4 ms·

> At this point it's probably a better idea to start preparing for the changes rather than stopping them Yeah, this is probably best practice for people in reg

> At this point it's probably a better idea to start preparing for the changes rather than stopping them Yeah, this is probably best practice for people in regions that are projected to be left mostly uninhabitable / with severe barriers to life. This won't really be too much of a problem even if climate change is left unchecked, as Bjørn Lomborg says[1], it will only cost us 2-4% of GDP by end of century. > Civilizational collapse is a slow process. I doubt the people of the later stages of the Roman empire felt their society collapsed. I'd like to point out an important note: the guy said civilization would collapse, not a civilization. I'm not sure if you mean the same thing he does, but civilization itself has never, in history, collapsed, even during the plague and fall of the roman empire. We've been pretty much A-okay on a global level since 12,000 years ago. You're definitely right about individual states, and it is almost certainly true that several countries may end up collapsing due to climate disruption, but not the big ones and probably no time soon. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyXduteiWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyXduteiWE

ahje 7y ago
> Yeah, this is probably best practice for people in regions that are projected to be left mostly uninhabitable I'd go as far as arguing that _everyone_ should prepare for what's coming. All of us will be affected, be it directly or indirectly, through things like the (most likely) inevitable refugee crisis, or increased food prices and lower standards of living. > but civilization itself has never, in history, collapsed I meant individual civilizations and not civilization itself, although I read the original comment as something happening to "our" civilization and not all of them. Total collapse of civilization itself would require something cataclysmic happening on a global scale, and that the effects of said event are so severe that all of humanity fail to restore itself within the time span of several generations. Some of the more alarmist reports about global warming are indeed pointing at that scenario, although it's more likely that progress will be slower, and that humanity as a whole will be able to adapt in the long run. Regardless, I am convinced that even if we were talking about the actual end of civilization itself, it would not necessarily be evident to us until it was too late. The fact that there are alarm bells ringing about the climate now is an indicator of climate changes being either: a) survivable for humanity as a whole by doing what we can to prevent it and prepare for what happens if we fail b) the end of the world and it's too late to do anything This turned darker than I planned. :D
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > All of us will be affected Actually, I'm pretty sure places like Greenland, Canada, Russia etc. will be mostly positively affected. I'm mostly concerned about the changes to the ocean when it comes to affecting all humans. The unfortunate reality is that unchecked global warming will probably lower food prices and increase standards of living in many places that are already rich, while causing destruction in places that are already relatively poor. > alarm bells ringing about the climate... The third option you left out is that the alarm is overinflated. With an issue as controversial as climate change, you can be almost certain that both the alarmists and skeptics are both wrong, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Also, I really don't think the end of the world is a realistic result of climate change. If you really want something to worry about, there are always meteors, gamma rays and the potential for nuclear war, superbugs, or biological WOMD.
  - ahje 7y ago
    > The third option you left out is that the alarm is overinflated. I agree. I intended that to be implied as a possibility for the first option. Bad things will most likely happen, but it's unlikely that it's THAT bad.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Global thermonuclear war is a likely end stage, as fascists are swept into power in reaction to mass migration from the tropics. Sane governmental response is a fantastic assumption. The orange baboon, along with present counterparts in Russia, Brazil, India, China, Turkey, Indonesia, Hungary are just a hint at what is to come.
    - johnmorrison 7y ago
      I don't think the people terrible enough to launch nukes all other the place are in the position to do that. If the last 70 years are any indication, people don't tend to nuke other people.
      - 7y ago
chimprich 7y ago
> it will only cost us 2-4% of GDP by end of century The projections suggest that it's much cheaper to avert climate change than to deal with the consequences, and much less painful. If we can afford to lose x% of GDP dealing with the problems, why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem, and avoid a huge amount of human misery and ecological collapse in the process?
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem We can, and we are. That's why I do what I do. You're absolutely right, it is much cheaper to avert climate change than deal with the consequences. It's also necessary to transition to sustainable energy eventually because we will run out of fossil fuels regardless of what happens with the climate. The solutions to climate change are being worked on right now by many talented people around the world. I'm confident we will reach the IPCC SR15 1.5 degree Celsius goals.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    We aren't, and we won't. Coal and oil usage are still increasing, and the US is increasing its subsidy for them. Russia, China, and India are still building new coal-fired power plants. Fascist representation in governments is increasing worldwide. Action is falling far short of what would be needed to cap temperature rise, and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them.
    - johnmorrison 7y ago
      > Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them. We only need 2 decades to fix the energy part of emissions, and the IPCC has given us 3. > and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Enforcement isn't needed to get to net zero emissions. It's profitable long term to swap to clean energy and electrified vehicles and appliances, they're more efficient. Also fossil fuel abundance will eventually drop to the point where prices rise. Free markets will solve our emissions problem, I'm not sure why you are worried about enforcement or the type of governments when it comes to this.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
brianhorakh 7y ago
Dear friends, Ahem.. Humans have only had rationale thought for the last 50000 years. We are classified as Greater apes. Destabilized governments run by extremists and nuclear weapons. Trumps usa deny Climate change. Fuch koch. It was a good run. Unchecked climate change toxins from unchecked reactors exploding, blabla caused by heAT triggering rising water tables.. Godzilla. Its a Multi species collapse. Nothing humans have ever experienced. Nothing mammals have ever experienced. Stfu and join r/extinctionrebellion

ahje 7y ago

> Yeah, this is probably best practice for people in regions that are projected to be left mostly uninhabitable I'd go as far as arguing that _everyone_ should prepare for what's coming. All of us will be affected, be it directly or indirectly, through things like the (most likely) inevitable refugee crisis, or increased food prices and lower standards of living. > but civilization itself has never, in history, collapsed I meant individual civilizations and not civilization itself, although I read the original comment as something happening to "our" civilization and not all of them. Total collapse of civilization itself would require something cataclysmic happening on a global scale, and that the effects of said event are so severe that all of humanity fail to restore itself within the time span of several generations. Some of the more alarmist reports about global warming are indeed pointing at that scenario, although it's more likely that progress will be slower, and that humanity as a whole will be able to adapt in the long run. Regardless, I am convinced that even if we were talking about the actual end of civilization itself, it would not necessarily be evident to us until it was too late. The fact that there are alarm bells ringing about the climate now is an indicator of climate changes being either: a) survivable for humanity as a whole by doing what we can to prevent it and prepare for what happens if we fail b) the end of the world and it's too late to do anything This turned darker than I planned. :D

johnmorrison 7y ago
> All of us will be affected Actually, I'm pretty sure places like Greenland, Canada, Russia etc. will be mostly positively affected. I'm mostly concerned about the changes to the ocean when it comes to affecting all humans. The unfortunate reality is that unchecked global warming will probably lower food prices and increase standards of living in many places that are already rich, while causing destruction in places that are already relatively poor. > alarm bells ringing about the climate... The third option you left out is that the alarm is overinflated. With an issue as controversial as climate change, you can be almost certain that both the alarmists and skeptics are both wrong, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Also, I really don't think the end of the world is a realistic result of climate change. If you really want something to worry about, there are always meteors, gamma rays and the potential for nuclear war, superbugs, or biological WOMD.
- ahje 7y ago
  > The third option you left out is that the alarm is overinflated. I agree. I intended that to be implied as a possibility for the first option. Bad things will most likely happen, but it's unlikely that it's THAT bad.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Global thermonuclear war is a likely end stage, as fascists are swept into power in reaction to mass migration from the tropics. Sane governmental response is a fantastic assumption. The orange baboon, along with present counterparts in Russia, Brazil, India, China, Turkey, Indonesia, Hungary are just a hint at what is to come.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    I don't think the people terrible enough to launch nukes all other the place are in the position to do that. If the last 70 years are any indication, people don't tend to nuke other people.
    - 7y ago

chimprich 7y ago

> it will only cost us 2-4% of GDP by end of century The projections suggest that it's much cheaper to avert climate change than to deal with the consequences, and much less painful. If we can afford to lose x% of GDP dealing with the problems, why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem, and avoid a huge amount of human misery and ecological collapse in the process?

johnmorrison 7y ago
> why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem We can, and we are. That's why I do what I do. You're absolutely right, it is much cheaper to avert climate change than deal with the consequences. It's also necessary to transition to sustainable energy eventually because we will run out of fossil fuels regardless of what happens with the climate. The solutions to climate change are being worked on right now by many talented people around the world. I'm confident we will reach the IPCC SR15 1.5 degree Celsius goals.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  We aren't, and we won't. Coal and oil usage are still increasing, and the US is increasing its subsidy for them. Russia, China, and India are still building new coal-fired power plants. Fascist representation in governments is increasing worldwide. Action is falling far short of what would be needed to cap temperature rise, and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    > Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them. We only need 2 decades to fix the energy part of emissions, and the IPCC has given us 3. > and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Enforcement isn't needed to get to net zero emissions. It's profitable long term to swap to clean energy and electrified vehicles and appliances, they're more efficient. Also fossil fuel abundance will eventually drop to the point where prices rise. Free markets will solve our emissions problem, I'm not sure why you are worried about enforcement or the type of governments when it comes to this.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

brianhorakh 7y ago

Dear friends, Ahem.. Humans have only had rationale thought for the last 50000 years. We are classified as Greater apes. Destabilized governments run by extremists and nuclear weapons. Trumps usa deny Climate change. Fuch koch. It was a good run. Unchecked climate change toxins from unchecked reactors exploding, blabla caused by heAT triggering rising water tables.. Godzilla. Its a Multi species collapse. Nothing humans have ever experienced. Nothing mammals have ever experienced. Stfu and join r/extinctionrebellion