Global Catastrophe, Even Human Extinction, Isn't All That Unlikely (theatlantic.com) 349
HughPickens.com writes: Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that in its annual report on "global catastrophic risk," the Global Challenges Foundation estimates the risk of human extinction due to climate change -- or an accidental nuclear war at 0.1 percent every year. That may sound low, but when extrapolated to century-scale it comes to a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction within the next hundred years. The report holds catastrophic climate change and nuclear war far above other potential causes, and for good reason citing multiple occasions when the world stood on the brink of atomic annihilation. While most of these occurred during the Cold War, another took place during the 1990s, the most peaceful decade in recent memory. The closest may have been on September 26, 1983, when a bug in the U.S.S.R. early-warning system reported that five NATO nuclear missiles had been launched and were bound for Russian targets. The officer watching the system, Stanislav Petrov, had also designed the system, and he decided that any real NATO first-strike would involve hundreds of I.C.B.M.s. Therefore, he resolved the computers must be malfunctioning. He did not fire a response.
Climate change also poses its own risks. [PDF] According to Meyer, serious veterans of climate science now suggest that global warming will spawn continent-sized superstorms by the end of the century. Sebastian Farquhar says that even more conservative estimates can be alarming: UN-approved climate models estimate that the risk of six to ten degrees Celsius of warming exceeds 3 percent, even if the world tamps down carbon emissions at a fast pace... Any year, there's always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero -- but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging.
Natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium -- the "Great Plague of Justinian" in 541 and 542 -- killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time. The report briefly explores other possible risks: a genetically engineered pandemic, geo-engineering gone awry, an all-seeing artificial intelligence. "We do not expect these risks to materialize tomorrow, or even this year, but we should not ignore them," says Farquhar. "Although many risks are addressed by specific groups, we need to build a community around global catastrophic risk. Cooperation is the only way for global leaders to manage the risks that threaten humanity."
Climate change also poses its own risks. [PDF] According to Meyer, serious veterans of climate science now suggest that global warming will spawn continent-sized superstorms by the end of the century. Sebastian Farquhar says that even more conservative estimates can be alarming: UN-approved climate models estimate that the risk of six to ten degrees Celsius of warming exceeds 3 percent, even if the world tamps down carbon emissions at a fast pace... Any year, there's always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero -- but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging.
Natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium -- the "Great Plague of Justinian" in 541 and 542 -- killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time. The report briefly explores other possible risks: a genetically engineered pandemic, geo-engineering gone awry, an all-seeing artificial intelligence. "We do not expect these risks to materialize tomorrow, or even this year, but we should not ignore them," says Farquhar. "Although many risks are addressed by specific groups, we need to build a community around global catastrophic risk. Cooperation is the only way for global leaders to manage the risks that threaten humanity."
Too many close calls (Score:5, Interesting)
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
I suspect we are still here out of a kind of anthropic principle luck: if those close calls triggered WW3, the vast majority of us wouldn't be here pondering our good luck. Dead people don't ponder.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Insightful)
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
Hard to say. Nuclear war doesn't necessarily mean "extinction".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not talking about outright extinction, just massive population loss.
Let's say each of the 15 or so close-calls had a 1/3 chance of triggering WW3. After only about 7 of such occurrences the chance of WW3 happening is about 90%. Even higher if we plug in all 15.
BUT, ww3 didn't happen. Yet it should have. If it had, most of us would be wiped out and wouldn't be here speculating on why it didn't happen. Thus, I suspect anthropic-principle-like influences.
Re: Too many close calls (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Parish vs. Perish (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that our climate models are incapable of proving whether or not this is true, or even whether or not it comes true at some point, should give you pause when considering the veracity of our current models.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many populated areas of the world that do not have any strategic values or counties which are not aligned with the waring parties enough to deal with the expense of attacking.
Even in the US in areas with low population. Make nearly no sence to drop a bomb on a mid western ranchs covering hundreds of miles.
Sure Cities are targets but to blanket the entire world even if you have the means wouldn't make sence.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Informative)
Look up Nuclear winter [wikipedia.org].
Nuclear winter is global. If Russia did release every nuke it had at the US, nearly all Russian people would also die because of the nuclear winter that would follow. Latest studies suggest that nuclear winter would last years, that could be years of near zero food being grown, total crop failure because crops need sunlight.
