6 ms·
Whether climate change is disastrous or not is a value judgment. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was disastrous for them but beneficial for us. Radica
by Joeri 7y ago
Whether climate change is disastrous or not is a value judgment. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was disastrous for them but beneficial for us. Radical climate change will be beneficial to some species, but humanity isn’t likely to be among them, as our civilization is rather fragile and built on the assumption of a stable ecosystem. It is self-interest that should drive us to “protect” ecosystems from exploitation and radical change.
I believe the reason this isn’t discussed much is because it is assumed to be common knowledge.
- roenxi 7y agoHumanities adaptability is on par with that of the cockroaches. Give us 30 years of prep time and we can cope with nearly anything climate change is predicted to throw at us. The difficult assumption isn't that we have a stable ecosystem - we survive in a very broad range of ecosystems. The one that risks killing modern societies is the assumption that cheap and abundant energy is available. Sufficient energy could overcome any challenge.
- jacquesm 7y agoSufficient energy could over come many challenges, but an abundance of energy also allows the creation of new issues. Case in point: the age of cheap oil. Without that abundance in energy there would have been no crisis now, and we'd be looking at a much lower number of people on the planet. If you want to change 'sufficient energy' to 'sufficient clean energy' then the needle will shift, but maybe not as far as you'd like: even then there is a limit as to how much energy we can get rid off once it has been used and turned into heat.
- ThomPete 7y agoThere still is no crisis and nothing scientifically demonstrated with regards to the climate we cant handle.
- ncmncm 7y agoUncertainty does not favor inaction. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally dishonest. "The instruments say our jet engines are overheating. Let's wait to be certain, instead of heading for the nearest airport. Who knows, it might be nothing!" Said nobody ever.
- ThomPete 7y agoJet engines overheating is something that can be proven scientifically, catastrophic climate change is not so acting as if it's been proven is what is dishonest.
- polotics 7y agoCatastrophic climate change is proven. Looks at what's happening in Australia right now. It is catastrophic. And the burden of proof that it would not be caused by climate change is on you. Just read the damn science from 1824 until today.
- ThomPete 7y agoPlease point to scientifically demonstrated evidence of catastrophic climate change not just speculation.
- polotics 7y agoCheck out jancovici.com, realclimate, just open your eyes. Identity may be what's not negotiable, but your reckoning will come, no matter how lucky you've been so far.
- roenxi 7y agoI'm waiting for the bushfire season to end before trying to form any serious arguments; the worst fires are usually in February. That elephant-in-the-room aside, this season is arguably less catastrophic than bushfires from the late 19th and early 20th century [0]. To date there are less deaths, less houses destroyed and the economic damage is uncertain. Even the area burned is not unprecedented; yet (Victoria in 1851 holds the record). This might be weather rather than climate - bushfires in Australia are not exactly a jaw dropping development and a once-in-a-generation fire happens about once every generation. It would be wise to wait for the benefit of hindsight and not try to guess while a crisis is still unfolding. That is just a fast way to form bad conclusions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia
- m4rtink 7y agoThat's pretty much it - have enough energy and you can solve any environmental issues - sort an filter out any poisons, catch all the excess CO2 and turn it into somwthing useful, etc. That's why it worries me that scaling energy production is not getting the focus it needs. We don't need to reduce our energy needs and replace dirty sources of energy, rather we need to get at leas one magnitude of energy more & in a clean manner, to solve all our environmental issues.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- baq 7y agoThermodynamics dictates that constant 3% growth of energy yoy (correlating with markets and gdp is left as an excercise for the reader) will boil the oceans in few hundred years. Sustainability means energy consumption must stop growing, perhaps by the end of this century. Edit: some math https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
- h0l0cube 7y agoWhile I look upon scenes in Bladerunner with a feeling of anemoia, I think that for the majority of people in such a future, daily life would be pretty miserable. I'm sure that everyone intellectualizing about our adaptability would appreciate clean air, less death, hunger, and an easier life, in practice.
- ThomPete 7y agoI dont think there is a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of the climate changing we dont know how to deal with today.
- ncmncm 7y agoSo, therefore, don't do any of it? Denialism is fundamentally dishonest.
- ThomPete 7y agoWhat exactly is it I am denying. By all means? Please share.
- polotics 7y agoYou are denying our future inability to deal with consequences, not just in terms of knowing what to do, but in terms of having the ability: energy, organisation capable to cope with planet-wide relocation needs, game-theory pointing clearly to massive conflicts...
- omar_a1 7y ago30 years is an underestimate. Homo sapiens have been around 350,000 years. We've only had indoor plumbing for the last 200 or so. It took 349,800 years for us to install a toilet. Constructing a pyramid took 346,000 years. Granted, the survivors of climate disaster will have the benefit of legacy technology, but surviving in these new conditions well enough to create a society capable of widescale adaptation of our current society's abilities will take several thousand years at best. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.
- krapp 7y ago>We've only had indoor plumbing for the last 200 or so. Ancient Rome had indoor plumbing. What they didn't have is an industrial manufacturing base or the scientific insight that would have made sanitation effective. Those innovations are definitely recent, and something we could lose in a generation or two.
- omar_a1 7y agoOh, I stand corrected: Indoor plumbing will only take 347,000 years.
- lopmotr 7y agoHow could we not adapt? We can move our houses. We can heat and cool them. Grow food.
- ncmncm 7y agoYou are out there moving your house, then? Denialism is fundamentally dishonest.