3 ms·

That global warming is man made and likely to produce catastrophic results, seems well documented now. (possibly 10s or 100s of millions of deaths over the next

That global warming is man made and likely to produce catastrophic results, seems well documented now. (possibly 10s or 100s of millions of deaths over the next 200 years, along with a number of species going extinct). But any claims of cataclysmic outcomes (collapse of most civilizations or even extinction) seems unlikely, as far as I can tell. There are other possible events that are much more likely to produce that kind of results. Here is my list of fears: 1. Runaway AI (>40% over the next 200 years) 2. Nuclear War (>20% over the next 200 years) 3. Runaway nanotech 4. Runaway biotech 5. Runaway, cataclysmic global warming effects (full ecosystem collapse, ice age triggered, >5 degree warming, etc)

randyrand 8y ago
this is my feeling to. the 10s or 100s of millions of people that die will mostly be from A) children not being born that otherwise would have been B) indirect deaths - a few years off life expectancy
- trashtester 8y ago
  I'm less optimistic than this. The 10s or 100s I was referring to would be due to events like famines, wars directly caused by climate change, hurricanes, etc. Still, even 200million over 200 years is not a cataclysm. In fact, the reduction we've seen in global hunger over the past generation is a greater effect than that (in the opposite direction). Which is NOT to say that 200 million deaths is not a problem! It just needs to be seen in perspective.
awestroke 8y ago
You should read the article The Uninhabitable Earth[1] by David Wallace-Wells on NyMag. It's a good primer on the current information and predictions. [1]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...
- trashtester 8y ago
  Thanks for the link. I've seen most of these points before, I think. My impression is that this view is a fringe view within the academic community. Do you have any references to indicate that this is actually becoming an academic consensus? To be clear: I'm all for taking the possible actions in order to slow down the global warming. Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most concerned about global warming. Even the worst case outcome for nuclear is better than the best case outcome for coal...
  - bigbugbag 8y ago
    > Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most concerned about global warming. You cannot fix the issue with a change of paradigm, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear will not fix climate change simply because if we switched all plant to nuclear overnight we would run out of fuel in a matter of decades. The only solution is obvious and it is a decrease of energy use to sustainable levels. Do not consume more than what we can sustainably produce is the only possible way. This means a drastic reduction of population which has only been possible due to a prolonged lifestyle of overconsumption and it will happen whether we want it or not.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      If we can postpone the problem by decades, I would consider that a huge win. Maybe we could control fusion by then. Also, nuclear plays fairly well with renewable energy sources, many of which are also getting cheaper (especially solar). If we take global warming serously, I see absolutely no reason that we should continue to burn coal, except that it is a bit cheaper than nuclear given the current safety regulations for nuclear. Let's agree to ban coal, and then we can discuss to what extent we should add nuclear energy capacity to replace at least some of it. As for reducing the population, I'm curious about how exactly you think we could achieve that?

randyrand 8y ago

this is my feeling to. the 10s or 100s of millions of people that die will mostly be from A) children not being born that otherwise would have been B) indirect deaths - a few years off life expectancy

trashtester 8y ago
I'm less optimistic than this. The 10s or 100s I was referring to would be due to events like famines, wars directly caused by climate change, hurricanes, etc. Still, even 200million over 200 years is not a cataclysm. In fact, the reduction we've seen in global hunger over the past generation is a greater effect than that (in the opposite direction). Which is NOT to say that 200 million deaths is not a problem! It just needs to be seen in perspective.

awestroke 8y ago

You should read the article The Uninhabitable Earth[1] by David Wallace-Wells on NyMag. It's a good primer on the current information and predictions. [1]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...

trashtester 8y ago
Thanks for the link. I've seen most of these points before, I think. My impression is that this view is a fringe view within the academic community. Do you have any references to indicate that this is actually becoming an academic consensus? To be clear: I'm all for taking the possible actions in order to slow down the global warming. Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most concerned about global warming. Even the worst case outcome for nuclear is better than the best case outcome for coal...
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most concerned about global warming. You cannot fix the issue with a change of paradigm, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear will not fix climate change simply because if we switched all plant to nuclear overnight we would run out of fuel in a matter of decades. The only solution is obvious and it is a decrease of energy use to sustainable levels. Do not consume more than what we can sustainably produce is the only possible way. This means a drastic reduction of population which has only been possible due to a prolonged lifestyle of overconsumption and it will happen whether we want it or not.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    If we can postpone the problem by decades, I would consider that a huge win. Maybe we could control fusion by then. Also, nuclear plays fairly well with renewable energy sources, many of which are also getting cheaper (especially solar). If we take global warming serously, I see absolutely no reason that we should continue to burn coal, except that it is a bit cheaper than nuclear given the current safety regulations for nuclear. Let's agree to ban coal, and then we can discuss to what extent we should add nuclear energy capacity to replace at least some of it. As for reducing the population, I'm curious about how exactly you think we could achieve that?