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 :(
