Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Near Term Human Extinction  (Read 34718 times)

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #300 on: May 27, 2018, 10:58:42 AM »
Actually I do agree with you, that humanity should aim (in the longer term) for max 1-2 bln people. We could live in the best places for human existence and left the rest for Mother Nature...

That sure would be nice!
"When the ice goes..... F***

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #301 on: May 27, 2018, 02:19:22 PM »
"'Imagine a population of bushmen or pygmies in Africa wiping out all the elephants, giraffes, rhino, wildebeest etc'"

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying here, but one argument about why that didn't happen is that those animals co-evolved with humans and so learned to avoid them.

See the book "Why Big, Fierce Animals Are Rare," among others.

But yeah, the transition from glaciation into the current inter- (?) -glacial likely played some role in at least some of the extinctions.

It's just a pretty decent argument how hunter-gatherers arriving somewhere would not necessarily be able to wipe out so many species.
37 species in North America for instance...that is a lot and it includes not only prey species but also predators such as big cats.
Who knows indeed, there may well be other factors involved that combined at least.
One theory speculates on an impact from space, leaving no crater by striking the ice sheets.
Another plausible argument against mega fauna extinction by primitive mankind is that it did not occur everywhere they migrated.
Not in Asia, Africa etc...a combination of events is hard to recognize of course wherever and we really don't have much information.
I can see your point as well about there being a surprise effect outside of Africa where humans and animals co-evolved more.
Animals adapt pretty quickly as well though...it's well studied how prey species quickly learn when a reïntroduction or rewilding of long lost predators occurs somewhere.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 02:28:23 PM by Forest Dweller »

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #302 on: May 27, 2018, 11:38:57 PM »
"...hunter-gatherers arriving somewhere would not necessarily be able to wipe out so many species."

That's basically an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

We know that the relatively recent migration of humans into the Pacific islands lead to massive extinctions. Why do you find it so incredible that the same could happen on the American continent at an earlier period?

The human predator is not like others. They/we can plan ahead and carefully coordinate attacks. We don't seem or smell or look like other predators...no big teeth or razor sharp talons...

And it doesn't have to be humans that actually kill the very last member of a species for us to effectively drive them extinct. Group behaviors of many species means that greatly reduced numbers in any given area will lead to their inevitable demise in that region.

But I do assume that the actual reality was likely much more complex than any simple construct we are likely to come up with, from whatever side of the issue.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Paladiea

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #303 on: May 31, 2018, 02:45:21 PM »
Sorry to interject, but I can't have been the only one to catch the paper on the large scale hypoxia of our oceans, can I?

You can catch the paper here http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

Paladiea

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

Paladiea

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #305 on: May 31, 2018, 05:16:47 PM »
Well considering that this is the same mechanism that occurred during the Permian-Triassic, and one of the papers I linked to gave a timeline of as soon as 2100, I'm a bit confused at your dismissal.

The last paper I read about concerning widespread ocean oxygen loss stated that we wouldn't be seeing large areas of hypoxia till the mid 2030s...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GB005310

Yet that's exactly what we're seeing today.
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

CDN_dude

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #306 on: May 31, 2018, 08:21:43 PM »
Paladiea, you might find Jeremy Jackson, of the Scripps Institute, an interesting speaker on these kinds of topics to do with the health of the oceans.


aperson

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #307 on: May 31, 2018, 11:05:08 PM »
It's a bit presumptive to expect that if we created PT atmospheric conditions we would get the same outcome. The layout of the Earth was drastically different in the end-Permian with a much larger extent of shallow water shelfs which changes how organic matter dies, sinks, and deposits along the sea floor. After the PT, we have also seen fundamental changes in ocean chemistry and large groups of organisms, like diatoms, that would change outcomes.

Also, as far as I am aware, there is still significant uncertainty as to what extent the oceans were anoxic+sulfidic rather than anoxic+ferruginous in the PT extinction.

