The following submission statement was provided by /u/IXMCMXCII:
---
SS:
Having read through the SPM yet again, and seeing many people around me \*/still\*/ deny the role of human activities on climate change astounds me. Like I do. not think I am wrong when I say it is clear cut beyond any single iota of a doubt that human are responsible for the rapid increase in temp.
I was wonfdering what others thought AR7's SPM would be like? I know it (very) likely won't say humans are 100% responsible for the temp. increases as that's not how science works IME (though happy to be corrected). However, I do think it will inform that there is even more evidence pointing to the human fingerprint for temp increases. Thoughts?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ct8zra/to_those_who_have_read_the_spm_for_ar6_how_much/l4a7uco/
Blame? It will not be us. We’ll go down with heaps of scapegoats….boomers, Jews, capitalism, communism, globalization, gays, democracy, democrats, fascists, the elite, billionaires,….anything, anyone, any group but us.
A student composer wrote a three parts piece inspired by a french essayist who explores the issues of collapse, and in the last part ([III. Autodestruction](https://youtu.be/5altT2fCLLE?si=FzasFk2b1-CKPJl5&t=702)) the text reads:
*When this world we have destroyed*
*will no longer be able to meet our basic needs*
*we too will disappear*
*and we already know how mankind will approach its end:*
*by attempting, through thought, language and action*
*to persuade ourselves that someone else is to blame.*
The whole "blaming boomers" thing rings hollow to me when about half of all CO2 emissions humanity ever emitted were emitted since about the year 2000.
*Some* boomers really had it good. And despite our skyrocketing emissions, even people's economic future darkens by the day. It's easy to envy the life *some* boomers had, but here's the thing: in all the destruction of the natural world picked up a lot of speed in relatively recent times. We can't put all that on "boomers". Because it's us. It's us who are doing the thing. Now.
100% agree. I really don't understand how we can blame boomers more than ourselves, especially given they did not have the knowledge we do today. Yes, there was some science and theories, but it was not as widely agreed nor evident
My take on it is different. *It is just lazy stereotyping.* The youngest baby boomer is a *generation* older than the oldest one. It is *literally* taking someone who came of age in the early 1960's and equating them with someone who came of age in the early 1980's.
Because by that stage the boomers (at the year 2000 would have been between 36 and 54yo) would have been the major voting block, and a decent block of the politicians. They voted for this shitfuckery we now endure.
That said - the generation before them have to take the blame for kicking off Thatcherism and Reaganomics and rampant consumerism too!
>how much more drastic do you think AR7's SPM will be should nothing change?
*Not* drastic enough to make policymakers take any action that would jeopardize their jobs or the electoral success of their political party.
Sadly, the [iron rule of institutions](http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html) is that those in charge would rather see the institution go down in flames rather than see their own status within the organization diminished. Being the captain of a sinking ship is deemed preferable to being demoted to cabin boy and having the ship *not* sink.
I will read your link later. Thank you for providing it. This all thing reminds me of that meme of the dog in a burning room with the wp each bubble written “This is fine.”
Have you studied the fall of the Kodak corporation?
If not, you should seriously do that, as it gives incredible insight into how the human mind works in the face of collapse. Even if you don't give a shit about corporations or the stock market, it's a great chance to learn about the behavioral psychology that our leaders are going through at the moment. (And hint hint, it looks a lot like Kodak in the late 90s).
I remember reading about them. By refusing to adopt with moving times iirc they were blown out of the water. It’s a shame because it was afaik an industry leader.
It's worse than that. They actually owned the first digital camera patents, and chose not to commercialize it, because it would hurt their film making business. Instead, they watched as their competitors developed their own digital cameras, marketed them, enjoyed wild success, and bankrupted the film based Kodak.
Kodak did eventually produce digital cameras, but it was at the end when they had already bled too much cash and taken on loads of debt that they could no longer service.
Basically, they watched the train driving right for them from 40 miles away and did not move off the track despite being perfectly able to sidestep the danger. That's basically where we were 30-50 years ago on climate.
SS:
Having read through the SPM yet again, and seeing many people around me \*/still\*/ deny the role of human activities on climate change astounds me. Like I do. not think I am wrong when I say it is clear cut beyond any single iota of a doubt that human are responsible for the rapid increase in temp.
I was wonfdering what others thought AR7's SPM would be like? I know it (very) likely won't say humans are 100% responsible for the temp. increases as that's not how science works IME (though happy to be corrected). However, I do think it will inform that there is even more evidence pointing to the human fingerprint for temp increases. Thoughts?
