10 ms·
What I find most interesting is that we, the Human species, do not know what this means. We estimate heavy losses, maybe near extinction, but we do not have a r
by brainless 6y ago
What I find most interesting is that we, the Human species, do not know what this means. We estimate heavy losses, maybe near extinction, but we do not have a reference. We are imaginative but we collectively can not imagine the worst and act accordingly. This is perhaps why the worst will actually happen.
I am typing this on a keyboard, when I should be getting out there, convincing others to stop our immediate actions and brace for impact. But I will not do that because some unclear calamity is 30 years away. And I know most people around me will not change anything either.
- neckardt 6y ago> We estimate heavy losses, maybe near extinction Do you mean human extinction or extinction of certain animal species? I can definitely see certain animal species dying out, I couldn't see a scenario where humans die out though. If you mean human extinction could you provide some further reading?
- seer 6y agoMight not be the most likely scenario, but a runaway green house effect is certainly possible. If a positive temperature feedback loop happened to the earth’s atmosphere we could definitely end up like Venus, where no living thing can survive. And as engineers we understand that positive feedback loops cause changes in exponential progression. It can be “almost fine” for a while and then suddenly “there’s nothing we can do” even in human timescales. And it could happen fast enough that humans don’t develop tech robust enough to survive other planets unsupported, so game over for humanity, better luck next time. I personally don’t think thats going to happen, but to be honest I wouldn’t want to risk it.
- ivalm 6y agoEarth survived way higher co2 levels and we don’t emit nearly enough sulfides. There is essentially zero chance of Venus event happening. I’m more inclined that climate change can cause catastrophic war than runaway to ultra high temperatures.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- imtringued 6y agoPast CO2 levels aren't relevant because over time things like solar irradiance change as well. The amount of CO2 needed to maintain a certain global temperature shrinks over long time frames (hundreds of millions of years) as the sun gets hotter and hotter until it finally dies.
- ivalm 6y agoExcept sun hasn’t become meaningful hotter in the past hundred mil years. Also, we would need lots of sulfer dioxides to get emited, which isn’t happening. Will earth suffer over the next billion years and lose atmosphere? Sure, but that’s not what’s happening now.
- neckardt 6y ago> but a runaway green house effect is certainly possible Could you go into detail about how this could happen? My understanding is that this would require lots of greenhouse gasses getting pumped into the atmosphere somehow (Something like all the forests in the world burning down). I remember hearing one theory regarding methane calthrate [1] causing this effect, however I haven't read any studies going into the specifics of how large this effect could be. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_and_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Methane_clat...
- gxon 6y agoIf not direct human extinction, it could certainly mean complete collapse of advanced civilization. Even if humans manage to survive for millions of years into the future, we've already burned all the easily accessible fossil fuels. What we're burning now takes a lot of technology to extract. It's not immediately obvious that we'll ever be able to become a space faring civilization without cheap fossil fuels to bootstrap us there. Eventually, we'll go extinct by some asteroid impact or supervolcano. We should probably assume it's now or never for intelligence to spread off this rock.
- neckardt 6y agoIf I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that if we don't become a multi-planetary species, extinction is assured. And we don't stand a chance of going multi-planetary if we don't take advantage of cheap fossil fuels within the next several years. Why do think we need to leverage fossil fuels to build rockets? My impression was that solar and wind are already out-competing coal in terms of electricity production, and are close to beating natural gas too. I also don't think fossil fuels are required to build rockets. Hydrogen can easily be generated from electrolysis (although a bit more expensive than from methane), Methane can be produced from plants, and while I haven't heard it tried yet I imagine a fuel similar to RP-1 could also be synthesized from plants, similar to how we make ethanol. Do you think we won't be able to switch to renewables in time, or is my analysis on how effective renewables are off?
- gbear605 6y agoMy reading of the comment you were responding to is that they were saying "We needed to leverage fossil fuels to get to the state of development where we can build rockets, and if we didn't have that fuel in the ground, we'd be stuck pre-industrial. Future societies won't have that fuel, so we're the only chance (for millions of years) of becoming multiplanetary"
- neckardt 6y agoAh so if your civilization ends but humans ad a spicies survive, the next civilization won't have it so easy. That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
- harikb 6y agoIt doesn’t take much. A small disruption in the intricate supply chain of essential food is all it takes. We may not go extinct, but we will be set back a few thousand years of development. PS: Current humans probably won’t survive without internet for a month. May be a few will survive without going crazy and killing each other
- neckardt 6y ago> A small disruption in the intricate supply chain of essential food is all it takes. During the start of COVID the supply chain of food got disrupted quite a bit. Large restaurant suppliers no longer had customers because the restaurants were closed and grocery stores didn't have enough supply to keep up with customers. However, I didn't even have to dig into my emergency rice stash at all, and I haven't heard of anyone else actually going hungry. Do you think a larger disruption might cause a cascading effect, or how exactly would that play out? The COVID example appears to show the opposite: our food supply chain is rather robust.
