> He's pretty sure that human civilization will be extinct this century.
This is certainly possible, but if so extinction seems far more likely to come from nuclear warfare and/or disasters resulting from climate change. For example, it's become apparent that our food supply more brittle than many people. Losing access to fertilizers, running out of water, or disruptions in distribution netorks can lead to mass starvation by cutting the productivity we need to feed everyone.
>> The worst case scenario for global warming is that it's an extinction-level event and civilization ends.
>I don't buy that. Beginning of a new dark age with a breakdown of civilization and loss of advancements? Yes. Extinction-level event? No.
Extinction-level event is a scientific term which refers to the rate of extinctions and the associated loss of biodiversity, it doesn't necessarily mean that we all die. And if you think there's a meaningful distinction between "civilization ends" and "breakdown of civilization"... wow, okay.
>It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it.
Cold comfort if the new experience will be an economic crash and global food shortage. And you're assuming that, once things are terrible enough that political and economic powers can no longer ignore climate change, there will still be available solutions to have something better than a life of war and hunger.
Cities have fallen to disasters throughout history (easy example is Pompeii). Cultures vanish. The only reason anyone's still around to talk about it is because natural disasters, wars, and human errors have largely been localized. Climate change won't be.
Well yes, at our current technology levels ecological and climate based collapse has almost no chance of making humans 100% extinct. But I don't think that anyone is arguing the opposite.
The moral calculus for addressing climate change isn't that affected by differences in the survival rate of 0% vs 5% vs 50%. All of the above would be catastrophically bad in human terms.
>he has also stated he thinks that civilisation has only a 50% chance of surviving this century.
I can't understand this line of thinking.
Human civilization has been around for ~10,000 years, and in the past two centuries nearly every metric related to human well-being has improved (see The Rational Optimist or Enlightenment Now).
And this isn't coming at the expense of the natural world, which is better protected as the world gets more technologically advanced and wealthier (More From Less by Andrew McAfee and numerous other sources).
Why would all of this reverse so rapidly in the next 80 years?
>The notion that humanity would go extinct from any of this is absolutely unrealistic
Why not?
With the current societal focus on materialism and luxury, perpetuation of greed and glorification of power, climate need not do much. Wipe out some fraction of the population is all it needs to do.
The rest will be done by us.
The last two people will fire bombs at each other and kill each other for sure.
> There was a time when I was fairly sure that climate change would lead to the collapse of civilization, but there was no way I'd live to see it. Now I'm not so sure about the latter.
Even if climate change significantly affects our lives, why would it cause civilization to collapse? It seems just as plausible that adverse conditions will increase the necessity of civilization, of strong social bonds and mutal reliance.
It's very interesting to me that, when talking about climate change, we tend to assume everything is negative. Surely there are some upsides (the only one I ever hear about is Arctic shipping routes). But I think we have no good reason to be making claims like "civilization will collapse". This seems like millenarian thinking, people like the idea of living in the end times.
> more than any decade in the past,
> Humans have survived ice ages - civilisations and societies have not, to our knowledge - humans will likely survive this - but this civilisation - who knows.
From a historic perspective the CO2 were vastly higher for hundred of millions of years.
Climate change will be a challenge (sea level rise for Calcutta, New York etc) but I doubt it will be a doomsday scenario.
> Yeah, this is probably best practice for people in regions that are projected to be left mostly uninhabitable
I'd go as far as arguing that _everyone_ should prepare for what's coming. All of us will be affected, be it directly or indirectly, through things like the (most likely) inevitable refugee crisis, or increased food prices and lower standards of living.
> but civilization itself has never, in history, collapsed
I meant individual civilizations and not civilization itself, although I read the original comment as something happening to "our" civilization and not all of them. Total collapse of civilization itself would require something cataclysmic happening on a global scale, and that the effects of said event are so severe that all of humanity fail to restore itself within the time span of several generations.
