-
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.
NYMag: The Uninhabitable Earth - Famine and economic collapse sooner than you think
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
- Status
onken
Member
I know - but the vast majority of people reading the article will come to this conclusion. The doom 'n' gloom approach cuts both ways.
🙄🙄🙄
I fear that this may be the great leveller nature is keeping up it's sleeve to deal with the runaway human threat.
It's crazy to think just how close "the apocalypse" really is for our species. A few hundred years of relatively quick advancements and here we are, we've already fucked it up. God help future generations, I guess we should just feel lucky we lived just before the madness really begins.
So the chinese government is building those coal-plants around the world?
That's doubly weird since their development bank apparently *says* they won't finance any:
https://www.google.ca/amp/foreignpo...evelopment-bank-wont-touch-coal-projects/amp/
I dont mean to criticise the scientists, but what they've done hasnt really done much so far. These scientists dont have a clue what to do with this information they've thrown it out there in its dry non committal form as if thats all they need to do. But lies and misinformation has propagated better than their information. Do scientists not have some culpability in this, when you keep doing the same thing and nothing happens, what does that say.
Like maybe people need the fear. The best thing that supposedly helped with the Aids problem in the 80s were these really scary advertisements in the UK. There has been very little action so far, at least not enough. Saying, we dont want to say its going to be too bad because people might be paralysed by fear seems weird to me and is just feeding the malaise. When has a large populations avoided doing something because they were paralysed by fear where is the evidence of that?
Whatever we do now will reduce the problem. Maybe we need people to be terrified and realise that they will be to blame for it in the future, and that anything they can do now may at least lessen their culpability/guilt a bit.
Maybe it helped slow down the spreading of HIV but it also ensured the stigmatization of the afflicted.
No they don't, the problem is that climate change almost from the start became a political issue.
PeskyToaster
Member
It's not an apocalypse though. I don't think any scientists have claimed that global warming is the end for humanity or life on Earth. Not even the numbers that do get through around match what we've survived in the past. The commonly agreed upon number for the Black Death was 50% of Europe dead. Some areas suffered less, some more. I don't think any scientists have suggested anything even close to those casualty rates for climate change. Not that we shouldn't do anything about it but I'm saying humanity has lived through worse without any of the tools we have now.
LogicAirForce
Neo Member
So what, exactly, is the point in waiting for shit to hit the fan? Its probably just my anxiety speaking, but wouldn't I be better off stopping at the gun store on my way home from work tomorrow and just ending it? At the very least that means one less person contributing to this.
GeordieMark
Member
There is an interesting article on this very subject in The Atlantic. Worth reading for a different perspective. The writer is also of the opinion that this piece is a tad dramatic.
All Possible Ways
Member
That sounds like an excuse to kill yourself. Maybe you are depressed?
I'm gonna produce lots of children and brainwash them into becoming science wielding CO2 murdering monsters.
Fancyarcher
Member
When climate change, it happens. I'm scared yes, but I don't try to make climate change take other my mind or make me crazy so to say. I don't wanna
That aligns more with my viewpoints. Climate change definitely isn't something to sneeze at, but with the way the article writes things, you'd assume that climate change would destroy the entire human-race very quickly, and that's technically not true / scare-mongering.
That aligns more with my viewpoints. Climate change definitely isn't something to sneeze at, but with the way the article writes things, you'd assume that climate change would destroy the entire human-race very quickly, and that's technically not true / scare-mongering.
LogicAirForce
Neo Member
There has been some bad climate change news over the last few days, and its sent my anxiety into overdrive.
Figure out how to reproduce with plants, make plantkids that eat carbon. problem solved.
Well there's no stigma involved here except for those whom dont want to live on a better planet and are condemning us so maybe they deserve this stigma?
Well then that's a problem isnt it? The scientists have been treating it as if its not political and as if they dont have to have any involvement in politics.
I watched an episode of VICE the other day and it never occurred to me that some people in power actually wouldn't mind if global warming continued. Their countries would reap many benefits if it did.