Nuclear Winter | Retro Report | The New York Times - YouTube [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How bad would nuclear winter be is the question, the only study I've seen looked at a very small number of small nuclear weapons being released, if Russia or the US let off a lot of their nukes then we'd likely see > 99% people wiped out by starvation and hypothermia.
Nuclear winter - still possible but preventable: Alan Robock at TEDxHoboken - YouTube [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But we got global warming to combat that.
Those crazy Baby Boomers, they weren't being the selfish, greedy, and close minded group that we thought, they were just planning ahead for our future.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:4, Interesting)
The year without a summer. [wikipedia.org]
The Year Without a Summer was an agricultural disaster. Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5][6] The unusual climatic aberrations of 1816 had the greatest effect on most of New England, Atlantic Canada, and parts of western Europe.
Fortunately the effects of the Tambora eruption didn't last too long but there was a lot of hardship in the meantime.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There are so many populated areas of the world that do not have any strategic values or counties which are not aligned with the waring parties enough to deal with the expense of attacking.
Even in the US in areas with low population. Make nearly no sence to drop a bomb on a mid western ranchs covering hundreds of miles. Sure Cities are targets but to blanket the entire world even if you have the means wouldn't make sence.
If a nuclear attack wiped out the technology hot spots of the US, but left the Bible Belt, Hollywood and Florida intact, what would happen to civilization?
Re: (Score:2)
Religion and its attendant discipline kept civilization alive in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. I suspect it would do the same again.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion and its attendant discipline kept civilization alive in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. I suspect it would do the same again.
That's the nicest description of the dark ages I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3)
The ‘Dark Ages’ were a lot brighter than we give them credit for [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Read a book [amazon.com].
And if only the urban tech centers -- NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago -- were spared, it would be a month, maybe a month and a half before the civil unrest between the haves and the have-nots in these places boiled over into such violent anarchy people would be wishing they had been taken in the nuke strikes.
So much for all lattes and free wi-fi...
That's it? That's the ground you're standing on? A stupid book? A stupid book about the Irish population during the middle ages? And it explain the complete complexity of the world?
Atheism is on the rise in most western country and claiming that it'll lead in the fall of civilization is so absurd that I see no point in continuing this discussion any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the US in areas with low population. Make nearly no sence to drop a bomb on a mid western ranchs covering hundreds of miles.
We took care of their low target value by placing ICBM's there. Now they are of extreme value in pre-emptive strike scenarios.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Funny)
Hard to say. Nuclear war doesn't necessarily mean "extinction".
"I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy... heh heh . . . at the bottom of ah ... some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep."
"Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years."
"Now, that would necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned. Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. . ."
Re: Too many close calls (Score:3)
No, that is from a spoof version -- "Dr. Self-love, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Your Mom".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One word: Starvation.
It's very hard to grow your own food in Antarctica. It's going to be very hard to grow your own food anywhere in the middle of a nuclear winter.
Going the other direction, temperature-wise, run away warming would (eventually) raise the temperature at the poles to (considerably) above 40C, rendering them uninhabitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Mankind survived actual ice ages (well, glaciation in the current ice age) with no technology. The species is more than 100 k years old, after all. If we can do it with stone knives and bear skins, we're hardly at risk for extinction today. A returning ice-age would really suck, but it's no extinction-level event.
"Run-away warming" is an completely fictional scare. We know what a Warm Earth looks like, after all, know need to guess. Whether you pick the time with plant life so successful it supported 4
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Mankind survived actual ice ages (well, glaciation in the current ice age) with no technology. The species is more than 100 k years old, after all. If we can do it with stone knives and bear skins, we're hardly at risk for extinction today.
Wow - just wow. Pretty impressive that humanity is beyond extinction.
You are correct about runaway greenhouse effect - the earth has endured much higher CO2 and perhaps methane levels in the past. That's how we got geologic ages where the average temperatures were warmer than the present, even though we had less insolation due to the dimmer sun of the times.
But given that almost all species that ever lived have gone extinct, I don't think we are immune.
Re: (Score:2)
there's that one time during the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviet sub actually DID push the button on a nuke tipped torpedo, but the system failed to launch it. i'd say that is closer then the 83 incident they mention.
Re:Too many close calls (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I watched it first-hand in the mid-1980s, when I flew B-52s for a living.
We were firmly convinced that The Day We Get The Go Order was not an "if", but a "when".
