The climate emergency is the perfect disaster to slip right past human cognitive flaws. It’s a long term problem, so the consequences seem remote. Others will mostly bear the costs (for now), so it’s hard to summon concern or empathy — even if those others are the children and grandchildren of those now living.
Another part of the reason for the lack of action is that people don’t understand how dire and serious the emergency in fact is due to frequent millenarian and apocalyptic nonsense in human history over the years.
Well, this time the potential apocalypse is real and not nonsense, but no one wants to hear that since yet another human cognitive flaw waylays this perception: optimism bias. That won’t happen to me or my kids.That’s for other people.
Bolsanoro burning down the Amazon is probably the last straw. We’re done, I’d guess, and we’ve found the Great Filter.
No, I don’t think climate change will cause human extinction directly. Though, is that our sole criterion, just to avoid extinction? Is that the best we can do? I have no idea why so many centrists/ liberals use this as any sort of standard. Because it’s definitely going to cause civilizational collapse and if you think that’s so much better, we have nothing to talk about.
But the nuclear and conventional wars that are inevitably part and parcel of the climate emergency likely will cause extinction or nearly so, and that’s how your children and grandchildren will die.
Wait, how can a test like that determine that I am going to die while leaping from the ISS and firing a nuclear-tipped missile back at it in a last-ditch effort to destroy the alien invaders that are attempting to colonize our planet?
I eat way more food than I did a year ago and am still not gaining weight effectively while lifting. I don’t think I can eat much more as I am just not hungry enough and overeating is just unpleasant (unless you’re a Fat Acceptance type, I guess).
Ah well, still gaining muscle, just more slowly than I could be.
No. You can’t compare inflation this way. It’s unsound for a variety of reasons. A better way to do it is to look at purchasing power parity vs. today with goods that existed then and that exist now. Even that is by no means perfect, but it’s better than the garbage numbers from the article.
Diocles was indeed very wealthy, but at most (depending on how you do the calculations above), he won no more than $200 million or so in today’s money. He wasn’t even as rich as Michael Jordan or other top-earning athletes.
Exactly. There are few truly perpetually fixed rules in language and usage, but a lot of people require these because they have no feel for the flow. If you can flow, there’s no linguistic place you can’t go, you know?
I must be deranged, but I don’t think buying Greenland is such a terrible idea, if Denmark were willing to sell. Everyone seems to think it’s just insane but we bought Alaska and there was of course the Louisiana Purchase.
I know it’s against international law, but when have we ever respected that? It seems more of an anti-Trump position to think the Greenland purchase idea is so bizarre rather than examining it on its merits or lack thereof.
The main demerit of the idea is that we have far more important issues to focus on, I think.