5 ms·

> a Mad-Max type scenario is a real possibility. Can you please substantiate this conclusion?

lisper 10y ago
Sure. There are any number of ways that climate change could destroy civilization. It could do it directly. For example, weather could get so extreme that it could directly destroy our infrastructure faster than we can rebuild it. Weather anomalies could destroy our ability to produce enough food to feed everyone. A catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice cap could raise sea levels to the point where all of the world's coastal cities would be inundated, and it could happen much faster than we could rebuild elsewhere (to say nothing of the fact that global commerce currently depends crucially on stable coast lines so we can have ports). But much more likely is not the direct destruction of civilization, but rather increased political and economic tensions leading to nuclear war. Climate change is going to lead to a global game of musical chairs as the world's powers vie for ownership of what used to be arctic tundra but is soon to be prime farmland, or what used to be polar ice cap and is soon to be rich oil fields. People are already starting to quibble over who owns the northwest passage (is it an international waterway, or does it belong to Canada?) That didn't matter when you couldn't get through because it was filled with ice. When the ice clears and it becomes a prime shipping route, it matters a lot.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >But much more likely is not the direct destruction of civilization, but rather increased political and economic tensions leading to nuclear war. Ah, I see that you and I actually do agree that the much more likely case is not a Mad Max scenario, and I agree political tension is the greatest danger. The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people--whether it be squabbling over who caused climate change, or over newly found resources it created, or migrations of peoples whose homelands have been destroyed. I really don't want that to happen. >Weather anomalies could destroy our ability to produce enough food to feed everyone. That is a good point, and a great reason why we should stop altering the global environment. It may not be that the ability to produce food is destroyed in the long run, but in the short run we struggle to adapt quickly enough to a changing environment--a topic for debate but certainly one for worry. While I concede there's no evidence this will necessarily happen, the fact is we simply don't know what we're doing when it comes to global climate science, and we're historically great at screwing up the planet with unintended consequences. So we should stop. >weather could get so extreme that it could directly destroy our infrastructure faster than we can rebuild it. While of course anything is possible, can you link me to scientific evidence that this will happen. Of course, there is in fact evidence that weather extremes will increase, the likelihood of this scenario where we literally cannot sustain infrastructure on the planet anymore, that would require very extreme weather and a loss of current technology (there already exists technology to build infrastructure which can withstand harsh weather and earthquakes). I don't have a problem with the science, but the doomsday or "Mad Max" alarmist scenarios are not based in science, and that kind of irrational thinking may do more harm than good--leading to even more irrational thinking.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > the much more likely case is not a Mad Max scenario I'd say Mad Max is the worst case. Possible, but certainly not inevitable. How likely it is depends on what we choose to do (or not do). But we have to stop talking about turning Earth into Venus or destroying all life or even humans going extinct. None of those are going to happen. > The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people The worst case scenario is the collapse of modern technological civilization with the resulting deaths of billions of innocent people. The worst case is really, really bad. So arguments like this: > we simply don't know what we're doing when it comes to global climate science don't carry a lot of weight with me. It's true that there is a lot of uncertainty. But that uncertainty cuts both ways. We might be erring in either direction, and the consequences of getting this wrong are very, very serious. So we ought to err on the conservative side. Because the only way to know for sure whether the worst case is possible is to actually make it happen. > While of course anything is possible, can you link me to scientific evidence that this will happen. No, of course not. But I can probably find some papers that show that it's possible.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people There's a good case to be made that we're in that situation right now. Look at all the migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war (a conflict arguably driven by climate change as crops failed repeatedly in that area). The flow of said migrants has already resulted in a good deal of avoidable death and political conflict, and that's set to rise with the President of Turkey threatening to use flows of desperate people as a political weapon. I don't have a problem with the science, but the doomsday or "Mad Max" alarmist scenarios are not based in science A nuclear exchange would put us in Mad Max territory pretty quickly if you ask me. It's one of a number of unlikely but far from impossible scenarios that we should consider.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      >A nuclear exchange would put us in Mad Max territory pretty quickly if you ask me. It's one of a number of unlikely but far from impossible scenarios that we should consider. Climate change does not and can not create nuclear war. People create nuclear war.
polotics 10y ago
Well, I would guess Mad Max without the combustion engines