In fact, in those days, they made SURE no crew had more than two bachelors on it. We noticed that, and assumed that they wanted the crews to want revenge for their incinerated wives and kids when the balloon finally went up. . . (and a crew at Carswell AFB, Texas, got in trouble for their "EWO to Rio" T-shirts, showing a flight of 3 B-52s on a path from Dallas to Rio de Janiero. . . )
Re: (Score:2)
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
I suspect we are still here out of a kind of anthropic principle luck: if those close calls triggered WW3, the vast majority of us wouldn't be here pondering our good luck. Dead people don't ponder.
I just have an issue with trying to connect AGW and the cold war. In either event, it isn't likely that humans would go completely extinct - keep in mind I'm talking about extinction, not decimation.
Probably the only way that humans can be driven near extinction via AGW is if the likely instability of resources like water and food ends up enabling an excuse for everyone to nuke their neighbors. But there would still be a lot of survivors.
What I am more interested in is a global havoc event like the S
Re: (Score:2)
Anthropic principle and many-worlds have similar implications.
Simulation (Score:2)
Not that long ago all of Slashdot thought we were just a simulation.
So the real God is some dateless geek, jacked up on Mountain Dew, sitting in a dark room..in the previous simulation.
It's dateless Geeks...all the way down. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"Anything but an almighty God. Right? Has anyone ever stopped to think that there may be scientific principles behind a benevolent Creator that may simply be indiscernable from our perspective in the universe ... especially if He created that universe?"
Isn't your whole faith based on discernible differences?
Although maybe He created a fake God to test people's scrutiny of his infalibility? Have you thought of that? Non unbeliever!
Crazy story has way too many like it (Score:4, Interesting)
Then there are the scarier stories about Stalin in his last days 100% sure that the US was going to order a first strike, and thus he should beat them to the punch. I would also not be surprised if some US military advisors over the years thought that a US first strike would somehow have been a good idea. Assuming this to be true, how few people did they have to convince to make it so?
Then we have the classics like the Cuban missile crisis.
Importantly many military analysts have pointed out that if the NATO and the Soviets had ever started to go toe to toe in some actual conflict, such as NATO stepping in for Hungary that it would have resulted in one side or the other beginning to lose, this might have escalated to local tactical battlefield nukes, which might have escalated to strategic nukes.
More on this news.... (Score:2)
too negative (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, most of these scenarios are more of the type, "imagine the worst thing that could happen" instead of rationally estimating the probabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Malaria has been around for tens of thousands of years, so it reached a stable plateau. The risk with a new disease is that it could take too long to understand how it's transmitted and how to prevent transmission.
Quarantine isn't a guarantee, as seen by the two health care workers who contracted Ebola in Texas when caring for a patient.
Re:too negative (Score:5, Insightful)
how to deal with quarantine
We have idiots now who refuse vaccinations that move freely among the population. We have what could be charitably called porous borders. Hell, even at the start of the AIDS pandemic when the mechanisms weren't clearly understood, public health took a back seat to the inference of homophobia.
Don't underestimate the power of social policy to completely undermine responding to a crisis. When I tested positive for TB eons ago, I was given a choice of 6 months of antibiotics or 4 months locked away. If a largish portion of the population were faced with the same today, you might as well write us off as dead as the coughing protest about the implied loss of dignity, historical prejudice, and freedom of religion lead us down the cliff.
Fermi's Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the size and age of the galaxy, there should be intelligent life on many planets and it should have been there for a very long time. Long enough that we should have detected evidence of it. But that hasn't happened. Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated, and no new knowledge suggests anything of the kind, then there really is one other likely cause: Advanced intelligent civilizations don't last for millions of years.
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
Which really isn't all that surprising. The last few thousand years have been an exponential orgy of consumption. Not just fossil fuels, but phosphate deposits for fertilizers, reachable metal ores, ocean fish stocks, forest products, etc. It's all going to run out, and then what? And what happens if any disaster, including the inevitable and unavoidable ones like a meteor impact or super-volcanism, sets our technology back even a few hundred years? How do you frack for oil with 1700s technology? How do you build a nuclear reactor with no copper? How do you made food production efficient enough that everyone isn't dedicated to it without phosphates?
Human technological advancement was a one time deal. Once it's stops, that's it for this planet, never again.
Re:Fermi's Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
1. We could be the first.
2. We can not be 100% sure that we would detect an advanced civilization.
3. My favorite (for being the most interesting): it could be that all advanced and ultrarational civilizations end up considering the universe, their existence (and growth) to be pointless.
