6 ms·

It is amazing how both adaptable and yet resistant to change we are. We are so afraid of change—yet what comes just might be better than what we have now.

akiselev 10y ago
That's been the human situation for all of history. Psychologically we are terribly conservative and fragile but physically, we're the ultimate product of billions of years of evolution, having survived much bigger environmental changes in the meantime than we see today. We may not like it when we have to, but we are by far the best in the known universe at adapting to and changing our environment. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen how many of us will survive this process of adaptation.
- avar 10y ago
  Just charting the world population by latitude shows that we're still living in a relatively narrow area of the planet where conditions are just right. We're flexible, but still very tied to a fragile ecology. 1. https://goo.gl/images/bGCPHr https://goo.gl/images/bGCPHr
  - akiselev 10y ago
    And yet, not only did we survive the last glacial period [1] which lasted ten times longer than agricultural civilization has thus far, but we used the lower temperatures to spread through entire continents and migrate across oceans that had isolated us before. We have seven billion more people on Earth now, so naturally only those that are born in or migrate to the regions capable of supporting such density survive. All I said is that humaninty's ability to adapt is unprecedented, not that all of humanity will survive shocks to the environment as massive as large sea level rises or a major ecological collapse. However, given our performance over just the last century, I wouldn't bet against the constant growth of our population outside of a mass extinction event like a super volcano or large asteroid.
    - arcticfox 10y ago
      Or a war caused by fighting over shifting resources. I'm more worried about the second order effects.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    That chart needs to be adjusted for landmass, e.g. population density rather than population. For example, why is there so little population in the southern hemisphere? A major contributor is the fact that only 32% of land is in the southern half.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    I don't think it's likely to cause human extinction if the Rice Belt moves up into, say, Arkansas, and the Corn Belt moves up into, say, Saskatchewan. Your chart has very little to do with external conditions being "just right" and much more to do with presence of a technological infrastructure. Are you seriously arguing that the natural climatic conditions are responsible for there being a higher population density in southern Canada than, say, Argentina?
    - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
      "Southern Canada" i.e. southern Ontario or even Quebec is a mild midwest climate with extremely fertile rich farming soils and abundant fresh water. It has high growing degree days, high fertility, and can grow everything from peaches and apples and grapes to corn, tobacco, soy, wheat, garden vegetables, tomatoes. It sits at the same lattitude as southern Oregon. Argentina, while it has some fertile regions, is pretty arid. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        "I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison." Southern Canada covers a whole lot more territory than Toronto and Montreal, dude. There's a whole actual country out there. The observed temperature range in Buenos Aires is 22 °F to 109.9°F. The observed temperature range in Winnipeg is −54 °F to 108 °F. "Not killing an unprotected human within hours" is a pretty good basis for comparison, I'd say. Edit: corrected maximum temperature observed in B.A.
        cmrdporcupine 10y ago
        Winnipeg isn't considered "southern Canada" by anybody who isn't from the far north, for whom anything south of the Yukon/NWT border is "the south." I grew up in Edmonton and never considered it "southern Canada"
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
sliverstorm 10y ago
What change do you see coming that might be better?
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  California disappearing into the ocean.
theothermkn 10y ago
In a vacuum, you might have an excuse for saying that. But we are not in a vacuum. We know what bad things are coming via climate change, and we are seeing bad effects already. Furthermore, we have every reason to believe that the interaction between current geopolitical systems and the technological systems that support food production will be severely strained by what's coming, and is strained by what's already here. It is simply too late in the game for deliberately uninformed speculation about what utopias await us after the global demise of saltwater shellfish, for example, or after the collapse of thermohaline circulation, or the thawing of methane hydrates. This isn't some game of chicken that will be won by not being "afraid of change." This is the recognition of an unfolding global catastrophe, and it's irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand with wild essentialist speculation about how "resistant to change" we are. Whether we survive or not will not depend on essences like "adaptability" or "resistance"; it will depend on contingencies like whether the boreal forests burn in spring or fall of 2023, or whether political instability in a crumbling Russia results in the launching of nuclear weapons and how the West responds.
- ciconia 10y ago
  There's no need to go as far as nuclear war. Climate change will manifest itself in political instability and mass migration (see Syria and Africa), and perhaps even more fundamentally, rampant desertification which is liable to lead to food shortages in poorer countries. But yes, it _is_ a global catastrophe and sadly few people seem to care enough to do something about it.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
I agree humans are great with change. I also see 2 massive flaws in your statement; 1) Change often comes with massive price. E.g. WW2 was great for women's rights in the west but ~60m deaths is kinds tough way to earn that. I dont see this being any different. 2) Saying what comes next 'might be better' is really weak. Nothing we've seen about global warming looks particularly great except for a few less populated places like greenland and Siberia. And we can see massive problems coming like in Low lying cities/countries. So to be afraid of this change seems quite rational. This is not a flip a coin ands see type problem.

akiselev 10y ago

That's been the human situation for all of history. Psychologically we are terribly conservative and fragile but physically, we're the ultimate product of billions of years of evolution, having survived much bigger environmental changes in the meantime than we see today. We may not like it when we have to, but we are by far the best in the known universe at adapting to and changing our environment. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen how many of us will survive this process of adaptation.

avar 10y ago
Just charting the world population by latitude shows that we're still living in a relatively narrow area of the planet where conditions are just right. We're flexible, but still very tied to a fragile ecology. 1. https://goo.gl/images/bGCPHr https://goo.gl/images/bGCPHr
- akiselev 10y ago
  And yet, not only did we survive the last glacial period [1] which lasted ten times longer than agricultural civilization has thus far, but we used the lower temperatures to spread through entire continents and migrate across oceans that had isolated us before. We have seven billion more people on Earth now, so naturally only those that are born in or migrate to the regions capable of supporting such density survive. All I said is that humaninty's ability to adapt is unprecedented, not that all of humanity will survive shocks to the environment as massive as large sea level rises or a major ecological collapse. However, given our performance over just the last century, I wouldn't bet against the constant growth of our population outside of a mass extinction event like a super volcano or large asteroid.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    Or a war caused by fighting over shifting resources. I'm more worried about the second order effects.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  That chart needs to be adjusted for landmass, e.g. population density rather than population. For example, why is there so little population in the southern hemisphere? A major contributor is the fact that only 32% of land is in the southern half.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  I don't think it's likely to cause human extinction if the Rice Belt moves up into, say, Arkansas, and the Corn Belt moves up into, say, Saskatchewan. Your chart has very little to do with external conditions being "just right" and much more to do with presence of a technological infrastructure. Are you seriously arguing that the natural climatic conditions are responsible for there being a higher population density in southern Canada than, say, Argentina?
  - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
    "Southern Canada" i.e. southern Ontario or even Quebec is a mild midwest climate with extremely fertile rich farming soils and abundant fresh water. It has high growing degree days, high fertility, and can grow everything from peaches and apples and grapes to corn, tobacco, soy, wheat, garden vegetables, tomatoes. It sits at the same lattitude as southern Oregon. Argentina, while it has some fertile regions, is pretty arid. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      "I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison." Southern Canada covers a whole lot more territory than Toronto and Montreal, dude. There's a whole actual country out there. The observed temperature range in Buenos Aires is 22 °F to 109.9°F. The observed temperature range in Winnipeg is −54 °F to 108 °F. "Not killing an unprotected human within hours" is a pretty good basis for comparison, I'd say. Edit: corrected maximum temperature observed in B.A.
      - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
        Winnipeg isn't considered "southern Canada" by anybody who isn't from the far north, for whom anything south of the Yukon/NWT border is "the south." I grew up in Edmonton and never considered it "southern Canada"
        Turing_Machine 10y ago

sliverstorm 10y ago

What change do you see coming that might be better?

gnarbarian 10y ago
California disappearing into the ocean.

theothermkn 10y ago

In a vacuum, you might have an excuse for saying that. But we are not in a vacuum. We know what bad things are coming via climate change, and we are seeing bad effects already. Furthermore, we have every reason to believe that the interaction between current geopolitical systems and the technological systems that support food production will be severely strained by what's coming, and is strained by what's already here. It is simply too late in the game for deliberately uninformed speculation about what utopias await us after the global demise of saltwater shellfish, for example, or after the collapse of thermohaline circulation, or the thawing of methane hydrates. This isn't some game of chicken that will be won by not being "afraid of change." This is the recognition of an unfolding global catastrophe, and it's irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand with wild essentialist speculation about how "resistant to change" we are. Whether we survive or not will not depend on essences like "adaptability" or "resistance"; it will depend on contingencies like whether the boreal forests burn in spring or fall of 2023, or whether political instability in a crumbling Russia results in the launching of nuclear weapons and how the West responds.

ciconia 10y ago
There's no need to go as far as nuclear war. Climate change will manifest itself in political instability and mass migration (see Syria and Africa), and perhaps even more fundamentally, rampant desertification which is liable to lead to food shortages in poorer countries. But yes, it _is_ a global catastrophe and sadly few people seem to care enough to do something about it.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

I agree humans are great with change. I also see 2 massive flaws in your statement; 1) Change often comes with massive price. E.g. WW2 was great for women's rights in the west but ~60m deaths is kinds tough way to earn that. I dont see this being any different. 2) Saying what comes next 'might be better' is really weak. Nothing we've seen about global warming looks particularly great except for a few less populated places like greenland and Siberia. And we can see massive problems coming like in Low lying cities/countries. So to be afraid of this change seems quite rational. This is not a flip a coin ands see type problem.