3 ms·

The statistics for the number of deaths from climate-based disasters is clear: fewer and fewer people are dying the richer the world becomes. In fact the decrea

The statistics for the number of deaths from climate-based disasters is clear: fewer and fewer people are dying the richer the world becomes. In fact the decrease in deaths is very significant: "Annual climate-disaster deaths averaged around 77,000 per year in the 1960s–70s, dropped to about 33,000/year in the 1980s–90s, and fell further to roughly 27,000/year in 2000–2019 even as the number of recorded climate disasters rose from about 1,171 to 3,656 to 6,641 across those same periods." If you're optimising for human life, then "drill baby drill", as more energy = more wealth. More wealth = better infrastructure, health care, dealing with extreme weather conditions.

dsauerbrun 2mo ago
If you think about this in terms of systems... it's unsustainable. You'll eventually get to a point where the damage you've done requires a flow of wealth/energy that cannot be generated for everyone. I'm assuming that we can drive our environment to that kind of state, maybe there's an upper limit on how bad the environment can get. I'm not a climate scientist and don't have the curiosity to look into if there's a limit to climate change.
Mawr 2mo ago
1. The past is not a predictor of the future. Driving towards a cliff has very positive results right up until a sharply negative one. 2. Energy does not require damaging the environment through drilling. We can get it straight from our star, for example. 3. Dealing with the consequences of something is always more expensive than preventing it in the first place.
- Flere-Imsaho 2mo ago
  1. Of course it is. That is how models are built. They are not always correct of course, but it's the best we have. 2. We need to choose the cheapest energy option at the time. If renewables are cheaper then great, but making the poor even poorer to make is rich people feel better is not a good solution. 3. The consequences of making the world poorer is more people will die from climate related disasters.

dsauerbrun 2mo ago

If you think about this in terms of systems... it's unsustainable. You'll eventually get to a point where the damage you've done requires a flow of wealth/energy that cannot be generated for everyone. I'm assuming that we can drive our environment to that kind of state, maybe there's an upper limit on how bad the environment can get. I'm not a climate scientist and don't have the curiosity to look into if there's a limit to climate change.

Mawr 2mo ago

1. The past is not a predictor of the future. Driving towards a cliff has very positive results right up until a sharply negative one. 2. Energy does not require damaging the environment through drilling. We can get it straight from our star, for example. 3. Dealing with the consequences of something is always more expensive than preventing it in the first place.

Flere-Imsaho 2mo ago
1. Of course it is. That is how models are built. They are not always correct of course, but it's the best we have. 2. We need to choose the cheapest energy option at the time. If renewables are cheaper then great, but making the poor even poorer to make is rich people feel better is not a good solution. 3. The consequences of making the world poorer is more people will die from climate related disasters.