🧵 Climate deniers.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:14:51 UTC No. 16255946
Why does everyone here like to deny climate and biodiversity loss.
The elites are not just gonna lie about this shit for shits and giggles. Obviously it’s a major concern.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:24:22 UTC No. 16255964
>>16255946
It's just idiots being idiots, and next time don't post WEF, it turns you into controlled opposition.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:31:49 UTC No. 16255979
>>16255946
>elites are liars
>they are not gonna lie about this shit
>in fact they spend a shitton of money to propagate the truth
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:02:28 UTC No. 16256007
>>16255946
Because there's no point in trying to do anything about it if you value human life at all. The only honest attitude on the problem is a form of nihilism. If people really cared and were absolutely convinced of the nature of the problem, then they wouldn't have kids. But the instincts win out, and the intellect is very, very feeble against the instincts.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:04:20 UTC No. 16256008
>>16255979
Exactly what reason do they have to lie? This is what climate deniers fail to explain. Like what do they get out of it?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:07:48 UTC No. 16256013
>>16256007
You know there are other ways of dealing with climate change and pollution other than human extinction, right?
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:10:21 UTC No. 16256019
>>16255946
Here's the thing, the time for glowniggers is over, because the time of man is over. Soon I won't have to worry about ANY of your annoying propaganda because your species will be back in hell where it belongs.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:16:55 UTC No. 16256026
>>16256019
Ahhh yes the hood old doomsday predictions. The world is ending anons quick get to the bunkers!!!!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:19:58 UTC No. 16256028
>>16256026
Did you remember to tell the billionaires and politician childrapers NOT to head to their bunkers? Oh wait, they can still use theirs, right? I mean I certainly hope they use them. They burnt down Hawai'i to build the fucking things.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:23:16 UTC No. 16256033
>>16256028
> Did you remember to tell the billionaires and politician childrapers NOT to head to their bunkers? Oh wait, they can still use theirs, right? I mean I certainly hope they use them. They burnt down Hawai'i to build the fucking things.
Put down the drugs and seek treatment
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:27:56 UTC No. 16256035
>>16256033
Eglin?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:39:01 UTC No. 16256041
>>16255946
Pretty sure it's just /pol/ leaking. It gets worse every year. Some of the shit they come up with is so out of pocket that sometimes I toy with the idea that it's actual shills testing out new rhetoric and strategies to work out the bugs before they take it to a bigger platform that actually matters.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:11:32 UTC No. 16256060
>>16256041
Nobody outside of the upper classes believes this horseshit. /pol/, youtube comments sections, etc. are what people actually think. Reddit, blue boards full of foids and the mainstream narrative are what the upper classes are told to think.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:55:55 UTC No. 16256137
>>16256041
Nearly 70% of sci posts have been bots for a while now.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:20:29 UTC No. 16256188
>>16255946
>world economic forum
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:26:07 UTC No. 16256196
>>16256188
Lol I didn't even notice. I'm so used to just dismissing this obviously astroturfed bullshit out of hand I no longer pay attention to what asshole is shitting it out.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:27:29 UTC No. 16256197
>>16255946
>Why does everyone here like to deny climate and biodiversity loss.
Because it clashes with the right's tenets, and those define their "manly" and economically individualist identities.
They feel like it's a direct attack on their identities, on what defines them as a person, and not just as a matter of knowledge about a physical and scientific problem.
Their fragile narcissistic egos feel attacked and they riposte aggressively in defense.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:27:30 UTC No. 16256198
>>16256137
That's all blue boards. It's even higher on places like /tv/ which are literally just reddit. The only reason foid shills aren't more common here is because too few of the shills and women are smart enough to even grasp the rudiments of the fields they're meant to shill to be even minorly effective.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:26:43 UTC No. 16256266
>>16255946
>Why does everyone here like to deny hell and eternal damnation?
