/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10665904
Then why is Mars so cold?

>>10665906
Because of its distance in relation to the sun?

I'm not at all trying to push any sort of narrative here, btw, merely stating the obvious in an inquisitive manner.

>>10665904

Freeman Dyson seems to agree, too.

>>10665904
/pol/ retarded as always

>>10665906

Venus has 96% of CO2 and it is at a toasty 400 degrees because of the greenhouse effect, without the CO2 Venus would be 84 degrees. Mars has 96% of CO2 but its atmosphere is much thiner. About 100 times thiner than the Earth so the greenhouse effect doesn't have a big roll also the distance ofc.
Also that anon is fucking retarded he doesn't understand that despite our emissions being low compared with everything else, it is CUMULATIVE meaning that, that extra CO2 will not go away and it will unbalance the natural cycles.
That brainlet should go back to /pol/

>>10665973
The fuck? Venus haas 30,000ppm co2 and earth has less than 400ppm so that’s consistent with his argument

>>10665906
It's atmosphere is thin as fuck

>>10666003
His "argument" is addled, and so are you.

>>10665904
Why are polacks consistently the dumbest mother fuckers in existence?
They're /x/ retarded.

>>10666274
Try make an argument next time, sweet pie.

>>10665904
To get this many facts this wrong in so short a post one would have to be doing it deliberately, or to have a perverse attraction to pathologically manipulative people. Sheer stupidity alone cannot account for the latter possibility, though it is a necessary precondition, since there is no form of depravity more boring than cynicism.

>>10665904
>Cobaltum dioxide

>>10665904
He’s lying so I dunno what you want to be said. Humans are contributing immensely to CO2 flux.

>>10666326
Not an argument.

>cargo ships pollute blah blah blah
not true
>Human contribution to CO2 is tiny
Lies/ not understanding carbon flux
>controlled experiment in our atmosphere
lmao
>must be 10,000 times higher
more lies

>>10667188
This. If you do the research, none of the claims have any scientific articles/research backing them.

>>10667188
>
Calling something a lie is not an argument. If you're going to say something is a lie, then you MUST show the truth

>>10665904
Literally every claim in it is a lie. Light vehicles account for 30 times more emissions than all shipping emissions. Humans are entirely responsible for the massive change in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution, and we wouls be responsible for even more if natural sinks were not absorbing some of our CO2. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is based on fundamental chemistry and physics, can be observed in high school level experiments, and is empirically proven by direct observation of the atmosphere via radiative spectroscopy.

>>10667218
Calling something the truth is not an argument. If you're going to say something is true, then you MUST show the truth. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof.

>>10665904
God, /pol/ is so fucking dumb.

>>10667218
Honestly normally I would, but at this point it's just spoon feeding and you'd learn way more if you just googled it yourself.

/pol/ is a literal Dunning-Kruger shitfest. Semi-literate, edgy, emotionally driven zoomies and man-children desperate to fill the hollow of their mediocre lives with stubborn contrarianism and herd-mentality signaling.

It's a shame 2016 made it the default splash screen for idiots to spread to other parts of the site.

>>10666249
More like ADDled

>>10667188
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping
Imagine being as wrong as you.

>>10667257
So you have no tangible evidence and are trying to act intellectually superior. KYS summerfag.

>>10665904
> All attempts to prove Co2 bad have failed.
May I suggest, closing the garage door, and running the car for a while?
Perhaps take readings of the:
Temperature of the closed space.
Air quality.
Time before your -wife- Mother comes home from work.

>>10667218
you realize that the person claiming "10 larges cargo ships pollute more..." and "10 times thicker" is the one that has to back it up, right?

>>10667227
>>10667293

Not him, but here you go.
Global Car estimated CO2 emissions, 2012: 2810 megatons
Source:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544216300263#bib28
Global Marine Cargo Emissions: 961 megatons
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128050521000309#!
Not only is the pic related guy incorrect, he is incorrect by a factor of possibly 100 to 10,000.
It should be noted that cargo ships produce far far more sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, since they burn less refined fuel, which might explain the misconception. However, these are not greenhouse gases in of themselves, and they are more dangerous due to toxic effects.

>>10667314

>>10667314
Best part is OP claimed 10 ships produce more CO2 than all private transportation

>>10667290
Well I bet you feel silly now, best part is all you had to do was read your link.
>>10667314
>>10667328

>>10667348
>Well I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

>>10667354
Shit my bad sonny I can't keep up with all you younguns
>>10667290
LMAO GET FUCKED RETARD
>>10667314
>>10667328

What you guys don't get is that Mars should be a lot warmer than it is but too much carbon was sequestrate out of it's atmosphere and there was a runaway positive feed back loop, all because it's outside of the Goldilocks zone. I'm sure you're all well aware that Mars used to have liquid oceans and a thick atmosphere. This is evidence that CO2 causes radiative forcing because we know that too little CO2 made Mars become colder overtime. This global warming argument from the opposite direction if you don't care for Venus.

>>10667363
Convince me that a warmer atmosphere doesn't cause more ocean evaporation and hence increased cloud cover and sunlight is reflected

>>10666586
t. Low IQ larping as high IQ.

>>10667368
more evaporation also means more precipitation.... or does it?
Humans also cause aerosol pollution which creates more nucleation sites for cloud formation and, in theory, causes more precipitation. Thus, cancelling the albedo gained from extra cloud cover due to more evaporation caused by global warming. Amen.

>>10665904
promising publication in the journal Shitpost

>>10667375
I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that

>>10667391
Yeah, but I stated my case and I stand by it.

>>10667391
>https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
Currently no trends in earths albedo have been observed. Your hypothesis should predict higher albedo as the earths average temperature rises. If you can find data that shows a strong trend I might agree with you.

>>10667406
Ok I read the website... they're saying there's no clear trend so it's neither going up nor down ...

To be honest I think global warming is going to make life miserable in the future... we won't die it's just going to be miserable...
How much warming are we locked in for, as of this moment?

>>10667456
I live in the Mediterranean I hate the fucking HEAT this is what I mean by MISERABLE

>>10667456
Pick your poison, each model assumes different levels of action taken. If we do nothing say hello to RCP 8.5. Currently most think 4.5 or 6 is more likely.

>>10665904
>still believing human CO2 emissions are what's fucking us

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-discover-china-has-been-secretly-emitting-banned-ozone-depleting-gas/amp

Not to mention California, despite being the greenest state, has the most polluted air

>>10667459
I live in the only country that matters and love the heat, so... sorry, not sorry

>>10665904
https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

>>10667314
also, to make it more clear, I mean that sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are more dangerous due to toxic effects than due to greenhouse effects.

