Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 15, 2025, 16:41 (19 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And that in turn requires money being poured into research. Only when viable alternatives to fossil fuels and current poisonous forms of transport and agriculture can be found will it be possible to make the necessary changes.

DAVID: Exactly.

dhw: Again you agree with me.

DAVID: Become a Trump advisor. Have you noted the public response to the greens? Conservative far right leaning populist governments have appeared.

dhw: How does this contradict anything that I have said? You have agreed that current practices involving the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and poisonous methods of transport and agriculture can only lead to an escalation of damage in the future, and therefore we should try to find alternatives as quickly as pragmatically possible, i.e. without causing social and economic havoc. As for being a Trump advisor, would your advice to him be to encourage all countries to pursue their own interests, regardless of the damage their practices may cause to humans and all other occupants of our planet, or would you suggest that he should encourage them to follow America’s example and cut down on such practices?

DAVID: I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.

dhw: You have completely ignored every single argument with which you have previously agreed.
I have summarized the situation above. Please tell us what you disagree with.

DAVID: No longer specifically ignored.

dhw: You have simply drawn attention to examples of measures that do not achieve the balance which is required. There is nothing in your response that contradicts anything I have written.

Another assessment that I agree with:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMHNwxcbkGwwJsGjSNjlWtDv

It’s 2025 and the tide is turning on climate change. To me, it looks like this will be the year when we’ll stop trying to prevent it from happening and instead focus on adapting to it.

***

"The likely reason fossil fuel companies are abandoning climate goals is that they expect demand to increase. Many multinational companies including Gucci, Nestlé, and Easyjet, have downgraded their ambitions to reduce carbon emissions. It’s not hard to guess why: Carbon neutrality isn’t helping their business.

"So fossil fuel is back in fashion and the financial sector is drawing consequences, too. The clearest sign is that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance is falling apart. That’s a group of banks who “committed to aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In December, Goldman Sachs left the Alliance, followed by Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and JP Morgan.

***

"The trend away from carbon neutrality is obvious, but it’s not just driven by financial incentives. Increasingly, it is driven by the race for artificial superintelligence. We’ve heard a lot about how energetically expensive AI training is, so much so that some guys in Silicon Valley have predicted they’ll build a 100 GigaWatt gas plant to power their superhuman intelligence.

***

"In its official 2025 party program the AfD writes that “Climate change has always happened […] The question of how large the human contribution is has not been scientifically settled.” Yes, it’s 2025 and we still have climate change deniers in the government.

"But it won’t make a big difference either way. As we discussed in an earlier episode, most countries' net zero “plans” are empty words anyway. They’re economically unachievable. It’s only a matter of time until they’ll be abandoned and no amount of suing by climate activists is going to do anything about this. Because there is no institution on this planet that could enforce a law against billions of people unable or just unwilling to change their lifestyle. Unless the superintelligent AIs take over. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad."

Comment: the battle is over. We'll adapt to it.