Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
New Report Suggests ‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming To an End’ Starting in 2050 (vice.com) 246
Probably for the best, based on any comments section on any website.
Definitely. Now that vast stretches of Syria are now without any form of civil society, they have been transformed into virtual paradises. You can’t argue with facts.
When was the last time Syria HAD civil society?
Imagine how far we’ve come (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous CowardWe’re far more likely to die from a sudden nuclear exchange than climate, but yet we worry about the climate.
The breakdown of nations and the international order is code for refugees. Lots and lots of refugees. If large chunks of India and China become uninhabitable, the resulting tidal wave of humanity will wipe out everybody else.
- by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *“Spontaneous Global Homogeneous Thermonuclear Sharing”
Re:Imagine how far we’ve come (Score:5, Interesting)
by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:00PM (#58713766)This is the end of human civilization then the death of the human species.
Nuclear Exchange would kill a lot of people, however for the most part for those who survived government would be working, as government have been built around the idea of surviving warfare. Heck governance would be easy being that there is a known bad guy that everyone can rally behind, and a shared goal of survival.Climate Change is more sinister. It will not kill off people, being that it is gradual to human scale problem, it just means a statistically significant increase amount of damage weather can cause, so People just don’t notice the threat. However besides death, the biggest problem is relocation. Areas that have been safe for generations are now in flood zones, or in the target for severe weather. Now governments have to make decisions and tell people they can’t live in the same place any more, or can no longer rebuild there. Areas less affected by climate change, or are positively affected will start getting more people moving in. Often people with different cultures, and needs. Meaning the governments will need to make unpopular or polarizing decisions which makes running society far more difficult.
This is the end of human civilization then the death of the human species.
Nuclear Exchange would kill a lot of people, however for the most part for those who survived government would be working, as government have been built around the idea of surviving warfare. Heck governance would be easy being that there is a known bad guy that everyone can rally behind, and a shared goal of survival.Climate Change is more sinister. It will not kill off people, being that it is gradual to human scale problem, it just
My prediction is this summer or the next will have catastrophic heat events in the US. I may be wrong, would love to be. It was wet this year, and Denver has recently been having strange âoeCalifornia daysâ where humidity feels like the coast. Prayers that a bunch of thermal energy will be absorbed through redistributing water, growing tropical zones, but it is long shot.
Worst scenarios where we are sitting around around realizing how wrong all the dystopian sci-fi was, how much better a strangelo
Often people with different cultures, and needs. Meaning the governments will need to make unpopular or polarizing decisions which makes running society far more difficult.
Well exactly. I think the greatest threat to human life resulting from global warming IS war. And when the war comes, it will be debatable how much global warming contributed to it. The proximate cause will be “they want our stuff and we’re not gonna let them have it,” as always.
It really is an un-tested premise how far billions o
Because, humans have never figured out how to drain a swamp?
And that half rotted vegetation takes a few weeks to be completely rotted vegetation, a substance that is often referred to as “fertilizer”.
Because, humans have never figured out how to drain a swamp?
Certainly true in DC.
And that half rotted vegetation takes a few weeks to be completely rotted vegetation, a substance that is often referred to as “fertilizer”.
It’s been longer than a few weeks, so I guess we’ve got fertilizer — instead of just half-rotted vegetation.
That’s all it takes? We’re saved! We’re saved!
And no country on earth has to let them in. Nations are sovereign.
You need a means to enforce that sovereignty, Anonymous Coward.
Latin America’s population is 600 million. If even 1/6th of that number presented themselves at the southern American border as climate refugees the USA would be powerless to stop it, short of deploying nuclear weapons.
- by lgw ( 121541 )
Latin America’s population is 600 million. If even 1/6th of that number presented themselves at the southern American border as climate refugees the USA would be powerless to stop it, short of deploying nuclear weapons.
We have nuclear weapons, though. And the only reason is seems like hyperbole to use them to protect the border is: things haven’t broken down. Desperate measures are for desperate times.
But while Chicken Little proclaims the inevitability of mass migration causing nuclear war, capitalism just sees need as potential profit, and delivers a solution. If 100 million people need to go from Central America to Canada, because the vast new tracks of farmland there need a huge workforce, it will happen. At a pro
Latin America’s population is 600 million. If even 1/6th of that number presented themselves at the southern American border as climate refugees the USA would be powerless to stop it, short of deploying nuclear weapons…….and the likelihood that the military capacity would exist to manage it is is low.
In a scenario such as yours, the same military, or a police force, will be unable to keep millions of people from taking the law into their own hands too.
Result? There will be plenty of people who will be more than happy and willing to open fire on invaders, without even blinking. They just can’t wait for it.
Believe me, if the military were given the orders to secure the border, they could.
Imagine it’s 2050. Climate change means the Southern American states have mostly been evacuated – SoCal, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico – The daily 135F heat means they’re uninhabitable. Florida is mostly flooded, as is Louisiana. Tens upon tens of millions of Americans have migrated to Washington, Oregon and Northern California – The military is desperately trying to manage that, along with food riots as American supply ch
In your scenario, americans have fled north to avoid the heat/drought.
RIGHT NOW invaders from the south die of thirst and heat exhaustion coming up through MX. In this nightmare scenario of yours it’s even hotter, AND they’d have an extra ~1200 miles of uninhabited wasteland to cross — I don’t see them making it without extensive help from the US military.
Methinks the army wouldn’t need to stop them; They wouldn’t even get past Bakersfield or Phoenix.
Meanwhile, along America’s *2000* mile border to the south, 100,000,000 desperate Latin Americans are making their way north as well. How exactly would the Army stop them? Where would the resources come from? As the military tries to maintain order in the north, how and why would they protect the border to the south?
Domestic issues on the ground will be handled on the ground by the Army.
Foreign invaders from the south can easily be handled by the Air Force. Carpet bombing does wonders to wipe out hoards of nearly defenseless people walking slowly forward, crowded together “caravan style”. Hell, by 2050, it could easily be done via drone control in Alaska.
So that’s the HOW. The why?? To protect the limited resources in the north for those who are entitled to them – which would be the citizens of the country. If the
Meanwhile, along America’s *2000* mile border to the south, 100,000,000 desperate Latin Americans are making their way north as well.
With likely access to weapons from a failed state.
BTW, your arguing with a fool, but some of it might sink in someday….
Why did you even bother to write this nonsense?
Because, Anonymous Coward, people who write “leftists” and live in simplistic fact-free bubbles need to be poked occasionally.
You’re lying, or your cousin is lying. I live in the UK and what you say is 100% false.
- by RickyShade ( 5419186 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:27PM (#58713390)https://www.youtube.com/watch?… [youtube.com]
Daddy, what’s it gonna be like in the year 2000?
Well sweetheart, for your sake I hope it’ll all be peaches & cream.
But I’m afraid the end time is near
The cataclysmic apocalypse referred to in the scriptures of every holy book known to mankind
It will be an Era fraught with boundless greed & corruption
Where global monetary systems disintegrate, leaving brother to kill brother for a grain of overcooked rice
The nations of the civilized world will collapse under the impressive weight of parasitic political conspiracies which remove all hope & optimism from their once faithful citizens
Around the globe, generations of polluters will be punished for their sins
Un-shielded by the ozone layer they have successfully depleted
Left to bake in the searing naked rays of light
Wholesale assassinations served to destabilize every remaining government
Leaving the starving & wicked to fend for themselves
Bloodthirsty renegade cyborgs created by tax-dodging corporations wreck havoc
Pissed off androids tired of being slaves to a godless & gutless system, where the rich get richer & the poor get fucked over and out
Unleash total worldwide destruction by means of nuclear holocaust
Annihilating the terrified masses
Leaving in its torturous wake nothing but vicious, cannibalistic, mutated, radiating, and horribly disfigured hordes of satanic killers
Begged on revenge, but against whom?
