Nihilism And Climate Change

[Harnandia]

As a rather radical nihilist, who doesn't care for the longevity of our planet nor for its living organisms, I was wondering if anyone else had a similar sentiment in regards to climate change? I don't really care if the human race survives for the next 100 or 1000000 years, as I see no objective meaning in existence. The universe does not value our lives, only we do. Seeing all of this paranoia about climate change simply makes me chuckle, because nothing lasts forever, absolutely nothing. All things come to an end and whether the extinction of the entire human race (or the destruction of the planet) happens in a couple of decades or in a thousand years, is irrelevant to me.

(Also, purely for clarification: I am not in denial of climate change, I am fully aware that it is happening via a combination of human and natural activities.
Also, I do not support suffering, therefore yes, in a way I am hypocritical, because climate change will lead to the suffering of humans and animals and I do believe we should ATTEMPT to fight against it and eliminate it during our lifetimes and for the future generations. With that being said, I don't really 'care' for it, if we fail, my feelings would be indifferent)

Presumably you are also indifferent to the outcome of this debate

Pretty much, I was simply curious and wanted to see other perspectives in regards to this.

[Harnandia]

I knew someone would use the cliché and over utilized ''edgy'' argument, which, in this specific context not only is completely irrelevant, but also meaningless, as the word edgy has been used so many times to the point where it has lost its definition. if you find my statements to be 'edgy', then so be it. I personally don't think so nor am I trying to be 'alternative' or 'anti-mainstream' in any way, shape or form.

Look, I know what you're trying to accomplish here because I tried to do this as well and act like shadow the hedgehog on the internet when I was 13. I'm telling you, it does not work.
Stop now that you can because this is going to be super painful to look back at in 10 years.

In other words, my previous statement went completely over your head.

[Harnandia]

OP certainly has an odd interpretation of what nihilism means. That's just closer to misanthropy IMO.

To be fair I have seen many interpretations of the word 'nihilism' and it has been given different definitions. I went along with this:
''nihilism
/ˈnʌɪ(h)ɪlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: nihilism

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Philosophy
the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.''
I guess if we are being nitpicky, I should have elaborated that I am an existential nihilist.

[Harnandia]

Pretty much, I was simply curious and wanted to see other perspectives in regards to this.

So you asked a forum with some radical extremist rabid climate change deniers...

Do you not see the problem?

There are literally no problems here, seeing how this is a forum, where you post ideas in order to receive ideas in return.

[Czechostan]

A community of poor villagers in Nigeria dependent on subsistence agriculture and imported food doesn't pollute that much. A middle-class American white family that eats meat and dairy every day, drives an automobile to and from work and stores, and lives in an economy of consumption does. Lifestyle and economics matter a lot more than quantity.

That does not (in my eyes at east) really refute my statement, they are still, somehow, contributing. Whether in copious or small amounts, they still add collectively something into the overall causation. If all of us strive towards reducing our population (people from both developed and underdeveloped nations) it would have an overall positive impact.
This is possibly going too off-topic, but I find that all people, regardless of their economic status, should have less children.
The aforementioned example, about how lifestyle and economics matter more than the number of people, could be reduced if the amount of people with those said lifestyles would be minimized.

Here's a map of countries by CO2 output per year:

Here's a map of countries by population growth

Population control punishes the countries that contribute the least to climate change. Poorer families contribute less to pollution, since they use less water, drive less, and most importantly, consume less. The majority of pollution comes from manufacturing and production, which itself is a product of our throw-away economy of consumption, where we constantly produce new and fancy new gadgets and commodities. When poorer countries do pollute, it's primarily because they are manufacturing the commodities we will enjoy.

[Khoronzon]

Climate change is an existential threat and nihilism is no way to approach it.

Honestly it's one of the only situations I could think where dictatorship is justified.

Pentti Linkola would like a word

[US-SSR]

I've always gotten a certain feeling of comfort from the periodic news that some asteroid or other was going to smash into the Earth in, say, 2156 or some year when I'll be long dead. As interesting as it would be to know exactly when and how humanity will do itself in basically with its own waste products, again, I'd anticipate I'd be gone from the scene.

The main difficulty I see with declaring climate change emergencies and such is that you're asking for radical sacrifice from those alive and prospering today in exchange for some marginal effect on future warming; warming that can't be accurately modeled (back testing of all current climate change models = fail) and the effects of which, outside of rising sea levels (bye bye New York City, the asshole of the world) and making currently marginally habitable areas uninhabitable, can't be accurately predicted. That's a tough sell for those in, say, the lower middle class, leave alone The One Percent who are in charge of every significant political and economic decision.