>>10667679
see >>10667314. The figures that news article is quoting relate to toxic compounds, but those compounds are not greenhouse gases, and thus have very little to do with climate change.

>>10667462
Info for normies:
3/4 of Earth surface is water.
That part will not warm as much as the average.
The 1/4 land area heats a shitload more than the average.

the more you know

>>10665973
>CO2 will not go away
what about plants?

>>10667160
Does it have to be?

>>10667756
This is pretty helpful but it ignores sources like volcanoes etc. As you can see the natural sources are close to being balanced though they do vary slightly.

We should start a small wiki to answer arguments like OP's which has been answered a hundred times.

>>10668042
Skeptical science is actually pretty solid.

>>10666274
>ever notice how nazis are always complaining about stuff
No. I have never met a Nazi nor do I know anyone who has. I had an Intro to Sociology tell me about how they are everywhere though

>>10668052
Nazis are kind of like incels, I've never met one in real life and probably never will, but the fact that they spend 3/4ths of their life on the internet makes you think more exist than actually do.

>>10668026
>>10668026
volcanoes are 1% of people,
so in that image contribute less than 0.3

>>10666274

Watch Adolf Hitler the greatest story never told before commenting on National Socialism please.

>>10668026
I used a figure based on 1990 data by the way because it was clearly the peak of carbon emissions in human history, and we have nothing to worry about.

>>10668637
nice try
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

>>10665904
This is misquoted, the top 15 cargo ships produce more sufur oxide and nitrogen oxide than all the cars in the world.

Also that is only when they burn heavy fuel oil which isn't all the time.

As for co2 cargo ships are relatively efficient.

>>10667368
Lots of processes going the opposite direction tho. Ice melting>less albedo. Ice melting>release of methane etc

How feasible would it be to outfit all these cargo ships with nukes? We already have nuclear subs but i dont know anythinf about this

>>10668080
No, they're just not stupid enough to tell people except in large groups.

>>10666597
You're equally retarded. If you're reading it like that it'd be Dicobalt.

>>10665904
>Only co2 at 10,000 thicker concentrations than in our air can be shown to significantly raise the temp of an environment
Where do people get this wrong information from and then think they are an expert?

If the earth goes through periodic freeze and thaw cycles, why hasn't hall the methane killed everyone on earth the last time all the ice melted?

For that matter why did we even freeze again?

And if the earth was frozen and unfroze itself, then what caused that to happen and why isn't that applicable today when we are clearly leaving an ice age?

In what meaningful way is today's warming any worse than the last time the planet warmed up? If it is so deadly to life on this planet, why hasn't everything already died?

>>10670457
You are talking about geological cycles which take thousands of years to lapse. The rate at which anthropogenic global warming is happening has never happened before.

>>10670475
like ur mom take thousands of years to stop cumming from my dick

>>10670457
>If the earth goes through periodic freeze and thaw cycles, why hasn't hall the methane killed everyone on earth the last time all the ice melted?
There are two periodic cycles. The smaller cycle is the glacial/interglacial cycle within an ice age. This is caused by Milankovich cycles, periodic changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity over tens of thousands of years, which affects which parts of the Earth experience more solar irradiance. The ice doesn't melt completely, it just recedes significantly. The ice receded about 10,000 years ago and according to this cycle we should be slowly cooling right now. Instead we are rapidly warming even further. The bigger cycle is the cycle of ice ages which is caused by continental drift blocking/unblocking the flow of warm water, allowing ice to form/melt at the poles. This occurs over millions of years. Neither are comparable to the non-cyclical rapid warming occuring now. Also, it's not going to kill everyone on Earth, it's just going to cause a lot of suffering for us and a lot of damage to the ecosystems we rely on. Change this rapid does not allow life to adapt without incurring lots of losses. Rapid changes in the climate cause mass extinctions.

>>10670487
>There are more than merely two periodic cycles.
FTFY
Lrn2milankovich fgt pls

>>10671187
There are only two freeze and thaw cycles. Milankovich cycles are cycles in Earth's orbital parameters, they're result is one freeze and thaw cycle.

>>10665904
So if the ten largest cargo ships are so pollutant why are climate change proponents not simply campaigning and lobbying for their removal?

>>10665904

>>10674325
correction

data-analysis required to collect enough information to show the chain reaction that would cause those immense changes*

>>10665925
So we’re not going to mention anything about its rotation on its axis or the rate at which it rotates?

>everybody worries about CO2
>nobody cares about water vapor
>even though the contribution to the greenhouse effect from water vapor is significantly larger than CO2

climate change as a political issue is fucking retarded, the media and politicians just use it as an appeal to authority and say shit like "hurr ur against science!" while banking on the fact that their nitwit retard voters don't understand the issues enough to just take anything on face value

>>10674325
the first sentences do not contradict though. what he's saying is that people worrying about muh cars don't realize how much more CO2 is expelled through other means AND that in total, the human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere are minuscule when compared to non-human producers CO2

>>10674648
>Thinking climatologists don't account for one of the most basic and obvious aspects of the greenhouse effect
Wow anon you're so smart, you keep sticking it to the man :^)

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

>>10674648
amount of water vapor in air is dependent on temperature, meaning positive feedback

>>10674648
Water vapor isn’t a driver, it’s a force amplifier of CO2 and solar radiation. We account for water vapor contributions in models and it’s estimated to contribute significantly.

>>10674676
>>10674700
i'm talking about politically not scientifically, retards
show me one political proposition to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere

>>10674704
You're dumb as bag of rocks. Water vapor concentration is determined by temperature. Reducing water vapor means reducing temperature.

>>10674704
Lower CO2, that’s how.

>>10665973
You know what else is "cumulative? Non-Native Electromagnetic fields propgated by cell sognal/ wifi emitters, radio , radar and what else have you... notice your skies appearing much cloudier in recent years? This energy is creating overcast coudy skies while it stresses your mitochondria and breaks your DNA... climate change is a smoke screen to keep your attention away from the much more immanent and dangerous harm being done by the Mobile Ubiquitous Digital Industrial Complex M.U.D.I.C

>>10666003
>>10665904
OPs pic related isn't even true and come from intentionally misleading articles about environmentalism. Cargo ships are actually the second most efficient means of fossile fuel based transportation after freight trains in terms of CO2 expenditure per kg/km. In fact if Im not mistaken cargo ships consume SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES LESS CO2 then a compact car per kg/km.

