A new study has found that much of the world will face uninhabitable temperatures if we continue on the current course of climate change as situation grows more dire
If capitalism is allowed to continue it will render humanity extinct. If we collapse now, and are reduced to a fraction of our population this century, humanity may live.
I don’t enjoy that being the best option we have at this point. It brings me no joy. But what brings me less joy is knowing that we won’t even make a choice. We will continue blindly waddling along and as capitalism consumes the world, we will wonder who will save us. And no one will.
We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event the earth has experienced. As ecosystems collapse, organisms at the top of the food web are in peril. Yes, humans are in danger of extinction.
Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.
The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
As though we just do societal collapse on Wednesday and then start living our best lives on Thursday?
Commenter never said that. So you’re just strawmannning. Do you honestly think capiatlism and consumerism will do an about face and start taking care of the rapidly degrading environment? If not, it would seem that we then we need to change how we behave, soon-- right? Accelerationists are at least doing something, even if it may not be the right plan, while you are whining to keep the exact status quo going thats killing us all, and doing nothing to improve things .
To use a metaphor: dont criticise the fat guy working out at the gym while you youself are sitting on your butt, are also fat and have ice cream on your face. If you want to criticise, get off your ass and get to work on something better. Otherwise shut it and let the adults figure out how to save your ass while you do nothing.
I didn’t say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you’re just strawmanning.
Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn’t really understand what societal collapse entails.
I also didn’t suggest that capitalism will save us - that’s another straw man.
Your metaphor is disingenuous.
This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it’s inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that’s a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.
Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn’t really understand what societal collapse entails.
Anyone who says preserving the status quo is a viable outcome doesnt really understand how high the cost of that status quo is.
Participating in an Ethnic cleansing of a group that is 26% of the humans on the planet will end in tears for us, and pull this country inexorably rightward as we respond to its effects. Even now just a few Yemeni missiles on cargo ships in the Suez has upended Americans faith in the dems by raising prices. Thats with true pushback having not even begun yet. DNC leadership and dem voters are not taking the long view on this. Why dont you think long term and tell me what you see 8 years into the future.
This is an epic straw man. Usually I avoid calling out straw man arguments because you can frame almost any assertion as a straw man and ultimately it doesn’t further discussion. In this case though, you started it.
If you’re into logical fallacies, I will say that your argument is a false dichotomy. Between “societal collapse” and “status quo” there’s an obvious third option: “try to fix all the broken things”, which is what most people are trying to do. Both societal collapse and status quo are absurd propositions that no reasonable person would subscribe to.
I dont agree that this is happening. Climate pledges are being abandoned. The imagination of International solutions are being abandonded for self serving ones. Even recycling in my area has been throttled way back. Internal combustion engine cars are surging back into popularity. One of the biggest possible polluting events are wars, and theres possibly a whole bunch on the horizon as Pax Americanan ends with the disolution of our soft power. We are not motivated to make progress and our political system and international reach seems to be in decline.
If you look at the trajectories we are on in multiple areas, you can see inevitabilities. I dont fault you for having hope that the whole of human society will pull it out of the fire at the last second, but I no longer beleive its in our nature to act on these threats. Americans arent even convinced climate change is real.
I still do beleive in the good will of the American people, and their ability to rebuild quickly and better. When forced to come together on a pursuit, American free thinking outpaces other international mindsets pretty reliably. Or it used to.
Implicit in your assertion is that we can stave off this collapse and that theres plenty of time to iterate to some changes.
Consider that by 2050 we’ll need 60% more food than we produce now, and projections are that with climate change effects we’ll have no way to make that much, even if we start all eating bugs and kelp. So at the end of many of our lifetimes we’ll observe tangible impacts. 2050 is just 26 years from now. So just sit on our hands and be patient, you think?
Do you actually think that?
As though we just do societal collapse on Wednesday and then start living our best lives on Thursday?
If capitalism is allowed to continue it will render humanity extinct. If we collapse now, and are reduced to a fraction of our population this century, humanity may live.
