4 ms·
> 53° C (127.4° F) is extreme, even for Death Valley. This. And we're not even in the hottest part of the year yet. I'd like to see the wet bulb temperatures t
by falcolas 3y ago
> 53° C (127.4° F) is extreme, even for Death Valley.
This. And we're not even in the hottest part of the year yet. I'd like to see the wet bulb temperatures too, but I'm guessing they're in the low 70's because of their low humidity. So it's technically possible for humans to survive that level of heat there given enough water and shade, though we'd probably see deaths in the eldest and youngest populations regardless.
But should you move the location much in any direction, and you'd have conditions which would require artificial cooling for any human to survive.
- baggy_trough 3y agoDo you consider an area uninhabitable if it requires artificial measures to survive there?
- hotpotamus 3y agoI think that's all of Earth when it comes to a population of give or take 10 billion people. It really feels like all the stuff that people said wasn't sustainable when I was a kid wasn't sustainable and it's all starting to come apart.
- baggy_trough 3y agoI don't know what you mean by "sustainable". I look around and I see people are fatter and richer than ever before.
- AlexandrB 3y agoI guess it depends where you live. I see record numbers of unhoused people and young adults living with their parents into their 30s.
- titzer 3y agoSustainable means "we could keep doing it this way indefinitely" and the answer...no, we absolutely cannot keep doing it (i.e. producing energy) this way indefinitely. It never was sustainable, we just live in a system with a huge amount of inertia and big reservoirs that allows us to imagine things are sustainable when they aren't.
- baggy_trough 3y agoSince the Earth is finite every use of raw materials is unsustainable eventually. That's not something I worry about because costs will shift around and new ways to meet needs will be found.
- titzer 3y agoAnd yet life on Earth has managed to carry on for 3.7 billion years. How? Recycling. The answer is recycling. > That's not something I worry about Oh, we know. There are plenty of people thoughtlessly devouring irreplaceable things, consuming the habitat of life's creatures, and farting up a literal shit storm of carbon waste. Such people make lousy neighbors and their unsustainable habits are going away, one way or another. "Yeah I don't care about that" isn't nearly the burn you might think it is.
- baggy_trough 3y agoWhat a rude statement.
- southernplaces7 3y agoAnd I suppose you devour nothing irreplaceable, consume no part of nature's habitat and create minimal carbon waste? Anyone can criticize others for their supposedly evil habits, but then somehow be utterly blind to how their own are similar or the same in substance, if not in superficial form. At the very least, you own and use a laptop or mobile device, since you're commenting here. Any idea how much colossal mining is needed to manufacture both?
- ttfkam 3y agoThe Earth is finite, but it is not a closed system. This is how solar, wind, tidal, and hydro are able to work: The Sun. Aside from that, it's that whole "matter neither created no destroyed but merely changing forms." The difference with fossil fuels, overfishing the oceans, etc. is as was mentioned earlier, the huge reservoir of stored energy we've been consuming without replenishing, extending beyond fish populations' ability to reproduce and the system's ability to absorb excess CO2. We can be sustainable on a finite planet as long as we find the balance, which means dramatically changing the way we interact with our world: dramatically less fossil fuels converted to greenhouse gases and sustainable fisheries that protect breeding grounds (for example).
- jtriangle 3y agoNot really a great measure. If you remove the artificial from the world entirely, most people would be dead inside of a month.
- falcolas 3y agoIf it's hot and humid (a wet-bulb temperature above body temperature) and you lose power, you're dead within hours, not months. You can't hydrate or shade to cool yourself sufficiently in those conditions.
- jtriangle 3y agoSure, there are places that would kill people quicker than others, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the benchmark of survivability without artificial means. Truthfully, as a species, most of us require artificial augmentation in order to survive, which makes that artificial augmentation a poor benchmark for survivability.
- falcolas 3y agoOur ancestors' survival in Africa, Siberia, and pretty much every place in between gives lie to the notion that "most of us require artificial augmentation in order to survive". And to be clear, no, I do not consider the use of fire, animal skins, etc. to be artificial augmentation. I do consider electricity and inter-continental supply lines to be artificial augmentation.
- jtriangle 3y agoRight, so, do you know how to hunt? Can you start a fire without matches? Ever skin an animal? I can do 1/3 there, only because of years in boyscouts, and there's no way in hell I'd survive without artificial augmentation, regardless of where you put me, I'm simply not prepared for it, same as almost everyone else. If you're not basically the primative technology guy from youtube, very slim odds you'd figure it out quickly enough.
- falcolas 3y agoYou have to consider what would happen if power went out. If everyone for whom power went out dies within a few hours, then yes, I would consider it uninhabitable without extraordinary means of ensuring that the power can't go out (see, for example, the measures taken at south pole bases to ensure power continuity). Power outages are inevitable, and above a certain wet bulb temperature you can't hydrate or shade yourself out of overheating. It's a when you'll die, not if.