The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[Jokodo]

It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when.

Indeed. Eventually the sun will become a red giant

 

[DBT]

It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when.

Indeed. Eventually the sun will become a red giant

Oh, I think that bad things can happen long before that, and most likely will.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when.

Indeed. Eventually the sun will become a red giant

Oh, I think that bad things can happen long before that, and most likely will.

Sure they can. There's a shitload of asteroid out there.

 

[DBT]

Oh, I think that bad things can happen long before that, and most likely will.

Sure they can. There's a shitload of asteroid out there.

So in your estimate the only danger to humanity, our way of life, being the sun eventually turning into a red giant or a asteroid impact?

 

[Jokodo]

Oh, I think that bad things can happen long before that, and most likely will.

Sure they can. There's a shitload of asteroid out there.

So in your estimate the only danger to humanity, our way of life, being the sun eventually turning into a red giant or a asteroid impact?

The only inevitable one. Remember, we're having this discussion because you said: "It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when."

There might be a "crisis of world shaking proportions" within the millenium, within the century, the next decade, tomorrow. But that very much is an open question, and depends on what we do today to avert it.

Your nihilism is warranted, but only on much longer timescales.

 

[DBT]

That is the issue, are we doing enough to avoid an environment/economic disaster in the form of climate change and rising demand and consumption. It could be argued that we are not.

 

[Jokodo]

That is the issue, are we doing enough to avoid an environment/economic disaster in the form of climate change and rising demand and consumption. It could be argued that we are not.

If that's what you think, you should be arguing to do more. Not do despair more. Desperation is a recipe for lethargy not action.

 

[DBT]

That is the issue, are we doing enough to avoid an environment/economic disaster in the form of climate change and rising demand and consumption. It could be argued that we are not.

If that's what you think, you should be arguing to do more. Not do despair more. Desperation is a recipe for lethargy not action.

I made no mention of desperation, only likelihood.... given the apparent lethargy and unwillingness for strong action. Business comes first, it appears. Not to mention climate change deniers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stock a lot of spare parts? Of course the survivalist position is flawed.

However pre industrial 19th century USA did quite well with no advanced technology. In the event of a total collapse technology and knowledge would survive.

But 19th century technology will do very little in the way of mining. What could be gotten with that tech level is already mined.

It is not that hard to make good transistors. Shokley was doing it in a barn on a farm. With a reduction in population renewable energy works well. Solar panels, basic power supplies, and wind turbines are not difficult to make.

They're not very good.

And you're not making decent solar panels with low tech. You need extreme purity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Successful in the sense steam powered trains delivered live beef and fresh produce around the country. Nutrition took a quantum leap. It manifested in the growth in height of doors. The opposite of NK where growth is stunted from malnutrition of young. Mass production of essential items like tools and nails, plows.

Steam trains ran on coal. The easy-to-mine coal is gone.

Solar electricity can power a wide range of machine tools. What survivalists would lack is raw materials like iron and aluminum and copper. With a reduced population that supplies needs plus some general amenities instead of gargantuan production of things we do not need humans could live like kings, if they get their collective shit together.

Bass-ackwards. Production falls even more than the population due to the lack of specialization. The only resources that would be in greater abundance are land and water.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when.

Indeed. Eventually the sun will become a red giant

That's actually of no great importance. Long before the sun goes red giant the Earth will have become uninhabitable. We have only about 50 million more years of stable conditions, then the mercury will start creeping up. By a billion years the Earth will be a boiling-hot (that is, if there's any water left to boil) basically lifeless ball--and that's the optimistic picture. The pessimistic one is too much water remaining, at that point you get another Venus.

 

[Jokodo]

That is the issue, are we doing enough to avoid an environment/economic disaster in the form of climate change and rising demand and consumption. It could be argued that we are not.

If that's what you think, you should be arguing to do more. Not do despair more. Desperation is a recipe for lethargy not action.

I made no mention of desperation, only likelihood.... given the apparent lethargy and unwillingness for strong action. Business comes first, it appears. Not to mention climate change deniers.

You may was want to read your own post: "It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when."

Now who do think is more likely to switch to a healthier lifestyle: a patient who is told he might or might not survive or one who is told he's certainly dead whether in three months or two years?

Given the answer to that question, your attitude is at least as unhelpful in motivating strong action as is "business comes first"

 

[DBT]

I made no mention of desperation, only likelihood.... given the apparent lethargy and unwillingness for strong action. Business comes first, it appears. Not to mention climate change deniers.

You may was want to read your own post: "It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when."

Which means a very high degree of likelihood that a major crisis will happen given the current conditions. I wasn't talking about absolutes. But no doubt you can moan about word usage or rhetoric like a Lawyer, while using rhetoric yourself, sun/red giant, etc.

Now... just maybe the will to take urgent action in order to mitigate the crisis, which is most likely to happen if urgent action is not taken will suddenly come into action, but given the current 'business as usual approach with a little tinkering at the edges' it does not appear likely that enough will be done to prevent a crisis.

Now who do think is more likely to switch to a healthier lifestyle: a patient who is told he might or might not survive or one who is told he's certainly dead whether in three months or two years?

Given the answer to that question, your attitude is at least as unhelpful in motivating strong action as is "business comes first"

I didn't say that the world will be destroyed and the human race will go extinct, just that there is most likely going to be an epic crisis if not enough is done to mitigate it... and as currently not enough is being done, with apparently little will to take the necessary action, it is most likely that a major crisis will happen.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not a question of if there is going to be a crisis of world shaking proportions, just when.

