• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Thank you so much for ruining my day


    "Given the sheer enormity of climate change, it’s okay to be depressed, to grieve. But please, don’t stay there too long. Join me in pure, unadulterated, righteous anger."


    "I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. Once you start to act, the hope is everywhere."

    "Our best scientists tell us insistently that a calamity is unfolding, that the life-support systems of the Earth are being damaged in ways that threaten our survival. Yet in the face of these facts we carry on as usual."

    “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”

    A nejde o to, že na to nemáme dostatečné technologie, ty by na řešení použít šly, ale chybí nám vůle a představivost je využít. Zůstáváme při zemi, přemýšlíme až moc rezervovaně. Technologický pokrok to sám o sobě nevyřeší. Problém jsme my, ne technologické nástroje.

    Rostouci hladiny oceanu, zmena atmosferickeho proudeni, zmeny v distribuci srazek a sucha. Zmeny karbonoveho, fosforoveho a dusikoveho cyklu, okyselovani oceanu. Jake jsou bezpecnostni rizika a jake potencialni klady dramatickych zmen fungovani zemskeho systemu?
    Ale take jak funguji masove dezinformacni kampane ropneho prumyslu a boj o verejne mineni na prahu noveho klimatickeho rezimu post-holocenu.
    rozbalit záhlaví
    XCHAOS
    XCHAOS --- ---
    TADEAS: tak snad aspoň naplněj zásobníky, po půl roce bez srážek...
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    An ‘extreme and possible historic atmospheric river’ is battering California
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/24/california-atmospheric-river-soaked/
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    YMLADRIS: tak to nejsou humanisti, ale transhumanisti :)

    a maj nadity penezenky ,)

    effective altruism (EA) movement, which was introduced by Ord in around 2011 and now boasts of having a mind-boggling $46 billion in committed funding
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    TADEAS: imo zalezi, zda se jedinec identifikuje s "humanismem" nebo s cim se teda identifikuje. kdo se identifikuje s "lidstvim", bude proti (genetickym modifikacim, AI, longtermismu, transhumanismu..). bude kolem toho hodně nenávisti
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS: me to celkove prijde jako nebezpecna, ale zajimava hra ,) a uz se hraje, protoze je to ideologie tech hracu, tough life :)

    tzn. jo, lze hejtovat muska za britalni ekologickou stopu z privatejetu, ale bez techle vecicek se ty velky veci tezko organizujou. neuralink pro sirokou verejnost by mel byt cca za 12 let - co realne udela synteza chytrejch lidi, pokrocilejch algoritmu, velkyho vypocetniho vykonu s nejakejma napr. materialovejma pokrokama, ktery jsou potreba pro realizaci ty nefosilni/solarni civilizace? (jakozto predstupen civilizace mimoplanetarni) ... atd.

    takze pred velkym krachem tu jeste probehnou hodne zajimavy pokusy, urcite pohaneny i touhle ideologii
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    TADEAS: diky ze jsi to nasel/postnul

    co se tyce ty eticky namitky, zde je to off topic, ale nevim. prijde mi to jako dve strategie. "minimalizovat utrpeni" a "existovat co nejdyl". co je pro koho vic atraktivni se beztak ukaze ze je kdovijak epigeneticky nebo nejak kodovany. mne to pripada fajn oboji, "most dangerous credo" je blbost. naopak ta perspektiva ze ano, je to na piču ale důlezity je preziti druhu, pomuze lidem tim klimatem projit, kdyz je teda buh mrtvej
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    YMLADRIS: byla to odpoved na tvoji otazku proc musk rika, ze problem je ze theres too few people - protoze vic lidi, vic vedomejch bytosti, a to je lepsi... z toho ultradlouhodobyho hlediska, zda z hlediska tedka nekolika generaci, tezko rict jestli se vyjadroval prave k tomu a jestli na to existuje neideologicka odpoved :)

    sireji k tomu co pises - hothouse earth se asi nebere jako pravdepodobny a podletoho co pisou tyjle sekundarni zdroje ta uvaha bude takova ze zastavit ten civilizacni vyvoj by z toho ultradlouhodobyho pohledu bylo nevyhodny - hothouse asi nenastane, ale je tu pravdepodobnost, ze civilizacni rozvoj nas (resp enktery z nas - kyborgy) posune tak daleko, ze zase z toho ultradlouhodobyho pohledu to je profit - vic vedomejch bytosti
    YMLADRIS
    YMLADRIS --- ---
    TADEAS: mi to tak jasny nepripada (ze klima zmena je jen zaskobrtnuti), jednak je tam otazka tech tipping pointu, jako kam az vysoko se teplota vysplha. pokud by to znamenalo ze prezije jen maly procento lidi, muzou je zlikvidovat napr. pandemie, treba proto, ze nebudou mit aparaty se proti nim efektivne branit.

