Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shirk-work t1_iuzwols wrote

Reply to comment by HeartoftheHive in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

Definitely for a time but I don't think this is a society collapsing situation. It's too slow. If we want to set up a whole bunch of modified algae making essentially Soylent then we can. We choose not to because there's no need for that now. Food is the key issue, humans can figure out where now is the best area to build and avoid natural disasters. Maybe if the atmospheric oxygen drops drastically then yeah most things will die and humans will build underground cities. Maybe 100 million to 2 billion will hold on and emerge. I think we will likely attempt some drastic geoengineering first which will buy time. There will be some extreme military states to deal with to situation while maintaining order. The value of a human life will drop for a while. Tbh that's been more so the norm than the current situation.

1

Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv015xz wrote

Honestly I bet nuclear apocalypse occurs before any of that. I'm thinking the climate crisis will set off wars that won't end well for anybody.

5

shirk-work t1_iv04v7z wrote

Now that's fast enough and possibly devastating enough to wipe us out. Seems like an odd choice then again people will all rush an exit during a fire essentially ensuring nearly everyone burns.

3

Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv1f6kb wrote

It does seem like an odd choice, but so does carrying nuclear armaments because everyone else has them. I don't think the collapse of modern civilization wouldn't lead to nuclear war as countries escalate violence to try and fend other countries off of their resources. Not to mention the countless armaments that would likely fall out of governmental hands across the globe.

1

shirk-work t1_iv1ie5j wrote

I guess nuking someone who can't nuke you back and no global economy to punish you is more likely. Nuking someone who can and will return the favor seems like a zero sum game

1

HeartoftheHive t1_iv0213d wrote

> It's too slow.

That's an assumption right there. As I said, there are a lot of things that are currently at a tipping point. You don't see imminent disaster once they all start toppling? Water is already starting to become a huge issue and that effects everything, obviously including our food supplies. And this is before the real big dominoes start falling.

5

shirk-work t1_iv04kvn wrote

I mean we have solutions. Modular nuclear desalination to get as much water as we want. Right now building takes time because a lot of red tape but if we were in a rush a lot of solutions could be deployed within a much shorter timeframe. Once again this isn't to say it's not going to be a shit show and there will be large scale geo engineering not to fix the problem but to buy time.

3

HeartoftheHive t1_iv05c6f wrote

I don't have any hope that the governments of the world will spare a dime to do more than the bare minimum. They could and should be doing so much more and they simply won't. The signs are obvious and they continue to stick their collective fingers in their ears, saying "tralala" and refusing to do anything more.

I'll be surprised if the world isn't on the way to a Fallout type scenario just from climate change alone when I'm on my death bed.

2

sotek2345 t1_iv0ljfu wrote

As a whole, we can't think beyond the next quarterly earnings statement. The environment won't collapse in 3 months, we will just boil slowly if we don't nuke ourselves over resources.

2

HeartoftheHive t1_iv0oncq wrote

I won't say as a whole, but those that are already on top of the corporate pile will do anything and everything to stay at the top. Even if it means burning the Earth in the process.

2