Climate change is unavoidable. People should start moving to highland now.
I mean, you and I probably can, but the majority of folks can't.
Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
301–310 of 504 posts
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is lots of space on earth that would be a lot more hospitable to humans if 5C warmer. Like the central eurasian steppe.
What's the soil quality over there?
Much of the soil in Russia that will warm is indeed acidic and largely inexploitable, which I suspect is what you were getting at; to their credit though, they picked an area that isn't (IIRC). Not that it changes much.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I mentioned development, which is key to understand current status, evolution and where things are going. The world simply cannot emit like the US do per capita. China's emissions have increased because the country has been developing and Chinese are still quite poorer on average than Americans. India is still low because they are behind in terms of development and they don't (yet) produce for the world. I…
I’m saying that before very long China will emit more per capita than the US does too, because US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. So, no, even when you take population into account China is a bad emitter and not doing nearly enough to invest in decarbonising their economy in the same way the US and EU have.
>US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing.
It's sus to ascribe countries as bad emitters because they're developing higher QoL instead of choosing to be stuck as subsistence shitholes with low per capita emissions. The only way for countries to stay at subsistence/developing per capita emissions is to stay susbsistent/developing. Of course some wierd people think that's fine.
A fairer description is PRC's moderate per capita emissions are converging with US high per capita emissions as QoL improves because average PRC citizen wants to live as well as average citizens of high consumption developed economies. But due to various physical constraints - less square footage per, less flying, less car ownership per capita due to density, PRC unlikely to pass US per capita - they're simply not setup to enable car centric, house+lawn levels of consumption. But PRC converging with west in QoL = PRC still primed for more catchup consumption = per capita emissions still has room to climb, while transitioning energy mix tries to sustain growth via greener methods of generation.
Meanwhile US's process of "decarbonization" = also becoming net oil exporter and largest lng exporter, the latter with evidence to be much more poluting than coal due to leaky infra. Which BTW adds, ~3 tons co2 per capita to US produced emissions, which single handly negates last 15 years of US "falling" emissions. Which BTW should be accounted for US emissions just like PRC exports are calculated in PRC emissions, but conveniently isn't. Meanwhile, PRC upgrading domestic coal to be cleaner, ceased construction of coal plants abroad, is net exporting green energy. That's without bringing population growth/decline trends. US adding 1.5m to US tier of emissions is like adding 12m Indians per year.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will always billions in losses from something, especially when global wealth is estimated to be around 450 trillion. The Dust Bowl was a disastrous incident of climate change, yet it didn't occur because of CO2. The damage caused by the California Wildfires are just as much a function of expanding developments into forests, immediately putting out small fires leading to the accumulation of fuel over time, and o…
> If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% If that’s true, there should be global evidence of this happening already- are you aware of any publications confirming this effect? You say accelerated growth like it’d be a good thing, but I don’t think we should wish for it or expect that to mitigate any damage… getting to the point of doubled CO2 would probably be extremely bad.…
> there should be global evidence of this happening already
There is. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization... for instance.
"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."
Interesting observation: Trillions of dollars have been spent to date on emission reduction with many incurring a consequent lowering of quality of life. Some would say this is inevitable but better to survive than the alternative. To date (as far as I can tell) there has been no discernible reduction in the rate of increase in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa station. When will this paramount metric relate to measures taken? Any guesses?
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of how realistic you think AGI risk is, it’s not marketing hype- it has been a human fear and central in scifi for a long time. Movies like 2001, Terminator, and the Matrix were hugely popular long before AI was profitable. Arguably ancient myths about golems and genies are essentially the same fear and concept. AI companies are afraid of public fear over AI as it might lead to regulating them out of exist…
None of the movies and stories you mentioned were about the "rise of AGI". The closest you can get might be The Matrix via Animatrix? You can go look up what the authors meant by their pieces, there's plenty of analysis of each of those stories. In addition I would love a citation on "the rise of AGI" being a fear in sci-fi for a long time, I've enjoyed quite a bit of science fiction literature and I can only think o…
Terminator 2 and a deleted scene, but the essence of it was there in the movie https://www.youtube.com/v=1UZeHJyiMG8&
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of how realistic you think AGI risk is, it’s not marketing hype- it has been a human fear and central in scifi for a long time. Movies like 2001, Terminator, and the Matrix were hugely popular long before AI was profitable. Arguably ancient myths about golems and genies are essentially the same fear and concept. AI companies are afraid of public fear over AI as it might lead to regulating them out of exist…
Fear of AGI is very real. But our proximity to AGI is marketing hype. In terms of existential crisis #2 and #3 are serious and already worth investing in mitigation. But #1 (AGI) is science fiction.