    za druhe, pochopila jsem to tak, ze musk s tim multiplanetary tak specha, protoze nikde neni zaruceny, ze Zeme zustane bezpecna nejak libovolne dlouho. a kdy zase bude vyvojovy okno na lety do budovani zakladen mimo planetu.

    ale tak je hezky si myslet, ze lidi, kteri vazne promýšlí existenciální risky, nepovažují klima za zásadní problém, to je takove uklidnujici

    co se tyce muska, vim ze nekdy v mladi nechapal proc by mel zit, nedavalo mu to smysl a pak si rekl ze pridat se k misi za zachovani Vedomi ve vesmiru je uspokojujici a tak to dela, takze ano.

    nicmene proc by se population decline nedal fakt celkem jednoduse resit, i kdyby se na to mely vynalezt umele delohy, kdyz nezaberou financni a dalsi pobidky, to zatim nevidim
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    better safe than sorry .)

    Reid Hoffman, the multi-billionaire who cofounded LinkedIn, reports that “more than 50 percent of Silicon Valley’s billionaires have bought some level of ‘apocalypse insurance,’ such as an underground bunker.”

    Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

    How Silicon Valley Billionaires Became Doomsday Preppers
    https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-doomsday-preppers-new-zealand-2020-3
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS: tady to mate polopate ,)

    The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk” ❧ Current Affairs
    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/07/the-dangerous-ideas-of-longtermism-and-existential-risk

    Longtermism should not be confused with “long-term thinking.” It goes way beyond the observation that our society is dangerously myopic, and that we should care about future generations no less than present ones. At the heart of this worldview, as delineated by Bostrom, is the idea that what matters most is for “Earth-originating intelligent life” to fulfill its potential in the cosmos. What exactly is “our potential”? As I have noted elsewhere, it involves subjugating nature, maximizing economic productivity, replacing humanity with a superior “posthuman” species, colonizing the universe, and ultimately creating an unfathomably huge population of conscious beings living what Bostrom describes as “rich and happy lives” inside high-resolution computer simulations.

    This is what “our potential” consists of, and it constitutes the ultimate aim toward which humanity as a whole, and each of us as individuals, are morally obligated to strive. An existential risk, then, is any event that would destroy this “vast and glorious” potential, as Toby Ord, a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute, writes in his 2020 book The Precipice, which draws heavily from earlier work in outlining the longtermist paradigm. (Note that Noam Chomsky just published a book also titled The Precipice.)

    The point is that when one takes the cosmic view, it becomes clear that our civilization could persist for an incredibly long time and there could come to be an unfathomably large number of people in the future. Longtermists thus reason that the far future could contain way more value than exists today, or has existed so far in human history, which stretches back some 300,000 years. So, imagine a situation in which you could either lift 1 billion present people out of extreme poverty or benefit 0.00000000001 percent of the 1023 biological humans who Bostrom calculates could exist if we were to colonize our cosmic neighborhood, the Virgo Supercluster. Which option should you pick? For longtermists, the answer is obvious: you should pick the latter. Why? Well, just crunch the numbers: 0.00000000001 percent of 1023 people is 10 billion people, which is ten times greater than 1 billion people. This means that if you want to do the most good, you should focus on these far-future people rather than on helping those in extreme poverty today. As the FHI longtermists Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill—the latter of whom is said to have cofounded the Effective Altruism movement with Toby Ord—write, “for the purposes of evaluating actions, we can in the first instance often simply ignore all the effects contained in the first 100 (or even 1,000) years, focussing primarily on the further-future effects. Short-run effects act as little more than tie-breakers.”

    This brings us back to climate change, which is expected to cause serious harms over precisely this time period: the next few decades and centuries. If what matters most is the very far future—thousands, millions, billions, and trillions of years from now—then climate change isn’t going to be high up on the list of global priorities unless there’s a runaway scenario. Sure, it will cause “untold suffering,” but think about the situation from the point of view of the universe itself. Whatever traumas and miseries, deaths and destruction, happen this century will pale in comparison to the astronomical amounts of “value” that could exist once humanity has colonized the universe, become posthuman, and created upwards of 1058 (Bostrom’s later estimate) conscious beings in computer simulations.

    ...

