-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How climate change is rapidly taking the planet apart and towards human extinction
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
Of course, and I never said otherwise. But I think it is okay if some people thought they article may be exaggerating some stuff after implying that humans will go extinct in 2035. That's all I'm saying.
Maybe someone already noticed this, but this article says we're fucked regardless of what we do. I mean these three quotes taken together:
So I'm not sure why the article also says this:
Essential for what, if it's too late to do anything? The extinction point is already earlier than the time our current actions will have any impact. Make up your mind, article writer
So I'm not sure why the article also says this:
Essential for what, if it's too late to do anything? The extinction point is already earlier than the time our current actions will have any impact. Make up your mind, article writer
That's not what the article is saying...at all. What it says is we will begin to face extinction level events when we reach that level of temperature change, and it's possible we could face that sooner than later. Food chains will disappear, leading to catastrophic drops in species populations, leading to a lack of food supplies, leading to famine, malnourishment and yes, death, for large sections of the human population.
Humans are a resourceful species, of course we aren't going to go extinct in 2035. That's not the point of the article at all. The point is we may face these challenges far sooner than any of us hoped, and that's scary as shit.
Came here to post this.
travisbickle
Member
Essential for what, if it's too late to do anything? The extinction point is already earlier than the time our current actions will have any impact. Make up your mind, article writer
I assume it means events that can lead to extinction will be triggered. Like they say if bees became extinct humanity would be having a hard time.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe someone already noticed this, but this article says we're fucked regardless of what we do. I mean these three quotes taken together:
So I'm not sure why the article also says this:
Essential for what, if it's too late to do anything? The extinction point is already earlier than the time our current actions will have any impact. Make up your mind, article writer
I think there is some amount of agreement that we need to very quickly be working toward reducing our carbon footprint to the point of it being a net negative - literally removing carbon from the atmosphere rather than adding to it.
Jesus thank you so much for posting this.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...nverts-carbon-dioxide-stone-180959365/?no-ist
Stuff like this is key.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Yeah there needs to be tech to replace our massive carbon sinks (the oceans and plant life). Scramble for this tech will be even greater once our Great Dying scale event for marine life kicks off.
Elfforkusu
Member
It's not nearly as hopeless as it looks, but it does need some government to step forward and eat the R&D cost for developing things like large scale synthetic hydrocarbons, etc etc. Batteries are a dead end. Wind power is a red herring. But solar will work, nuclear will work, various clever chemical storage solutions (ammonia, etc) will work.
There will be a huge long term (financial) benefit for whatever country makes the breakthroughs, so there's incentive. But it requires foresight and planning, so it sure as shit won't be the USA.
There will be a huge long term (financial) benefit for whatever country makes the breakthroughs, so there's incentive. But it requires foresight and planning, so it sure as shit won't be the USA.
Well part of the reason it usually isn't the USA isn't research we can research with the best of them especially with R&D cash. However Any breakthrough in Nuclear needs like 20 years from breakthrough actual use due to regulations that I admit are in place for a very a good reason. Bad design means big consequences. That's why a lot of US and Canadian companies are working with China for test reactors as they can get the clearance to build them there much faster.
Inquisitive_Ghost
Member
I've been having a minor panic attack about this all day. Thank you so much for posting this. I do what very small amount I can, but it really helps to know there is at least some amount of hope.
Do not have panic attacks about this my friend, there's tons of hope and things we can do. Don't worry.
Elfforkusu
Member
Yeah, nuclear has its own set of problems. But I'm thinking basically any bleeding edge tech -- there's just not the stomach for huge R&D spending at the federal level. It's all disconnected pork. Same problem NASA has with their manned program, they can't do the really hard stuff because surviving (as an agency) is its own challenge.
