5 ms·
How would every last human die? I mean, sure, millions or even billions . . . but not one human surviving with all the resources and resourcefulness we have at
by jraines 10y ago
How would every last human die? I mean, sure, millions or even billions . . . but not one human surviving with all the resources and resourcefulness we have at our disposal?
- dleslie 10y agoOxygen and nutrition; we can't even get self-sustaining bio domes working now, despite decades of attempts. We could solve the problem, sure, but it's a race against time while society is crumbling, in this scenario.
- balabaster 10y agoYou'd be surprised what we could get to work if the survival of humanity depended upon it. You'd better believe we'd get self sustaining bio domes working tout de suite if that were the only way to ensure our survival.
- dleslie 10y agoIt could be difficult to see the forest for the trees. In this model the sea level rising would flood many of the largest cities on earth, resources would certainly be focused on managing the onslaught of climate refugees that result. OTOH, the Manhattan Project occurred during a time of near-total war; so there's hope.
- DonHopkins 10y agoFighting over the remaining resources of course.
- pg314 10y agoThere are more than enough nukes out there to do the job. Famines and massive numbers of refugees will almost inevitably lead to wars...
- jug 10y agoThe recent Syrian refugee crisis, which has been thought to be among the first crisises partially induced by global warming (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-...), has already ensured most of the EU has right extremism on the rise and sometimes already strongly influencing governments.
- dredmorbius 10y agoPrevious instances of warming have seen all land mammals of greater than, IIRC, 10 kg, gone extinct. Widespread ecosystemic impacts can be profound, and difficult to model.