3 ms·
> would leave the Earth uninhabitable to pretty much all higher life forms. Why are you ruling that scenario out?
by empath75 8y ago
> would leave the Earth uninhabitable to pretty much all higher life forms.
Why are you ruling that scenario out?
- eloff 8y agoI don't see us doing that to ourselves. Climate change won't accomplish that, nuclear war won't accomplish that, biological warfare gone wrong wouldn't likely accomplish that. I just don't see it happening. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
- guelo 8y agoAnything above around 7 degrees of warming puts the human species itself at risk. Above 3 degrees civilization falls apart. Both of these are within range of possibility in the lifespan of children born today. All it would take is a few more Trump-style presidencies.
- mehrdadn 8y ago> Anything above around 7 degrees of warming puts the human species itself at risk. Above 3 degrees civilization falls apart. Could you elaborate/provide links on this? How/why would these happen?
- irrational 8y agoI think the OPs point is even then there would still be enough humans around to keep the species going. They probably wouldn't have todays technological benefits, but a few thousand humans could probably survive.
- mrpopo 8y ago> All it would take is a few more Trump-style presidencies. I agree with the first statement, but so far, Trump presidency was not exactly a bad thing for the climate. Economic war with China and renationalisation have positive impacts on CO2 emissions. Iran sanctions increased oil prices. Coal subsidies haven't succeeded in reviving the coal industry. Poor, uneducated families still die from drug overdoses and immigration has decreased, reducing the US population growth. I know that not all of these things are glorious, but I just wanted to point out that the bigger picture is more complicated than that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]