4 ms·

How many people have to die for you to consider it a threat to humanity. Not trying to be dramatic, just understand that small changes in climate and crops have

How many people have to die for you to consider it a threat to humanity. Not trying to be dramatic, just understand that small changes in climate and crops have the potential to starve millions if not billions.

krageon 8y ago
For humanity to be properly threatened the threat needs to make humanity stop existing. Starving/dying people are bad, but not unusual even in current day to day life. It might even ramp up, that's really bad. But that doesn't make it a threat to humanity as a whole.
- rnernento 8y ago
  I take the question as humanity as a whole, not just the existence of humanity. If something is capable of wiping out 50% of humanity, I consider that a threat. I understand what you're saying though.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?
    - rnernento 8y ago
      50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die? People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature. Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions. We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected. So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either. It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods. This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.
        krageon 8y ago
        I feel like I need to weigh in here: You're taking this a bit too far. I didn't mean to imply anywhere that nothing needs to be done about climate change. I think it is essential that we do, and demanding "evidence that billions will die" is to my mind perhaps being purposely deaf to the reality of the situation as it is and will be.
        yesenadam 8y ago
        "Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to impossible standards and then complaining that they're not met. I have no idea what they mean "If someone want to convince me...they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change...won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now." .. "There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes" A shortage of what?! One is supposed to demonstrate the future somehow, or give a deductive proof, or something? What would count as evidence that events predicted by scientists will occur? I'm not sure. Nothing, it seems. It seems any prediction or forecast about almost anything can equally be called 'certainly not scientific', 'politics masquaraded as science', 'speculations...not scientifically demonstrated' etc etc. I guess the probability of asteroids hitting the earth is independent of the stuff happening here, of human plans and actions, so can't similarly be accused of being politics in disguise. But most issues on this planet - all the other ones I can think of - aren't of that kind.
mycorrhizal 8y ago
The cynical answer is about 7-15: themselves, their family and close friends. Or at least thats how it appears in the US given how little we do about it, even though we (half) give it plenty of lip service.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  What do you want to do exactly about it which won't itself potentially cause harm and that you know will help.
  - mycorrhizal 8y ago
    What kind of question is that? Do you seriously expect me to give an "exact" solution? Furthermore how many complicated issues have solutions that have no potential to cause harm and are guaranteed to help. I think it is pretty clear at this point that there is no magic solution to climate change and we have to make some collective sacrifices. Individually I did make a "sacrifice" by going vegan. After 3 years I haven't noticed any harm and I'm confident it has helped about epsilon amount. I guess that fits your criteria.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      And my question again is simply what do you propose we should do collectively that's not going to be just as big a threat itself?

krageon 8y ago

For humanity to be properly threatened the threat needs to make humanity stop existing. Starving/dying people are bad, but not unusual even in current day to day life. It might even ramp up, that's really bad. But that doesn't make it a threat to humanity as a whole.

rnernento 8y ago
I take the question as humanity as a whole, not just the existence of humanity. If something is capable of wiping out 50% of humanity, I consider that a threat. I understand what you're saying though.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?
  - rnernento 8y ago
    50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die? People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature. Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions. We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected. So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either. It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods. This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.
      - krageon 8y ago
        I feel like I need to weigh in here: You're taking this a bit too far. I didn't mean to imply anywhere that nothing needs to be done about climate change. I think it is essential that we do, and demanding "evidence that billions will die" is to my mind perhaps being purposely deaf to the reality of the situation as it is and will be.
        yesenadam 8y ago
        "Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to impossible standards and then complaining that they're not met. I have no idea what they mean "If someone want to convince me...they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change...won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now." .. "There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes" A shortage of what?! One is supposed to demonstrate the future somehow, or give a deductive proof, or something? What would count as evidence that events predicted by scientists will occur? I'm not sure. Nothing, it seems. It seems any prediction or forecast about almost anything can equally be called 'certainly not scientific', 'politics masquaraded as science', 'speculations...not scientifically demonstrated' etc etc. I guess the probability of asteroids hitting the earth is independent of the stuff happening here, of human plans and actions, so can't similarly be accused of being politics in disguise. But most issues on this planet - all the other ones I can think of - aren't of that kind.

mycorrhizal 8y ago

The cynical answer is about 7-15: themselves, their family and close friends. Or at least thats how it appears in the US given how little we do about it, even though we (half) give it plenty of lip service.

ThomPete 8y ago
What do you want to do exactly about it which won't itself potentially cause harm and that you know will help.
- mycorrhizal 8y ago
  What kind of question is that? Do you seriously expect me to give an "exact" solution? Furthermore how many complicated issues have solutions that have no potential to cause harm and are guaranteed to help. I think it is pretty clear at this point that there is no magic solution to climate change and we have to make some collective sacrifices. Individually I did make a "sacrifice" by going vegan. After 3 years I haven't noticed any harm and I'm confident it has helped about epsilon amount. I guess that fits your criteria.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    And my question again is simply what do you propose we should do collectively that's not going to be just as big a threat itself?