3 ms·

If enough climate systems collapse, lots of existing farms will no longer be viable. That means famine and migration, which means war, which means lots of death

If enough climate systems collapse, lots of existing farms will no longer be viable. That means famine and migration, which means war, which means lots of death. I don't know anyone who thinks we'll see extinction (outside of possible "hothouse earth" scenarios, where we become a second Venus) but societal collapse is definitely on the table. Saying this is "not scientific" would just be you not understanding the science.

simianwords 3mo ago
> Saying this is "not scientific" would just be you not understanding the science. Please show me sources that the current emissions would lead to "lots of death"? Show me any decent modelling of emissions vs annual death? This one shows a million more deaths annually if we have even more emissions in 100 years than now. Million more deaths is around 2% increase in death rate compared to the hypothetical without emissions. This means even in the worst case of higher emissions in the future than now, also no technological progress, we would still be in better living conditions in the future than now. What is your answer to this? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bf26af29f187c6f3a9fbbf/t/678f111666f6b97afdd39e9c/1737429272631/JMP.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bf26af29f187c6f3a9f...
- DangitBobby 3mo ago
  ... Do you understand feedback loops? Yes? Interconnected climate systems where one system hits a threshold and accelerates change in one direction which causes another system to hit a threshold faster causing a cascade of systems to fall over until all the thresholds have been reached? Why are you showing me a document about the economic impact of "current" carbon levels applied linearly as if this system grows predicably and linearly and the economy and future technology grow as some linear function of those inputs? Do you not even understand the basic premise that the people you're criticizing operate from? If not, why are you talking about this like you know anything about it? https://iiasa.ac.at/news/feb-2026/course-correction-needed-quickly-to-avoid-pathway-to-hothouse-earth-scenario https://iiasa.ac.at/news/feb-2026/course-correction-needed-q...
  - simianwords 3mo ago
    Thanks for showing me about tipping points. Tipping points exist at every level, you could have shown this mechanism in 1800's and asked people to stop/slow development. In fact I can justify not just net zero, but net negative emissions and stalling of all progress of humanity itself by using your article. It would have been another story if there were some graph between emissions vs probability of hitting an irreversible tipping point. At least this gives us a prescriptive analysis on how to deal with the tradeoffs. Your article contains NONE of that. And I posit that it doesn't contain it because the real probabilities are much lower. You can't make serious policies by handwaving tipping points. No country should immediately go net zero because of your article or even the studies your article cites. I get that it feels good to be in a position to scold people into stopping progress. I'm willing to learn new perspectives - at least come up with a emissions vs probability quantified. Till then its just scolding and handwaving.

simianwords 3mo ago

> Saying this is "not scientific" would just be you not understanding the science. Please show me sources that the current emissions would lead to "lots of death"? Show me any decent modelling of emissions vs annual death? This one shows a million more deaths annually if we have even more emissions in 100 years than now. Million more deaths is around 2% increase in death rate compared to the hypothetical without emissions. This means even in the worst case of higher emissions in the future than now, also no technological progress, we would still be in better living conditions in the future than now. What is your answer to this? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bf26af29f187c6f3a9fbbf/t/678f111666f6b97afdd39e9c/1737429272631/JMP.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bf26af29f187c6f3a9f...

DangitBobby 3mo ago
... Do you understand feedback loops? Yes? Interconnected climate systems where one system hits a threshold and accelerates change in one direction which causes another system to hit a threshold faster causing a cascade of systems to fall over until all the thresholds have been reached? Why are you showing me a document about the economic impact of "current" carbon levels applied linearly as if this system grows predicably and linearly and the economy and future technology grow as some linear function of those inputs? Do you not even understand the basic premise that the people you're criticizing operate from? If not, why are you talking about this like you know anything about it? https://iiasa.ac.at/news/feb-2026/course-correction-needed-quickly-to-avoid-pathway-to-hothouse-earth-scenario https://iiasa.ac.at/news/feb-2026/course-correction-needed-q...
- simianwords 3mo ago
  Thanks for showing me about tipping points. Tipping points exist at every level, you could have shown this mechanism in 1800's and asked people to stop/slow development. In fact I can justify not just net zero, but net negative emissions and stalling of all progress of humanity itself by using your article. It would have been another story if there were some graph between emissions vs probability of hitting an irreversible tipping point. At least this gives us a prescriptive analysis on how to deal with the tradeoffs. Your article contains NONE of that. And I posit that it doesn't contain it because the real probabilities are much lower. You can't make serious policies by handwaving tipping points. No country should immediately go net zero because of your article or even the studies your article cites. I get that it feels good to be in a position to scold people into stopping progress. I'm willing to learn new perspectives - at least come up with a emissions vs probability quantified. Till then its just scolding and handwaving.