4 ms·
Climate change includes a range of outcomes ranging from “terrible for agriculture and many species but possibly survivable” to “mass extinction”. We’re already
by matthewdgreen 5y ago
Climate change includes a range of outcomes ranging from “terrible for agriculture and many species but possibly survivable” to “mass extinction”. We’re already seeing some of the “mild” effects in the form of crop underperformance in the Middle East and wildfires all over the world. Many of the worst outcomes have to do with tipping points that we don’t fully understand, some of which seem to be breaking against us.
TL;DR climate change isn’t necessarily an extinction-level event. It is just possibly an extinction level event. I would argue that if you’re looking at it and saying “meh” then you’re not assessing risks properly.
- goatlover 5y agoIt's hard to imagine humans going extinct. An extinction level event for organisms which can't adapt fast enough, sure. But humans have existed in all sorts of climates from the stone age, while colonizing most of the planet. Our ancestors survived ice ages.
- blooalien 5y agoIt's actually pretty easy to imagine humans going extinct, and taking a huge portion of the other life on this planet out with us. As the level of human "crazy" in the world grows (seemingly exponentially), I find myself worrying more and more about the fact that some of the craziest people on the planet (political "leaders" and their militaries) have access to nuclear weapons, and that's only one potential concern among far too many.
- goatlover 5y agoTo wipe humans out, you would have to make the entire planet unlivable, which includes high altitudes, polar regions, remote locations, islands, etc. I don't see that happening short of a gray goo scenario.
- blooalien 5y agoI wouldn't totally rule out any doomsday scenario really, as long as humanity continues to put the greediest and power-hungriest humans in charge.
- infinite8s 5y agoThe planet might not be unlivable, but the standard of living for any remaining humans might regress back several centuries or more. In addition, bootstrapping a new civilization will be hard given we've used up most of the most easily accessible energy sources.
- jbay808 5y ago> It's hard to imagine humans going extinct http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/impactfromthedeep.pdf http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/impactfromthedeep.pd... Page 6 helped grow my imagination. The ice ages are not the worst it ever was.
- goatlover 5y agoIf it didn't kill of all land animals, then it's still hard to imagine humans not surviving somewhere.
- jbay808 5y agoHumans are a k-selected species and we die pretty easily. What makes you think so?
- goatlover 5y agoBecause nearly 8 billion people live all over the planet in various environments, and make use of technology to adapt.
- infinite8s 5y agoWhy do you assume humanity will be able to maintain the current level of technology?
- jbay808 5y agoI, for one, think it would be terribly difficult to maintain mines, steel mills, farms, water purification plants, chemical plants, concrete plants, auto factories, living quarters, hydroponic farms, plastic plants, glass plants, textile factories, sanitation, and all the other infrastructure we would rely on to maintain a technological existence, in an H2S-poisoned atmosphere with no ozone layer and no end in sight over eon timescales. Technological civilization isn't a balloon or a tower, it's a pyramid. In order for the peak to climb higher, the base levels -- a stable and inexpensive supply of food, air, land, and water -- need to grow as well. Undermine that foundation and you can't expect the upper levels to float.