3 ms·

Yes, and the fact that business isn't betting on "climate adaptation" technology here at home feels like this is still far off or won't be as apocalyptic as the

Yes, and the fact that business isn't betting on "climate adaptation" technology here at home feels like this is still far off or won't be as apocalyptic as the article suggests. If the worst does come to pass, I'm sure it will alter life as we know it, but the danger would probably be more to animals that can't compensate with technology like we can.

mikelyons 9y ago
You're not taking into account the fundamental interconnectedness of all things on this planet and in the universe.
omosubi 9y ago
you're vastly overestimating humans' collective ability to compensate with technology. for one, all 7 billion people on earth are affected by global warming. Propagating any technological advancement to 7 billion people is difficult let alone one as complex as this. 2nd even if we had the technology to capture and return carbon and pollution to pre-industrial levels, the cultural changes needed to keep those levels down just simply wouldn't be accepted by the population. ready to limit your meat intake to at most once a week and never fly on a plane again? didn't think so. Also, the estimates given in the article are _median_ estimates. there are a few worst case scenarios thrown in but for all intents and purposes the article describes what is basically guaranteed to happen. you're being far too optimistic.
dragonsky67 9y ago
Historically in natural systems when there are large changes in the environment, such as deforestation, salination of waterways or introduction of more a more successful niche occupant you see massive die off of the apex species. In this case there are 8 billion members of the apex species. Humans will survive, but it's not going to be much fun until the new normal emerges. Technology will help, but it will only cushion the fall, not prevent it, and only if we react quickly enough to reduce the impact. When enough people start starving they will start looking for food and water wherever they can find it, and they won't be very charitable towards those who they believe caused the problem.
- lproven 9y ago
  That's a foolishly simplistic view. From simple models -- e.g. foxes and rabbits: https://niko.roorda.nu/computer-programs/fox-rabbit-theoretical-model/ https://niko.roorda.nu/computer-programs/fox-rabbit-theoreti... -- to more complex web models -- http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004440.. http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou.... In any such models, sometimes, with extreme population growth of any one member species, the result can be collapse so severe that that species goes totally extinct. We're not looking at a simple redistribution. We're looking at exponential explosions, and they tend to be followed by a total collapse.

mikelyons 9y ago

You're not taking into account the fundamental interconnectedness of all things on this planet and in the universe.

omosubi 9y ago

you're vastly overestimating humans' collective ability to compensate with technology. for one, all 7 billion people on earth are affected by global warming. Propagating any technological advancement to 7 billion people is difficult let alone one as complex as this. 2nd even if we had the technology to capture and return carbon and pollution to pre-industrial levels, the cultural changes needed to keep those levels down just simply wouldn't be accepted by the population. ready to limit your meat intake to at most once a week and never fly on a plane again? didn't think so. Also, the estimates given in the article are _median_ estimates. there are a few worst case scenarios thrown in but for all intents and purposes the article describes what is basically guaranteed to happen. you're being far too optimistic.

dragonsky67 9y ago

Historically in natural systems when there are large changes in the environment, such as deforestation, salination of waterways or introduction of more a more successful niche occupant you see massive die off of the apex species. In this case there are 8 billion members of the apex species. Humans will survive, but it's not going to be much fun until the new normal emerges. Technology will help, but it will only cushion the fall, not prevent it, and only if we react quickly enough to reduce the impact. When enough people start starving they will start looking for food and water wherever they can find it, and they won't be very charitable towards those who they believe caused the problem.

lproven 9y ago
That's a foolishly simplistic view. From simple models -- e.g. foxes and rabbits: https://niko.roorda.nu/computer-programs/fox-rabbit-theoretical-model/ https://niko.roorda.nu/computer-programs/fox-rabbit-theoreti... -- to more complex web models -- http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004440.. http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou.... In any such models, sometimes, with extreme population growth of any one member species, the result can be collapse so severe that that species goes totally extinct. We're not looking at a simple redistribution. We're looking at exponential explosions, and they tend to be followed by a total collapse.