Edit: We survived an ice age and we're very highly adaptable. Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.
Edit: We survived an ice age and we're very highly adaptable. Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.
126 Comments
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 65 pts · 1y
Bit heavy for the shower.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 52 pts · 1y
baconmonsta@piefed.social · 21 pts · 1y
Let the shower wash away your tears...
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1y
I want a refund on this "no tears" baby shampoo. Didn't do a damn thing for my depression.
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 1y
That would belong on Twitter, if it was 10 years ago and not full of nazis
null@lemmy.nullspace.lol · 3 pts · 1y
I think we do Mastodon now
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 1y
It's where I go to cry when it's not raining. :(
Nay@feddit.nl · 9 pts · 1y
It just hit me in a sobering sorta way.
Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1y
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
Its the nazi version of the shower
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 60 pts · 1y
“The planet will be fine. We’re fucked.”
— St. Carlin
Nay@feddit.nl · 13 pts · 1y
100% . I love to see it!
FenrirIII@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Him and Buddy Christ
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 1y
No species lasts forever—and the faster their environment changes, the sooner their expiration date.
higgsboson@piefed.social · 9 pts · 1y
When faced with a changing environment, a species has 3 choices: Adapt, Migrate, or Die.
Humans have apparently decided to vault past the first two and just yank that third lever.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
I mean, why do you say that? I don't know if any other species that lives in a greater variety of environments. There are humans living on every continent, including Antarctica. There are humans living with support in space and under the sea.
We have migrated, to everywhere. And we can adapt, to almost anything.
And to clarify, I don't think we'll all survive, but I highly doubt we'd all die.
synae@lemmy.sdf.org · 7 pts · 1y
Those other species weren't the authors of the global ecosystem's demise, even with an understanding of the situation and opportunity to change the course of events
Not really a fair comparison, is what I'm saying.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 1y
Depends on what you define as "lasts forever". We are direct descendants of some kind of a rodent. Yeah, our species has changed "kind of much" since those days, but I wouldn't worry about that kind of "expiration". We are some rodents' grand-grand-grand-...-grandchildren, and I think the rodent would be very much okay with us not looking very squirrellike, if they somehow was to find out they are our ancestor. They'd love us all the same :)
But of course, in our case, it won't be that evolution changes us into something else. It's rather, we will just vault 92'ify ourselves.
abbadon420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1y
Some species are contesting that statement very strongly. Take the horseshoecrab, or the tardigrate or even the cockroach. Humans are known for their fast adaptability, so I'd bet my money on us joining that list.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
None of those are species—they’re a family, a phylum, and a (partial) order, respectively. While those clades have been relatively stable morphologically, species within each clade still come and go.
abbadon420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1y
I'm sorry for the confusion, I was using the old housewives definition of species.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1y
No other species are quite like humans though
P00ptart@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Meh, we wouldn't be the first species to be so successful that we kill ourselves off.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 1y
My bet for climate change is a massive migrational crisis and wars over resources.
Humankind won't disappear, not even civilization. But life would probably be shit, and many many people will die.
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org · 6 pts · 1y
I think a lot will depend on whether nuclear wars break out but yeah, even in the worst case scenarios I don't see civilization dissappearing entirely. And honestly it all kinda makes sense to me. Nature has to regulate itself somehow. If one species becomes too dominant things get tipped out of balance. If you have an infection because an organism that is usually present in small numbers on your body has turned predatory and is growing beyond sustainable levels you develop a fever until things are back to normal. It's the alternative to dying. (Matrix Elrond had it right)
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
Life isn't shit now? Life wasn't shit in the "good times"?
sukhmel@programming.dev · 1 pts · 1y
It may as well still get a bigger shit
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social · 20 pts · 1y
Climate change is an ongoing process that takes decades to centuries. That's very fast as far as evolution and natural climactic shifts are concerned, but on a human scale long term. Given that it's not stopping within the lifespan of one person, and contributes to virtually every health problem in subtle ways, it'd seem a bit difficult to say if a given person has "survived it" or not, even if they live to an old age.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 1y
I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding health and lifespan, but I think looking forward from 2025, things are quickly going to go off the rails. We've already been seeing severe problems resulting from climate change for years now, and I think that it's going to rapidly get worse within the next 5-10 years. I'm not talking about sea level rise (except in very vulnerable places that are already partially underwater, like Florida), but about intensifying weather disasters, droughts, and shocks to the global food supply. As a result of this, I think we will see more and more unrest as well as authoritarianism used to deal with that unrest. How quickly all this is going to decimate the population is anyone's guess.
