4 ms·

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

by 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.
- arp242 2y ago
  > I think that it was a figure of speech Maybe. But in the face of a malicious misinformation campaign, I think it's important to be accurate and careful with our words. Hyperbolic statements are not really helpful as it adds just the right ring of truth to the "it's all a load of bollocks by climate alarmists" claims, so it ends up just helping the misinformation campaign.
  - palata 2y ago
    Right. I understand your point, but I think it's important to understand that if the risk here is not "extinction" in the sense that the human species will disappear, it is actually the end of the world as we know it. And I mean it in the catastrophic way. If you imagine a big stripe around the equator where people can't survive (it's basically mars) and have no other choice than to "invade" the rest of the world that may already not have the capacity to feed its population anymore, with oceans rising and pushing another couple billions inside the lands (so you can't just build walls as a country, you have civil war). That's pretty much where we are headed now, and the data seems to show every year that we are actually getting there closer than we thought we were (because when our models "forget" something, usually it's something that made it worse). Not only that, but we are accelerating in that direction. I personally think we're way passed the point where we can call anything "alarmism". The most conservative scenario I can find without us making drastic changes are all "equally bad" (as in: I don't really care whether or not the human species survives if all my relative and I die in very bad conditions). That's what I mean with "it's as bad as it gets": between extinction of the human species and the most conservative scenario if we don't change, none of them is acceptable to me.

by arp242 2y ago

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.

arp242 2y ago
> I think that it was a figure of speech Maybe. But in the face of a malicious misinformation campaign, I think it's important to be accurate and careful with our words. Hyperbolic statements are not really helpful as it adds just the right ring of truth to the "it's all a load of bollocks by climate alarmists" claims, so it ends up just helping the misinformation campaign.
- palata 2y ago
  Right. I understand your point, but I think it's important to understand that if the risk here is not "extinction" in the sense that the human species will disappear, it is actually the end of the world as we know it. And I mean it in the catastrophic way. If you imagine a big stripe around the equator where people can't survive (it's basically mars) and have no other choice than to "invade" the rest of the world that may already not have the capacity to feed its population anymore, with oceans rising and pushing another couple billions inside the lands (so you can't just build walls as a country, you have civil war). That's pretty much where we are headed now, and the data seems to show every year that we are actually getting there closer than we thought we were (because when our models "forget" something, usually it's something that made it worse). Not only that, but we are accelerating in that direction. I personally think we're way passed the point where we can call anything "alarmism". The most conservative scenario I can find without us making drastic changes are all "equally bad" (as in: I don't really care whether or not the human species survives if all my relative and I die in very bad conditions). That's what I mean with "it's as bad as it gets": between extinction of the human species and the most conservative scenario if we don't change, none of them is acceptable to me.