What cargo ships do emit a ton of is SO4, which prpduces acid rain. This is because cargo ships run on an extremely caustic and unrefined form of diesel that has high levels of lead and sulphur. Moreover all vehicles sold in the developed world for that last 10 years have been ultra-low sulphur emission vehicles, so the discrepancy in SO4 emissions has become even more dramatic, so that a small fleet of cargo ships emmits more SO4 than all the cars on earth. Keep in mind SO4 is one of the "safest" polutants and tends to be quickly eliminated from the atmosphere/water cycle since it almost immediately reacts with any alkaline conpounds it come into contact with. The only problem is that it causes some acid rain, but this is at the bottom of the list in terms of environmental impact.

Also keep in mind that being anti-enviornmentalism and pro-corporation is an illegitimate polical position and yhat no genuine non-shill lefties or right wingers question the importance of protecting the environment. Any genuine leftist or right winger will understand the importance of protecting and preserving the natural world in the face of the ever expanding threat of multinational corporations and a human species that can't keep its legs closed.

>>10674720
>>>/x/

>>10666274
Based retard. Everyone knows thatright wingers today are becoming supporters of environmental protection and related issues lile animal right. In fact they probably always were, but this point was just obfuscated by the fact that the Republican party (or equivalent party) was the primary corporatist shill party until recently, whereas the democrats were the corporate shill lite party. Now the roles have reversed and you literally have situations where right wingers are saying we need to preserve national parks and stop susbsidizing oil and factory farming, while there are literalls SJW's who say its RACIST to promote environmentalism and renewable energy because their usage would be dosproportionately favorable to European countries, who have already reaped many benefit of fossil fuels that third world countries are still in the process of achieving (of course I know SJW's will think these are lies but to provide a literal textbook example of these claims, see Mathias Reese, "Global Political Philosophy"; chapter on "Environmental Justice" for a mainstream, non partisan discussion of why renewable energy and hybrid vehicles are unironically considered tools of le ebil white cis male patriarchy that are being used by "appropriated by hegemonic capitalist power structures for the purpose of coercing third world countries into purchasing unnecessary and overpriced 'green' technology from oppressive colonial nations".

So yeah, SJWs are no friends of the environment either. Meanwhile classical liberals, green party supporters, centrists, and traditionalists are advocating environmental protection and conservation, and are being labeled Nazis for it.

C R I N G E

>>10674781
>twisting yourself into knots to argue up is down
Yikes

>>10670487
>two periodic cycles

100k and 400k
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

>>10674781
this is your brain on 4chan kids. So out of touch with reality they unironically believe in the SJW boogyman out to destroy the world and thanks for mentioning that chapter it's literally entirely on the subject of the best ways for humanity to tackle climate change and the pros and cons of each approach. it has literally nothing to do with what you said.

>>10674835
Based argument. Open up a textbook or monograph that discusses environmentalism and race and you will find an argument that is basically along these lines. I've literally even provided a specific example. You may not agree with the reasoning, but its definitely a growing trend on the left that we see SJWs denouncing things like environmentalism and pacificism. Living in 2019, you'll literally see SJWs praise big oil or Lockheed Martin for hiring a POC CFO, but then claim that encouraging Nigeria to limit its grenhouse gas emissions is 'racist' because "whitey didn't have to obey the same environmental regulations when they went through industrial revolutions in their countries 200 years ago".

>>10674864
I cited the chapter off the top of my head, but it should be in there. It might be under global distributive justice or even somethingelse, but it definitely discusses an argument that environmental protection disproportionately favors western nations.

>>10674848
The 400K cycle only affects the strength of the interglacial, it's not what I'm talking about.

>>10674886
Nope it's literally all about global solutions to climate change. So the exact opposite of your entire post.

>>10674874
Yeah that gone be another yikes from me dawg.

>>10666274
/x/ has a sense of humor though

>>10674894
>yikes
This word is used to shame an individual for exhibiting nonconformist behavior in a social setting. The word "yikes" has no power here.

>>10674943
yikes

>>10674943
yikes

>>10674943
yikes

>>10666608
You wish that were true.

>>10674979
I wish it wasn't true. Too bad reality doesn't care what I want.

>>10674979
No, I don’t.

Do you know what CO2 flux is?

>>10674943
Your baseless political drivel is the only thing that has no power here.

>>10674894
>>10674892
Im home now. Cant find the a pdf of the Risse textbook at the moments, but the SEP article on "Global Justice" very briefly discusses asymmetries in responsibility for pollution and its implications for the advocacy of environmentalism in disadvantaged communities.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-global/#GloEnvIss

>>10675176
Again all reasonable arguments about solving climate change and it has nothing to do with what you claimed so try again.

>>10675195
It literally discusses (without endorsing) the claims that 3rd world countries have less of a responsibility to protect the environment. Read paragraphs 2 and 3 of "Global Environmental Issues".

>>10675216
I'll break it down for you because you're clearly being intentionally dense.

>There is much discussion about the principles that should inform a fair treaty aimed at dealing with addressing climate change that also gives appropriate weight to concerns for human development.
Climate change is a serious Issue that needs addressed now. However destroying economies and causing mass poverty pursuing this is not acceptable.

>We have not all contributed equally to the problems created by emissions; industrialized nations have contributed historically at much higher levels than those that are still developing. And so we should endorse the guidelines that those who have polluted more should pay more to help redress current problems.
I don't see a problem with this, and notice you'll see absolutely nowhere does it say protecting the environment is racist and evil like you claimed. I'm beginning to think you didn't read any of these articles before you cited them.

>>10675195
SEP, "Global Justice"; 'Global Environmental Issues, paragraph 2':

"Among the scientific community it is no longer controversial that anthropogenic climate change is real and a significant threat to the well-being of both current and future generations. But it is also widely acknowledged that human development is an important way to address high levels of global poverty, that such development is energy intensive, and the cheapest sources of energy available are not likely to be clean energy types. These considerations significantly affect efforts to deal with problems presented by climate change. There is much discussion about the principles that should inform a fair treaty aimed at dealing with addressing climate change that also gives appropriate weight to concerns for human development. Some of the main contenders include principles that recognize causal responsibility for high emission levels, principles that are sensitive to ability to pay, and ones according to which those who have benefited from emissions should now be expected to absorb more costs."

>>10675245
>this says green energy is racist
Only a /pol/tard freak can be this delusional.