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1y
I’m so glad I don’t have any kids. That failure was a blessing in disguise
CerineArkweaver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
To borrow a phrase from my profession, my not having children isn't a bug, it's a feature!
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1y
‘Tis my profession as well. My life is all testing on Prod.
higgsboson@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1y
Going to? Going to? Have you not... /gestures vaguely
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1y
I hear you. I meant that more as in even more off the rails, like completely ejected off the rails.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 1y
I disagree.
I dont think its particularly likely there will be famines in the next 5 years or so on a scale that can't be countered by aid.
Sure, economies might start to feel some very serious consequences, shit might start to get very real, I just dont think we're quite at the point where people start dying.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1y
I have mixed feelings about it. I think it's perhaps 50/50 on whether things really go crazy within 5-10 years. It's definitely more than 0% chance, especially considering that people have already been dying due to climate change for quite a while now (extreme weather events, drought, and related conflicts).
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
I guess it's subjective.
Sure, climate change is starting to have an impact and more people might die due to malnutrition which is related.
My predictions within 5 years are something like :
I think societal collapse is still a decade away at least. However, the poor and impoverished are certainly going to start to feel the burn.
On the one hand I have a left leaning progressive mind set and have with young children - I'm heavily motivated to try to change our trajectory. On the other hand I'm 43 years old and I don't remember a period where people weren't predicting societal collapse in 5 years.
Climate change is bad. Mass extinctions, severe weather events, and famine, are all a certainty in the coming years. However, this needs to be balanced by technological advancements that are going to mitigate the effects. Just as an example, we can produce more food from less land than ever in history.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
I pretty much agree with most of your assessment. Thank you for mentioning insurance and real estate, as that will particularly impact countries like the US, where the two have been in a feedback loop, greatly inflating home prices.
I just worry that any technological advances will only be used to either directly help people at the top or to make them richer in the process of helping those below. That has been increasingly the trend over the decades.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
Yeah, you're right in that wealthy people are heavily motivated to capture the value provided by new technologies.
However, I don't think that's always the case.
Roof top solar is one example. Really high rates of adoption here in Australia. The cost of the equipment has reduced dramatically and it's a bit silly not to install at this point. It's good for the planet and it reduces costs for individuals and families of all kinds.
Food production is another one. Yes a lot of farms are owned by large corporations, but a lot of farms are also family operations. If they make more food they make more money and secondary industries can charge farmers more money. In my area this agricultural production is the primary industry and although there might be $100k people in my city almost all employment is in supporting industries, whether that's maintaining equipment, transporting goods, financial services, et cetera. While there's always some concentration of wealth it doesn't seam particularly problematic for the moment.
I don't really know anything about this but it's possible that in the future you'll be able to make synthetic meats at home in a bioreactor.
I guess I'm just saying that while I agree the implications of climate change are bleak, emerging technologies might mitigate the impact on human-kind to some extent.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
I get what you mean. You seem to have an optimistic view that technology will help us out of this mess eventually (or at least soften its impact). I guess in some ways I'm a pessimist, but I can respect your view and accept that your scenario is also a possible outcome. I happen to think it's less likely than what the outcome I imagine, but it is possible. My uncle has always had a similar view as yours.
LifeOfChance@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
You're running off the assumption that the survivors know useful information and that theyre also able to utilize that useful information plus be able to source needed materials since they wont have travel
Example: I know I need an antibiotic for my infection but I dont know how to create that antibiotic or how to guide someone on how to make it. If I did know id also have to get lucky that the region I live in has all the materials needed to make it. We source all around the world for our stuff.
