8 ms·
11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change
- Avshalom 9y agoThe thing about getting knocked back to the stone age is that if you're the Jetsons it's the end of the world, if you're the Flintstones it's a Tuesday.
- melling 9y agoWe’ll survive too. It’s just going to cost a fortune. 9 billion people on the planet by 2050. The US debt is $21 trillion and we’re adding a trillion a year. We’re going to need both an economic and technological miracle in about 50 years.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoHow do you think the US debt plays into that?
- thaumaturgy 9y agoFor a slightly more local and recent example, the cost of California's 2017 wildfire season exceeded $9.4 billion (http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188377854.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188...), and became a serious political football between the country's wealthiest state and the federal government. The federal government additionally had hurricane and flood damage events, among others, totaling a record-breaking $306 billion for 2017 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historic-year https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017...). These numbers aren't going to trend downward anytime soon. A lot of the cost is absorbed through private means -- insurance, private funds and donations, and a lot of unfortunate people just end up eating the cost -- but if the federal government were to try to cover everything related to natural disasters, it would approximately rival the interest paid each year on federal debt. We are seeing now the beginnings of the effects that scientists started warning us about 30 years ago. They aren't going to go away. They're only going to get bigger and more expensive and, like frogs in boiling water, we'll continue debating the merits of climate science while paying for the destruction of entire communities and it won't even occur to us that the things are related. So as US deficits continue to increase and the tax-and-spend cycle continues through several different administrations, other programs are going to get cut back in an attempt to reduce debt (or to pay for whatever administration's favorite thing is today). People who don't live in coastal areas or areas prone to wildfire, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter weather, or other climate-related natural disasters, might think, hey, I'll be okay. But the money's gotta come out of somebody's pockets.
- melling 9y agoWe’re going to be in no position to pay to “address” the problems. Relocating people, changing cities, etc will be expensive. Do we save the expensive real estate or buy people out?
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoThe US having lots of national debt does not mean that we don't have money to spend. The large amount of debt we have is much more of an indication that people believe the US will be around for a very long time than an indication that we've over drawn or will have trouble raising more funds.
- ianai 9y agoThis also makes me wonder if the forces against our debt aren’t rooted in foreign lobbying/corruption or the government.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoHonestly it's a pretty easy jump to make given how individuals interact with debt. I wouldn't attribute it to malice or subversion unless there was stronger evidence.
- wpietri 9y agoLarge amounts of debt definitely make it more likely that we'll have trouble raising more funds, because greater debt means greater risk of default, which means a higher risk premium. And right now we're near historic highs: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-t... This will surely be made worse in that a) we're moving out of a US-centric era and toward a more multipolar world, and b) recent US politics would make any serious lender wonder how likely they are to get paid back.
- fineline 9y agoIf that "debt" is denominated in USD, the US cannot default. Really what is national debt in a nation with soft (non-exchangeable for gold) sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt other than an increase in the money supply - or a commitment to make such increase when bonds mature?
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoIf you have to pay a lot for food and shelter this month it helps if you're not already significantly in the hole?
- ggggtez 9y agoYour intuition based on your finances, does not apply at the scale of a country. Remember, they can just go to war to take what they want. It's not the same.
- ianai 9y agoIf anything, the debt solidifies the US position as the global currency standard. The US literally owes the world trillions of dollars. Exactly as if the rest of the world were requesting out currency for use.
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoIn the old joke when you owe the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem it's not noted that sometimes the bank decides not to let you owe it 2 million dollars as a way of mitigating the problem. At any rate the comment was regarding problems 20 years in the future. I don't know that the U.S will continue as the global currency standard for various reasons.
- ianai 9y agoUnless oil is no longer the chief source of energy. Ultimately I think the US may do fine for itself so long as it protects its natural resources and researches (to ultimately switch to) alternative energy.
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoI'm pretty sure I could steal food too, but it might not go as well as expected. And there is the problem of transporting one's ill-gotten gains. I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.
- craftyguy 9y agoNot only a financial fortune, but I suspect a fortune in human lives too. There will be conflict. For instance, when a river over here dries up and a new one over there is formed due to changing weather patterns, or some land over there is no longer productive agriculturally due to desertification but your neighbor has new productive land that just opened up. "Surviving" and "prospering" (and even "maintaining status quo") are completely different things.