Not true, necessarily. Sub arctic regions can also dry up. When it was previously a little warmer, Canada had a lot of lakes & rivers that were (almost) completely dried up. The increased heat increases evaporation to levels that exceeds the amount of rain etc. leading to worse overall water situations.
Master Yoshi
Member
I feel the same about my 1 year old daughter.
I know they try to keep from talking gloom, doom and hopelessness, but I really feel like the dominoes are falling and our hands are tied due to our leaders and lifestyles.
Dying oceans, horrific plagues being uncovered from the melting Arctic and famine are going to throw this world into chaos.
it's impossible for me to understand that sentiment. Even if I knew the world would tomorrow, I wouldn't prefer being unborn. Children born today, especially in the west have more freedom, better health and access to more means of achieving their potential than any that came before them, that's a fucking superpower compared to what most of human history looks like. The least you can do is try to leverage that to produce people that help change the world.
this is an extremely unfair characterization of scientist, especially since many do involve themselves with politics.
Yeah, that article seems a bit weird, right at the beginning.
It talks about the goal of keeping global warming capped at two degrees, which is measured in Celsius (or Kelvin to use the correct scale). Then it goes on to state that "This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole", which has to be Fahrenheit, because the average low at the North Pole in winter is around -35 deg. C and it certainly hasn't been +25 there in last winter (that would be around 15 degrees warmer than the record temperature in summer).
Even if the author didn't literally mean the North Pole, there is no place on the Northern Hemisphere where the daily mean temperature is below -45 deg C in winter (that being Oymyakon in Russia) and the record high for that place is -16, not +10.
tearsintherain
Member
Whats even weirder to me is that 25 companies are responsible for 50% of the global greenhouse emissions. 100 companies are responsible for 70%. Chinese coal plants account for 15%. Virtually all the companies in the top 20 are oil companies, #2 is Saudi Oil, #3 is Russian, #4 is Iranian, #5 is Exxon.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
If people drove 30% less worldwide the impact would be massive, yet there is no push by celebs to get people to drive less, there is no call by governments to get people to drive less, nothing. Everyone just expects governments to sign accords and then magic ?? happens to reduce emissions.
If everyone who drives drove one day less a week, kept their cars around longer, reduced how many cars they own, etc it would have a much bigger impact but I rarely see anyone advocating for this. Instead we seem to focus on trivialities like not using plastic bags and getting more people to buy electric cars, which is just bizarre since electric cars still create insane amounts of greenhouse gases by simply being built, and using the existing electrical grid which functions mostly on coal and oil.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
If people drove 30% less worldwide the impact would be massive, yet there is no push by celebs to get people to drive less, there is no call by governments to get people to drive less, nothing. Everyone just expects governments to sign accords and then magic ?? happens to reduce emissions.
If everyone who drives drove one day less a week, kept their cars around longer, reduced how many cars they own, etc it would have a much bigger impact but I rarely see anyone advocating for this. Instead we seem to focus on trivialities like not using plastic bags and getting more people to buy electric cars, which is just bizarre since electric cars still create insane amounts of greenhouse gases by simply being built, and using the existing electrical grid which functions mostly on coal and oil.
Friend of Sonic
Member
Damn, I'm in Arizona. Should I be bailing the fuck out?
Might as well do it soon, it'll let you establish a new life somewhere safer. We need deep community ties right now, self-reliance will probably be a lot more central to our way of life soon.
Exactly!
Many people just want to leave the hard work to future generations, problem is that more people think like this, sooner we get the apocalyptic stuff.
I'm not sure about your actual city but most cities I know and most governments have indeed those kind of programs to encourage people to drive less. In my home town there is even a "no car day" once or twice a year. There are also laws about plastic bags and other stuff.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Saving the livable habitat all comes down to how we fuel/power ourselves and our tools. Conceptually, it is as simple as that.
