5 ms·

1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option? 2. "R

1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option? 2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight. 3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries? Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.

graeme 10y ago
Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now" 1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would. And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change. But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods. What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade? I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement. Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?
saiya-jin 10y ago
You remind me of a joke about guy falling from high balcony who keeps telling himself "20th floor, so far so good..." Well, maybe you are a prepper and this is what you dream about on long sleepless nights, or you just don't care. That's irrelevant. One of the options down the road (in exactly the direction we are heading to, and we don't have clue if we get there or not) is something along permian-trassic mass extinction [1]. Maybe we can survive that dig somewhere deep enough. Or matrix style survival is fine. That's just a challenge too, right? Oh I forgot I am most probably talking to needy troll, sorry. Our children and their children will not be so kind when judging their ancestors though... [1] random http://www.nature.com/news/acidic-oceans-linked-to-greatest-extinction-ever-1.17276 http://www.nature.com/news/acidic-oceans-linked-to-greatest-...

graeme 10y ago

Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now" 1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would. And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change. But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods. What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade? I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement. Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?

saiya-jin 10y ago

You remind me of a joke about guy falling from high balcony who keeps telling himself "20th floor, so far so good..." Well, maybe you are a prepper and this is what you dream about on long sleepless nights, or you just don't care. That's irrelevant. One of the options down the road (in exactly the direction we are heading to, and we don't have clue if we get there or not) is something along permian-trassic mass extinction [1]. Maybe we can survive that dig somewhere deep enough. Or matrix style survival is fine. That's just a challenge too, right? Oh I forgot I am most probably talking to needy troll, sorry. Our children and their children will not be so kind when judging their ancestors though... [1] random http://www.nature.com/news/acidic-oceans-linked-to-greatest-extinction-ever-1.17276 http://www.nature.com/news/acidic-oceans-linked-to-greatest-...