All that being said, I think it is one of the best analogue events to the forcing that we are creating today.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3622
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #308 on: June 03, 2018, 09:35:27 AM »
‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’

I do not believe humans will become extinct in the near term, "near term" defined in my head as 2100.
I do believe that in the 21st Century life for most humans will become increasingly a case of "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". from "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes. See below

The cult of personal freedom and resistance to laws and regulations designed to protect our species will ensure that (and might even stop most CO2 emissions). A recent example :-

a) The risks are identified:-
Antibiotic resistance could spell end of modern medicine, says chief medic
Prof Dame Sally Davies says action is needed around the world to tackle ‘hidden’ problem that is already claiming lives

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/13/antibiotic-resistance-could-spell-end-of-modern-medicine-says-chief-medic

World Economic Forum 2013 - Antimicrobial Resistance
Quote
In the 2013 Global Risks Report, a chapter entitled “The Dangers of Hubris on Human Health” warned about the growing risks associated with complacency towards antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It highlighted two underlying drivers: the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, in both human health systems and livestock management; and the fact that no new classes of antibiotics had been invented since the 1980s. The chapter noted newly emerging resistance to the strongest class of antibiotics, carbapenems. It cited estimates of 100,000 AMR-related deaths in US hospitals and 80,000 in China. The potential economic impact was put at 0.4% to 1.6% of GDP.

and the scale of the problem quantified:-
Huge levels of antibiotic use in US farming revealed
Concerns raised over weakened regulations on imports in potential post-Brexit trade deals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/08/huge-levels-of-antibiotic-use-in-us-farming-revealed

and the response by the EU (under pressure) is to abandon any effective response.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/01/antibiotic-apocalypse-eu-scraps-plans-to-tackle-drug-pollution-despite-fears-of-rising-resistance
Antibiotic apocalypse: EU scraps plans to tackle drug pollution, despite fears of rising resistance
Leaked documents reveal discarded proposals to ward off antibiotic resistance through closer scrutiny of drug firms

Quote
The EU has scrapped plans for a clampdown on pharmaceutical pollution that contributes to the spread of deadly superbugs.

Plans to monitor farm and pharmaceutical companies, to add environmental standards to EU medical product rules and to oblige environmental risk assessments for drugs used by humans have all been discarded, leaked documents seen by the Guardian reveal.

An estimated 700,000 people die every year from antimicrobial resistance, partly due to drug-resistant bacteria created by the overuse, misuse and dumping of antibiotics.

The UK’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has warned that failing to act could lead to a post-antibiotic apocalypse, spelling “the end of modern medicine” as routine infections defy effective treatment.

Some studies predict that antimicrobial resistance could cost $100tn (£75tn) between now and 2050, with the annual death toll reaching 10 million over that period.

If people think that fixing CO2 emissions means "job done" they really are living in a fool's paradise.
_________________________________________________
Quote
Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 to a clergyman and his wife in Wiltshire, and later went to Oxford for his education. In 1651, he wrote a famous book titled Leviathan, in which he expressed his views about the nature of human beings and the necessity of governments and societies.

Hobbes, like Machiavelli, had a low view of human beings. We are all basically selfish, driven by fear of death and the hope of personal gain, he believed. All of us seek power over others, whether we realize this or not. If you don’t accept Hobbes’ picture of humanity, why do you lock the door when you leave your house? Surely it’s because you know that there are many people out there who would happily steal everything you own? But, you might argue, only some people are that selfish. Hobbes disagreed. He thought that at heart we all are, and that it is only the rule of law and the threat of punishment that keep us in check.

The consequence of this, he argued, was that if society broke down and you had to live in what he called ‘a state of nature’, without laws or anyone with the power to back them up, you, like everyone else, would steal and murder when necessary. At least, you’d have to do that if you wanted to carry on living. In a world of scarce resources, particularly if you were struggling to find food and water to survive, it could actually be rational to kill other people before they killed you. In Hobbes’ memorable description, life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’

But Hobbes’ theory did not end there: he wanted to find a way out of such an undesirable situation.