Re:Fermi's Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, if another planet's advanced life resembled us too closely, it seems likely we have a common ancestry.
Re: (Score:3)
"Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated"
You leave off the *only* number in the equation about which we have a lot of uncertainty: The probability that intelligent life will evolve on a planet. We have zero statistics about it and any number people give is just blowing in the wind. Indeed, Fermi's Paradox is probably one of the few pieces of hard fact that is relevant, and, if anything, it implies that the number is low.
Re: (Score:3)
If a civilisation like ours existed on another planet, even one relatively close to us, how hard would it be to pick up their trans
Re: (Score:3)
Except the likely end game for any advanced civilization is a matrix like existence where everything is great and there's no evil AI. Why would any civilization stay existing in the real world if they could plug everyone's brain into a paradise? Why would we know about these civilizations?
Re:Fermi's Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
The only chance of "hearing" from an alien civilization is that they keep on wasting absolutely excessive amounts of energy on beaming absolutely useless radio signals to the entire universe. Would we do that for thousands or millions of years? No. Would they? No.
The current estimates of the size of the observable universe: 93 billion light years across. The age of the universe: roughly 14 billion years. That means there are possible civilizations out there whose broadcasts will never reach us due to the expansion of the universe.
The fact is there are dozens of reasons for civilizations of the universe to never encounter one another and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fermi's Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
There are too many fallacies and hypothetical assessments in this line of argument.
1. Even if many civilizations existed before ours -- the time frame for this is small on a cosmic scale, because of too much activity in the early universe --, it does not follow from the assumption that they killed themselves somehow that we will suffer the same fate. If there are filters, then it seems more likely that they do not work 100% of all times.
2. Major civilizations could be cyclic, like they seem to have so far occurred on earth. So yes, our current culture might die some day, but mankind might continue to exist. The same might apply to many alien species.
3. The evolution of higher life, let alone intelligent life, might very well be quite rare. We really don't know. We could be the first or second or third, or there could be hundreds or thousands of intelligent civilizations similar to ours that are not yet easy to detect for us.
4. We have only searched a tiny tiny amount of solar systems for life, using extremely limited methods. People tend to forget how gigantic the universe is. With new space telescopes it might in the near future be possible to detect life similar to ours on extrasolar planets directly on the basis of atmospheric changes, so stay tuned. It's far to early to make claims like "We would have detected them so far." Give it another 20 years and we might have a number of good candidates of extrasolar planets that seem to support life. So far, both views are just speculation.
5. Advanced civilizations might master new sources of energy and protect their environments in a way that may make them extremely hard to detect. The better a civilization is at not polluting their home planet and solar system, the harder it may be detect it -- and the less likely there is a filter that destroys this civilization. Also don't forget that the time frame for radio emissions may be ridiculously small, because advanced coding techniques make them almost indistinguishable from noise (and we don't look for those but rather for the most primitive coding techniques). As an example, Earth has gone almost radio silent due to advances in technology (satellites, optical fibres) and this trend may continue.
6. Even if somehow FTL interstellar travel is feasible for advanced civilizations, there could be a vast number of reasons why they might not show up on earth: The solar system is in a relatively remote region, there are so many systems, protection of indigenous species, etc.
7. There is the robot theory that supposedly defuses many of the above points. Any sufficiently advanced civilization would send out machines that replicate themselves in order to map and conquer the whole universe. To me, this is just a silly conjecture. Not even we would do this if we could, and we almost could do it already at our current stage of technology. Uncalculable risks, ethical and environmental concerns speak against this, so why should aliens do it.
Re: (Score:2)
All Intelligent life is doomed, not just humans.
Given the size and age of the galaxy, there should be intelligent life on many planets and it should have been there for a very long time. Long enough that we should have detected evidence of it. But that hasn't happened. Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated, and no new knowledge suggests anything of the kind, then there really is one other likely cause: Advanced intelligent civilizations don't last for millions of years.
If it was possible, then it would have happened, and it hasn't.
Which really isn't all that surprising. The last few thousand years have been an exponential orgy of consumption. Not just fossil fuels, but phosphate deposits for fertilizers, reachable metal ores, ocean fish stocks, forest products, etc. It's all going to run out, and then what? And what happens if any disaster, including the inevitable and unavoidable ones like a meteor impact or super-volcanism, sets our technology back even a few hundred years? How do you frack for oil with 1700s technology? How do you build a nuclear reactor with no copper? How do you made food production efficient enough that everyone isn't dedicated to it without phosphates?
