4 ms·
I really doubt global warming will lead to human extinction. Life might get harder in lots of ways, but it seems extremely unlikely to be an existential problem
by jeffreyrogers 6y ago
I really doubt global warming will lead to human extinction. Life might get harder in lots of ways, but it seems extremely unlikely to be an existential problem.
- trenchgun 6y agoExistential problem by itself? No. Existential threat multiplier? Probably yes.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoI don't see any clear way in which it is an existential threat multiplier.
- Emma_Goldman 6y agoSure, but there's a small chance that it will bring about the end of modern civilization. In that sense it will be civilization-ending. An interesting question is whether humans would be able to rebuild civilization after events like this. I think the main extinction risk is the secular trend for technology to become both more destructive and more decentralised. If that continues, it might only be a matter of time before independent actors will be able to extinguish the human race. And given the distribution of human motivations, if individuals can do it, someone will sooner or later.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoI can see the civilization ending argument, although it seems like something resembling modern civilization could be rebuilt, maybe with less access to energy, but with less people you also need less energy, so I'm not sure how big of a problem that will be. Maybe without global industries there won't be the materials science necessary for space exploration. I have a harder time believing independent actors can extinguish the human race. Biowarfare/terrorism is unlikely to do so for a variety of reasons, and nuclear warfare only has the potential to do in superpower level conflict, and even then I don't think it's certain.
- acqq 6y ago> human race Being satisfied that some "naked apes" still living could mean a survival, as a biological species, of the probable destruction of current civilization is setting the bar really low.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoOkay, but do you really think civilization is going to collapse entirely? I don't. Even if half of humanity died you would still have civilization of some sort.
- codezero 6y agoI think with a bunch of nations wielding nuclear power, the threat of a global collapse absolutely becomes an existential problem, regardless of the source of that collapse. I don't think it's likely, but I also don't think it's something one can dismiss easily.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoI don't understand the motivations for using nuclear weapons in that scenario. And you would need a massive nuclear exchange to cause human extinction.
- codezero 6y agoI agree, and I'm not sure I can think of the motivations either except that extreme strain causes people to do stupid things, it could even just be an accident.
- MichaelApproved 6y agoI think OP was listing ways that humans are acting negligent which shows that we are susceptible to a filter.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoEven if we'll "just" regress back to pre-industrial age instead, it's almost the same as extinction, because humanity will become boring. It'll have a ceiling on its potential for thousands of years, or more.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoMaybe in terms of human accomplishment it would be more boring, but probably less boring for individuals.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI meant that in the former, but even in terms of the latter, I personally feel that humanity's progress also made life less boring for individuals than it was before. But I may be biased by how much I enjoy exploring all kinds of complexity and artificial systems.