‘The solution, Hobbes argued, was to put some powerful individual or parliament in charge. The individuals in the state of nature would have to enter into a ‘social contract’, an agreement to give up some of their dangerous freedoms for the sake of safety. Without what he called a ‘sovereign’, life would be a kind of hell. This sovereign would be given the right to inflict severe punishment on anyone who stepped out of line. […] Laws are no good if there isn’t someone or something strong enough to make everyone follow them.’
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2971
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 591
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #309 on: June 03, 2018, 09:52:03 AM »
Thank you gerontocrat. Sad but true.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1143
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #310 on: June 03, 2018, 11:12:44 AM »
If people think that fixing CO2 emissions means "job done" they really are living in a fool's paradise.
Most still do. The real Paradise was hauled away a long time ago, a great song though.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #311 on: June 03, 2018, 05:32:06 PM »
While nature's methods for addressing imbalances can be cruel (pestilence, disease, starvation), it is this ruthless behavior that is the source of my optimism about the future of the planet. We are the single largest imbalance in nature and we will be dealt with. The only question is whether the approaching calamity will drive us to extinction. I still think there is a good chance humans survive. It just won't be pretty and the numbers that get through the "Great Winnowing" will be shockingly small. For the wealthy elite, I have some bad news. Your wealth and status is dependent on the system that is driving us to the brink. The skill set you have will be of no use in our inevitable future and you and yours will be early casualties.

For anyone who would like to understand the source of my perspective about many issues on this wonderful blog, all you need do is contemplate the meaning of my nym. We share this planet, have a common fate. Any effort we make to attempt to distinguish ourselves from those around us (wealth, social status, faith, ethnicity, nationality, race etc.) is nothing but a construct that will melt away in times of peril. This perspective is also the source of our salvation. The sooner we recognize our shared humanity, the sooner we can get down to the work of saving ourselves.

For the record, I am not a religious man.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 05:49:59 PM by Shared Humanity »

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #312 on: June 06, 2018, 09:59:22 PM »
Many do not think we can go extinct, but that is very ignorant. Every organism goes extinct. We are no exception. Life for humanity will definitely get harder and harder, but there will come a time when the last human dies. We can't live without the living planet. The collapse of civilization is imo a few decades away, and I don't know if we will make it out of the 21 century. It is indeed time to realize we are not invincible, and if we don't start acting like we will die, we will certainly die.
"When the ice goes..... F***

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #313 on: June 06, 2018, 10:08:42 PM »
We have reached the point no return on planet Earth, where the collective intent for biosphere collapse is manifesting at dizzying speed. From widespread social unrest to aggressive threats of nuclear war, to pollution soiling every inch of the planet (and beyond), to mass animal and plant extinction, global overpopulation, and runaway biosphere decay. Many powerful forces are converging to create unprecedented chaos and breakdown.

"When the ice goes..... F***

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #314 on: June 06, 2018, 10:52:18 PM »
Many do not think we can go extinct, but that is very ignorant. Every organism goes extinct. We are no exception. Life for humanity will definitely get harder and harder, but there will come a time when the last human dies. We can't live without the living planet. The collapse of civilization is imo a few decades away, and I don't know if we will make it out of the 21 century. It is indeed time to realize we are not invincible, and if we don't start acting like we will die, we will certainly die.

A pragmatic person would observe it was our technology that opened this Pandora's Box. A pessimist would point out our brains are wired to discount future risk. The farther out the risk the less we respond to the approaching danger. (See book by Daniel Kahneman: "Thinking Fast and Slow)". For what it's worth Prof. Kahneman thinks humans lack the will the deal with climate change so he is pretty gloomy about our chances.
Speaking of gloomy...Imagine two futures.
https://qz.com/1295679/why-the-solar-revolution-is-in-grave-danger-and-how-it-can-be-saved/

We don't know what the impact of genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence will have on our future but we may go into hyper evolution mode and things could look very different. At best we can dimly peer a few years into the future.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3622
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #315 on: June 06, 2018, 11:52:53 PM »
Australia will have vast quantities of solar and wind power despite their dumb government.