Basically though, I think Bill Gates has the right answer in mind:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601242/qa-bill-gates/
Was surprised to see how much I agree with him (because I expect to be wrong about these things, so either we're both wrong, or I'm right for once). We need carbon neutral, cheap energy (solar works, I'm a fan. wind I'm not as much of a fan of), and we need energy storage that isn't electrons. I'm more cynical about the US actually being the ones to make this happen, possibly because I don't have billions of dollars.
jellies_two
Member
People should watch this, but not just stop pushing. and pushing.
Because there is still so much pushback.
The risk of saying that we'll be saved by a shift to renewables is that the world finesses the progression and maximises profit on greenhouse gas emission until we actually witness massive enough environmental destruction and get actually scared.
hydragonwarrior
Member
What's crazy is that change towards positive climate change action can happen on a national scale on the US. If you just had two weeks of conservative politicians and media leaders actually going "We were wrong; climate change is real. Here is why" then you'd see change trickling upwards to congress immediately.
Never in our lifetime for obv reasons, but that's really how easy it would be to get people to actually want to protect the environment.
Never in our lifetime for obv reasons, but that's really how easy it would be to get people to actually want to protect the environment.
What are the nuclear problems in your opinion?
jellies_two
Member
NIMBYs saying, build one anywhere but around here
Possibility of calamity
Cost of cleanup, fuel disposal, decomissioning
Proliferation of nuclear material worldwide
However all that is really quite acceptable versus burning coal IMO. France/Japan had the right idea it is a shame they may have cold feet after what happened in Fukushima.
RyanardoDaVinci
Member
I want to live in the universe where this man won the election...
Elfforkusu
Member
It's:
1. startup cost in $$$.
2. startup cost in political capital due to paranoia.
3. where does the high level nuclear waste go?
These go hand in hand, but they're distinct problems. Nuclear plants are expensive to construct, especially compared to natural gas plants. It's not economically viable for individual utility companies due to all the (necessary!) safety requirements that come from managing high-level nuclear material. So you need the government to subsidize your startup costs... and you run headlong into the 2nd problem.
The 3rd problem is actually much more viable (reusing high level waste is becoming more economical, and there are safe ways to bury the remainder), but it feeds back into the previous 2 until we have an agreed upon solution in this country.
The nuclear stall is frustrating, because it's 99% a political problem. We don't need new technology to produce carbon neutral energy, but we're flat out not interested in doing it. Republicans are against it because of the big government bogeyman. Meanwhile, Democrats' unwillingness to support nuclear is to me a sign that they still aren't seriously invested in solving the climate change problem.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I fully agree, on a principle level. On a practical level, though, that might require the formation of a new ruling power, replacing the current systems for one with a radically new legislative and governmental bodies, because I just don't see legislative systems based on lobbies and partisanship capable of creating and upholding such social values. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but if 'carbon taxes' is the idea of the developed world for dealing with the problem, and the endless debate there is 'how much', the change we are discussing here is not even remote - it's utopian. That's why I've been saying we need to change bottom-up. We need to push ourselves and those around us as much as we can for that greater understanding of reality, for that alertness of the universe and most of all of our little, fragile home.
Oh, that will happen one day. Way past the tipping point.
Cow Mengde
Banned
I think the number 2035 is way to optimistic. Mass die offs are already happening. It started 3 years ago actually. Starfish have been dying mysteriously. Now we know why. I'll give you a hint, climate change has a role in it.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/19/sea-star-disease-climate-change?cmpid=ait-fb
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/19/sea-star-disease-climate-change?cmpid=ait-fb
Rollo Tomasi
Member
Help us Elon Musk, you're our only hope.
Fortunately, there are plenty of others helping as well.
The human experiment has been interesting.
By living in perceptions of isolation and division, we have literally caused harm to everything we can get our hands on regarding this world. Even our models of prosperity depend on this arrangement.
It would be fitting for the genuine failings of human intellect that this hits a fullness of total dissolution for the arrangement which allowed human beings to thrive in the first place.
Do I want this to be so? No. Do I expect this to be so? Yes.
