3 ms·

I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe

I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. I agree. One of many disconnects. > It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. Of these, I think only "nuclear warfare" was an alarm bell widely raised by scientists and it was precisely that alarm bell that led to nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation policy (which averted the disaster). "We should do nothing because it always works out" is kind of silly when it has only worked out because people have done something. See also Y2K. > overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs. Climate change isn't about the immediate risks (wealthy nations can largely live with a little drought, flooding, and wildfire), it's about the next century and beyond. But yes, I do think we should let this existential threat affect our decisions about Chinese human rights abuses, as a special case. Personally, I would love for the world to have invested heavily in nuclear 50 years ago to the extent that we don't have to worry about China's ego threatening all of civilization, but that's a reality we sadly don't inhabit.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. I agree. One of many disconnects. > It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. Of these, I think only "nuclear warfare" was an alarm bell widely raised by scientists and it was precisely that alarm bell that led to nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation policy (which averted the disaster). "We should do nothing because it always works out" is kind of silly when it has only worked out because people have done something. See also Y2K. > overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs. Climate change isn't about the immediate risks (wealthy nations can largely live with a little drought, flooding, and wildfire), it's about the next century and beyond. But yes, I do think we should let this existential threat affect our decisions about Chinese human rights abuses, as a special case. Personally, I would love for the world to have invested heavily in nuclear 50 years ago to the extent that we don't have to worry about China's ego threatening all of civilization, but that's a reality we sadly don't inhabit.