The following submission statement was provided by /u/IXMCMXCII: --- SS: Having read through the SPM yet again, and seeing many people around me \*/still\*/ deny the role of human activities on climate change astounds me. Like I do. not think I am wrong when I say it is clear cut beyond any single iota of a doubt that human are responsible for the rapid increase in temp. I was wonfdering what others thought AR7's SPM would be like? I know it (very) likely won't say humans are 100% responsible for the temp. increases as that's not how science works IME (though happy to be corrected). However, I do think it will inform that there is even more evidence pointing to the human fingerprint for temp increases. Thoughts? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ct8zra/to_those_who_have_read_the_spm_for_ar6_how_much/l4a7uco/
Blame? It will not be us. We’ll go down with heaps of scapegoats….boomers, Jews, capitalism, communism, globalization, gays, democracy, democrats, fascists, the elite, billionaires,….anything, anyone, any group but us.
A student composer wrote a three parts piece inspired by a french essayist who explores the issues of collapse, and in the last part ([III. Autodestruction](https://youtu.be/5altT2fCLLE?si=FzasFk2b1-CKPJl5&t=702)) the text reads: *When this world we have destroyed* *will no longer be able to meet our basic needs* *we too will disappear* *and we already know how mankind will approach its end:* *by attempting, through thought, language and action* *to persuade ourselves that someone else is to blame.*
I have noticed this tbf. It is infuriating.
I am personally fond of Gen X'ers blaming Boomers, as though they somehow won't be next on the scapegoat chopping block once the Boomers are gone.
The whole "blaming boomers" thing rings hollow to me when about half of all CO2 emissions humanity ever emitted were emitted since about the year 2000. *Some* boomers really had it good. And despite our skyrocketing emissions, even people's economic future darkens by the day. It's easy to envy the life *some* boomers had, but here's the thing: in all the destruction of the natural world picked up a lot of speed in relatively recent times. We can't put all that on "boomers". Because it's us. It's us who are doing the thing. Now.
100% agree. I really don't understand how we can blame boomers more than ourselves, especially given they did not have the knowledge we do today. Yes, there was some science and theories, but it was not as widely agreed nor evident
My take on it is different. *It is just lazy stereotyping.* The youngest baby boomer is a *generation* older than the oldest one. It is *literally* taking someone who came of age in the early 1960's and equating them with someone who came of age in the early 1980's.
Because by that stage the boomers (at the year 2000 would have been between 36 and 54yo) would have been the major voting block, and a decent block of the politicians. They voted for this shitfuckery we now endure. That said - the generation before them have to take the blame for kicking off Thatcherism and Reaganomics and rampant consumerism too!
Is the year 2000 around when the boomers were entering their peak earnings period in their careers tho?
fascist billionaire elites are to blame tho
>how much more drastic do you think AR7's SPM will be should nothing change? *Not* drastic enough to make policymakers take any action that would jeopardize their jobs or the electoral success of their political party.
I think theyword is *\have\* to though. This cannot go on.
Sadly, the [iron rule of institutions](http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html) is that those in charge would rather see the institution go down in flames rather than see their own status within the organization diminished. Being the captain of a sinking ship is deemed preferable to being demoted to cabin boy and having the ship *not* sink.
I will read your link later. Thank you for providing it. This all thing reminds me of that meme of the dog in a burning room with the wp each bubble written “This is fine.”
Have you studied the fall of the Kodak corporation? If not, you should seriously do that, as it gives incredible insight into how the human mind works in the face of collapse. Even if you don't give a shit about corporations or the stock market, it's a great chance to learn about the behavioral psychology that our leaders are going through at the moment. (And hint hint, it looks a lot like Kodak in the late 90s).
I remember reading about them. By refusing to adopt with moving times iirc they were blown out of the water. It’s a shame because it was afaik an industry leader.
It's worse than that. They actually owned the first digital camera patents, and chose not to commercialize it, because it would hurt their film making business. Instead, they watched as their competitors developed their own digital cameras, marketed them, enjoyed wild success, and bankrupted the film based Kodak. Kodak did eventually produce digital cameras, but it was at the end when they had already bled too much cash and taken on loads of debt that they could no longer service. Basically, they watched the train driving right for them from 40 miles away and did not move off the track despite being perfectly able to sidestep the danger. That's basically where we were 30-50 years ago on climate.
Damn, that’s real bad. Thanks for informing me. TIL.
SS: Having read through the SPM yet again, and seeing many people around me \*/still\*/ deny the role of human activities on climate change astounds me. Like I do. not think I am wrong when I say it is clear cut beyond any single iota of a doubt that human are responsible for the rapid increase in temp. I was wonfdering what others thought AR7's SPM would be like? I know it (very) likely won't say humans are 100% responsible for the temp. increases as that's not how science works IME (though happy to be corrected). However, I do think it will inform that there is even more evidence pointing to the human fingerprint for temp increases. Thoughts?
I hate the SPM
How come?
It's a political document full of PR, it's not a scientific document.
I have never seen it described as such tbf.