We are the most successful failures as a species, for we can highlight the highs and lows of both.
By living in perceptions of isolation and division, we have literally caused harm to everything we can get our hands on regarding this world. Even our models of prosperity depend on this arrangement.
It would be fitting for the genuine failings of human intellect that this hits a fullness of total dissolution for the arrangement which allowed human beings to thrive in the first place.
Do I want this to be so? No. Do I expect this to be so? Yes.
We are the most successful failures as a species, for we can highlight the highs and lows of both.
We can probably deal with this, what with manufacturing meat in a petri dish.
Of course, like with GMOs, you'll get babies whining about it for illogical reasons.
Bloody_Five
Banned
Ultimately, it's pointless to blame politicians because if billions of people decide that fighting against climate change is a matter of life and death, things will change.
The real problem is people or specifically the way humans think.
Only a minority of a given population is capable of projecting itself into the future and tackle problems before they arise. Even the brightest of us find it difficult to do it in our everyday lives.
Add business interest, national interests, the necessity to revamp our entire production and energy process and the fact that the scale is global, it's already game over.
Pockets of humans will probably survive but I think our global and civilized world will simply collapse on itself.
If I wanted to be a cult leader, I would create one about partying so hard and having crazy sex before the Eco-Apocalypse comes.
The real problem is people or specifically the way humans think.
Only a minority of a given population is capable of projecting itself into the future and tackle problems before they arise. Even the brightest of us find it difficult to do it in our everyday lives.
Add business interest, national interests, the necessity to revamp our entire production and energy process and the fact that the scale is global, it's already game over.
Pockets of humans will probably survive but I think our global and civilized world will simply collapse on itself.
If I wanted to be a cult leader, I would create one about partying so hard and having crazy sex before the Eco-Apocalypse comes.
We already have lots of protein sources that can imitate certain meat products (almost) 1:1, yet people bitch & whine and are unwilling to even consider replacing (even a portion of) their meat intake with such things. I don't think petri dish meat will be acceptable to a lot of people, even if it is meat, assuming it's not forced on people by making "real" meat illegal or something.
Besides, what kind of resources do you need to produce 1kg of petri dish meat? I have never looked into this, so I'm not sure if producing massive shittons of petri dish meat is all that environmentally friendly? I mean, that shit doesn't just appear from thin air and you'll have to have the labs & such where energy & ingredients are spent to create the meat. Is that all that efficient? Petri dish meat can maybe solve the ethical problem of not wanting to kill animals to get meat, but is it all that much more ecological? I'd like to know that.
Yeah. Some things that were touted as environmental such as corn ethanol ended up being more costly to the environment in general due to how difficult it was to produce in viable quantities.
What's really fucked about all this is that if they hadn't screwed up the ballots in Palm Beach County, leading a bunch of Democrats to vote for Pat fucking Buchanan, Gore would have been president and we likely would have been years ahead of the curve on this. And now the fact that we're even discussing possible extinction, or at best pulling out some amazing last-second avoidance...because of some ballots in Florida. That's just fucked up. Thanks again Republicans.
All the plankton are likely to die, crashing marine ecosystems. The dolphins are fucked.
Maximus.
Member
When it's too late. All these people who profit from delaying any action will be long gone to face any consequences.
The nuclear option is always put to the pedestal when this issue comes up, but the fact is we’re not heading for a nuclear energy future. Yes, there is a lot of unwarranted fears regarding nuclear but there are also hard economic and energy grid –related factors which favor renewable over nuclear:
-Risks: There is huge risk involved in a nuclear project (cost overruns, etc.). And at the rate of change in the energy field at the moment, not many want to take those risks. Wind and solar are rather risk-free options, especially when feed-in-tariffs are involved.
-Flexible generation: nuclear as a baseload is always brought up, but renewables need flexible backup, or something that can be turned on and off and a rapid pace. With nuclear this is not possible. Natural gas is a much better complement for renewables, despite its emissions. And after large-scale affordable storage is available, backup will be mostly unnecessary.
