7 ms·

Are we doomed? It seems like we might be doomed

chadcmulligan 7y ago
I'd guess like any environment if the species population (humans) exceeds the carrying capacity of the land (earth) then there will be a die back.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
TL;DR: Yup, we're doomed. Read or listen to David Wallace-Wells' Uninhabitable Earth[1] and/or Jem Bendell's Deep Adaptation[2] and decide for yourself. Both a couple of years old, neither will leave you the slightest bit optimistic. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... [2] https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/ https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley). And it will be technology that saves us in the future. Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.
    - ridewinter 7y ago
      Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. [1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...
      - incompatible 7y ago
        Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. Which is neither here nor there. We care for the part where its habitable and we're on it, not for the part when it was molten lava... >It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley) Not really, we've lived in most of the places we live now and had civilizations 2000 and 5000 and 10000 years ago. And animals more or less like us lived there far more. Technology like fire, stone and iron tools helped made things more palatable, but it's not "only technology" that allows us to live in Africa (heck, tons of tribes lived there even 50-100 years ago with little/no technology), Asia, Europe, etc, and in no way it's only modern technology. >Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain. Perhaps people care more for scientific claims and concrete technologies, and less for magic thinking and faith, which "technological optimism" is, as if we have some certain contract with the universe to find just the right technologies, in the right time, to save us...
  - titzer 7y ago
    I didn't downvote you but I would be tempted to. Imagine you were standing on the sidelines watching Notre Dame burning down and made a similar statement. Meanwhile a fire hydrant and fire hose were nearby, unused. And twenty bystanders like you were standing there facing the other way, unaware, chatting about trivia while (unknowingly) leaking gasoline out their butts right onto it. Your comment would be massively misplaced and probably overall harmful in the grand scheme of things. We need to fight this.
    - ridewinter 7y ago
      Pretty sure what I’m saying is to use the dang fire hydrant in addition to removing unnecessary wood from the cathedral.
- geedy 7y ago
  David Wallace wells isn't your best source. His work has been criticized for misrepresenting the science by many reputable climate scientists, many of which are easy to find online. It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth. Whether or not his tactic is ethical is worth debate perhaps, but whether his picture is reflective of what climate scientists believe is an answered question (its not). The situation is bad, but we need not become defeatist, lest we give up entirely.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Some climate scientists criticised him, an apparently similar number have expressed support. > "It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth" I think you misrepresent. He's made it clear he's a journalist who made effort to understand and present the science. There were a few mistakes as notably pointed out by Mann. Hardly "choosing to stretch the truth". Given the IPCC's consistently conservative view, that encourages a too little, too late response, I would rather an excessively pessimistic view pushed us to respond "too soon". After all if some tipping points are passed, bringing it back from the brink will be just about impossible... If we overreact we get clean energy sooner. Events in the two years since seem to reinforce the pessimistic view. Sea level rise tracks the worst case IPCC estimates. Etc.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    > being called too alarmist I've never heard of any of his material, but is it really possibly to be too alarmist in our current state? I mean honestly, most of the world doesn't understands the magnitude and gravity of the events taking place and the runaway train that we're on.
    - geedy 7y ago
      If we take on defeatist language, we will be defeated. Scaring people into inaction by accepting defeat isn't a productive path forward.
ridewinter 7y ago
No, we’ve been on the brink of annihilation many times and have found a way through. We cannot predict what new knowledge will be discovered to solve these problems. But we must keep trying.
- rosybox 7y ago
  When have we been on the brink of annihilation before?
  - ridewinter 7y ago
    There’s the multiple population bottlenecks in our DNA history [1]. The close calls in world wars and cold wars. Etc. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842629/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842629/
    - abraae 7y ago
      The cold wars were called that because they never actually became war. And the world war's combined impact on global populations was only a couple of percentage points. Neither remotely qualifies as being on the brink of annihilation.
      - ridewinter 7y ago
        The soviet naval officer who prevented WWIII: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/you-and-almo... The British government on the brink of capitulating to Hitler: https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-may-1940-war-cabinet-crisis-churchills-darkest-hour/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-may... The Allies and not Hitler getting the atomic bomb. Examples abound just in the past few generations.
beamatronic 7y ago
Until Thanos comes along
coldtea 7y ago
Not at all, handwaving, technological breakthroughs, handwaving, renewables, handwaving, mars colonies, and we'll be alright...

I'd guess like any environment if the species population (humans) exceeds the carrying capacity of the land (earth) then there will be a die back.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

TL;DR: Yup, we're doomed. Read or listen to David Wallace-Wells' Uninhabitable Earth[1] and/or Jem Bendell's Deep Adaptation[2] and decide for yourself. Both a couple of years old, neither will leave you the slightest bit optimistic. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... [2] https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/ https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/

ridewinter 7y ago
Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley). And it will be technology that saves us in the future. Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- incompatible 7y ago
  Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.
  - ridewinter 7y ago
    Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. [1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...
    - incompatible 7y ago
      Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. Which is neither here nor there. We care for the part where its habitable and we're on it, not for the part when it was molten lava... >It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley) Not really, we've lived in most of the places we live now and had civilizations 2000 and 5000 and 10000 years ago. And animals more or less like us lived there far more. Technology like fire, stone and iron tools helped made things more palatable, but it's not "only technology" that allows us to live in Africa (heck, tons of tribes lived there even 50-100 years ago with little/no technology), Asia, Europe, etc, and in no way it's only modern technology. >Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain. Perhaps people care more for scientific claims and concrete technologies, and less for magic thinking and faith, which "technological optimism" is, as if we have some certain contract with the universe to find just the right technologies, in the right time, to save us...
- titzer 7y ago
  I didn't downvote you but I would be tempted to. Imagine you were standing on the sidelines watching Notre Dame burning down and made a similar statement. Meanwhile a fire hydrant and fire hose were nearby, unused. And twenty bystanders like you were standing there facing the other way, unaware, chatting about trivia while (unknowingly) leaking gasoline out their butts right onto it. Your comment would be massively misplaced and probably overall harmful in the grand scheme of things. We need to fight this.
  - ridewinter 7y ago
    Pretty sure what I’m saying is to use the dang fire hydrant in addition to removing unnecessary wood from the cathedral.
geedy 7y ago
David Wallace wells isn't your best source. His work has been criticized for misrepresenting the science by many reputable climate scientists, many of which are easy to find online. It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth. Whether or not his tactic is ethical is worth debate perhaps, but whether his picture is reflective of what climate scientists believe is an answered question (its not). The situation is bad, but we need not become defeatist, lest we give up entirely.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Some climate scientists criticised him, an apparently similar number have expressed support. > "It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth" I think you misrepresent. He's made it clear he's a journalist who made effort to understand and present the science. There were a few mistakes as notably pointed out by Mann. Hardly "choosing to stretch the truth". Given the IPCC's consistently conservative view, that encourages a too little, too late response, I would rather an excessively pessimistic view pushed us to respond "too soon". After all if some tipping points are passed, bringing it back from the brink will be just about impossible... If we overreact we get clean energy sooner. Events in the two years since seem to reinforce the pessimistic view. Sea level rise tracks the worst case IPCC estimates. Etc.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  > being called too alarmist I've never heard of any of his material, but is it really possibly to be too alarmist in our current state? I mean honestly, most of the world doesn't understands the magnitude and gravity of the events taking place and the runaway train that we're on.
  - geedy 7y ago
    If we take on defeatist language, we will be defeated. Scaring people into inaction by accepting defeat isn't a productive path forward.

ridewinter 7y ago

No, we’ve been on the brink of annihilation many times and have found a way through. We cannot predict what new knowledge will be discovered to solve these problems. But we must keep trying.

rosybox 7y ago
When have we been on the brink of annihilation before?
- ridewinter 7y ago
  There’s the multiple population bottlenecks in our DNA history [1]. The close calls in world wars and cold wars. Etc. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842629/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842629/
  - abraae 7y ago
    The cold wars were called that because they never actually became war. And the world war's combined impact on global populations was only a couple of percentage points. Neither remotely qualifies as being on the brink of annihilation.
    - ridewinter 7y ago
      The soviet naval officer who prevented WWIII: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/you-and-almo... The British government on the brink of capitulating to Hitler: https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-may-1940-war-cabinet-crisis-churchills-darkest-hour/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-may... The Allies and not Hitler getting the atomic bomb. Examples abound just in the past few generations.

beamatronic 7y ago

Until Thanos comes along

coldtea 7y ago

Not at all, handwaving, technological breakthroughs, handwaving, renewables, handwaving, mars colonies, and we'll be alright...