wants, rather than assuming we have the right to alter it for our own short-term economic ends. What does the world 'need from us'? To be left alone?

    And then we get into the whole issue of rights: ie. do we as the dominant species have the right to alter the eco-system if we want to (by design or by negligance). Or do other species have the right to their un-molested existance alongside us?

    Surely a big part of the problem is over-population. ourworldindata.org
    Would sticking to a ceiling of (say) 7 billion humans on earth keep the effects manageable? And if so, should we prioritise aiming for this? The forecasts of world food shortages over this century seem to be based on another 3 billion Africans being around by 2100..
  • Lif3r
    Glaciers the size of Alaska that melt and provide water for the community.

    Sorry, I thought that was obvious.
  • Lif3r
    Can humanity curve climate change? In my opinion yes.
    Will they? No, I doubt it. The majority is too focused on bullshit to actually see it through until it's too late.
    Can humanity survive climate change? In my opinion yes, but survivability will become more and more difficult for the common person because eventually it's going to take bunkers with high tech air filtration systems and stockpiles of supplies.

    Also I'm looking to rent a room in a bunker of this sorts in the event of this incident if anyone knows anyone.
  • Lif3r
    If communities came together on this, there would be a higher chance of increased survival rates. It wouldn't be glamorous living, but possible.
  • TheMadFool
    Despite the euphoria surrounding the Paris Climate Accord the world's leaders and its people have failed to act on the promises made. Few countries have legislated to start the drastic countermeasures necessary to slow down and halt global warming.

    My question is: is global warming a challenge too great for humanity to handle? Is the momentum of the growth-based capitalist system too great to slow and turn around? Is the ecocentric view of the world which could galvanise the will to make sacrifices outside our nature?

    I have noticed a fatalism in many people - ie 'it's too late to stop it now' or 'I'll be long gone by then' so why bother? Is this more a view of the older generation, and are younger adults ready to rise to the challenge? But even if they are, can they convince enough of the apathetic majority to win power for radical new governments in the few years before it's too late?

    The climate change problem hasn't been framed in the way people understand - the one and only, universally comprehensible carrot-and-stick model. If there's nothing to gain or nothing to lose people will simply refuse to spend time and energy on it.

    I think scientists and some other groups are giving it their best shot at dangling the carrot and waving the stick but the carrot is too small and the stick seems so far away that most people are not in the least bit bothered by it.

    Climate change, if real, will require work proportionate to its cause i.e. the response must be global in scope. We then face the uncomfortable fact that the word "global" reflects geography but not politics which is divided to such an extent that it thwarts the unified effort necessary to respond to the problem.
  • Lif3r
    Invest in gold and guns. Production is going to slow way down. Governments and economic institutions are going to change and fail. People will be fighting for their place in survivable conditions.
  • Wayfarer
    What you are doing is taking the total amount of nuclear power plants and devide their electricity production....god must be atheist

    Nothing that complicated - I just googled it and 10% came out.
  • Janus
    The point is, global debt is at such a level that it cannot be simply absolved or forgiven.Wayfarer

    What do you think will happen if, when debts are called in and they cannot be paid, they are not absolved? War of all against all for money, when there will already be shortages of food, water and what we would consider to be essential services?

    The alternative scenario I proposed was one where, out of the necessity brought about by increasing resource scarcity, fuel shortages, power outages and so on, governments step in and force absolution of debt in order to head off the total financial meltdown which would result from everyone attempting to call in what is owed to them. It would be ironic if civilization were to be totally destroyed by mere money!

    What would be the alternative to absolving debt? Total collapse of any and all government, property ownership, and even the minimal infrastructure which would be needed to slow the crisis to somewhat manageable levels?

    Obviously it's impossible to predict and not easy to even imagine how things will unfold, but I think there will be martial law in any case.
  • Janus
    I just came across this, which sums the situation up nicely, I think:

    To use my own terminology, Earth System Disruption (ESD) is driving Human System Destabilization (HSD). Preoccupied with the resulting political chaos, the Human System becomes even more vulnerable and incapable of ameliorating ESD. As ESD thus accelerates, it generates more HSD. The self-reinforcing cycle continues, and we find ourselves in an amplifying feedback loop of disruption and destabilization.

    From this article.
  • I like sushi
    Sometimes it’s better to keep commonsense to yourself ;)

    You’re correct. Some people prefer to see denial when facts are laid at their feet. The first post is badly worded - there is no doubt that the Earth’s climate goes through changes.

    In that sense ‘halting climate change’ is completely beyond humanities current capabilities. In term of reducing the impact of humanities effect on the climate, obviously we have the capacity to lessen our impact in some ways.

    I imagine the OP is looking to explore ways of either changing current attitudes, educating and/or exploring hypotheticals that could tackle future problems. Under these criteria I’d say the thread has largely failed to economics and education.

    The quicker we get to 11 billion the better our chances of cutting to the quick of human societies and tackling ‘destabilizing’ factors.

    The future is hazy and growing more hazy by the day. Humanity is just learning to walk.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.