5 ms·

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their HN threads — tend to favor more of the doomsday message he’s arguing against here.

benrutter 1y ago
Climate change is so confusing to message about in this sense, because the future is not decided. We're on track to warm the planet far past the point that of sustaining something you and I would recognise as human society. That said, we're also changing course which has the opportunity to mitigate things. The meta part is, if everyone thinks we'll change course, that affects whether we do. There's no straight prediction that can be made.
hmahonen 1y ago
Question is that how long is foreseeable future? It is very likely that the time span for an individual is long enough that the change does not matter. Still the future will arrive and most likely sooner than we thought.
ares623 1y ago
That’s assuming over half the world’s population will just say “oh well, this is my life now. I wouldn’t want to bother those people in the good parts.” There will be upheavals everywhere.
supriyo-biswas 1y ago
> Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). The uncharitable interpretation being that he's trying to toe the line for the current US administration, while still signaling that he's part of the communities that he typically inhabits as part of his charity work.
jshen 1y ago
He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.
- Retric 1y ago
  societal collapse != humanities demise. Climate change could do a lot of damage it’s just not extinction level damage. Even large scale nuclear war based on current stockpiles isn’t going to result in extinction.
  - jshen 1y ago
    We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?
    - Retric 1y ago
      IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point. There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants. At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning fossil fuels. Obviously that doesn’t mean every current use case is worthwhile, but we can’t ignore the short term here. The good news is we’re actually making a lot of progress on climate change. The electric grid being ~90% very low carbon emissions by 2050 is a realistic goal and would avoid the worst predictions.
      - jshen 1y ago
        I don't see any progress in terms of the rate of increase in atmospheric co2 over time. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
Animats 1y ago
Depends on where you are in the world. For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. The US may have to give up on Miami and New Orleans, and build seawalls for New York. Some crops may have to be grown further north. Some irrigation systems will need upgrades. More power will be needed for air conditioning. Those will not seriously damage a society. After all, right now the biggest problem in American agriculture is where to put all the excess soy and corn. Countries in Asia with heavily populated big river delta areas of shallow slope are very vulnerable to small rises in sea level, because the coast moves a long way inland. China and Vietnam can probably engineer their way out of those problems. Some countries near the equator with political instability are in big trouble.[1] Too poor and too disorganized to upgrade water and agriculture systems. [1] https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-dis...
- energy123 1y ago
  > For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. Spillover of problems like mass migration away from the equator and increase in conflicts.
  - polotics 1y ago
    As long as you classify as annoyances the overheat deaths of many poorer and/or frailer (and a few wealthy-but-unlucky) members of your developed world, then indeed you can call this annoying. Also you can drop the "will be" and start using "is".
  - fulafel 1y ago
    Also increased threat of far-right rule in democracies and general dehumanizing attitude toward people in trouble.
    - moritzwarhier 1y ago
      That's not a prediction, it's a current reality. It's already prescribed by calling circumstances people have no control over "being in trouble": but that is certainly not wrong! If someone smashes your windows at night, robs you, you're in trouble. If you're being threatened with a weapon, you're in trouble. But you're also in trouble when you leave your house in a freezing night and don't remember to put your keys in your pocket. If you're unlawfully detained, you're in trouble, as much as you are in trouble when you're detained for a good reason. Dehumanizing people who are "in trouble" is as old as humanity itself. Rape victims are also in trouble. Even worse, trouble tends to accumulate and amplify existing trouble. Some people think that's just how the world works. It's certainly how a world of animals works. And a "fair" world is hard to imagine, the human condition is partly an attempt to achieve it though.
kennywinker 1y ago
I think he’s probably right, but to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. Humans living and thriving does not preclude a massive drop in population. It is very hard to gauge what he actually believes will happen based on these words
- HK-NC 1y ago
  The plague did wonders for us, didnt it? Of course dead people arent livivng or thriving, but if they leave behind a world that has more job opportunities, housing opportunities, cleaner environments, quality food for less....
  - omikun 1y ago
    Ahh yes the Thanos argument
  - dv_dt 1y ago
    There have been historical cases made that the plague was a driver of a series of follow on events that upended the previous order - so people like Gates sitting at the top of the current world order might not want to be so blase about the effects of climate change
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. That's not clear at all. Claiming 25%+ of the world will die is the kind of hyperbolic doomsday claim the Gates is trying to move away from because it distracts from sane climate mitigation strategies.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 1y ago
I agree. This is the first message I am hearing, “There are more important things than climate change.” It’s almost shocking to hear it. The cynical side of my mind is wondering if this is the start of a slow pivot for the political masses. Another news item today says that emissions reduction pledges are not forthcoming in new world climate discussions. Perhaps messaging about climate change is evolving.
fuzzfactor 1y ago
>—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. Can't read the article, but if he doesn't think climate change will do it, is he offering any new alternatives?
mmooss 1y ago
I wish sophisticated communicators like Gates would skip the strawpeople arguments as setups; it's the end of any serious examination before it even begins. > doomsday message That term reveals a partisan position: it's a strawperson ridiculing those who talk about the great risks and harms of climate change. 'Don't look up!' > Interesting and different perspective It's an old, well-worn perspective, that is commonplace now - especially in American business and government, it's more common than the 'realist' perspective on climate change. It's incredible that they - the entrenched, very powerful status quo power structure - depict themselves as insurgents for advocating the same old climate denial policies. IMHO: The entrenched capitalists (including Gates) and their power structure simply don't want to change - a bias of the status quo. They are asserting a reactionary conservative position - no change, no matter what, and hate those who want change - regardless of its validity in reality, with the idea that nobody can make them change. They make spurious arguments like Gates to divert people - a tactic they can do endlessly. The idea that the answer to the enormous damage of the entrenched capitalists is empower them more is, when you think about it, laughable and absurdly myopic and self serving. They can't even carry out the charade for 10 minutes - now those entrenched capitalists are building massive power-consuming datacenters, eliminating ESG, destroying renewable energy in the world's biggest economy ... I'm sure they'll save us. But notice I keep talking about entrenched capitalists. An essential of capitalism and free markets is creative destruction. These failed capitalists - and climate change is an historic failure, about which their predictions and decisions were enormous errors - should be destroyed (economically) and buried like Lehman Brothers, and new ones, who correctly anticipate it and deal with it, should be funded. Really, all we need is to stop making taxpayers fund climate change - prevention, remediation, cleanup from disasters, etc. - and have a GHG tax that prices things according to their real cost, rather than subsidizing the current failures. Then real, innovative capitalists in a free market can thrive.
belter 1y ago
Bill Gates opinion has the same value, as a random HN commenter...or less ...due to his bias.
techblueberry 1y ago
I mean "People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future." Seems pretty fucking doomsday to me. Most Places? Like I don't think anyone thought the world would implode, but an increase in the number of places humanity can't survive? What if one of those places is South Florida? What if one of those places causes mass emmigration/immigration.

benrutter 1y ago

Climate change is so confusing to message about in this sense, because the future is not decided. We're on track to warm the planet far past the point that of sustaining something you and I would recognise as human society. That said, we're also changing course which has the opportunity to mitigate things. The meta part is, if everyone thinks we'll change course, that affects whether we do. There's no straight prediction that can be made.

hmahonen 1y ago

Question is that how long is foreseeable future? It is very likely that the time span for an individual is long enough that the change does not matter. Still the future will arrive and most likely sooner than we thought.

ares623 1y ago

That’s assuming over half the world’s population will just say “oh well, this is my life now. I wouldn’t want to bother those people in the good parts.” There will be upheavals everywhere.

supriyo-biswas 1y ago

> Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). The uncharitable interpretation being that he's trying to toe the line for the current US administration, while still signaling that he's part of the communities that he typically inhabits as part of his charity work.

jshen 1y ago

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

Retric 1y ago
societal collapse != humanities demise. Climate change could do a lot of damage it’s just not extinction level damage. Even large scale nuclear war based on current stockpiles isn’t going to result in extinction.
- jshen 1y ago
  We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?
  - Retric 1y ago
    IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point. There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants. At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning fossil fuels. Obviously that doesn’t mean every current use case is worthwhile, but we can’t ignore the short term here. The good news is we’re actually making a lot of progress on climate change. The electric grid being ~90% very low carbon emissions by 2050 is a realistic goal and would avoid the worst predictions.
    - jshen 1y ago
      I don't see any progress in terms of the rate of increase in atmospheric co2 over time. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Animats 1y ago

Depends on where you are in the world. For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. The US may have to give up on Miami and New Orleans, and build seawalls for New York. Some crops may have to be grown further north. Some irrigation systems will need upgrades. More power will be needed for air conditioning. Those will not seriously damage a society. After all, right now the biggest problem in American agriculture is where to put all the excess soy and corn. Countries in Asia with heavily populated big river delta areas of shallow slope are very vulnerable to small rises in sea level, because the coast moves a long way inland. China and Vietnam can probably engineer their way out of those problems. Some countries near the equator with political instability are in big trouble.[1] Too poor and too disorganized to upgrade water and agriculture systems. [1] https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-dis...