There are so few left alive
Starvation reigns supreme, forcing unlucky survivors to eat anything & anyone in their path
Massive earthquakes crack the planets crust like a hollow eggshell
Causing unending volcanic eruptions
The creatures of the seven seas, unable to escape the certain death upon land, boil in their liquid prison
Disease then circles the earth, plagues & viruses with no known cause or cure
Laying waste to whatever draws breath, and human-kind having proven itself to be nothing more than a race of ruthless scavengers
Fall victim to merciless attacks at the hands of interplanetary alien tribes who seek to conquer our charred remains
This is, Extinction Level Event
The Final World Front, and there is only, one, year, leftThis is, Extinction Level Event
The Final World Front, and there is only, one, year, leftBusta Rhymes’s mistake was making such a short term prediction. If you want to scare the wits out of people, it needs to be at least 30 years out, just like the authors of this study did. We’re perpetually 30 years away from extinction, whether it’s acid rain, the ozone hole, swine flu or AGW. Can’t wait to see what they come up with next. Possibly windmill cancer [thehill.com]?
Busta Rhymes’s mistake was making such a short term prediction. If you want to scare the wits out of people, it needs to be at least 30 years out, just like the authors of this study did.
This was a scenario analysis, not a prediction. I didn’t see any claims regarding the likeliness of this scenario other than it being likely. “Likely” is not a specific term, but I took it to mean it is likely enough that it should be taken seriously as a possibility when making decisions on how to act. No one will be proven wrong if this scenario does not occur in 30 years since no one put it at a 100% certainty.
You’er doing it wrong. This is the point where you take bets.
I bet this will never happen, want in on the action? If you think it will, you can bet me 1 BTC.
Like taking candy from a baby.
….we are going to destroy ourselves within 50 years. I don’t think he was referring to climate change.
But Consider, if there really is a point of no return in a rise of global temperature where all life dies then certainly there are those who would go to war to reduce the population and cause a short nuclear winter that some may survive. And with this, the WWIII threshold would have to be before the global warming point of no return happens.
If these where the only choices you had, wouldn’t you do the same
- by 3seas ( 184403 )
A solution direction…. option C: http://3seas.org/Voice_of_Glob… [3seas.org] improve it to make it happen
Or sit back and wait for the few with all their ideas to get busy and do the save, as currently they don’t seem to be enabling the rest of us to really participate. Re:Not long after 9/11 Ted Turner publically state (Score:5, Informative)
by Deep Esophagus ( 686515 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:46PM (#58713588)Didn’t we go through all this with the dire warnings from the Club of Rome [openculture.com] in the 1970s?
Ah, and there we go. One of the lead authors [itdunlop.com] is a member of both the Breakthrough National Centre and the Club of Rome.
I wish I had mod points.
Contrary to the widespread scoffing, the Limits to Growth model is still largely on track: Is Global Collapse Imminent? [unimelb.edu.au]
- by lgw ( 121541 )
But Consider, if there really is a point of no return in a rise of global temperature where all life dies
Fortunately, that’s happens at the temperature where the crust melts, so it is not a danger from global warming. Venus, OTOH, is boned. The mass of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and all known fossil fuel reserves combined is a rounding error compared to the mass of carbon in the rock weathering cycle. The mass of carbon in Venus’s atmosphere is similar to the amount in the Earth’s crust, and not the result of runaway global warming.
Seems about right. (Score:5, Funny)
by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:30PM (#58713418)That’s when we’ll finally run out of IPv4 addresses and all *have* to switch to IPv6, then we’ll run out of colons (‘:’)
If it happens, maybe the survivalists, once they’ve rebuilt civilization, will pay extra attention to not fucking with the planet we depend their lives on.
I don’t have much hope for the current Earth inhabitants.
- With a tech reset I don’t know that you could get back to the fossil fuels that are left, we already got the low hanging fruit. Without access to fossil fuels it’ll be harder to build a renewable energy network, they might not be able to do much better than colonial era tech.