Sure. There are any number of ways that climate change could destroy civilization. It could do it directly. For example, weather could get so extreme that it could directly destroy our infrastructure faster than we can rebuild it. Weather anomalies could destroy our ability to produce enough food to feed everyone. A catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice cap could raise sea levels to the point where all of the world's coastal cities would be inundated, and it could happen much faster than we could rebuild elsewhere (to say nothing of the fact that global commerce currently depends crucially on stable coast lines so we can have ports). But much more likely is not the direct destruction of civilization, but rather increased political and economic tensions leading to nuclear war. Climate change is going to lead to a global game of musical chairs as the world's powers vie for ownership of what used to be arctic tundra but is soon to be prime farmland, or what used to be polar ice cap and is soon to be rich oil fields. People are already starting to quibble over who owns the northwest passage (is it an international waterway, or does it belong to Canada?) That didn't matter when you couldn't get through because it was filled with ice. When the ice clears and it becomes a prime shipping route, it matters a lot.

wallace_f 10y ago
>But much more likely is not the direct destruction of civilization, but rather increased political and economic tensions leading to nuclear war. Ah, I see that you and I actually do agree that the much more likely case is not a Mad Max scenario, and I agree political tension is the greatest danger. The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people--whether it be squabbling over who caused climate change, or over newly found resources it created, or migrations of peoples whose homelands have been destroyed. I really don't want that to happen. >Weather anomalies could destroy our ability to produce enough food to feed everyone. That is a good point, and a great reason why we should stop altering the global environment. It may not be that the ability to produce food is destroyed in the long run, but in the short run we struggle to adapt quickly enough to a changing environment--a topic for debate but certainly one for worry. While I concede there's no evidence this will necessarily happen, the fact is we simply don't know what we're doing when it comes to global climate science, and we're historically great at screwing up the planet with unintended consequences. So we should stop. >weather could get so extreme that it could directly destroy our infrastructure faster than we can rebuild it. While of course anything is possible, can you link me to scientific evidence that this will happen. Of course, there is in fact evidence that weather extremes will increase, the likelihood of this scenario where we literally cannot sustain infrastructure on the planet anymore, that would require very extreme weather and a loss of current technology (there already exists technology to build infrastructure which can withstand harsh weather and earthquakes). I don't have a problem with the science, but the doomsday or "Mad Max" alarmist scenarios are not based in science, and that kind of irrational thinking may do more harm than good--leading to even more irrational thinking.
- lisper 10y ago
  > the much more likely case is not a Mad Max scenario I'd say Mad Max is the worst case. Possible, but certainly not inevitable. How likely it is depends on what we choose to do (or not do). But we have to stop talking about turning Earth into Venus or destroying all life or even humans going extinct. None of those are going to happen. > The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people The worst case scenario is the collapse of modern technological civilization with the resulting deaths of billions of innocent people. The worst case is really, really bad. So arguments like this: > we simply don't know what we're doing when it comes to global climate science don't carry a lot of weight with me. It's true that there is a lot of uncertainty. But that uncertainty cuts both ways. We might be erring in either direction, and the consequences of getting this wrong are very, very serious. So we ought to err on the conservative side. Because the only way to know for sure whether the worst case is possible is to actually make it happen. > While of course anything is possible, can you link me to scientific evidence that this will happen. No, of course not. But I can probably find some papers that show that it's possible.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The worst case scenario is we see innocent people needlessly die due to the actions of other people There's a good case to be made that we're in that situation right now. Look at all the migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war (a conflict arguably driven by climate change as crops failed repeatedly in that area). The flow of said migrants has already resulted in a good deal of avoidable death and political conflict, and that's set to rise with the President of Turkey threatening to use flows of desperate people as a political weapon. I don't have a problem with the science, but the doomsday or "Mad Max" alarmist scenarios are not based in science A nuclear exchange would put us in Mad Max territory pretty quickly if you ask me. It's one of a number of unlikely but far from impossible scenarios that we should consider.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >A nuclear exchange would put us in Mad Max territory pretty quickly if you ask me. It's one of a number of unlikely but far from impossible scenarios that we should consider. Climate change does not and can not create nuclear war. People create nuclear war.

polotics 10y ago

Well, I would guess Mad Max without the combustion engines