I wouldn't be entirely so sure. Carbon emissions might actually go up if you have to reduce technology. Think about how India is building coal fired power plants to supply electricity because wood-based cooking is the norm and it's absolutely smothering India in pollution.
Which part exactly are you replying to? If it's the first paragraph, I meant literally living in caves. Ooga booga. That's pretty carbon neutral.
If it's about the rest, then yes, I agree, but nobody actually gives a shit about carbon dioxide, it's just one of today's Satans, kinda like white supremacy... or VR groping, since that's on my mind right now. Actual harmful pollution would skyrocket if we shit down our nukes (because they're scawwy!) and then were forced to go back to coal/oil/gas power generation because you can't run a power grid on wind and solar.
I think most right thinking people do. Hell, I would even say a lot of the talk about how “climate change doesn’t exist” is about the Lefts Gaia Worship stance on the issue. For my own stance, I am a TR-style Conservationist: We should absolutely protect wildlife and maintain areas of pristine wilderness. But for the benefit of both the Earth and humanity. And that we overcome pollution with technology and efficiency, not punishment and returning to monke like the Climate Cult wants.
TLDR: Nuclear Reactors or you are a lying cultist.
Carbon Emissions are an existential threat. The thing is, most people don't know what a real existential threat looks like. The idea that cities would be slowly abandoned over the next hundred years due to inhospitability due to sea level rise isn't crazy.
In fact, one of the most interesting things in archaeology is seeing how emergent civilizations live on top of previous civilizations, and even though they are direct descendants, there is no information about the previous civilization.
These massive cities are large economic centers, and they were constructed from imperial economies that supported them. When the empire collapsed economically it took it's cities with it. The popping of the economic bubble caused a total collapse of the wholes civilization. For the Assyrians, it's a prime example of why you don't build your entire civilization on military expansionism alone.
If you've read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", you'll also note that significant environmental degradation can cause the collapse of these cities. These cities and their incredible urban density must import vast quantities of food, and they also require significant transportation using waterways and coast lines. If environmental degradation (or poisoning) disrupts the logistical system to support these cities, the cities die, and the civilization typically goes with it because these cities include all of the formalized knowledge, wealth, and technical class of those civilizations. This seems to have at least partly happened with Easter Island, however it may have also contributed to the Bronze Age Collapse.
Not every civilization dies from fiery disaster. Many just fade away. People typically abandon cities. Old ways of doing things are lost. The technical knowledge of previous civilizations is lost, particularly if the language is no longer readable. Although Rome was sacked, Rome continued to exist long after the Western Roman Empire fell, and even after the Eastern Roman's re-conquered it. However, back in Gaul, despite being occupied by Romans for centuries, despite adopting Roman civilizations, despite traveling on Roman roads, even despite Charlemagne effectively claiming the title of Caesar, the Franks couldn't speak Latin, and they could tell you what a Rome even was. Even though they could still travel to it on the roads built by Romans and Romanic Gauls.
If major cities and their economic power are damaged by changing water-ways and rising coast-lines, this is an existential threat that could cause the entire Global power structure to shift on it's foundations. It's not the first time shit like that has happened. The Globalist power structure needs food production to stay where it is, city size to increase, and effectively no changes to anything anywhere. Well, that's not going to happen, and cultivatable farming regions are already shifting, and their own economic policies are causing cities to be abandoned already.
You're looking at a proper collapse, that the Globalists think is existential; but in reality is simply existential... ... to them. We'll be fine.
I wouldn't be entirely so sure. Carbon emissions might actually go up if you have to reduce technology. Think about how India is building coal fired power plants to supply electricity because wood-based cooking is the norm and it's absolutely smothering India in pollution.
Which part exactly are you replying to? If it's the first paragraph, I meant literally living in caves. Ooga booga. That's pretty carbon neutral.
If it's about the rest, then yes, I agree, but nobody actually gives a shit about carbon dioxide, it's just one of today's Satans, kinda like white supremacy... or VR groping, since that's on my mind right now. Actual harmful pollution would skyrocket if we shit down our nukes (because they're scawwy!) and then were forced to go back to coal/oil/gas power generation because you can't run a power grid on wind and solar.
kicks a small stone
... i care about carbon dioxide levels...
I think most right thinking people do. Hell, I would even say a lot of the talk about how “climate change doesn’t exist” is about the Lefts Gaia Worship stance on the issue. For my own stance, I am a TR-style Conservationist: We should absolutely protect wildlife and maintain areas of pristine wilderness. But for the benefit of both the Earth and humanity. And that we overcome pollution with technology and efficiency, not punishment and returning to monke like the Climate Cult wants.
TLDR: Nuclear Reactors or you are a lying cultist.
Basially.
Carbon Emissions are an existential threat. The thing is, most people don't know what a real existential threat looks like. The idea that cities would be slowly abandoned over the next hundred years due to inhospitability due to sea level rise isn't crazy.
In fact, one of the most interesting things in archaeology is seeing how emergent civilizations live on top of previous civilizations, and even though they are direct descendants, there is no information about the previous civilization.
Xenophon's retreat from Persia includes the first western, written, accounts of the Assyrian Empire, 200 years after it collapsed. The people who lived in these cities abandoned them, and the people who lived in these cities had no memory of the civilization who built these massive cities just 200 years earlier. Imagine if no one in the US had any information about how the city of Philadelphia came to be.
These massive cities are large economic centers, and they were constructed from imperial economies that supported them. When the empire collapsed economically it took it's cities with it. The popping of the economic bubble caused a total collapse of the wholes civilization. For the Assyrians, it's a prime example of why you don't build your entire civilization on military expansionism alone.
If you've read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", you'll also note that significant environmental degradation can cause the collapse of these cities. These cities and their incredible urban density must import vast quantities of food, and they also require significant transportation using waterways and coast lines. If environmental degradation (or poisoning) disrupts the logistical system to support these cities, the cities die, and the civilization typically goes with it because these cities include all of the formalized knowledge, wealth, and technical class of those civilizations. This seems to have at least partly happened with Easter Island, however it may have also contributed to the Bronze Age Collapse.
Not every civilization dies from fiery disaster. Many just fade away. People typically abandon cities. Old ways of doing things are lost. The technical knowledge of previous civilizations is lost, particularly if the language is no longer readable. Although Rome was sacked, Rome continued to exist long after the Western Roman Empire fell, and even after the Eastern Roman's re-conquered it. However, back in Gaul, despite being occupied by Romans for centuries, despite adopting Roman civilizations, despite traveling on Roman roads, even despite Charlemagne effectively claiming the title of Caesar, the Franks couldn't speak Latin, and they could tell you what a Rome even was. Even though they could still travel to it on the roads built by Romans and Romanic Gauls.
If major cities and their economic power are damaged by changing water-ways and rising coast-lines, this is an existential threat that could cause the entire Global power structure to shift on it's foundations. It's not the first time shit like that has happened. The Globalist power structure needs food production to stay where it is, city size to increase, and effectively no changes to anything anywhere. Well, that's not going to happen, and cultivatable farming regions are already shifting, and their own economic policies are causing cities to be abandoned already.
You're looking at a proper collapse, that the Globalists think is existential; but in reality is simply existential... ... to them. We'll be fine.