Indeed. Eventually the sun will become a red giant

That's actually of no great importance. Long before the sun goes red giant the Earth will have become uninhabitable. We have only about 50 million more years of stable conditions, then the mercury will start creeping up. By a billion years the Earth will be a boiling-hot (that is, if there's any water left to boil) basically lifeless ball--and that's the optimistic picture. The pessimistic one is too much water remaining, at that point you get another Venus.

Where are you getting 50 million years? The best estimates I know are anywhere between 300 and 600 million years. Still a lot sooner than the red giant state, but still...

 

[Jokodo]

Which means a very high degree of likelihood that a major crisis will happen given the current conditions. I wasn't talking about absolutes. But no doubt you can moan about word usage or rhetoric like a Lawyer, while using rhetoric yourself, sun/red giant, etc.

Now... just maybe the will to take urgent action in order to mitigate the crisis, which is most likely to happen if urgent action is not taken will suddenly come into action, but given the current 'business as usual approach with a little tinkering at the edges' it does not appear likely that enough will be done to prevent a crisis.

Now who do think is more likely to switch to a healthier lifestyle: a patient who is told he might or might not survive or one who is told he's certainly dead whether in three months or two years?

Given the answer to that question, your attitude is at least as unhelpful in motivating strong action as is "business comes first"

I didn't say that the world will be destroyed and the human race will go extinct, just that there is most likely going to be an epic crisis if not enough is done to mitigate it... and as currently not enough is being done, with apparently little will to take the necessary action, it is most likely that a major crisis will happen.

You didn't say that. You said there will be an epic crisis period.

 

[DBT]

Which means a very high degree of likelihood that a major crisis will happen given the current conditions. I wasn't talking about absolutes. But no doubt you can moan about word usage or rhetoric like a Lawyer, while using rhetoric yourself, sun/red giant, etc.

Now... just maybe the will to take urgent action in order to mitigate the crisis, which is most likely to happen if urgent action is not taken will suddenly come into action, but given the current 'business as usual approach with a little tinkering at the edges' it does not appear likely that enough will be done to prevent a crisis.

Now who do think is more likely to switch to a healthier lifestyle: a patient who is told he might or might not survive or one who is told he's certainly dead whether in three months or two years?

Given the answer to that question, your attitude is at least as unhelpful in motivating strong action as is "business comes first"

I didn't say that the world will be destroyed and the human race will go extinct, just that there is most likely going to be an epic crisis if not enough is done to mitigate it... and as currently not enough is being done, with apparently little will to take the necessary action, it is most likely that a major crisis will happen.

You didn't say that. You said there will be an epic crisis period.

I clarified what I meant. One can't include everything in a brief remark that uses a little rhetoric in order to make a statement. Like you with your red giant and asteroid impact rhetoric, made before even asking me what I meant. Like an overly ambitious court procecuter.

 

[Jokodo]

You didn't say that. You said there will be an epic crisis period.

I clarified what I meant. One can't include everything in a brief remark that uses a little rhetoric in order to make a statement. Like you with your red giant and asteroid impact rhetoric, made before even asking me what I meant. Like an overly ambitious court procecuter.

You very specifically and explicitly denied that it was a question if it could be averted. You don't get to paint it as me being overly literal when you said, verbatim: "It's not a question of if".

Do I need to bold it for you: It's not a question of if (DBT).

Stop shifting goalposts and either defend what you said or admit that you said something stupid.

 

[DBT]

You didn't say that. You said there will be an epic crisis period.

I clarified what I meant. One can't include everything in a brief remark that uses a little rhetoric in order to make a statement. Like you with your red giant and asteroid impact rhetoric, made before even asking me what I meant. Like an overly ambitious court procecuter.

You very specifically and explicitly denied that it was a question if it could be averted. You don't get to paint it as me being overly literal when you said, verbatim: "It's not a question of if".

Do I need to bold it for you: It's not a question of if (DBT).

Stop shifting goalposts and either defend what you said or admit that you said something stupid.

Yep, a Lawyer.

As I explained in my following remarks, sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not being taken, hence it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when.

Given our current attitude of business as usual, it will happen, no if's, buts or maybe's, it will happen.

If we happen pull the finger out in time and take meaningful action, we can mitigate the crisis, maybe even ride it out without too much trouble... but most probably won't avert it altogether.

Now stop telling me what I meant by my remark.

 

[Jokodo]

You very specifically and explicitly denied that it was a question if it could be averted. You don't get to paint it as me being overly literal when you said, verbatim: "It's not a question of if".

Do I need to bold it for you: It's not a question of if (DBT).

Stop shifting goalposts and either defend what you said or admit that you said something stupid.

Yep, a Lawyer.

And you are? A politician? Constantly back-pedaling, justifying why the campaign promises never come to pass, but hey, a new paving on the back country road (that just so happens to lead to your your weekend residence) is really pretty much the same as a new highway linking the country's two largest cities, isn't it?

As I explained in my following remarks, sufficient steps to avoid an environmental/ecological/economic disaster are not being taken, hence it is not a question of if a disaster will happen, but when.

That may be what you believe, but it is not what you said.

Given our current attitude of business as usual, it will happen, no if's, buts or maybe's, it will happen.

If we happen pull the finger out in time and take meaningful action, we can mitigate the crisis, maybe even ride it out without too much trouble... but most probably won't avert it altogether.

Now stop telling me what I meant by my remark.

I'm not. Just reminding you what you said.

 

[angelo]

Extinction is the rule rather than the exception on this and most likely millions other planets in the cosmos. Why would Homo Sapiens be a special exception?

It's estimated that up to 5 billion lifeforms have lived and died out on Earth.
More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.
Extinction - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Extinction