5 ms·

> As the article says, climate change won't destroy human civilization. It will devastate part of the population. Climate change is just an inevitable change.

> As the article says, climate change won't destroy human civilization. It will devastate part of the population. Climate change is just an inevitable change. To cope with the change, certain portion of people will be sacrificed and certain people's position will be leveraged. So the view depends on the perspective. If you looking at humanity as every one together and equally, then it is apocalyptic. There is little hope that we can sustain. If you are looking at human civilization as something carried on by elites (as we always have), then such changes may even be welcomed -- all the reason that one need be prepared.

Vysero 7y ago
This isn't true and is exactly the kind of fear mongering the author is trying to discredit.
- kortex 7y ago
  It's not not true though. Climate change is absolutely an existential risk. Maybe it would not be on it's own, but we have nukes. Even a "small" nuclear skirmish could dramatically destabilize all of human economics. Perhaps the framing needs tweaking. It is inaccurate to say "if we don't fix climate change, it will end humanity". But "unmitigated climate change could spell the end of the world as we know it. Do you like the world as it currently is, or do you wanna roll the dice and risk apocalypse/Mad Max/ etc?" is completely plausible. Is there a semantic and ontological difference between "er'rybody gonna die!" and "[almost] er'rybody might die!"? Of course. Is there a difference in terms of expectation value of human quality of life in the future? Not a very big one if you ask me.
  - asjw 7y ago
    > Climate change is absolutely an existential risk. So are sleeping volcanoes and space asteroids The point is that the "end of the world as we know it" has already happened in history, more than a few times already. I'm sure either we stop it or not that things are going to be vastly different after . But it doesn't mean is gonna be worse
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      You're trying to compare random acts of nature with predictable and avoidable man-made disaster. They're not even remotely comparable.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  It's obvious that many currently inhabited areas are going to become uninhabitable. Not only will coastal areas be inundated but previously relatively temperate areas will suffer from regular inundation, storm damage, and/or droughts, or possibly all of the above in alternation. This is already happening in Europe, California, Australia, and elsewhere. And we haven't even had significant sea level rise yet. Anyone who doesn't understand what this means for developed countries - never mind rest-of-world - isn't thinking straight.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    > And we haven't even had significant sea level rise yet. Miami and Venice, as two easy examples, are already suffering annually recurring issues from higher sea levels than they were previously accustomed to.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Vysero 7y ago

This isn't true and is exactly the kind of fear mongering the author is trying to discredit.

kortex 7y ago
It's not not true though. Climate change is absolutely an existential risk. Maybe it would not be on it's own, but we have nukes. Even a "small" nuclear skirmish could dramatically destabilize all of human economics. Perhaps the framing needs tweaking. It is inaccurate to say "if we don't fix climate change, it will end humanity". But "unmitigated climate change could spell the end of the world as we know it. Do you like the world as it currently is, or do you wanna roll the dice and risk apocalypse/Mad Max/ etc?" is completely plausible. Is there a semantic and ontological difference between "er'rybody gonna die!" and "[almost] er'rybody might die!"? Of course. Is there a difference in terms of expectation value of human quality of life in the future? Not a very big one if you ask me.
- asjw 7y ago
  > Climate change is absolutely an existential risk. So are sleeping volcanoes and space asteroids The point is that the "end of the world as we know it" has already happened in history, more than a few times already. I'm sure either we stop it or not that things are going to be vastly different after . But it doesn't mean is gonna be worse
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    You're trying to compare random acts of nature with predictable and avoidable man-made disaster. They're not even remotely comparable.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
It's obvious that many currently inhabited areas are going to become uninhabitable. Not only will coastal areas be inundated but previously relatively temperate areas will suffer from regular inundation, storm damage, and/or droughts, or possibly all of the above in alternation. This is already happening in Europe, California, Australia, and elsewhere. And we haven't even had significant sea level rise yet. Anyone who doesn't understand what this means for developed countries - never mind rest-of-world - isn't thinking straight.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  > And we haven't even had significant sea level rise yet. Miami and Venice, as two easy examples, are already suffering annually recurring issues from higher sea levels than they were previously accustomed to.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]