U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#2Sadly it could be $230 trillion but people alive in 2100 are not voting in elections in 2018 and too few people are caring now about what will be going on after they're dead.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#3Sadly it could be $230 trillion but people alive in 2100 are not voting in elections in 2018 and too few people are caring now about what will be going on after they're dead.
We need to focus on building a civilization that lasts millions of years. Currently we're focusing on building a civilization that could go extinct at any given time.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#4I'm reminded of a scene in an admittedly crappy movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. No, not the awesome original, but the recent one with Keanu Reeves. Super quick plot synopsis, an alien is sent to Earth to wipe out humanity because we as a species are doomed to destroy the planet due to our insufferable nature. There's a point in the film where a scientist is arguing for keeping humanity alive, and emphasizing that humanity can change for the better, but only when at the very precipice of calamity.
That quite succinctly sums up my view of our species. The only thing that will cause us to change is to have the utter ruin of our civilization right before our feet. Unfortunately, in regards to climate change, it will likely be too late once people realize that things have to change. Mind you, the earth will be fine. Humans on the other hand...
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#5I'm reminded of a scene in an admittedly crappy movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. No, not the awesome original, but the recent one with Keanu Reeves. Super quick plot synopsis, an alien is sent to Earth to wipe out humanity because we as a species are doomed to destroy the planet due to our insufferable nature. There's a point in the film where a scientist is arguing for keeping humanity alive, and emphasizing th…
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#6I'm reminded of a scene in an admittedly crappy movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. No, not the awesome original, but the recent one with Keanu Reeves. Super quick plot synopsis, an alien is sent to Earth to wipe out humanity because we as a species are doomed to destroy the planet due to our insufferable nature. There's a point in the film where a scientist is arguing for keeping humanity alive, and emphasizing th…
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
It's not so much that I believe that the earth will be in utter ruin by 2100, or that I'm a super green environmentalist (I'm not). My pessimism comes from seeing intentional ignorance and utter stupidity every day. Of course, these aren't new problems in the due course of our civilization. I'm just inclined to think that if the proverbial shit ever does hit the fan on a global scale, we'll be reactive instead of proactive, and may find ourselves unable to deal with the problem. I want to be wrong.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#7I'm reminded of a scene in an admittedly crappy movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. No, not the awesome original, but the recent one with Keanu Reeves. Super quick plot synopsis, an alien is sent to Earth to wipe out humanity because we as a species are doomed to destroy the planet due to our insufferable nature. There's a point in the film where a scientist is arguing for keeping humanity alive, and emphasizing th…
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
Why would you think that? I see no reason for thinking that beyond blind optimism and wishful thinking.
It's not as if climate change is a surprise. E.g. there's this prediction from 1912:
https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen...
Vested-interest attempts at FUD aside, contemporary evidence for change should be well known now, and history has a lot to say about the destructive effects of natural climate change on previous civilisations.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#8Sadly it could be $230 trillion but people alive in 2100 are not voting in elections in 2018 and too few people are caring now about what will be going on after they're dead.
We need to focus on building a civilization that lasts millions of years. Currently we're focusing on building a civilization that could go extinct at any given time.
Why? This is a serious question, not an snarky quip. Why should we try to build a civilization that lasts a very very long time (i.e. thousands of years)?
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to focus on building a civilization that lasts millions of years. Currently we're focusing on building a civilization that could go extinct at any given time.
Why? This is a serious question, not an snarky quip. Why should we try to build a civilization that lasts a very very long time (i.e. thousands of years)?
I think that's a tough question. Here's how I justify it to myself, and I think most people share these values. You can tell they share them because they don't want to die or suffer.
If you grant that conscious existence has value, then the continued existence of the human race is worthwhile.
If you grant that life has value, then preventing the destruction of eath's environment is worthwhile.
If you don't value those things, it's difficult to make a compelling argument. However, I would argue that consciousness matters because it's the only thing that can create "meaning" to existence. And life matters because it's the only thing (we know of) that produces consciousness.
Re: U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
Why would you think that? I see no reason for thinking that beyond blind optimism and wishful thinking. It's not as if climate change is a surprise. E.g. there's this prediction from 1912: https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... Vested-interest attempts at FUD aside, contemporary evidence for change should be well known now, and history has a lot to say about the destructive effects of natural…
The belief is rooted in the overall success of the industrial revolution and our post industrial world. We have fewer wars. healthier lives, longer lives, a larger educated class of people, and a level of wealth that is slowly but surely becoming available to everyone.
I certainly don't expect you to agree with the optimism - but to describe it as blind (as though its not rooted in recent success) or wishful (as if its a magic trick that will end soon) is a bit off base.