    In the same paper, Bostrom declares that even “a non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilization is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback,” describing this as “a giant massacre for man, a small misstep for mankind.”

    ...

    These aren’t the only incendiary remarks from Bostrom, the Father of Longtermism. In a paper that founded one half of longtermist research program, he characterizes the most devastating disasters throughout human history, such as the two World Wars (including the Holocaust), Black Death, 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, major earthquakes, large volcanic eruptions, and so on, as “mere ripples” when viewed from “the perspective of humankind as a whole.”

    ... etc
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS:

    2020 The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity
    http://libgen.li/edition.php?id=138269530
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    longtermism ve skutecne long, hypercivilizacni podobe / bostrom, musk, thiel & spol

    mozna taky smer kde lze hledat odpoved pro [YMLADRIS @ Elon Musk (SpaceX - Falcon / Dragon / Starship, Tesla Motors, Solarcity, Hyperloop, Neuralink, Starlink, Boring atd.)] tj. klima zmena neni zasadni zpusobem ohrozujici, je to z opravdu long term hlediska malej problem, technologicky a jinak resitelnej a problem je spis pokud bude prilis malo lidi realizujici svuj potencial prilis omezenejma zpusobama, ktery ho nerozvinou... nebo neco takovyho ,)


    Why longtermism is the world’s most dangerous secular credo | Aeon Essays
    https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo

    the topic of our extinction has received little sustained attention from philosophers until recently, and even now remains at the fringe of philosophical discussion and debate. On the whole, they have been preoccupied with other matters. However, there is one notable exception to this rule: over the past two decades, a small group of theorists mostly based in Oxford have been busy working out the details of a new moral worldview called longtermism, which emphasizes how our actions affect the very long-term future of the universe – thousands, millions, billions, and even trillions of years from now. This has roots in the work of Nick Bostrom, who founded the grandiosely named Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) in 2005, and Nick Beckstead, a research associate at FHI and a programme officer at Open Philanthropy. It has been defended most publicly by the FHI philosopher Toby Ord, author of The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity (2020). Longtermism is the primary research focus of both the Global Priorities Institute (GPI), an FHI-linked organisation directed by Hilary Greaves, and the Forethought Foundation, run by William MacAskill, who also holds positions at FHI and GPI. Adding to the tangle of titles, names, institutes and acronyms, longtermism is one of the main ‘cause areas’ of the so-called effective altruism (EA) movement, which was introduced by Ord in around 2011 and now boasts of having a mind-boggling $46 billion in committed funding.

    It is difficult to overstate how influential longtermism has become. Karl Marx in 1845 declared that the point of philosophy isn’t merely to interpret the world but change it, and this is exactly what longtermists have been doing, with extraordinary success. Consider that Elon Musk, who has cited and endorsed Bostrom’s work, has donated $1.5 million dollars to FHI through its sister organisation, the even more grandiosely named Future of Life Institute (FLI). This was cofounded by the multimillionaire tech entrepreneur Jaan Tallinn, who, as I recently noted, doesn’t believe that climate change poses an ‘existential risk’ to humanity because of his adherence to the longtermist ideology.

    Meanwhile, the billionaire libertarian and Donald Trump supporter Peter Thiel, who once gave the keynote address at an EA conference, has donated large sums of money to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, whose mission to save humanity from superintelligent machines is deeply intertwined with longtermist values

    ...

    The point is that longtermism might be one of the most influential ideologies that few people outside of elite universities and Silicon Valley have ever heard about. I believe this needs to change because, as a former longtermist who published an entire book four years ago in defence of the general idea, I have come to see this worldview as quite possibly the most dangerous secular belief system in the world today. But to understand the nature of the beast, we need to first dissect it, examining its anatomical features and physiological functions.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    MAZA: bohuzel to nemuzu najit primo z jejich stranek, abych chcecknul zdroje…
    MAZA
    MAZA --- ---
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Pekna grafika k debate o cenach emisnich povolenek

    SCHWEPZ
    SCHWEPZ --- ---
    "(...) Existuje však ještě snazší řešení. Časopis Environmental Research Letters provedl studii více než 29 tisíc elektráren na fosilní paliva po celém světě a zjistil, že pouhých pět procent z nich je zodpovědných za 73 procent globálních emisí z elektřiny. Mohli bychom snadno financovat modernizaci právě těchto zhruba 1400 elektráren, přičemž výnosem takové investice by bylo citelné snížení uhlíkových emisí. Mezinárodní agentura pro energii zároveň odhaduje, že více než 70 procent úniků metanu z těžby ropy a zemního plynu lze odstranit s pomocí již existujících technologií.