I don’t enjoy that being the best option we have at this point. It brings me no joy. But what brings me less joy is knowing that we won’t even make a choice. We will continue blindly waddling along and as capitalism consumes the world, we will wonder who will save us. And no one will.
Is anyone actually claiming that we’re on a path to extinction? That’s hyperbole.
This type of thinking is not constructive in any way.
We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event the earth has experienced. As ecosystems collapse, organisms at the top of the food web are in peril. Yes, humans are in danger of extinction.
What a silly thing to say.
You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?
Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.
Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.
Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.
What a silly thing to say, indeed. Of course it’s possible.
Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.
Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7
Don’t miss this bit:
Oh sweetheart.
Did you google “human extinction science” and link the first result without reading it?
The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.
It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
It’s impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who’s just making stuff up and claiming that it’s a plausible assertion.
You’re not being realistic, you’re being dramatic.
Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.
Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.
Interesting thought. What is the nutritional profile for slime mold, can humans survive eating just slime mold?
Commenter never said that. So you’re just strawmannning. Do you honestly think capiatlism and consumerism will do an about face and start taking care of the rapidly degrading environment? If not, it would seem that we then we need to change how we behave, soon-- right? Accelerationists are at least doing something, even if it may not be the right plan, while you are whining to keep the exact status quo going thats killing us all, and doing nothing to improve things .
To use a metaphor: dont criticise the fat guy working out at the gym while you youself are sitting on your butt, are also fat and have ice cream on your face. If you want to criticise, get off your ass and get to work on something better. Otherwise shut it and let the adults figure out how to save your ass while you do nothing.
I didn’t say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you’re just strawmanning.
Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn’t really understand what societal collapse entails.
I also didn’t suggest that capitalism will save us - that’s another straw man.
Your metaphor is disingenuous.
This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it’s inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that’s a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.
Anyone who says preserving the status quo is a viable outcome doesnt really understand how high the cost of that status quo is.
Participating in an Ethnic cleansing of a group that is 26% of the humans on the planet will end in tears for us, and pull this country inexorably rightward as we respond to its effects. Even now just a few Yemeni missiles on cargo ships in the Suez has upended Americans faith in the dems by raising prices. Thats with true pushback having not even begun yet. DNC leadership and dem voters are not taking the long view on this. Why dont you think long term and tell me what you see 8 years into the future.
This is an epic straw man. Usually I avoid calling out straw man arguments because you can frame almost any assertion as a straw man and ultimately it doesn’t further discussion. In this case though, you started it.
If you’re into logical fallacies, I will say that your argument is a false dichotomy. Between “societal collapse” and “status quo” there’s an obvious third option: “try to fix all the broken things”, which is what most people are trying to do. Both societal collapse and status quo are absurd propositions that no reasonable person would subscribe to.
I dont agree that this is happening. Climate pledges are being abandoned. The imagination of International solutions are being abandonded for self serving ones. Even recycling in my area has been throttled way back. Internal combustion engine cars are surging back into popularity. One of the biggest possible polluting events are wars, and theres possibly a whole bunch on the horizon as Pax Americanan ends with the disolution of our soft power. We are not motivated to make progress and our political system and international reach seems to be in decline.
If you look at the trajectories we are on in multiple areas, you can see inevitabilities. I dont fault you for having hope that the whole of human society will pull it out of the fire at the last second, but I no longer beleive its in our nature to act on these threats. Americans arent even convinced climate change is real.
I still do beleive in the good will of the American people, and their ability to rebuild quickly and better. When forced to come together on a pursuit, American free thinking outpaces other international mindsets pretty reliably. Or it used to.
Implicit in your assertion is that we can stave off this collapse and that theres plenty of time to iterate to some changes.
Consider that by 2050 we’ll need 60% more food than we produce now, and projections are that with climate change effects we’ll have no way to make that much, even if we start all eating bugs and kelp. So at the end of many of our lifetimes we’ll observe tangible impacts. 2050 is just 26 years from now. So just sit on our hands and be patient, you think?
https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/worlds-food-supply-made-insecure-climate-change#:~:text=In the next 30 years,system’s vulnerability to climate change.