7 ms·

Nobody serious sees the Coronavirus as an existential threat to humanity unless it mutates in a way that really enables it to wipe out most humans. Climate cha

Nobody serious sees the Coronavirus as an existential threat to humanity unless it mutates in a way that really enables it to wipe out most humans. Climate change and the collapse of global ecosystems can absolutely manage that and according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. The rise in nationalism and authoritarianism around the world is another phenomenon that could unleash forces of global conflict which might lead to cataclysms like a nuclear war or another world war at least. Of course pivotal moments in history can only be declared as such in hindsight. But the forces leading up to them usually gather steam decades before. It looks as we have no shortage of those in our time.

cmehdy 6y ago
There's a possibility that the third sentence you wrote is tightly coupled with the second one. On a personal level I mainly agree with you (we're on track for much worse than the RCP2.5 that everyone is barely even attempting to make goals for), but the complexity of the system seems to bring people to vastly disagree about this somehow. I think what really has become a turning point of our civilization in the last few decades is that specialization and the complexity of the world are absolutely entirely outside of the reach of any single person. The expansion of diversity and knowledge in the last few hundred years is much like the expansion of the universe, in that we can't seem to be able to beat it at all in terms of speed no matter what we do. Any sci-fi device that could perhaps offset that eventually (e.g. a future neuralink-thing being able to "upload" knowledge into you) is not the kind of thing I would bet my savings on in terms of time constants when compared to much more immediate events like climate change wrecking our modern civilization.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > There's a possibility that the third sentence you wrote is tightly coupled with the second one. On a personal level I mainly agree with you (we're on track for much worse than the RCP2.5 that everyone is barely even attempting to make goals for), but the complexity of the system seems to bring people to vastly disagree about this somehow. By my way of thinking about such things I think this is the best comment in the thread so far, in that: - it recognizes that there are even more risks (disagreement over climate change --> political changes --> war) from climate change than the obvious first order ones - it recognizes that the world is a system, and that it contains complexity - it recognizes that complexity can cause vast disagreement - it does not speculate about (and consider to be a fact) the causation of an observation ("to vastly disagree about this somehow") but rather, correctly notes that the causation is unknown > I think what really has become a turning point of our civilization in the last few decades is that specialization and the complexity of the world are absolutely entirely outside of the reach of any single person. I agree, and I estimate that most other people here would as well, but only when thinking about this concept abstractly. But if one is to closely(!) observe how people talk about our (infinitely complex) world, you may notice this phenomenon where it seems as if people are literally not aware of the complexity of the world. Now, if one is to respond to such a comment pointing such a shortcoming out, typically (in "smart" communities) the person can then(!) skilfully recognize whatever aspect of overlooked complexity you noted...but at the time they made the initial comment, was this complexity ~"included in the cognitive context of their mind" when pondering the problem, or was their mind working with a vastly simplified model of the world (because that is efficient, and the mind seems to often err on the side of efficiency rather than correctness)? If one is to ask that question, the person will typically assure you with supreme confidence that of course they were aware of it, but that they were "speaking loosely/generally" or something along these lines - which of course may be true, but is it actually true? I would say the fact of the matter is unknown, because we do not seem to have that level of insight into the workings of the mind. (And if you then respond with this theoretical question, extremely interesting things often transpire, but that's a whole other ball of wax that I'll skip for now.) I believe if you treat this very general and speculative philosophical idea as a kind of lens through which to view the activities of human beings from an abstract, curious alien entity perspective (no prior or presumed knowledge of "how it is" with Earth and Humanity, but infinite curiosity about the highly paradoxical nature of our species), you may start to notice a set of repetitive patterns everywhere you look, in all sorts of different levels of dimensional abstraction and aggregation. And if you notice that and then speculate about what unseen/undetected Force in the Universe could be causing all this, maybe some interesting new theories might start to emerge about why things are the way they are.
Camas 6y ago
>according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. Obviously not true. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#current-climate-policies-will-reduce-emissions-but-not-quickly-enough-to-reach-international-targets https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- dvdkhlng 6y ago
  >> according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. > Obviously not true. I think GP was referring to predictions of climate sensibility to changes in CO2 concentration appearing to track the predicted worst-case [1]. He was not referring to the predictions of CO2 concentration per se. And the predictions about CO2 rise you refer to are not very comforting anyway. If the 2 degree line is crossed, as predicted by these data, then a cascade of tipping points [2] will likely put the earth into a permanently "hot" climate state. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_...
SpiritRising84 6y ago
>The rise in nationalism and authoritarianism around the world is another phenomenon that could unleash forces of global conflict It seems inevitable to me, as the forces catalysing this movement are only radicalising and accelerating. Another $500bn to blacks announced yesterday, by a man the media would have us believe is a White supremacist? An organisation which has been practically invisible for half a century declared a terrorist organisation for its hypothetical position of supporting its own people, while armed hordes of the more melanin variety wreak havoc across the country demanding total capitulation by all power structures - and getting it. We are all supposed to ignore the devastating effects of multiracialism, critical theory (regarding race, gender, sexuality, and so forth) while our cities burn, our monuments are torn down, and our people are vilified in every advertisement, movie, employment opportunity, or even violently assaulted in the street? It simply cannot stand. A people will only take so much. Unfortunatelyy, I'm quite sure those in politics and media who seem hellbent on ensuring this fate understand this very well. As a proudly White man in 2020 with a beautiful White family, what do I have to fear from war that is not assured by the trajectory of the status quo? At least war offers me hope.
- theplague42 6y ago
  The irony...
tannhaeuser 6y ago
> rise in nationalism and authoritarianism And we ("hackers") give them both the open society they can hate against and the tools to potentiate their propaganda for free.
- krapp 6y ago
  It seemed like a good idea at the time.
ekianjo 6y ago
> Climate change and the collapse of global ecosystems can absolutely manage that and according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. Except that most models are piss-poor at predicting anything and that they only cherry pick the ones that happen to make it with new data. On top of that, climate change is a slow moving disaster, and we are typically good at mitigating long term changes (at least way better than urgent crises). Scientists calling for the end of the world at every opportunity will look ridiculous 100 years from now.
- dvdkhlng 6y ago
  > On top of that, climate change is a slow moving disaster, and we are typically good at mitigating long term changes (at least way better than urgent crises). Scientists calling for the end of the world at every opportunity will look ridiculous 100 years from now. I wish I could share your optimism. Climate change may be a slow moving disaster, however it is more a "high latency" moving disaster. In the sense that once the symptoms start hurting us, it will not be possible to administer any control inputs that will effect the course of climate change within an acceptable period of time. And while we may be good at mitigating long term changes, I think "existential crisis" kind of long term changes may not have any modes of mitigation that would be acceptable to the current generation of humans (like accepting that 90% of world population just won't have a chance of long-term surivival).
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Please don't spread false information like this. With any model you choose, we are way over the line where we could mitigate long term changes. The science is absolutely certain on this one: the only way to prevent disastrous climate changes, including massive rises in sea levels, extreme temperatures and drought in many highly populated areas of the world etc. is to stop emitting CO2 TODAY, literally. Or, well, to be more accurate, a few years ago, more likely. Either way, urgent overhaul of our whole global economy is the only option, but it remains of course an absurdity in the current political climate.
  - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
defterGoose 6y ago
"Not with a bang, but with a whimper."