    Cílem – v dlouhodobém i ve střednědobém horizontu – musí být globální distribuce energií z obnovitelných zdrojů. Z této oblasti přichází mnoho dobrých zpráv. Náklady na solární a větrnou energii se dramaticky snížily a jsou konkurenceschopné s fosilními palivy. Jejich zapojení je nyní snazší než kdykoli předtím. Skladování energie, kdysi velký problém těchto nestálých zdrojů, má čím dál více řešení díky zvyšujícím se výkonům baterií a novým řešením skladování, která se zdokonalují. Stále potřebujeme mnohem větší investice do výzkumu a vývoje v této oblasti, ale děláme skutečné pokroky.

    Mezitím musíme již teď snižovat emise a zároveň udržovat stabilní dodávky energie. Pokud se tak nestane, budeme čelit dalším energetickým šokům, které by mohly snadno přerůst v odpor proti zelené politice."
    Fareed Zakaaria (aktuální RESPEKT)
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    #greendeal

    In many countries, levels of public investment in the economy are higher than they have ever been outside of war time, but too much spending goes straight into the pockets of big private companies rather than being used to help people & planet.

    – Jeremy Corbyn MP

    A radical #greennewdeal is the only way to stop climate catastrophe – Jeremy Corbyn exclusive on #Cop26 | MR Online
    https://mronline.org/2021/10/25/a-radical-greennewdeal-is-the-only-way-to-stop-climate-catastrophe-jeremy-corbyn-exclusive-on-cop26/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-radical-greennewdeal-is-the-only-way-to-stop-climate-catastrophe-jeremy-corbyn-exclusive-on-cop26
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    #China

    Little over a decade ago, China was strongly arguing against reducing the emissions being caused by its booming, coal-fuelled economic growth. Instead, it said rich, developed nations should be leading the way.
    Speaking to a diverse range of experts within China and beyond, Carbon Brief has learned that Xi has personally played “the most important role” in this shift in views.
    Below, Carbon Brief describes nine key moments over the past two decades that have helped to influence China’s attitudinal change.
    These moments – many of which have not been widely reported before – do not include the more obvious important incidents, such as Xi becoming China’s leader in 2012, or China ratifying the Paris Agreement in 2016.

    Analysis: Nine key moments that changed China’s mind about climate change - Carbon Brief
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-nine-key-moments-that-changed-chinas-mind-about-climate-change
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    modlit se za klima


    COP26: Why The UN Climate Conference Matters Like Never Before
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/10/22/with-one-week-till-cop26-climate-talks-experts-set-out-whats-at-stake/?sh=19fa74eb585d

    Rockstrom:

    “The message to take to Glasgow is that the science has never been so clear: that every tenth of a degree matters, and that 1.5 is for real,” explains Johan Rockström, professor and director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    “At 1.5 degrees we're telling our kids that we, the adults who are in charge of Earth now, are handing over the planet in a less liveable state for all future generations,” he adds.

    Rockström delivers these words calmly, in measured tones. As one of the most influential climate scientists working today, he isn’t a man readily inclined to dramatic turns of phrase. So when he talks like this, the effect is alarming.

    “That’s where we are,” he continues. “That’s why we talk about a climate emergency. I mean, academics don't like those kinds of words, but we are forced to use them today because now it's a crunch moment.”

    Rockström points to the UN’s latest synthesis report, released September 17, which indicates that, with all countries’ current climate commitments taken into account, the world is currently on a trajectory to warm by 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

    “I barely even want to talk about 2.7 degrees,” Rockström says. “If we go beyond 2 degrees it’s very likely that we have caused so many tipping points that you have probably added another degree just through self-reinforcing changes. And that’s without even talking about extreme events.”

    His frustration is palpable as he sums up the situation: “It is a very special moment in time. We have 30-plus years of scientific advancements; 150 years of unsustainable pressures rising; and we've come to this point now where we can prove that we've basically saturated the system. There's no more room to maneuver, which means the only way out is 100% sustainability.”
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS:

    Gail Whiteman
    https://twitter.com/GenerationCO2/status/1448866636904161289?s=19

    As background, here is the paper that published in June on the feasibility of various pathways including the Shell Sky scenario.

    All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal - IOPscience
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfeec/meta

    And the accompanying op Ed that Johan and I wrote:

    Shell’s net zero plan will be judged on science, not spin
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/05/18/shells-net-zero-plan-will-judged-science-not-spin/
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam