Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Sheilbh]

Eventually even Conservatives will have to admit we need to act

For some time now it has been clear that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than scientists anticipated. Now it turns out that there is another form of underestimation as bad or worse than the scientific one: the underestimating by economists of the costs

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html

I often think about the point Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal) makes about human existence. He argued that we're not normally special. We aren't in the middle of the galaxy, the sun doesn't revolve around us and so with other aspects of human existence.

So for example we are probably in the broad middle of human existence rather than very close to the beginning or very close to the end.

But - in that context what is the middle? As in is 200,000 probably around the middle of human existence, in which case we've got another 200,000 years? Or is it that the estimate 100 billion people ever having lived the middle, in which case we'll go through another 100 billion lives a lot quicker than it took to get here

[crazy canuck]

That theory has problems in a world where humans can bring their own existence to an end with the push of a button.

[Eddie Teach]

I like to believe we're close to the beginning.

[crazy canuck]

I like to believe we're close to the beginning.

Mammals have an average evolutionary life span of about 1m years, so you are correct without accounting for our unique species superpower of having the ability to obliterate ourselves.

[Sheilbh]

That theory has problems in a world where humans can bring their own existence to an end with the push of a button.

I think that's his point. It took us 200,000 years to get this far, but if the "number of humans" is the midpoint we'd be done within a century.

[Tamas]

Being convinced that the end of everything is imminent is one of the most common patterns through history, at least in Europe.

Sure, we seem to have more scientific evidence than ever that this is now, for a change, is true, but past generations were similarly convinced of their fact-based gloom, I am sure.

[crazy canuck]

Being convinced that the end of everything is imminent is one of the most common patterns through history, at least in Europe.

Sure, we seem to have more scientific evidence than ever that this is now, for a change, is true, but past generations were similarly convinced of their fact-based gloom, I am sure.

The Victorians thought the end was imminent?

[Tamas]

Being convinced that the end of everything is imminent is one of the most common patterns through history, at least in Europe.

Sure, we seem to have more scientific evidence than ever that this is now, for a change, is true, but past generations were similarly convinced of their fact-based gloom, I am sure.

The Victorians thought the end was imminent?

I know this is strictly about religion-induced and Messiah-expecting occurrences, and not global convictions of doom, but shows the inclination has always been there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

[grumbler]

The Victorians thought the end was imminent?

Sure.  Malthus's theories were widely believed din the mid-Nineteenth Century, Marx was popular, and the Iron Law of Wages was widely accepted.

[crazy canuck]

The Victorians thought the end was imminent?

Sure.  Malthus's theories were widely believed din the mid-Nineteenth Century, Marx was popular, and the Iron Law of Wages was widely accepted.

First of all Marx was not popular during that time period.  But even if he was he thought a better age was inevitable not that we were doomed.  I grant you that Malthus thought the future would be bleak because we would outstrip our resources but his view was balanced by the enterprising ethic of the age.

@ Tamas- Yeah Christianity has at its core the belief that this world is about to end.  But generally there has been optimism about what the future holds.  This is really the first time that all scientists are in agreement that the future will definitely be not only worse but catastrophic unless we act quickly.

[The Brain]

That theory has problems in a world where humans can bring their own existence to an end with the push of a button.

I think that's his point. It took us 200,000 years to get this far, but if the "number of humans" is the midpoint we'd be done within a century.

You cannot ignore quality.

[The Brain]

I have a hard time seeing climate change as a civilization killer.

[crazy canuck]

Hard to see gradual change

[garbon]

I have a hard time seeing climate change as a civilization killer.

How about God?

[grumbler]

First of all Marx was not popular during that time period.  But even if he was he thought a better age was inevitable not that we were doomed.  I grant you that Malthus thought the future would be bleak because we would outstrip our resources but his view was balanced by the enterprising ethic of the age.

Sure, Marx was not popular because you say so... though the First International based on his wrks had 8 million members by 1872, but that is "not popular" because... reasons.

The collapse of society as the Victorians knew it (proletarianization) was part of the process that led to Marx's brave new wold, so certainly the Victorians considered that a doomsday scenario, even if there was a promise of a better world on the other side (just as they didn't look forward to death even if promised a reward in heaven).  I have no idea what "his view was balanced by the enterprising ethic of the age" means, but suspect that this is mere contrarianism due to its remarkable lack of specificity.