But fish might not be on the dinner plate for much longer. Solve CO2 emissions and the planet is saved? I don't think so. Count the ways to trash the joint.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/05/australias-large-fish-species-declined-30-in-past-decade-study-says

Australia's large fish species declined 30% in past decade, study says
Call for fisheries changes after study says excessive fishing mostly to blame
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #316 on: June 07, 2018, 02:05:08 PM »
We have reached the point no return on planet Earth, where the collective intent for biosphere collapse is manifesting at dizzying speed. From widespread social unrest to aggressive threats of nuclear war, to pollution soiling every inch of the planet (and beyond), to mass animal and plant extinction, global overpopulation, and runaway biosphere decay. Many powerful forces are converging to create unprecedented chaos and breakdown.

And yet, the prospects of each of these materializing has decreased over the past decades.  Social unrest peaked in the 1980s:

http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflicttrends.html

The world's nuclear arsenal peaked simultaneously:

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

Better understanding of our biosphere, has lead to the air and water getting cleaner since the 1970s:

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

Global action to protect wildlife has lead to a resurgence in many threatened species.  Overpopulation is the one issue that may cause added problems, although the growth rate is about half what it was 40 years ago, and expected to fall by half in the next 20 years. 

All in all, I find these types of posts just defeatism, similar to the man standing on the street corner with a sign saying that the end is near.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2971
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 591
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #317 on: June 07, 2018, 02:54:45 PM »
Every once in a great while that man on the street corner is right. The end is near. Not human extinction, but a reduction in the level of human civilization. The problems are immense and their solution very slow, just as expected in systems with high inertia and very slow feedback.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #318 on: June 07, 2018, 03:26:02 PM »
I guess there is a first time for everything.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1143
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #319 on: June 07, 2018, 03:43:08 PM »
Every once in a great while that man on the street corner is right. The end is near. Not human extinction, but a reduction in the level of human civilization. The problems are immense and their solution very slow, just as expected in systems with high inertia and very slow feedback.
Most likely so. We still have two or three years and the solution is so brutally simple on a personal level that every child out there understands it. Stop polluting. And if, every westerner could get down to ~2 tonnes CO2eq today. But as a collective we don't want to.
Here's a balanced and well written piece by Franz Baumann:
https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/sustainability/climate-action/1916-climate-change-is-the-central-challenge-for-humanity
To me, the timescale in wich all of this is happening has always been the most eyecatching piece.
Quote
Although the human species emerged around 150,000 years ago, most of the population growth – and most of the economic growth – occurred in the last 60 years

And for the environment. This is what we westerners support, in silence supported by ignorance.
Edit; fixed the video...
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 03:49:14 PM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #320 on: June 08, 2018, 06:08:10 PM »
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1143
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #321 on: June 09, 2018, 04:44:58 AM »
"Something to think about: The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Let's scale that to 46 years. We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time, we have destroyed 50% of the world's forests. This isn't sustainable."
-Vala Afshar.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2971
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 591
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #322 on: June 09, 2018, 10:45:40 AM »
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #323 on: June 09, 2018, 02:24:57 PM »
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?

And we are here today , intelligent and educated, alive because of that industrialization, able to contemplate and share our opinion through this medium, not dying from deseases like prior to that industrialization. And extinction, pollution, large scale altering of local environments has been happening since the dawn of civilization. All the forests you see now in Europe are there because people found alternative source of energy instead of cutting every single bit down. They did not need industrial revolution to destroy their environment. The fact that we are contemplating clean sources of energy exists because of industrialization. The problem is that humans still act on a personal selfish level. Unless tgey can transcend that instinct and think about the whole , behaviors won't change. They can only be regulated, but such regulation as we are won't go down easily without a fight...
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #324 on: June 09, 2018, 08:10:23 PM »
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?


And we are here today , intelligent and educated, alive because of that industrialization, able to contemplate and share our opinion through this medium, not dying from deseases like prior to that industrialization. And extinction, pollution, large scale altering of local environments has been happening since the dawn of civilization. All the forests you see now in Europe are there because people found alternative source of energy instead of cutting every single bit down. They did not need industrial revolution to destroy their environment. The fact that we are contemplating clean sources of energy exists because of industrialization. The problem is that humans still act on a personal selfish level. Unless tgey can transcend that instinct and think about the whole , behaviors won't change. They can only be regulated, but such regulation as we are won't go down easily without a fight...