cmehdy 6y ago

There's a possibility that the third sentence you wrote is tightly coupled with the second one. On a personal level I mainly agree with you (we're on track for much worse than the RCP2.5 that everyone is barely even attempting to make goals for), but the complexity of the system seems to bring people to vastly disagree about this somehow. I think what really has become a turning point of our civilization in the last few decades is that specialization and the complexity of the world are absolutely entirely outside of the reach of any single person. The expansion of diversity and knowledge in the last few hundred years is much like the expansion of the universe, in that we can't seem to be able to beat it at all in terms of speed no matter what we do. Any sci-fi device that could perhaps offset that eventually (e.g. a future neuralink-thing being able to "upload" knowledge into you) is not the kind of thing I would bet my savings on in terms of time constants when compared to much more immediate events like climate change wrecking our modern civilization.

mistermann 6y ago
> There's a possibility that the third sentence you wrote is tightly coupled with the second one. On a personal level I mainly agree with you (we're on track for much worse than the RCP2.5 that everyone is barely even attempting to make goals for), but the complexity of the system seems to bring people to vastly disagree about this somehow. By my way of thinking about such things I think this is the best comment in the thread so far, in that: - it recognizes that there are even more risks (disagreement over climate change --> political changes --> war) from climate change than the obvious first order ones - it recognizes that the world is a system, and that it contains complexity - it recognizes that complexity can cause vast disagreement - it does not speculate about (and consider to be a fact) the causation of an observation ("to vastly disagree about this somehow") but rather, correctly notes that the causation is unknown > I think what really has become a turning point of our civilization in the last few decades is that specialization and the complexity of the world are absolutely entirely outside of the reach of any single person. I agree, and I estimate that most other people here would as well, but only when thinking about this concept abstractly. But if one is to closely(!) observe how people talk about our (infinitely complex) world, you may notice this phenomenon where it seems as if people are literally not aware of the complexity of the world. Now, if one is to respond to such a comment pointing such a shortcoming out, typically (in "smart" communities) the person can then(!) skilfully recognize whatever aspect of overlooked complexity you noted...but at the time they made the initial comment, was this complexity ~"included in the cognitive context of their mind" when pondering the problem, or was their mind working with a vastly simplified model of the world (because that is efficient, and the mind seems to often err on the side of efficiency rather than correctness)? If one is to ask that question, the person will typically assure you with supreme confidence that of course they were aware of it, but that they were "speaking loosely/generally" or something along these lines - which of course may be true, but is it actually true? I would say the fact of the matter is unknown, because we do not seem to have that level of insight into the workings of the mind. (And if you then respond with this theoretical question, extremely interesting things often transpire, but that's a whole other ball of wax that I'll skip for now.) I believe if you treat this very general and speculative philosophical idea as a kind of lens through which to view the activities of human beings from an abstract, curious alien entity perspective (no prior or presumed knowledge of "how it is" with Earth and Humanity, but infinite curiosity about the highly paradoxical nature of our species), you may start to notice a set of repetitive patterns everywhere you look, in all sorts of different levels of dimensional abstraction and aggregation. And if you notice that and then speculate about what unseen/undetected Force in the Universe could be causing all this, maybe some interesting new theories might start to emerge about why things are the way they are.

