7 ms·

You're trying to rationalize it (understandably). There is a word for what we've done, and it's the Holocene mass extinction. Locust are part of nature, as are

You're trying to rationalize it (understandably). There is a word for what we've done, and it's the Holocene mass extinction. Locust are part of nature, as are elephants. Locusts eat everything and then all die. Elephants slowly reach the carrying capacity of their environment. There is also a word for that each type of reproduction strategy: locusts with exponential growth are r-strategists, elephants with logistic curve growth are K-strategists. r/K is slightly dated and it's not completely binary, but there is truth to it. And humans, because of technology, have all the population dynamics of a r-strategist. We have the collective intelligence to observe this, but not to act on it. Even though they are part of nature, the life of r-strategists individuals is brutal and short. And a locust swarm can be highly detrimental to life in their area. Since we are ubiquitous and the world dominant species by far, we are very, very badly harming biodiversity and it only has the chance to get worse. I'm glad you are finding peace, but you definitely have the possibility of dying from global warming direct (famine) or secondary effects (war) in what would otherwise be your lifetime, as does everyone under the age of 50. That is perfectly natural and in tune with nature. Nature is brutal and amoral.

lazyjones 7y ago
I don't understand how you can begin with a somewhat rational argument about overpopulation and then jump to the completely irrational conclusion that for some reason global warming (as a root cause) will kill us, rather than overpopulation. Do you really think like that, or are you just trolling?
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  I'm not trolling, it's not like overpopulation directly will kill us. Overpopulation is relative to the carrying capacity of an ecosystem. Global warming will reduce the carrying capacity of the world vis a vis human population faster than we can adapt to it (migration, crop changes, etc). The end result is jump discontinuities in populations, which is really just a polite/scientific way of talking of really significant numbers of people starving to death or killing each other over limited food and water resources. edit: and to be clear, I view this as a problem for us, the current generation, not a future problem. I am personally taking small but real steps to prepare for this, right now.
  - DeusExMachina 7y ago
    And yet, all the predictions of climate catastrophe of the last 50 years never came true. According to some, by now Great Britain should be underwater. Will they never be true? No one knows, because predicting the future is not our best skill. They might well be someday. But the track record, for now, is dismal, which makes me thing they are more driven by ideology than by science.
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      I think you have made a couple of errors. First, how many satellites did we have 50 years ago? How many advancements have there been in sensors over that time? How much has compute capacity increased? Our level of data and observation has increased - trying not to exaggerate - a million-fold. With that, the algorithms and models have improved, too. It's like comparing a Pinto to a Tesla. Second, 50 year old forecasts have held up remarkably well. I will just point to Exxon's forecasts, under "Select ExxonMobil documents": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Select_ExxonMobil_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont... They actually did a fair job in the 1970s and 80s of modeling the warming we've seen just based on first principals of measured CO2 greenhouse effects and atmospheric concentrations. Third, we are actually quite good at predicting the future! We can predict where a planet will be in a million years. It's basic Dunning-Kruger bias to think these professional trained scientist building these models don't understand nonlinear systems maths and the ways these systems diverge, couple, and otherwise interact. Fourth, "According to some" is the source of so many flawed conclusions. According to some, the world is flat. According to some, reality is based on the theory of the Time Cube. You can't go around quoting cranks to attack non-cranks. I don't know who or what you are talking about, but I have a very hard time believing a qualified individual thought GB would be under water in 2020 in 1970. And even if they did, times change and we know much more now. I hate to be out ahead of the mass psychology of awareness of the magnitude and criticality of climate change. It is very hard to digest how bad things are. This is data driven, though.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- GVIrish 7y ago
  > I don't understand how you can begin with a somewhat rational argument about overpopulation and then jump to the completely irrational conclusion that for some reason global warming (as a root cause) will kill us, rather than overpopulation. Global warming is almost certainly already killing us. If a hurricane, flooding, heat waves, or drought is more severe than normal due to climate change, that means people are dying due to climate change. In the decades to come, droughts, crop failures, and fishery collapses means people will starve. Extreme weather and sea level rise will create climate refugees. In unstable parts of the world, climate change-induced stressors will cause armed conflict and probable massacres. It also means previously stable parts of the world will become unstable. All of those things means lots of dead people within the lifetimes of people alive today. Maybe we'll be able to change course and lessen the impact of climate change, but if we don't succeed the outlook is grim.

lazyjones 7y ago

I don't understand how you can begin with a somewhat rational argument about overpopulation and then jump to the completely irrational conclusion that for some reason global warming (as a root cause) will kill us, rather than overpopulation. Do you really think like that, or are you just trolling?

throwaway5752 7y ago
I'm not trolling, it's not like overpopulation directly will kill us. Overpopulation is relative to the carrying capacity of an ecosystem. Global warming will reduce the carrying capacity of the world vis a vis human population faster than we can adapt to it (migration, crop changes, etc). The end result is jump discontinuities in populations, which is really just a polite/scientific way of talking of really significant numbers of people starving to death or killing each other over limited food and water resources. edit: and to be clear, I view this as a problem for us, the current generation, not a future problem. I am personally taking small but real steps to prepare for this, right now.
- DeusExMachina 7y ago
  And yet, all the predictions of climate catastrophe of the last 50 years never came true. According to some, by now Great Britain should be underwater. Will they never be true? No one knows, because predicting the future is not our best skill. They might well be someday. But the track record, for now, is dismal, which makes me thing they are more driven by ideology than by science.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    I think you have made a couple of errors. First, how many satellites did we have 50 years ago? How many advancements have there been in sensors over that time? How much has compute capacity increased? Our level of data and observation has increased - trying not to exaggerate - a million-fold. With that, the algorithms and models have improved, too. It's like comparing a Pinto to a Tesla. Second, 50 year old forecasts have held up remarkably well. I will just point to Exxon's forecasts, under "Select ExxonMobil documents": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Select_ExxonMobil_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont... They actually did a fair job in the 1970s and 80s of modeling the warming we've seen just based on first principals of measured CO2 greenhouse effects and atmospheric concentrations. Third, we are actually quite good at predicting the future! We can predict where a planet will be in a million years. It's basic Dunning-Kruger bias to think these professional trained scientist building these models don't understand nonlinear systems maths and the ways these systems diverge, couple, and otherwise interact. Fourth, "According to some" is the source of so many flawed conclusions. According to some, the world is flat. According to some, reality is based on the theory of the Time Cube. You can't go around quoting cranks to attack non-cranks. I don't know who or what you are talking about, but I have a very hard time believing a qualified individual thought GB would be under water in 2020 in 1970. And even if they did, times change and we know much more now. I hate to be out ahead of the mass psychology of awareness of the magnitude and criticality of climate change. It is very hard to digest how bad things are. This is data driven, though.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
GVIrish 7y ago
> I don't understand how you can begin with a somewhat rational argument about overpopulation and then jump to the completely irrational conclusion that for some reason global warming (as a root cause) will kill us, rather than overpopulation. Global warming is almost certainly already killing us. If a hurricane, flooding, heat waves, or drought is more severe than normal due to climate change, that means people are dying due to climate change. In the decades to come, droughts, crop failures, and fishery collapses means people will starve. Extreme weather and sea level rise will create climate refugees. In unstable parts of the world, climate change-induced stressors will cause armed conflict and probable massacres. It also means previously stable parts of the world will become unstable. All of those things means lots of dead people within the lifetimes of people alive today. Maybe we'll be able to change course and lessen the impact of climate change, but if we don't succeed the outlook is grim.