6 ms·

"Existential threat" doesn't mean "fatal", it means "something that threatens the entirety of human existence". Being generous, let's say that means "50% of th

"Existential threat" doesn't mean "fatal", it means "something that threatens the entirety of human existence". Being generous, let's say that means "50% of the human race dying out". I'm not aware of any climate change projections suggesting that.

runarberg 6y ago
“Existential threat” could also mean “something that threatens life as we know it.” Sea level rising above the entire country of Bangladesh certainly qualifies in my books. Aside: Arguing the exact technical meaning of a term thrown around is kind of a bad faith argument. Maybe we don’t put the same meaning to the same term, which is entirely likely given that HN is an international community.
- rayiner 6y ago
  “Existential threat” means a threat that threatens the existence of something (civilization, humanity, etc). It doesn’t just mean “really bad.” If you have a different meaning, you’re using the term wrong. And there is nothing “bad faith” about the argument. An “existential threat” warrants a different response than lesser threats. So establishing whether or not climate change is really an “existential threat” is really important to the debate. Climate change isn’t “existential” even for Bangladesh. A third of the Netherlands is already under sea level. Technology compensates. Experts project that climate change could render 17% of Bangladesh under sea level in 40 years. 90% of Rotterdam is under sea level. The city was originally built using technology substantially more primitive than what Bangladesh might have in 40 years (when it is projected to be a middle-income country with a $3 trillion economy).
- tomp 6y ago
  Most proposed anti-climate-change policies also threaten “life as we know it”. That’s literally the reason why e.g. the French were massively protesting gas tax hikes.

runarberg 6y ago

“Existential threat” could also mean “something that threatens life as we know it.” Sea level rising above the entire country of Bangladesh certainly qualifies in my books. Aside: Arguing the exact technical meaning of a term thrown around is kind of a bad faith argument. Maybe we don’t put the same meaning to the same term, which is entirely likely given that HN is an international community.

rayiner 6y ago
“Existential threat” means a threat that threatens the existence of something (civilization, humanity, etc). It doesn’t just mean “really bad.” If you have a different meaning, you’re using the term wrong. And there is nothing “bad faith” about the argument. An “existential threat” warrants a different response than lesser threats. So establishing whether or not climate change is really an “existential threat” is really important to the debate. Climate change isn’t “existential” even for Bangladesh. A third of the Netherlands is already under sea level. Technology compensates. Experts project that climate change could render 17% of Bangladesh under sea level in 40 years. 90% of Rotterdam is under sea level. The city was originally built using technology substantially more primitive than what Bangladesh might have in 40 years (when it is projected to be a middle-income country with a $3 trillion economy).
tomp 6y ago
Most proposed anti-climate-change policies also threaten “life as we know it”. That’s literally the reason why e.g. the French were massively protesting gas tax hikes.