>>10675245
Great all sensible statements, I agree that wealthy industrialized nations that were responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions throughout history should assist developing nations in developing green energy. Now where's the part where it says
>renewable energy and hybrid vehicles are unironically considered tools of le ebil white cis male patriarchy that are being used by "appropriated by hegemonic capitalist power structures for the purpose of coercing third world countries into purchasing unnecessary and overpriced 'green' technology from oppressive colonial nations".

>>10675239
These are weasle words, my friend. A Nazi does not come out and say "gas the kikes", they point to the degenerate media and it's deleterious effects. The same goes for social justice warriors: they're not going to say "environementalism is for priviliged white first worlders", they're going to attempt to consteuct some abstract ideological system in which it just so happens that black and brown people are excused from bearing the burden of their environmental impact. Always be weary of ideological systems or arguments that ascribe different moral obligations to individuals in otherwise identical sociopolitical circumstances. If someone is saying individual X has special permission to do Y (or a special exemption) because they "belong" to some group or because of some historical reason that transcends the immediate biographical facts of that individual's life, you should be very critical of that ideology.

>>10675274
If neighbor A dumps a sewage tanker on my yard and Neighbor B let his dog shit on my yard once who has a greater responsibility to clean up the shit on my yard?

>>10665940
Who tf is that?

>>10675287

>>10675287
He invented those sweet hand dryers

>>10675258
>>10675256
Again, abstract sociohistorical considerations have no impact on determing whether it is justifiable for an individual to commit some action. If it is wrong for a individual to pollute, then it is wrong for them to pollute simpliciter. The fact that some predicate that applies to some cultural or ethnic group also applies to them as individuals has no bearing on the matter.

The claim I'm making in no way entails that people who plare polluting less RIGHT NOW should be held as equally responsible as people who pollute more. That's a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. My claim is that taken as an individual, one's responsibility for preventing environmental degradation isn't in any way diminished or enlarged by abstract sociohistorical arguments that ascribe different levels of "responsibility" to individuals, who are otherwise not any different. In other words, a claim ascribing moral responsibility to an individual should remain true (or remain false) whether or not we know some abstract fact about the cultural history of their ethnic group.

>>10675308
No where have you shown anyone arguing that anyone should not protect the environment. Only that certain nations have both the ability and responsibly to help other nations who can barely afford to feed themselves. You're saying I've misrepresented you when in fact you're entire argument is based on a straw man you've constructed from misrepresented articles because you have nothing to back up your absurd claims. Now answer the question.>>10675280

>>10675280
>>10675280
Yeah, neighbor A holds more responsibility. That's exactly my point. The claim I'm arguing against is that neighbor B is actually the bad guy because his great grandfather used to empty his factories toxic waste into the local river system, but person A should receive a 'pollution exemption' because their great grandfather was the tribal leader of the indigenous Ooga-Booga Ooga-Mooga tribe.

>>10675326
No one has made that claim every quote you've posted merely states that Neighbor A has a greater responsibility to fix the mess. Absolutely nowhere does it say neighbor B should keep letting his dog shit on my yard

>>10675308
There is nothing abstract about any of this. Current individuals benefit from and suffer from the effects of fossil fuel use in the past. I also find it funny that you speak about individual responsibility being the same yet completely ignore that per capita emissions already show individuals in developed countries are far more polluting. And nothing was said about ethnic or cultural groups, you delusional freak.

>>10675332

>>10665904
Some /pol/tard never heard of specific heat

>>10675305
Oh...I see?

>>10675334
By "cultural" group, I mean any collective sociological entity. You're obviously not familiar with the jargon, since this is a much broader concept than the idea of racial or ethnic identities. You ypurself are talking about "per capita consumption" this is a metric for assigning average consumption rates to cultural groups. If I say Americans expend x metric tonnes of CO2 per person per year, that is ascribing a pollution rate to a "cultural group".

The whole uphsot of my attempted argument is that an individual's responsibility is fully determined by the emission contributions they themselves have made, not based on collective averages for their city or county or nation (all of which are 'cultural groups', as I use the phrase).

>>10675354
I my nation has become extremely through excessively polluting for 200 years and Zimbabwe can't even keep their population fed and healthy how is it unreasonable to suggest my nation should help them establish green energy sources? Your argument that past emissions don't matter falls apart when you consider industrialized nations all directly inherited all benefits while the other nations have directly inherited the costs.

>>10675354
The per capita emissions tells us that individuals in developed countries have higher individual emission levels. If responsibility is equal to individual emissions then the effective result is what you initially interpreted as ethnically determined responsibility. So you just made a fool of yourself.

>>10675374
It's amazing how far he's backpedaled from this
>renewable energy and hybrid vehicles are unironically considered tools of le ebil white cis male patriarchy that are being used by "appropriated by hegemonic capitalist power structures for the purpose of coercing third world countries into purchasing unnecessary and overpriced 'green' technology from oppressive colonial nations".

>>10675374
Damn dude, you're right. Exxon Mobil should legally register themselves as Senegalese conglomerate, and pull their corporate headquarters out of the US or wherever it is. Then if they do that, there's nothing wrong with them refining a shit ton of oil because it'll be in a country where the per capita fuel consumption is still lower than in the West.

>>10675363
I agree. We should help Zimbabwae develop green energy. What we shouldn't allow is the exact opposite: to permit Zimbabwae to develop and utilize outdated and unsustainable energy practices that we ourselves would not use. To make the matter more concrete: we should not be more willing to allow a country like Zimbabwae to continue using leaded gasoline just because we may have gained a socioeconomic advantage over them because we did use lead paint for 50 years without worrying about the consequences. In a metaphorical sense, you could say that the west has had a head start on the race, but we can't just allow none western countries to catch up (i.e. to continue using unsustainable technologies that we ourselves have abandoned) just for the sake of leveling the playing field or being "fair". I dont deny that its unfortunate that many people have been denied many of the advantages we in the West enjoy. It is unfortunate, and it is unfair, but we allow that to cloud our judgement concerning the fact that the US and Kenya both need to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

>>10675399
*but we cant allow that to cloud pur judgement

>>10675399
Wow more strawmen, I guess that's the only trick you know.

>>10675399
I guess it's cool you agree with the evil SJW intellectuals you've been arguing against

>>10666326
the argument is this: OP's pic says that human CO2 production is "tiny." that tells us absolutely nothing. and yes, intl shipping is akin to the automotive industry, but it only accounts for <5% of total CO2 emissions

>>10675399
Just subsidize them

>>10675552
Alright bucko, so I may have played a bit fast and loose with the truth. But what's it to ya anyway? I did it to make a point. And a good one at that. So you listen here, and listen good 'cause I'm only saying this once: SJWs are wrong from the bottom up. The whole lot of 'em make no sense. The whole lot. Internal inconsistencies permeate every facet of their reasoning: at one minute gender is a social construct. The next trans people are born that way. One minute it's wrong to collective credit for the achievements of your race. The next minute white people a inherently racist because of systematic oppression or white privilige. SJWs will march in the street if Ben Shapiro shares the wrong cat photo on facebook or tweets something mildly offensive about brown people. You see, they're worry about all these different memes and trends and who is a isn't allowed to post on facebook. And yet the SJW has nothing to say about NSA spying or Mark Zuckerberg spyong in 10% of the entire planets population. Of course none of that matter, because at the end of the day Zuckerberg is a great tool. I mean, what's wrong with a little spying, a little censorship, a little media manipulation if at the end of the day its one of the good guys doing it. I mean Zuckerberg is looking out, right? When we go to him and point to the big mean racist bully who called Jose a spic he always bans the big mean racist bully, so he can't be that bad.
And as for US foreign policy: don't worry about that. America has finally seen the light, qnd we wont stand for injustice anymore. Long gone are the day of US imperialism; gone are the days of false flag attacks and banana republics, gone are the days of the arming Iran and Iraq, gone are the days when George Keenan proudly proclaimed that the US should prevent economic and technological development in the third world and seek to maintain the disparity of power between the US and non-western. . . We live in a new age- an age of woke empire.

>>10675643
SJWs don’t even exist. You’re arguing against like ten people on Tumblr.

>>10675648
This is the sad truth. All of the identity politics over the past two years has been a giant flirting war between fractions of /pol/ and Tumblr.

>>10675648
>>10675660
Well I do hope you're right

>>10675643
This is your brain on /pol/

>>10675643
This whole post is gold this is easily one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on /sci/

>>10675676
Funny thing is that I'm a liberal and I hold similar views about /pol/ types. I'm more interested in examining the inconsistencies of ideologies like SJWism and the alt-right than in professing a particular ideology, and the alt-right actually exhibits very similar inconsistencies to what one might call the identitarian left. What concerns me about SJWs or the identarian left is that they seem to place more sway on how we represent the concrete socioeconomic relations between different individuals and groups than they place on the actual socioeconomic relations themselves. Its as if everyone has noticed and pointed out that, "hey there's something seriously wrong with the world, there seem to be many serious injustices." To which the SJW replies "Yes there certainly are, but don't worry. The problem is that everyone has been refering to dark purple berries as 'black berries'. We shall now call them 'dark purple berries'. All is now well."

>>10675761
The previous poster couldn't actually find any examples of the SJW boogyman saying what he imagined they would say. So I would be interested to see if you can provide any either.

>>10675771
Dude I am that poster. I'm the dude who posted about Mathias Risse.

>>10675776
oh lmao my request for examples of the ebil SJW boogyman still stands. Please no twitter screenshots.

>>10675673
>>10675761
Human values arithmetic is convergent on being divergent. If the problem persists after sexual intercourse, consult the manufacturer.

>>10675779
I already provided quotes from the SEP page. A I stated (or implied) earlier, for rhetorical purposes I slightly exagerated my representation of these points in my initial post. I wouldn't even say I intended to provide an accurate presentation of these points in my initial post and I didn't expect it anyone reading it to think I did. It's obviously exagerated, but as I said in a previous post, I'm interested in some of the internal contradictions of SJW ideology. My initial post considers an extreme case that is a conceivable conclusion of this sort absurd reasoning. Other contradictions (which I already mentioned) are actually visible in SJW circles. Like the idea that gender is completely a social construct, but somehow trans people are biologically or objectively born the wrong gender identity

>>10675805
It's not a contradiction. A direct contradiction exhibits neurological cognitive dissonance. Unless you can demonstrate dissonance, it's not a contradiction. By process of elimination, it traces back to something called "ignorance" as the root cause.

Have you considered placing your perspective in their perspective and refuting the contraction they think they see in your system?

>>10675820
Contradiction has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Or I suppose it does, but not in a relevant manner. Contradiction means that two claims contradict, i.e. a statement of p and not p. In the cited context, we're talking about something like some claims that gender is a social construct and yet trans people are inherently born belonging to a particular gender (namely the opposite). This is a contradiction because the whole point about social constructs is that they're learned behaviors and categories. If you're claiming that gender is a completely socially constructed category, then you can't also claim that male-to-female trans are "born" with a female brain because the former claim implies that there isn't any such thing as being born with a "male brain" or a "female brain".

>>10675837
Gender and sex are different things. Some studies of people suffering from gender dysphoria suggest that brain activity shows more similarity between those that share gender identity than those that share biological sex. I don't see how this is any kind of contradiction.

>>10675837
Now apply that same level of analysis to the term "social justice" and explain to yourself why it has to be this way.

>>10675853
Yes, I know gender and sex are different things. That claim coheres perfectly with what I'm saying. If your born "biologically" male, i.e. if you sex is a male, and you claim that gender is purely a social xonstruct, then you can't also claim that someone is "born" trans or born with a female mind in a male body, because the behaviors and psychology associated with being "female" is just a social construct.

Of course, that's not what I believe. I believe that people can be born with a female mind and male physiology or vice versa. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and that some people are born with physiological features that genuinely conflict with the gender identity they feel naturally. And I believe they have the right to 'transition' and have that change reflected in how they a treated and spoken to. But if you're making that claim, and your saying that they're born that way, that gender can't be a complete 100% social construct. There has to be a biological component as well as a social component if that is the case.

I would also suggest that you look into the is/ought distinction.

>>10675877
I don't think you'll find anyone that makes the claim there's no correlation between gender and sex.

>>10675916
Anon criticised my claim and said that "gender and sex are two different things", thereby suggesting that I had claimed otherwise, or that its wrong to claim that both culture and biology influences certain gender-associated behavioral traits.

>>10675931
The fact that they aren't the same concept doesn't mean they aren't influenced by each other.

>>10675937
I agree

>>10675931
>thereby suggesting that
So there's this thing called "leading the conversation" that doesn't actually have to happen. Debates can become unfocused and turn into idle discussion, and that's fine. Most people work this way. Only a very small set of highly polarized (moral) topics end up with tangent distributions that converge on adversarial composition.