If you look at the global energy investments going on at the moment, the data speaks for itself:
https://postimage.org/
We’re heading from a fossil-fuel powered world to a renewable world at a rapid pace (but not rapid enough). Nuclear plays a marginal role at best.
There are a lot of attractive options in the 4th gen nuclear technologies, but they suffer from the same problem as fusion power: too far away to play meaningful role. Any technology that is a solution for stopping global warming needs to be available for large-scale, commercial deployment today. And that leaves pretty much wind, solar and conventional nuclear.
Fukushima pretty much killed off the budding nuclear renaissance by 1) turning public opinion against nuclear once again 2) promoting renewable investments in countries like Germany which brought down the costs of those technologies to a competitive level.
Lots of good info on the current state of renewables in here: http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/def...dsinrenewableenergyinvestment2016lowres_0.pdf
-Risks: There is huge risk involved in a nuclear project (cost overruns, etc.). And at the rate of change in the energy field at the moment, not many want to take those risks. Wind and solar are rather risk-free options, especially when feed-in-tariffs are involved.
-Flexible generation: nuclear as a baseload is always brought up, but renewables need flexible backup, or something that can be turned on and off and a rapid pace. With nuclear this is not possible. Natural gas is a much better complement for renewables, despite its emissions. And after large-scale affordable storage is available, backup will be mostly unnecessary.
If you look at the global energy investments going on at the moment, the data speaks for itself:
https://postimage.org/We’re heading from a fossil-fuel powered world to a renewable world at a rapid pace (but not rapid enough). Nuclear plays a marginal role at best.
There are a lot of attractive options in the 4th gen nuclear technologies, but they suffer from the same problem as fusion power: too far away to play meaningful role. Any technology that is a solution for stopping global warming needs to be available for large-scale, commercial deployment today. And that leaves pretty much wind, solar and conventional nuclear.
Fukushima pretty much killed off the budding nuclear renaissance by 1) turning public opinion against nuclear once again 2) promoting renewable investments in countries like Germany which brought down the costs of those technologies to a competitive level.
Lots of good info on the current state of renewables in here: http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/def...dsinrenewableenergyinvestment2016lowres_0.pdf
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Thats basically the problem you face a scientist who studies the field.
If you actually tell people what reseach is pointing towards they won't believe you because it sounds so bad.
I'd say this article is actually pretty positive because it suggests that if we take action immediately something can be done. Many scientists believe its way too late for that. Sure, the impacts can be lowered a bit when we take action immediately, but whats already definitely going to happen is so bad that we don't even have a point of reference for it.
No world war, no pandemic, no mass genocide even comes close to the amount of human suffering we're heading into.
Of course its not smart to frame it like that when you want to convince people. They won't believe what they don't want to believe.
People don't usually see a few more degrees as a bad thing. But the chain reactions it'll start are insane.
The number of people who live nears coasts that won't exist anymore alone is so high that our civilization would probably collapse trying to handle these number of refugees going into the billions.
But at the same time the food chain will collapse and the fresh water supply, too. All that while we have a very epidemic friendly climate.
I am actually very sure that future generations well look at the key figures who blocked climate change policies in a similar way we look at figures like Hitler and Stalin today.
Probably even worse, because not many people today are actually affected by Hitlers and Stalins actions, while in the future everyone will be majorly affected by the actions of these greed driven people.
Zelenogorsk
Banned
At least when shit hits the fan i can say "told ya so" to the deniers.
That's a relief to know.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Last I heard they were using stem cells to produce it, which makes it not very efficient. Who knows if they can advance it past that.
teruterubozu
Member
Cannibalism is the way to go. Kill two birds with one stone. Get your protein and reduce the human population.
The irony is, the majority of the population are not that greedy. It's a tiny minority that are so greedy that they are willing and able to destroy everything.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That may take another 10-15 years.
- Status