Some of the more alarmist reports about global warming are indeed pointing at that scenario, although it's more likely that progress will be slower, and that humanity as a whole will be able to adapt in the long run.
Regardless, I am convinced that even if we were talking about the actual end of civilization itself, it would not necessarily be evident to us until it was too late.
The fact that there are alarm bells ringing about the climate now is an indicator of climate changes being either:
a) survivable for humanity as a whole by doing what we can to prevent it and prepare for what happens if we fail
b) the end of the world and it's too late to do anything
> What I disagree with is doomsday scenarios where they'll be the end of human civilization.
I don’t know anyone that’s concerned about end of human civilization. What they are concerned about is the end of their lifestyle, part of which is due to relative world peace, which is in turn due to resources being somewhat available, at least to those with power.
Once those resources stop being so (cheaply) available, then you’ll see conflicts start emerging again. I already see it in my country, the US, with the widening gaps in places with economic opportunity and those left behind.
Add in water, electricity, changing weather patterns and there will be some pain in the future.
> It is on track to end civilization as we know it within two generations.
The reason why so many people don't take climate change seriously is because of extreme hyperbole like this. Climate change is outdoing even the "peak oil" craze of the past. If you think civilization is going to end in 40 years ( 2 generations ), then you leave no room for debate.
> A rational society would think about nothing else.
No. A rational society would think about lots of other things. Zealots think about nothing else.
Climate change is going to create challenges and opportunities. The societies/people better able to adapt will thrive. Others won't.
I suppose so. But no more dramatic than the collapse of many previous civilizations. It's not an unheard of occurrence. Especially when faced with sudden loss of habitat.
> Some areas will be destroyed...destruction of viable cities...mass migration...
So you think that's all going to happen, and then what...somehow the climate system is going to return to a habitable, stable state? We're in the midst of abrupt and irreversible climate change, with tipping points triggering further tipping points.
And even if somehow the climate system stabilizes, we'd already be well on the way to collapse of civilization, and we'd have to deal with all of this social upheaval and habitat destruction in a sane, non-destructive manner. I think that history, climate projections, and known human behaviour are all pushing the odds toward civilization collapse, and possibly another extinction in the genus Homo.
> The last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere was about 50 million years ago, and the global temperature was about 8C higher than it is now. That is not survivable for modern technological civilization.
Where is the source for dramatic statements like this, that Earth won't be survivable for modern technological civilization?
We literally have people living in the vacuum of space, the bottom of the ocean, and the antarctic continent. Sure climate change could be devastating to ecosystems, disproportionately affect poor people, and make things harder on ourselves, but I find the idea that it would be civilization ending kind of unrealistic.
>All these things are resilient enough to adapt to the effects of climate change.
Everything lasts forever, until it's over. Extinctions are the norm in Earth's history. There's no reason to think humans are the exception. The fact that humanity has yet to die off isn't much comfort. It's a sample size of 1 species, and by definition we wouldn't even be discussing this if the alternative happened.
> It's hard to imagine how climate change would lead to human extinction, since humans have inhabited such a wide range of environments across the globe for thousands of years, have technology to help cope with extreme climates, and are vary adaptable. What would make every single environment unlivable for humans? I don't believe there is a single climate model that does that.
Human life today is mostly maintain with infrastructure (water, food, security, health, etc). A cascade of failure due to climate change can destroy all but very local and small infrastructures. With society eventually returning to a pre-industrial conditions. It is not the end of humanity but the pre-industrial world economy can't support food, water safety and health care for 9 billion people. In pre-industrial era world population were less than 1 billion, we might return to these numbers. That means death of the large majority of human. Not extinction but the biggest threat in human history.
I'm no climate change denier but last I checked no scientific bodies we're predicting that the human race would go extinct. Stating that seems kinda ironic given you seem to be attempting to take the high-road scientifically.
> There is no scenario where climate change leads to human extinction.
He was talking about the human CIVILIZATION...
reply