Doomsday Predictions -- Some History for the Coward

[Mina]

Kudos to you for doing this!! I also do this whenever someone bans me from a particular thread that I wish to participate in. What I find is that people then shift over to the "free speech" thread instead, and the original thread dies shortly thereafter.


There have been countless doomsday predictions that have not happened. There have been countless Church of Global Warming "prophets" who have tried and failed at predicting the date of "climate apocalypse". This is no different than the Christian "prophets" who try to predict the date of the "end of the world".

I haven't gone through all of the predictions in this case, but with that first one, it was framed as a conditional prediction -- basically, what would happen if we didn't start tackling those problems. But that kind of prediction can only be proven wrong when it's ignored. The reality is the years right after he spoke were marked by massive and unprecedented efforts to address the very issues he was identifying. Would civilization have survived if we hadn't pursued arms control, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, banning DDT, de-leading gas, and making enough of an effort at population control to bring the global population growth rate down by over half? Maybe. Maybe not. All we can do is speculate.

That's where this differs from false prophets like Jesus, who made unconditional predictions that ended up being wrong. Jesus predicted a whole series of specific end-time events that he said in certain terms would happen in the lifetimes of his own followers, no ifs, ands, or buts. He wound up being wrong. If, on the other hand, he'd predicted that the end would come in their time unless they went out and preached the Gospel, then in theory you could have said it was a true prophecy that simply was never tested, since they did go out and preach the Gospel.

[Mina]

Seafood populations are in collapse too, but that seems to be mostly because of Chinese over fishing.

If you like seafood eat up now!

Seafood populations were in collapse well before China became a major consumer of global fish stocks.

[Mina]

It's pretty amazing how many here think that if the prediction is "If we don't do something then this will happen" is wrong when we do something and the predicted outcome doesn't occur.

If you told them you have to put on your brakes or we will run into that brick wall and then if the brakes are applied and we don't run into the brick wall they will claim you were wrong to tell them to apply the brakes since we didn't hit the wall.

Well said.

[Hawkeye10]

Seafood populations were in collapse well before China became a major consumer of global fish stocks.

The world had put a lot of effort into fishing regulation and policing, and had done a pretty good job of it. That is all gone now because the Chinese do what they want, and no one is willing to confront them.

[Mina]

It's pretty amazing how many here think that if the prediction is "If we don't do something then this will happen" is wrong when we do something and the predicted outcome doesn't occur.

If you told them you have to put on your brakes or we will run into that brick wall and then if the brakes are applied and we don't run into the brick wall they will claim you were wrong to tell them to apply the brakes since we didn't hit the wall.

It's like:

"Back when I was 20, my doctor told me if I kept smoking two packs a day, I'd have lung cancer before I turned forty, but I'm fifty now and still no cancer. Shows what he knew!"

"So, you still smoke two packs a day?"

"No, I quit back in my 20's."

[Mina]

The world had put a lot of effort into fishing regulation and policing, and had done a pretty good job of it. That is all gone now because the Chinese do what they want, and no one is willing to confront them.

There's a repeated pattern there, where developed nations got the benefit of decades of uncurbed consumption, then they belatedly get to work trying to curb it, and developing nations that finally would have had a turn are expected to follow suit. It's similar with greenhouse gas emissions.

My idea for dealing with this kind of thing involves all the major consumer nations coming together to set a common trade standard with regard to other nations, which standards could involve things like environmental compliance and labor standards, where meeting the standards would assure low trade tariffs (and failing to meet them would mean losing economical access to ALL the major consumer nations). Start out year one with a very easy standard, then ramp it up a bit every year, always keep each incremental step small enough that the easiest path will be compliance. Doing that, other nations can be coaxed to come up to advanced-nation standards much faster than they otherwise would.


The problem, though, is that the "new world order" loons lose their shit any time you talk about setting common policy on anything with other nations, insisting that it's a violation of American First principles and a breach of our sovereignty. So, they'll derail any effort like that, leaving the advanced nations in a situation where it's every country for itself, and countries like China can easily play us off against each other. For example, if Germany and the US each have separate policy with regard to China, then each knows that if it raises trade barriers against China on, say, automotive components, in order to punish China for bad conduct, the other will then have cheaper components in its cars and will be more competitive on the global market. As long as people can be kept paranoid about giving up sovereignty to any international organization, countries like China know that little will be done to confront them, because whoever tried to go it alone that way would only end up hurting itself.