- by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:33PM (#58713474)
If climate change is actually a real threat, which I believe it is, then people need to get on board with 400% increase in nuclear power production in the next 15 – 20 years and stop fretting about the very manageable nuclear waste that in the US has been safely stored on-site for decades.
Nuclear power production is the only carbon free alternative energy that can provably scale at affordable costs. Hydro is tapped out for the most part and solar and wind have scalability and other environmental sustainability issues that come along with a massive industrial scale infrastructure and widespread distribution of power production.
- Do them all: nuclear, wind, solar.
Re:real threat…nuclear power now! (Score:4, Informative)
by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:17PM (#58713950)Do them all: nuclear, wind, solar.
New nukes cost $0.15 / kwhr.
Large PV solar farms cost $0.05 / kwhr.
The latest wind turbines cost $0.03 / kwhr.
Nuclear is for people that are bad at math.
- Diversification in all things. The goal is to diversify the schedule and methods of power generation. Do that math.
Diversification in all things.
Diversity can mean building many windfarms in many different locations. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
We can build 5 windfarms for the price of one nuke.
The goal is to diversify the schedule and methods of power generation.
The goal is reliable and affordable power. Diversity is a mechanism, not a goal in itself.
Wind only really works in places that are always windy. Solar only really works in places that are really sunny. And hydro needs a major river. Nuclear works pretty much everywhere, but I would avoid putting it on the coast or near fault lines. Fortunately those two places tend to be a good match for either wind, solar or both.
Well, when Solar and Wind start providing power 24-7, then nuclear will be a bad thing.
Alas, the sun doesn’t shine much at night, so solar isn’t going to be 24-7 till we start putting up solar power satellites beaming power groundside.
Wind isn’t keyed to the Sun being in the sky, but it’s still not 100%. Even ignoring the no-wind periods, there are also Really High Wind periods when you have to shut down your windturbines.
Which leaves us with nuclear as the only zero-carbon energy source that runs day a
Alas, the sun doesn’t shine much at night, so solar isn’t going to be 24-7 till we start putting up solar power satellites beaming power groundside.
Kinda a shame that the Earth isn’t round and doesn’t spin, ensuring at least half is exposed to sunlight at any time, otherwise there’d be an obvious solution to this involving transcontinental power lines.
Re:real threat…nuclear power now! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ikihsam}> on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:59PM (#58714296) HomepageLarge PV solar farms cost 0.192-0.22/kWh
The latest wind turbines cost 0.125-0.255/kWh or more
New nukes cost 0.085-0.095/kWh – existing nukes including fuel replenishment cycle and maintenance after 20 years is right around the same. The only game that beats new nukes, is hydroelectric like Niagara Falls which is around 0.023 kWh.Unless you live in a country where nuclear power is bad, in which case it costs more. Sit back, enjoy those fit prices. [www.ieso.ca] It’s even more expensive in various european countries. I seem to remember that various places in Germany are still paying around 0.76kWh.
Nuclear is for people that are bad at math.
Looks like you live in a country where nuclear power is bad.
Do them all: nuclear, wind, solar.
New nukes cost $0.15 / kwhr.
Large PV solar farms cost $0.05 / kwhr. The latest wind turbines cost $0.03 / kwhr. Nuclear is for people that are bad at math.
Not really. You failed to factor in the savings from cleaning up some existing stockpiles of waste that can be consumed as fuel in more modern designs. But there is a larger logical fallacy, an inconsistency, that the pro renewables often make. They often argue that the costs of eliminating carbon are justified by the imminent threat. Yet for nuclear they are all of a sudden cost conscious, what happened to that imminent threat of climate change? Of the desperate need to remove all fossil fuel based power g
I think you are counting installed capacity rather than actual reliable power at scale. Nuclear can work alone with just transmission lines. Solar and Wind require much larger and complex distribution and energy storage systems and have higher real estate costs.
I am all for solar and wind, but not if we are really just talking about solar and wind that is a front for natural gas power plants 70% of the time.
In that case it would just be more environmentally sound to skip the solar and wind and just do nat
- Or who want electricity on a calm windless night.
