5 ms·

All of those changes will cause great pains and tribulations for the most vulnerable. Maybe we can genetically engineer more drought-resistant plants or whatnot

All of those changes will cause great pains and tribulations for the most vulnerable. Maybe we can genetically engineer more drought-resistant plants or whatnot, but the farmers in rural parts of third-world-countries will suffer, while what's left of their freshwater supplies dry. Once the coral reefs are wiped out from the increased acidification of the oceans, another hundred or so million will starve to death because they rely on food from the ocean.

adrianN 10y ago
Of course, as I said the transition period will be uncomfortable. A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though.
- spraak 10y ago
  Generally I think "the end of the world" is the end of those observing the world (us, humans). So most of the population dying sounds like the end..
- treehau5 10y ago
  That transition period is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept it as an inevitability, and it is unacceptable to view a few hundred million as inconsequential, especially when the tools are present to solve the issue. In my eyes, once we get to the point where our complacency has allowed us to even think in these terms and still be able to sleep comfortably at night, we have already lost (I'm no exception, and this isn't an accusation). We've allowed power to condense to a select few, and we all feel like small fries in the big global stage.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    I agree that we should stop producing GHGs as quickly as possible. I'm just arguing that climate change is not the end of the world. In the same way you can argue that another global war is probably not the end of the world yet we should avoid it by all means.
- zhte415 10y ago
  > A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though. Really? Seriously? This seems incredibly dismissive.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    I don't mean the figure of speech "not the end of the world", I mean the literal end of human civilization. I think you have to agree that humanity can carry on even if every tenth human dies. That is less than the death rate caused by the Black Death (~50%) and back then Europe managed to carry on.
    - Daishiman 10y ago
      Dude, who cares about it not being a literal statement? Civilization as know it, literally, is going to end and so will the ecosystems that have supported societies for thousands of years. You're playing words games that no one cares about.
    - inimino 10y ago
      You wrote "Climate change is not the end of the world." Do you usually use "not the end of the world" to mean something comparable to the Black Death?
      - adrianN 10y ago
        Yes, especially when I reply on a thread that started with historic predictions of the end of the world (you know, the seas turning to blood, the four horsemen...). I'm not a native English speaker so it took a number of outraged replies before I remembered that some people use "the end of the world" to mean things other than, well, the end of the world.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  You seem to be ignoring human nature. Those few hundred million people are not going to simply accept their fate and go quietly into the night, these climate refugees are going to migrate, and do whatever is required to survive. The social unrest caused by this will be a powder keg that could and most likely will explode into a major conflict. Humans are the exact same savage beasts we were 70000 years ago. We havent evolved, our knowledge has. Institutions keep us in check and without them... scary stuff. Stuff like the Walking Dead is pretty tame comoared to history. During the dow fall of the Aztec empire, they sacrificed(heavily disputed) between 4000 and 84000 people in just 4 days.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  You talk like that that because you expect to be able to rise it out. but you're only a short step away from becoming one of the millions of nobodies whose death you shrug off.

adrianN 10y ago

Of course, as I said the transition period will be uncomfortable. A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though.

spraak 10y ago
Generally I think "the end of the world" is the end of those observing the world (us, humans). So most of the population dying sounds like the end..
treehau5 10y ago
That transition period is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept it as an inevitability, and it is unacceptable to view a few hundred million as inconsequential, especially when the tools are present to solve the issue. In my eyes, once we get to the point where our complacency has allowed us to even think in these terms and still be able to sleep comfortably at night, we have already lost (I'm no exception, and this isn't an accusation). We've allowed power to condense to a select few, and we all feel like small fries in the big global stage.
- adrianN 10y ago
  I agree that we should stop producing GHGs as quickly as possible. I'm just arguing that climate change is not the end of the world. In the same way you can argue that another global war is probably not the end of the world yet we should avoid it by all means.
zhte415 10y ago
> A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though. Really? Seriously? This seems incredibly dismissive.
- adrianN 10y ago
  I don't mean the figure of speech "not the end of the world", I mean the literal end of human civilization. I think you have to agree that humanity can carry on even if every tenth human dies. That is less than the death rate caused by the Black Death (~50%) and back then Europe managed to carry on.
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    Dude, who cares about it not being a literal statement? Civilization as know it, literally, is going to end and so will the ecosystems that have supported societies for thousands of years. You're playing words games that no one cares about.
  - inimino 10y ago
    You wrote "Climate change is not the end of the world." Do you usually use "not the end of the world" to mean something comparable to the Black Death?
    - adrianN 10y ago
      Yes, especially when I reply on a thread that started with historic predictions of the end of the world (you know, the seas turning to blood, the four horsemen...). I'm not a native English speaker so it took a number of outraged replies before I remembered that some people use "the end of the world" to mean things other than, well, the end of the world.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
You seem to be ignoring human nature. Those few hundred million people are not going to simply accept their fate and go quietly into the night, these climate refugees are going to migrate, and do whatever is required to survive. The social unrest caused by this will be a powder keg that could and most likely will explode into a major conflict. Humans are the exact same savage beasts we were 70000 years ago. We havent evolved, our knowledge has. Institutions keep us in check and without them... scary stuff. Stuff like the Walking Dead is pretty tame comoared to history. During the dow fall of the Aztec empire, they sacrificed(heavily disputed) between 4000 and 84000 people in just 4 days.
anigbrowl 10y ago
You talk like that that because you expect to be able to rise it out. but you're only a short step away from becoming one of the millions of nobodies whose death you shrug off.