Camas 6y ago

>according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. Obviously not true. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#current-climate-policies-will-reduce-emissions-but-not-quickly-enough-to-reach-international-targets https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...

dvdkhlng 6y ago
>> according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. > Obviously not true. I think GP was referring to predictions of climate sensibility to changes in CO2 concentration appearing to track the predicted worst-case [1]. He was not referring to the predictions of CO2 concentration per se. And the predictions about CO2 rise you refer to are not very comforting anyway. If the 2 degree line is crossed, as predicted by these data, then a cascade of tipping points [2] will likely put the earth into a permanently "hot" climate state. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_...

SpiritRising84 6y ago

>The rise in nationalism and authoritarianism around the world is another phenomenon that could unleash forces of global conflict It seems inevitable to me, as the forces catalysing this movement are only radicalising and accelerating. Another $500bn to blacks announced yesterday, by a man the media would have us believe is a White supremacist? An organisation which has been practically invisible for half a century declared a terrorist organisation for its hypothetical position of supporting its own people, while armed hordes of the more melanin variety wreak havoc across the country demanding total capitulation by all power structures - and getting it. We are all supposed to ignore the devastating effects of multiracialism, critical theory (regarding race, gender, sexuality, and so forth) while our cities burn, our monuments are torn down, and our people are vilified in every advertisement, movie, employment opportunity, or even violently assaulted in the street? It simply cannot stand. A people will only take so much. Unfortunatelyy, I'm quite sure those in politics and media who seem hellbent on ensuring this fate understand this very well. As a proudly White man in 2020 with a beautiful White family, what do I have to fear from war that is not assured by the trajectory of the status quo? At least war offers me hope.

theplague42 6y ago
The irony...

tannhaeuser 6y ago

> rise in nationalism and authoritarianism And we ("hackers") give them both the open society they can hate against and the tools to potentiate their propaganda for free.

krapp 6y ago
It seemed like a good idea at the time.

ekianjo 6y ago

> Climate change and the collapse of global ecosystems can absolutely manage that and according to every serious scientist we are pretty much on the worst case scenario path according to any peer reviewed model. Except that most models are piss-poor at predicting anything and that they only cherry pick the ones that happen to make it with new data. On top of that, climate change is a slow moving disaster, and we are typically good at mitigating long term changes (at least way better than urgent crises). Scientists calling for the end of the world at every opportunity will look ridiculous 100 years from now.

dvdkhlng 6y ago
> On top of that, climate change is a slow moving disaster, and we are typically good at mitigating long term changes (at least way better than urgent crises). Scientists calling for the end of the world at every opportunity will look ridiculous 100 years from now. I wish I could share your optimism. Climate change may be a slow moving disaster, however it is more a "high latency" moving disaster. In the sense that once the symptoms start hurting us, it will not be possible to administer any control inputs that will effect the course of climate change within an acceptable period of time. And while we may be good at mitigating long term changes, I think "existential crisis" kind of long term changes may not have any modes of mitigation that would be acceptable to the current generation of humans (like accepting that 90% of world population just won't have a chance of long-term surivival).
tsimionescu 6y ago
Please don't spread false information like this. With any model you choose, we are way over the line where we could mitigate long term changes. The science is absolutely certain on this one: the only way to prevent disastrous climate changes, including massive rises in sea levels, extreme temperatures and drought in many highly populated areas of the world etc. is to stop emitting CO2 TODAY, literally. Or, well, to be more accurate, a few years ago, more likely. Either way, urgent overhaul of our whole global economy is the only option, but it remains of course an absurdity in the current political climate.
- TigeriusKirk 6y ago

defterGoose 6y ago

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper."