3 ms·

> which sounds way too good to be true Based on what?

• AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Based on what I'd expect the rate to be. I'd expect the rate to be much higher. Why would I expect that? Because of all the "sky is falling" rhetoric. I don't expect that to mean the sky is falling over the next 10,000 years; I expect it to mean that the sky is falling now. [Edit: Note that I am not saying that this is good news - just that it is considerably less bad than I expected.]
  • mirimir 7y ago
    The "next 10,000 years" is "now", from an evolutionary perspective.
    • TeMPOraL 7y ago
      10 000 years is also 2x more than entire recorded history, and about the time since humans stopped being subject to biological evolution as the main driver of development. 10 000 years is a lot of time. Compared to other climate issues, with consequences expected in decades, this deserves at best a "cool, we'll fix that in a century or two, if technological civilization still exists by that time".
      • mirimir 7y ago
        Maybe so. But it's a gamble. If species that we depend on go, such as pollinators, we'll be SOL. On the other hand, I do agree with your practical assessment: > "cool, we'll fix that in a century or two, if technological civilization still exists by that time". Because, if for no other reason, it probably won't. And there's also the fact that it's a human impact that can't likely be mitigated in any other way than collapse of the human population.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]