>The catholic church is not just gonna lie about this shit for shits and giggles. Obviously it’s a major concern.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:00:51 UTC No. 16256328
>>16255946
politics
>>16256197
this
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:33:36 UTC No. 16256534
>>16256060
t. NPC who's been told what to think.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:02:12 UTC No. 16257535
>>16256013
IF you take the climate change premise at face value and IF you value human life and IF you would like the exisiting human population to have something like a post-industrial standard of living, then you have to get the population back DOWN and BELOW pre-industrial levels, and then KEEP IT THERE. There is no getting around this if you accept the above premises and values. This means something like 50-200 million individuals. There isn't a practical way of doing this, because there's no way to police the system from outside of the system (there's no god, no aliens from mars, nor one dicatator on the moon is regulating human population, etc). That's what it would really take for a long-term solution, but no one wants that.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:37:32 UTC No. 16257556
>>16257535
Didn’t bill gates want reduction in population?
There’s consequences to population decline, and one of them is the capitalist system cannot function at scale.
Maybe that’s why they want robots?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 02:53:07 UTC No. 16257563
>>16256008
More resources that are usually given to the commoners get freed up for them, and it exclusivizes certain previously widespread resources, making them more desirable to the elites as status symbols.
Also, by demonstrating "care" for the environment, they signal they are virtuous individuals worthy of respect, regardless of how important this actually is to them.
What the fuck anon seriously I'm brain dead and don't subscribe to this debate but even I can recognize that.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:04:07 UTC No. 16257576
>>16257563
That isn’t a reason to lie anon clearly there is something wrong with human consumption of resources and damaging the environment.
Everything isn’t always a conspiracy. There wasn’t 8 billion people in the past anon.
This was the weakest argument yet which proves they aren’t lying.
As a matter of fact I seen this question asked to prominent deniers in the media and they stumble because they never really thought about it lmao.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:15:59 UTC No. 16257596
>>16257576
>that isn't a reason to lie
What isn't? The status symbols? Why else would they want to keep their yachts and private planes. Y'know, the luxury transportation options that, despite those things operating for less than a month out of a
year in total, INDIVIDUALLY output FAR MORE greenhouse gases than MILLIONS of commoners and their lightweight cars combined.
>everything isn't always a conspiracy
You don't think groups people can come to the same conclusion independently?
>there weren't 8 billion in the past
There also wasn't modern medicine, advanced farming techniques, motorized equipment, easy access to clean water even in first world countries, or even satellites to predict droughts.
We don't live in the same world we did 200 years ago. Did you know that in the 1950s, we were predicted to experience cataclysmic poverty and famines, with the world covered in catastrophic pollution? Where are those famines? The poverty? The pollution? I'll tell you where. Nowhere. The pollution, for example, largely disappeared because we innovated new and cleaner ways of harvesting food and to power motorized vehicles.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:28:46 UTC No. 16257614
>>16257556
That's just (right-thinking, really) aspiration in world management but they don't quite have the tech to do it. So they have to work on psychological conditioning, messaging, that sort of thing, alongside practical medical reality. The elites have run fire drills on this stuff in sold-out hotel floors, and they in fact simulated what to do for a pandemic a number of times prior to covid. The response to covid was not arbitrary, they simply took the basic playbook, or at least certain beats that had been developed, and then deployed that messaging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera
But this is apart from what I'm getting at. If you want to reduce the human population without civilizational collapse, the choke point is obvious: the egg, the human ovum. Figure out some way to regularly teleport those out of women's bodies, or otherwise get them out, thereby GRADUALLY drawing down population levels (monitor the population pyramid in real time for a period of many years) until a desired level is found, and then stablize and regulate people's very lives around that level. That's the type of population control that I would welcome, that I would like to see.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:34:50 UTC No. 16257625
>>16257576
Human suffering unequivocally decreases with increased population. The primary mechanism is just economics of scale, but there are also outliers that drive radical improvement every now and again.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:41:09 UTC No. 16257632
>>16257625
This is a bold claim with many aspects to think about, and I'm not sure that I agree. On the macroeconomic side, I can see how increased division of labor and larger labor pool makes things materially nicer for those enjoy the fruits of the labor and of the fossil fuel extraction which powers absolutely everything that makes life worth living, so if you had that in mind (the general benefits of capitalism which are associated with increasing population) then I agree about that part. However, on the evolutionary and psychological side we are stupid and violent animals and we somewhat like our own cultures and hate the other cultures. Also, when there's too many people, it gets crowded and this stresses people out. If there's economics at scale, there's also war at scale, and human suffering at scale (World War I, World War II, etc).