energy123 1y ago
> For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. Spillover of problems like mass migration away from the equator and increase in conflicts.
- polotics 1y ago
  As long as you classify as annoyances the overheat deaths of many poorer and/or frailer (and a few wealthy-but-unlucky) members of your developed world, then indeed you can call this annoying. Also you can drop the "will be" and start using "is".
- fulafel 1y ago
  Also increased threat of far-right rule in democracies and general dehumanizing attitude toward people in trouble.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    That's not a prediction, it's a current reality. It's already prescribed by calling circumstances people have no control over "being in trouble": but that is certainly not wrong! If someone smashes your windows at night, robs you, you're in trouble. If you're being threatened with a weapon, you're in trouble. But you're also in trouble when you leave your house in a freezing night and don't remember to put your keys in your pocket. If you're unlawfully detained, you're in trouble, as much as you are in trouble when you're detained for a good reason. Dehumanizing people who are "in trouble" is as old as humanity itself. Rape victims are also in trouble. Even worse, trouble tends to accumulate and amplify existing trouble. Some people think that's just how the world works. It's certainly how a world of animals works. And a "fair" world is hard to imagine, the human condition is partly an attempt to achieve it though.

kennywinker 1y ago

I think he’s probably right, but to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. Humans living and thriving does not preclude a massive drop in population. It is very hard to gauge what he actually believes will happen based on these words

HK-NC 1y ago
The plague did wonders for us, didnt it? Of course dead people arent livivng or thriving, but if they leave behind a world that has more job opportunities, housing opportunities, cleaner environments, quality food for less....
- omikun 1y ago
  Ahh yes the Thanos argument
- dv_dt 1y ago
  There have been historical cases made that the plague was a driver of a series of follow on events that upended the previous order - so people like Gates sitting at the top of the current world order might not want to be so blase about the effects of climate change
WillPostForFood 1y ago
to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. That's not clear at all. Claiming 25%+ of the world will die is the kind of hyperbolic doomsday claim the Gates is trying to move away from because it distracts from sane climate mitigation strategies.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

RickJWagner 1y ago

I agree. This is the first message I am hearing, “There are more important things than climate change.” It’s almost shocking to hear it. The cynical side of my mind is wondering if this is the start of a slow pivot for the political masses. Another news item today says that emissions reduction pledges are not forthcoming in new world climate discussions. Perhaps messaging about climate change is evolving.

fuzzfactor 1y ago

>—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. Can't read the article, but if he doesn't think climate change will do it, is he offering any new alternatives?

mmooss 1y ago

I wish sophisticated communicators like Gates would skip the strawpeople arguments as setups; it's the end of any serious examination before it even begins. > doomsday message That term reveals a partisan position: it's a strawperson ridiculing those who talk about the great risks and harms of climate change. 'Don't look up!' > Interesting and different perspective It's an old, well-worn perspective, that is commonplace now - especially in American business and government, it's more common than the 'realist' perspective on climate change. It's incredible that they - the entrenched, very powerful status quo power structure - depict themselves as insurgents for advocating the same old climate denial policies. IMHO: The entrenched capitalists (including Gates) and their power structure simply don't want to change - a bias of the status quo. They are asserting a reactionary conservative position - no change, no matter what, and hate those who want change - regardless of its validity in reality, with the idea that nobody can make them change. They make spurious arguments like Gates to divert people - a tactic they can do endlessly. The idea that the answer to the enormous damage of the entrenched capitalists is empower them more is, when you think about it, laughable and absurdly myopic and self serving. They can't even carry out the charade for 10 minutes - now those entrenched capitalists are building massive power-consuming datacenters, eliminating ESG, destroying renewable energy in the world's biggest economy ... I'm sure they'll save us. But notice I keep talking about entrenched capitalists. An essential of capitalism and free markets is creative destruction. These failed capitalists - and climate change is an historic failure, about which their predictions and decisions were enormous errors - should be destroyed (economically) and buried like Lehman Brothers, and new ones, who correctly anticipate it and deal with it, should be funded. Really, all we need is to stop making taxpayers fund climate change - prevention, remediation, cleanup from disasters, etc. - and have a GHG tax that prices things according to their real cost, rather than subsidizing the current failures. Then real, innovative capitalists in a free market can thrive.

belter 1y ago

Bill Gates opinion has the same value, as a random HN commenter...or less ...due to his bias.

techblueberry 1y ago

I mean "People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future." Seems pretty fucking doomsday to me. Most Places? Like I don't think anyone thought the world would implode, but an increase in the number of places humanity can't survive? What if one of those places is South Florida? What if one of those places causes mass emmigration/immigration.