3 ms·

Did you notice that you aren't wrong because you're not really saying anything at all? "in its current form" - so maybe with slightly different distribution of

Did you notice that you aren't wrong because you're not really saying anything at all? "in its current form" - so maybe with slightly different distribution of land use but basically fine and not necessarily as different as today is from 50 years ago? "mass extinction" already been happening for ages for many species. "uncomfortable floods/etc?" Already been happening for all of history. "very quickly" is how quicky? "more extreme" is how much more extreme?

AlecSchueler 2y ago
> so maybe with slightly different distribution of land use but basically fine and not necessarily as different as today is from 50 years ago? No, probably very much more different than that, more like rolling back on industrialisation and globalisation. Closer to 500 years than 50, without the same hope of "progress" that we had back then. > "mass extinction" already been happening for ages for many species. Yeah, we all learned about dinosaurs when we were little kids, but if humanity collapses there's no guarantee of anything similar developing after us.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  That's better putting some numbers on it. Just to be clear, are you saying climate change is expected to cause a 1500's level of industrialisation globally? I might have misread you but if that's really your claim, you should provide a source because it's an extreme claim that's wildly different to any scientific predictions I've read about. Why wouldn't there be any hope of progress? What is the force that would make this regression permanent? As I understand it, the whole problem with climate change is not the outcome of the climate but the speed of change being too high for plants and animals to adapt, either by migration or evolution.