21–30 of 45 posts
The study doesn't say "fatal" it says "toxic". Not toxic like lead, toxic like cigarettes. The actual effects discussed are subtler than "all life dies in 50 years".
I'm a bit confused by this, since indoor CO2's higher (double?) so wouldn't we already be experiencing it?
Sounds great, at this point doesn't really seem to be anything I can do as an individual except enjoy the ride, because it's now a race to see whether swarms of killer AI robots do us in, the global economy collapses, the ocean currents fail, and if none of those happen the air will end up killing us all anyway.
Sounds like I might as well try and enjoy it while it lasts. Cheers!
[flagged]
> There is mounting experimental evidence that lifetime exposure to these increasing atmospheric CO2 levels can negatively impact the normal physiology of organisms... Studies indicate that, after this time, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to CO2 accumulation in the body, has the potential to cause a range of adverse health effects. There's an awful lot of distance from "can" and "potential" to "toxic".
A sign of intelligence is to prevent "can/maybe/potentially" from becoming "actual", especially when the consequences are dire. A sign of unintelligence is to ignore the signs, then blame the ones who acted for needlessly averting the tragedy, claiming it would never have happened.
> There is mounting experimental evidence that lifetime exposure to these increasing atmospheric CO2 levels can negatively impact the normal physiology of organisms... Studies indicate that, after this time, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to CO2 accumulation in the body, has the potential to cause a range of adverse health effects. There's an awful lot of distance from "can" and "potential" to "toxic".
A sign of intelligence is to prevent "can/maybe/potentially" from becoming "actual", especially when the consequences are dire. A sign of unintelligence is to ignore the signs, then blame the ones who acted for needlessly averting the tragedy, claiming it would never have happened.
I'm a bit confused by this, since indoor CO2's higher (double?) so wouldn't we already be experiencing it?
Dang can we please change this editorialized title? When you click through the actual title is: Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years
But if you read that abstract, it's about diagnosing blood diseases, and suggests based on surveys of different studies of current people's blood levels that levels above 30mEq/L be flagged as out of normal. It doesn't discuss harms or outcomes.
So even "potentially toxic" seems baseless.
key phrase being "There's a big difference between seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide as indicative of poor ventilation and seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide itself as detrimental to cognitive function."