Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Snake_Baker]

Civilisation isn't collapsing mate.

And if it does, you're going down with everyone just as quickly. Probably quicker.

1) You trivialize CC more than I do, if you believe that.
2) Of course, I am dead. This isn't a dick sizing competition.

 

[Del191229]

1) You trivialize CC more than I do, if you believe that.
2) Of course, I am dead. This isn't a dick sizing competition.

Oh climate change is very real, and as I said above, what will come in our lifetimes in terms will take some getting used to.

But rich, usually but not always, white, technologically advanced places will be able to insulate themselves from the effects at a rapid rate. Living standards will actually improve for these people.

What it will bring about is massive inequality far more than we already have.

It will be rich and politically connected/important (both in the global and local sense) people living in air conditioned comfort while billions suffer a massive regression in living standards.

And for what it is worth, I reckon CC will be like other cataclysms like World War Two and the Black Death in that it actually brings about massive social and political improvement.

If you had to pick somewhere to be during the changing of the climate, Melbourne is about as good as you could get.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I dunno about that, the longer they wait the more entrenched the pro-democracy idea is, the more it gets worldwide support etc.

The world has done little yet. Sending in troops now could change that. Economic blockade offers their best non-violent means of victory.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And for what it is worth, I reckon CC will be like other cataclysms like World War Two and the Black Death in that it actually brings about massive social and political improvement.

Yeah. Just not what you're probably thinking.

If you had to pick somewhere to be during the changing of the climate, Melbourne is about as good as you could get.

LOL. Only the worlds finest cafe's will do for my apocalypse.

 

[Del191229]

LOL. Only the worlds finest cafe's will do for my apocalypse.

Stop with the "feelz" analysis of this. Hur hur Melbun cafe latte hur hur. Try and be more rational jeez.

Melbourne is probably the best - New Zealand better - because it is a long long way from anywhere where refugee floods will come from.

Marseille for example will be flooded with boats crossing the Med, it kind of already is. The entire population of Java could get on boats and they won't make it as far south as Melbourne

We have the critical mass of infrastructure and existing resources to keep functioning civil society indefinitely.

It would be very different to now, but it will be anyway in fifty years.

But it won't be REAL MEN who studied SCIENCE and are NOT NICE surviving a brutal Mad Max style collapsed world.

That thinking is for dumb shit kids who end up dead eight ks off the road in northern Manitoba when they tried to live out their fantasies.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ahhh yes, first comes the denial.

 

[Del191229]

Ahhh yes, first comes the denial.

First comes the refusal to engage with anything that doesn't fit your already made up mind.

The other key reason for why Melbourne's a great place to be is the lack of pre-existing ethnic tensions.

THAT is what will be the real driver of societal breakdown as the climate changes in less resilient societies.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You live in a dream like state, that contemporary convenience affords you.

It's going to end.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Stop with the "feelz" analysis of this. Hur hur Melbun cafe latte hur hur. Try and be more rational jeez.

Melbourne is probably the best - New Zealand better - because it is a long long way from anywhere where refugee floods will come from.

Marseille for example will be flooded with boats crossing the Med, it kind of already is. The entire population of Java could get on boats and they won't make it as far south as Melbourne

We have the critical mass of infrastructure and existing resources to keep functioning civil society indefinitely.

It would be very different to now, but it will be anyway in fifty years.

But it won't be REAL MEN who studied SCIENCE and are NOT NICE surviving a brutal Mad Max style collapsed world.

That thinking is for dumb s**t kids who end up dead eight ks off the road in northern Manitoba when they tried to live out their fantasies.

The thing is that we don’t have the available national resources or infrastructure for drastic changes to the current population.

Water and food resources are a continuous issue with drought. Our power grid is ok for now, but is dependent on ageing coal fired plants. More would have to be built or we would have to drastically do something else in regards to power. Policing/security/military resources are always limited. And the Australian housing situation can be really volatile and there’s not a swathe of freely available housing to fill atm. We are struggling to adequately house indigenous folk up in the NT as it is.

