I wonder what makes so many people - even here on HN - so furiously jam their fingers in their ears and go "Lalalala" whenever you get realistic about the impact of our predatory ecosystem exploitation or about the consequences of population migration because of climate change.
Actually, climate change is likely to have “major economic consequences” in ~2038, followed by “globally catastrophic events” in ~2067. After that, the economy and civilization as we know it will presumably no longer exist.
So, this human civilization is on schedule to collapse in about 50 years.
Of course, science in this matter has improved since 1980, but I like that report because it correctly predicted the current state of things 40 years ago. Also, it was written by the big oil companies. It’s difficult to argue they were being intentionally alarmist or had the science wrong.
Like you said, what remains may no longer be as we know it, but then again humanity has gone through so many paradigm shifts (and the shifts are accelerating due to technology) that it would be surprising if civilization was the same 50-100 years from now.
Science isn’t fortune telling. It doesn’t predict the future.
I’m sorry, but a PDF from 1980 isn’t exactly a reliable source of information about the future. It’s a little scary how people think this is a real possibility.
Of course science can predict the future. Drop a pen off your desk. Newton correctly predicted what speed it would hit the floor at, and he did it back in 1687.
If not science, what do you suggest people use to predict the future?
Anyway, here’s a more modern source. It was peer reviewed, and is considered up to date and also reliable:
I suggest reading it, but if you scroll halfway down, you can type in a county, and it’ll provide more detailed predictions. I suggest checking it against recent news. You’ll find that the areas it predicts will soon be uninhabitable are already showing signs of ecosystem collapse. (Especially the US southwest)
Let me get this straight: climate change models predict conditions likely to lead to the collapse of civilization and you say "the map is not the territory, no need to be alarmed", but your extrapolation of our cloning capability should totally be respected?
I didn’t say there was no need to be alarmed, I said civilization isn’t going to collapse.
These also aren’t the same things. Cloning is a technology that will likely continue to be more and more possible. It’s not really a question of if, but when. Even then it was just a creative suggestion.
Modeling civilizations responses to climate change is basically science fiction. Yes, bad stuff will happen. No, you can’t predict that society will collapse because of it.
No, it isn’t, it’s being realistic. Human beings aren’t going extinct because of climate change, nuclear weapons, or anything else. Some people would survive and they would inevitably repopulate.
I think the unbounded optimism / arrogance is that life as is will continue indefinitely, or just get better and better.
That might happen, but climate change is one of very few things that will stop it (others being nuclear war, asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, solar flares and other disease)
No but if we keep polluting at this rate, in 500 years civilisations will crumble. If food supply chains fail we’ll see a bunch of wars break out and a global chain reaction that will destroy massive amounts of progress.
Most likely we’ll land back at the Middle Ages- it’s happened to pretty much every civilisation to date so it’s unlikely ours will be any different.
If anything given our global scale it will be worse.
I wonder what makes so many people - even here on HN - so furiously jam their fingers in their ears and go "Lalalala" whenever you get realistic about the impact of our predatory ecosystem exploitation or about the consequences of population migration because of climate change.
It is so strange.