Long is a relative term. We’ve managed to prolong the date to which civilization will “survive”, but we’re still talking about migrant crises and death of millions in this century, to color in some parameters of what this version of survival means. We’re still on the path to self-destruction in single-digit generations.
We might be “ok” once the “hysterics” boil up to produce more regulation, if they do, the difference of “when” is how much irreversible damage are we going to create and how many ripple-effect issues are we willing to accept on behalf of many generations to come.
As Al Barlett said, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. "
We’re still on the path to self-destruction in single-digit generations.
I mean, we’ve been there since the invention of the atomic bomb, and we’re all still here to talk about it on Lemmy.
I’m truly not saying that things cannot go to shit in a heartbeat, but my point is that we always tend to dance close to the edge but not go over it, at some point we always instinctively pull back.
So when someone looks at an individual moment in time downturn as an inevitability to the end times, it’s just something I feel the need to push back on, as we are a long way from game over.
Pay very close attention to the time scale, very close.
Looks like the moral of the story of that graph is to rehire Genghis Khan to lower the temperature again.
Edit: Just to remind you of the original point I was making, when replying to your original comment, as we’re drifting far away from it at this point. …
YOU: I wonder exactly at what point in this unsurvivable train wreck it’ll make sense to stop singing Kumbaya and take out the pitchforks.
ME: We are a long way away from unsurvivable, no need for hysterics.
I’m not trying to dismiss climate change, quite the opposite, I believe it’s happening and that we should do everything we can to fight it.
But to say its unsurvivable is just b.s. The species will carry on.
Yes, let’s argue over which functional definition of “surviving” is most appropriate. We can create all kinds of global tragedies, mass deaths, endanger the very fabric of civilization by creating economic disaster, have a climate that’s too hot to survive without technology in most places, etc etc. But sure, if a few spots with humans might make it, what’s the big deeeal?
You say you’re not trying to dismiss it, yet enough of your replies are massively downplaying the danger because “it hasn’t happened yet, and look! we’ve done a thing or two” and this is precisely the issue today.
People don’t and so far have not been able to understand the rate of change and the relative shortness of the time scale, as well as the range of many mass-scale tragedies that are possible which are not the worst outcome.
Comparing it to doom-saying about nuclear war is simply illogical. Nuclear warfare either will happen, or it won’t. Climate change is already a reality, the control of which we’ve already been largely failing to attain, and due to a combination of mass misunderstanding of it, ineffective government, and economic overdependence of growth, there is no certainty we will in the time that we need to, to prevent more crises. We have a clear understanding of where we’re headed and where we will end up from whichever course of action we take, and it ranges from not-great to toppling civilization, with deaths of billions and global economic breakdown somewhere in that range.
But yes, you can keep your point about survivability, some humans will probably make it, they’ll wonder why we were this stupid. I’m sure they’ll recognize the brilliance in needing to split hairs about the definition of surviving, if the record of this conversation makes it to that point and they have the ability or desire to retrieve it. Those of us who include basic characteristics of our modern quality of life in the identity of “us” as a society, and the hundreds-of-millions-to-billions that die might take issue with your definition, though. But sure, you can have that one. “We’ll” “survive” it.
Long is a relative term. We’ve managed to prolong the date to which civilization will “survive”, but we’re still talking about migrant crises and death of millions in this century, to color in some parameters of what this version of survival means. We’re still on the path to self-destruction in single-digit generations.
We might be “ok” once the “hysterics” boil up to produce more regulation, if they do, the difference of “when” is how much irreversible damage are we going to create and how many ripple-effect issues are we willing to accept on behalf of many generations to come.
As Al Barlett said, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. "
I mean, we’ve been there since the invention of the atomic bomb, and we’re all still here to talk about it on Lemmy.
I’m truly not saying that things cannot go to shit in a heartbeat, but my point is that we always tend to dance close to the edge but not go over it, at some point we always instinctively pull back.
So when someone looks at an individual moment in time downturn as an inevitability to the end times, it’s just something I feel the need to push back on, as we are a long way from game over.
Case in point.
Point with finger.
🤦
Here’s a rather decent visualization from an unorthodox but surprisingly high-quality source:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Pay very close attention to the time scale, very close.
Edit: another supporting argument link for the lazy https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/05/13/climate-migration-an-impending-global-challenge/
Looks like the moral of the story of that graph is to rehire Genghis Khan to lower the temperature again.
Edit: Just to remind you of the original point I was making, when replying to your original comment, as we’re drifting far away from it at this point. …
I’m not trying to dismiss climate change, quite the opposite, I believe it’s happening and that we should do everything we can to fight it.
But to say its unsurvivable is just b.s. The species will carry on.
Yes, let’s argue over which functional definition of “surviving” is most appropriate. We can create all kinds of global tragedies, mass deaths, endanger the very fabric of civilization by creating economic disaster, have a climate that’s too hot to survive without technology in most places, etc etc. But sure, if a few spots with humans might make it, what’s the big deeeal?
You say you’re not trying to dismiss it, yet enough of your replies are massively downplaying the danger because “it hasn’t happened yet, and look! we’ve done a thing or two” and this is precisely the issue today.
People don’t and so far have not been able to understand the rate of change and the relative shortness of the time scale, as well as the range of many mass-scale tragedies that are possible which are not the worst outcome.
Comparing it to doom-saying about nuclear war is simply illogical. Nuclear warfare either will happen, or it won’t. Climate change is already a reality, the control of which we’ve already been largely failing to attain, and due to a combination of mass misunderstanding of it, ineffective government, and economic overdependence of growth, there is no certainty we will in the time that we need to, to prevent more crises. We have a clear understanding of where we’re headed and where we will end up from whichever course of action we take, and it ranges from not-great to toppling civilization, with deaths of billions and global economic breakdown somewhere in that range.
But yes, you can keep your point about survivability, some humans will probably make it, they’ll wonder why we were this stupid. I’m sure they’ll recognize the brilliance in needing to split hairs about the definition of surviving, if the record of this conversation makes it to that point and they have the ability or desire to retrieve it. Those of us who include basic characteristics of our modern quality of life in the identity of “us” as a society, and the hundreds-of-millions-to-billions that die might take issue with your definition, though. But sure, you can have that one. “We’ll” “survive” it.