Solar and Wind takes decades to install the equivalent of one nuke power plant
- by EvilSS ( 557649 )
Solar and Wind takes decades to install the equivalent of one nuke power plant
Nuclear plants take decades just to do the paperwork! Unless we cut that and somehow overcome NIMBYism it’s just not going to happen.
- by kackle ( 910159 )I don’t think it (nor anything) will matter if we allow population to grow unchecked.
- by sinij ( 911942 )
How are you going to pay for it? The people who build nuclear plants don’t work for free.
Sure, but they will take money in exchange for labor and government can always print more money for free. They already do it to fund wars, might as well put some of it to less wasteful use.
- by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *I pay my electric bill. Don’t you? I’m sure people would be interested in buying bonds to finance the plants.
I’m sure people would be interested in buying bonds to finance the plants.
Only if the government guarantees the bonds with taxpayer money.
Otherwise, the risk is too high of the bonds going to zero when the inevitable cost overruns and delays cause the project to be cancelled.
A typical nuclear project takes twice as long as forecast, and costs three times the original budget.
But things may be improving. The new Vogtle Nuke [wikipedia.org] in Georgia only went over budget by 80%. That is a commendable achievement.
Spent fuel has to be put somewhere safe for at least 10,000 years.
Only if all the plutonium is just thrown away with the waste rather than being reprocessed into new fuel rods.
The fission products contain less total radioactivity than the ore the uranium came from in something on the order of 500 years. (Guess what group is most vehemently opposed to reprocessing. I consider this the “Erik and Lyle Menendez demands the court’s mercy because they are orphans” argument.)
The best solution for the transuranics, some of which are very long-lived (which is precisely equivalen
Has that actually happened though? I mean I am all for whatever works, but it seems we have been building out all the “easy” solar and wind and have not made progress in carbon emissions.
Human love an Apocolypse Story (Score:5, Insightful)
by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:37PM (#58713530) HomepageIf you ever try to to submit a story to a Sci-Fi magazine, they will tell you do not bother with a whole bunch of junk, including things such as “If this goes on…” stories. It’s one of the most obvious and poorly thought out ideas ever. Why? Because things NEVER go on. It did not happen when people wrote about horse manure clogging our cities because we stopped using using horses. That was an actual “If this Goes On” story printed in the 18th century.
But more importantly, we especially love the idea of everyone dying. Mainly because we like to think of ourselves as the only ones smart enough to save ourselves. It’s why people thought the earth was coming to an end in the year 1000, the year 2000, the year 2012, and hundreds of other times. I love the history of the 7th Day adventist church.
It started when they thought Jesus would come in 1843/1844 to begin a great Cleansing. Even though they clearly were wrong (called it “The Great Disappointment”) they still managed to hold onto their followers and created a huge, powerful church.
I have no doubt that the issues discussed here are true. I also have no doubt that humans will at least ameliorate those problems till they are liveable, and eventually new technology will solve them completely (creating new problems…)
Things never going on is, technically, something always going on. (just sayin’)
- by DRJlaw ( 946416 )
If you ever try to to submit a story to a Sci-Fi magazine, they will tell you do not bother with a whole bunch of junk, including things such as “If this goes on…” stories.
If modern human civilization goes on…
I also have no doubt that humans will at least ameliorate those problems till they are liveable, and eventually new technology will solve them completely (creating new problems…)
If technological solutions (in general) go on…
You’re seemingly happy to apply “Because things NEVER go on…” only to
During the lead-up to Y2K, there was this thought-ladder prevalent:
1) If un-remediated, Y2K could cause a huge problem – scale unknown, but potentially, at the top end, TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it).
2) It probably can’t be remediated (fully) on time.
3) Because of #1 and #2, and the general anxiety of not knowing for sure where the problem lurked, IT *WILL* BE TEOTWAWKI!#3 was an almost hysterical leap from #1 and #2, but a lot of people made it – including people who worked in the comput
- These “climate change will end humanity” are the worst kind of conjecture premise. Humanity is not going to end. Period. There may be far fewer humans but that is not the same as extinction of the species. Contamination of the planet due to nuclear war might do it but climate change is very unlikely.