Oh come on guys, admittedly i generalized but now i see cherry picking and failure to address the content of what i said.
I mentioned the hockey stick graphs of most problems coinciding with industrialization, because with everything it is important to see cause and effect.
I did not claim there are solutions i know of.
Are there solutions to all the biodiversity lost already?
Of course not, they are gone.

DrTskoul's little piece is so full of false assumptions it is hard to even begin on that.
- intelligence equated to industrialization is stupidity.
- some diseases are better, many more worse or brand new ones as a result of industrialization..how nice! Even the damm air is killing and torturing us now... yippy hurray for industrial progress and medicine!
- the forests of Europe are dieing mate, and they did recover indeed somewhat after past stupidity. They also screwed over a whole new continent in the process, and still do.
Europe is an industrial nature management factory based on stupid ideals from centuries long gone while climate won't even allow it. Shocking extinction is the case more than ever no matter how many damm trees they plant or import. The true old forest such as Romania or a little shitty bit left in Poland is being destroyed by industrial might.
- whatever destruction medieval Europeans caused and did or not somehow mitigate dwarfs in comparison.
- European period of the time is the worst example of health/longevity anyway. Those idiots lived in their own filth while inbreeding, using religion as medicine and working the 90% poor to death.
Small wonder then that "primitive humans" have enjoyed better health and long life and still do without industry or agrarian civilization.
- there are no clean, green, renewable sources of energy or however people want to call it gonna make a damm bit of difference because they are all industrial and inherently and exponentially  destructive and depleting.
That is a marketing strategy of cult-like proportions.
- after stacking false assumptions one on top of the other you fantasize about some industrial forced human regulation...and conflict required?
Yeah...that will be a paradise with a smiling Arctic ice cover and happy plants & animals everywhere i'll bet lol  :P
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 08:28:40 PM by Forest Dweller »

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1143
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #325 on: June 10, 2018, 06:19:11 AM »
Never considered myself as intelligent, I think stepping on the brakes would be an appropriate response to an imminent threat that would snuff you out forever.

Individuals usually change through anxiety and that's mostly due to fear for change. I have read about a priest who seriously suggested that approach to create action regarding climate change. Popular suggestion? Nope. How to? Don't know, maybe ask that priest or some psychologist, but anxiety due to change, will come in some form either way.

Other than that, we better be very careful and smart about how and what we build to keep emissions as low as possible.

There's still no perpetuum mobile and everything we build today creates GHG emissions.
Flooring it here wouldn't be intelligent, unless you have an airplane.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #326 on: June 24, 2018, 06:55:30 PM »
There are perfectly good examples of what happens when crisis arrives throughout history.
They are well documented so i won't bore you, but there are many recent ones.

- The Argentinian financial collapse caused a violent change in society.
People there are so protected out of fear from rape, theft and murder or just get the hell away if they had any choice.
-New Orleans after the hurricane saw a big rise in criminal affairs and drug use etc.
-Fukushima disaster saw the local Yakuza taking their share from misery.

In context of the historical civilisations collapsing the industrial reality spells much bigger disaster.
It is already the biggest disaster ever and includes billions of victims.
It wipes out all life.
Just stay safe, that is timeless.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #327 on: June 24, 2018, 11:18:29 PM »
There are perfectly good examples of what happens when crisis arrives throughout history.
They are well documented so i won't bore you, but there are many recent ones.

- The Argentinian financial collapse caused a violent change in society.
People there are so protected out of fear from rape, theft and murder or just get the hell away if they had any choice.
-New Orleans after the hurricane saw a big rise in criminal affairs and drug use etc.
-Fukushima disaster saw the local Yakuza taking their share from misery.

In context of the historical civilisations collapsing the industrial reality spells much bigger disaster.
It is already the biggest disaster ever and includes billions of victims.
It wipes out all life.
Just stay safe, that is timeless.
Who are these billions of victims to which you are referring?

