4 ms·

I seriously disagree. The “climate” part of climate change isnt the threat to civilization, it’s the “change” part. Sure, with an average warmer global climate

I seriously disagree. The “climate” part of climate change isnt the threat to civilization, it’s the “change” part. Sure, with an average warmer global climate, many places will become worse for human life and worse for agriculture with warming. But there is an absolutely enormous amount of land that moves into a better habitable and agriculture zone with warming as well. It’s not that a warmer climate makes human life impossible; we currently thrive from the Equator to Scandinavia just fine. It’s the change part thats the problem. It’s difficult to deal with whole agricultural areas needing to switch crops. Cities suddenly flooding when they used not to. New areas entering a death zone of heat index that previously were manageable

gmuslera 4y ago
Our current civilization is fragile. There are a lot of connections, a lot of interdependence, a lot of points of failure. Think what happened with COVID, both in spreading speed and the immediate consequences that could had been far worse, civilization-wise, like an economic crash or disruptive trends that started there and that are still lingering on. Yes, change is a problem. You can't just move a city, you can't make millions or billions of people lose what they had without ripples. But is not change to a new stable. It won't be a new stable. Even if we drop everything, stop emissions, commuting, economy and even our existence, things will keep changing, because at some point feedback loops will take the lead. We are at a point where doing less won't solve anything. And where risky path of actions will be taken.