Likely humanity will survive but probably wont advance as fast as you think.
spizzat2@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 1y
-Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Arthur Dent realizes that he, as an individual, is pretty useless for improving a society, but he can make a damn fine sammie.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Thanks for the TED talk (really)
AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
That was a delightful video; thanks for sharing
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 1y
I'm pretty proud of myself as i believe i could at least build a water turbine to produce electricity and light bulbs, at least i know the building plans for them, but i lack the mechanical skills to actually weld together things. but a goldsmith could weld them for me.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
I think we're assuming books will continue to exist.
I think one of the real marvels of civilization is the redundancy of information. For every college course you've taken there's a text book, and there may have been dozens of physical copies of that book used in your class, but also for many other classes at other schools that taught that same subject. There may have been 10,000 copies of that book in circulation across the globe, in many different countries.
It's not impossible to lose information forever, but we've put in some really strong defenses against that really happening. There are a lot of libraries in coastal areas which could flood, or big cities that could burn after wars or riots. But there are also plenty of libraries in small towns, and at high elevations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Aspen has a public library for instance, and so do some of the small towns nearby that you don't know the name of.
Nay@feddit.nl · -1 pts · 1y
Just for clarification, I don't think it'll be fast. It will just be faster than without it.
Also, I think we'll hang on to a lot because the survivor base will likely be made up of people from all walks of life. STEM Professionals, teachers, carpenters, you name it. And as long as we learned our lesson about religion, we'll pass that knowledge on.
P00ptart@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
And stem professionals are also violence professionals (i.e. military and cops)? STEM tends to be very specific in their knowledge base these days. Yeah, they know how to make solar panels, but do they know where to get those materials, how to mine them? Even 80 years ago, it took several teams of hundreds of scientists to figure out nuclear energy. Lose half that team of specified individuals working together and you just have an idea. And those smart individuals gained their knowledge from smart individuals before them, and same for those individuals.
Look at Greek fire or the pyramids for examples of lost technology that 2000 years later, we still can't figure out. Losing a scientist here or there is generally not that big of a deal, but when you can't control how many or who goes, you lose control of the knowledge.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 1y
Likely progression is simply that food gets expensive, and is grown indoors. Technology doesn't need to fall, though when slaves are not needed, soylent green is a "utilitarian" use for them under rules based world order. Food capacity and population that can afford to buy it will match. Fewer people does mean fewer iphones, and more expensive at lower scale.
Global warming, even at 5C, is more about increased misery and oppression, rather than mass deaths over a decade. Wikipedia will survive. The AI tech giants chatbots will explain why you need to die or be miserable until you die.
BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
Democracy and capitalism won't survive. 100 years from now we will all be north Korea. 1000 years from now we will all live in medieval feudalism.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 1y
this but unironically. democracy can only function in a society with good education, otherwise you end up with populists.
and education gets to the people because it pays off for the people economically. you give 12 years of your lifetime, you receive a well-paying job afterwards. if economic growth slows down, people won't be engineers anymore and people will receive less education, thus weakening democracy.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Worse than medieval feudalism. Lords were expected to look after their vassals.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 1y
I like your optimism, but I don't share it. We honestly don't know, one way or the other. What we do know is that human extinction in on the table and growing in probability. When I look at human actions as our cumulative knowlegde of these risks grew, well, I'm not exactly confident our species will make it.
fdnomad@programming.dev · 15 pts · 1y
When we experience and maybe survive the next mass extinction, its going to be vastly more difficult to reindustrialize / redigitalize even if knowledge persists because we've already extracted the most easily accessible materials from the earth and extracting resources is becoming increasingly difficult.
If you know how to build a battery but you cant build the machines to get the lithium, you just cant build a battery. But I suppose over time we'd find better ways to recycle.
scott@lemmy.org · 13 pts · 1y
Climate change is just the tip of the big white iceberg
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 1y
Yep. It doesn't count any of the other huge problems we're creating.
We're rushing towards our destruction in multiple ways. Any of those alone would result in massive deaths. And as resources get tighter, disputes and wars will break out over what's left.
All of these together will nearly certainly lead to our destruction. And this is going to start hitting hard within 5-10 years.
scott@lemmy.org · 5 pts · 1y
I said the same thing 5 years ago and guess what? It's already hitting hard. Look at America right now, just black bagging people off the street.
