3 ms·

Isn't "bringing us to the brink of extinction" rather hyperbolic? As far as I know there is no indication that climate change will be an extinction-level threat

by arp242 2y ago

Isn't "bringing us to the brink of extinction" rather hyperbolic? As far as I know there is no indication that climate change will be an extinction-level threat? What it will be is hugely damaging for all sorts of other reasons, both to humans and other life. Beyond that, I agree with you, and it's one of my major concerns as well.

this_user 2y ago
Entire regions of the planet could very well become uninhabitable, which would affects hundreds of millions, potentially billions of people. Migratory flows of that size would almost certainly lead to armed conflicts. It's hard to tell how this would end, but it is certainly not going to be pretty.
- hedora 2y ago
  It could easily lead to the end of civilization. We’ve been seeing global production disruptions for years now. (Currently, quartz for semiconductors. During the pandemic, climate events knockout out PVC production, which meant a global disruption of construction work.) We’re at the beginning of the exponential ramp on this sort of stuff, where the changes are barely noticeable. For example, until last night (so, assuming best case greenhouse projections), there was roughly a 50% chance that some people reading this will live to see the northern half of Europe turn into a glacier. Anyway, without modern civilization, we probably won’t survive 10,000’s of years of such stuff. The global population bottlenecked at a few thousand the last time this happened.
intended 2y ago
I’m sure you will agree that for most people, the difference between extinction level and civilization ending is academic.
palata 2y ago
> As far as I know there is no indication that climate change will be an extinction-level threat? We are currently living in an era of mass extinction. It's not something that's coming, we are in it, it is measurable. 75% of wild animals, insects and trees have disappeared. That is a fact, and it is not related to climate change at all: "just" to how we humans organize the world (mostly habitat loss). Climate change will bring famines, natural disasters, and global instability (that means wars). This is yet to come. It is fairly likely that at this rate, we will reach 4 degrees of global warming. At 4 degrees, a large part of the Earth (around the Equator) becomes unlivable for humans (it's too humid and hot, we can't regulate our temperature by sweating, we die). Which means that billions of people will need to relocate. This is not just normal wars: think entire countries that decide to leave their territory and go somewhere else, together with their army. I don't know what the definition of "extinction-level" means (maybe you only care about some individuals of the human species surviving), but in my book that's as bad as it gets.
- christiangenco 2y ago
  > in my book that's as bad as it gets. In the book of world history things have been way worse[0]. In the book of world futures things could get way way worse[1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust
  - palata 2y ago
    > In the book of world history things have been way worse[0]. Has it been way worse, really? I think that the climate change that ended the dinosaurs happened slower than what we are expecting with ours (but I didn't check it and I am not completely sure). I am sure of this, though: the mass extinction we are living now is the fastest we know. Let me rephrase it: we human have made 75% of wild animals, insects and trees disappear faster than it ever happened in the history of Earth. > In the book of world futures things could get way way worse[1]. "Way way worse"? Do you realise what "20 degrees around the equator becomes uninhabitable" means? It's like half of the inhabited world becomes mars, and the people living there have no choice but to move where the other half is.
- arp242 2y ago
  I agree with much of that, but I don't think that will really bring us to the "brink of extinction". That said, I'm not keen to find out as we don't really get to reload a save game if you mess up. Sadly, not many seem to agree :-( Or maybe they found a cheat to load save games, idk.
  - palata 2y ago
    > I agree with much of that, but I don't think that will really bring us to the "brink of extinction". I think that it was a figure of speech. Whether it brings the human species to the brink of extinction or makes life unbearable for 90% of humans and destroys civilization as we know it is a bit of a technicality, if you ask me. In any case it is one of the biggest problems of our time.
a-saleh 2y ago
Unfortunately, it will get really grim and bad that even if literal extinction is improbably (humanity seems to have already bounced from less than 10k people) it seems to be bad enough to warrant this hyperbole. Like, if most of the tropics reach wet-bulb temperature and more than a billion people live there - that will be grim.

by arp242 2y ago

this_user 2y ago

Entire regions of the planet could very well become uninhabitable, which would affects hundreds of millions, potentially billions of people. Migratory flows of that size would almost certainly lead to armed conflicts. It's hard to tell how this would end, but it is certainly not going to be pretty.

hedora 2y ago
It could easily lead to the end of civilization. We’ve been seeing global production disruptions for years now. (Currently, quartz for semiconductors. During the pandemic, climate events knockout out PVC production, which meant a global disruption of construction work.) We’re at the beginning of the exponential ramp on this sort of stuff, where the changes are barely noticeable. For example, until last night (so, assuming best case greenhouse projections), there was roughly a 50% chance that some people reading this will live to see the northern half of Europe turn into a glacier. Anyway, without modern civilization, we probably won’t survive 10,000’s of years of such stuff. The global population bottlenecked at a few thousand the last time this happened.

intended 2y ago

I’m sure you will agree that for most people, the difference between extinction level and civilization ending is academic.

palata 2y ago

> As far as I know there is no indication that climate change will be an extinction-level threat? We are currently living in an era of mass extinction. It's not something that's coming, we are in it, it is measurable. 75% of wild animals, insects and trees have disappeared. That is a fact, and it is not related to climate change at all: "just" to how we humans organize the world (mostly habitat loss). Climate change will bring famines, natural disasters, and global instability (that means wars). This is yet to come. It is fairly likely that at this rate, we will reach 4 degrees of global warming. At 4 degrees, a large part of the Earth (around the Equator) becomes unlivable for humans (it's too humid and hot, we can't regulate our temperature by sweating, we die). Which means that billions of people will need to relocate. This is not just normal wars: think entire countries that decide to leave their territory and go somewhere else, together with their army. I don't know what the definition of "extinction-level" means (maybe you only care about some individuals of the human species surviving), but in my book that's as bad as it gets.

christiangenco 2y ago
> in my book that's as bad as it gets. In the book of world history things have been way worse[0]. In the book of world futures things could get way way worse[1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust
- palata 2y ago
  > In the book of world history things have been way worse[0]. Has it been way worse, really? I think that the climate change that ended the dinosaurs happened slower than what we are expecting with ours (but I didn't check it and I am not completely sure). I am sure of this, though: the mass extinction we are living now is the fastest we know. Let me rephrase it: we human have made 75% of wild animals, insects and trees disappear faster than it ever happened in the history of Earth. > In the book of world futures things could get way way worse[1]. "Way way worse"? Do you realise what "20 degrees around the equator becomes uninhabitable" means? It's like half of the inhabited world becomes mars, and the people living there have no choice but to move where the other half is.
arp242 2y ago
I agree with much of that, but I don't think that will really bring us to the "brink of extinction". That said, I'm not keen to find out as we don't really get to reload a save game if you mess up. Sadly, not many seem to agree :-( Or maybe they found a cheat to load save games, idk.
- palata 2y ago
  > I agree with much of that, but I don't think that will really bring us to the "brink of extinction". I think that it was a figure of speech. Whether it brings the human species to the brink of extinction or makes life unbearable for 90% of humans and destroys civilization as we know it is a bit of a technicality, if you ask me. In any case it is one of the biggest problems of our time.

a-saleh 2y ago

Unfortunately, it will get really grim and bad that even if literal extinction is improbably (humanity seems to have already bounced from less than 10k people) it seems to be bad enough to warrant this hyperbole. Like, if most of the tropics reach wet-bulb temperature and more than a billion people live there - that will be grim.