4 ms·

[deleted, sorry]

• jonahbenton 5y ago
  Upvote. One of the many disconnects in climate is around measurable day to day impacts both individually and on aggregate. The same UN report that points to high-C temperature increases claims in economic terms only a smaller rate of GDP growth for a high-C world, compared to GDP growth for a stable world. That means we may well have both climate disaster AND flying cars and disease and aging elimination and all the benefits that "progress" makes available, now not just from traditional tech but acceleration in energy and biology development as well. If that is true, then even a dramatic rise in episodic disasters just becomes a cost of doing business. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think we are headed for population crash. And I would be very, very, very surprised to see e.g. travel rationing. Much much more work to do on localized analysis and narrative.
  • splistud 5y ago
    Let's be very clear. Every mitigation strategy discussed will have massive downward pressure on the population. You don't get to make it harder/more expensive/impossible to generate food and energy and also have the same amount of people.
    • jonahbenton 5y ago
      True but not in these timeframes. With all respect, willing to take the (way way) over in the scenario parent describes- total global population of 1-2B in 50 years. In 200 years? Yeah, dramatically reduced counts of humans is possible. But in 50 years- global population will be greater than it is now.
• oliv__ 5y ago
  Count me out of that world, thanks