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #328 on: July 08, 2018, 11:10:43 AM »
Life forms Daniel, including your own species.

Ardeus

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #329 on: December 02, 2018, 12:52:03 AM »
We have been bombarded with the word extinction for decades, usually applied to this or that species.

We know that the biomass of humans+cattle represents 96% of the total biomass of mammals.

We also know that the fish stocks have been declining for a long time.

There are now more chickens than wild birds.

Can we live happily without wild mammals, birds and fish? I guess we can.

Can we live in a world where insects are functionally extinct?

It was agriculture that set the base for our civilisation and it seems logical that agriculture will be our Achilles heel.

There's little data available on their decline, but the data available suggest that this may happen in the next 10-20 years.

Since there's little information on the reason they are disappearing (it's not pollution or loss of habitat, because it's happening in protected areas), for now we can only predict what will happen based on the little data available on their numbers and biomass.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #330 on: December 02, 2018, 10:30:44 AM »
Watch this

"When the ice goes..... F***

Ktb

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #331 on: December 02, 2018, 04:59:20 PM »
Watch this



We've entered the end game. Yet I’m still trying to convince my dad that climate change is real.

Ardeus

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #332 on: December 03, 2018, 12:38:17 AM »
Watch this



I am not convinced about the temperature increase being the cause yet. It has been too small over the past decades to justify this massive reduction in the insect population.

I hope that the people reseaching this issue keep all options on the table and don't settle too easily on climate change just because it's the most obvious explanation for a global phenomenon.

There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

We are nearly there and cutting whatever is left in half won't have a big impact.

Soon someone will come up with an economically feasible alternative to insect pollination.

With so many wild biomass disappearing,  something is going to fill these empty spaces in the biosphere.

Ktb

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #333 on: December 03, 2018, 06:04:24 AM »
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 06:09:54 AM by Ktb »

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #334 on: December 03, 2018, 06:25:40 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
"When the ice goes..... F***

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #335 on: December 03, 2018, 07:37:29 AM »
Good points, Ktb.

It is important to remember that we are not just talking about individual species going extinct, but the collapse of entire ecosystems.

On the one hand, driving or even allowing for species to go extinct and for ecosystems to collapse is on a very basic moral level unconscionable.

But if one wants to insist on putting it in the malignantly narcissistic terms of 'what's in it for me,' well, ecosystems provide all sorts of 'services,' both material and im-. As we are already seeing, regional hydrological cycles tend to get very badly disrupted when you wipe out all or even most of, say, a rain forest. And loss of a major rain forest (or most other terrestrial ecosystems) is also going to have quite an effect on the carbon cycle...ie, it will greatly exacerbate gw. Forests also build and stabilize soils, and without them (or a robust grassland ecosystem to replace them), soils will blow and wash away. And we still do kinda depend on soils to grow the vast majority of our food crops.

Some people tend to think, "Oh, well, the pandas are cute, but really, we can live just fine without them." But when we wipe out not just the pandas but the bamboo forests they inhabit (as we are in the process of doing), and do the same sort of thing over and over again throughout the world...which is pretty much we have been doing at an increasing rate...we create havoc of all sorts that will harm not only ourselves, but yet other eco-systems...
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #336 on: December 03, 2018, 08:11:44 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.

El Cid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #337 on: December 03, 2018, 08:16:51 AM »



There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

We are nearly there and cutting whatever is left in half won't have a big impact.

Soon someone will come up with an economically feasible alternative to insect pollination.

The solution is already there and it is working large scale: Regenerative Agriculture. Google Gabe Brown, Ray Archuleta, Colin Seis, etc. Keeping biodiversity, sustaining large scale, effective food production AND sequestering carbon at the same time is possibble. This movement is spreading fast and I believe will become dominant during this century. Humanity is able to survive the new, changed conditions and the ecosystem is more resilient than you would think.

Ktb

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #338 on: December 03, 2018, 08:49:32 AM »
It is important to remember that we are not just talking about individual species going extinct, but the collapse of entire ecosystems.

Again pertaining to the arcticle that the video is based on: they mention that humans are more likely to notice the secondary extinctions rather than the primary. I.e we see the frog that went extinct instead of “the frog went extinct because the food it depended on went extinct”.

And of course by that point it is too late.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #339 on: December 03, 2018, 10:10:24 AM »
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.

If we go down that road, just nuke everything
"When the ice goes..... F***

Ardeus

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #340 on: December 03, 2018, 11:20:10 AM »
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.

Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

When there's no ice in the Arctic, how will the jet stream behave? Will it even disappear in the following years? How seriously and how quickly will climate patterns change? Will we still have 3 climate cells?

No one has the answer to these questions yet and the speed at which changes will happen will be crucial to the outcome.

Unfortunately we won't know how serious it will be before we're right in the middle of it.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #341 on: December 03, 2018, 07:28:12 PM »
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2157
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #342 on: December 03, 2018, 07:42:55 PM »
Quote
Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

Here's a quote about Environmental Impact Analyses
suggesting AGW is nothing new, just 'larger' in scope:
Quote

Environmental impact analyses are often challenging because they call for making projections with incomplete information. Methods of assessing the impacts typically include both objective and subjective information making it difficult to quantify. Therefore, the methods are frequently seen as complex and, oftentimes, controversial. Despite being a requirement for many development projects, the function of an environmental impact statement is merely procedural. There is no specific legal force of action if information stemming from an environmental impact analysis confirms that a particular project may harm the environment. As a result, it is often left up to the courts to rule on whether risks to the environment are overstated or not.
...
The U.S.A. (at least) appears to contain a large number of people (and the resulting state and national governments) who somehow believe we cannot know enough to justify our doing anything different than what we've "always" done.  Probably something to do with stages of grief.

From an old [January 2017] EPA website: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)

Quote
 
The Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project quantifies the physical effects and economic damages under multiple climate change scenarios. The goal of this work is to estimate to what degree climate change impacts and damages to multiple U.S. sectors (e.g., human health, infrastructure, and water resources) may be avoided or reduced in a future under different levels of future global emissions. CIRA advances the estimation of climate change damages by bridging the gap between climate modeling and economic effects, presenting both physical and monetized damages.

The peer-reviewed CIRA reports and analyses demonstrate that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy.
So apparently, the Earth's climate and biosphere, albeit complex, are not too complex to apply models that forecast consequences of different future behaviors (BAU or Green BAU or nuke everything in sight, etc. edit: see, for example this ASLR post). We use either this information or an old Farmer's Almanac (or do what Uncle Jeb did, cause drilling an oil well made us rich 100 years ago) to serve as the bases for the decisions we actually do make.   We do make decisions that have consequences on our future.  Should we only use data and analyses from the First Century, Common Era (conducted in the Middle East) or should we reach out to the best and the brightest, despite their (our?) acknowledged shortcomings?

And then we'll fight about it in the courts.  (Ahh, the American way!   :o :-\ :'()
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 08:23:09 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Ktb

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #343 on: December 03, 2018, 10:47:40 PM »
or more correctly imv “the frog went extinct because the bio-diverse habitat it depended on went extinct”

Frogs need a lot more than just food.

Of course they do. Pedantry for pedantry's sake. I was attempting to simplify the obviously complex message.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.

My point was simply that it is too late, much too late. At a certain point the species becomes functionally extinct or extinct in the wild.
Hypothetically the world gets around to addressing CC by 2030. That is too late. We missed the boat by 20-30 years from today.


Edit: Misread Klondike's reply, believe him to be agreeing with me.  :-[ :-X

So yes, addressing climate change does not mean we broadly address environmental problems. Okay, hypothetically we go carbon free, but did we stop fragmenting ecosystems? Damming rivers? Using pesticides? Of course not. 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 10:57:21 PM by Ktb »

Ardeus

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #344 on: December 03, 2018, 11:28:18 PM »
Quote
Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

Here's a quote about Environmental Impact Analyses
suggesting AGW is nothing new, just 'larger' in scope:
Quote

Environmental impact analyses are often challenging because they call for making projections with incomplete information. Methods of assessing the impacts typically include both objective and subjective information making it difficult to quantify. Therefore, the methods are frequently seen as complex and, oftentimes, controversial. Despite being a requirement for many development projects, the function of an environmental impact statement is merely procedural. There is no specific legal force of action if information stemming from an environmental impact analysis confirms that a particular project may harm the environment. As a result, it is often left up to the courts to rule on whether risks to the environment are overstated or not.
...
The U.S.A. (at least) appears to contain a large number of people (and the resulting state and national governments) who somehow believe we cannot know enough to justify our doing anything different than what we've "always" done.  Probably something to do with stages of grief.