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:01:33 UTC No. 16257646
>>16257596
Anon you know nothing about resource consumption an economies at scale the elites aren’t creating carbon emissions. WE ARE!!!
do you know how we get our goods? They come in on cargo ships from Asia pacific nations. Do you know how much fuel a cargo ship uses? Approximately 63,000 gallons of fuel for ONE ship. Plus the resources to make the goods on the ship plus to put it on 18 wheelers to drive it to our super markets and Walmarts
This is a huge operation which uses a lot of energy and resources which are finite.
It’s also unsustainable and damaging to the environment. It creates lots of trash and toxic chemicals which ravage ecosystems and the earth.
People think they know everything.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:11:57 UTC No. 16257653
>>16255946
I read on /pol/ how the European Union banned the emissions of sulfur dioxide from shipping vessels going to EU ports a few years back and that this was relevant because sulfur dioxide is a pollutant that actually cools down the atmosphere and ocean temperatures. And that is why it was banned. In order to artificially increase the temperature of the ocean waters and atmosphere due to pollutants such as CO2. Sulfur dioxide would lower temperatures to compete with other pollutants like CO2.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:12:58 UTC No. 16257655
>>16257653
Thread:
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thre
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:17:53 UTC No. 16257661
>>16257614
Ahhh damn thanks for reminding me about event 201 I couldn’t for the life of me remember the video I saw on YouTube right before the pandemic.
Sweet im going to go re-watch it to study
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:38:55 UTC No. 16257677
>>16257632
Oil has certainly been a great boon and they show the value of energy, which more people also provide, so long as they are kept fed.
I am also not convinced war is only misery and suffering. Certainly the people dying and injured are experiencing a lot of this and certainly unnecessary war should be avoided. But what does that really mean?
Men can't see the future. He can only act on what is in front of him, and pray he does so nobly. War stands is a driver of societal evolution, a restructuring of everything based on current, most often material, pressing concerns. War, even the unnecessary kind, is very necessary for the men fighting it, because they are enthralled in the structure exploiting them for maybe corrupt or frivolous reasons. And in these so-called unnecessary wars, the exploiter relishes in these exploits, realizes them, shows them. And while many will never recognize it it, the people who do need to, most certainly will. And this tyrant may also be under a spell, and perhaps he is driven by temptations making the unnecessary war inevitable.
I look at man and machine energy like this: the machines free men to higher pursuits. They do not have to be present for whatever particular process that would replace an engine, say like boat rowing. The technology is copy and pasted all over, at some cost, and each one frees another man - and I must qualify this because of Uncle Teddy - insofar as the technology is doing productive, necessary work. This makes technology a force multiplier.
As for unnecessary wars, medical psychology has been a crock of shit as a matter of historical record. They can't tell you about happiness, they don't know what it is. Behavioral accounting is a joke. There is a reason these loons went from doping women to doping children. From poking brains to recommending genital mutilation. Psychologists are only useful when kids are stacking mom's credit cards through addiction marketing or as a shoulder to cry on.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 04:54:45 UTC No. 16257690
>>16257677
>pray he does so nobly
This kind of vagary is where you lose me. You're talking sense about the usefulness of technology ("just let the machine do the work", in the literal, physical sense), and even war as an extreme example of how competition can benefit society, but I reject your adolescent defense of war as such, particularly war, again, at scale, which you allude to.