- harikb 6y agoYou are correct that the “end of world” predicted in initial months didn’t play out... yet. However, I feel even this is mostly luck. We got lucky with something that can be reasonably controlled with masks and hand washing. Next pandemic will have countries hoarding masks and essentials even more early. All that said, I was still talking about non-pandemic events.
- neckardt 6y agoThe pandemic example was just an argument that our food supply system is robust in the face of some unexpected events. What do you think could happen during non-pandemic events which could topple it?
- TeMPOraL 6y agoAntagonistic relations. During COVID-19 pandemic, most nations took the "we're all in it together" stance (despite being mostly busy handling things domestically). Climate change will create lots of opportunities for war - migration pressure, resource shortage pressure, new lands being suddenly available and competed for, etc.
- Shorel 6y agoI agree with you, but something like a 30% reduction in human population is an extremely traumatic event for all the remaining human population. Even if it is very good for the environment.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWhy would the human population shrink 30%?
- Shorel 6y agoIt is just an example. Some people mention an extinction level event. I mention a number that is horribly catastrophic, just to show that even that huge number is very far from an extinction level event.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThat depends on whether or not economies will collapse across the globe. If they do, or the migration pressure throws countries into war, then all bets are off. You could plausibly raise that estimate to 60-70% (entire urban population + some margin). Cities aren't self-sufficient wrt. food. Many countries aren't either. So if, for some reason, national transport and power infrastructure goes down for good, you can scratch city dwellers off the map.
- njb311 6y agoIt’s only taken the last 25 years to add 30% to the human population, and the rapid increases of the last 50 years owe a lot to reduced infant mortality and people living longer. So a rapid decline might come from a reversal of those trends.
- lopmotr 6y agoThe consequences of climate change might not be as bad as the consequences of preventing it. That's a pretty important thing to figure out because what if you end up creating a bigger calamity than you prevent? What does "heavy losses" mean? If you don't quantify it, it means the same as "light losses". Is it worse than WWII? Worse than WWI? Worse than Communism? Worse than the Spanish Flu? Worse than AIDS? Worse than malaria? Worse than smoking? These things each killed many millions in the past century and somehow civilization has never been better! So before worrying about preaching, first figure it out yourself. Otherwise you're nothing more than an amplifier for some other activist's arbitrary emotions.
- brainless 6y agoDo you not think you are doing the same, just in reverse? I am at least trying my best to get out of "my" selfish being and ask a question for our entire planet. And what you want to do is kill that very question because you want to go to the grocery store and buy milk, right? Think, for once, what if this is actually happening like every climate scientist says. What if the oil cos actually wanted to squash all evidence? What if you are their agent? What do they have to lose if we start listening to the scientists - everything.
- lopmotr 6y agoYou're missing my point. It is that you don't know what the consequences of climate change will be. Not even any kind of estimate at all. So how can you be sure it's worth the cost of preventing? Even scientists hardly have any idea. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they don't know. What if we really do get increased flooding, storms, etc. like every climate scientist says, and we cope just fine? I'm not trying to kill any question. I'm trying to ask a question! What will the consequences of climate change be? It's a pretty important one. If you can only speak in emotional language like "calamity" then you don't have any idea at all.
- brainless 6y agoJust check what the representatives from island nations have to say and I think you will have a clearer idea. It is easy to disregard evidence when it stares at you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_island_nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_i...
- divbzero 6y agoRay Dalio, the investing guru, says he’s been most surprised by events that hadn’t happened before in his lifetime, but have happened repeatedly if you look a century or two back in history. Global warming is not only new in our lifetimes but also in recent recorded history which makes it particularly hard to anticipate and plan for.
- lazyjones 6y agoThe "Medieval Warm Period" is well-documented, as is the "Roman Warm Period". Sadly, they and their significance as well as positive effects are being downplayed by activists lately.
- divbzero 6y agoThose climate events are worth studying but may have been regional instead of global in scope.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI'm not aware of any credible predictions that climate change might cause the near extinction of humanity.