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1y
The saddest part is that we have the technology and means to fix any and all of these, just not the desire.
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip · -7 pts · 1y
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 1y
Sounds good. Why don't you lead the way?
higgsboson@piefed.social · 6 pts · 1y
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Nay@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
Just the tip?
crapwittyname@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 1y
Richard Feynman
So, if, during the apocalypse, you have access to a means of passing on a message to the poor bastards who have to live in the New World, it should be this:
"Everything is made of atoms"
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Atomism existed for millenia before we investigated this possibilty to such a degree that we were able leverage that concept to change the world. Its goes back to the 8th century BCE in India and the 5th century BCE in Greece. In both cases, people engaged in it imaginatively and thinking was applied. But its reach was small and only effected a small group who weren't able to make a large societal impact.
Even in the 17th century, when there was a revival of interest in epicurean atomism, it was actively competing with corpulism. Hell, Mendelev, creator of the periodic table, didn't believe in atoms. That's sort of crazy to me!
Dalton, whose atomic weight was leveraged by Mendeleev and the rest rejected, posited what later became the basis of modern atomic theory. Einstein further developed this with Brownian motion describing how atoms effected the seemingly random movements of pollen. Perrin later verifies this experimentally in 1908.
So more than just the idea, it's the culture of inquiry, debate, skepticism, investigation, and, eventually, experimentation that is important. Not just the idea. I guess, if I were to preserve anything, it would be that culture. No sentence can do that. But people's radiance can.
* Disclaimer: this is a quick gloss of a long timeframe. A lot of details were omitted.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 1y
nah, the idea that everything is made from atoms is not very useful for most practical applications. you can even build fully-functional wind turbines, lightning bulbs and probably even telegraph networks without ever understanding anything about atoms.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1y
Periods mfer! Can you use one‽
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 1y
Fuck Ted Faro.
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1y
FYI, http://collapseos.org/ is planning for this eventuality.
Sent from my TI-84+
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 1y
The majority of humans won't survive the next 100 years, because almost nobody lives to be 100.
Do you mean that the majority of people currently alive will die due to climate change?
Do you mean that humanity's population will drop by over 50% and will not recover?
Do you mean that in the future, the majority of deaths will be due to climate change, even in 200 years from now when the new (much hotter) equilibrium will be all anyone has ever known?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 1y
I think there will be a large decline in population numbers, but it should be through low birth rates and not through wars/famines. also, it will take probably a century or longer, and not happen within a few years.
we're facing extreme economic pressure in the next 5 years to successfully implement economic reforms (tax the rich, universal basic income) to be able to survive. but, as many people have pointed out already, UBI is ultimately only a bandaid solution, because it relies on political goodwill from activists fighting for the good cause, and that makes it questionable whether it can stay implemented un-interruptedly for very long times. so, population decline would make the society more resilient because people could demand higher wages, because there's lower supply of human labor, and that would be a long-term solution.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1y
But would that really constitute "the vast majority of humans won't [survive]?"
I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't understand what OP means by that claim.
YknsNMo000@thelemmy.club · 9 pts · 1y
I don't care if I don't survive but I'm taking a couple of polluters with me lmao
jsomae@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 1y
Misleading headline. I would wager that 100% of humans alive today will not survive, if we don't act quickly to resolve senescence.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 1y
One half of us die, the other half will be happy with the results. To bad it won't be those who denied and brought the problem about
hypnicjerk@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
the vast majority of humans didn't survive even before anthropogenic climate change
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1y
It depends on which kind of climate disaster we're facing. If it's reversible over the next million years, humanity as a species should be fine. The population would be cut down to just a tiny fraction, and the survivors might have to start from pre-industrial tech level.
If it's irreversible, and the Earth becomes a Venus like hellscape, the whole planet should be pretty much sterilized. Good luck surviving that.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 1y
Some humans will survive but, with the state of the world today, I think we're already pretty close to losing our humanity.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
I don't like this shower thought. It puts bad vibes out into the world and I'm not about that right now. Im having a good day for once, lol.