Fiction is much more than just entertainment... science fiction has been pivotal in both shaping and preparing our society for changes caused by technology. Much of the best science fiction has been so prescient that it's hard for modern audiences to even understand that these things were written before the world was like this. When I share a lot of old sci-fi with my young son, he finds it unremarkable, as they seem to simply be mundane stories about our present reality. Authors like Vernor Vinge wrote about AGI risk in stories because they were personally worried about it, and trying to share something they felt was important with others.
You can easily disagree with the warnings and fears shared in particular sci-fi, but to dismiss fiction as categorically irrelevant to our reality is just ignorant.
There is some important history here your comments suggest you are unaware of. One reason AI companies talk so much about AI risk despite it being bad for their bottom line isn't marketing hype, it's because many people in those companies are genuinely afraid. One could argue that this is because many of them have been exposed to the rationalist community- which could be (uncharitably?) seen as a doomsday cult obsessed with AGI risk. The founders of many AI startups including OpenAI were heavily influenced and active in this community.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#307Paper link https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319652121 Absolutely infuriating that university press releases don't include this. They should be embarrassed.
Agreed. I would understand such oversight from the 'common press', but from a university I would expect better. Oddly, of the 16 authors, they credit the first and the last, yet authors are usually cited in order of importance. The writer of this article clearly did not know better. Perhaps she thought that to credit the first and the last would be somehow 'covering all bases'. As others have done, I also question th…
The first author is important as you said, but the last author is almost always the PI or leader of the lab that published the paper. So I guess it’s you that clearly did not know better.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#308We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.
#1 is marketing hype. #2 is very real. #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out.
> #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out.
Seems more likely to me that attempts to solve #3 will lead to #2.
If we actually attempted to curtail fossil fuel consumption as much activists claim we should, there would be such a drop in agricultural and industrial productivity that there would be mass starvation, particularly in the developing world.
I don't think those countries would peacefully go along with that plan.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m saying that before very long China will emit more per capita than the US does too, because US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. So, no, even when you take population into account China is a bad emitter and not doing nearly enough to invest in decarbonising their economy in the same way the US and EU have.
>US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. It's sus to ascribe countries as bad emitters because they're developing higher QoL instead of choosing to be stuck as subsistence shitholes with low per capita emissions. The only way for countries to stay at subsistence/developing per capita emissions is to stay susbsistent/developing. Of course some wierd people think that's fine. A fairer desc…
Whether a country is a bad emitter is a factor of its total and per capita emissions. It has no inherent moral meaning, but it has serious implications for how we can slow down climate change.
At current rates, China is going to be a larger per capita polluter than the US ever was, because it’s still choosing the quick, cheap, and dirty approach to so much of its industry including those focused only internally. As a result of poor central planning and incentives, it has built and then destroyed entire apartment blocks in cities across the country without them ever having been in use. Its per capita emissions rate is already higher than that of the EU average.
Nobody on here is saying that China or any other country shouldn’t develop. It’s expected that there’ll be a rise in per capita emissions as a result. But that doesn’t mean that China has the right to emit as much as it can just in the name of development, especially when so many lower carbon options exist.
Again, this isn’t a moral judgement, where adding focus to China means taking focus away from the US and letting it do what it wants. Nor is it a situation where we can or should give anyone a free pass just because of history. Instead, we’re in a situation where we’re collectively screwed unless we can reduce total emissions and China has to be an integral part of that reduction too. Just as the US has to be.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of how realistic you think AGI risk is, it’s not marketing hype- it has been a human fear and central in scifi for a long time. Movies like 2001, Terminator, and the Matrix were hugely popular long before AI was profitable. Arguably ancient myths about golems and genies are essentially the same fear and concept. AI companies are afraid of public fear over AI as it might lead to regulating them out of exist…
None of the movies and stories you mentioned were about the "rise of AGI". The closest you can get might be The Matrix via Animatrix? You can go look up what the authors meant by their pieces, there's plenty of analysis of each of those stories. In addition I would love a citation on "the rise of AGI" being a fear in sci-fi for a long time, I've enjoyed quite a bit of science fiction literature and I can only think o…
Skynet??!!?! It seems so obvious that I am having a hard time understanding your objection... it would feel condescending to try to explain that Terminator is about AGI risk.
The modern conceptualization of AI existential risk comes largely from Vernor Vinge, in particular his essay "The Coming Technological Singularity" but it is also a central theme in most of his works, especially the Zones of Thought series.