5 ms·

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 f

• 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
          Winnipeg is only 62 miles from the U.S. border.
  • yongjik 10y ago
    You know what else isn't likely to cause human extinction? Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Yet, for some reason, when this is brought up the same people are suddenly very, very hostile to any kind of change.