[gruez]

Climate change might be the greatest challenge we've ever faced, but it's hardly an "existential threat" (ie. something that threatens our existence). Even under the worst IPCC forecasts, there won't be enough land lost (eg. by flooding or desertification) to wipe out humanity. Don't get me wrong, billions dying or displaced would be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, but isn't something that threatens our existence.

[jononor]

In workplace health and safety there is a term "life altering". This is used for the high impact but not deadly accidents, that are still very valuable to reduce the risk of. Like having an arm torn off, or going blind. I think we should adopt similar terminology when it comes to risks to humanity as a whole. "Civilization-changing perhaps"? And try to attach some meaningful examples of this. Fixating only on total anhilation of the entire species is not so useful when trying to design policies.

[danny_codes]

There is a risk that plants can't adapt fast enough to climate change and die off, causing a domino effect. Phytoplankton, for example, produce 50% of the earth's oxygen. So if they go, well, we might be along for the ride.

[solarmist]

Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat.

If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.

[soulofmischief]

This take always rubs me the wrong way because it conveniently ignores the fact that letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided given that 1% of humanity is more or less to blame for this mess.

[cercatrova]

If one is going to use a word that means a specific thing then get annoyed because that word didn't conform to what they wanted it to mean, I mean, can we do anything about it? They should have used a different word. Calamitous or monumental are good words for what you're describing.

[RhodesianHunter]

The word fits. Our existence as we know it is at risk.

Our existence for the majority of us is at risk.

Our existence as a nation is at risk.

I didn't say "and existential threat for the human race". Even if I had, the pedantry is unwarranted.

[thunky]

Nobody said it was ok, they just said it's technically not an existential threat if humanity persists.

[AnimalMuppet]

Letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided, whether or not 1% of humanity is to blame.

[GekkePrutser]

Exactly, it does always irk me when people call it an existential threat to humanity. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem. But it won't wipe us out. Some areas will also become more habitable (eg Siberia)

The mass migration of people across borders as a result of climate change might cause wars that are such a threat though. But still I don't consider climate change itself as such.

[RhodesianHunter]

I said an existential threat, not an existential threat to humanity. For the majority of us, and for our nation, it is indeed an existential threat.

Regardless, the pedantry is unwarranted.