 

[Del191229]

You live in a dream like state, that contemporary convenience affords you.

It's going to end.

Mate, I grew up terrified if instant nuclear annihilation, that didn't happen.

Climate change is very very real and it is going to have a massive and pronounced impact on how we live.

But we're not Bangladeshi villagers living on the floodplain of the Bhramaputra.

And what's the point of living under a whole "ITS GUNNA END THE WORLD IS DOOMED" mentality.

Claime change is a process, not an event.

 

[Del191229]

The thing is that we don’t have the available national resources or infrastructure for drastic changes to the current population.

Water and food resources are a continuous issue with drought. Our power grid is ok for now, but is dependent on ageing coal fired plants. More would have to be built or we would have to drastically do something else in regards to power. Policing/security/military resources are always limited. And the Australian housing situation can be really volatile and there’s not a swathe of freely available housing to fill atm. We are struggling to adequately house indigenous folk up in the NT as it is.

When the climate reality hits, all of the above can and will be solved within a few years - well, maybe no housing indigenous folks up north.

The old coal clunker thing is hilarious.

If this government wished to, it could borrow the money FOR FREE and create tends of thousands of jobs taking us to a 100 per cent renewable system within a few years.

If we had a wartime mindset.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

When the climate reality hits, all of the above can and will be solved within a few years - well, maybe no housing indigenous folks up north.

The old coal clunker thing is hilarious.

If this government wished to, it could borrow the money FOR FREE and create tends of thousands of jobs taking us to a 100 per cent renewable system within a few years.

If we had a wartime mindset.

It’ll completely root the economy, but sure. It would take an unprecedented effort, sorry John Curtin, to accomplish a mass nationalisation of the economy and then apply it effectively.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Del191229]

It’ll completely root the economy, but sure. It would take an unprecedented effort, sorry John Curtin, to accomplish a mass nationalisation of the economy and then apply it effectively.

The economy will be in different shape anyway, as we were discussing earlier, the neo-liberal age is ending now anyway.

 

[Del191229]

View attachment 730407

How would a writer like him go after the collapse mate?

 

[Snake_Baker]

How would a writer like him go after the collapse mate?

His ability to survive would outshine the majority of contemporary society, but ultimately he is doomed.

 

[Del191229]

His ability to survive would outshine the majority of contemporary society, but ultimately he is doomed.

We all are anyway, cheer up misery guts.

Society and the climate should hold together long enough to see us win another flag.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Your dissonance is not going to change a thing.

CC adversity will not be overcome by internet battles.

 

[scooby1279]

Looking for a field sales rep, DM for more info

 

[Sopwiths North]

It's a weak correlation, and a long bow.
To pick out mass food production out of the thousands of possibilities since the industrial revolution as contributing to climate change is motivated by your own ideology,not science.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Nah, it's not my ideology. There's a good weight of fact, or "science", behind it:

The United Nations:

"What we eat has major implications for climate change. The destruction of rainforests to create land for agriculture, along with growing demand for meat, are major contributors to the increasing greenhouse gases which are taking a significant toll on climate and global food security."

https://www.un.org/en/actnow/index.shtml


An analysis of data compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

“Veganism is an increasingly mainstream lifestyle choice, as demonstrated by our vegan product revenue doubling in the last year alone. With this study revealing how switching diets could drastically reduce our carbon footprint, it’s becoming increasingly harder to ignore the benefits of moving to a plant-based diet, both for our health and our planet.”

https://www.nu3.de/c/food-carbon-footprint-index-2018/


University of Michigan:

• On average, U.S. household food consumption emits 8.1 metric tons of CO2e each year. The production of food accounts for 83% of emissions, while its transportation accounts for 11%.3
• The emissions associated with food production consist mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (NO2), which result primarily from agricultural practices.3
• Meat products have larger carbon footprints per calorie than grain or vegetable products because of the inefficient transformation of plant energy to animal energy.3
• Ruminant animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats produced 170 million metric tons (mmt) in CO2e of methane in the U.S. in 2016 through digestion.4
• Eating all locally grown food for one year could save the GHG equivalent of driving 1,000 miles, while eating a vegetarian meal one day a week could save the equivalent of driving 1,160 miles.3
• A vegetarian diet greatly reduces an individual’s carbon footprint, but switching to less carbon intensive meats can have a major impact as well. For example, replacing all beef consumption with chicken for one year leads to an annual carbon footprint reduction of 882 pounds CO2e.5

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet



David Suzuki Foundation:

"Livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land use, occupies 30 per cent of the planet’s land surface and is responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Growing animals for food is also inefficient. It takes about five to seven kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Each of those takes energy and water to produce, process, and transport.
As global meat consumption increases, so does its climate impact."

https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/food-climate-change/



Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:

"Livestock-based food production is an important and pervasive way humans impact the environment. It causes about one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is the key land user and source of water pollution by nutrient overabundance. It also competes with biodiversity, and promotes species extinctions. Empowering consumers to make choices that mitigate some of these impacts through devising and disseminating numerically sound information is thus a key socioenvironmental priority. ...We show that minimizing beef consumption mitigates the environmental costs of diet most effectively."

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996


A few other academic studies:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907006180

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919212000942


Are you going to post links to the information you've read that disputes the correlation between industrialised meat production and climate change?

Look, it's a simple yes or no answer. But continuing to rail on about my "ideology" or just simply accusing me of being wrong isn't doing this conversation any favours. If you're interested in backing up your position with some evidence, I'd be happy to keep discussing this very important topic. But if all you're going to do is repeatedly say that I have no credibility, or make weird unrelated comments about religious persuasions, then I'm out.

 

[kangaspurs]

Mate, I grew up terrified if instant nuclear annihilation, that didn't happen.

Climate change is very very real and it is going to have a massive and pronounced impact on how we live.

But we're not Bangladeshi villagers living on the floodplain of the Bhramaputra.

And what's the point of living under a whole "ITS GUNNA END THE WORLD IS DOOMED" mentality.

Claime change is a process, not an event.

I still think it's going to be SARS, or maybe swine flu. Actually, now that I think of it, it will be bird flu that ends the world, and as that hits a nuclear weapon will be set off somewhere in the Middle East, whilst simultaneously the folk at CERN accidentally on purpose create a mini black hole that swallows the earth.

It's such fatalism that is the real feelpinion here. Like you say, we're starting to see the serious effects of climate change, but it will be a slow process, over decades, and like all these things it will be the poorest and the hungriest who still have the most direct correlation between their livelihood and the land that suffer the earliest and the most. And as arable land is swallowed by desertification, or crops are destroyed by more regular and more extreme weather events, then comes the fight for food, which results in more deaths and suffering for those same people, and with it increased displacement and forced migration. And then more scare campaigns from prospective Western governments about the threat of migration while they continue to fail to address, and indeed, even support industries that contribute to the original problem. And one might call that fatalistic too.

 

[Royal Flush]

Nah, it's not my ideology. There's a good weight of fact, or "science", behind it:

The United Nations:

"What we eat has major implications for climate change. The destruction of rainforests to create land for agriculture, along with growing demand for meat, are major contributors to the increasing greenhouse gases which are taking a significant toll on climate and global food security."

https://www.un.org/en/actnow/index.shtml


An analysis of data compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

“Veganism is an increasingly mainstream lifestyle choice, as demonstrated by our vegan product revenue doubling in the last year alone. With this study revealing how switching diets could drastically reduce our carbon footprint, it’s becoming increasingly harder to ignore the benefits of moving to a plant-based diet, both for our health and our planet.”

https://www.nu3.de/c/food-carbon-footprint-index-2018/


University of Michigan:

• On average, U.S. household food consumption emits 8.1 metric tons of CO2e each year. The production of food accounts for 83% of emissions, while its transportation accounts for 11%.3
• The emissions associated with food production consist mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (NO2), which result primarily from agricultural practices.3
• Meat products have larger carbon footprints per calorie than grain or vegetable products because of the inefficient transformation of plant energy to animal energy.3
• Ruminant animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats produced 170 million metric tons (mmt) in CO2e of methane in the U.S. in 2016 through digestion.4
• Eating all locally grown food for one year could save the GHG equivalent of driving 1,000 miles, while eating a vegetarian meal one day a week could save the equivalent of driving 1,160 miles.3
• A vegetarian diet greatly reduces an individual’s carbon footprint, but switching to less carbon intensive meats can have a major impact as well. For example, replacing all beef consumption with chicken for one year leads to an annual carbon footprint reduction of 882 pounds CO2e.5

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet



David Suzuki Foundation:

"Livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land use, occupies 30 per cent of the planet’s land surface and is responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Growing animals for food is also inefficient. It takes about five to seven kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Each of those takes energy and water to produce, process, and transport.
As global meat consumption increases, so does its climate impact."

https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/food-climate-change/



Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:

"Livestock-based food production is an important and pervasive way humans impact the environment. It causes about one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is the key land user and source of water pollution by nutrient overabundance. It also competes with biodiversity, and promotes species extinctions. Empowering consumers to make choices that mitigate some of these impacts through devising and disseminating numerically sound information is thus a key socioenvironmental priority. ...We show that minimizing beef consumption mitigates the environmental costs of diet most effectively."

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996


A few other academic studies:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907006180

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919212000942


Are you going to post links to the information you've read that disputes the correlation between industrialised meat production and climate change?

Look, it's a simple yes or no answer. But continuing to rail on about my "ideology" or just simply accusing me of being wrong isn't doing this conversation any favours. If you're interested in backing up your position with some evidence, I'd be happy to keep discussing this very important topic. But if all you're going to do is repeatedly say that I have no credibility, or make weird unrelated comments about religious persuasions, then I'm out.

Frank Mitloehner: Cattle, climate change and the methane myth

Dr. Frank Mitloehner has done the math on the livestock industry’s contribution to climate change. He is a professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, specializing in measurement and mitigation of airborne pollutants from livestock production, including...

www.alltech.com

 

[XU1-ROO]

Anyone got an idea which way Shaw is going to go with picks/trading. Is he going to load up in picks in his first year or go with bringing players in.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Anyone got an idea which way Shaw is going to go with picks/trading. Is he going to load up in picks in his first year or go with bringing players in.

That's the most random post (being footy related) in the random chat thread.

 

[Del191229]

I still think it's going to be SARS, or maybe swine flu. Actually, now that I think of it, it will be bird flu that ends the world, and as that hits a nuclear weapon will be set off somewhere in the Middle East, whilst simultaneously the folk at CERN accidentally on purpose create a mini black hole that swallows the earth.

It's such fatalism that is the real feelpinion here. Like you say, we're starting to see the serious effects of climate change, but it will be a slow process, over decades, and like all these things it will be the poorest and the hungriest who still have the most direct correlation between their livelihood and the land that suffer the earliest and the most. And as arable land is swallowed by desertification, or crops are destroyed by more regular and more extreme weather events, then comes the fight for food, which results in more deaths and suffering for those same people, and with it increased displacement and forced migration. And then more scare campaigns from prospective Western governments about the threat of migration while they continue to fail to address, and indeed, even support industries that contribute to the original problem. And one might call that fatalistic too.

Take The Road - good end of the world novel.

Even in that McCarthy makes the point that even after the apocalypse has hit, power and water go off etc, it still takes several years and what is most likely a nuclear winter before shit goes all Mad Max.

This idea that one day we will wake up civilisation will have collapses without warning is just ludicrous.

Reality is that the first kid to have their lifespan drastically shortened by climate change has most likely been born, and the first kid to live to be 200 has also been born.

Just depends on where, quite probably only seperated by a few kilomtres in a Chinese or Indian city.