3 ms·
Why? My instinct is the opposite: if 6 billion people die, we drop two orders of magnitude in biodiversity, most biomes die more or less completely (save a coup
by erikpukinskis 7y ago
Why? My instinct is the opposite: if 6 billion people die, we drop two orders of magnitude in biodiversity, most biomes die more or less completely (save a couple pioneer species) then we have 100 million people still living in nooks and crannies. Worst case in air conditioned spaces near nuclear plants. And those people re-engineer society in a more stable way.
That’s not a worst case or best case scenario, it’s a middle way. Worst case scenarios though could still include human survival through genetic modification (planet run by teenagers with bioengineered lungs) or underground air conditioned tunnels.
I just find total human extinction almost entirely implausible. Can you describe a scenario where that is the likely outcome?
It seems like 1000 PPM of CO2 is guaranteed, 5000 is theoretically possible but the lethal concentration for total human extinction is 10,000... is that even possible?
Or are we worried about temperature? Or cropland death?
- Jedd 7y ago> And those people re-engineer society in a more stable way. I am envious of your optimism, but I see no evidence to suggest that small communities of highly stressed and resource-starved humans can produce anything better than a much larger number of relatively non-stressed humans with easy access to abundant resources. I wasn't proposing any particular scenario that would cause a civilisational collapse, merely that a large supply of free, easy to obtain, high-density energy may be a prerequisite for any transition to an industrial age (and naturally all that may follow). I accept we only have one data point to hand, but it doesn't contradict this proposition.