To say that 'the world is going to shit' as a result of climate change is as meaningless as it is false, and to me is on precisely the same level as Republicans who deny the existence of anthropomorphic climate change altogether, because they arise from the same mindset of ignorance.
Not sure if this applies to me (since I did claim anthropogenic climate change is "the most important global issue facing humanity and modern life"), but my remark was in a context of the bad policies Republicans espouse. I'm well aware that the best measures we can take are reactionary. Even still, the sheer cost, among all measures, is exceedingly high even now, because, in brief:
- Anyone living on land that's at risk of rising oceans will have to migrate. Even assuming modern water control techniques are used to combat flooding temporarily, there are many places it's simply not an option, such as Florida; due to porous limestone, pretty much the entire state will flood because the water will literally come out of the ground.
- Better sustainable farming methods in less favorable environments, because fertile farming lands are rendered useless by drought or less favorable weather (or, again, rising oceans).
- In general, worse weather conditions, namely droughts and severe storms.
- Security issues as foreign regions (and domestic regions, assuming points 1-3 aren't dealt with) are destabilized due to inaction or inability to preemptively handle the issues above. It's reasonable to think that we're seeing this today in places like Syria.
- Massive changes in ecosystems, leading to mass extinctions. Most terribly, this is unavoidable, no matter what we do (unless we can reverse warming itself). Increased CO2 doesn't just mean life dies to increased temperatures, either; increases in ocean CO2 means higher acidity, which is disastrous for many ocean life (coral being a common example).
Not acting, or acting too late, will cost humanity more than preemptive measures. Migrating millions of people now is cheaper than when infrastructure is at-risk and entire swathes of land are already flooding. Similarly, ensuring productive and sustainable farming is possible in advance means famine won't be an issue. And of course, equivalent sentiments for the other points.
I liken it to universal healthcare, which is ridiculed as being "free" healthcare by the right (followed by an almost meme-like question of "Who do
you think is going to
pay for it?"). In the case of universal healthcare provided by the government, compared to the other option of private healthcare or nothing, both options have an inherent cost. In the former, everyone pays into a pool via some tax, but everyone can receive adequate care; in the latter, those who can't afford healthcare cost society in many forms (loss of labor, cultivation and then spread of dangerous sicknesses with large cost of life or productivity, and also long-term costs such as mental illness and physical disabilities). Funnily enough, the latter ends up costing more than a one-payer system, making the GOP's do-nothing alternative costlier.
Similarly, I have equal distaste for many seemingly popular liberal positions that have no realistic basis, including:
- Extreme reductions in the military budget. I agree with Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, but that's a different issue compared to better utilization of our existing military. Instead, we should have better oversight, much tighter contractor accountability and regulation, more sensible budgeting requirements/guidelines, and better utilization of the current labor potential. Cutting the budget won't fix anything, it's a band-aid and could very well cause more problems in the future.
- Stricter gun laws in reaction to gun crime. Logistically it makes no sense and it's a band-aid solution yet again; instead, we should work to improve education in poorer areas, reduce poverty and improve income mobility, have better mental health facilities/treatment, and work to rehabilitate existing criminals to keep them from recommitting (I have zero-tolerance for zero-tolerance policies, har).
- Extreme "green" policies (yes, otherwise liberal movements oppose nuclear; just because anti-environment groups/corporations do as well doesn't mean it's absent among liberal thinkers). The stupid hatred for nuclear energy is beyond words, considering nuclear energy is a crap-ton better than coal/natural gas. It's also more efficient than solar/wind/water, especially in places that make solar/wind/water unfeasible. The same goes for insanely expensive carbon reduction regulations; we need to work towards energy sustainability, yes, but it's not something that can be done overnight.
- Open-border immigration policies. Ideally, yes, borders are a hurtful concept in some global sense, but idealism isn't always practical. In many ways, open-borders hurts citizens (see companies using temporary visas to replace American citizens and immigrants simply refusing to
immigrate integrate into their new country in Europe) and even immigrants (i.e., less pay/benefits for an immigrant compared to a citizen, some cruel kind of indentured servitude [see temporary visas; "accept your position or go back to your country"]). I'd like to note I find open-trade equally bad, since companies can abuse workers in other countries (including slavery, violence/intimidation [such as using militias in third-world countries], horrible/fatal working conditions, child labor, and overall terrible working conditions and destruction of existing livelihoods) at a distance and without repercussion.
This also includes common sentiments that aren't quite policies, such as:
- "We should have let the banks fail." No, that would have been dramatically worse, especially the common worker. Instead, we should (and did) bail them out. However, we should have begun implementing policies to prevent this in the future, including breaking the banks down gradually. The burden would be spread out over a longer time period, and we could have fixed, or at least been on the road to fixing it. Instead, the banks have since become bigger. Great.
- The reverse-Orwellian privilege/victim phenomena. Overt self-censorship is just as bad as Trump or Carson spewing their hateful nonsense. Similarly, rejection of individual responsibility is just as extreme as rejection of the social pressures that mold an individual and his actions. Hate is bad in any direction. I feel the cliched SJW phenomena is reserved for (albeit very loud) minorities in these groups, but I'd like to point out that the majority can also be just as loud in presenting a better platform without extreme ideologies while also rejecting these atypical individuals...
- "Everyone is special!" and participation trophies. In some technical sense, yes, everyone is unique. However, not everyone is equally capable, either due to genetics, upbringing, traumatic events, whatever; life isn't fair. However, as a society, we should work towards make the "starting point" as fair as possible. From there, nurture passions, offer education and advice, and reward competency and hard work.
- Hypocrisy in regards to religions other than Christianity and non-Western cultures. I am anti-religion, and therefore show no favor to any religion. It's a disservice to point out flaws in Christianity, while ignoring equally terrible, and many times worse, flaws in other religions. Pointing out how Islam promotes anti-progressive measures isn't Islamaphobic, it's the reality of the situation. The same goes for other world religions, and the logic applies to other cultures with anti-progressive values. In a similar vein, atheism/anti-religion views are just as senseless as religious ones when critical thinking is rejected (see anti-vaxxers, alternative medicine, anti-nuclear/extreme-green, emotions/feelings over facts/logic, etc).
I'd also like to add that being absolutely rude/aggressive/confrontational isn't a good debating method (relates to the reverse-Orwellian point above, I suppose), but that's a common method between both Democrats and Republicans, left-wing and right-wing, and pretty much any two opposing thoughts. An example can be found above (Myzozoa's post); yes, the content of his/her argument is correct, but the delivery far from proper, which creates unneeded hatred/turmoil... Yes, while UncleSam's post was confrontational and generalizing, this does not mean replying in kind is right.