Human technological advancement was a one time deal. Once it's stops, that's it for this planet, never again.
Many problem with that theory,
1) Given the number of exceptional event that let us to be the intelligent life of our planets, it's entirely likely that there's thousands others planet in the galaxy with life (and intelligent one) but we're the most advanced. And it will still respect Fermi's Paradox.
2) We have absolutely no evidence that there's no other more advanced life in the Milky Way. If light speed is the limit for travelling (and we have more evidence that suggest it's the case than again), then an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure the extinction of the human race would be a catastrophe for the rest of the earth ecosystem.
After tardigrades, humans are about the most adaptable creatures on the planet. We can survive (with varying degrees of effort) in more environments than anything but those little guys, with the aid of technology. Anything that successfully wipes us out is going to be a big fat reset button.
Re: (Score:2)
The extinction of humans would cause quite a mess, all domesticated species depend on us. Others, like rats, evolved to exploit the byproducts of human activities.
In addition whatever could cause human extinction would probably affect many other species directly. Humans are very resilient and adaptable compared to other large animals.
Climate change causing extinction? (Score:4, Informative)
The summary is misleading. No article mentions extinctions due to climate change. A huge temperature change would cause migration towards the poles, and may cut food supply and kill some people, but not all.
The article that mentions the 10% figure (The Atlantic article) says that a pandemic is the most likely to cause extinction, eg. the 521AD plague killed 13 to 17% of the world's population. But that didn't make it into the sensational summary.
Artificial pandemics as most likely exterminator (Score:2)
I think the estimate is MUCH too low for two reasons:
One, artificial pandemics are ignored. Just because we haven't had one yet is NOT evidence. At this point, a well funded research lab could probably create a doomsday virus or fungi, and as genetic technologies continue to advance, the threat will soon be within the economic capabilities of individual madmen. Unfortunately, we've never had a sufficient shortage of madmen.
Two, the Fermi Paradox. Any intelligent and long-lived (on the order of 100,000 years
Re: (Score:2)
Two, the Fermi Paradox. Any intelligent and long-lived (on the order of 100,000 years) species could (with our own pitiful level of technology) create a radio beacon that would have spanned the entire Milky Way Galaxy by now. Either they want to want to be quiet (and presumably have good reason) or no technological society lasts that long.
The birth rate of practically every industrialized nation is below the replacement rate. At the current rate practically all of the world will become industrialized in a few hundred years at which point the earth's population will stabilize or even start declining. The idea that advanced civilizations are destined to spread through a galaxy like locust if they just survive long enough, seems rather silly to me.
OMG we're all going to die (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is the problem with climate change. How can we take this very serious issue to heart when you get garbage like this predicting global extinction and the end of the human race.
Humans are the most resilient species in the world. We live in Siberia. We live in the Sahara. The notion that we'll go extinct due to climate change is laughable. Unless "extinct" in this context means a few hundred million displaced simply because they want to keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to (i.e. move because of weather, move because their water front property is now an under water property etc).
I rate the chance of human extinction this century at zero percent. 9% chance of humans being greatly impacted due to their own activity is believable, but that doesn't make for a very exciting headline.
We ARE going to go extinct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem with people's reactions to climate change is that they don't know how to inform themselves, and so get all outraged and surprised when their entire knowledge of a topic is crafted through a newspaper trying to sell adverts.
You only have yourself to blame if you get your scientific information from the general press.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the problem with climate change. How can we take this very serious issue to heart when you get garbage like this predicting global extinction and the end of the human race.
Humans are the most resilient species in the world. We live in Siberia. We live in the Sahara. The notion that we'll go extinct due to climate change is laughable. Unless "extinct" in this context means a few hundred million displaced simply because they want to keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to (i.e. move because of weather, move because their water front property is now an under water property etc).
I rate the chance of human extinction this century at zero percent. 9% chance of humans being greatly impacted due to their own activity is believable, but that doesn't make for a very exciting headline.
I almost entirely agree, but in my eye a nuclear winter following a nuclear war have good chance to wipe us off. And since the nuclear war probability is very low, we cannot count it as 0% as long as mass destruction weaponry still exist in the world. There's many close call in the past. Sure, it was during the Cold war and I don't think relation between Russia and the US will fall that low again. But don't forget new power on the rise.