There's a limit point, a bottleneck which ends the whole game, which we've had and understood the implications of for decades: the nukes. I find your optimism, on balance, to be unreasonable, even taking into account that the big two nuclear powers voluntarily reduced their stockpiles after we "won" the Cold War.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:57:06 UTC No. 16257754
>>16256060
/thread
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:02:58 UTC No. 16257812
>>16256060
>Nobody outside of the upper classes believes this horseshit.
the bubble you live in, wow
I'd point you to /pol/ but I think it's actually better if you stay away from that place for a long, long time.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:32:58 UTC No. 16258925
>>16255946
Biodiversity isn't important, from the last thread the jannies pruned:
Why are all endangered species so important that you believe you can violate other's rights? Seriously I don't get the importance at all. 90% of species are extinct. If humans disappeared from the earth for a million years, the niches which the species which we destroyed inhabited would be refilled by newly evolved species. So outside of something that effects humans, why do these species matter?
Then suppose these species effect humans, why are they the only thing that can fill that role? If they are, then why do you expect that a free market wouldn't account for that fact and respond to it, i.e by not killing off that species? Why does this require government intervention and thus violating rights?
>>16257085
>We do own the planet
Preposterous statement for multiple reasons. The first is:
>are and aren't allowed to do on your land
How can I be said to possess "my land" yet have co-ownership of the planet with the population of Earth (which I assume is the "We"), which necessitates my land being co-owned as part of the planet?
If "We" own the planet, how can I cash-out my share, and claim it as my own, preferably the area of the planet which I already consider "my land"? Suppose that I have already done so, why do you beleive it is withing your rights to dictate to me what I do with my property?
If you can dictate to me what I do with my property, why can't I do the same for the entire planet which "We" own?
You have created a paradox, neither person could have the authority to dictate what is to be done with any area of land, as if they had the right to do so, the other person could overrule it by the same right.
>you don't listen well take your land from you and put you in a jail cell.
With this you prove yourself and evil envious communist bandit who desires to do harm to innocents.
Environmentalism=Statism=Communism=
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:34:12 UTC No. 16258927
This person >>16255980 is mentally ill.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:36:01 UTC No. 16258932
>>16256028
> They burnt down Hawai'i
I remember that. The most charitable explanation is extraordinarily incompetent corruption.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:43:58 UTC No. 16258944
>>16256197
>Because it clashes with the right's tenets
Environmentalism clashes with your rights.
Or rather the "solutions" given by Environmentalists more often than not use the violence of government to get their way.
You've got something close to correct: You've correctly identified the "Right-Left" divide over environmentalism, with those charactized as "Left" being environmentalists. This is because the defining feature of Leftism is using the violence of governments to achieve their goals.
But really you'd (and I'd) be better off by identifying the split as "Libertarian-Statist"; it's more accurate, as there are a minority of "Right-wing" matters which call for government intervention.
As for why "Leftists" are frequently environmentalists: It's another means to increase the size of the government.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:46:36 UTC No. 16258949
>>16256328
If your solutions require the government to do something it is political.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:47:42 UTC No. 16258953
>>16257812
This person believes using the government to do violence to others is moral.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:50:33 UTC No. 16258959
>>16256008
To increase government intervention in the market.
Government intervention benefits the "elites".
Take AI for example. A newly discovered thing which is now being locked away by regulations at the behest of corporations.
The part of all of this which I find most frustrating is that you cannot intuit this. I doubt you'll even understand now that I've explained it to you.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:18:08 UTC No. 16259006
>>16255946
its literaly the elites having their cake and eating it too.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:43:40 UTC No. 16259256
>>16255946
>The elites are not just gonna lie about this shit for shits and giggles.
Correct. They're lying about it for profit. Dumbass
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 05:59:42 UTC No. 16259346
>>16255946
>Climate deniers
Sounds like gravity deniers. Why are /sci retards not able to see the religious idiotisms in their primitive fascistic propaganda?