There are two elements we can burn if we want to support the lifestyle we currently enjoy: carbon and plutonium. One creates climate change; one does not. The choice, to me, seems clear. Me, I'd build nuclear power plants like they were going out of style.

The universe got along quite well without me before I was born and will continue to do so after I'm dead. There's no reason to think it won't get along quite well without humanity, just as it did before us.

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

[Harnandia]

That does not (in my eyes at east) really refute my statement, they are still, somehow, contributing. Whether in copious or small amounts, they still add collectively something into the overall causation. If all of us strive towards reducing our population (people from both developed and underdeveloped nations) it would have an overall positive impact.
This is possibly going too off-topic, but I find that all people, regardless of their economic status, should have less children.
The aforementioned example, about how lifestyle and economics matter more than the number of people, could be reduced if the amount of people with those said lifestyles would be minimized.

Here's a map of countries by CO2 output per year:

Here's a map of countries by population growth

Population control punishes the countries that contribute the least to climate change. Poorer families contribute less to pollution, since they use less water, drive less, and most importantly, consume less. The majority of pollution comes from manufacturing and production, which itself is a product of our throw-away economy of consumption, where we constantly produce new and fancy new gadgets and commodities. When poorer countries do pollute, it's primarily because they are manufacturing the commodities we will enjoy.

Perhaps I worded myself too hastily and too poorly.
I agree with you, majority of the pollution comes from manufacturing, I didn't deny that and definitely agree that lifestyle choices play a part in climate change. I simply wanted to elaborate that I find overpopulation to be an issue as well and that it plays a part in all of this, adding that we should all strive towards the idea of having less children (the original comment by Les Etats Connuriste said:''In summary I think overpopulation is one of the driving factors behind it...'' and I agreed upon how I find it to be a major factor indeed).
Also I don't support population control, I was referring to the act of promoting the idea of having less children, popularizing it among all countries collectively. That way people might potentially have less children and reduce the amount of habitants on this planet, without taking away their basic human rights.

[Teachian]

Y’know, I’d consider myself a nihilist too, on the basis that I don’t think anything or one has intrinsic value or purpose other than what we assign ourselves. Not meaningless, just nothing ordained upon us in some holy or abstract way. I haven’t done much reading on it, since I tend not to weigh philosophy based on whether or not it has official books, but it feels like the more reasonable take than “it’s okay if everything dies, life is meaningless.”

Rant aside, besides the obvious idea that most people aren’t okay with being fucked over by the environment, my take on nihilism is why I think we should be doing more to confront it: there’s nothing but humans who can stop this from ruining our planet for generations to come.

[Harnandia]

...Rant aside, besides the obvious idea that most people aren’t okay with being fucked over by the environment, my take on nihilism is why I think we should be doing more to confront it: there’s nothing but humans who can stop this from ruining our planet for generations to come.

And that's cool, each to their own. Nice to hear different viewpoints.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Humanity has burned it's chances for salvation my opinion

[Kowani]

I’m a nihilist, but perhaps of a different sense than you. I believe that although nothing has any meaning on a cosmic scale-we don’t live or experience anything on a cosmic scale. And I shall assume that the OP does not enjoy pain or suffering, even if they don’t believe it matters. Thus, from these principles, we can deduce that we should work to mitigate climate change.

[Harnandia]

...And I shall assume that the OP does not enjoy pain or suffering, even if they don’t believe it matters. Thus, from these principles, we can deduce that we should work to mitigate climate change.

I actually clarified that in my original post. Yes, I do believe we should attempt to solve the ongoing climate crisis. However, if we do fail, I would feel pretty much indifferent. Obviously it would be sad to know how much discomfort and suffering it would cause for the newer generation(s), as I don't lack basic empathy, but I am reminded of how it does not matter in the grand scheme of things and how nothing lasts forever.

[The East Marches II]

Finally, a real nihilist instead of these discount ones we always get on these fine forums. I can't argue with your reasoning!

[Antityranicals]

Leftist types say that the rich are evil for their control of the economy, but when government takes control of half the economy, it's perfectly fine? Newsflash: rich people can't take your money against your will, governments can.

So just going to ignore the tilted system capitalism has where payday loan people make people take out loans to pay old loans.

Or the fact that collage is required to get almost any job but student debt is so painful.

Nike abuses athletics it sponsors and the people in it's workforce, EA, activtion, Bethesda all have crunch periods to abuse workers.

Activison Blizzard bends over for commie cock sucking so there precious Chinese market sugar daddy doesn't bitch slap them.

It being technically "OpTIoNaL" is just ignoring the fact that it is the only logical way to do things.

Sorry I'm a bit late in responding. You ignore the fact that all of these things are a result of government intervention. Governments and their national banks not only keep interest rates artificially low, removing disincentives of going into crazy amounts of debt, but also put colossal regulatory burdens and taxes on everything, making costs of living, which might otherwise be 5-10k annually, far, far higher, forcing many to go into debt to pay for the bureaucratic morass we call government. When this debt inevitably becomes overwhelming, they have no choice but to borrow money at higher interest to pay off the ludicrous debt caused by government credit expansion and parasitism. College is required to get jobs because government regulations require occupational licensing, and occupational licensing can usually only be acquired with significant education in the field. In addition, costs of college are made far higher by the fact that the government gives out student loans, and since they give out student loans without worrying about making a profit, they'll lend to anybody, meaning that everybody has the money to go to college, meaning that colleges have no reason not to raise their prices to the stratosphere. Thus even though everyone is given enough money to pay for college, not everyone ends up with the capability of paying the money back. To be honest, I don't know about the Nike bit, and I definitely believe it, as Nike is a real jerk of a company, but people always have the option to work somewhere else. And don't even pretend that anything having anything to do with China is capitalist.

[Antityranicals]

So you'd have all of us be starving and impoverished to fight a fantasy? Wow, if you mean that, you're a pretty terrible person...

"""Fantasy"""

Wow, I haven't seen that one... Saying that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change is like saying that 97% of Gestapo members are Nazi sympathizers; it's the other 3% that makes one think something might be up with the idea... Anyway, even the IPCC admits that CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas decreases with concentration, they just disguised it in their report so that one needs to be familiar with college level mathematics to interpret the equation. If you don't believe me, check out the link. The equation's on page 358, in table 6.2.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... TAR-06.pdf

[Czechostan]

Here's a map of countries by CO2 output per year:

Here's a map of countries by population growth

Population control punishes the countries that contribute the least to climate change. Poorer families contribute less to pollution, since they use less water, drive less, and most importantly, consume less. The majority of pollution comes from manufacturing and production, which itself is a product of our throw-away economy of consumption, where we constantly produce new and fancy new gadgets and commodities. When poorer countries do pollute, it's primarily because they are manufacturing the commodities we will enjoy.

Perhaps I worded myself too hastily and too poorly.
I agree with you, majority of the pollution comes from manufacturing, I didn't deny that and definitely agree that lifestyle choices play a part in climate change. I simply wanted to elaborate that I find overpopulation to be an issue as well and that it plays a part in all of this, adding that we should all strive towards the idea of having less children (the original comment by Les Etats Connuriste said:''In summary I think overpopulation is one of the driving factors behind it...'' and I agreed upon how I find it to be a major factor indeed).
Also I don't support population control, I was referring to the act of promoting the idea of having less children, popularizing it among all countries collectively. That way people might potentially have less children and reduce the amount of habitants on this planet, without taking away their basic human rights.

Population is certainly an issue, but I don't think it's the driving force. If you want to try to get people to have less children, that's fine and dandy, but if they're still living a wasteful lifestyle under a wasteful economy, not much is going to change.

[Unitedkingdoma]

Perhaps I worded myself too hastily and too poorly.
I agree with you, majority of the pollution comes from manufacturing, I didn't deny that and definitely agree that lifestyle choices play a part in climate change. I simply wanted to elaborate that I find overpopulation to be an issue as well and that it plays a part in all of this, adding that we should all strive towards the idea of having less children (the original comment by Les Etats Connuriste said:''In summary I think overpopulation is one of the driving factors behind it...'' and I agreed upon how I find it to be a major factor indeed).
Also I don't support population control, I was referring to the act of promoting the idea of having less children, popularizing it among all countries collectively. That way people might potentially have less children and reduce the amount of habitants on this planet, without taking away their basic human rights.

Population is certainly an issue, but I don't think it's the driving force. If you want to try to get people to have less children, that's fine and dandy, but if they're still living a wasteful lifestyle under a wasteful economy, not much is going to change.

Each to their own. I think it would make a difference, specifically when we reduce the number of people drastically over time, let's say from 7 billion to approximately 3 billion. Wasteful lifestyles would definitely negatively impact the environment, no doubt, but not as severely (not to mention it would alleviate a plethora of other issues).

[Antityranicals]

Perhaps I worded myself too hastily and too poorly.
I agree with you, majority of the pollution comes from manufacturing, I didn't deny that and definitely agree that lifestyle choices play a part in climate change. I simply wanted to elaborate that I find overpopulation to be an issue as well and that it plays a part in all of this, adding that we should all strive towards the idea of having less children (the original comment by Les Etats Connuriste said:''In summary I think overpopulation is one of the driving factors behind it...'' and I agreed upon how I find it to be a major factor indeed).
Also I don't support population control, I was referring to the act of promoting the idea of having less children, popularizing it among all countries collectively. That way people might potentially have less children and reduce the amount of habitants on this planet, without taking away their basic human rights.

Population is certainly an issue, but I don't think it's the driving force. If you want to try to get people to have less children, that's fine and dandy, but if they're still living a wasteful lifestyle under a wasteful economy, not much is going to change.

I hope you understand that a true capitalist economy is the opposite of a wasteful one. Waste is counterproductive, so there are tons of incentives to mitigate it, and rather use that waste. It's only the swamp of regulations which exist in all nations today which prevent us from using waste.

[The Lone Alliance]

I'll have to admit when it comes to some suggestions I've seen towards solving climate change part of me drives me into a cynical view.

"We must implement a totalitarian dictatorship that will ration everything you to to stop climate change because if we don't we'll be forced to implement a totalitarian dictatorship that will ration everything you do."

Yeah I just don't see this happening peacefully.

[Antityranicals]

Population is certainly an issue, but I don't think it's the driving force. If you want to try to get people to have less children, that's fine and dandy, but if they're still living a wasteful lifestyle under a wasteful economy, not much is going to change.

Each to their own. I think it would make a difference, specifically when we reduce the number of people drastically over time, let's say from 7 billion to approximately 3 billion. Wasteful lifestyles would definitely negatively impact the environment, no doubt, but not as severely (not to mention it would alleviate a plethora of other issues).

Overpopulation is a myth, folks. Our planet's carrying capacity is at least twenty billion today, and it can be literally trillions with new innovations. Our food production per acre has risen far, far faster than population for the past 250 years, and there's no reason to think that this will change or stop.

[Harnandia]

Perhaps I worded myself too hastily and too poorly.
I agree with you, majority of the pollution comes from manufacturing, I didn't deny that and definitely agree that lifestyle choices play a part in climate change. I simply wanted to elaborate that I find overpopulation to be an issue as well and that it plays a part in all of this, adding that we should all strive towards the idea of having less children (the original comment by Les Etats Connuriste said:''In summary I think overpopulation is one of the driving factors behind it...'' and I agreed upon how I find it to be a major factor indeed).
Also I don't support population control, I was referring to the act of promoting the idea of having less children, popularizing it among all countries collectively. That way people might potentially have less children and reduce the amount of habitants on this planet, without taking away their basic human rights.

Population is certainly an issue, but I don't think it's the driving force. If you want to try to get people to have less children, that's fine and dandy, but if they're still living a wasteful lifestyle under a wasteful economy, not much is going to change.

I accidentally replied under my dictator account Unitedkingdoma, my apologies!

[Antityranicals]

I'll have to admit when it comes to some suggestions I've seen towards solving climate change part of me drives me into a cynical view.

"We must implement a totalitarian dictatorship that will ration everything you to to stop climate change because if we don't we'll be forced to implement a totalitarian dictatorship that will ration everything you do."

Yeah I just don't see this happening peacefully.

Nor do I, I wasn't really being serious.

A climate focused dictatorship though is a fascinating idea for a comedy.

It's too real for comedy. The EU is getting pretty close to that...

[Kowani]

I hope you understand that a true capitalist economy is the opposite of a wasteful one. Waste is counterproductive, so there are tons of incentives to mitigate it, and rather use that waste.

I got two words for you-Planned Obsolescence.

[Antityranicals]

I hope you understand that a true capitalist economy is the opposite of a wasteful one. Waste is counterproductive, so there are tons of incentives to mitigate it, and rather use that waste.

I got two words for you-Planned Obsolescence.

You realize that not only corporations can be smart... In a truly capitalist society, there would no longer be government-mandated barriers to entry, meaning that anyone can start a company to produce a product, and the plethora of fledgling companies would need to beat their competition. These companies would be happy to start off their company with a bang by creating products that last for a really long time, and telling people so to persuade them off of planned-obsolescent products. The hundreds of new lightbulb companies would need to make a product which lasts for decades, likely even including ten year, twenty year, or even lifetime warranties. People aren't dumb, so they'd tend to buy these, so they wouldn't need new lightbulbs until they move to a new house.