Still, one cool thing that's happening is that, in our new economical wo
Re:OMG we're all going to die (Score:5, Interesting)
This [kevinmuldoon.com] article gives a list of animals that are far more resilient than humans ever could be. And this doesn't even touch on every species of bacteria or archaea that exists, all exponentially more resilient as a species than humans.
Risk doesn't stand still (Score:2)
when extrapolated to century-scale it comes to a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction within the next hundred years.
This assumes that every year will be the same as the year before, with some random chance of the disasters happening. But the world and progress doesn't work like that.
Things change
So the factors that give rise to a 0.1% chance today will be subtley different next year, and the next and in 50 years time will have altered drastically. Just like the risk factors today are much different from those of 1966, when climate disasters weren't even a consideration. We are all probably worrying about the wrong th
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but if we worry a little bit about a range of things, then we reduce the chance of not worrying about the right thing. Wear your seatbelt, get your immunisations, keep up t
An intelligent enemy might do it (Score:2)
If "extinction" is the level of catastrophe we're looking at, then most of these events won't meet that high a bar.
I mean, even after a major asteroid impact or even all out nuclear war there are going to be some survivors; maybe in unlikely places (nuclear submarines*, the ISS, Iceland, Antarctica). Likewise, almost every "natural" pathogen will leave resistant survivors even if there is no vaccine or cure. As long as enough are left to breed they could restart humankind (but perhaps at a very reduced le
I can't decide (Score:2)
...which of 3 possibilities this article represents:
1) an attempt to spread fud to advance some agenda
2) an attempt to "strawman" fud by conflating actual real things with uncontrollables (like an asteroid strike) to advance some agenda
Or
3) just some bloviating "experts" repeating what we mostly already knew to garner attention
The odds that it's simply a well intentioned genuine warning are too small to realistically consider.
Nobody actually knows (Score:3)
Look, we are going outside of the borders of recorded climate. That means nobody knows what is actually going to happen. That alone should scare the living fuck out of everyone, because of the very regularity of the cycle we are perturbing. Since CO2 levels haven't been this high since the last mass extinction, we have little to no idea what to expect. Nobody knows if the methane clathrate gun is a real possibility or not. We have simply literally never seen the climate in this condition while there have been humans on this mudball, and that means we don't know what is going to happen. Maybe the system will self-regulate and fix itself. Or maybe we've unbalanced it sufficiently that we're going to have unprecedented weather that really will more or less end us.
In addition, the probability of a comet or other large impactor striking the planet is non-zero, but we don't know what the risk actually is.
Nearly a statistical certainty (Score:2)
Thinking that our species is exempt is pure hubris.
I'm sorry, (Score:3)
Seems like a straw man to me. (Score:2)
Humans have colonized every habitat on the planet that supports any kind of population of animals, and to a large degree we did this before we had science and engineering. If anything survives, it'll be us and the cockroaches. Therefore I set the chance that humans as an entire species will disappear at zero.
Having known and met many prominent environmentalist thinkers, by in large the threat of the extinction of the entire human species doesn't occupy a lot of their thought. To the degree that they're c
Most of the 'extinction' events are not extinction (Score:2)
We tend to over-estimate how much damage so called extinction level events do - and underestimate how effective intelligence is in countering it.
My favorite example of this irrational fear is the grey goo of "nanite level von neumann machines taking over the world". Besides the fact that we already have a green goo (organic life) that did that and is far more advanced than the grey goo - the main limitation is POWER. The Green Goo did it mainly on solar power, transmitted to the more powerful green goo mo
failing basic statistics (Score:2)
Multiplying probabilities together works for events that you may reasonably assume to be mostly statistically independent
Re:pretty poor science (Score:5, Insightful)
a mere 15 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 times higher, average temperature was several degrees warmer, and seas were 200 feet higher.
200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It rose over 300 feet at the end of the last ice age, humanity thrived. Sucks if you own beachfront property but not a problem for most of humanity, let alone an extinction level event. Ignorance of natural history is required to believe this scaremongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess, you live on a hilltop, but many people live in cities on the shore. 300 feet over the current levels will make those people lose their property at least.
Re:pretty poor science (Score:5, Insightful)
Civilization settled where trade was convenient, with few exceptions. Before flight, water was the best, fastest way to trade. Once we mastered the sea, and were no longer confined to rivers and coastlines, civilization flourished with increasing speed. A few centuries back
According to Harvard University,* in this era: " More than 2 billion people, an estimated 37 percent of the world's population, live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea."
If we increase that to about 93 miles,** then the number jumps to approximately 44 percent.
