4 ms·

"Tenable for life" is not the same as "tenable for human life"

by staktrace 7y ago

refurb 7y ago
Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.
- yread 7y ago
  Why do people keep saying this? We're around only for a couple million years if you count australopithecus. And during that time there were possibly several periods with less than 100k individuals. Going from 7B to 100k would be pretty close to extinction. 0.00143% The question is can we keep industrial scale food production going? Can we get people enough clean water?
  - refurb 7y ago
    People say that because of technology. Name another species that can create its own energy, create new materials and cure diseases.
    - polotics 7y ago
      We create our own energy? How? Ever heard of Thermodynamics?
      - ianai 7y ago
        This is where we’re feeling the real harm of fossil fuels, I think. We quickly moved from traditional energy levels to astronomically more energy just by burning oil and coal. We can lug around freight with relatively small amounts of fuel. We could do even more astronomical feats with nuclear fission, but introduced the technology to ourselves by blowing up two of our cities. So it’s associated with mass death meanwhile the death associated with pollution and fossil fuels are less visible.
      - refurb 7y ago
        Alright, energy sources if you want to be pedantic.
    - greffetti 7y ago
      People only really have the kind of technology I think you're referring to if they're lucky enough to be born into a more economically developed country. Unfortunately, it's the less economically developed countries that are going to bear the brunt of climate change, being already under stress and relying heavily on climate-sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture). The ones who have contributed the least to climate change will almost certainly suffer the most -- this isn't a matter of whether or not our species will survive, it's a matter of injustice.
  - ianai 7y ago
    People also aren’t adaptable to the ocean rising above their nation and swallowing their land below the oceans waves. The projected effects from each degree c of change are not linear. But the IPCC report assumed linear effects - 1% gdp per degree c change, according to a talk someone else posted. That’s highly unlikely. At one projection the earth may only be able to carry 1 billion people but be projected to have a gdp only 4-8% lower than today. Any economist worth their salt should be able to tell you that losing 6/7ths of humanity is going to shrink the global economy by something way, way higher. It probably doesn’t even make quite the same relevance to discuss global gdp in that world.

"Tenable for life" is not the same as "tenable for human life"

refurb 7y ago

Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.

yread 7y ago
Why do people keep saying this? We're around only for a couple million years if you count australopithecus. And during that time there were possibly several periods with less than 100k individuals. Going from 7B to 100k would be pretty close to extinction. 0.00143% The question is can we keep industrial scale food production going? Can we get people enough clean water?
- refurb 7y ago
  People say that because of technology. Name another species that can create its own energy, create new materials and cure diseases.
  - polotics 7y ago
    We create our own energy? How? Ever heard of Thermodynamics?
    - ianai 7y ago
      This is where we’re feeling the real harm of fossil fuels, I think. We quickly moved from traditional energy levels to astronomically more energy just by burning oil and coal. We can lug around freight with relatively small amounts of fuel. We could do even more astronomical feats with nuclear fission, but introduced the technology to ourselves by blowing up two of our cities. So it’s associated with mass death meanwhile the death associated with pollution and fossil fuels are less visible.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Alright, energy sources if you want to be pedantic.
  - greffetti 7y ago
    People only really have the kind of technology I think you're referring to if they're lucky enough to be born into a more economically developed country. Unfortunately, it's the less economically developed countries that are going to bear the brunt of climate change, being already under stress and relying heavily on climate-sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture). The ones who have contributed the least to climate change will almost certainly suffer the most -- this isn't a matter of whether or not our species will survive, it's a matter of injustice.
- ianai 7y ago
  People also aren’t adaptable to the ocean rising above their nation and swallowing their land below the oceans waves. The projected effects from each degree c of change are not linear. But the IPCC report assumed linear effects - 1% gdp per degree c change, according to a talk someone else posted. That’s highly unlikely. At one projection the earth may only be able to carry 1 billion people but be projected to have a gdp only 4-8% lower than today. Any economist worth their salt should be able to tell you that losing 6/7ths of humanity is going to shrink the global economy by something way, way higher. It probably doesn’t even make quite the same relevance to discuss global gdp in that world.