3 ms·

> Global warning at worst will slow our development. It won’t lead to catastrophe. I find "not slowing our development" a weird definition for catastrophe. Ent

> Global warning at worst will slow our development. It won’t lead to catastrophe. I find "not slowing our development" a weird definition for catastrophe. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. Extinction rates are multiples higher than the background rate. Climate systems are at historic weak points (arctic jet stream, AMOC) with speculations about collapse that people in the field didn't anticipate they would have to deal with in their lifetimes. Other tipping points are inching closer or are crossed already. I'm glad the economy will live to see another day, but is that really the best metric to say it won't be a catastrophe? Because it really seems like it will be.

gruez 5y ago
>but is that really the best metric to say it won't be a catastrophe do you have a better objective metric? Sure, "Extinction rates are multiples higher than the background rate" is a bad thing, but how does it compare to other bad things? eg. poverty increasing by 5%?
- loopz 5y ago
  The economy will skyrocket. Just print more currency and do more digitally. At this rate it's just gasoline on the fire.
- MildlySerious 5y ago
  Loss of diversity is as good as it gets I think. The benefits of diverse life are numerous, from stabilizing ecosystems and protecting them against outlier events to the sheer amount of things we can learn from nature as we have throughout human history. Sure, economy will chug along, but there are a lot of victories out there that will be much more hard won if we have to start from nothing. So many discoveries won't be made because of the species that went extinct before we could learn from them. Minimizing that damage is in our interest as much as keeping the planet livable for ourselves and upholding/raising the standard of living across the globe. Is it more objective? Maybe. Maybe not. But it will be much harder to come back from something so permanent and the damage potential is unknowable.

gruez 5y ago

>but is that really the best metric to say it won't be a catastrophe do you have a better objective metric? Sure, "Extinction rates are multiples higher than the background rate" is a bad thing, but how does it compare to other bad things? eg. poverty increasing by 5%?

loopz 5y ago
The economy will skyrocket. Just print more currency and do more digitally. At this rate it's just gasoline on the fire.
MildlySerious 5y ago
Loss of diversity is as good as it gets I think. The benefits of diverse life are numerous, from stabilizing ecosystems and protecting them against outlier events to the sheer amount of things we can learn from nature as we have throughout human history. Sure, economy will chug along, but there are a lot of victories out there that will be much more hard won if we have to start from nothing. So many discoveries won't be made because of the species that went extinct before we could learn from them. Minimizing that damage is in our interest as much as keeping the planet livable for ourselves and upholding/raising the standard of living across the globe. Is it more objective? Maybe. Maybe not. But it will be much harder to come back from something so permanent and the damage potential is unknowable.