The costs of a RCT to subject a population of humans over their lifespan to 600 ppm CO2 would be insane. Does this mean that we can’t say anything about how humans interact with elevated CO2 levels and have to guess from mice and first principles about blood bicarbonate levels? Well, there are a few groups of humans who regularly encounter elevated CO2 levels - highly urban populations, indoor office workers (especially in highly urban societies), and submariners.

Well we were at 300ppm - humans didn’t face a “potentially toxic” atmosphere. We’re at 400ppm - atmosphere not feeling “potentially toxic” to me. Indoor office workers get a workweek’s worth of indoor time at 1000 ppm CO2, then however long they spend commuting (I’m thinking trains here) more elevated CO2, then stay at home with 500+ ppm CO2 (levels can vary widely). Sure, office workers tend to be less healthy, but a “potentially toxic” atmosphere seems like stretching it. Finally, there are submariners (and technically astronauts, but they tend to be fewer) who can spend months underway at a time and years cumulatively at 1000+ ppm CO2. How do they suffer? Not too differently from the rest of us - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1128685/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34412099/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8515322/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5623552/

Okay, suppose that actually at 500ppm of CO2, it turns out that toddlers spontaneously combust. I think it’s probable that at some point in some urban city that there have been toddlers that have spent almost all of their time indoors and thus could have already been exposed to this condition without dying.

Is it possible that a 500, 600, 700, 800ppm CO2 cause conditions hazardous to human life or incompatible with human life? Yes, it’s possible and we won’t know for sure until we start pushing people into that condition for their whole life. Do I think it’s likely given that we know that people aren’t dropping like flies in highly urban societies like Hong Kong and Singapore and that submariners seem ok? No.

I myself am on team wet bulb event, but I think there is a subset of the population that believes (correctly) that they will be able to survive and thrive no matter how much they destroy the earth or whatever mass mortality events occur.

It’s always amazing to see the insane clothing combinations on anime characters. What is that, a tube top with a bra and a cropped jacket on top, paired with a dickey (presumably solely for a boob window)

i gotta get outta this place before you geriatrics push me too far across the styx

I have heard of this before, but I haven’t looked into it much. There’s a book on the early PRC and statistics (that I haven’t read) that goes into the relationship between socialism and statistics - https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691179476/making-it-count

I took a quick skim. By toxic atmosphere, they mean as in probable health hazard, not as in directly killing people immediately.

Indoor co2 levels can easily hit 1000+ ppm co2, especially if your dwelling is well sealed, as many energy efficient dwellings are. Submarines keep co2 at the thousands ppm for extended periods and were the impetus for co2 studies on how much humans can take.

I don’t think a major concern of rising atmospheric co2 is the direct threat to health caused by elevated co2 levels. I, personally, would be angered if someone told me that high co2 levels were dangerous to human health and then I read this.

☝️🤓 erm akshully samurai are generally agreed to have first emerged around the time of the kamakura shogunate (12th century CE), thus there could not possibly be a samurai fighting in the background of any scene in the 10th century

Honestly, I just dislike other people’s dogs. They’re off leash, aggressive, and slowly bleeding into every space. Having a neighbor that encouraged anxiety and barking was an exceedingly unpleasant experience.

That being said, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of animals being created for and existing for humans. The situation is definitely better than the livestock industry and there’s also the complication that the pets seem to be happy and humans seem to be happier with pets. It would also be exceedingly cruel to take away service dogs from those that have them.

But, pet ownership is rising world wide. Given the demand, they’ll be bred. Pet QoL is going up. Now that they’re family, their environmental impact is going to grow.

Yes, rescues are better than the alternative. Spaying and neutering reduce harm. I wish that the default pets would instead be cold-blooded terrestrial animals and rodents. I wish pets were unable survive outside of captivity.

I think it’s generally immoral to own pets and that if one does, one should strive to maximize the human happiness:externality ratio. It’s a minor immorality, but the OP asked for controversial moral opinions.

I’m not touching the first one

I see Big Pet has gotten to you 😔

There’s a danger of power accumulating in any system. But there are mitigations. The greatest threat to this fantasy system are barriers to entry. If everyone has their needs met, then there can be a minimum wage of 0. With the minimum wage at 0, I think barriers to entry will drop dramatically and it’ll be that much harder to protect “your” market share.

If we get rid of “intellectual property”, barriers to entry drop even further. Switching costs can be minimized by open standards. But then we run into the harder questions of the physical barriers to entry (rent, commodities, factories) and regulatory barriers to entry.

With a reasonably low barrier of entry, I hope that there will be enough centers of power that are intrinsically opposed to one another so that they cannot combine and oppress us all.

And for any government, what’s to stop them from oppressing us instead? The people always will have some mechanisms of control but every system will have its own difficulties and weaknesses. And the relationship isn’t just companies becoming governments, but there are also governments becoming companies. In fact, I’d argue it is more common for governments to become companies than vice versa. Cuba’s GAESA is in hotels, while Myanmar’s Junta and the IRGC are pretty well diversified.

One for the world:

I think dog / cat ownership is immoral. There are huge energy and material costs to supporting those animals.

Cats when allowed outside will decimate ecosystems and are literal invasive species. As for dogs, I can’t help but feel that they’ve have been weaponized into a deniable tool for harassing other people.

One for Lemmy:

I think capitalism can be good. I think in an ideal world where everyone’s needs are met, there will still be a market and people getting ludicrously wealthy. And I think in that ideal world those ludicrously wealthy people can translate that wealth into political power.

This seems insane for those of us trapped in this present, but I think it is good for there to be a mechanism where understanding some reality that is tied to physical phenomena gives people power.

I think large organizations can get by for a very long time inculcating in their members strange philosophies. If the only path to power is by acquiescing to your superiors and parroting dogma, I think that would be bad.

Of course, conditions in the real world look nothing like those in that ideal world.

Edited away: I think dog / cat ownership makes you a bad person.

I thought it was unnecessarily inflammatory and regret choosing that inflammatory language