28 ms·

There were no ice caps when primates evolved. I am excited to go back to the climate of my ancestors.

by crypot 3y ago

guerrilla 3y ago
There were no nation-states at that time either. It's going to be a meatgrinder this time around.
- danudey 3y ago
  And a lot less population density. People in low-lying areas aren't going to be able to move to higher ground, because someone else already owns that ground.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    Why do you say low-lying areas? Do you mean like because of coastal/sea-level rise?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    And people think that ground can be owned now
    - brvsft 3y ago
      Many animals 'think' it too. Grizzly bears come to mind.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        There's a key difference; territorial animals are owner-occupiers. If a bear loses a territorial fight, it dies or moves. It doesn't call in the forest police. Also, bears want to keep other bears out. They don't much care about smaller animals, or try to restructure the entire landscape in the name of bear commerce.
- echelon 3y ago
  Several nation-states will be huge beneficiaries of a hotter world. Russia's tundra becomes arable land, and their fossil fuels become more accessible. Their navy will be able to freely roam the seas when the polar ice caps melt. Canada will receive the same benefits - enormous access to fresh water, ease of navigation, and agriculturally ideal conditions. Greenland will have an increasingly large stake in geopolitics, trade, and energy. China will be less existentially concerned about a blockade of the Strait of Malacca.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    Obviously, but you missed the point. The problem is competetion by increased polarity between the haves and have-nots. The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain.
    - echelon 3y ago
      > The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain. And they'll lose. If you look at the distribution of power, it's not predicted to change all that much. The superpowers are enormously capable of maintaining their grip. The complaints of poor nations will be met with meager welfare packages and mostly tuned out by the working class of weather nations. It's how the world already operates.
      - guerrilla 3y ago
        I figured you would say that but your hubris is entirely unwarranted. The Taliban just handed the most powerful military on the planet their ass. They beat the USSR too. The Veitcong did it before them. Look at how badly the barefoot Houthis beat the shit out of KSA even with direct US support. Look at Russia being sent packing. Don't gamble on these things. It's foolish to expose yourself to those kinds of risks if you don't need to.
        3y ago
- supportengineer 3y ago
  [flagged]
bryanlarsen 3y ago
It's the rate of change which matters, much less so than the magnitude of the change.
- vaylian 3y ago
  This. The time for nature and us humans to adapt to these new circumstances is vastly shorter than in any earlier age of the planet. edit: bryanlarsen pointed out that there was an even more extreme event in earth's history.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    That's not quite true. 252 million years ago we also had a very quick 8 degree Celsius rise in global temperature. It kicked off the largest mass extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I don’t think that a mass extinction event is what people usually mean when they talk about nature adapting to the increase in temperature.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      We're about to outpace that. "very quick" = 60 ± 48 thousand years, we're aiming for 100 years or so > It kicked off the largest mass extinction event Yet. Let's wait few decades. > It is also the largest known mass extinction of insects. We're already 75-80% down. https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-insect-population-flying-bugs-climate-change-pesticides-population-decline-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-insect-population-fl... https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2022 https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-202... https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2022_full_report.pdf https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2022_full_r... There has been about 69 per cent decline in the wildlife population of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish across the globe in the last 50 years. The highest decline, 94 per cent was in Latin America and Caribbean region. According to WWF report, Africa recorded 66 percent fall in wildlife population, the Asia Pacific 55 percent and population of freshwater species reduced by 83 percent globally. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816 The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? "Estimate that, since around AD 1500, possibly as many as 7.5–13% (150,000–260,000) of all ~2 million known species have already gone extinct, orders of magnitude greater than the 882 (0.04%) on the Red List." https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss

There were no ice caps when primates evolved. I am excited to go back to the climate of my ancestors.

by crypot 3y ago

There were no ice caps when primates evolved. I am excited to go back to the climate of my ancestors.

guerrilla 3y ago

There were no nation-states at that time either. It's going to be a meatgrinder this time around.

danudey 3y ago
And a lot less population density. People in low-lying areas aren't going to be able to move to higher ground, because someone else already owns that ground.
- 23B1 3y ago
  Why do you say low-lying areas? Do you mean like because of coastal/sea-level rise?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  And people think that ground can be owned now
  - brvsft 3y ago
    Many animals 'think' it too. Grizzly bears come to mind.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      There's a key difference; territorial animals are owner-occupiers. If a bear loses a territorial fight, it dies or moves. It doesn't call in the forest police. Also, bears want to keep other bears out. They don't much care about smaller animals, or try to restructure the entire landscape in the name of bear commerce.
echelon 3y ago
Several nation-states will be huge beneficiaries of a hotter world. Russia's tundra becomes arable land, and their fossil fuels become more accessible. Their navy will be able to freely roam the seas when the polar ice caps melt. Canada will receive the same benefits - enormous access to fresh water, ease of navigation, and agriculturally ideal conditions. Greenland will have an increasingly large stake in geopolitics, trade, and energy. China will be less existentially concerned about a blockade of the Strait of Malacca.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  Obviously, but you missed the point. The problem is competetion by increased polarity between the haves and have-nots. The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain. And they'll lose. If you look at the distribution of power, it's not predicted to change all that much. The superpowers are enormously capable of maintaining their grip. The complaints of poor nations will be met with meager welfare packages and mostly tuned out by the working class of weather nations. It's how the world already operates.
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      I figured you would say that but your hubris is entirely unwarranted. The Taliban just handed the most powerful military on the planet their ass. They beat the USSR too. The Veitcong did it before them. Look at how badly the barefoot Houthis beat the shit out of KSA even with direct US support. Look at Russia being sent packing. Don't gamble on these things. It's foolish to expose yourself to those kinds of risks if you don't need to.
      - 3y ago
supportengineer 3y ago
[flagged]

bryanlarsen 3y ago

It's the rate of change which matters, much less so than the magnitude of the change.

vaylian 3y ago
This. The time for nature and us humans to adapt to these new circumstances is vastly shorter than in any earlier age of the planet. edit: bryanlarsen pointed out that there was an even more extreme event in earth's history.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  That's not quite true. 252 million years ago we also had a very quick 8 degree Celsius rise in global temperature. It kicked off the largest mass extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I don’t think that a mass extinction event is what people usually mean when they talk about nature adapting to the increase in temperature.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    We're about to outpace that. "very quick" = 60 ± 48 thousand years, we're aiming for 100 years or so > It kicked off the largest mass extinction event Yet. Let's wait few decades. > It is also the largest known mass extinction of insects. We're already 75-80% down. https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-insect-population-flying-bugs-climate-change-pesticides-population-decline-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-insect-population-fl... https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2022 https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-202... https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2022_full_report.pdf https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2022_full_r... There has been about 69 per cent decline in the wildlife population of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish across the globe in the last 50 years. The highest decline, 94 per cent was in Latin America and Caribbean region. According to WWF report, Africa recorded 66 percent fall in wildlife population, the Asia Pacific 55 percent and population of freshwater species reduced by 83 percent globally. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816 The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? "Estimate that, since around AD 1500, possibly as many as 7.5–13% (150,000–260,000) of all ~2 million known species have already gone extinct, orders of magnitude greater than the 882 (0.04%) on the Red List." https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss