[JohnMakin]

Do you actually think they literally meant 8 billion people are going to drop dead? because the meaning was fairly obvious as written - after 200 years of industrial revolution we are left in a situation where the planet we live on may not be inhabitable in a relatively short period of time

[FredPret]

Again, that's a crazy thing to conclude from even the most pessimistic global warming predictions.

[lm28469]

Let's talk about it in a hundred years when we struggle to grow food and have to deal with hundred millions/billions of climate refugees.

You don't need 8b deaths to see we're clearly not on a positive trajectory, ocean acidification, wild weather patterns, climate feedback loops, famines, &c. will be problems we have to tackle by the end of the century and will absolutely destroy our capabilities to develop. All it takes is a major event and we're fucked, something that sets us back even 150 years, and it's game over, we wouldn't have the means to go through another industrial revolution because we used all the easily accessible sources of energy

Come on... mammals exist for a mere 300m years... if you worry about the death of our sun in a BILLION years but not about climate change you're an absolute clown, we'll face a couple of near (or full) extinction events by then

[JohnMakin]

> Again, that's a crazy thing to conclude from even the most pessimistic global warming predictions.

Not really considering the "most pessimistic" predictions have the Atlantic current completely shutting down within the next 100 years (wipes out food supply), tons of countries like bangladesh becoming actually inhospitable from heat/humidity index (billion+ people dead), sea levels rising several meters (massive percentage of humanity lives near a coast), etc. - could go on for a while. Frankly, I don't think you really understand what you are talking about and suspect you're going to turn this into a pedantic "well that won't completely annhilate all human life so you are wrong" kind of back and forth that I don't feel like engaging in so I'll just wish you a good day and move on.

[00N8]

Tragic as it would be, that worst case global warming scenario is still more of a "set human population levels & quality of life back 200 years" situation, rather than a literal extinction event though. I see a lot of hyperbole & doomerism around these topics online & I think pushback is fair.

We should be doing more to prevent the worse global warming outcomes. The stakes are billions dying or having miserable lives, which should be motivating enough. I don't think it helps to spin a dark fantasy about it being too late & humans actually going extinct. In the long run, an 8x reduction in human population & a few centuries of bad weather isn't really even a close call, let alone a legitimate extinction risk.

[FredPret]

You realize we get a say in all this right?

Humanity is immensely capable of large-scale adaptation.

10k years ago we were getting chased around by sabre-toothed tigers.

1k years ago we were still dying of hunger and lack of hygiene.

100 years ago the first biplanes took to the sky.

Now look where we are. Human progress is exponential. There's every reason to believe that we'll be capable of dealing with our problems as they come. Malthus was wrong 200 years ago, and you are wrong now.

We have clean energy options in solar, nuclear, and battery storage. These are getting better, cheaper, and safer every day. We've got people working on geo-engineering solutions. We've got remote work. We're automating and localizing manufacturing.

Defeatism is not the way.

[gapan]

> 1k years ago we were still dying of hunger and lack of hygiene.

We are still doing that. In fact, there are more people affected by hunger today than 1k years ago. And things are getting worse, not better. [1]

[1] https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-h...

[FredPret]

They're complaining about a rise in the absolute number of hungry people, not the rate of hunger.

I hope you're not arguing that the rate of hunger has done anything but gone down drastically in the past 1000 years.

That there are short-term oscillations change nothing about the very obvious long-term trend. Keep in mind also that most economies are still recovering from Covid. Heck, the EU is a rich area and is still recovering from 2008.

Now, 1000 years ago, there were ~0.3B people. [0]

The daily calorie supply is hard to get, but in 1200 it looks to have been about 2000kCal in the UK. [1]

Now we're up to 3000kCal per person per day, for 27x the population. [2] And honestly, we're not even trying to maximize this number at all; farmers are optimizing for profit, not for maximum calories. Absolutely enormous tracts of land go uncultivated. Hydroponic farming is used for minuscule percentage of our food supply. We're nowhere close to maxing out the food supply.

When I see complaints like yours I can only conclude one of these:

1) The people involved truly don't get the idea of rates, or long-term trends in rates, or the impact of technology on our lives

2) They aren't arguing in good faith and simply want me to be sad.

Both of these devalue the source of the argument.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-...

[gapan]

Rates are irrelevant. I don't see a scenario where 2 children dying of hunger is better than 1. My original statement is absolutely true: there are more people affected by hunger today than 1k years ago.

[adastra22]

Only because total population is so much bigger now. On the whole we are dealing with an obesity crisis, not famine, even in developing countries.

Famine was largely eradicated by the invention of the Haver-Bosch process.

[gapan]

How can you claim that famine has been "largely eradicated" when I just posted a reference that says that more than 800 million people are affected by hunger?

[nine_k]

People are hungry not because the civilization fails to produce enough food. It fails to produce enough order to let this food reach the hungry.

The causes of any prolonged famine are political: local overlords and thugs grab the food and keep it under their control, so that they would stay on top of their local social pyramid and / or profit from reselling.

[gapan]

Isn't order a part of civilization though? Aren't local thugs and overlords part of our civilization? I'm not sure what your argument is. Our civilization cannot secure enough food for everyone.

edit: typo

[Qem]

Beware the Asymptotic Burnout hypothesis proposed to explain the Fermi Paradox: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2022.002...

[goatlover]

What does an "uninhabitable" Earth mean? Do you mean less habitable than the Sahara or Antartica, or the Himalayas? Because some people do inhabit those places, and more could if they needed to. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever that all of Earth will become uninhabitable for humans. That's just doomerism.

[pjc50]

I think it was a poor taste piece of pedantry: in 100 years, almost everyone currently alive, 8 billion people, will be dead. It's just that new people will have been born in the meantime.

[cyberax]

> may not be inhabitable in a relatively short period of time

This is pretty much nonsense. Worst climate change predictions do not make the planet "uninhabitable", only some parts of it.