4 ms·

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, bu

by 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.

by s5300 4y ago

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.