7 ms·

> so in just one more lifetime they'll be where the world leaders are today. This is where you are probably wrong and which so often is used in the narrative o

by hannob 8y ago

> so in just one more lifetime they'll be where the world leaders are today. This is where you are probably wrong and which so often is used in the narrative of "things are getting better". You make an implicit assumption that this development will go on. It probably won't. The reason is climate change.

goatlover 8y ago
> It probably won't. The reason is climate change. But as is the case with automation predictions and massive net job destruction, it hasn't happened yet. So it's possible we're wrong about such predictions. We've been wrong in the past about environmental doom and job loss. Or maybe not this time, but we should keep that in mind and be a little bit skeptical about our current state of knowledge when predicting the future. It would be one thing if the trend was clearly toward things getting worse because of climate change. But it's not so far.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Anecdotally, I’ve seen more climate related disasters in the past year than in the previous 5 before that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- thiagoharry 8y ago
  We also have been wrong in the past about the end of poverty and the gap between countries. These predictions usually focus just in technology improvements, ignoring politics, both internal as international.
- sgift 8y ago
  > It would be one thing if the trend was clearly toward things getting worse because of climate change. But it's not so far. Someone tell Fiji, I'm sure they will be happy to hear that: https://unfccc.int/news/how-fiji-is-impacted-by-climate-change https://unfccc.int/news/how-fiji-is-impacted-by-climate-chan... https://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/first_village_relocated_due_to_climate_change/ https://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/first_village_relocated_due...
- onion2k 8y ago
  So it's possible we're wrong about such predictions. Not all predictions are equal. We're a lot better at modelling things now than we ever have been in the past. That's not to say we're definitely right this time, but the probability that we actually are right is much higher than at any point in history.
- pas 8y ago
  Climate change is not necessarily a doomsday for humanity. Just as great agriculture projects required a civilizational innovation, and just as Netherlands' constant work with the water led to a strong tradition of cooperation and responsibility sharing, climate change mitigation might motivate similar social and institutional changes elsewhere. Or not. After all populism and demagoguery is extremely powerful (see religions).
- empath75 8y ago
  It has happened. The world has warmed by a degree. Insects are dying off. Coral reefs are dying off. Phytoplankton is at risk of dying off, the antarctic ice sheets are collapsing, the arctic thaws out completely almost in the summer time, permafrost is thawing I’m Siberia and Canada what more do you want?
benj111 8y ago
"The reason is climate change." The reason isn't climate change. The Central African Republic has just come out of a civil war. Of course things are going to improve rapidly, because that farmer that was in a refugee camp can now go home and grow enough to barely feed his family. You can't extrapolate that out to the CAR overtaking first world countries in a generation simply because that farmer hasn't been educated to do the jobs that the economy would require, neither probably will his children. That's before getting into things like infrastructure, rule of law, etc, etc, etc. Edit: To clarify, I don't disagree that climate change will probably hurt the poorest countries disproportionately though.
- ljcn 8y ago
  You misunderstood - the user wrote that the improvement probably won't continue due to climate change (which is expected to negatively impact developing countries more than developed).
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    this is the difference between ecologist thinking and economist thinking. economists think in curves - starting from a low base it's very easy to improve fast, but the rate of improvement drops off as it nears the global average. ecologists think in straight lines - the rate of improvement is x/year, so in 50 years the improvement will be 50x and they'll be richer than Sweden, who are only improving at (x/10)/year.
    - pas 8y ago
      Why would ecologists think in straight lines? Don't they start with the Lotka-Volterra differential equations to model prey-predator population fluctuations? (Even if they learn just the concept, and not the underlying math.) Also, haven't they learn a bit about exponential bloom and decay of algae?
  - benj111 8y ago
    I reread and don't think I have. The parents contention is that climate change will prevent these countries becoming first world/that it will interrupt their growth. I'm saying even without climate change they won't become first world. Certainly not on the timescale suggested. Now I agree, climate change won't help. But the reason CAR isn't (now or in 50 years) a first world country is not down to climate change, its because they don't have any of the myriad things needed to support that type of economy.
igravious 8y ago
> It probably won't. The reason is climate change. Climate change is going to cause hardship, and aren't people going to respond? People respond to changing conditions all the time. In responding to change won't that cause economic activity? Where I live there are many flood relief schemes that have an overall budget in the 100s of millions. Multiply that by all the schemes needed the world over and you have a lot of economic activity. I know this is very close to the broken window fallacy but assuming that climate is a gradual process and not a cataclysmic one (and there's no evidence that it is) then mere capital will be deployed or destroyed and deployed. Humans can rebuild their capital. Sure, if it wasn't for climate change that capital would have been invested elsewhere but we're not talking about all capital everywhere. I think it extremely unlikely that the effects of climate change will put the breaks on human progress. However I do think it very possible that climate alarmists might cause policies to be put into place that would put the breaks on human progress. It'd be nice if we could come back here in a generation, in 2050 say, and see what the near-term outcomes were.

by hannob 8y ago

goatlover 8y ago

> It probably won't. The reason is climate change. But as is the case with automation predictions and massive net job destruction, it hasn't happened yet. So it's possible we're wrong about such predictions. We've been wrong in the past about environmental doom and job loss. Or maybe not this time, but we should keep that in mind and be a little bit skeptical about our current state of knowledge when predicting the future. It would be one thing if the trend was clearly toward things getting worse because of climate change. But it's not so far.

Aeolun 8y ago
Anecdotally, I’ve seen more climate related disasters in the past year than in the previous 5 before that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
thiagoharry 8y ago
We also have been wrong in the past about the end of poverty and the gap between countries. These predictions usually focus just in technology improvements, ignoring politics, both internal as international.
sgift 8y ago
> It would be one thing if the trend was clearly toward things getting worse because of climate change. But it's not so far. Someone tell Fiji, I'm sure they will be happy to hear that: https://unfccc.int/news/how-fiji-is-impacted-by-climate-change https://unfccc.int/news/how-fiji-is-impacted-by-climate-chan... https://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/first_village_relocated_due_to_climate_change/ https://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/first_village_relocated_due...
onion2k 8y ago
So it's possible we're wrong about such predictions. Not all predictions are equal. We're a lot better at modelling things now than we ever have been in the past. That's not to say we're definitely right this time, but the probability that we actually are right is much higher than at any point in history.
pas 8y ago
Climate change is not necessarily a doomsday for humanity. Just as great agriculture projects required a civilizational innovation, and just as Netherlands' constant work with the water led to a strong tradition of cooperation and responsibility sharing, climate change mitigation might motivate similar social and institutional changes elsewhere. Or not. After all populism and demagoguery is extremely powerful (see religions).
empath75 8y ago
It has happened. The world has warmed by a degree. Insects are dying off. Coral reefs are dying off. Phytoplankton is at risk of dying off, the antarctic ice sheets are collapsing, the arctic thaws out completely almost in the summer time, permafrost is thawing I’m Siberia and Canada what more do you want?

benj111 8y ago

"The reason is climate change." The reason isn't climate change. The Central African Republic has just come out of a civil war. Of course things are going to improve rapidly, because that farmer that was in a refugee camp can now go home and grow enough to barely feed his family. You can't extrapolate that out to the CAR overtaking first world countries in a generation simply because that farmer hasn't been educated to do the jobs that the economy would require, neither probably will his children. That's before getting into things like infrastructure, rule of law, etc, etc, etc. Edit: To clarify, I don't disagree that climate change will probably hurt the poorest countries disproportionately though.

ljcn 8y ago
You misunderstood - the user wrote that the improvement probably won't continue due to climate change (which is expected to negatively impact developing countries more than developed).
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  this is the difference between ecologist thinking and economist thinking. economists think in curves - starting from a low base it's very easy to improve fast, but the rate of improvement drops off as it nears the global average. ecologists think in straight lines - the rate of improvement is x/year, so in 50 years the improvement will be 50x and they'll be richer than Sweden, who are only improving at (x/10)/year.
  - pas 8y ago
    Why would ecologists think in straight lines? Don't they start with the Lotka-Volterra differential equations to model prey-predator population fluctuations? (Even if they learn just the concept, and not the underlying math.) Also, haven't they learn a bit about exponential bloom and decay of algae?
- benj111 8y ago
  I reread and don't think I have. The parents contention is that climate change will prevent these countries becoming first world/that it will interrupt their growth. I'm saying even without climate change they won't become first world. Certainly not on the timescale suggested. Now I agree, climate change won't help. But the reason CAR isn't (now or in 50 years) a first world country is not down to climate change, its because they don't have any of the myriad things needed to support that type of economy.

igravious 8y ago

> It probably won't. The reason is climate change. Climate change is going to cause hardship, and aren't people going to respond? People respond to changing conditions all the time. In responding to change won't that cause economic activity? Where I live there are many flood relief schemes that have an overall budget in the 100s of millions. Multiply that by all the schemes needed the world over and you have a lot of economic activity. I know this is very close to the broken window fallacy but assuming that climate is a gradual process and not a cataclysmic one (and there's no evidence that it is) then mere capital will be deployed or destroyed and deployed. Humans can rebuild their capital. Sure, if it wasn't for climate change that capital would have been invested elsewhere but we're not talking about all capital everywhere. I think it extremely unlikely that the effects of climate change will put the breaks on human progress. However I do think it very possible that climate alarmists might cause policies to be put into place that would put the breaks on human progress. It'd be nice if we could come back here in a generation, in 2050 say, and see what the near-term outcomes were.