- beisner 9y agoOne of the most devastating aspects of colonialism in Africa was the soil depletion caused by short-sighted colonial planters who planted resource-hungry cash crops. There are large tracts of land in various parts of Africa that once were extremely agriculturally productive but because of this depletion are quite barren. This has had cascading consequences for long-term development in Africa, and has been a non-trivial factor in exacerbating poverty and famine. I mention this because climate change, while it might not have an outsized immediate effect on the countries that control the most guns/wealth, it could have major immediate consequences for populations with food insecurity, and therefore long-term consequences for populations that we currently consider food-secure. This extends to violent conflict as well.
- at-fates-hands 9y ago> One of the most devastating aspects of colonialism in Africa was the soil depletion caused by short-sighted colonial planters who planted resource-hungry cash crops. I love this slanted viewpoint. Of course deforestation, drought, erosion, population pressures, or the geologically induced and inherently low soil fertility had anything to do with it, did it? Nope, it was all the stupid white farmers fault.
- said 9y agoIf this is one of the most devastating aspects of colonialism, then colonialism must not have been very bad. Before we have a conversation about this, I urge everyone to research the degree of soil depletion in formerly-colonized Africa, and then compare that to the degree of soil depletion elsewhere in the world (including never-colonized parts of Africa). (For bonus points, research how much of that soil depletion occurred since the end colonialism). The numbers are widely available. Colonial crop management was a boon for native Africans, not a bust.
- mpg33 9y agoIs it? We already have people living in very cold conditions and very hot conditions today...we have insulated housing/air conditioning/clothing...what's going to big the difference 30 years from now? A lot of alarmism if you ask me.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoLocal tempature variation is just one of the threats. If you want a fairly serious organization's take on what the major threats are here is the DoD: ) Persistently recurring conditions such as flooding, drought, and higher temperatures ) More frequent and/or more severe extreme weather events ) Sea level rise and temperature changes ) Decreases in Arctic ice cover, type, and thickness http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-... One thing that short 2015 report does not cover is reduction in crop yields that frequently lead to conflict.
- Retra 9y agoPeople need food. Food doesn't grow well in very hot and very cold conditions, nor in very wet or very dry conditions. And most other animals don't survive well outside the environment they evolved to live in.
- hyperdunc 9y agoLess food, fewer people. More space for those who remain - until adaptation leads to another population increase.
- cctt23 9y agoAnd that’s totally how it works, less food is produced, so people just say, “Oh well, time to die.” They don’t become desperate, they don’t migrate en masse, and they don’t go to war, it’s just a peaceful loss of a few billion lives to make more room for you. All of that assuming we’re not swimming in technological miracles like some others here are saying. Fusion is right around the corner! We’re going to grow cows in test tubes for free! No wonder we’re screwed.
- have_faith 9y ago> The US debt is $21 trillion So just reset it to zero.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoThat's a bit rough on anyone owed part of that $21 trillion. Who are those people? People with pensions. Some people with IRAs or 401Ks, depending on their investment mix. The kid whose grandma gave him a savings bond. And, indirectly, lots of people who are going to expect their insurance company to have the money to pay their claim...
- seibelj 9y agoThey wouldn't default on the debt, they would just print $21T more dollars to pay it. This would only work once.
- hanoz 9y agoIf you can't manage without running a deficit of a trillion dollars a year, i.e. having other people do a trillion dollars worth of work for you every year on the slate, how do you think you'll manage when those people don't believe you're good for the money?
- wpietri 9y agoHistorically, defaulting on your debts is not a good way to get people to lend you more money. And a US debt default would surely cause economic chaos of the sort that reduces economic output, meaning national income would be down.
- michaelmrose 9y agoMoney in a way isn't a real thing but a symbol representing things like work and possessions. It's entirely possible to artificially overvalue things like the rich having a piece of paper claiming ownership of things and build up an infinite obligation to work our entire lives away to fulfill that paper obligation without society as a whole being short on resources or labor. When said obligations become ruinous and paper title to nearly everything is held by nearly no one perhaps those obligations will be reevaluated.
- GirlsCanCode 9y agoBut you'll be ok because you have Bitcoin!
- maxerickson 9y agoI think you are looking at the debt wrong. It isn't evidence of strained resources, it accumulates when the government tries to generate extra productivity over what the economy would produce without it. Put another way, the debt is an IOU for extra work that has already been done. Maybe we should add another trillion a year for projects that make us more resilient against the climate.
