14 ms·

Let's also not forget that the Indian subcontinent will be too hot to feasibly live in in the next 50 to 100 years. As someone who came from there, there is no

Let's also not forget that the Indian subcontinent will be too hot to feasibly live in in the next 50 to 100 years. As someone who came from there, there is no way I'd go back to live in India given that fact alone, not to even mention any others.

s5300 4y ago
What do you think will happen to the bulk of the population in this time?
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Those who are rich enough (or those who seek asylum and are accepted) will leave, and those who are not able to leave will literally roast alive. We are already seeing this today [0], so in 50 to 100 years, the temperatures will be such that no human will be able to live there anymore. [0] https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-devastating-early-heat-in-india-and-pakistan-30-times-more-likely/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-...
  - s5300 4y ago
    Do you think we’ll actually see 500mil+ die in India directly from heat & heat related issues in the next 100 years? I’m very much starting to think we may, but I’m at least hoping they may be able to save themselves from catastrophe via nuclear energy & engineering.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      I do think so. Nuclear energy is great but it doesn't take carbon already in the air, so technologies would need to be developed for that. I am a techno-optimist but we are on the precipice in terms of how much time we have left.
      - jokowueu 4y ago
        I think what he means is using nuclear energy and engineering to reduce heat stress on the population (ie air conditioning etc)
        AstralStorm 4y ago
        Well, that would also require mechanization and changes to farming practices on a truly massive scale. (Either forests, huge tents or adapted crops with high mechanization.) Housing would have to be vastly improved as well as to not leak the cold out. I'm not seeing India fielding the cost. Those already well-off would manage anyway... But the rest, which is the majority, is the problem.
        empiricus 4y ago
        The technology already exists to efficiently transform solar power into sugar. If needed, and with 10-20 years of improvements, it should be possible to feed everyone with 100x less agricultural land usage.
        coldtea 4y ago
        When places are hit hard - like in this example from climate change - there usually are no "improvements" and "efficiency tranformations" either: in the downturn, tons of energy is spent in sustaining what's there, and there are no money or resources to spend on new infrastructure. (And as other countries are also hit, they don't go much for charity or building other's infrastructure, it's "every man/country for himself"). To put it simply: when things go to shit is not the time when new infrastructures are built.
        empiricus 4y ago
        Completely agree. I am just thinking that it should be possible to make standalone units, which should be able to produce food from air. Units that do not need any infrastructure. Which is a new concept. The alternative is to try agriculture in unstable environments, or depend on continuous help from outside. Of course there is still a need for rich helpful countries to develop and build these fictional devices.
    - mongol 4y ago
      Even if it plays out that way, I wonder if it plays out slowly or fast. For example, it could play out as increased rate of death due to cardivascular issues, somewhat "invisible" over time, or that people die in droves on particular hot days. In the end, it is terrible in both ways, but the perception in news etc would be different.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I would imagine that a catastrophic and sustained rise in temperatures would disrupt agriculture, reducing food production to the point where people starve to death before they roast to death. And in practice people don't just sit there and starve to death - they migrate, with the cooperation of other nations or not. A lot depends on the rate at which migrants arrive, and where they go. If the migration is towards northern Asia, spread out over 100 years, with only a few tens of thousands arriving each day, Russia will probably be able to manufacture bullets in sufficient quantity. If 1.5 billion Indians descend all at once, nothing will be able to stop them. These are extreme outcomes. There are so many other possibilities that could be negotiated. Perhaps India will gain economic leverage through exporting solar power, and be able to strike a deal to resettle some of its migrant population elsewhere.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      > disrupt agriculture I understand temperatures are already within a few degrees of the point that proteins in rice and wheat pollens get denatured (cooked, effectively). Maybe new heat-tolerant strains have been developed since I looked, but I doubt much could withstand 55 celsius throughout flowering.
- winReInstall 4y ago
  They will try to migrate northwards - right into hostile neighbours (china or pakistan), which will escalate into conflict. Regional nuclear exchange.
- mellavora 4y ago
  Well, obviously they will do the responsible thing and clean up all their hazardous wastes before they migrate north.
- addicted 4y ago
  People will migrate to other countries or other parts of their own countries leading to war and strife. You can already see this happening in parts of Africa.
godmode2019 4y ago
1 degree isn't really going to do very much is it? That's the current best estimate for warming in the time period you are suggesting. India has a bigger problem with feeding it's population which is likely to be the biggest in the world by that point. To suggest to the most populated place in the world in 2050 will have no people is hyperbolic. The gates foundation has the best estimates on this topic and their estimates also suggest growth in the region.
- viraptor 4y ago
  The estimate is for climate and is a world average. The actual weather is expected to get more extreme on both ends, so that means India is looking at higher temperature swings up in the summer. No citations because I'm on a phone but they're not hard to find.
- hikingsimulator 4y ago
  Thinking about climate change as an increase of mean temperature is misleading. And this is such a case. While the mean temperature rises, e.g. by 1 centigrade, you have to account for variance increasing too. India might become unlivable not because the mean temperature rises, but because extreme, deadly events will become standard during certain periods of the year.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    People live in Phoenix. It has extreme deadly events every summer. Boston has extreme deadly events in the winter. Get a heat pump or an air conditioner and move on.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      The context here is India. It's got half the under-3yo-s underweight, dealing with a significant number of malnutrition deaths, and with a quarter of the population surviving on <$1.5 a day. Even if the cost wasn't an issue, lots of homes are still not electrified. (they're close to 100% of people with access to electricity) Get a heatpump and move on, you say?
FlyingSnake 4y ago
Doomsday predictions about millions dying in India is an age old trope since 1947. You could find such tropes in "Moon is the harsh Mistress" or "Le Camp des Saints" which sounded like the doomsday scenarios being talked about in this very thread. While I understand that the climate change will hit India hard, (I witnessed it this summer personally), I still think we should not be quick to jump to assuming the destitution of millions as if it was a simple matter of statistics. I have faith in science, human resilience and ingenuity and I tend to believe that the future doesn't have to be so grim and humans will find a way.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > I have faith in science, human resilience and ingenuity and I tend to believe that the future doesn't have to be so grim and humans will find a way. Unfortunately, if humanity wants to prevent that outcome, we would have to start doing massive changes now. Relying on "humanity will find a way to work around in 30 years" is foolish, simply because when the expected progress doesn't happen in this time frame, humanity in 30 years is going to have to commit much more effort and resources than if current humanity would start now.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Humans have trouble finding a way to live in wet-bulb temperatures above 36C. Being in the shade and properly hydrated is not enough.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Humans thrive in Houston which has a similar problem. They thrive through pervasive air conditioning and spending very little time outside. It's a crappy solution for many different reasons but it does seem to be the direction we're heading.
    - signal11 4y ago
      Houston is hot, but wet bulb temperatures > 35 C (95 F) -- different from standard air temperature -- are a different story. Afaik, for healthy humans, staying outside > 35 C (not 36 C) for even long durations is physiologically impossible. Even healthy humans have trouble from 31 C (87.8 F). I don't have access to historic wet bulb data, but Houston appears to be in the mid-70s[1]. Places which have wet bulb temps > 35 C essentially shut down outside. You can use air conditioning indoors, but unless you have a Fremen-esque suit for outdoor workers, you can kiss outdoor activity goodbye in the daytime. In reality this mean the place essentially shuts down during the day. E.g. in Pakistan last year[2]. Being interested in history, I'm particularly mindful many historians speculate that climate change was responsible for ending the earliest known civilization in this area[3]. [1] http://cms.ashrae.biz/weatherdata/STATIONS/722430_p.pdf http://cms.ashrae.biz/weatherdata/STATIONS/722430_p.pdf [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/hotter-human-body-can-handle-pakistan-city-broils-worlds-highest/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people... [3] https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/climate-change-likely-caused-migration--demise-of-ancient-indus-valley-civilization/ https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/climate-change-...

s5300 4y ago

What do you think will happen to the bulk of the population in this time?

cercatrova 4y ago
Those who are rich enough (or those who seek asylum and are accepted) will leave, and those who are not able to leave will literally roast alive. We are already seeing this today [0], so in 50 to 100 years, the temperatures will be such that no human will be able to live there anymore. [0] https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-devastating-early-heat-in-india-and-pakistan-30-times-more-likely/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-...
- s5300 4y ago
  Do you think we’ll actually see 500mil+ die in India directly from heat & heat related issues in the next 100 years? I’m very much starting to think we may, but I’m at least hoping they may be able to save themselves from catastrophe via nuclear energy & engineering.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    I do think so. Nuclear energy is great but it doesn't take carbon already in the air, so technologies would need to be developed for that. I am a techno-optimist but we are on the precipice in terms of how much time we have left.
    - jokowueu 4y ago
      I think what he means is using nuclear energy and engineering to reduce heat stress on the population (ie air conditioning etc)
      - AstralStorm 4y ago
        Well, that would also require mechanization and changes to farming practices on a truly massive scale. (Either forests, huge tents or adapted crops with high mechanization.) Housing would have to be vastly improved as well as to not leak the cold out. I'm not seeing India fielding the cost. Those already well-off would manage anyway... But the rest, which is the majority, is the problem.
        empiricus 4y ago
        The technology already exists to efficiently transform solar power into sugar. If needed, and with 10-20 years of improvements, it should be possible to feed everyone with 100x less agricultural land usage.
        coldtea 4y ago
        When places are hit hard - like in this example from climate change - there usually are no "improvements" and "efficiency tranformations" either: in the downturn, tons of energy is spent in sustaining what's there, and there are no money or resources to spend on new infrastructure. (And as other countries are also hit, they don't go much for charity or building other's infrastructure, it's "every man/country for himself"). To put it simply: when things go to shit is not the time when new infrastructures are built.
        empiricus 4y ago
        Completely agree. I am just thinking that it should be possible to make standalone units, which should be able to produce food from air. Units that do not need any infrastructure. Which is a new concept. The alternative is to try agriculture in unstable environments, or depend on continuous help from outside. Of course there is still a need for rich helpful countries to develop and build these fictional devices.
  - mongol 4y ago
    Even if it plays out that way, I wonder if it plays out slowly or fast. For example, it could play out as increased rate of death due to cardivascular issues, somewhat "invisible" over time, or that people die in droves on particular hot days. In the end, it is terrible in both ways, but the perception in news etc would be different.
- jl6 4y ago
  I would imagine that a catastrophic and sustained rise in temperatures would disrupt agriculture, reducing food production to the point where people starve to death before they roast to death. And in practice people don't just sit there and starve to death - they migrate, with the cooperation of other nations or not. A lot depends on the rate at which migrants arrive, and where they go. If the migration is towards northern Asia, spread out over 100 years, with only a few tens of thousands arriving each day, Russia will probably be able to manufacture bullets in sufficient quantity. If 1.5 billion Indians descend all at once, nothing will be able to stop them. These are extreme outcomes. There are so many other possibilities that could be negotiated. Perhaps India will gain economic leverage through exporting solar power, and be able to strike a deal to resettle some of its migrant population elsewhere.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    > disrupt agriculture I understand temperatures are already within a few degrees of the point that proteins in rice and wheat pollens get denatured (cooked, effectively). Maybe new heat-tolerant strains have been developed since I looked, but I doubt much could withstand 55 celsius throughout flowering.
winReInstall 4y ago
They will try to migrate northwards - right into hostile neighbours (china or pakistan), which will escalate into conflict. Regional nuclear exchange.
mellavora 4y ago
Well, obviously they will do the responsible thing and clean up all their hazardous wastes before they migrate north.
addicted 4y ago
People will migrate to other countries or other parts of their own countries leading to war and strife. You can already see this happening in parts of Africa.

godmode2019 4y ago

1 degree isn't really going to do very much is it? That's the current best estimate for warming in the time period you are suggesting. India has a bigger problem with feeding it's population which is likely to be the biggest in the world by that point. To suggest to the most populated place in the world in 2050 will have no people is hyperbolic. The gates foundation has the best estimates on this topic and their estimates also suggest growth in the region.

viraptor 4y ago
The estimate is for climate and is a world average. The actual weather is expected to get more extreme on both ends, so that means India is looking at higher temperature swings up in the summer. No citations because I'm on a phone but they're not hard to find.
hikingsimulator 4y ago
Thinking about climate change as an increase of mean temperature is misleading. And this is such a case. While the mean temperature rises, e.g. by 1 centigrade, you have to account for variance increasing too. India might become unlivable not because the mean temperature rises, but because extreme, deadly events will become standard during certain periods of the year.
- kortilla 4y ago
  People live in Phoenix. It has extreme deadly events every summer. Boston has extreme deadly events in the winter. Get a heat pump or an air conditioner and move on.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    The context here is India. It's got half the under-3yo-s underweight, dealing with a significant number of malnutrition deaths, and with a quarter of the population surviving on <$1.5 a day. Even if the cost wasn't an issue, lots of homes are still not electrified. (they're close to 100% of people with access to electricity) Get a heatpump and move on, you say?

FlyingSnake 4y ago

Doomsday predictions about millions dying in India is an age old trope since 1947. You could find such tropes in "Moon is the harsh Mistress" or "Le Camp des Saints" which sounded like the doomsday scenarios being talked about in this very thread. While I understand that the climate change will hit India hard, (I witnessed it this summer personally), I still think we should not be quick to jump to assuming the destitution of millions as if it was a simple matter of statistics. I have faith in science, human resilience and ingenuity and I tend to believe that the future doesn't have to be so grim and humans will find a way.

mschuster91 4y ago
> I have faith in science, human resilience and ingenuity and I tend to believe that the future doesn't have to be so grim and humans will find a way. Unfortunately, if humanity wants to prevent that outcome, we would have to start doing massive changes now. Relying on "humanity will find a way to work around in 30 years" is foolish, simply because when the expected progress doesn't happen in this time frame, humanity in 30 years is going to have to commit much more effort and resources than if current humanity would start now.
dsr_ 4y ago
Humans have trouble finding a way to live in wet-bulb temperatures above 36C. Being in the shade and properly hydrated is not enough.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Humans thrive in Houston which has a similar problem. They thrive through pervasive air conditioning and spending very little time outside. It's a crappy solution for many different reasons but it does seem to be the direction we're heading.
  - signal11 4y ago
    Houston is hot, but wet bulb temperatures > 35 C (95 F) -- different from standard air temperature -- are a different story. Afaik, for healthy humans, staying outside > 35 C (not 36 C) for even long durations is physiologically impossible. Even healthy humans have trouble from 31 C (87.8 F). I don't have access to historic wet bulb data, but Houston appears to be in the mid-70s[1]. Places which have wet bulb temps > 35 C essentially shut down outside. You can use air conditioning indoors, but unless you have a Fremen-esque suit for outdoor workers, you can kiss outdoor activity goodbye in the daytime. In reality this mean the place essentially shuts down during the day. E.g. in Pakistan last year[2]. Being interested in history, I'm particularly mindful many historians speculate that climate change was responsible for ending the earliest known civilization in this area[3]. [1] http://cms.ashrae.biz/weatherdata/STATIONS/722430_p.pdf http://cms.ashrae.biz/weatherdata/STATIONS/722430_p.pdf [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/hotter-human-body-can-handle-pakistan-city-broils-worlds-highest/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people... [3] https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/climate-change-likely-caused-migration--demise-of-ancient-indus-valley-civilization/ https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/climate-change-...