[yor_on]

They are right in that the population curve must brake. But I'm not sure if those reasons will be what makes it do so.

[yor_on]

There is one more thing you need to understand. It's a heck of a difference between make belief dreams and reality. You can't sit down and wait for it. The way they present it we just need to relax and let it unfold. That's one of the most dangerous ideas I've seen so far.

[yor_on]

But it fits the system, everything that force it to change will be argued ad infinitum.

[yor_on]

Which means that we will let global warming, greed, profits, GDP, geopolitics, pollution, soil degradation, oceans acidity, and this scrying crystal bowl leading the market evict us, and everything else we think of as belonging to our planet.

But as I said, it fits the system we have.

[yor_on]

You can notice one other thing with this hypothesis. It doesn't involve us at all, it's 'inevitable' any which way. As if some 'God' was doing it for us :)

I call bs

[yor_on]

Heh, know what it reminds me of?
Asimov and his socioeconomic 'laws'

Economists all the world over want that to be true.
It won't be true, economy is another chaotic discipline, just as global warming.
=

Harry Seldon, wasn't it? the hero in those books.

[yor_on]

I would place 'game theory' in the same box, thinking of it. It also presumes that there are 'laws' defining how you will act. You can define it as probabilities too if you like, but as long as you miss that a probability is a uncertainty, you probably will think of it as 'laws' too.  Which explains the weight carried by those that believe in 'game theory' and 'geo politics'.

It's about beliefs. If I believe it and you do too, we got us a game with defined rules. If one of us step out of those rules the game will be ruined.

[yor_on]

The price for stepping outside those rules may be astronomical, but it doesn't guarantee you will stay inside them. You can think of North Korea f.ex.
=

And then we have those that got away with it, as Stalin, exterminating and starving millions.

[yor_on]

So no, trusting game theory to give you a scrying ball?
Forget it.

[yor_on]

That's the point with intelligence.

It gives you the opportunity of change. It's not about conquering the universe, it's about the next step in your evolution. Because you can change, making those disciplines at best a limited truth.

[yor_on]

You might wonder what the probability of you changing is?
I would say it's extremely high

Because if you don't

 :)

[yor_on]

So maybe you need something becalming to read? Something light and easy?
Don't know about that but Peter Higgins 'Wolfhound century' might help

[yor_on]

A tidbit from Realclimate

" Speaking of Oslo, Norway: Exxon (the oil company) should be awarded a Nobel Prize for their (internal) 1982 climate report, that now, 37 years later, has proven be most impressive in its predictive skills.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

Back in 1982, when the CO2 concentration was approx. 340ppm, they predicted the 2020 CO2 concentration to approach 420ppm. We will likely hit 418ppm next year, so they nailed it.

The accompanying temperature increase from 1982 to 2020 was predicted by Exxon to be 0.85C. We will likely see approx. 0.7C over 1982 level next year, so not quite as bad as Exxon estimated in 82, but judging from the record setting temps over the last few months, including UAH, we might approach 0.8C next year.

Looks like Exxon had a pretty darned good climate model running even back then. "

And if you wonder about the connection between Norway and US based Exxon follow this link https://www.exxonmobil.no/en-no/company/about-us

[yor_on]

They are betting, all of those companies are. And why they are betting? Well, I don't think it is them worrying about you, but I'm sure they can argue it if you bother to ask.

[yor_on]

This article adds a bit to the puzzle of West Antarctica. And as it lies on a slope towards deep the ocean? Meaning that as it breaks up meeting deep waters it also pulls the ice behind it forward? Not sure about that one though. The way Hansen thought about it if I remember right was about the risk for the whole land based ice mass to start gliding. That would indeed be a tipping.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/west-antarctic-glaciers-melting-human-influence/

[yor_on]

It's like you thinking of, and considering , your own death. The brain doesn't like that and it treats it as if it isn't possible. The same way we find it incredibly hard to accept that we are the culprits for global warming. And even harder to accept that it is a belief system that lies as the ground of it. No paper will write about that, except possibly fringe papers that then will link it to some type of politics.

[yor_on]

What I'm saying is that we have a lot of 'defense systems' inbuilt  in us. We're all innocent until proven guilty, and in this case as we're discussing the individual, not even then agreeing on it. And we always find circumstances excusing us.

[yor_on]

This behavior can be seen on all levels, but the higher you climb the stronger the effects of your denial. We live in a hierarchical world, in where we confuse the wisdom of elders with the authority of the hierarchies.

[yor_on]

It's not the same.

[yor_on]

And we accept it, don't we?

Because we recognize it in ourselves.