• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

NYMag: The Uninhabitable Earth - Famine and economic collapse sooner than you think

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,946
1,900
885
A worthwhile counterpoint to the article:

[The NYMag article is] a scary vision—which is okay, because climate change is scary. It is also an unusually specific and severe depiction of what global warming will do to the planet. And though Wallace-Wells makes it clear that he’s not predicting the future, only trying to spin out the consequences of the best available science today, it’s fair to ask: Is it realistic? Will this heat-wracked doomsday come to pass?

Many climate scientists and professional science communicators say no. Wallace-Wells’s article, they say, often flies beyond the realm of what researchers think is likely. I have to agree with them.

....

Consider the world that climate scientists say is more realistic: a place where sea levels cause mass migration within and without the developed world; where the economy is never great but isn’t in shambles either; where voters fear for their livelihoods and superpowers poke at each others’ weaknesses.

Does that world sound like a safe and secure place to live? Does it sound like a workable status quo? And how many small wars need to start in that world before they all fuse together? Who needs planet-killing methane burps when nine different countries have 15,000 nuclear weapons between them? In short, there are plenty of doomsday scenarios to worry about. They don’t need to be catastrophic on their face to induce catastrophe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/is-the-earth-really-that-doomed/533112/
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Jan 14, 2012
19,572
1
710
USA
This article is basically the climate change equivalent of that "what happens when the Pacific Northwest is hit by a super quake" article in the New Yorker.

Hyperbole, but worth thinking about, and certainly worth continuing to plan. I do think the article is right to point out that rising sea levels are really just the tip of the iceberg (climate change puns!) in terms of challenges climate change will bring, but it's usually the one that dominates discourse.
 

fierrotlepou

Member
Jun 22, 2010
6,036
1
835
This is definitely an important piece. The more people realise that climate change isn't a fucking joke, the better. Too bad that most people that can actually do something about it are hypocritical politicians.

People just hate thinking about the future. It all seems so far away for them, but it's definitely not that far off. Their children will experience the full effects of climate change.

I love it when I read about the Fermi Paradox though. The Great Filter is something that we must try to overcome as a species by colonising other planets. That's a whole other discussion though.
 

Calabi

Member
Nov 2, 2013
2,971
0
0
This article is basically the climate change equivalent of that "what happens when the Pacific Northwest is hit by a super quake" article in the New Yorker.

Hyperbole, but worth thinking about, and certainly worth continuing to plan. I do think the article is right to point out that rising sea levels are really just the tip of the iceberg (climate change puns!) in terms of challenges climate change will bring, but it's usually the one that dominates discourse.

I'm not sure how its hyperbole? Its a look at the worst case scenarios, its doing what the scientists as the other article says, are almost to afraid to speak of. The majority of people dont have a clue how bad its going to get, its not a pressing issue at all to them when it should be. They elected someone whom is going to do a lot of damage that cannot be undone, not with a great amount of effort, maybe not at all.

I dont believe in this paralysis thing, not when it involves large populations, they havent been paralysed by lead, cfc's, and a million other possible problems we've encountered. If there are no possible actions only an extreme minority would even be paralysed. And its not like in this case there are no possible actions.

If you dont tell them the probable, real worst dangers then maybe they can blame you? "You should have told me the worst that could happen, I would have done something sooner if I'd have known". They might say.

If they'd have sugar coated the possible effects of no ozone layer, would people have been so urgent to do something about it. Imagine if we hadnt even studied the ozone layer at all, like we were aware of it, but didn't bother to keep track of it, why would we need to. Imagine the disaster we could have sleep walked into. Would we have been oblivious then paralysed until it was to late?

I mean thats what the US government seems to be proposing or attempting to do with global warming, making sure its as hard as possible to study. Like who knows what could happen how things could change, if we know and have as much detailed and up to date information as possible, then we can make the best choices. That kind of ignorance has to be challenged, the danger has to be emphasised to anyone with half a brain, to stop these small minority of fuckers from screwing it up for everyone.

And even if it was hopeless and we couldn't do anything would people really be standing around paralysed. No, they'd be digging holes and tunnels, or building ships and things, anything for that minuscule hope of survival. I feel like we are sleep walking into these worst case scenarios, like it'll be fine we'll figure it out just in time, there is no time, the time we lose is time we cannot get back, and it makes the effort all the harder and more impossible.
 
Jul 11, 2015
18,151
0
0
I'm not sure how its hyperbole? Its a look at the worst case scenarios, its doing what the scientists as the other article says, are almost to afraid to speak of.

It's not what people afraid to speak about, it's more about what it could be.The article talks about the worst case but other scientists have come out against this piece saying it's not going to be like this, while some have said it could. You just need to look at the Atlantic article above to see that.