mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-01-24, 06:22   #45
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

175B16 Posts
Default

More relevant is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, in which strategy is possible. (And of course this models the world more closely: we're not a one-shot thing.)
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-24, 14:35   #46
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

25×151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
<snip>
To simplify, the following outcomes are possible from an individual standpoint:

If I get to see X and everyone else does, the outcome is -1 because the climate becomes chaotic, but at least I got some fun.
If I get to see X and nobody else does, the outcome is +1 because I got some fun, and there is minimal effect on the climate.
If I don't get to see X but everyone else does, the outcome is -2 because the climate becomes chaotic and I didn't get to have fun.
If I don't get to see X and nobody else does, the outcome is 0. I don't get to have fun, and the climate remains more or less the same.
<snip>
This assumes that either everyone else or nobody else "will get to see X." This is arrant nonsense, as is your earlier assumption that any opportunity for tourism would come to a screeching halt if carbon were "taxed or rationed."

You are also willfully disregarding the possibility that, if you choose, for whatever reason, to refrain from going on tour, you might come up with a better, or more enjoyable way to use the time and money that would have gone into the tour. Or perhaps you are merely suffering a failure of imagination.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2019-01-24 at 14:37
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-24, 16:40   #47
MooMoo2
 
MooMoo2's Avatar
 
Aug 2010

659 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
This assumes that either everyone else or nobody else "will get to see X." This is arrant nonsense, as is your earlier assumption that any opportunity for tourism would come to a screeching halt if carbon were "taxed or rationed."
As I said, that's a simplification, but the overall concept remains the same. If I see X and Y% of the population does, the climate changes by Z amount, but at least I got some enjoyment. If I don't see X, Y% will still see it, and the climate will still change by Z amount, but I won't get any enjoyment.

Unless you're a world famous celebrity, politician, or billionaire, your actions as an individual will have a negligible climate impact. Therefore, the rational choice as an individual would be to see X, even though the end result would be potentially catastrophic climate change if everyone else did so too.

Quote:
You are also willfully disregarding the possibility that, if you choose, for whatever reason, to refrain from going on tour, you might come up with a better, or more enjoyable way to use the time and money that would have gone into the tour. Or perhaps you are merely suffering a failure of imagination.
I doubt my carbon emissions would have changed much if I didn't travel far. The time and money spent on that yearly overseas trip would be spent on much more frequent activities/lifestyles that burn similar amounts of carbon. Things like driving to that weekend resort town and going jet skiing, off roading, or snowmobiling. Or even staying put and buying a bigger house, filling it with GPU farms, giant TVs, heated pools, and other energy hogging gadgets/features. And I'd also add to the creature comforts by cranking up the AC to provide a nice cool 72 degree place in summer while enjoying a carbon intensive 16 oz. ribeye dinner.
MooMoo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-24, 16:47   #48
MooMoo2
 
MooMoo2's Avatar
 
Aug 2010

659 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
More relevant is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, in which strategy is possible. (And of course this models the world more closely: we're not a one-shot thing.)
That might apply at the nation-state level, but not the individual level unless there were a worldwide centralized Big Brother type system that kept track of everyone's purchases and activities. The privacy implications would be horrendous.
MooMoo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-24, 18:07   #49
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
That might apply at the nation-state level, but not the individual level unless there were a worldwide centralized Big Brother type system that kept track of everyone's purchases and activities. The privacy implications would be horrendous.
Or, say, if people had friends or other people they interacted with repeatedly.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-24, 18:17   #50
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
I doubt my carbon emissions would have changed much if I didn't travel far. The time and money spent on that yearly overseas trip would be spent on much more frequent activities/lifestyles that burn similar amounts of carbon. Things like driving to that weekend resort town and going jet skiing, off roading, or snowmobiling. Or even staying put and buying a bigger house, filling it with GPU farms, giant TVs, heated pools, and other energy hogging gadgets/features. And I'd also add to the creature comforts by cranking up the AC to provide a nice cool 72 degree place in summer while enjoying a carbon intensive 16 oz. ribeye dinner.
At the end of the day you make your decisions based on things that affect you, like money. And that makes sense -- how can you be expected to keep track of how your activities impact the whole world? This is why it's so important to tax externalities correctly, so people who buy what is best for them aren't automatically choosing environmentally-destructive (e.g.) things by default.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-07-16, 22:55   #51
MooMoo2
 
MooMoo2's Avatar
 
Aug 2010

659 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
In any case, for people who accept GW/CC, the rational thing to do is to burn as much carbon as you can before it gets taxed and/or rationed. See the coral reefs before they're gone, check out the glaciers while they're still there, and visit Miami before it's underwater. And speak out against policies that would combat GW/CC so that you have more time to do the above before the taxes/rationing kicks in.

Sorry folks, but it's pretty much the prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. I've already booked my long-haul flight to Australia to go scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef.
I happened to stumble upon this thread while looking for something else. I'm glad that I got to see the reef before Australia closed its borders in early 2020.

In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can do to change the climate, whether for better or for worse. The average person in a developed country emits 10-20 tons of CO2 a year, while the world emits over 1100 tons of CO2 each second. So the impact from cutting your emissions to zero for 5-10 years (~100 tons) would literally be wiped out in the blink of an eye (less than a tenth of a second).

Even if your actions somehow did manage to influence things in a meaningful way, it's unclear that anything good will come out of it. Suppose that you drove less. You know what'll happen? This, on a smaller scale:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082
https://money.cnn.com/2015/12/04/aut...-pickup-sales/
Gas prices temporarily go down due to decreased demand, but other people will see that lower gas price and have an incentive to buy a more gas-guzzling vehicle, which leads to a long-term increase in fuel consumption.

The only meaningful change you can make is in your personal life. If you live in an area that'll be impacted by rising sea levels, worsening droughts, more intense hurricanes, etc., consider moving to an area that will be less affected by climate change. For instance, the Great Lakes region probably won't be hit as badly as most of the U.S. and the world, and it's not terribly unaffordable to live there. If a significant part of your job involves working in harsh outdoor environments, consider relocation or a career change.

You can't fix a sinking ship that has a huge hole in it. But you can aim to be one of the first people on the lifeboats.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	coral1.png
Views:	17
Size:	621.8 KB
ID:	25282   Click image for larger version

Name:	coral2.png
Views:	17
Size:	495.1 KB
ID:	25283   Click image for larger version

Name:	coral3.png
Views:	17
Size:	513.9 KB
ID:	25284   Click image for larger version

Name:	coral4.png
Views:	17
Size:	647.5 KB
ID:	25285   Click image for larger version

Name:	fish.png
Views:	17
Size:	854.2 KB
ID:	25286  

MooMoo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-07-16, 23:14   #52
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101Γ—103 Posts

3·3,307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can do to change the climate, whether for better or for worse. The average person in a developed country emits 10-20 tons of CO2 a year, while the world emits over 1100 tons of CO2 each second. So the impact from cutting your emissions to zero for 5-10 years (~100 tons) would literally be wiped out in the blink of an eye (less than a tenth of a second).
If 100 million of your fellow country residents and 200 million in another country and 100 million in another country and 50 million in another country and 70 million in another all do what is right, we are really starting to get somewhere. And if we ask our governments to favour changes for companies (like power generation companies and transportation, then we can make big headway. Figures for how much a particular person is responsible for often only focus on the things that they have direct control over, not the things that they don't. For example, how much electricity are they using vs. the source of electricity that the power company supplies. I have been paying extra for "all green power." This means that my utility must buy green power contracts to cover the amount that I use. This helps to ensure that there is demand for green power. And now that some green sources are cheaper than dirty sources, they may buy the power for others, but they still have to cover mine by green too.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-07-17, 13:35   #53
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

10,861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can do to change the climate, whether for better or for worse.
In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can do to change the government, whether for better or for worse.

Why bother with democracy?
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-07-17, 15:18   #54
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

113408 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can do to change the government, whether for better or for worse.

Why bother with democracy?
It can be argued that it is less-than-ordinary individuals, or sometimes small groups of them, that have had the most disproportionate effect on government. Here in the good ol' USA, the names John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer and John Hinckley Jr. come to mind. The first of these was part of a group of conspirators.

I leave it to the reader to contemplate the effects of a less-than-ordinary person assuming high public office.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-07-17, 17:04   #55
MooMoo2
 
MooMoo2's Avatar
 
Aug 2010

659 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
It can be argued that it is less-than-ordinary individuals, or sometimes small groups of them, that have had the most disproportionate effect on government. Here in the good ol' USA, the names John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer and John Hinckley Jr. come to mind. The first of these was part of a group of conspirators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MooMoo2 View Post
In any case, there's virtually nothing that an ordinary person can legally do to change the climate, whether for better or for worse. The average person in a developed country emits 10-20 tons of CO2 a year, while the world emits over 1100 tons of CO2 each second. So the impact from cutting your emissions to zero for 5-10 years (~100 tons) would literally be wiped out in the blink of an eye (less than a tenth of a second).
Fixed!

A less than ordinary person who really wants to make an impact on the climate should think about making a small "investment" in a lighter, matches, and gasoline. Under the right conditions, a few hours of effort can lead to millions of tons of additional CO2 in the air:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayman_Fire
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/enviro...4-million-cars

The most effective way that a less than ordinary person can change the climate in the opposite direction (reducing CO2 emissions) is left as an exercise to the reader. Hint: it involves mass murder.
MooMoo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warming cold ∞ xilman Lounge 7 2013-01-21 20:38
Global Cooling / Climate Change Information Campaign cheesehead Soap Box 9 2012-04-14 03:12
Georgia on my mind davieddy Soap Box 5 2008-08-18 22:30
Terrorism or Global Warming Pablo the Duck Soap Box 17 2004-04-29 14:19
Who's warming? nomadicus Lounge 17 2003-08-20 08:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:35.


Sat Sep 25 02:35:03 UTC 2021 up 63 days, 21:04, 0 users, load averages: 2.39, 2.76, 2.88

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.