Nay@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
I'm sorry. I promise I'm a big picture optimist, if that helps! 😜
omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1y
The plan has always been to let the poor people die
Montagge@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1y
We killed millions of species to make the rich richer, but some humans survived so that's nice
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Eventually, no one alive will survive.
bss03@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1y
My biggest issue used to be that in the global industrial base collapses, we won't have surface coal/oil available to restart it. I've been informed that we might be able to restart just from turpentine. (Wind and solar both need advanced manufacturing techniques so can't be bootstrap electrical sources.)
That said, I don't think I'm very interested in hanging around after the global Internet collapses. My interests are too niche to be satisfied within a regional power grid.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 3 pts · 1y
Water is the only renewable energy source that isn't that much more complicated than coal.
z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
I know I'm a misanthrope because I don't find any silver lining in this truth.
Nay@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 1y
This quote really stuck with me. It's where I see the silver lining:
"Blessed are those who plant trees under whose shade they will never sit."
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1y
depends if you leaving on a seabord, which most people are. maybe tibetians in the tibetian plataeu. we also wont survive the opposite, an ICE AGE, which only some other hominid species can withstand the temps.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 1y
Lol, OK.
Nay@feddit.nl · 4 pts · 1y
What do you disagree with, though?
crandlecan@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 1y
Humans will perish, as will 90% of life on Earth.
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org · 1 pts · 1y
crandlecan@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 1y
No, it's going faster than anything humans have ever experienced. It will take about a million years for life to adapt and evolve.
Nay@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 1y
We survived an ice age, though, and we're very highly adaptable. Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.
I think you're selling us short! 😜
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1y
We survived by reverting to areas that were not covered in ice. The areas under direct influence of the ice age did not remain inhabited. We didn't really adapt. We just had another place to go. In this case, we don't.
Nay@feddit.nl · -1 pts · 1y
That's where we disagree. I think there will be small inhabitable areas of the planet for centuries, at least. If not, there are caves. Humans are nothing if not -persistent.-
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
No we aren't, we are in the middle of the 6th mass extinction. Its hubris to think humans wont go the way of Neanderthals. Hell, we are actively trying to ignore it and make it worse right now in the U.S.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1y
I'd love to see us go the way of Neanderthals!
But I don't think that will happen. I think we'll go extinct instead.
Nay@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 1y
Mass extinction, not complete extinction.
It's not hubris. Humans are one of, if not the most adaptable species on the planet. Unless it gets so hot that the caves become uninhabitable, we'll squeak by.
I see it like this: If there is a way, we will find it. It's in our DNA.
crandlecan@mander.xyz · 0 pts · 1y
Foolish boy...
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1y
Yup. That is my consensus. But the thing is: at what cost. At the cost of losing so much life and beauty
Fleur_@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1y
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
as a species, maybe, as a civilization, no.
vane@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
It depends where the hot is coming from. If it's from inner earth we won't survive because people can't survive outside of this planet.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1y
We already heated the world 1.5 degrees in less than 100 years. If we break 3 then that's probably the end of most macroscopic life on earth.
Allonzee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Nah.
We think we're that powerful, but there's an entire domain of creatures we can barely reach that utilize geothermal energy that will just keep plugging away out of our sphere of influence.
Surface and shallow water life is and will suffer greatly until we burn ourselves out and are no longer a threat on the scale we currently are, but humans are even egotistical in this topic. We couldn't come close to sterilizing this world, even if it magically became as important to us as fucking one another over for paper simulacra of supposed value.
We are a nuisance, but we aren't the first evolutionary nuisance the earth has dealt with. We have no mastery over this world as much as many like to believe so. A nuclear detonation possesses a tiny fraction of the power of a volcanic eruption.
njm1314@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1y
Humanity might, but human society and civilization won't. So what's the point even?
Nay@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 1y
It was a shower thought?
It just hit me in a sobering kinda way.
njm1314@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
No you misunderstand, I'm not saying the thought has no point. I'm saying what's the point of saying we survive if civilization and Society doesn't. As Humanity really survived at that point.
Nay@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
Yeah. And probably found a new way to live. Do you consider Humanity to be intrinsically tied to modern society?
njm1314@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
How would we know? We have nothing to compare it to.