[Hawkeye10]

There's a repeated pattern there, where developed nations got the benefit of decades of uncurbed consumption, then they belatedly get to work trying to curb it, and developing nations that finally would have had a turn are expected to follow suit. It's similar with greenhouse gas emissions.

My idea for dealing with this kind of thing involves all the major consumer nations coming together to set a common trade standard with regard to other nations, which standards could involve things like environmental compliance and labor standards, where meeting the standards would assure low trade tariffs (and failing to meet them would mean losing economical access to ALL the major consumer nations). Start out year one with a very easy standard, then ramp it up a bit every year, always keep each incremental step small enough that the easiest path will be compliance. Doing that, other nations can be coaxed to come up to advanced-nation standards much faster than they otherwise would.


The problem, though, is that the "new world order" loons lose their shit any time you talk about setting common policy on anything with other nations, insisting that it's a violation of American First principles and a breach of our sovereignty. So, they'll derail any effort like that, leaving the advanced nations in a situation where it's every country for itself, and countries like China can easily play us off against each other. For example, if Germany and the US each have separate policy with regard to China, then each knows that if it raises trade barriers against China on, say, automotive components, in order to punish China for bad conduct, the other will then have cheaper components in its cars and will be more competitive on the global market. As long as people can be kept paranoid about giving up sovereignty to any international organization, countries like China know that little will be done to confront them, because whoever tried to go it alone that way would only end up hurting itself.

China is replacing America is the lone superpower....they are not remotely a devolving nation, and have not been for a few decades.

That we pretended that they were, and thus did not need to follow the rules the rest of the world does (or did) was a huge mistake.

[Hawkeye10]

There's a repeated pattern there, where developed nations got the benefit of decades of uncurbed consumption, then they belatedly get to work trying to curb it, and developing nations that finally would have had a turn are expected to follow suit. It's similar with greenhouse gas emissions.

My idea for dealing with this kind of thing involves all the major consumer nations coming together to set a common trade standard with regard to other nations, which standards could involve things like environmental compliance and labor standards, where meeting the standards would assure low trade tariffs (and failing to meet them would mean losing economical access to ALL the major consumer nations). Start out year one with a very easy standard, then ramp it up a bit every year, always keep each incremental step small enough that the easiest path will be compliance. Doing that, other nations can be coaxed to come up to advanced-nation standards much faster than they otherwise would.


The problem, though, is that the "new world order" loons lose their shit any time you talk about setting common policy on anything with other nations, insisting that it's a violation of American First principles and a breach of our sovereignty. So, they'll derail any effort like that, leaving the advanced nations in a situation where it's every country for itself, and countries like China can easily play us off against each other. For example, if Germany and the US each have separate policy with regard to China, then each knows that if it raises trade barriers against China on, say, automotive components, in order to punish China for bad conduct, the other will then have cheaper components in its cars and will be more competitive on the global market. As long as people can be kept paranoid about giving up sovereignty to any international organization, countries like China know that little will be done to confront them, because whoever tried to go it alone that way would only end up hurting itself.

BTW: The Chinese are very clear that under their rule there will be a global governance structure. What form it will take is not yet clear but there will be neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods will come together in a global structure under the influence of the Chinese, who will not command but will encourage.... as they hold a whip.

Carrots and sticks will be the constant tools of Empire rule.

[martin]

[QUOTE=Mina;5106345]

He wasn't talking about arms control...."

Go back and read the 1970 NYT article recounting the comment. They specify the threat of nuclear arms as part of the threat he was speaking to.

You seem to be trying to conflate two different issues -- a warning made by Wald in 1970, and other warnings made by a different made in 1968.



Obviously, that would only be the case if we hadn't taken any action against problems facing mankind. As I pointed out, right after he spoke we entered into a monumental arms-control deal with the Soviets. On the pollution front, DDT was banned in 1972. The end of 1970 also saw the Clean Air Act become law (which, among other things started the phase-out of lead in gas and required emissions controls for cars), 1972 saw the passage of the Clean Water Act, and 1973 saw the Endangered Species Act passed. And on the population growth front, the population growth rate had been over 2% per year globally in the years leading up to his comment, but was down to 1.7% by 1977, and around 1.0% as of 2020, which was in large part because of a large-scale distribution of modern birth control means around the world.

