Tiny House, Tiny Living, The Tiny Life.

What Do You Choose?

An interesting perspective, share your thoughts in the comments.

10 Comments
  1. The real problem is closer to 7 BILLION people on a finite planet (predicted to be 9 BILLION by 2050). Humans are not all evolving at the same rate and therefore able to understand there’s a problem much less a solution so the population will unfortunately continue to explode exponentially. There will always be the greedy who will exploit the weak and wage wars. Even if we put contraceptives in the drinking water (my fantasy) and stabilized the population immediately, the existing numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the planet and are not sustainable. Reality suggests a very grim future indeed (Pakistan, Sudan and Zimbabwe for example).

  2. I agree with his reasoning and like how he’s trying to look at this topic objectively. The only issue I have is with his saying that the only think to do is talk about it to try and force policy change. There are hundreds of things each of us can do to make a much more powerful statement. Things like driving less, using less energy around the house, rain barrels, growing some of our own food, etc. In my mind it’s irresponsible to talk the talk without walking the walk. It’s also easier to create a groundswell by showing people how easy it is rather than just telling them.

  3. Economies based on fiat currencies ALWAYS collapse and lead to economic depression (read “The Creature from Jekyll Island”). The real question is do you want to be battling climate collapse at the same time?

  4. Gross oversimplification driven by agenda, rather than truth. Activism for kids.

    Regardless of whether climate change is caused by humans or even real, attempts to address it will be an economic, social and political disaster and will certainly not affect the climate.

    If we are to limit ourselves to his four boxes, I would write:

    Upper left: Economic, social and political catastrophe

    Lower left: Economic, social and political catastrophe, with the addition of environmental catastrophe

    Upper right: Smilie

    Lower right: Environmental catastrophe, but with the tools to best address the consequences

  5. Know that I find trhis error in your argument despite the fact that I agree with you comepletely that inaction is worst than action. You aregue that the worse of the two worst-case scenarios involves more factors ‘going to hell’ than the better of the two scenarios. I would argue that past history tells us otherwise. Before examples, the better of the two worst-case scenarios states that the only negative outcome will be global economic depression. The extent of that depression, however, can cause all of the other negative outcomes of the worse worst-case scenario. In a major economic depression, people will do whatever is neccessary to survive. This means that the socio-status of the population also ‘goes to hell.’ Also, if the environment needs to be sacrificed in the short term to ensure human survival in the long term, it will happen (think cutting down trees burn for warmth when energy costs are unaffordable (because of that darn depression) whil knowing full well that those trees will be needed to stave off further global warming.) The economic depression will also cause hard lines to be drawn regarding spending. If it is more important to provide shelter and clean water than it is to operate hospitals and provide preventive/trauma medicine, heath quality will also decrease (think survival of the fittest – let the old and sick die because we cannot afford their medical needs.) Amidst all of this, Politics will try to rally together as the savior of the problem but will infact only exacerbate it as it seeks its own power rather than truly diverting resources to ‘the people.’ Like the examples to come, we will basically be the cause of our own demise. As for those examples, think Rome, Cuba, Hitler, and Stalin. In Rome, an economic depression drove the socio-status ‘to hell.’ This move caused the ecosystem to be pilfered and foci to be turned away from public health. We call this the dark ages. During that time, politics took over and sustained those dark ages for 1000 years because of the need to divert energy to personal power rather than to the people. Out of those dark ages a new world was built (kind of like your lower row, ‘yes’ column.) The same can be seen in Cuba, with Hitler, and with Stalin. The issue that I have is this – despite completely agreeing with you ‘call to action’ argument, I still worry that we humans don’t have a chance because it is in our very nature to be power hungry and to have to collapse because of our own nearsightedness before we can rebuild into something better. Right now, despite and action or in-action that we might take, we stand on the precipice of a collapse which is neccessary for our wown rebirth. Not condoning ‘bending over and taking it,’ I think that what we need to take away from the message is the final comment. We cannot spend our time debating yesses and nos. Rather we must each internalize that in one way or another, the world will be a very different place in the coming decades for a myriad of reasons (no oil, no clean water, no food because of no farmland, global warming, increased population, etc.) We each need to take steps to prepare ourselves for this new world. Spreading the word will promote a grassroots solution to the issues that we will face because if history holds true, politics will not create that solution for us. The problem will be too great for ‘the machine’ of governance – the machine of the people will need to solve the problem so that new politics can be formed.

  6. Bottom left box has an error. Just because you fixed climate change does not mean you would have a peachy life. You’d still more than likely have the economic depression referenced in the upper left box. Everything isn’t just peachy because you dealt with the problem. You still spent the money, imposed taxes, destroyed businesses, etc…
    His argument is invalid. Interesting line of thinking, though.
    Now, here’s my thought on a solution: Give tax breaks and incentives for green technologies. They make economic sense.
    Don’t add more taxes. We need to pull ourselves out of this global economic downturn before we can afford to do anything.

  7. This is less than impressive. It just looks like Pascal’s Wager with a global warming theme. If I was a hard-case global warming denialist, I would find this video laughable.

    We can also notice that this little diagram ignore technological advances that can slow global warming like GM foods, Nuclear Power and cloned meat. Those simple three technological advances are yet to be accepted in the mainstream society or be economically sound but they will be one day.

    As for our number, let’s remember that, a century ago, we were 1.5 billions on this planet and many countries were plagued with fickle food supply. Today, only the poorest countries deal with famine. I will bet you that, in fifty years, the rest of the world will be “plagued” with obesity just like the first-world is now.

  8. I really find this human triat amazing!We speak as the human is so smart! I beleive humans have a need to think of them selfs as a whole.Global warming is a human mental condtion only!An economic trick! We only have a vag idea of a false reality.They are many who believe this, with very little information or false information.
    As for your worst case.It has happened here millions and billions of years before and will happen again!So,good luck.

  9. The real worst case is that we spend more and more money trying to fix a problem that we didn’t cause, that we can fix, and that will happen anyway.

    But I also think if global warming is false, many of the “solutions” would actually be good anyway. More renewable energy sources with less demand for them could mean less reliance on oil economies, thus less war, along with with more walkable/bikeable communities and thus better health and more socializing and less depression.

Leave a Reply