4 ms·
I mean, you are absolutely, 100% incorrect. It's textbook fallacy. X is tough, Y was tough, we survived Y, and therefore we can survive X. The planet has never
by throwaway5752 8y ago
I mean, you are absolutely, 100% incorrect. It's textbook fallacy. X is tough, Y was tough, we survived Y, and therefore we can survive X.
The planet has never been through warming as rapid as what we are going through in known geological (not human) history. There was a paper hosted and copublished by NASA to that effect in the last month. It's literally unknown how much life can survive the velocity of the change that is in progress.
What "history books" should I read about climate science, too?
- toasterlovin 8y agoClimate change has caused famine and strife for humans in the past. It's one of the more common reasons for civilizational decline. Sure, this round of climate change is worse. But our ability to fend for ourselves is better.
- throwaway5752 8y agoAgain, 100% fallacy. "Sure, this round of climate change is worse." and comparing that to another change (our coping ability) with no discussion of magnitude. The degree of climate change is not just "worse". It's without precedent in geologic history in velocity of change. Our improved ability to fend for ourselves is many orders of magnitude less that the degree of change that is happening. You can read your history books and multiple it by 100 or 1000.
- toasterlovin 8y agoThe scale of both differences is unknown. Current rate of climate change is unprecedented. Human civilizational complexity is also unprecedented. There is no way to know what the outcome will be. Period. Given that, it would be pretty stupid to preemptively quit.
- throwaway5752 8y agoNobody's quitting. Recognizing the gravity of our situation is essentially the opposite of quitting.