Fuck it. Since you didn't >>10675855 I'll just explain the mystery.

That one particle is what both you and SJWs have in common; the pretense that all claims have to be falsified in an equivalent manner. Both of you are trying to beat each other over the head with what OUGHT to be implied by any piece of dialogue, and it is there and in that that social justice takes root. The idea that something was implied, and that we have an obligation to control the implications. No. That's not how reality works. Emanation does not extend from every substance in existence. There are things that don't have implications. It's possible to construct them.

In this specific instance, SJWs can claim both that gender is a social construct AND that we "owe" something to transgender individuals as a society because the justice they seek is social in nature. In other words, they aim to REPAIR social constructs, not get rid of them entirely. The problem is that both sides (/pol/ and Tumblr, to oversimplify it a little) are trying to perform operations on a no-op material; a society composed purely of moral pretense.

Neither of you know what would be the greater good for the greatest number of people. The last great success in the experiment of human justice was individual liberty, the American dream. We don't know the next step, but we can clearly see the concept being copied around the globe.

Thinking an evolutionary algorithm is finished is only ever a local circumstance.

>>10675916
There isnt

>>10675946
if this isn't a false flag explain your reasoning

>>10675944
By "implication" you and I mean two different things. You mean some sort of inductive inference about someones rhetorical or emotiknal jntentions. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean like Gricean Implicature; which would say that by replying to my statement (that biology influences gender) with a claim like "but gender and sex are two different things," this person therevy suggests that they are present contradictory evidence. But in this case it isn't contradictory evidence.

>>10675944
Paragraph three is irrelevant. You can't claim that a psychological category like identifying as male or female is something that someone is born identifying with, but then at the same time claim that gender is completely a social construct that is not influenced by biology. Social constructs, by definition are not determined by biology.

>>10675954
Most conversation is tangential. Rarely, in any form of conversation, does anyone mean to imply something about the implications of the other speaker. Anon, to my reading, was saying that thing about sex/gender in response to a thread made earlier today. They were bringing up new evidence, which doesn't even require them to have read your full post or argument. Not all forms of criticism are intended in some form of adversarial capacity, nor is all form of adversarial implication intended to imply at a depth on par with human character.

>>10675969
Yes they do. There are all sorts of implications that permeate conversation. For example someone asks "could you pass the carrots". By this, in most contexts they would be suggesting that they want you to pass tr hem the carrots. they do not expect an actual yes or no answe. If some say "X" and someone immediately replies "but y", in most cases this suggests that their claim y is in response to your claim x.

You've already demonstrated that you don't even know basic cognitive science or linguistics, which are exactly the topics we're talking about right now. If you'll excuse the meme, you're a prime cases of dunning kruger my friend

>>10675963
>Social constructs, by definition
You've entirely missed the point. It can be a social construct and STILL be something they feel entitled to. The term itself, "social construct" is a recent fabrication created by the social justice movement to attempt to figure out how to make it into a science. It's not a science and never will be, and it never will be because nobody can nail down what anyone else means by stating something to be a social construct.

One SJW could state something to be a social construct, and mean to imply something entirely negative and repulse about the thing so "categorized" (accused). Another could, reading the same thing, have the same emotion occur, then, ten seconds later reblog a post where the same term is used, and the post is meant to be "empowering" to some imagined or real minority group whose popularity seems relevant this week. It's not a contradiction to have emotions, nor is it odd for something called "social" to produce a wide range of reactions. To any near approximation, the "definition" is "something whose implications we don't want to categorize yet."

In other words, you're trying to push the narrative the "social construct" has any meaning or implication whatsoever, and it doesn't. Justice will still be sought no matter what you accuse of being a social construct or not. What gender is or isn't means fucks all, in the SJW mind, about whether or not social justice should be sought.

>>10675988
Dude, I agree with this post. This is essentially what I'm trying to say. Biology and gender both influence gender identity. Gender identity and biological sex are two different thing. The fact that biology exerts some influence on gender related concepts should not have any influence on the the role of transgender individuals in society, or what we think or believe about them.

This is why I referenced the so called is/ought distiniction.

>>10675980
>in response to
No, "is triggered by."

Sorry, I realize now that >>10675969
>about the implications of the other speaker
Was too far beyond your cognitive horizon to process into a semiotic bearing point.

>>10675997
>should not have any influence on
That's why SJWs play fast a loose with the "definition" of the term "social construct;" because they gives zero fucks. The influence isn't there. The culture you want to see, IS SJW culture.

>>10675999
Thats not standardized terminology in the pragmatics literature. Someone says utterance x you respond with behavior y or utterance z. That is considered perfectly exeptable terminilogy. At this point you're arguing semantics.

This is ought distiction says that biological sex should have now bearing on how we treat someone if they identify with a particular gender. I agree with that.

>>10675999
It doesn't matter what you want to call it. The point is that you necessarily make all sorts of inferences about what someone means when they say something. This is extremely basic linguistics. The contextual meaning of an utterance is underdetermined by its syntactic form. Just look at the role that speaker, time, and place play in the semantics of montague grammar. You have to use cotextual information to help determine the meaning of what someone says.
Not only is this basic linguistics. Its common sense. You're retarded bruh.

>>10676034
Thank you for revealing your cognitive horizon.

"the implications of the other speaker" implies first an other speaker. From there all meaning can be derived. Not all forms of meaning are linguistic. Some can be inferred from context.

The context of an implication, in this instance, comes from the speaker. They are identified by having spoken. The implications referred to are the ones extending from their speech.

You didn't read my words at all.

>>10675988
I know considering social sciences to be fake science is a fun /sci/ meme but it really is kind of silly if you believe human behavior is at all capable of being studied. Criticizing social constructs as being fabricated is silly as it's a very real concept that applies to everything from money to religion even the idea of human rights is entirely a social construct.

>>10667748

Thank you.

>>10667272
Are you a liberal?

>>10667160
No, the onus is on you to refute what he said, not to post your lib meme and pretend like we all agree that you are plainly correct. This isn't reddit you normie, you have to justify your claims here.

>>10676048
>>10675999
Holy shit this is hilarious. Are you trolling or do you genuinely not realize how stupid you sound?

I wonder what its like to be the type of person to blatantly argue over shit you don't even understand on a basic level.

>>10667224
So what you recommend hybrids and Teslas for everyone in the world?

>>10677549

>>10677549
Electric trains, trams, and busses would be much better. Personal cars are a meme made up by 1900’s marketing.

>>10677586
Bullshit. Those things are inefficient and do nothing to help the individual.

>>10677549
>>10677586
>it's most efficient to waste resources on transportation

>>10677586
no, mass transit is a meme that exists only due to resource scarcity

with electric cars, there is no reason why everyone should not have their own vehicle, and people will want that

>>10677730
They’re much more efficient than personal vehicles and do everything to help the individual. Lol.

>>10677755
Yeah let’s just stay home and go nowhere.

>>10677756
Mass transit is simply superior and exists because it’s better. There will never be a world with only electric cars. Get over it.

>>10677764
>Yeah let’s just stay home and make it amazing
only dumb retards don't want to work from home and continually upgrade their own infrastructure

>>10677756
A high speed rail is so much better than driving for long distance travel it's not even comparable.

>>10665940
The guy people describe as a natural contrarian even to a large consensus. One man can't make a consensus on his own and his opposition to modern climate science is more a statement on his personality than his knowledge in the subject.

>>10677790
The fact he's only made personal statements about his opinion with no published research or even evidence says it all. The fact idiots still cite his opinion as meaning anything at all is a textbook example of an appeal to authority.

When I observe a rocket launch, I admit that I don't know the calculus behind it and I shut up.

When I talk about climate change. Give me two statistics and I'll tell you how things really are.

>>10665904

Is this Varg Vikernes lurking on 4chan?

>>10675643
I've read three of your sentences, so excuse me if I end up talking about something that you've mentioned later on. I have no patience for your paragraph.

So, how does it feel that you are arguing against comments of trannies from the internet instead of familiarizing yourself with the works of the philosophers that kick-started the shitshow. Glancing over the paragraph, the only namedrop I see is the FB owner and NSA. How does it feel arguing against an oversimplification of a concept instead of the concept itself?

Reminder that actual real fascists are greenies and care about the environment more than modern day liberals.

>>10677764
Everything you said is just faggot nonsense.

>>10678118
why do we care about those irrelevant losers again? Fascists haven't mattered since 1945

>>10678163
haven't you seen the news? trump literally gassed mexican babies.

>>10667290
>he didn't even skin the wikipedia article he's linking as an 'argument'
lso includes greenhouse gas emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimates that carbon dioxide emissions from shipping were equal to 2.2% of the global human-made emissions in 2012[3]

WOW 2%!??!!??! That must be more than all the cars in the world! Oh wait, it obviously fucking isn't.

>>10665904
Every day I try to give /pol/ another chance but their retardation just absolutely floors me.

>>10667314
if it's literally this easy to BTFO /pol/ then why doesn't anyone do it?

i always thought /pol/ were the smartest motherfuckers on 4chan since they seemed to win every argument

>>10666005
>It’s
Based retard

>>10665973
>it is CUMULATIVE
439-450= -11
332-338= -6
29-17= +12
Humans are the only contributing factor

>>10666274
Epic cripple chan file name bro. Go back to /leftypol/.

>>10665904
>thoughts
people who are literally brainlets have had lobotomies
probably unwanted lobotomies done by someone I want to kill

>>10678866
If you think /pol/ wins any argument I have some bad news for you

>>10667272
>that image
This is some next level god-tier projection

>>10667272
I never seen a post describing/pol/ so well and roasting /pol/ so well. I was there all the time just for the troll, i dont even share their view on anything. But jesus fuck when i truly saw how rly retarded they were and how serious they were i left that retarded board in seconds. I cannot believe those are actually human beings that can vote...

>>10675916
I present to you Steven Crowder the retard who screams louder.

>>10675176
>since it was not widely known that greenhouse gases could result in climate change prior to 1990
lies

>>10678866
There's a difference between winning every argument and acting like you have. OP's argument is easily debunked, but here's a secret for you: it's going to be repeatedly reposted and parroted on /pol/ for years. Most people aren't going to take the effort to debunk it every single time, so in 99% of instances stupid arguments like that just go unchallenged. Next time you're there, and looking at Climate Denial thread #8123127 or Holocaust Denial thread #5123123, ask yourself if those arguments are really "watertight beliefs winning the free exchange of ideas", or if maybe no one is autistic enough to futilely spray antivenom in a pit of snakes.

>>10665951
Fuck off faggot, no one cares about your age old "le poltard!' meme

>>10675287
Hell summer child

>>10666586
someone found a thesaurus.

>>10674666
??????????????????????
You mean the human physical body against the industry?
We all use products that those industries make that are "non-human".
Your point is retarded and again it contradicts in sentiment,

if you wanted non-human industries to collapse and the consumption of them be evenly distributed with the wealth, then you would have a communist Utopia,
which is a radical left,

when it is the radical right to misinform against global warming, at least be coherent in your choice of being politically polarized and follow your party like a brainlet coherently.

>>10680277

>>10681833
lol, uses pre-2016 RSS
surrmer-retard

>>10681846
well if you guys looked into solar cycles as much as you did in co2 you would already know the answer to your "climate change"

>>10680132
media buzz words

>>10681833

/pol/fags still dont understand what the carbon cycle is.

>>10681848
>solar activity nearing a grand minimum
>warming continues as fast as ever
Yup, I can see you've looked into this a lot.

>>10674874
This is some special kind of bullshit, probably the type troll farms like to shill about to sow strife and misinformation. Stick to the shitbox friendo >>>/pol/

>>10679406
This is an excellent post about how meme /pol/tics shitposts work. It takes some knowledge, effort and nuance to debunk these bullshit claims while parroting the same old tired strawman argument takes no effort, is easily spread and gets repeated mindkessly by the thousands of people who care less about actual content and all avout image/ideology/culture war points. It's no wonder a lot of these types are clinical narcissists or pathological liars.

>>10667328
The buffer between toxic chemicals and people is people and toxic chemicals and they are all
Vectors. Think about that.

>>10681833
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10681873
Well it doesnt happen overnight, Iguess we will see in a few years if the earth cools down. It should have. And it will, then all of you can suck my cock

>>10679413
What? Hell, Michigan?

>>10681869
ya fucken sheep

>>10682777
the irony

>>10681848
what did he mean by this post?

>>10682777
>>10678906

>>10679411
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>10681833
>citing Lindzen and Choi
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF /POL/

>>10682831
he meant that he is a stubbornly ignorant fucktard

>>10679411
>no one cares
You care enough to shitpost, faggot.

>>10682845
inb4
>TEMPURATURE LAGS SOLAR ACTIVITY BY 1000 YEARS!!!!!