From an old [January 2017] EPA website: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)

Quote
 
The Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project quantifies the physical effects and economic damages under multiple climate change scenarios. The goal of this work is to estimate to what degree climate change impacts and damages to multiple U.S. sectors (e.g., human health, infrastructure, and water resources) may be avoided or reduced in a future under different levels of future global emissions. CIRA advances the estimation of climate change damages by bridging the gap between climate modeling and economic effects, presenting both physical and monetized damages.

The peer-reviewed CIRA reports and analyses demonstrate that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy.
So apparently, the Earth's climate and biosphere, albeit complex, are not too complex to apply models that forecast consequences of different future behaviors (BAU or Green BAU or nuke everything in sight, etc. edit: see, for example this ASLR post). We use either this information or an old Farmer's Almanac (or do what Uncle Jeb did, cause drilling an oil well made us rich 100 years ago) to serve as the bases for the decisions we actually do make.   We do make decisions that have consequences on our future.  Should we only use data and analyses from the First Century, Common Era (conducted in the Middle East) or should we reach out to the best and the brightest, despite their (our?) acknowledged shortcomings?

And then we'll fight about it in the courts.  (Ahh, the American way!   :o :-\ :'()

A terrible thought occurred to me recently: had Hitler won the war, we wouldn't be discussing near term human extinction.

He would have turned the planet into his arian eden (a process that would have made WW2 a footnote in history) and as soon as the first studies came out concerning global warming, he would have implemented the necessary measures probably decades ago.

He would have had the power and the will to make it happen. A psychotic sociopath lunatic could have steered civilisation  away from the path to extinction.

This leads me to think that the democratic/capitalist system is terribly ill fitted to deal with climate change.

If indeed there will be hundreds of millions of climate refugees, which countries will be better prepared to deal with the issue and prevent the collapse of civilisation? Democracies or dictatorships?

In the meantime, there's big money to be made in any catastrophe and the people who can potentially earn the most with carbon reduction in all its forms need to be enlisted as soon as possible to push to make it happen asap. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the fossil fuel corporations.

Human Habitat Index

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #345 on: December 04, 2018, 12:52:46 AM »
<snip, off-topic; N.>
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 05:54:34 AM by Neven »
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Ktb

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #346 on: December 04, 2018, 01:16:32 AM »
What did this devolve to?

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4111
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #347 on: December 04, 2018, 01:40:46 AM »
What did this devolve to?


Monster films?
Terry

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #348 on: December 04, 2018, 02:30:07 AM »
Looks like we have some visitors from Stormfront posting.

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« Reply #349 on: December 04, 2018, 03:57:44 AM »
or more correctly imv “the frog went extinct because the bio-diverse habitat it depended on went extinct”

Frogs need a lot more than just food.

Of course they do. Pedantry for pedantry's sake. I was attempting to simplify the obviously complex message.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.

My point was simply that it is too late, much too late. At a certain point the species becomes functionally extinct or extinct in the wild.
Hypothetically the world gets around to addressing CC by 2030. That is too late. We missed the boat by 20-30 years from today.


Edit: Misread Klondike's reply, believe him to be agreeing with me.  :-[ :-X

So yes, addressing climate change does not mean we broadly address environmental problems. Okay, hypothetically we go carbon free, but did we stop fragmenting ecosystems? Damming rivers? Using pesticides? Of course not.

Yes, I was agreeing with your last section.  Namely, if we go carbon free but ignore habitat destruction, over hunting, pollution, etc., will we save anything?