4 ms·

Somehow humanity survived 10,000 years of the last ice age. Without central heating. Of course, furs will be harder to come by.

simianparrot 8mo ago
Yeah but they didn’t have social media algorithms turning their brains into slush
- gyrovagueGeist 8mo ago
  They also didn't have nuclear weapons to use in global conflicts over resources.
unglaublich 8mo ago
They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't.
- palmotea 8mo ago
  > They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't. Hence the egregious exaggeration of the title. Even large fractions of the population dying != "Bye Bye Humanity."
bawolff 8mo ago
Being cold doesn't seem that big a problem. I think the bigger concern is what sudden climate shifts might do to agriculture. If some farmland becomes much less viable on a wide basis, that might be much harder to adjust to on the short term. I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply.
- lelanthran 8mo ago
  > I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply. They didn't have the logistical advantages we have today (storage and transport). Okay, when prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique are no longer viable some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. Historical societies did not have the technology to simply farm in another place when their current place become hostile to farming. We already do this. The only danger we have is if the global area for farming decreases. I do not think this will happen - it will merely shift around.
  - danaris 8mo ago
    > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. What is your basis for this claim? It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. There's no cosmic balance being kept here.
    - lelanthran 8mo ago
      > It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. So? That isn't an irreplaceable staple, is it? Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. > For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. Not even the most extreme warnings about climate change go to this extreme. What is your reasoning for considering a possibility so small that it exceeds all the most extreme models we have?
      - danaris 8mo ago
        > Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. But those prawns are gone. The people whose livelihood depended on them have lost that. The people for whom they were a staple have lost that, no matter how replaceable they may be. Sure, given time, we may be able to find replacements for the things we lose to this drastic climatic shift. But that's not a guarantee, and even if we do, there's huge damage and upheaval in the meantime. > I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. It's not about "all areas". Nowhere did I say that everywhere on the planet would become non-arable land at the same time. It's about having more land lose viability than gains it within a short span of time. What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain—seems much, much less likely than the scenario where land we have farmed for literally thousands of years becomes wasteland, and we do not immediately gain enough new arable land in other areas to replace it. In fact, every projection I have seen has suggested that while we may gain some new arable land, it will be much, much less than what we lose in a scenario like the one described. What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, or you're engaging in seriously magical thinking to posit that every acre of farmland lost will be perfectly balanced by an acre of farmland gained somewhere else, and no one will be seriously negatively affected by the move from one to the other.

simianparrot 8mo ago

Yeah but they didn’t have social media algorithms turning their brains into slush

gyrovagueGeist 8mo ago
They also didn't have nuclear weapons to use in global conflicts over resources.

unglaublich 8mo ago

They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't.

palmotea 8mo ago
> They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't. Hence the egregious exaggeration of the title. Even large fractions of the population dying != "Bye Bye Humanity."

bawolff 8mo ago

Being cold doesn't seem that big a problem. I think the bigger concern is what sudden climate shifts might do to agriculture. If some farmland becomes much less viable on a wide basis, that might be much harder to adjust to on the short term. I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply.

lelanthran 8mo ago
> I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply. They didn't have the logistical advantages we have today (storage and transport). Okay, when prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique are no longer viable some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. Historical societies did not have the technology to simply farm in another place when their current place become hostile to farming. We already do this. The only danger we have is if the global area for farming decreases. I do not think this will happen - it will merely shift around.
- danaris 8mo ago
  > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. What is your basis for this claim? It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. There's no cosmic balance being kept here.
  - lelanthran 8mo ago
    > It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. So? That isn't an irreplaceable staple, is it? Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. > For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. Not even the most extreme warnings about climate change go to this extreme. What is your reasoning for considering a possibility so small that it exceeds all the most extreme models we have?
    - danaris 8mo ago
      > Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. But those prawns are gone. The people whose livelihood depended on them have lost that. The people for whom they were a staple have lost that, no matter how replaceable they may be. Sure, given time, we may be able to find replacements for the things we lose to this drastic climatic shift. But that's not a guarantee, and even if we do, there's huge damage and upheaval in the meantime. > I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. It's not about "all areas". Nowhere did I say that everywhere on the planet would become non-arable land at the same time. It's about having more land lose viability than gains it within a short span of time. What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain—seems much, much less likely than the scenario where land we have farmed for literally thousands of years becomes wasteland, and we do not immediately gain enough new arable land in other areas to replace it. In fact, every projection I have seen has suggested that while we may gain some new arable land, it will be much, much less than what we lose in a scenario like the one described. What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, or you're engaging in seriously magical thinking to posit that every acre of farmland lost will be perfectly balanced by an acre of farmland gained somewhere else, and no one will be seriously negatively affected by the move from one to the other.