>>10681833
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
...see myths Number 12, 18, 19, 24, 30, 34, 36, 39, 77, 103
You missed a few.

>>10677801
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POKr6_58epg

>>10683328
>we can't measure surface temperature because ocean
What an odd thing to say pic related is only one network of sensors, it doesn't include GISS buoys or ship based measurements. As for stratospheric cooling I'm not even sure what his point is, yes it's real yes it's caused by human emitted CO2, will it end the world through ozone depletion? No data suggests it will. Ozone has been recovering steadily after the global ban on CFCs.

>>10683416
Better map

>>10683416
Doesn't he mean the sea absorbs energy in a way that land masses don't?

>>10683445
he literally just says we don't have the instruments to measure it which clearly isn't true

>>10667665
>The only country that matters
Mate, here is why that statement makes absolutely no sense. Let’s assume you mean the USA.

China has the worlds largest export economy. They matter a great a deal.

Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves. They also matter a great deal.

There are 194 other countries that I could go through, but the USA is far from the only country that matters.

>>10666274
>not being able to come up with an argument to disprove 'retards'

>>10683489
In the event of a global economic collapse, Americans will suffer the horrific fate of becoming less consumerist for a spell while careers shift and the economy reboots itself.

>>10683525
>ignoring literally the entire thread

>>10683532
1. A global economic collapse will never happen. So this premise is already pointless.

2. Americans in poverty would be devastated and other groups would most likely feel some sort of effect as well. An economic collapse would be devastating for anyone except the uber rich. Literally not sure where your getting this statement from. All you have to do is look at the 2009 recession to see how the USA would fare in slight economic turmoil. Not to mention the Depression and all of the other panics throughout US history.

>>10683597
Point 1 made you miss the point, as 2 isn't counter-conducive to my reasoning. What I'm saying is that Americans are moderately uber rich. All we've suffered thus far were very slight hiccups in the economy, and in the event of a hard bubble we'd behave in a markedly different manner.

>>10683618
Everything you’ve said is utter horse shit to satisfy your ego and make it seem like you know what you’re talking about. Americans are not “moderately” uber rich, the number of Americans who have that level of wealth is about the same as any other average country. We have also not suffered “slight hiccups”, the Great Depression lasted 11 years and had people living in federally funded tents and shanty towns. Not to mention our comfortable trailer park communities. We have already seen a manner that we would behave in under such conditions, no other economic problem could arise that would make us respond in any way drastically different than we have in the past.

>>10683672
>no other economic problem
I didn't say you were wrong on either point, I said that point 1 made you completely miscomprehend my argument. I don't disagree that "global market" collapse is a false concept. The point is to entertain the hypothetical precisely long enough to verify that it is indeed false.

What you misunderstand is the scale on which I consider the concept of "economic collapse." For me, it's not a true collapse unless the ability to reboot the economy is lost in some capacity. With hyper-wealthy individuals in the population, the ONLY way that happens is by a catastrophic ideological collapse on the scale necessary to make all their wealth that hasn't been physically secured meaningless. Civility is just another type of resource to be bought and sold given the level of scarcity the average participant experiences.

With a collapse of that scale, the entire market re-randomizes. In that situations, Americans are not so ill-equipped that they wouldn't be able to rebuild the economy from scratch with local resources. When /pol/tards talk about "infrastructure" they're talking about the type of industrial infrastructure that makes the modern economy possible. Many nations are actively failing to maintain their resource dependency chains.

>>10683685
This is the dumbest definition of collapse possible. Why not use the word apocalypse because that's what you mean.

>>10683685
My point in that last response is that I didn’t miss the point so much as I simply glossed over it. Besides, you didn’t exactly make clear that we were discussing “economic collapse” in terms that were contrary to the general idea. Your idea for the concept is certainly intriguing to me at least, and the idea of discussing only the hyper richs assets over their assets and their liquidity potential is a good way to frame that discussion, but the economy gets difficult to put into tangible terms when you take tangible things off the table. Many nations are failing to do that, that’s true, but, as I think in the case of Venezuela (tremendous case study) that is a problem that needs to be addressed on multiple levels. Part of that could be the political reasoning behind the decisions that led to the current predicament and another part could be is it really as devastating an insurmountable as many observers think.

I don’t think so. Many economic problems will take some time and strategic planning to maneuver around and out of (as we have seen; it can take decades) but it can be done. I may have been too quick to dismiss your hypothetical, but it takes a very specific example for total economic collapse to be illustrate a phenomenon that can lend itself to real world applications.

>>10683721
Because I don't believe in extinction-through-X-risk. We only consider something an existential risk if it threatens our entire civilization. The moment we have colonies on other planets, it's not a threat to the entire species for life on Earth to end. More than likely, there will always be people who are willing to ride out the apocalypse and prepare accordingly, and civilization has no reason to stop this. "If most of us die, then we'll all die together" is fundamentally backwards in terms of preventing the extinction of our species.

Therefore, it's a numbers game. Going by pure probability, the less amount of hyper-rich people there are, the more likely all of them are to die in the event of a collapse. Trying to call it an apocalypse just evokes needless paranoia and classism. It's a collapse, and in a collapse the richest have the most to lose. It's simple math.

Note that I don't consider the Soviet Union to have rebooted its economy. "Collapse" in history just means the rights of the rich being ignored because they quite literally don't serve the needs of the masses anymore. That very real condition shouldn't be mythicized as some "end of the world" scenario.

>>10683774
I agree I could have contextualized an example better. I'm not accustomed to economic debate to a degree necessary to intuit where the disconnect was going to occur. I figure we're all amateurs on the topic until someone actually invents actionable utopia.

>>10683791
Well, theres always room for improvement, as some guy once said.

>>10665906
>>10665940
>>10666003
>>10666326
>>10667218
>>10667293
>>10667354
>>10667369
>>10667656
>>10667760
>>10668045
>>10668709
>>10670482
>>10673459
>>10674648
>>10674666
>>10674704
>>10674781
>>10674874
>>10674943
>>10674979
.
.
.
.
.

>>10684081
So what is your opinion, Mr NPC?

>>10675648
incorrect. normies are tumblr cuckolds dressed as epin cool dudes. they would eat the semen of a nagger from their gf's pussy if it meant they didnt get called racist. the white nations are doomed to become brown michling nations and there is nothing we purists can do to prevent it.

>>10684587
well one thing you said is true.

>>10684587
everything i said is true.