- I’ll be dead by then! (I’m pretty sure that’s how Trump thinks too…)
Is there really any difference between this doomsday scenario and the doomsday scenarios exposed by religious fanatics?
Is there really any difference between this doomsday scenario and the doomsday scenarios exposed by religious fanatics?
Yes. The two scenarios are different. One is an implausible fantasy. The other is supported by scripture.
Carbon cycle (Score:3, Interesting)
by DrSpock11 ( 993950 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:46PM (#58713586)Preface: Yes, global warming is happening. Yes, it is caused by man’s emissions of greenhouse chemicals.
That being stated, these apocalyptic scenarios seem extremely unlikely. 100% of the stuff we are burning came from *organisms that were once alive*. And where did they get their carbon from? From CO2 in the atmosphere. And the vast majority of those dead organisms become types of rock that we do not use for fossil fuels. Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa…. [nasa.gov]
Thus, it seems to me that even if we burned every once of fossil fuel on the entire planet we still wouldn’t be anywhere close to Earth’s previous peak levels of CO2. Feel free to correct me if I’ve made a mistake.
Will the planet get hotter? Yes? Will it be the end of human civilization? Zero chance. Humans have an unbelievable ability to adapt and excel in changing scenarios. The mini-ice age (1645–1715) that wrought havoc across the world still did not stop the greatest acceleration of human technology in history, the Scientific Revolution (1550-1700).
Yes, but millions of years ago when the CO2 levels were high, the sun was weaker than it is now The same level of CO2 would produce unlivably hot temperatures with the sun’s current strength. [wikipedia.org]
Life can thrive with much higher levels of CO2. In fact, that’s happened for long periods during prehistoric times. The problem isn’t necessarily the CO2 level, but the rate of change. It’s much harder for life to adapt to abrupt climatic changes than to gradual changes. Evidence suggests that these abrupt changes are particularly hard on apex predators, which is precisely what humans are.
While humans do have a remarkable ability to adapt, we are judging that based on the limited time of human civilizat
There is no precedent in natural processes for large-scale unearthing and releasing huge amounts of previously sequestered carbon in 150 years. There’s no direct natural counterpart to fossil fuel mining and extraction. The closest thing to that was the ignition of coal seams in Siberia around 252 million years ago, through asteroid impact or volcanic activity or both. The result? The Permian-Triassic extinction event, the worst ever, in which 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate
Feel free to correct me if I’ve made a mistake.
You are assuming that all the geological CO2 was originally all in the atmosphere . This is not true. There has always been trillions of tons of carbonate rocks. Carbonates are formed by both biological and non-biological processes. They are subducted into the earth where they melt into magma, and the CO2 is vented in volcanic eruptions.
Most carbonate rock are made by living organisms, the origin of the carbon is atmospheric.
A reflection on cities of the future (Score:5, Interesting)
by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:08PM (#58713852) Journalby James Howard Kunstler.
We will be lucky if we can make the transition from our current circumstances to a future [resilience.org] of re-sized, re-scaled cities and a reactivated productive rural landscape outside them, with a hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns in between, and some ability to conduct commerce and manufacturing.
If it worked 200 years ago, before the automobile, it can work again in a post-oil world. Welcome to the future, same as the past!
- This will not occur. One major reason the climate change debate has turned into such a clusterfuck is 95% of energy expended is arguing about things that simply aren’t going to occur under any foreseeable circumstances whatsoever. It’s sucks the life out of us rational folk just seeing it brought up.
I mean, I don’t even know for certain what all of the supposed whys are behind this insane thought:
We will be lucky if we can make the transition from our current circumstances to a future [resilience.org] of re-sized, re-scaled cities and a reactivated productive rural landscape outside them, with a hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns in between, and some ability to conduct commerce and manufacturing.