So, in the first few years after his comments, we took a bunch of very dramatic efforts to tackle the threat of nuclear arms, and pollution, and overpopulation. So, do we live in the world where immediate action wasn't taken against problems facing mankind? No, turns out we don't actually live in that world.

Obviously.

Earl thinks it makes him look smart repeatedly demeaning you with “sweetie” as if you were girl of six. But it only makes him look like an ass, a picture rounded out by the content of his argument.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Seafood populations were in collapse well before China became a major consumer of global fish stocks.

Yep. I recall when canned fish, which used to be super cheap, started to zoom upwards in price. And that was decades ago.

[ThatOwlWoman]

[QUOTE=martin;5106592]

Earl thinks it makes him look smart repeatedly demeaning you with “sweetie” as if you were girl of six. But it only makes him look like an ass, a picture rounded out by the content of his argument.

I saw that and had the exact same thought. I applaud Mina for totally ignoring his attempts at demeaning her because he never has any way to rebut intelligent, research-driven. actual facts. That's why he chose to be a follower of the #MalignantMessiah aka #IMPOTUSx2 aka #TRE45ON.

[Grokmaster]

Mina was right. No way to know if Wald was wrong but he was far from alone in his view of the danger. Accomplishes nothing useful to dismiss him, but it's always helpful to replace dishonesty with truth, which is what Mina did with this thread..

WTF??? "NO WAY TO KNOW IF WALD WAS WRONG" ,,,ONLY IF YOU'RE A MATH-CHALLENGED IDIOT (aka: a "leftist; ).


He said, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald"


LONG PAST THIRTY YEARS....HE WAS DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

[Lightbringer]

Since one of our posters was too frightened of people being exposed to facts to allow open participation in a thread, I figured I'd post here:

You've been here for a month noob, no one gives a fuck what you think about thread banning.

[ThatOwlWoman]

There's a repeated pattern there, where developed nations got the benefit of decades of uncurbed consumption, then they belatedly get to work trying to curb it, and developing nations that finally would have had a turn are expected to follow suit. It's similar with greenhouse gas emissions.

My idea for dealing with this kind of thing involves all the major consumer nations coming together to set a common trade standard with regard to other nations, which standards could involve things like environmental compliance and labor standards, where meeting the standards would assure low trade tariffs (and failing to meet them would mean losing economical access to ALL the major consumer nations). Start out year one with a very easy standard, then ramp it up a bit every year, always keep each incremental step small enough that the easiest path will be compliance. Doing that, other nations can be coaxed to come up to advanced-nation standards much faster than they otherwise would.


The problem, though, is that the "new world order" loons lose their shit any time you talk about setting common policy on anything with other nations, insisting that it's a violation of American First principles and a breach of our sovereignty. So, they'll derail any effort like that, leaving the advanced nations in a situation where it's every country for itself, and countries like China can easily play us off against each other. For example, if Germany and the US each have separate policy with regard to China, then each knows that if it raises trade barriers against China on, say, automotive components, in order to punish China for bad conduct, the other will then have cheaper components in its cars and will be more competitive on the global market. As long as people can be kept paranoid about giving up sovereignty to any international organization, countries like China know that little will be done to confront them, because whoever tried to go it alone that way would only end up hurting itself.

You've put a lot of thought into solutions. Most of the rest of us are content to just point out problems. Thanks.

[Mina]

Earl thinks it makes him look smart repeatedly demeaning you with “sweetie” as if you were girl of six. But it only makes him look like an ass, a picture rounded out by the content of his argument.

People like that understand, deep down, that they aren't smart. As such, the name of the game is to try to taunt others into an emotional mindset where they can't deploy their superior mental skills effectively.

It's a bit like Mike Tyson biting Evander Holyfield's ear, in hopes of getting him angry enough to negate his superior boxing skills, or like a football player spitting and throwing racial slurs at an opponent in hopes that he'll retaliate with a penalty that gets him tossed from the game, or at least that he'll be too angry to execute the game-plan properly. The key is just to ignore it and focus back on the work at hand, which is the last thing the inferior competitor wants. He needs you down in the mud with him, because that's where he's at home, and he knows it's his only chance to even up the competition.