8 ms·

In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day Afte

In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day After Tomorrow?"

alistproducer2 10y ago
I'm wondering the same thing. Should I start blowing through my 401k money now or what?
- Raphmedia 10y ago
  Save it for your ticket to mars.
  - flavor8 10y ago
    Better save it for anti aging supplements first. Easier to build climate resistant infrastructure here than on Mars.
    - gech 10y ago
      But as a member of the .01% I'd rather only build new infrastructure where I can guarantee only myself and select others will be able to utilize it. I wouldn't want to waste my money on something that might be ended up being used by the public.
      - baursak 10y ago
        Can't tell if this was sarcasm or a serious statement.
        antisthenes 10y ago
        That depends on whether you have a bunker in New Zealand or not.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand could be in trouble if ocean acidification happens or weather patterns cause more drought (~80% hydro for energy generation and the arable land relies upon high rainfall).
        unFou 10y ago
        Can there even be non-localised drought on a small island the size of New Zealand? The only significant geographical feature in the North Island (where most people live) is 3 mountains right in the middle.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand is small enough that a localized drought can have significant impact. Most of the people do indeed live in the North Island but most of the power is generated in the South Island, particularly around the Mackenzie Basin/Otago area (dry highlands). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_... - sort the hydroelectric by capacity - most of the major dams are in this area.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        username223 10y ago
        New Zealand? Real players build their own islands.
      - vacri 10y ago
        The only people going to Mars for the foreseeable future will be those with explicitly useful skills that can only be done in person. The 0.01% are going to be dead weight up there unless they have such a skill. And given it's a one-way ticket... how much social pull will the 0.01% have over the people with actual skills. You may be a multibillionaire on earth, but being able to sell widgets to the masses isn't a skill that's going to be needed (or appreciated) on Mars for quite a while. Cut off from your wealth, you're just another mouth to feed.
        flogic 10y ago
        More importantly if the population of earth is facing critical systems collapse, what are the odds of the next critical resupply mission the Mars colony actually launching. It's not like a martian colony would be self sufficient anytime soon.
  - rbobby 10y ago
    We added too much CO2 to atmosphere so we'll move to a planet with an atmosphere of 100% CO2... sounds like a plan! :)
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      The problem isn't CO₂. The problem is the roaming hordes of zomb^H^H^H^Hpeople displaced by rising ocean levels and subsequent collapse of civilized society. Mars doesn't have that :).
    - Raphmedia 10y ago
      If you can' beat them, join them?
- username223 10y ago
  You'll be fine. If you care about your offspring, try not to reproduce. With the various positive feedback loops (permafrost methane, arctic albedo, antarctic ice shelves), things are going to get ugly.
- finid 10y ago
  It doesn't make sense to blow the money by yourself. Send me some. And while you're at it, you might want to cancel any insurance that you have. Afterall, what's the point? That will make more money available to blow.
xapata 10y ago
Our grandchildren are in for tough times. Unless a political miracle occurs. Even then, it might be too late.
- ythn 10y ago
  More likely our models will turn out to be slightly wrong and it won't be as apocalyptic as we thought and we'll adjust according to our observed reality.
  - pizza 10y ago
    What's the relative expected utility of assuming your best model is actually not as good as speculation?
    - taneq 10y ago
      Are we talking long term expectations or in the next quarterly budget? Because if the budget looks good I'm up for a raise.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Every single time the models have turned out to be wrong it's always been that they've been overly optimistic. Not once has there been an "oh, it wasn't as bad as we thought" moment. It's always worse. It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. If we panic for nothing that's better than brushing it off and having the worst possible outcome unfold because of inaction.
    - ythn 10y ago
      > It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. It's always lose/lose for the skeptics: Scenario A: skeptics were wrong - "burn them at the stake, they screwed us all over!" Scenario B: skeptics were right - "well, they got lucky. It wasn't as apocalyptic as experts were claiming. They were still wrong to have rejected the evidence at hand and I was still right to have believed the evidence at hand"
kaybe 10y ago
I answered the second question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896

In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day After Tomorrow?"

alistproducer2 10y ago

I'm wondering the same thing. Should I start blowing through my 401k money now or what?

