Climate Change

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 26 Apr 2019

PhillipOrdonez wrote:
26 Apr 2019
plaamook wrote:
26 Apr 2019


Nah, I think you're reading it wrong.
The people that question the human climate model are not all oil tycoons. There are lots of people that just take different perspectives on the matter that don't stand to gain financially from doing so. Ordinary people if you will. There's a different axis there I think.
I addressed those people in my comment already. They are the ones who fall for the propaganda spewed by their political leaders and lobbyists, the ones who do stand to gain financially.
True, you did.
But then everyone is effected by propaganda, good or bad. All those people that marched in London and glued themselves to shit. Were they all scientists or just left wing types? Theres loads of good so called left wing propaganda out there too.
I guess with any luck the good propaganda wins.

Humans (shrugs, goes to make tea...)

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 26 Apr 2019

literally the only people left who don’t believe man-made climate change is a thing are either:
1-politicians
2-influenced by politics (whether directly, or indirectly)

I don’t use the term “literally” lightly.

a couple of years ago, I asked my parents (both denied climate change was even real, at that point) a series of questions.
- do you generally trust scientists? the answer was a predictable “yes”
- do you generally trust politicians? the answer was an equally predictable “no”
- do you generally trust the media? another “no”
- if you trust science, and distrust politicians/media, on balance, why do you believe the arguments that politicians make on the news media over the ones the scientists make?

the resulting silence was deafening.

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 26 Apr 2019

O1B wrote:
26 Apr 2019
I won't argue with you...

You have some facts to work out:
It's Climate vs Weather. The Feels makes one think is Climate Change vs Weather.

It makes little sense to weigh in on this argument.
There are no Facts, Data, or Studies Presented here. Just... Feels.

Next terms to learn, Mashers.... Correlation vs Causation. It'd be helpful in this discussion.

Earth Science and Living Environment Teacher, here.
I don’t really have any idea what any of that means. Your use of grammar and vocabulary here is pretty confusing. I can’t even tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. As for “it’s climate vs weather”, well the picture you posted was comparing terms relating to climate change (not climate) with weather. I don’t know what “Feels” are or how they relate to this argument. Thanks for the lesson on correlation and causation, but I have two degrees in scientific subjects so do not require an education on this matter. I have made no claims regarding either correlation or causation, so do not presume to know what my level of understanding in this area is. And nice try making me look stupid by implying that I need to learn vocabulary and make yourself look superior by flaunting that you are a teacher. But I don’t respect people on title alone, and don’t particularly care whether you think I know the “facts” or not. The truth is, the climate on this planet is changing. Anybody who disputes that is irrational. Of course the reasons for those changes are not understood as they are likely to be multifactorial. I never claimed otherwise, so your attempts to make it appear that I did only indicate that you have misunderstood my prior postings.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 1547
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

Post 26 Apr 2019

I am just a lowly 'cook', my man.

And, I didn't give any "facts" on climate change. I just said I hadn't read any here.

Congrats on your two degrees! Science? I have two myself.
Have a Great Weekend.
mashers wrote:
26 Apr 2019

I don’t really have any idea what any of that means. Your use of grammar and vocabulary here is pretty confusing.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 1547
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

Post 26 Apr 2019

How Data is Collected:
Mauna Laboratory: Direct Measurement. Sun. Atmosphere.
Mauna Loa Observatory I Exploratorium


Ice Cores and Green House Gases:

reggie1979
Posts: 635
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 27 Apr 2019

guitfnky wrote:
26 Apr 2019
literally the only people left who don’t believe man-made climate change is a thing are either:
1-politicians
2-influenced by politics (whether directly, or indirectly)

I don’t use the term “literally” lightly.

a couple of years ago, I asked my parents (both denied climate change was even real, at that point) a series of questions.
- do you generally trust scientists? the answer was a predictable “yes”
- do you generally trust politicians? the answer was an equally predictable “no”
- do you generally trust the media? another “no”
- if you trust science, and distrust politicians/media, on balance, why do you believe the arguments that politicians make on the news media over the ones the scientists make?

the resulting silence was deafening.
Poppycock.

Diapers
Bottles for feeding (the disposable type, which to the best of my knowledge are not recyclable)
Soaps and hair products
Plastics
Human waste
Metals and building materials
Any and ALL computer related items (including apple products :lol: )
Tires (made from rubber, which uses oil)
ALL lightbulbs
Books
Newspapers
Containers (from wood to plastic)
Concrete
Blacktop
Landscaping
MIcrophones
Cleaning products
Alcohol
Anything that burns (cigs, pot, matches, BBQ's)
Combustion
Water consumption
Dams
Power plants
Pet products
Methane
Labels
PAINT (especially spray cans)
Drywall
Electricity
Nuclear power, weapons or whatever
Almost every single building made
Glass
Various pesticides and chemicals
Medications
Transportation (using much of this)
Farming

Do I need to go on? NONE of these things are good for the environment. None. People can't exist being ecologically responsible. We're a virus. We consume until there is no more then we move on.

The planets are next.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 27 Apr 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
27 Apr 2019

People can't exist being ecologically responsible. We're a virus. We consume until there is no more then we move on.

The planets are next.
Virus? Come on. Is there another species that self regulates?
Life forms grow until they are limited by external factors. Humans at least have formed the idea that they should TRY to limit themselves. As much for other species as themselves, which is extrordinary.
Far as I know thats a biological first!
On earth anyway.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 27 Apr 2019

plaamook wrote:
27 Apr 2019
reggie1979 wrote:
27 Apr 2019

People can't exist being ecologically responsible. We're a virus. We consume until there is no more then we move on.

The planets are next.
Virus? Come on. Is there another species that self regulates?
Life forms grow until they are limited by external factors. Humans at least have formed the idea that they should TRY to limit themselves. As much for other species as themselves, which is extrordinary.
Far as I know thats a biological first!
On earth anyway.
that’s true, and it IS extraordinary, which makes the problem even more frustrating. we’re theoretically *capable* of doing what’s necessary to address an existential threat to many species on this planet, including our own. yet, we are doing very little. we’ve been taught that money and short term gains are more important than even our own long-term sustainability.

the only thing I can take away from that is that humans—as brilliant as we can be individually—are too stupid collectively, to survive in any sustainable way that looks anything like what we already enjoy.

it’s like being a half-inch short at a “you must be THIS tall to ride this ride” sign. 😕

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 27 Apr 2019

plaamook wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Virus? Come on. Is there another species that self regulates?
Life forms grow until they are limited by external factors. Humans at least have formed the idea that they should TRY to limit themselves. As much for other species as themselves, which is extrordinary.
Far as I know thats a biological first!
On earth anyway.
I think this is a really important point. We have evolved to a point where there are basically no limits to our species' ability to consume, reproduce and survive. Ecosystems usually regulate these behaviours in both complex and basic life, but we've developed to a point where ecosystem-level factors don't generally apply. At least, not for now.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 27 Apr 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Poppycock.
not really sure what you think is poppycock. or maybe I’m just missing some sarcasm? 🤔

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 27 Apr 2019

guitfnky wrote:
27 Apr 2019
the only thing I can take away from that is that humans—as brilliant as we can be individually—are too stupid collectively, to survive in any sustainable way that looks anything like what we already enjoy.

it’s like being a half-inch short at a “you must be THIS tall to ride this ride” sign. 😕
Well, we're not quite done yet so just hold that thought for the time being ;)

I think it's not so much that we're stupid etc so much as we're struggling against a few factors.
One is that in order to absolutely halt our impact you'd need to reduce our numbers drastically and shut down the world as we know it. Who's gonna pull that plug? Or you could pull the plug first and let the fall out take care of the numbers with all the rioting and so on. Same same, but we're talking about world war grade rationing of resources. No one's gonna sit around for that without rioting and fighting except the really devout. Humans hav thus far only mobilised on that scale during war time. Which is like an environmental factor really so we're back there again.

So maybe the wole thing already self regulates. Sea levels rise, loads of shit dies off, war famin strife and death, numbers collapse, economy collapses, and so on. Maybe it'll give thiungs a chance to regroup. Who knows. But if that sounds grim take a look at what happens when you try to shut down north atlantic cod fishing in Newfoundland. Riots, freaking out, localised economic collapse. Thne apply that to car industry, computers, mass farming, etc etc etc. And then we're back world war scenarios except some politicians did that against the will of desperate people? Probably not.

I'm not happy about this either but I think there is a LOT of complexity to this. Marching and rioting and some creative use of glue is easy next to figuring out how to actually putll this off without triggering a real proper horror show.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 27 Apr 2019

I agree with that, but I’d also note that we’ve known about this problem for more than 30 years now. scientists have accepted it as fact for at least the last 20. yet despite that, we’ve done very little to address the problem—we’ve collectively shrugged at a real existential long-term threat in order to avoid the slightest economic disruption in the shorter term.

maybe we can turn it around, but as you say, it’s going to take BIG changes, and needs to happen SOON. with the current political climate, I’m not at all confident that will happen.

on the bright side, humanity will survive in some fashion—of that I’m certain. I just don’t see many viable paths that don’t involve many of the scenarios you describe, and that means we’ll be performing population control on ourselves. that’s a scary thought, to me.

User avatar
Noplan
Posts: 635
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Cologne, Germany

Post 27 Apr 2019

Why do people even assume that it has no consequences if we additionally blow sealed CO2 into a sensitive circulation?

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1404
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 27 Apr 2019

Just in case anyone is interested in a decent overview of the scientific perspective:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... ce-causes/
Image
Now available, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7512836
New tune (Happy House) 'big fat' viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7513201

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 27 Apr 2019

"We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.

Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.

It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.

The biggest obstacle was mixing abortion with overpopulation. These are two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage."


Image


Lov2sing
Posts: 196
Joined: 15 Nov 2015

Post 27 Apr 2019

First I will make this disclaimer: No one is totally correct but some are more than others. Lets look at the evidence. There is none that goes back far enough to suggest the climate is doing what it has not done before in times past. However; we are to be good Stewarts of our planet. I bet all of us have littered at some point. If not; then we all have purchased products that remained (plastic bottles anyone). The problem is not the climate but it is you and I. Fix you and the problem will fix it self. Actually you cannot fix you, if you believe you can fix you. There must be a higher person to fix you, and if we would listen to that person then we have to ask who fixed them. Which makes sense seeing they are not able to fix themselves. We can use that theory, and come up with no answers again and again.
So, can items made of the earth make the earth totally sick? Just on the surface people. Why because in WWII they dropped two bombs and they said no one would be able to enter those areas in 50+ years, but the earth has basically reclaimed itself. Everything we have, comes from the ground, the air, or the sea; therefore we can only rearrange things. See the heart of man is the problem, and I doubt seriously you want to (not) say you are a good person at heart. The solution starts from within.
Lastly, being that most people do not listen to what I say, I will end bluntly. Yes there is coming a climate change, but not in the way you may think, unless you have faith in GOD. He (as He refers to Himself as being He) which I agree; has said He will recreate the heaven and the earth, but this is not in a matter of man polluting but because of man sinning which breaks down to us being evil to one another. Therefore one simple bit of evidence for those that listen to those that say it will flood areas if the polar caps melt. In fact it cannot, due to placing ice in a glass of water when it evaporate does not overflow the glass but is less in volume.
Oh, I leave you with this. This earth one day will die, the Bible says that, but you better get ready for one own demise than worry about heat of the sun, and not heat of THE Son of GOD. Please do not reply, I not singling any of you opinions out, I am just sharing what is known as creation science.
Make a Joyful noise, or join a large choir,

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 699
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 27 Apr 2019

Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Therefore one simple bit of evidence for those that listen to those that say it will flood areas if the polar caps melt. In fact it cannot, due to placing ice in a glass of water when it evaporate does not overflow the glass but is less in volume.
Problem with your "evidence": The ice that's going to melt (or rather that's melting away since decades) is not all afloat, thus the sea level will rise. Additionally the sea level will rise due to thermal expansion of the already liquid water.

I guess, your imaginary friend does not have much knowledge in basic physics.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 28 Apr 2019

Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
First I will make this disclaimer: No one is totally correct but some are more than others. Lets look at the evidence. There is none that goes back far enough to suggest the climate is doing what it has not done before in times past.
What difference does it make? If it changes in such a way as the planet is no longer habitable for humans, the result is the same: death of humans. Whether the changes that caused that to happen were of our own creation or due to a natural, cyclical process, makes no difference in terms of the outcome. At least if we know we are doing something that is contributing to it, then we have the opportunity to do something about it. From that point of view, I would prefer it if global warming *was* human-influenced. Because if it isn't, we might all be fucked with no way of doing anything about it.
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
However; we are to be good Stewarts of our planet. I bet all of us have littered at some point. If not; then we all have purchased products that remained (plastic bottles anyone). The problem is not the climate but it is you and I. Fix you and the problem will fix it self.
Wait, so now you are assuming that the problem *is* human behaviour, and if we stop damaging our environment it will all be ok? Weren't you just saying that we don't know and that the climate might be following a normal cycle? Which is it?
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Actually you cannot fix you,
This is rather a pessimistic view. If you think people are not able to enact change even within themselves, what hope is there?
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
if you believe you can fix you. There must be a higher person to fix you
Why must there be? Why do you believe it is impossible for a person to change themselves and their lives for the better without external intervention? I had a total breakdown a couple of years ago. I lost everything - my relationship, my home, my business, and it nearly ended me. I had help from family, but I clawed my way back and rebuilt my life. Now I am truly happy and fulfilled for the first time ever in my life. I had no "higher person" intervening. I did it myself, through effort, willpower, determination, and obstinacy. To suggest that anybody is incapable of making those kinds of changes without a "higher person" to help is offensive to the efforts of human beings who have achieved great things through their own efforts. This is typical of a religious viewpoint. When terrible things happen, it's on us - we have displeased sky daddy, so we have to endure earthquakes and disease and brain tumour in babies. But then when something wonderful happens due to the efforts of a human being, it's all, "how wonderful is god's work through this person. We are nothing without his mighty power". Fuck off. I have achieved what I have because *I* put in the hard work and effort to accomplish it. And anybody else can do the same thing. Every single person is capable of making the hard decisions that are required to enact change on our damaged climate. The problem is that most people don't want to, because it would be too inconvenient. It's not because they are lacking the presence of a "higher person" to guide them. It's because they don't want to be the ones to make the necessary compromises. They lack the will power within themselves to just fucking do it. You can pray for revelation and spiritual enlightenment and divine intervention all you like, but that won't help you one bit when your home is now on a flood plain or because you're sad that all the polar bears are extinct.
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
So, can items made of the earth make the earth totally sick? Just on the surface people.
From the point of view of most known life-forms inhabiting Earth, its surface is the most important part. How enjoyable do you think life on Earth would be if the surface was destroyed?
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
the heart of man is the problem, and I doubt seriously you want to (not) say you are a good person at heart. The solution starts from within.
I thought it came from a higher person? Weren't you just saying that we don't have the ability to change ourselves from within and we needed a higher power? But now the solution starts from within? What point are you trying to make here? Because you just sound really confused and conflicted about everything.
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Yes there is coming a climate change, but not in the way you may think, unless you have faith in GOD. He (as He refers to Himself as being He) which I agree; has said He will recreate the heaven and the earth, but this is not in a matter of man polluting but because of man sinning which breaks down to us being evil to one another. Therefore one simple bit of evidence for those that listen to those that say it will flood areas if the polar caps melt. In fact it cannot, due to placing ice in a glass of water when it evaporate does not overflow the glass but is less in volume.
What the fuck are you talking about? So you think that ice caps will take up less space when they have melted because water expands when it freezes, so we don't need to worry because the ice caps will shrink and the land won't flood? Is that really what you are suggesting? I can't quite believe I have just read that to be honest. It is just blatantly incorrect on so many levels, and immoral on others. First of all, what do you think is going to happen when ice thaws which was not already within the body of water? Like, you know, mountains and fucking glaciers? Those things are all above the surface of the water, not within it. It's not like an ice cube floating in a glass of water AT ALL. We are talking about enormous, mountainous bodies of frozen water, which will thaw into an avalanche. Where is all of that thawed material going to go? Well into the ocean of course. And you think that won't make the water level rise? Seriously? Your ice in a glass analogy is more like this: you've got a glass of water, full nearly to the brim, and a load of ice hanging in a net above the glass. The ice isn't displacing any water from the glass, because it isn't in contact with the water inside the glass. Over time the ice in the net will melt, and drip into the glass. It will fill the glass more, because this is water which was not previously in the glass at all. Can you not see how that will cause the glass to overflow? Further more, even if this were not true, what kind of an immoral, human-centric argument is it to say, "don't worry about melting ice caps, because human habitation won't be affected by flood water". So presumably you don't care about all of the other animals which are indigenous to those environments. Polar bears are going to drown, or starve, but fuck those guys, as long as our coastlines don't rupture under the force of all the extra water. While we're at it we may as well just cut down all the rainforests, as there aren't any humans living there so who cares, right?
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Oh, I leave you with this. This earth one day will die, the Bible says that, but you better get ready for one own demise than worry about heat of the sun, and not heat of THE Son of GOD.
This is totally irrational. "Don't worry about the state of the planet for generations to come, only worry about yourself. As long as you're all square with god, you'll be in heaven while the planet burns along with all the generations that follow you. But fuck those guys, along with the polar bears and penguins and all the billions of life-forms indigenous to the rainforests."
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
Please do not reply, I not singling any of you opinions out,
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You don't get to decide whether or not people reply to you. You have said things, and people can respond. That's how communication works. If you don't like it, you're free not to share those opinions. But maybe the reactions you get from people when you say this stuff should make you think again about some of these beliefs.
Lov2sing wrote:
27 Apr 2019
I am just sharing what is known as creation science.
"Creation science"... right, this conversation is not going to go anywhere is it.

User avatar
xylyx
Posts: 163
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Post 28 Apr 2019

mashers: As someone who has a deeply religious mother, I can tell you that you are wasting your time trying to use logic or facts to argue with this person - you may as well just talk to a plant or wall. Ultimately, if they can't give a good response to a fact, you will generally get the generic, "it's not for our understanding" or "God moves in mysterious ways", which is their equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

Oh yeah, I particularly liked the "sky daddy" thing, I'll use that one myself in the future :D

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 28 Apr 2019

xylyx wrote:
28 Apr 2019
mashers: As someone who has a deeply religious mother, I can tell you that you are wasting your time trying to use logic or facts to argue with this person - you may as well just talk to a plant or wall. Ultimately, if they can't give a good response to a fact, you will generally get the generic, "it's not for our understanding" or "God moves in mysterious ways", which is their equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

Oh yeah, I particularly liked the "sky daddy" thing, I'll use that one myself in the future :D
My rational brain was screaming the same thing at me the whole time I was writing. But I can't not say these things. I can't fail to confront these attitudes. Because if I let it go, then I've made myself complicit in the whole, horrible lie of it all. Don't even get me started in "god works in mysterious ways". The ultimate cop-out when you cannot explain your beliefs to somebody confronting them as immoral or irrational. It is a pernicious lie and I won't have it. Especially when the harm that lie does affects me, animals I care about and the planet I live on. You know, things that are real, being damaged by things that aren't. The sooner we shed these primitive superstitions the better.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 28 Apr 2019

mashers wrote:
28 Apr 2019
xylyx wrote:
28 Apr 2019
mashers: As someone who has a deeply religious mother, I can tell you that you are wasting your time trying to use logic or facts to argue with this person - you may as well just talk to a plant or wall. Ultimately, if they can't give a good response to a fact, you will generally get the generic, "it's not for our understanding" or "God moves in mysterious ways", which is their equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

Oh yeah, I particularly liked the "sky daddy" thing, I'll use that one myself in the future :D
My rational brain was screaming the same thing at me the whole time I was writing. But I can't not say these things. I can't fail to confront these attitudes. Because if I let it go, then I've made myself complicit in the whole, horrible lie of it all. Don't even get me started in "god works in mysterious ways". The ultimate cop-out when you cannot explain your beliefs to somebody confronting them as immoral or irrational. It is a pernicious lie and I won't have it. Especially when the harm that lie does affects me, animals I care about and the planet I live on. You know, things that are real, being damaged by things that aren't. The sooner we shed these primitive superstitions the better.
I was going to write a long, drawn-out response about how you’ll (probably) eventually be able to shed that sense of obligation—it’s something I’ve felt strongly, and often, myself, in the past. instead, I’ll just say this. take comfort in knowing you’re right (you are). it may end up being your only solace. if it doesn’t, and people actually do start to take their duty to reality and rational thought seriously, all the better.

User avatar
boingy
Posts: 424
Joined: 01 Feb 2019

Post 29 Apr 2019

You've got to remember you are in a world where many people continue to drink too much, eat too much and smoke, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of how bad those things are. If people can't modify their lifestyle for themselves how are you going to get them to do it for the benefit of others? I just can't see how enough people are going to take enough action quickly enough to make a significant difference.

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 29 Apr 2019

guitfnky wrote:
28 Apr 2019
I was going to write a long, drawn-out response about how you’ll (probably) eventually be able to shed that sense of obligation—it’s something I’ve felt strongly, and often, myself, in the past. instead, I’ll just say this. take comfort in knowing you’re right (you are). it may end up being your only solace. if it doesn’t, and people actually do start to take their duty to reality and rational thought seriously, all the better.
I don't think I want to shed it. It's driving my art. So although I'm fucking angry about it, I'm writing a LOT which is inspired by it. So it's a good thing. And if my reaction to this stuff makes some people second guess their beliefs, then that's a good thing.
boingy wrote:
29 Apr 2019
You've got to remember you are in a world where many people continue to drink too much, eat too much and smoke, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of how bad those things are. If people can't modify their lifestyle for themselves how are you going to get them to do it for the benefit of others? I just can't see how enough people are going to take enough action quickly enough to make a significant difference.
I don't know that I can accept this reasoning. I eat too much sugar and don't exercise enough, and even though I know this is unhealthy, I have not yet developed sufficient self-discipline to make the lifestyle changes needed to change them. However, I have made the decision to make lifestyle changes which benefit others and the environment. I no longer eat mammals, I have minimised the amount of fuels I use, I use my car as little as possible and have switched from diesel to unleaded, and a few other changes which are reducing the impact of my existence on the environment. I do these things because the planet I live on is more important than I am. So I make more effort to try to protect the environment than I do to protect myself, because I care more about the health of the planet than the health of myself. So I don't think you can assume that because people won't make personal lifestyle changes for their own sake that they aren't prepared to do it for the sake of the planet.

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2165
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 29 Apr 2019

mashers wrote:
29 Apr 2019

I don't know that I can accept this reasoning. I eat too much sugar and don't exercise enough, and even though I know this is unhealthy, I have not yet developed sufficient self-discipline to make the lifestyle changes needed to change them.
Maybe a low carb diet could work for you as it did for me.
On low carb high fat diet since about 8 years now.
It took away my physical addiction to sugar, and the habit part went away after a couple weeks.
I now feel the same way about eating sugar as some people on high carb feel about fat, the addiction is gone so it isn't even a struggle. I would have failed any other diet that requires discipline to keep.

Regarding training: sleep with your training clothes and shoes on to minimize the startup friction for the morning jogging🙂

And do fitness training in your home instead of a gym...least possible resistance.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 29 Apr 2019

mashers wrote:
29 Apr 2019
I no longer eat mammals,
Only fish?...

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest