3 ms·

> Quite obviously "the worst climate change prediction" implies that we all die. If you understand "prediction" to mean "any bullshit made up by anyone" then y

> Quite obviously "the worst climate change prediction" implies that we all die. If you understand "prediction" to mean "any bullshit made up by anyone" then yes. But if you mean by "prediction" what we think is likely to happen based on available data and knowledge then not. > Not sure if you are aware of that problem or if you are just mentioning it because you quickly read it here. I'm aware of the problem. That is why I wrote what I wrote. > If we reach 4 degrees of warming (and that's a prediction if we don't change anything, knowing that we have already passed 1.5 earlier than expected), a large part of Earth around the equator will become unlivable Correct. And that is really, really, really bad. So bad that we don't have to overstate how bad it is. > That's wars, global instability, lots and lots of deaths, and the end of society as we know it. That's collapsing. That's societal collapse. That's really really bad. But you were talking about species level collapse. Let me quote you "We literally are failing to survive on Earth." That's not the case. We don't have to overstate our case. Extinction is not the danger we are facing here. It is continued living on the species level in a much more precarious, dangerous, unpleasant way. It's failing to thrive, not failing to survive.

palata 2y ago
> If you understand "prediction" to mean "any bullshit made up by anyone" then yes. I don't have to go that far, really! The IPCC models are systematically observed to be optimistic. 4 degrees is not particularly pessimistic. > That's societal collapse. That's really really bad. But you were talking about species level collapse. Even nitpicking here doesn't work. If you lose 90% of your population, as a species, it's collapsing. I understand the point you are trying to make: "it's not clear that the humans species will disappear, just most humans". And I'm not saying it's clear. I'm saying it is a risk. Because we are not wild animals. Most humans, if you don't give them prepared food in a plastic bag, can't survive. And we're talking about surviving in a much harder world (4 degrees means that growing crop is harder in many ways). But again it is a moot point. What's the point of going around saying "Guys don't be scared, we won't disappear as a species. Most of us here will die, still, but that's not as bad". Now, let me address your nitpick: We as a society are on the verge of collapsing, and we as a species as well. With a non-zero risk that the entire species will go extinct.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > What's the point of going around The point is to be accurate. > Guys don't be scared, I didn’t say to not be scared. There is such a thing as surviving something, but wishing that you didn’t. > Now, let me address your nitpick You said we are about to go extinct. I think we are not. If that is a nitpick i don’t know what is material disagreement.
  - palata 2y ago
    > You said we are about to go extinct You want to be accurate, please also be when it doesn't work in your favour. Let me quote what I said: > We, as a species, are on the verge of collapsing on Earth I said "on the verge of collapsing", not "about to go extinct".
    - krisoft 2y ago
      “We literally are failing to survive on Earth.”
      - palata 2y ago
        Oh, right. Yep, that's not particularly accurate. I meant it more as "instead of losing resources focusing on mars, we should focus on the Earth because there is a lot to do". Again, I would argue that we are, right now, building the conditions of a collapse, meaning that many (most?) humans may not survive it. It's not just climate change, it's essentially all the planet's limits we know. Did you know that we have probably already lost the Amazon? But well, what's the point of arguing, you agree that it's really, really, really bad. Sorry if you don't like my wording, I'll try to do better next time ;-).

palata 2y ago

> If you understand "prediction" to mean "any bullshit made up by anyone" then yes. I don't have to go that far, really! The IPCC models are systematically observed to be optimistic. 4 degrees is not particularly pessimistic. > That's societal collapse. That's really really bad. But you were talking about species level collapse. Even nitpicking here doesn't work. If you lose 90% of your population, as a species, it's collapsing. I understand the point you are trying to make: "it's not clear that the humans species will disappear, just most humans". And I'm not saying it's clear. I'm saying it is a risk. Because we are not wild animals. Most humans, if you don't give them prepared food in a plastic bag, can't survive. And we're talking about surviving in a much harder world (4 degrees means that growing crop is harder in many ways). But again it is a moot point. What's the point of going around saying "Guys don't be scared, we won't disappear as a species. Most of us here will die, still, but that's not as bad". Now, let me address your nitpick: We as a society are on the verge of collapsing, and we as a species as well. With a non-zero risk that the entire species will go extinct.

krisoft 2y ago
> What's the point of going around The point is to be accurate. > Guys don't be scared, I didn’t say to not be scared. There is such a thing as surviving something, but wishing that you didn’t. > Now, let me address your nitpick You said we are about to go extinct. I think we are not. If that is a nitpick i don’t know what is material disagreement.
- palata 2y ago
  > You said we are about to go extinct You want to be accurate, please also be when it doesn't work in your favour. Let me quote what I said: > We, as a species, are on the verge of collapsing on Earth I said "on the verge of collapsing", not "about to go extinct".
  - krisoft 2y ago
    “We literally are failing to survive on Earth.”
    - palata 2y ago
      Oh, right. Yep, that's not particularly accurate. I meant it more as "instead of losing resources focusing on mars, we should focus on the Earth because there is a lot to do". Again, I would argue that we are, right now, building the conditions of a collapse, meaning that many (most?) humans may not survive it. It's not just climate change, it's essentially all the planet's limits we know. Did you know that we have probably already lost the Amazon? But well, what's the point of arguing, you agree that it's really, really, really bad. Sorry if you don't like my wording, I'll try to do better next time ;-).