Page 1 of 1

Death by Facebook (Pyrrhic Victory)

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:35 am
by eric_marsh
In politics the competition to sway public opinion is fierce. Every strategy is used to gain an edge. Talk radio, tv and attack ads are mainstays. With social media came new opportunities.

Peer pressure is a powerful tool. Third world labor was initially used to befriend and manipulate voters, but it quickly became obsolete.

When the crops failed the city dwellers went first. Bubba lasted a little longer but not by much.

Deep in caverns, solar powered servers humm and the debate continues. On Facebook the bots arguing that global warming doesn't exist outnumber their opponents by fifty to one.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:25 pm
by Varda
Excellent. When the global warming apocalypse comes, we'll all be underground debating hockey stick diagrams, while hopefully the scientists at least are well on their way to Alpha Centauri.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:41 pm
by strawman
My question, in all seriousness is this: How much of what you personally have are you willing to sacrifice to reverse atmospheric carbon emission build-up? Would you be willing to foreswear using electricity? Mechanical transportation?
The problem is there's been no discussion of cost/benefit.
Why not? Because almost everyone in the world sees how much sacrifice would be required to achieve a result that is usually put as something like 1/3 of a degree celsius reduction over 20 years. In theory.

On the other hand, if we just wiped out 90% of mankind, I am convinced that would solve the problem.

What to do. What to do.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:02 pm
by Varda
Fortunately, in the realm of climate science, 1/3 a degree really does make a difference. Kinda like it does within the human body: very small shifts in temperature, acidity, and other conditions have a profound impact on the ability of the whole system to operate, and there comes a point where the whole thing shifts into "serious illness" and then "death".

I don't think it should be a matter of how much each of us are "willing" to do. This is a case where top-down regulation is extremely effective at inducing change, especially since manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture are really the biggest players on this stage.

Then again, I've already got a seat on the Alpha Centauri transport, so y'all have fun. ;-)

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:54 pm
by eric_marsh
When I was born the world's population was 3 billion. I think that's a sustainable number. My take is that it's better to have a smaller population that's sustainable and where everyone has a high quality of life than a population that grows as large as resources will allow.

That's just my take on things.

But we don't have the political will nor the wisdom to address population growth. So I imagine Mother Nature will do it for us.

Edit:

As for the original question, it's not much but I drive a 40mph diesel Passat, Janet drives a smart car and we have installed energy efficient heat pumps in our house and business property.

On the other hand when I fly my airplane it probably consumes all those savings and more.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:52 pm
by strawman
I think I agree with Eric on this. There is not the political will, and whoever stands up and offers to be the one who divvies up the goodies gets the usual "Who made you the boss of me?"

When I was born, there were 15 workers supporting each person on social security. Now there's something around 2.4. That ratio is a more immediate concern than the 1/3 degree warming. Making energy more expensive seems to correlate directly to reducing economic activity, which pushes that 2.4 lower faster.

The bottom line: only really fair solution is for half the earth's population to volunteer to become soylent green. But since nobody agrees with practical solutions like that, they resort to stupid ineffectual measures like banning incandescent light bulbs.

I think a satellite map of the earth at night will show that most of the world's energy and consumption is within 20 miles of the earth's coastlines. So rising sea levels may be the most efficient method of achieving ecological balance. Just cut off the evacuation routes.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 4:39 pm
by eric_marsh
I wouldn't eat Soylent Green. Too many hormones and preservatives in the meat.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 4:55 pm
by strawman
eric_marsh wrote:I wouldn't eat Soylent Green. Too many hormones and preservatives in the meat.
That's the beauty of a market economy, eric. Before you finished that thought, a dozen companies were offering organic soylent green.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:11 pm
by eric_marsh

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:38 pm
by ROU Killing Time
World: "Hey China, what's with all the babies? They will eat us out of house and home. Do something about it."

China: "Ok." <does something about it.>

World: "WTF, China. That's so mean. Freaking authoritarian gummint. SMH"

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:52 pm
by strawman
S'allright. First, they will work hard. We will continue to take it easy and borrow money from them. When we owe them so much we cannot repay them, they will say okay, but we buy your country and move in with you.

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:20 pm
by eric_marsh
A super deal on a fixer-upper country?

viewtopic.php?t=833&p=8625

Re: Death by Facebook.

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:28 pm
by strawman
And bump for same reply:
Admit it, Eric. A Martha Stewart part of you thinks that this would be a good thing.

Re: Death by Facebook (Alamo - last stands... of the GW deni

Posted: Mon May 19, 2014 7:10 pm
by eric_marsh
Another discussion led me to this and it occurred to me that it is a last stand. So bumped.

Re: Death by Facebook (Alamo - last stands... of the GW deni

Posted: Mon May 19, 2014 9:04 pm
by ROU Killing Time
Still a good one.

Re: Death by Facebook (Alamo - last stands... of the GW deni

Posted: Mon May 19, 2014 9:23 pm
by eric_marsh
Well, when you think about it, how do you know that the beautiful blond arguing that GMOs have been scientifically proven to be safe is a real person? Ever met her? Notice how she always returns her conversation to the same talking points? Could that be an indication that she's a true believer, working off a script, or perhaps that she might not quite be passing Turing's test?

Things to make you go hmmmm....

Image

Re: Death by Facebook (Alamo - last stands... of the GW deni

Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 6:39 am
by ROU Killing Time
Hmmm, indeed.

On a related topic, I got one of those annoying robo-calls that use branching scripts attached to snippets of human recording. First time took it 15 seconds to fail the Turing Test, (but they're instantly recognizable now.)

Still, when they improve the state of the art...

Re: Death by Facebook (Alamo - last stands... of the GW deni

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:01 pm
by eric_marsh

Re: Death by Facebook (Pyrrhic Victory)

Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:14 pm
by eric_marsh