a dangerous positive-feedback loop

Or perhaps with similar "reasoning"....

The real point here is that most people are anti-scientific, think the future will be the same as the past, and will always close their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and sing la-la-la .

No, it isn't. The ocean (most of Earth's surface) during ice ages didn't freeze over, and there's never been enough water to cover the rest of the planet as you describe.

The only hint of truth: some glaciers could be hundreds of metsrs deeper if not for our current warm state.

Probably not. There's DATA, from observations of sunlight (as seen on the lunar disc) calibrated against the stars in the background, that indicates the Sun shines much the same from year to year.

All sorts of 'hints' can be planted by tricksters. Don't be so easily tricked, but do as scientists do: ask about observations, analyze the data.

But, you've cited no evidence relevant to 'most people need'. It's just a bit of word salad to you, and what YOU need, is to be dismissive. I'm inclined to completely disregard the first, unfounded, call to dismiss any idea. And, by completely disregard', don't think that there's a counter incremented, and that another arrogant dismissal will get past the filter...

If the 'science' were more credible it would be more widely believed.

ars or a vast expanse of ocean opens up, there is little chance of the Eart h entering a new ice age.

Those are all considerations accounting for a billion year timespan or more . For the present, almost none of that matters, there is no "dynamics" to s peak of, everything is located in and will stay locked for long after manki nd is dead and gone. I don't know what kind of a fool counts on mankind bei ng saved by an ice age when it should be clear this is a very low probabili ty event which may take thousands of years to unfold. You keep denying the eight year extinction scenario which timeframe excludes all conceivable nat ural processes from interfering with your demise.

Some science is excellent, and most isn't.

Personal experience for sure. And watching public behavior and policy.

The public is afraid of parts-per-billion risks, and eliminating those risks gets enacted into some very expensive laws.

It's

Now now, don't be dismissive.

What are you most afraid of? Is that fear numerically rational?

I was born with essentially no fear reflex; I have to *think* about risk. In short time scales, there's no time to do the math, so I just go for it. Until that gets me killed, it's a huge competitive advantage.

Not having that fear reflex, I find it strange when I see people afraid of what are actually negligable dangers. But fear dominates public behavior and policy. It affects electronic design a lot too, where the risk is usually to a few dollars worth of parts.

And sometimes not taking a risk is itself a big risk. I'm surprised that the general concepts of risk and fear are not well studied, or not obviously much researched. I've got to look into that more.

Throughout history, the legendary heroes have been admired for their bravery, and it seems like all cultures, as far as we can tell, have held cowards in contempt. But the heroes venture out and die and the cowards stay home and survive and breed. There's something important going on here.

What will happen in eight years to wipe out humans? What will happen first, and when?

Confidence in extinction is a good excuse for not doing all sorts of things. For not doing anything.

I gotta go.

That's no citation of evidence at all. 'Hunger' is a name of need for food, is there a similar name for 'need for fear'? Do you contend that having watched public behavior, you've had a revelation that you cannot explain? But if the source is public behavior, it can't be hard to cite examples, so why don't you do so?

I'm not accepting revelations with no explanation, because the Nostradamus thing didn't work out well...

I just look at my wife when I drive her around. She has a fear panic every couple of miles, when there is no serious danger. I see that a lot. Take a skiing class and see how many people are too scared to get good at it. Going fast and falling in the snow isn't dangerous, and it's usually fun, but half the class is terrified of both.

There are people with phobias about airplanes and bridges and spiders, and a lot of money gets spent treating them. You can look that up.

Start here:

"Hobophobia" is a great one.

That's not a need, or hunger, or an attraction, and it's not 'most people'. Every person has some notion of whether fear is appropriate, and another notion of how strongly to express it. What you're seeing is the bell curve; if you're way out on one end of that curve, you're an oddball.

The oddballs are likely to think 'most people' have got it wrong. Most people ought to ignore that claim...

What most people have "wrong" is letting fear influence their decisions, in a world that is far safer than the one that we evolved in.

You snipped the fun stuff.

While on a chairlift, my daughter and I watched someone fall, slide 100m, and hit a tree. We call out the blood bath when we reached the top of the lift. We later found out he was a very experienced local skier, and had died.

It didn't stop us skiing, nor gliding, nor backpacking round India. But it is a useful cautionary tale that not everything ends well.

Fear really /should/ inform and influence decisions.

Phobias are different.

Risk and consequences should be estimated to decide on actions. But fear is an emotion that distorts perception and reasoning.

I know that injuries are painful and debilitating, so I logically avoid probable injury. But I try to make a realistic estimate of risk.

Beginners Tumbling was one of my best college courses. I learned that, once you decide to do something, go for it full blast. Fear and hesitation will make you land on your head.

Skiing teaches the same lesson. Stand on that cliff as long as you want, but if you decide to go, dump fear and go.

Sure, you can learn from other people's mistakes. If something is really dangerous (and doesn't just feel dangerous) it's prudent to not do it.

Not many skiiers die, less than 1 PPM per day. Hitting trees fast is the biggest killer. About 40% of ski deaths are heart attacks.

Canoeing is reported to be 100x as deadly as skiing. Seems high.

Swimming pools are big killers.

Despite the general 'world is far safer' claim, it's a good plan to evacuate the WTC when it starts burning. Fear is a primitive mechanism, but it isn't obsolete or wrong.

For those of us who like to stay in touch with reality, the world we live in IS EXACTLY the world we evolved in. Plus, some new furniture.

but most people swallow most of it, including those that really need to know better.

Seems to me a lot of poeple's fears are stoked by politics, we probably know why.

NT