Raphmedia 10y ago
Save it for your ticket to mars.
- flavor8 10y ago
  Better save it for anti aging supplements first. Easier to build climate resistant infrastructure here than on Mars.
  - gech 10y ago
    But as a member of the .01% I'd rather only build new infrastructure where I can guarantee only myself and select others will be able to utilize it. I wouldn't want to waste my money on something that might be ended up being used by the public.
    - baursak 10y ago
      Can't tell if this was sarcasm or a serious statement.
      - antisthenes 10y ago
        That depends on whether you have a bunker in New Zealand or not.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand could be in trouble if ocean acidification happens or weather patterns cause more drought (~80% hydro for energy generation and the arable land relies upon high rainfall).
        unFou 10y ago
        Can there even be non-localised drought on a small island the size of New Zealand? The only significant geographical feature in the North Island (where most people live) is 3 mountains right in the middle.
        knz 10y ago
        New Zealand is small enough that a localized drought can have significant impact. Most of the people do indeed live in the North Island but most of the power is generated in the South Island, particularly around the Mackenzie Basin/Otago area (dry highlands). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_... - sort the hydroelectric by capacity - most of the major dams are in this area.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        username223 10y ago
        New Zealand? Real players build their own islands.
    - vacri 10y ago
      The only people going to Mars for the foreseeable future will be those with explicitly useful skills that can only be done in person. The 0.01% are going to be dead weight up there unless they have such a skill. And given it's a one-way ticket... how much social pull will the 0.01% have over the people with actual skills. You may be a multibillionaire on earth, but being able to sell widgets to the masses isn't a skill that's going to be needed (or appreciated) on Mars for quite a while. Cut off from your wealth, you're just another mouth to feed.
      - flogic 10y ago
        More importantly if the population of earth is facing critical systems collapse, what are the odds of the next critical resupply mission the Mars colony actually launching. It's not like a martian colony would be self sufficient anytime soon.
- rbobby 10y ago
  We added too much CO2 to atmosphere so we'll move to a planet with an atmosphere of 100% CO2... sounds like a plan! :)
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The problem isn't CO₂. The problem is the roaming hordes of zomb^H^H^H^Hpeople displaced by rising ocean levels and subsequent collapse of civilized society. Mars doesn't have that :).
  - Raphmedia 10y ago
    If you can' beat them, join them?
username223 10y ago
You'll be fine. If you care about your offspring, try not to reproduce. With the various positive feedback loops (permafrost methane, arctic albedo, antarctic ice shelves), things are going to get ugly.
finid 10y ago
It doesn't make sense to blow the money by yourself. Send me some. And while you're at it, you might want to cancel any insurance that you have. Afterall, what's the point? That will make more money available to blow.

xapata 10y ago

Our grandchildren are in for tough times. Unless a political miracle occurs. Even then, it might be too late.

ythn 10y ago
More likely our models will turn out to be slightly wrong and it won't be as apocalyptic as we thought and we'll adjust according to our observed reality.
- pizza 10y ago
  What's the relative expected utility of assuming your best model is actually not as good as speculation?
  - taneq 10y ago
    Are we talking long term expectations or in the next quarterly budget? Because if the budget looks good I'm up for a raise.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Every single time the models have turned out to be wrong it's always been that they've been overly optimistic. Not once has there been an "oh, it wasn't as bad as we thought" moment. It's always worse. It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. If we panic for nothing that's better than brushing it off and having the worst possible outcome unfold because of inaction.
  - ythn 10y ago
    > It's going to be bad. A little panic is not a bad thing. It's always lose/lose for the skeptics: Scenario A: skeptics were wrong - "burn them at the stake, they screwed us all over!" Scenario B: skeptics were right - "well, they got lucky. It wasn't as apocalyptic as experts were claiming. They were still wrong to have rejected the evidence at hand and I was still right to have believed the evidence at hand"

kaybe 10y ago

I answered the second question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769896