- tabs_masterrace 9y agoWe'll see, but some technologies have the potential to change the face of the planet in ways we can barley imagine. If nuclear fusion takes off, we have more power then we ever need, and mass pumping Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a viable thing suddenly. Then there are looming miracles in food production. Lab grown meat and indoor farming in high rise buildings could massively raise food supply. And lastly, autonomous robots doing construction & logistic work, and beyond that replacing basically every heavy lifting job on the planet. There are ~50 millions or so car produced annually, what if we started to pump these kind of numbers in robots? There could be "landscaping projects". Throw all these technologies together and earth might look like Coruscant sooner then we think.
- kerkeslager 9y agoYeah, but where's the incentive? > If nuclear fusion takes off, we have more power then we ever need, and mass pumping Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a viable thing suddenly. ...and it will still be cheaper for the rich to climate control their own domes than the entire atmosphere. > Then there are looming miracles in food production. Lab grown meat and indoor farming in high rise buildings could massively raise food supply. ...for those who can pay for it. > And lastly, autonomous robots doing construction & logistic work, and beyond that replacing basically every heavy lifting job on the planet. There are ~50 millions or so car produced annually, what if we started to pump these kind of numbers in robots? There could be "landscaping projects". ...and robots would consolidate all of the money into the hands of the wealthy elite even more, since they no longer have to pay workers. Technology is important but ultimately it is only a tool. Without massive social change, technology will continue to fall into the hands of people who only use it to enrich themselves.
- eloff 9y agoOur cities will continue to grow and develop, but that doesn't use much space. Lab grown meat and vertical farms have the potential to actually increase the size of the wild spaces on Earth, even at double or triple our current population.
- mmanfrin 9y agoLiteral survivorship bias. Our ancestors did, but many others did not.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ianai 9y agoFrom what I’ve read, they’re talking about a cooling event. We’re talking about entire sections of the earth becoming uninhabitable by even modern day civilization. As someone who just moved from very hot to dry but cooler, you can always heat a place up easily but cooling down is never enough.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoIt seems like heat dissipation is one of the problems that will be with us for a loong time.
- Aloha 9y agoHumanity may very well survive. You may not.
- quickthrower2 9y agoHumanity is a temporary situation. We're going extinct or going to evolve into something else eventually.
- tasty_freeze 9y agoQ: "What do you want on your pizza?" A: "I don't care; eventually I'll be dead anyway" While a true statement, it minimizes the real implications of a valid question.
- quickthrower2 9y agoI take your point. Yummy pizza definitely snaps me out of existentialism.
- yorby 9y agoCNN, what was the cause of that climate change?
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoWhy are you addressing CNN as if they will respond to your comment?
- yorby 9y agoI don't think that CNN is very connected, but that was just a test..
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sintaxi 9y agoA cataclysmic event around 11,600-12,800 years ago is absolutely what the evidence suggests and nobody covers the topic better than Graham Hancock. Though he seems to think there were both hunter and gatherers and an advanced civilization based on the discovery of Gobekli Tepe and other megalithic architecture located in Peru, Easter Island, Bolivia, China, Egypt, Mexico, & Japan. Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic last week. This is well worth viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs edit: Down voters should leave a comment. I'm curious what you have to say as I've spent a lot of time researching this topic.
- fractallyte 9y agoI didn't downvote you, but it's most likely because Hancock's ideas are considered pseudoscientific. He has no academic credentials: has not subjected his ideas to peer review, or published in any recognized journals. Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." (That said, these lazy 'drive-by downvoters' are extremely annoying. If any of them are reading this, shame on you.)
- sintaxi 9y agoYou are likely right. I don't refute that those accusations exist. Hancock is a curious writer who bases his theories on the discoveries of all disciplines such as geology, physics, engineering, & oral history, from both the academic and non-academic alike which a small handful of very powerful archeologists seem to have a large issue with. In particular Hancock refused to dismiss and instead validated Robert Schoch's Sphinx water erosion timeline and Robert Bouval's Orion Correlation Theory which both essentially discredits Zahi Hawass's work. I think the using the term `pseudoscience` is going too far when describing Hancock, though I know there was a BBC documentary where he was described that way. His work is supported and respected by many and I even dare say the most competent academics in their field. Hancock visits all the sites and talks to every expert he can. I believe he even spent 2 years performing over 200 dives to explore underwater sites off the coast in Japan. He takes this subject as seriously as anyone in the field and his commitment is undeniable. > Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." FWIW - I specifically chose those words for this reason :)
- diego_moita 9y agoAs they say in the stock market: "Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results"
- 8bitsrule 9y agoYeah.... if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't be ancestors ....