If it worked 200 years ago, before the automobile, it can work again in a post-oil world. Welcome to the future, same as the past!
I guess the pseudo-logic here is that if you cut the distance between where we live and where we grow food, t
- The other thing I should’ve mentioned, but didn’t (because there’s *so* much that’s wrong with those ideas that it’s easy to lose track), are the echoes of “peak oil” that reverberate around those sentiments even though you didn’t use the term itself. (The article you link to *almost* uses the term–it talks about a “cheap oil fiesta in the early 20th Century”.) So underlying all of this is an unstated assumption that we will, at some point, stop using oil even if it means the sudden and drastic fragmentati
- by Ichijo ( 607641 )
trillions of dollars in lost productivity
Is a 30-60 mile drive to work more productive than living within walking distance of everything you need?
instead of simply moving over to electric vehicles to move food around?
Sure, let’s do electric trains with pantographs for optimal rolling and aerodynamic efficiency and minimal weight! Unfortunately, we’ve subsidized our roads and neglected our railroads for decades. How would a nation without subsidies and preferential legislative treatment for automobiles (su
People were saying the same thing in the ’80s and it hasn’t happened. We were supposed to be living in a polluted desert hellscape by now. Before that, people were saying industrial pollution was going to trigger an ice age.
This all assumes that both humanity and Earth biota are somehow fragile.Moving a billion people is far from the end of Human civilization.
Hyperbolic projections don’t help. They make great headlines, but damage your credibility.
- by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:42PM (#58714140)
So a think tank makes alarmist nonsense and two military head paper pushers endorse it, therefore we’re all doomed.
yeah, seen this before, for the past few decades
Coming To an End’ Starting in 2050
You forgot to add: “Or After.”
All that news like this does is promote the futility of even *trying* to change.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is being perpetuated by big oil.
I can make one prediction that’s almost certain to come true: The majority of predictions about the future timeline will be wrong.
I’m just going to leave this link here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
Discuss among yourselves.
- Everyone and everything will keep going like nothing is wrong right up until The Actual End hits, everything starts falling completely apart, then the deniers will still try to shush everyone, keep them calm, so The Rich, politicians, and so on, will make their way to their pre-prepared shelters. Then they’ll let everything completely fall apart, wait a few decades before coming out, and take over control of whoever is left alive. Sound like a science fiction movie plot? There’s a reason they’ve been writin
“It’s the end of the world as we know it
Still likely the best prediction available. And this time there will not be a quick fix. That is the real killer: If the reaction comes to late, no amount of panic will help, and “too late” is long before it gets bad for this set of problems.
- Indeed. “I told you so” isn’t going to work too well on this one.
Malthus is gonna be right this time! REALLY!
The problem with “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is there actually was a wolf.
Really? How come they’ve been crying wolf for the last 50 years, and screeching that the world is going to end every 10-20 years because of global warming. Come on now, it’s not like they weren’t saying that Florida or NYC wouldn’t be under water or anything. They were screaming it from the rooftops.
Re:When will they shut up with this shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Me, I have no agenda.
You likely have an agenda, which would be something along the lines of not wanting to make changes to your standard of living to reduce the chance of climate related disasters. Most people who deny climate change are not stupid, they just have their own agenda (consciously or not) and/or cultural beliefs which inhibit rational analysis of the situation.
- by RobinH ( 124750 )
Here’s how I look at it. If you’re on a sinking ship with your kids aboard does it make sense to put your family to work bailing water if it’s going to require a majority of the people on the ship to start bailing water and it doesn’t look like a significant number of them are going to start anytime soon? Or should I focus my efforts on getting my kids to the upper decks?
I vote Green Party. When the government regulated pesticides I willingly stopped using them even though a few people in my neighbourhoo
- by mark-t ( 151149 )When it comes to moving away from gasoline, honestly, I’d be happy if cities would just mandate that apartments install electric outlets where people park their cars. For myself, not having a place to charge up the car overnight is the biggest reason I don’t expect to buy an EV any time in the forseeable future. Yeah, there are loads of other places to charge around the city, but they take *WAY* more time to use than just filliing up a car and going… certainly not viable if one is, for example, nee
when all the smart people are busy reserving their kids a spot on a lifeboat
The only problem being is that there are no lifeboats to go to for this problem. But for the large part of your argument, I totally agree, but I would feel the appropriate response would be for the passengers to unrelentingly tell the captain over and over in massive enough numbers to get those f’ers on board with the bailing. You’re right, there is no point in anyone bailing if we’re not all doing it and pretty much only the captain has the firepower to ensure we’re all doing our part.
Me, I have no agenda.
You likely have an agenda, which would be something along the lines of not wanting to make changes to your standard of living to reduce the chance of climate related disasters. Most people who deny climate change are not stupid, they just have their own agenda (consciously or not) and/or cultural beliefs which inhibit rational analysis of the situation.
Meh. Few climatistas are actually willing to change their standard of living. Most just virtue signal. (E.g. Driving a Tesla is not changing your standard of living.)
- Yeah, like you said. People like that AC don’t want to be ‘inconvenienced’ for any reason and when everything starts falling apart they’ll complain to the government and say “Why didn’t anyone warn us?”
Re:Suicide. (Score:4, Insightful)
by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:01PM (#58713788)Brexit == committing suicide?
Britain, wtf happened to you? You conquered and colonized half the world from a tiny island. You survived and rebuilt after two world wars.
And somehow regaining some of your independence from Brussels is committing suicide?
Hyperbole much? the UK will be just fine.
Yup, and the truth is in between. Coastal areas are in for a disaster, but beyond that, I expect the impacts will be slower and easier to adjust to. When cities flood, and the government says it doesn’t have the resources to help, some would consider that civilization breaking down, but we’ve already seen that in America to some extent with New Orleans and Puerto Rico. The big difference will be when cities flood and the water doesn’t recede, so the land is lost with no rebuilding.
Yup, and the truth is in between. Coastal areas are in for a disaster, but beyond that, I expect the impacts will be slower and easier to adjust to.
Based on how smug the coastal types are many would consider this Karma.
- by DarkOx ( 621550 )
Goodbye borders
I doubt that very very very much. As you say just Syria and Libya’s refugees are making Europe flip out. I think the looking at the rise of populist politics already the response will be “goodbye porous borders” hello “militarized borders” and “eat lead” if you caught crossing at somewhere other than a designated port of entry where you not getting thru without all the correct papers – no “but muh I need asylum from uhhh…..”
Really people need to recognize the current world order is now basically 70 yea
not seeing any “flipping out”, meme-boy. You imagine things from social media. You’re like a person flipping channels looking for a soap opera to cry over. Meanwhile, more level headed people don’t think any such thing is going to happen.
.. fleeing a war zone made Europe flip out. Imagine a billion people moving due to climate change. Goodbye borders. Goodbye everything you think you know.
More like hello borders for all the states that border Mexico since we’ve largely been ignoring them for decades. The social cost has already been huge to the US. At some point we’ll start taking it more seriously by finding people who are willing to do something about it.
Cue the believers who will point to all the obvious signs of climate change, and the non-believers to call this a bunch of fear mongering.
Then there are those of us who believe that climate change is a serious issue with economic consequences, but also see shrill alarmism as counterproductive.
The end is neigh.
Was that from the horse of the horsemen of the apocalypse?
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 1445 commentsFewer Than Half of Young Americans Are Positive About Capitalism
- 1293 commentsMass Shooting Reported at Madden Video Game Tournament in Florida
- 985 commentsLinus Torvalds Reflects On How He’s Been Hostile To Linux Community Members Over the Years, Issues Apology, and Announces He Will Be Taking Some Time Off
- 929 commentsWikileaks Co-founder Julian Assange Arrested in London
- 825 commentsSan Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias, Force Tech Workers To Eat Out At Local Restaurants
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 100 of 246 loaded
The debate rages on: Is PL/I Bachtrian or Dromedary?