The Harvard article is talking about a 3 to 5 foot increase in sea levels wiping out much of the coastal infrastructure worldwide, as much of it is built on flood plains frequently no more than 3 feet or so above sea level.
I would think it a safe bet that a 300 foot rise in sea level would affect a great many more, likely much more than 50 percent.
*Harvard:
http://environment.harvard.edu/node/3272
http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet
**UN atlas of the oceans:
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't kill everyone, though. You _could_ build new cities farther inland. If you were a real go-getter society, you could manufacture the new buildings using modular methods in a factory instead of making each one a custom job, with the help of robots. You could build the new city designed from the start to be efficient, like constructing every building as a 50 story mixed use "arcology", linked together by sky bridges for more layers of connectivity than just streets. You could negate the arabl
Re:pretty poor science (Score:5, Interesting)
It's puzzling that people think that aspect would be a catastrophe. We're not trees. We can, you know, move. I've mentioned this before and they go on to tell me that it is expensive. Yeah? It's not like we have a choice in the matter and it's going to happen no matter how much shit we stuff in the air. No, really, it's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down.
No, don't misinterpret that as me saying things I did not say. No, I don't think we should spew crap into the atmosphere at the rates we do and I've taken many steps to reduce my own emissions. It's just not a huge catastrophe if we accept that it's going to happen and start making preparations to move people as the water levels rise.
All these people running around like they're doing something meaningful would actually be doing something meaningful if they'd sponsor the moves for a few people at a time off some of the Pacific Ocean islands that only rise to a few feet above current levels. Yeah, it's great that they spent an extra twenty cents buying green power this month but they could just keep their old beater car and help some of them move.
Re:pretty poor science (Score:4, Interesting)
This. The sea level isn't going to up 300 feet overnight. Even if the most ridiculous of climate models it will take 100s of years for the sea level to rise 10s of feet. Most of the major cities along the coast line literally did not exist 500 years ago, and until the last 100 years didn't even have tall buildings. The flatiron building was the crown jewel of the Manhattan skyline 100 years ago. All of the rest was built in less than a century, and with much less technology than we have today. There will be plenty of time to move. The human species is remarkably adaptable. The idea that any climate change can wipe out a large portion of the human population is ignorant of the history of life and humanity on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's puzzling that people think that aspect would be a catastrophe. We're not trees. We can, you know, move.
Do you know where your food comes from? Better think hard about how easy it is to "move".
Re: (Score:2)
Food? generally from nowhere near a coastal plain.
Better think hard about how easy it is to "move".
Oh, it would be hard and expensive, still not a major catastrophe...
Or are you seriously suggesting that given the choice of drowning or spending money in moving we as a civilization will choose to drown?
Re:pretty poor science (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are you seriously suggesting that given the choice of drowning or spending money in moving we as a civilization will choose to drown?
Who is this 'we'?
I think the elite will choose for you and I to drown, if they can arrange it. If the land area is reduced, the carrying capacity will be reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
I've mentioned this before and they go on to tell me that it is expensive. Yeah? It's not like we have a choice in the matter and it's going to happen no matter how much shit we stuff in the air. No, really, it's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down.
Sea level was dropping a few hundred years back. It seems to have abruptly reversed course shortly after the start of the industrial revolution: http://www.realclimate.org/ima... [realclimate.org]
Why do you think we are powerless?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a nice example is to look at a hi-resolution photo of Earth from space. Much of humanity lives along coastlines and rivers, especially where a river meets the sea, as you get ocean access and river access to both global and inland trade, along with fresh water and a convenient way to get rid of waste.
Civilization settled where trade was convenient, with few exceptions. Before flight, water was the best, fastest way to trade. Once we mastered the sea, and were no longer confined to rivers and coastlines, civilization flourished with increasing speed. A few centuries back
According to Harvard University,* in this era: " More than 2 billion people, an estimated 37 percent of the world's population, live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea."
If we increase that to about 93 miles,** then the number jumps to approximately 44 percent.
The Harvard article is talking about a 3 to 5 foot increase in sea levels wiping out much of the coastal infrastructure worldwide, as much of it is built on flood plains frequently no more than 3 feet or so above sea level.
I would think it a safe bet that a 300 foot rise in sea level would affect a great many more, likely much more than 50 percent.
