4 ms·

> Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but

> Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming. I'd argue that's a saner default assumption. Mass extinctions are not a human creation. They're natural events, like the plague.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming You’re ignoring the energy intensity of GDP and lifestyle intensity per capita, each of which varying within historic ranges flips your outcome across zero. Add to that the largest emitters facing declining populations before immigration and I’m not sure what your point is.
- itishappy 2y ago
  My point is that we have some evidence that humans don't always improve things, so "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. Nothing more, we're but one element of a chaotic system.
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    > "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. It's not an assumption, it's the only option. Unless you think extreme and nonsensical ideas like population restrictions or voluntary extinction are viable (as in, people will go along with it and it will actually work), people have to come up with a way to stop climate change. The fucking elephants aren't going to do it.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Trying, failing, and many of us dying are also on the table. There's no target number where climate change will magically be solved, and our population has been doubling roughly every 25 years. Unfortunately we're starting to see other demands for our attention. The next billion people might all be climate scientists, who knows, but they just as well might all end up fighting over constrained resources instead. My point with the "mass extinction aren't a human event" comment is that the Earth does not privilege us in the slightest. Exponential growth is not natural. Extinction events are natural.
      - subjectsigma 2y ago
        Well, I was assuming we were talking about situations where we don't all die. Your comment is correct in a technical sense, but I think that's not a good attitude to have. If we have the ability to help species not go extinct, we should do so where we can.
        itishappy 2y ago
        > If we have the ability to help species not go extinct, we should do so where we can. Entirely agree! I don't want to give the impression I'm assuming we're doomed. I'm not. I'd put true of a true existential threat to humanity at near zero. However, I'd put the probability of a major impact to our current standard of living to be somewhat higher, where my kids and grandkids are forced to live very different lives than my own. Maybe WWIII, maybe just mass migrations, maybe we see a few nukes go off. These are all very possible futures. Far from certain, but also far from impossible. In the face of this, I'm not discouraged. I think we should do what we can to protect ourselves against such threats, and I think we've been doing a pretty good job! But I also think we should not be entirely surprised when faced with drastic shifts in birthrates and geopolitics. We're no longer in an era where infinite growth seems sustainable, and people and nations are starting to realize this.
    - palata 2y ago
      > It's not an assumption, it's the only option. If only we were actually trying.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If humans created global warming, a very likely scenario is that more humans just means more warming You’re ignoring the energy intensity of GDP and lifestyle intensity per capita, each of which varying within historic ranges flips your outcome across zero. Add to that the largest emitters facing declining populations before immigration and I’m not sure what your point is.

itishappy 2y ago
My point is that we have some evidence that humans don't always improve things, so "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. Nothing more, we're but one element of a chaotic system.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  > "humans will improve things" is a dangerous assumption without further evidence. It's not an assumption, it's the only option. Unless you think extreme and nonsensical ideas like population restrictions or voluntary extinction are viable (as in, people will go along with it and it will actually work), people have to come up with a way to stop climate change. The fucking elephants aren't going to do it.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Trying, failing, and many of us dying are also on the table. There's no target number where climate change will magically be solved, and our population has been doubling roughly every 25 years. Unfortunately we're starting to see other demands for our attention. The next billion people might all be climate scientists, who knows, but they just as well might all end up fighting over constrained resources instead. My point with the "mass extinction aren't a human event" comment is that the Earth does not privilege us in the slightest. Exponential growth is not natural. Extinction events are natural.
    - subjectsigma 2y ago
      Well, I was assuming we were talking about situations where we don't all die. Your comment is correct in a technical sense, but I think that's not a good attitude to have. If we have the ability to help species not go extinct, we should do so where we can.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        > If we have the ability to help species not go extinct, we should do so where we can. Entirely agree! I don't want to give the impression I'm assuming we're doomed. I'm not. I'd put true of a true existential threat to humanity at near zero. However, I'd put the probability of a major impact to our current standard of living to be somewhat higher, where my kids and grandkids are forced to live very different lives than my own. Maybe WWIII, maybe just mass migrations, maybe we see a few nukes go off. These are all very possible futures. Far from certain, but also far from impossible. In the face of this, I'm not discouraged. I think we should do what we can to protect ourselves against such threats, and I think we've been doing a pretty good job! But I also think we should not be entirely surprised when faced with drastic shifts in birthrates and geopolitics. We're no longer in an era where infinite growth seems sustainable, and people and nations are starting to realize this.
  - palata 2y ago
    > It's not an assumption, it's the only option. If only we were actually trying.