Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tough truths about climate

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Tough truths about climate

#51

Post by superultra »

This feels like someone in a marathon deciding to quit because they just ran really well for the last 10 minutes, with the assumption that since they were running really fast there’s no reason to think they won’t keep running fast. It’s deeply flawed logic.

The other issue is that while he might be right, the worst and biggest consequences of being wrong will not affect Bill. Or, frankly, anyone reading this comment.

It’s such a complicated problem for us humans because we often struggle to conceptualize beyond our own tribes, let alone humans who won’t exist for decades.

But the problem is that IF climate scientists are right - and other than a few cheery cherry picked stats, Bill has no evidence saying otherwise - then the longer we do nothing the bigger the impact.

Will humanity die? Probably not. But will it drastically affect QoL for nearly all humans on the planet save the 1%? Probably.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#52

Post by johngossman »

grebc wrote: post #31
jshen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

What existential threat to society do people/society really take seriously?

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I'd say people took nuclear war seriously. People had different opinions on how likely it was and whether it was an extinction event, but there was near unanimity that it was "a really bad idea." The obvious difference was that was impossible to doubt it was man-made and it wasn't something that slowly built up over decades--there was no way to say it was "normal"

Re: Tough truths about climate

#53

Post by grebc »

johngossman wrote: post #52
grebc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What existential threat to society do people/society really take seriously?

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I'd say people took nuclear war seriously. People had different opinions on how likely it was and whether it was an extinction event, but there was near unanimity that it was "a really bad idea." The obvious difference was that was impossible to doubt it was man-made and it wasn't something that slowly built up over decades--there was no way to say it was "normal"

I think it’s a fair point to say it was considered as a serious threat to certain countries(US/Russia/UK/China etc). And militaries certainly did prepare for it. But other than Switzerland with all their bunkers - which society in all facets prepared for it, really?

WW2 with it’s restrictions & rationing, and almost all civilian economy/effort being redirected to the military is I think what a lot of people are wanting in my honest opinion.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#54

Post by aitchnyu »

dagss wrote: post #21

He is mentioning geologic hydrogen as a new energy source. Surely that is a fossil fuel?

My Kagi-fu is failing me. IIRC people have drilled into underground reserves and piped it to a generator in farming areas. Its relatively low cost.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#55

Post by energy123 »

ares623 wrote: post #44
energy123 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. Spillover of problems like mass migration away from the equator and increase in conflicts.

Food supply chains disrupted. Piracy will increase and spread.

Basically, the spherical cow mindset of "just police the borders harder" is wishful thinking. The world is interconnected in multiple aspects, not just physical borders. Even if you succeed in immunising yourself from all side effects, your immediate neighbor may not be successful, and the instability can come for you through many mechanisms. Prices of food, breakup of the EU, wars, authoritarianism in your own society. Just look at Canada dealing with tariffs through little fault of their own. It isn't as easy as declaring yourself as immune from international instability.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#56

Post by mariusor »

ACCount37 wrote: post #36

It's true. Climate change is not an extinction threat. Never was, and certainly isn't now. Climate change is the COVID of global natural disasters. Is it worth fighting? Yes. Can you do absolutely nothing about it and get away with it? Also yes. Cue the lackluster efforts. The "really bad" +4C scenarios still have a death toll larger than that of WW2 - but spread out in time and space, across many decades and many co…

And what do populations with a death sentence hanging over their heads usually do? Oh yeah, they take up arms and try to invade their better off neighbours.

Maybe that's a worst case scenario, but the better ones still include many millions of people displaced towards more temperate zones. It will lead to the greatest migration humanity ever suffered and I'm not sure that in a scenario of scant resources, that's going to go on in a peaceful and dignified manner.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#57

Post by balaz »

energy123 wrote: post #55
ares623 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food supply chains disrupted. Piracy will increase and spread.

Basically, the spherical cow mindset of "just police the borders harder" is wishful thinking. The world is interconnected in multiple aspects, not just physical borders. Even if you succeed in immunising yourself from all side effects, your immediate neighbor may not be successful, and the instability can come for you through many mechanisms. Prices of food, breakup of the EU, wars, authoritarianism in your own socie…

One of the reasons the best time to make sure every first-world country is self reliant was yesterday; the second best time is today.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#58

Post by HK-NC »

kennywinker wrote: post #18
jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

I think he’s probably right, but to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. Humans living and thriving does not preclude a massive drop in population. It is very hard to gauge what he actually believes will happen based on these words

The plague did wonders for us, didnt it? Of course dead people arent livivng or thriving, but if they leave behind a world that has more job opportunities, housing opportunities, cleaner environments, quality food for less....

Re: Tough truths about climate

#59

Post by [deleted] »

jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

[deleted]

Re: Tough truths about climate

#60

Post by HK-NC »

Retric wrote: post #39
jshen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point. There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants. At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning…

Is infinite growth really a positive thing on a finite planet? Are native populations replaced physically and culurally the answer to making an imaginary number go up annually?
Post reply on HN