*Harvard:
http://environment.harvard.edu... [harvard.edu]
http://www.oceansatlas.org/ser... [oceansatlas.org]
**UN atlas of the oceans: /CDSServlet?status=ND0xODc3JjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~
I thought the discussion was about Global Catastrophe like Human Extinction? How does a Economical Catastrophe like sea rising fall into one of those? It's not like sea will rise 50 meter overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
poor planning on their part does not a catastrophe for me make. Those cities have probably contributed a great deal more even on a per capita bases to the global CO2 levels than the folks on the hill tops have.
Nature is amoral, its a complex system of rules and feedback. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Beachfront property, right.
Holland would be wiped off the map. The highest point anywhere in Denmark is around 400 feet above sea level, so that country would be effectively washed away as well. Do you have any idea how much land would be covered by water (SALT water at that) if the oceans rose 200-300 feet?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the sea level isn't just going to rise 200-300 feet. It's also going to get warmer... The landmass that gets covered by water will be offset by huge tracts of Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and maybe even Antarctica that will become warm enough to be populated.
Re: (Score:3)
There won't be much in the way of soil in those newly populated areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, the vast forests and tundra of Russia, Alaska, and Canada don't have soil?
Most of us live near the coast. (Score:3)
It rose over 300 feet at the end of the last ice age, ... Sucks if you own beachfront property but not a problem for most of humanity,
New York city is beach front property. Miami is beach front property. How much of humanity lives near the coast? - https://coastalchallenges.com/... [coastalchallenges.com]
As I said, not an extinction event, but global catastrophe? Could be.
Re: (Score:2)
You should learn the difference between "global" and "coastal."
Re: (Score:2)
200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe.
But would everyone die?
Re: (Score:2)
a mere 15 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 times higher, average temperature was several degrees warmer, and seas were 200 feet higher.
200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe.
It absolutely would count as a global catastrophe if it happened quickly.
But that has *nothing* to do with human life being wiped out. It just means the coastlines get redrawn and a bunch of people's really nice beachfront property ceases to exist.
Warming alarmists need to get a grip: it's not going to wipe out life on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bunch of peoples really nice coastal cities would also probably cease to exist. But we're not looking at 200 foot sea level rise. Even still, New York was 60 billion in the hole after Sandy. Even a few feet of sea level rise would make the average storm surge rather expensive.
I agree. But "average storm surge rather expensive" and "human life wiped out" aren't the same thing.
Re:pretty poor science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. A 200 foot sea level rise would destroy a tremendous amount of valuable real estate, but it would realistically happen slowly enough that societies with the physical wealth and competent financial and government institutions would have plenty of time to move their cities inland.
Societies that don't have their shit together would take lots of casualties from flooding and near collapse from missing arable land and lost productive assets. But yeah, it's not the doom of man.
The reason to try
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but no one is proposing restricting the collection of wealth on the coasts. Rather the opposite is generally true. For some reason the intent is to carbon tax people living at high elevation in Alaska who would benefit from climate change so that rich people can keep building beach houses in Miami. I agree we have already invested a lot in the coasts, but how long do we keep throwing money into a city that is losing to the sea. New Orleans is a good example of a city that probably should be considered
Re: (Score:2)
There were also no humans on earth...
Re: (Score:2)
a mere 15 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 times higher, average temperature was several degrees warmer, and seas were 200 feet higher.
The earth was an unihabitable wasteland!
no, wait, it was lusher and more fecund than now.
It's a reasonable hypothesis that returning the CO2 levels to their prehistoric norms could raise temperatures back to the previous levels. That it would cause extinction level events for humanity is ridiculous chicken little bullshit.
People should look on the bright side.
In only a very short time in geological climate terms humans may well have gained the ability to accurately compute and predict the global climate related effects of human civilization on a planet-sized massively-chaotic system.
True, for now we humans only posses a tiny fraction of the knowledge of all the variables necessary to measure and account for as well as only a tiny fraction of the computing power that's necessary to create a model that even tracks past, known
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the launch codes 00000000 [dailymail.co.uk] anyway?
Oh wait, they have probably been changed to 12345678 since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when extrapolated to century-scale it comes to a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction within the next hundred years.
The author doesn't understand statistics enough to extrapolate fud coming out of the Global Challenges Foundation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the biggest threat to civilisation; Islam. They live in the dark ages and want to force everyone else to do the same.
That, and democracies and other "run by the citizens" societies last until the "citizens" realize they can vote themselves stuff from the government coffers.
A point at which almost every successful civilization / nation state on the planet has already reached.