Let me put another way. In Planet of the apes, the real one, humans are basically no different from animals. They're like rabbits. They are not speaking and don't reason. Are they still human at that point? Would we recognize them as such? I don't know.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · -10 pts · 1y
Maybe I'm naive but I don't really see the dooms day
Climate change has some nasty consequences. However, I don't see it wiping out 5 billion people.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 1y
Yeah, maybe you should look a little harder?
Wait until crops start dying en masse due to higher temperatures, too many bad insects, too few good insects, no more water.
Wait until you get your 50 degree celcius Summers, which apparently already started in select countries this year.
Wait until forest fires become so big that they simply can't be controlled anymore and start burning down entire cities
Wait until drinkable water runs out due to us emptying all aquefiers, wells, etc.
Wait until water, food, etc scarcity due to climate change starts the bigger wars over the scraps that are left
You won't have to wait long, we're working hard on making these features a reality soon.
I'm not sure what will kill the most people, but I pity those that survive
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 1y
I'm looking for factual peer reviewed research. Do you have a source such as a academic paper or journal?
I haven't seen anything to suggest that billions will die. That seems very far fetched to me.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
It's important to remember that science is inherently conservative and doubly so for climate change Erring on the Side of Least Drama.
If you read any of the IPCC reports you'll note they are very careful to not really provide any death estimates or anything. However, one can attempt to extrapolate a risk model from those descriptions from that we can analyze key takeaways from the WG2 report ^1^
Based on the existential risk model, that's 3.3 billion currently facing some level of existential risks. If the impacts remain "at the high end of previous estimates", which they very likely will, then that's >3.3 Billion potential deaths.
^1: using Wikipedia summary because the report is 3675 pages long and ain't nobody got time for that^
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1y
To expand.on this in a less than scientific way; one can only imagine what will happen when 1-3 billion people face existential threats. Think that a few tens of thousands of refugees is a problem?.wait until you have billions of them. What are you going to do, stop them at your borders?
Food and water scarcity will invite even more wars.
There is lots of fun ahead of us
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
Let's try a new game, the burden of proof is on you, as you're the one saying we are all somehow being dramatic. So, go fetch us some credited peer reveiwed papers from the past 5 years that say we are being dramatic...
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1y
Kemp et al. 2022 - Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios
TL;DR: Societal collapse seems possible, more research is needed.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 1y
Take the amount of calories that the world can produce per day. Divide by 1500. You got the upper limit the globe can support in a medium term
Crops are already failing due to droughts and floods. More and more land is turning into land that is not able to sustain crop growth
And that's even completely ignoring a potential even bigger problem of clean water
Billions will die. Not in 5 or 10 years. But earlier than you'd think
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 1y
Yeah I just don't see it
P00ptart@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Well then I suspect you don't see much of anything. It's happening before your eyes and you don't see it? Do you see genocide in Palestine? Do you see fascism in America? Do you see plastic trash in waterways? Do you see homelessness? Do you see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? How do you not see the obvious outcome? The only reason we're still making enough food, is because of petroleum based fertilizer. Without that, we'd have lost billions of people already, or they never would have been born in the first place. That's unsustainable. And as society breaks down, so does the economy that allowed those fertilizers to exist. Billions die, any way you look at it, billions die and civilization crumbles. Which happens first doesn't really matter.
P00ptart@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Bud, it's just getting started. Wait till the Mississippi is inundated with salt water and flows north depending on the time of day.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
A large band around the equator will become unsurvivable. Hundreds of millions of people will flee to cooler climates. Countries will already be straining to provide food and water for their people. This will lead to wars for resources. Nations with nuclear capabilities will fracture and collapse, leaving their weapons in the hands of warlords and despots. Pandemics like COVID will become increasingly more common, not just for humans but for our livestock and crops. I hope you are right, but then again 5 billion might be a conservative estimate.
higgsboson@piefed.social · -1 pts · 1y
Have I got some bad news for you.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Correction - Has led, is leading, and will lead...
crapwittyname@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 1y
You are under informed
Nay@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
I love to see it, and I genuinely hope you're right!
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 1y
,maybe if it something sudden like asteroid impact, like 10km wide made of iron, or a supervolcanoe eruption.