The most drastic intervening steps to mitigate climate change would be the following 3 things:
1. Power our tools with some combination of nuclear and renewable energy.
2. Feed ourselves with a primarily vegan diet.
3. Limit the number of children we have.
The most drastic intervening steps to mitigate climate change would be the following 3 things:
1. Power our tools with some combination of nuclear and renewable energy.
2. Feed ourselves with a primarily vegan diet.
3. Limit the number of children we have.
LordKasual
Banned
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Another one of these videos hit up my facebook feed, that framed the issue as :
"IMMINENT BIOLOGICAL ANNIHILATION"
which would be a fucking absurd headline, even if an asteroid managed to fry everyone on the surface of the planet. Of course a paragraph into the article, the author admits that he chose the phrase to display the "gravity of the situation". Which is good for shock views but clearly doesn't do shit when it comes to getting people to actually listen.
I'm pretty sure scientists have all but concluded that we're currently taking part in a Mass Extinction event that is already as we speak moving faster than the KT one that killed the dinosaurs off. But we've known that for a while.
This sensationalist, deliberately dramatic kind of tone is probably only going to cause a "News who Cried Wolf" effect once people research past their initial horror and realize that we're talking about events that are more likely to completely pass by the heads of most 1st world country citizens....like it's currently doing right now.
The article is well-meaning, but irresponsible.
People already can't give 2 fucking shits about the environment. Framing it as a hopeless apocalypse scenario isn't going to get anyone off their ass.
"IMMINENT BIOLOGICAL ANNIHILATION"
which would be a fucking absurd headline, even if an asteroid managed to fry everyone on the surface of the planet. Of course a paragraph into the article, the author admits that he chose the phrase to display the "gravity of the situation". Which is good for shock views but clearly doesn't do shit when it comes to getting people to actually listen.
I'm pretty sure scientists have all but concluded that we're currently taking part in a Mass Extinction event that is already as we speak moving faster than the KT one that killed the dinosaurs off. But we've known that for a while.
This sensationalist, deliberately dramatic kind of tone is probably only going to cause a "News who Cried Wolf" effect once people research past their initial horror and realize that we're talking about events that are more likely to completely pass by the heads of most 1st world country citizens....like it's currently doing right now.
The article is well-meaning, but irresponsible.
People already can't give 2 fucking shits about the environment. Framing it as a hopeless apocalypse scenario isn't going to get anyone off their ass.
KissDaRing
Banned
Society world wide is way too selfish and entitled to want to take such drastic steps. That's the real problem here. They'll only care when it's way too late.
I've been going to the same Island Beach for 20 years on the East coast of the US. The water is no closer to the beach house than it was 20 years ago.
Not saying it's not happening, but the rate it's happening at is much slower than any of these "doomsday" articles. I'd be surprised if the ocean reached the beach house when my grandkids are my age (I don't have any grandkids..my kids are only 9 and 5).
Having said that, we need to do a lot of things so much better for our environment.
Not saying it's not happening, but the rate it's happening at is much slower than any of these "doomsday" articles. I'd be surprised if the ocean reached the beach house when my grandkids are my age (I don't have any grandkids..my kids are only 9 and 5).
Having said that, we need to do a lot of things so much better for our environment.
Berserking Guts
Member
Ignorance is bliss 
this stuff doesn't faze me. It's fear mongering.
I'm leaving now.
this stuff doesn't faze me. It's fear mongering.I'm leaving now.
pixelation
Member
Things like this is why i don't want to procreate. Maybe i'll adopt instead.
Good on that scientist for speaking up about issues with the article.
That said, I get why the writer would go so hard on the gloom angle. Even if the rhetoric is too forceful, that's sometimes what's necessary to make people wake the fuck up.
Lol, sarcasm?
That said, I get why the writer would go so hard on the gloom angle. Even if the rhetoric is too forceful, that's sometimes what's necessary to make people wake the fuck up.
Ignorance is bliss
I'm leaving now.
Lol, sarcasm?
Bigboss242
Banned
The wheels are falling off as we speak. We on the verge of the sixth mass extinction event and we are the cause either way we are fucked.
BREAKING: NASA Suomi VIIRS image released today confirms trillion-tonne chunk has broken off Antarctica's Larsen C iceberg.
https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/885077223287422978
https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/885077223287422978
What a coincidence. I just started reading through The Ends of the World by Peter Brannen which describes how previous mass extinctions on Earth happened.
is the book any good?
Lucky Seven
Banned
Can I be a moderator and have a cool title?
MrSaturn99
Member
Yeah, this and several other posts here nailed it. Don't get me wrong, I've been scared about this all year, but fearmongering articles like this induce defeatism and the like. I'd prefer to know what I can do to help.
I need to remind folks that clean energy adoption is only increasing in rapidity and that it is pretty much inevitable due to market forces dictating that the cheapest solution be found - the cheapest solutions now being wind and solar.
Couple that with battery advancements decreasing the cost and increasing the range of electric vehicles and the rise of alternative solutions for meat eaters that don't involve massive herds of farm animals, and it's pretty much inevitable that we'll actually become carbon negative sometime over the next decade and change. That is not to say that things are rosy-peachy and we can rest on our laurels, however - the only reason these things are happening is because so much of humankind is actively working to make these things happen, no more and no less.
This isn't even considering other advancements in areas such as carbon sequestration, where we actually put carbon back into the ground, or geoengineering efforts that involve countering the greenhouse gasses with other types of emissions that reduce the amount of energy entering Earth's atmosphere (this one is a last-ditch effort, however, and one that we hopefully won't have to resort to). I have absolute faith that we will manage to tackle this problem, despite how dire things seem today.
This article, unfortunately, does little to help. Sure, it's good to take the problem seriously, but as mentioned already, it does us no good to be paralyzed by fear to the point of inaction. We need to keep moving forward, no matter how bad things may get. It's the only thing we can do. Anything else is just tacitly accepting a terrible demise for all of humanity.
Couple that with battery advancements decreasing the cost and increasing the range of electric vehicles and the rise of alternative solutions for meat eaters that don't involve massive herds of farm animals, and it's pretty much inevitable that we'll actually become carbon negative sometime over the next decade and change. That is not to say that things are rosy-peachy and we can rest on our laurels, however - the only reason these things are happening is because so much of humankind is actively working to make these things happen, no more and no less.
This isn't even considering other advancements in areas such as carbon sequestration, where we actually put carbon back into the ground, or geoengineering efforts that involve countering the greenhouse gasses with other types of emissions that reduce the amount of energy entering Earth's atmosphere (this one is a last-ditch effort, however, and one that we hopefully won't have to resort to). I have absolute faith that we will manage to tackle this problem, despite how dire things seem today.
This article, unfortunately, does little to help. Sure, it's good to take the problem seriously, but as mentioned already, it does us no good to be paralyzed by fear to the point of inaction. We need to keep moving forward, no matter how bad things may get. It's the only thing we can do. Anything else is just tacitly accepting a terrible demise for all of humanity.
darthsontin
Member
Michael Mann has now written a counter-article for the Washington Post.
Not too much in depth other than say that apocalyptic fear mongering is almost as bad as denial
Not too much in depth other than say that apocalyptic fear mongering is almost as bad as denial
AuthenticM
Member
UPDATE 2017-07-19
The New York Magazine published an annotated edition of the article detailing the science, which you can read here.
David Roberts wrote an article on Vox defending the piece. He explains how the article is mostly right, and we shouldn't dismiss it as "doomsday nonsense". Excerpts:
The New York Magazine published an annotated edition of the article detailing the science, which you can read here.
David Roberts wrote an article on Vox defending the piece. He explains how the article is mostly right, and we shouldn't dismiss it as "doomsday nonsense". Excerpts:
Shadowhelper
Banned
Well I don't see how we are changing. We aren't even discussing animal agriculture which is the main source of climate change and ocean pollution.
That's the true inconvenient truth. Just will never be discussed.
That's the true inconvenient truth. Just will never be discussed.
Ironically I could see the farmable lands and bodies of water getting fucked by the battles themselves. There's some pretty damn good water here in Finland. I hope the neighbours aren't thirsty. Might be a good time for Finland to get working on that Star Wars tier barrier to surround the whole country.
- Status