On 08/21/2016 12:30 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> On 8/17/16, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> Arguing about anthropogenic climate forcing is just fucking useless. The
>> latency is too great, and there are too many positive feedbacks. By the
>> time that impacts are undeniable enough to motivate substantial
>> reductions in CO2 emissions, it will be too late.
> 
> It's a bit of a race, how long can you consume faster than
> natural replenishment, and generally fuck shit up, before
> reaching the understanding, control, and technology needed
> to back you off the depletion and saturation points. The further
> you gamble under a negative rate condition, on your ability
> to push the event horizon of reaching positive replenishment
> and restoration, particularly as your negative rate is increasing
> (2nd derivative), the greater your odds of losing.
> 
> Humans like to gamble, but Nature is the bookie, the house,
> programmer of the slots, printer of tokens, dealer, security, etc...
> To Her, right now, you're just a dumb patron, drunk on
> consumption, and She's going to win.
> 
> Sober up.

:)

It'd be simple if there were just one gambler. But there are maybe a
dozen major players. So we have a tragedy of the commons :(

Reply via email to