Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:08 PM Jan 2013

I see the term "Doomer" used a lot to describe points of view on climate change

or variants of that term, "Doomsday...", even "Chicken Littles"...

these terms are used to describe people who believe global climate change is catastrophic or will be, either in terms of the magnitude of that change or in terms of the *effects* of even smaller changes on the human race and/or the earth as we know it.

my question is, what is the point of using such terms to describe people? is it to say:

1) climate change isn't so bad
2) climate change isn't going to be proven as large as X or Y person is saying, therefore, because the amount of change is actually going to be less, this amount of change is not harmful or not very harmful, and/or we don't know if it'll be harmful, so anyone saying that it is, is being alarmist without basis.
3) climate change at a certain level or below is actually not harmful in any significant way, and the person using the term is saying that expected climate change is below this threshold
4) significant climate change, but below "doomsday" predictions, but that a certain level of death, food and agricultural shifts and declines due to it, which may result in the deaths or malnutrition of many millions across the globe is NOT a DOOMSDAY scenario.


21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I see the term "Doomer" used a lot to describe points of view on climate change (Original Post) CreekDog Jan 2013 OP
Used a lot by many -OR- one particular person uses it a lot? Viking12 Jan 2013 #1
by a handful at DU CreekDog Jan 2013 #2
This is more appropriate for meta XemaSab Jan 2013 #3
Because "catastrophic" is subjective, it's become a garden-variety pejorative term wtmusic Jan 2013 #4
What stirred this thought was trying to figure out what level of change would not be a form of doom CreekDog Jan 2013 #5
Its absolutely asinine NoOneMan Jan 2013 #7
that's a good response CreekDog Jan 2013 #10
Kind of like the old Soviet joke about what to do in case of nuclear war . .. hatrack Jan 2013 #14
What can or can't be done depends on your primary objectives NoOneMan Jan 2013 #9
Regarding point #4, the Mayans had their own environmental Doomsday scenario NoOneMan Jan 2013 #6
That's why I have begun to think the "doom" label is used to suggest that Third World effects are ok CreekDog Jan 2013 #8
That's why I rarely go into GD ... Nihil Jan 2013 #19
Some useful previous discussion on this topic GliderGuider Jan 2013 #11
It's used the same way as "gun nut", "religious fanatic", Freeper", "conspiracy theorist"... Speck Tater Jan 2013 #12
On the mark! nt GliderGuider Jan 2013 #16
I prefer the term ENTROPIAN.... chaska Jan 2013 #13
The use of the term "Doomer" did start in PO discussions GliderGuider Jan 2013 #15
Not that this is a bad thing in a cosmic context NoOneMan Jan 2013 #17
Ah, the myth of progress.... chaska Jan 2013 #20
Devolve? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #21
I don't use it as an insult. It's just a term to differentiate. joshcryer Jan 2013 #18

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
4. Because "catastrophic" is subjective, it's become a garden-variety pejorative term
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:21 PM
Jan 2013

for anyone who thinks action is necessary.

Although I find it handy for those who think nothing can be done. Quite a few of those around here too.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
5. What stirred this thought was trying to figure out what level of change would not be a form of doom
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:27 PM
Jan 2013

or catastrophic.

in theory, only full blown denial posits *no* climate change, and even a lot of denial posits climate change but via non-anthropogenic influences --which could be doom too.

but the more i've thought about it, i can't see how anybody arguing that people are "doomers" could themselves believe that any amount of climate change, regardless of the source, shouldn't scare the bejeezus out of them.

you know?

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
7. Its absolutely asinine
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 PM
Jan 2013

There are those that admit it will cause famine and pain but say, "oh, but don't overreact, it won't kill everyone"

Its like they are channeling Marie Antoinette

hatrack

(59,439 posts)
14. Kind of like the old Soviet joke about what to do in case of nuclear war . ..
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jan 2013

Wrap yourself in a sheet and walk slowly to the cemetery.

Why slowly?

So as not to cause a panic.

Bah-dah-BOOM!

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
9. What can or can't be done depends on your primary objectives
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:03 PM
Jan 2013

If your objective is to preserve industrial society while continuously increasing GDP (via production) and mitigating climate change, I am highly doubtful anything can be effectively done in that regard.

If your objective is to build resilience against the effects of climate change and restructure society to prevent further ecological breakdown, I am more hopeful in terms of the effectiveness of this approach (but I am absolutely pessimistic regarding its political viability before we reach a point of catastrophic breakdown).

The public and the industrial economy will probably not opt to implement any plan that has more than a negligible effect on the standard of living create by the standard quo; these solutions may therefore have a negligible effect on climate change. If a public 'critical mass' is not reached before climate change starts breaking down industrial civilization (by demanding too much energy & capital to mitigate), then we really aren't going to be able to choose what happens to us.

I predict that no matter what is viable (politically or otherwise), we will symbolically can-kick until we literally cannot function as a complex society any longer. Is that a "doomer" view? I don't know. I *think* it is reality-based, and tries to account for all elements of the problem, from psychological to political to industrial. I am not pessimistic because I think that absolutely "nothing can be done" physically, but rather nothing can be done according to the rules of the game of civilization (and that system has created an exponentially increasing demand for energy and an incredible dependency upon it from the people).

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
6. Regarding point #4, the Mayans had their own environmental Doomsday scenario
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:33 PM
Jan 2013

(or so I understand from various sources of information)

Their drought was so devastating that they supposedly were sacrificing their people, including children, to a rain god. If this significantly contributed to their decline, we can assuredly recognize that to those people, it was absolutely a "Doomsday" scenario. Yet, the rest of the world carried on.

Climate change is global. It will bring far many more areas to their knees than that drought did (meaning there will be many pockets in devastating states throughout the world). Sure, it may not bring everyone to their knees (we don't know that yet), but we should not dismiss the misery and "doom" it will bring numerous regions. Those deaths will be real. People will experience a Doomsday scenario. It doesn't have to be an absolute, complete hell to reach this level of importance to humanity, does it?

Regardless, we don't know what will happen. We still don't understand these complex systems enough. We can't model all the feedbacks. We can't predict non-linear, unpredictable change. No one has a monopoly on what is "realistic" despite claiming they do. Clinging to what is publicly acceptable within the agreed parameters is being "safe", but not "realistic" as we cannot properly project what is within the bounds of reality fully yet. In any case, it is realistic to say that enough people will experience a Doomsday level scenario to them that all of humanity should consider this event of utmost importance.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
8. That's why I have begun to think the "doom" label is used to suggest that Third World effects are ok
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:57 PM
Jan 2013

because almost any scenario, small or large, is catastrophic to people on the margins, agriculturally, nutritionally, economically and "elevationally" (see Bangladesh, for example).

i asked one person who used that term recently, what level of death among third worlders is beneath his level of "doom".

here's some of the posts in that thread that use the "doom" term pejoratively:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2178476

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2186967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2186139

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2181614

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2180803

I guess I understand the usage of the term to mean, "climate change isn't going to boil off all the oceans and result in the elimination of all food on the planet by 2100" --the users of the term kind of suggest that nightmare scenario (a straw man, it seems) they seem to consider "doom", while results short of that, are somehow below their threshold for "doom".

which I called a "bourgeoisie" point of view, because it seems to be taken from the limited point of view that if food is more scarce,

we'll just pay more for it.
if land becomes uninhabitable, we'll just move to a better place.
if storms become more severe, the cost of our insurance will go up a bit more.

etc. etc.

sure, it doesn't sound all that "doom" if you think of it from that perspective.

but most of the 7 billion people on the earth don't have those options, even many First Worlders don't --if they are at the margins.



 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
19. That's why I rarely go into GD ...
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:42 AM
Jan 2013

... and certainly not in the hope of having a serious reality-based discussion
on environmental issues ...

Far too much of the in there ...

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
11. Some useful previous discussion on this topic
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:07 PM
Jan 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712905

IMO the term is a simple pejorative with the same underlying intention as branding someone a "conspiracy theorist": "Your opinion is scurrilous and should not even be considered by anyone who wishes to call themselves a civilized human being!"
 

Speck Tater

(10,618 posts)
12. It's used the same way as "gun nut", "religious fanatic", Freeper", "conspiracy theorist"...
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:29 PM
Jan 2013

It's a way of say "You're point of view does not need to be taken seriously."

In many cases that kind of use is justified. In many other cases, it is not.

Personally, I consider myself to be a climate realist, and my realistic assessment is that the human race is doomed to extinction, or at best, a severe bottleneck event. If a person doesn't like that conclusion and wants to make themselves feel better without having to actually address the issues that led to my conclusion, they can solve their inner turmoil by simply telling themselves, and others, that I am "just a doomer." And the more other people they can find who agree with them the more secure they feel in their delusions of safety.

chaska

(6,794 posts)
13. I prefer the term ENTROPIAN....
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:34 PM
Jan 2013

as in entropy, and as opposed to expropian.

But I've heard the doomer term applied more to peak oilers (of which I am one) rather than to climate change. But there are problems enough for sure. And we are undoubtedly at the end of the American empire, and many of the problems are related to that fact.

Hand basket arriving soon in hell.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
15. The use of the term "Doomer" did start in PO discussions
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:49 PM
Jan 2013

But it has now has made its way into the AGW arena as well. Basically anyone who thinks that GlobCiv 1.0 may be heading for a "rapid devolution of capability" and that this outcome is already baked in the cake is eligible for the Doomer Brand of Satan.

Wanna see mine?

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
17. Not that this is a bad thing in a cosmic context
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:03 PM
Jan 2013

We may finally see accelerated evolution of the Homo genus in many different directions, and perhaps in few a hundred thousand years a world will emerge that could be judged as "better" from the collective perspective of current humans; it may simply mean this dark time of Homo sapien earth-raping is drawing to an end, like the great nefarious expansion of pubic lice. Unfortunately, there is a means to such an End that might be beyond comprehension to these current humans (who would rather avoid such circumstances all together, despite such a chance at an evolutionary event).

On the other hand, from the perspective of the universe, it may remain absolutely ambivalent to what is happening now and what may happen later, rendering any notion of "better" or "worse" useless. Mr Universe may give a damn about intelligence, human misery, exploitation, etc, and simply wants to see entropy carry forth.

chaska

(6,794 posts)
20. Ah, the myth of progress....
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:36 PM
Jan 2013

or as I like to call it, the myth of the myth of progress. It's America's national religion.

This is just silly, we will not evolve. If anything we will devolve. A hundred years from now, we will live like we did a hundred years ago.

What's more, sad but true, liberal ideas will recede right along with civilization. They are, after all, one and the same.

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
21. Devolve?
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:51 PM
Jan 2013

I am speaking in terms of biological evolution, which doesn't necessarily imply an outcome that is "better" or "worse" to an universal standard, but rather better suited for the regions in which it is happening (notice I said "in many directions&quot . Frankly, we have not evolved much biologically in the last 50-100K years, and certainly not much since civilization has been established (and we likely will not as long as we are not at the behest of nature and the top of every food chain). It is a process that may take a few hundred thousand years before any noticeable difference is observed, under the presumption that an infrastructure breakdown will once again leave us vulnerable to the system.


A hundred years from now, we will live like we did a hundred years ago.

This doesn't imply evolution whatsoever. The changes in our behavior is a change in our culture and knowledge, not our biology. Peeling back complexity in our organized system doesn't mean we will "devolve" whatsoever, nor does a more complex system imply we have evolved any. We cannot even determine if "complexity" is in fact beneficial to a system by any means, and what level of complexity is "good" or "the best".


What's more, sad but true, liberal ideas will recede right along with civilization. They are, after all, one and the same.

Liberal ideas are the result of a system (not one in the same) that recognizes social changes can make it more economically efficient (or stable) and accelerate growth. Unfortunately, many of these changes we see as "good" also demonstrably exacerbate the earth-exploiting nature of civilization by increase consumption and the velocity of energy in the system. Its what I call the paradox of 21st Century liberalism.

Its possible many of these ideas may not exist, but we also must recognize many very primitive cultures that still exist today are entirely communal and often egalitarian (it took civilization 10K years to explore this concept). Food is shared and the vulnerable are protected in many societies like the Hadza, the Kung and pastorial societies in South America.

I am starting to believe that the view of liberalism being an a priori "good" is rather ethnocentric. It exists primarily because production produces so much inherent inequality--so much so that the system becomes less efficient at growth and energy consumption, thereby preferring liberalism to manifest a population that will better aid its growth. If we devolve and eliminate such inequality, we may not have the conditions that necessitate this philosophy

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
18. I don't use it as an insult. It's just a term to differentiate.
Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:40 PM
Jan 2013

I may have used it as an insult 10+ years ago when I was on an anti-primitivist pro-technology bent but I have since become educated to the point of being what I have coined as a climate change alarmist (been using the term for a few years now).

I have seen "doomer" used as a term of insult and deflection, however. It's like the C word or the B word, people can use those words affectionately or as an insult, it's all in how they come across (admittedly they can be misinterpreted in text).

From the way I've seen it used by certain posters here (who aren't using it in a literal or a way to differentiate without insult) it covers all of the points that you have outlined. Though some in the "a certain level of AGW is not harmful in any significant way" and the "a certain die off isn't doomsday" way tend to avoid using the word "doomer" completely, because they know that ultimately it makes them look stupid. They'd be admitting the realities of AGW while at the same time saying there's nothing to worry about.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»I see the term "Doom...