Life Circa 2050 Will Be Bad.(thenation.com)
thenation.com
Life Circa 2050 Will Be Bad.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-future-disasters/
54 comments
Without these doomsday scenarios, it would be very hard to sell the prospect of a central world government that can override the sovereignty of every nation on Earth. Europe already fell for it, but it's going to take a lot more to get the rest of us involved.
Yes, over time humans form larger and larger social groups as we are able to use technology and trade to form a more abstract and inclusive idea of the 'us' and reduce the 'them' outgroup. That's how it works. If you asked a bronze age libertarian your current idea of a 'nation' would be wildly antithetical to his idea of a free and sovereign tribe. As social groups get larger and larger we also get, on average, more and more peaceful and prosperous.
It's a good thing.
It's a good thing.
There's a big difference between what you've just described, and a system of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats making decisions for billions of people. Which is exactly what the loudest climate change activists are pushing.
> Europe already fell for it
> unelected bureaucrats
I suggest you do some basic research before spewing misinformation like this next time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Pa...
> unelected bureaucrats
I suggest you do some basic research before spewing misinformation like this next time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Pa...
Those were two separate comments, no need for accusations like that. I'm well aware that the EU has elections, but anyone can see that member states are losing their sovereignty as time goes on.
(sorry, I was being too harsh)
In what areas specifically are they losing their sovereignty though?
In what areas specifically are they losing their sovereignty though?
The legitimate arguments for Brexit are a partial answer to your question.
Look how well that turned out for them.
Brexit populism was mostly based on lies. Remember the NHS bus about how much money they're allegedly sending to Brussels? Disinformation galore.
[deleted]
>reduce the 'them' outgroup.
Seems like we're happily creating a huge outgroup of "thems" who want to wait until Pfizer concludes long term testing. Especially seeing how many countries in Europe have now stopped giving Moderna to males under 30 due to the discovery that it causes heart conditions in that cohort.[0]
[0] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-f...
Seems like we're happily creating a huge outgroup of "thems" who want to wait until Pfizer concludes long term testing. Especially seeing how many countries in Europe have now stopped giving Moderna to males under 30 due to the discovery that it causes heart conditions in that cohort.[0]
[0] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-f...
This is going off-topic, but: What's the track record for Moderna causing heart conditions in males over 30? Any evidence one way or the other?
Not sure, I suspect the reason the under 30 male cohort was singled out is because the data was only conclusive enough in that cohort. This is pretty recent though, so who knows what we'll see in future months/years.
Yeah. Over 30, just had two stents put in my heart. I'm not very excited about a booster that could give me clots, or any other heart issue.
I mean, I'm not anti-vax. I got the initial shot (J&J). I just wish I knew what was the wisest next move...
I mean, I'm not anti-vax. I got the initial shot (J&J). I just wish I knew what was the wisest next move...
If a booster can give you a clot then a flu or common cold could to.
Not mentioning actual covid which you will encounter multiple times in your life if those stents are working for you.
Not mentioning actual covid which you will encounter multiple times in your life if those stents are working for you.
I think you're the only person talking about vaccines here?
We're discussing the eagerness of people to create outgroups out of anything.
Seems a lot like shoehorning a cable news talking point into an unrelated conversation.
Interesting, I don't watch cable news so maybe that's a blind spot for me. Would you say that you haven't seen the in-group/out-group dynamic with vaccines and vaccine discussion lately?
No one is saying awful things haven't happened. It's just that humans, no matter how logical they are, still respond emotionally to awful things. They're awful, and it'll be hard for us, and to be honest that makes a lot of people really scared for themselves or their kids. I don't know many people making the argument that humans won't survive the next 30 years
Badly.
On the contrary, it will be better than ever before.
You've got... evidence for that, right?
What a bunch of ridiculous doomsday porn. It's just silly.
OP does not consider substantial effort of widespread geo-engineering that will take place to scrub CO2 and Methane from the atmosphere. Why be so pessimistic, when we are at the cusp of finally starting to address these real issues?
There are beginning carbon tax efforts by legislators and governments that will greatly incentivise further developments in reducing ecological harm along with emerging eagerness by big corporations to become zero footprint. This is not only by word and regulation but by actual doing. There's a monumental change happening right now.
There are beginning carbon tax efforts by legislators and governments that will greatly incentivise further developments in reducing ecological harm along with emerging eagerness by big corporations to become zero footprint. This is not only by word and regulation but by actual doing. There's a monumental change happening right now.
So, you're claiming a bunch of things that don't exist right now are going to save us? That sounds like magical thinking to me.
"Most people underestimate what they can achieve in a year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years". Over the past 20 years, we have the following mind-blowing breakthroughs, so there is a lot of reason for optimism:
- the FDA has approved about 190 new cancer treatments for adults, we have the Human Genome Program and CRISPR;
- graphene was isolated in lab and it is used in many applications (from solar cells to HIV diagnosis);
- bluetooth officially launched in 1999;
- we are on Mars with Curiosity and reusable rockets are a reality;
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/122693/download
[2] https://www.drugs.com/newdrugs.html
[3]https://fee.org/articles/the-20-biggest-advances-in-tech-ove...
- the FDA has approved about 190 new cancer treatments for adults, we have the Human Genome Program and CRISPR;
- graphene was isolated in lab and it is used in many applications (from solar cells to HIV diagnosis);
- bluetooth officially launched in 1999;
- we are on Mars with Curiosity and reusable rockets are a reality;
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/122693/download
[2] https://www.drugs.com/newdrugs.html
[3]https://fee.org/articles/the-20-biggest-advances-in-tech-ove...
What does this have to do with climate change, or the next 10 years, at all? Unrelated facts do not prove your argument. If anything, this shows we're using up a lot of our innovation capacity on things that aren't stopping something that's going to disrupt global society during the lifetime of many people currently living today.
Almost nobody cared about climate change for last 20 years or before that. We might care about in in the next 20 years.
Not bad. Only 50 years too late. I thought the so called "free market" was great for allocating resources, such as what would be needed to solve these problems, though? Any rational human should recognize that solving climate change on Earth is a better use of resources than shooting a car into space and literally adding to the problem, but, yet, here we are.
Fusion power is still decades away, we have no practical carbon capture technology better than planting big-ass trees, and one of the best ideas people have had is to spray sulfuric acid into the atmosphere to reflect the Sun's rays. Meanwhile, we can't even agree to phase out coal burning, and we've poisoned everything with chemicals and microplastics.
Fusion power is still decades away, we have no practical carbon capture technology better than planting big-ass trees, and one of the best ideas people have had is to spray sulfuric acid into the atmosphere to reflect the Sun's rays. Meanwhile, we can't even agree to phase out coal burning, and we've poisoned everything with chemicals and microplastics.
> we have no practical carbon capture technology better than planting big-ass trees
This is not true. There are many projects underway (example - [1]) utilizing various technologies, and while it's true none has yet to reach economy of scale there is still time to do so. We only need a few good and scaleable solutions.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57588248 "Climate change: Large-scale CO2 removal facility set for Scotland"
This is not true. There are many projects underway (example - [1]) utilizing various technologies, and while it's true none has yet to reach economy of scale there is still time to do so. We only need a few good and scaleable solutions.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57588248 "Climate change: Large-scale CO2 removal facility set for Scotland"
> This is not true.
You realize you're not making your point, when you literally follow "this is not true" with the reason it is true:
> There are many projects underway (example - [1]) utilizing various technologies, and while it's true none has yet to reach economy of scale there is still time to do so.
Doubtful.
> We only need a few good and scaleable solutions.
Well, where are they?
You realize you're not making your point, when you literally follow "this is not true" with the reason it is true:
> There are many projects underway (example - [1]) utilizing various technologies, and while it's true none has yet to reach economy of scale there is still time to do so.
Doubtful.
> We only need a few good and scaleable solutions.
Well, where are they?
Almost. But those that did were not listened to as in this case where Carl Sagan clearly explains the situation before policy makers almost 40 yrs ago [1]
1: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
1: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
Why do pessimists think they know it all?
I'm pretty sure things peaked in the late 90's.
Because the only thing harder for a person to deal with than bad news, is uncertainty.
The article's language is hyperbolic and it focusses on outlier predictions, but life will be worse than it could have been, in large part because of the context in which this weather will be happening.
First, weather effects. A larger percentage of GDP will have to be spent on repairing weather damage. That means higher insurance premiums, one way or another. More will also have to be spent beefing up infrastructure and structures against weather and sea level rise. Harvests are likely to become more volatile because of more extreme weather events, so food prices will be higher than they would have been.
Conflict will rise because of the inability of many governments to deal with these issues, so more will also be spent on military force and internal security.
All of these are manageable with other things being equal, but they're not. Non-renewable ground water is being drawn down. China will find as Arabian Gulf countries have, that desalination is not without its downsides. Its south-north water projects will be vulnerable to weather too. I have no idea how inland South Asia will get its water if, as predicted, the Indian Summer Monsoon becomes unreliable.
At the same time we will in the process of trying to eliminate fossil fuels, which currently provide 80% of our primary energy and which are currently essential for producing steel, cement, fertilizer, and industrial chemicals at moderate prices. More of GDP will also be spent on the substitutes as well as the structures and equipment needed to produce them.
The main bit of missing context, though, is demographic. Working age populations will be shrinking during this time¹, and the proportion of the old elderly (older than 75) in populations will increase. The latter almost certainly means that healthcare will take an increasing fraction of GDP also². The former means that these burdens will fall on a smaller group.
With more spent on insurance premiums (one way or another), more expensive infrastructure, more spent on health (one way or another), and higher food prices, people will have less disposable income than they would have had otherwise.
1. Outside sub-Saharan Africa, a region which is not noted for effective government.
2. There's an interesting paper on the UN DESA population web site, describing how over the 20th century two things have happened to lifespan. Life expectancy has increased, and the variance of age at death has reduced dramatically. Currently most people can expect to live to 90 ± 5 years compared to 75 ± 20 in the mid 20th century.
Crucially, though, death is preceded by about 15 years of ill health, and this period is not shrinking. People now have a "healthspan" of 75 years, followed by 15 years of increasing demand on the medical system.
-----
3. The above is all predicated on the assumption that our political class can deal effectively with the situation, and wants to act in the interest of all citizens. It's a best case.
First, weather effects. A larger percentage of GDP will have to be spent on repairing weather damage. That means higher insurance premiums, one way or another. More will also have to be spent beefing up infrastructure and structures against weather and sea level rise. Harvests are likely to become more volatile because of more extreme weather events, so food prices will be higher than they would have been.
Conflict will rise because of the inability of many governments to deal with these issues, so more will also be spent on military force and internal security.
All of these are manageable with other things being equal, but they're not. Non-renewable ground water is being drawn down. China will find as Arabian Gulf countries have, that desalination is not without its downsides. Its south-north water projects will be vulnerable to weather too. I have no idea how inland South Asia will get its water if, as predicted, the Indian Summer Monsoon becomes unreliable.
At the same time we will in the process of trying to eliminate fossil fuels, which currently provide 80% of our primary energy and which are currently essential for producing steel, cement, fertilizer, and industrial chemicals at moderate prices. More of GDP will also be spent on the substitutes as well as the structures and equipment needed to produce them.
The main bit of missing context, though, is demographic. Working age populations will be shrinking during this time¹, and the proportion of the old elderly (older than 75) in populations will increase. The latter almost certainly means that healthcare will take an increasing fraction of GDP also². The former means that these burdens will fall on a smaller group.
With more spent on insurance premiums (one way or another), more expensive infrastructure, more spent on health (one way or another), and higher food prices, people will have less disposable income than they would have had otherwise.
1. Outside sub-Saharan Africa, a region which is not noted for effective government.
2. There's an interesting paper on the UN DESA population web site, describing how over the 20th century two things have happened to lifespan. Life expectancy has increased, and the variance of age at death has reduced dramatically. Currently most people can expect to live to 90 ± 5 years compared to 75 ± 20 in the mid 20th century.
Crucially, though, death is preceded by about 15 years of ill health, and this period is not shrinking. People now have a "healthspan" of 75 years, followed by 15 years of increasing demand on the medical system.
-----
3. The above is all predicated on the assumption that our political class can deal effectively with the situation, and wants to act in the interest of all citizens. It's a best case.
Pretty soon it is going to become a very difficult decision whether to have children. I would argue we are already at that point, however this idea has not really gone 'mainstream' yet. But I fully expect the birthrate to have plummeted by 2030.
The question we are going to have to answer: "What happens when there is no future?"
The question we are going to have to answer: "What happens when there is no future?"
Many have already decided to pull the trigger and be dog moms. Earth will just be left with the non-suicidal / those that don't fall for this particular brand of propaganda.
Yeah. The future belongs to those who believe there will be a future. (And to their children, because they're going to have children.)
I’m bullish on life.
Sure, as more time goes on and the thing starts to become more evident. It will become clearer that bringing a human being into a dying world is a deeply immoral thing to do. It will not be soon though.
The world is not dying. It is only changing for the worse for us. Not making children right now or in the future is a suicide for mankind which doesn't solve the problems we have created.
what happened in the past few years to get so many people, especially ostensibly smart people in tech circles, to buy into this death cult nonsense? I genuinely do not understand what can lead to such a mindset.
Cant comment for the “tech circle” you’re referring to, but from where I’m from “the environment” was a topic taught in school from the get go and taking a stance that we aren’t “destroying the planet” was pretty much out of the question and frowned upon.
I specifically remember one of my teacher saying they wouldn’t have children because the future was going to be unbearable for them.
I specifically remember one of my teacher saying they wouldn’t have children because the future was going to be unbearable for them.
>bringing a human being into a dying world is a deeply immoral thing to do
What does this actually mean? What is a dying world, exactly?
Historically, the world has been an awful place to be. Most of Human history, 200k years or so, we were essentially nomadic tribes killing and eating each other(sometimes literally*). Since civilization has begun, we've been ostensibly more moral-- yet the majority of humans who have existed in the past 10,000 years were laborers we know very little about.
When you read about what people in Greece and Rome were like? That's mostly the well off nobles. Rarely did anyone bother to write about the lives of slaves, and subsequently we know next to nothing about them except that many of them had very harsh lives. We don't know what day to day life was like for the majority of Roman, for example.
Countless kingdoms have fallen-- Cesar had a book he published about some of his expeditions in genocide(or read another way, in conquering the enemy). When a city was sacked by the enemy; all resistance was killed, women were used, and then those remaining men women, and children were sold into slavery to fund the winning kingdom. Their stuff was sold too, as you won't be surprised to hear. If they really hated the other side, like when Rome felled Carthage, they would salt the earth after. While expensive, it guaranteed nothing would grow there for a long time after-- a testament to the power of the conquers to eliminate any opposition.
My point being.. I don't know why it's more unethical to birth humans into this world, than any of our ancestors. Logically, every human experiences unhappiness. How is it ever moral to birth humans into a world when humans experience pain? Human existence itself isn't purely logical and cannot be understood like that
* https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/06/prehistoric-...
What does this actually mean? What is a dying world, exactly?
Historically, the world has been an awful place to be. Most of Human history, 200k years or so, we were essentially nomadic tribes killing and eating each other(sometimes literally*). Since civilization has begun, we've been ostensibly more moral-- yet the majority of humans who have existed in the past 10,000 years were laborers we know very little about.
When you read about what people in Greece and Rome were like? That's mostly the well off nobles. Rarely did anyone bother to write about the lives of slaves, and subsequently we know next to nothing about them except that many of them had very harsh lives. We don't know what day to day life was like for the majority of Roman, for example.
Countless kingdoms have fallen-- Cesar had a book he published about some of his expeditions in genocide(or read another way, in conquering the enemy). When a city was sacked by the enemy; all resistance was killed, women were used, and then those remaining men women, and children were sold into slavery to fund the winning kingdom. Their stuff was sold too, as you won't be surprised to hear. If they really hated the other side, like when Rome felled Carthage, they would salt the earth after. While expensive, it guaranteed nothing would grow there for a long time after-- a testament to the power of the conquers to eliminate any opposition.
My point being.. I don't know why it's more unethical to birth humans into this world, than any of our ancestors. Logically, every human experiences unhappiness. How is it ever moral to birth humans into a world when humans experience pain? Human existence itself isn't purely logical and cannot be understood like that
* https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/06/prehistoric-...
Your argument only works when the general trend is toward the better. After 50+ years of not doing anything about it, it's now a near certainty that the next 50 years of "progress" will be more like going backwards 100+ years.
No it doesn't? My argument is that human life has been full of unavoidable difficulty for 200,000 years, so if bringing kids into a painful world is unethical then having children has always been an unethical decision. Even if we as a society go back 200 years, the decision to have kids is still just as unethical as it ever was. Which is to say, having children isn't an ethical decision it's an emotional decision.
Or I can put it this way-- The most ethical thing any human can do really is to commit suicide so you don't further consume finite resources. But the desire to live is a strong emotional desire and even the most logical person will justify their own life while simultaneously consuming resources and contributing to the problem they lament.
Or I can put it this way-- The most ethical thing any human can do really is to commit suicide so you don't further consume finite resources. But the desire to live is a strong emotional desire and even the most logical person will justify their own life while simultaneously consuming resources and contributing to the problem they lament.
No, it really does. Maybe you can emotionally justify bringing additional people into a problem created by people, but, I can't. And, if you can justify it, quite frankly, I think that makes you a bad person.
200 years ago, nobody had any reason to suspect that life would be significantly worse in 50 years. Today, we do. 200 years ago, we hadn't poisoned the planet with "forever chemicals" (PFAS) and microplastics. Oh, and let's not forget the economic mess we're leaving to future generations, either.
200 years ago, there was no reason to suspect the next generation would be worse off than this one. One could afford not to take ethical considerations into account when having children then, because there was no reason to suspect it would be unethical.
As for suicide, sure, I can justify that on ethical grounds. I'm not sure I want to continue much past whenever my dog dies. She's 7. OTOH, I can't see where I'm ethically required to commit suicide to solve a problem I didn't create.
200 years ago, nobody had any reason to suspect that life would be significantly worse in 50 years. Today, we do. 200 years ago, we hadn't poisoned the planet with "forever chemicals" (PFAS) and microplastics. Oh, and let's not forget the economic mess we're leaving to future generations, either.
200 years ago, there was no reason to suspect the next generation would be worse off than this one. One could afford not to take ethical considerations into account when having children then, because there was no reason to suspect it would be unethical.
As for suicide, sure, I can justify that on ethical grounds. I'm not sure I want to continue much past whenever my dog dies. She's 7. OTOH, I can't see where I'm ethically required to commit suicide to solve a problem I didn't create.
>200 years ago, there was no reason to suspect the next generation would be worse off than this one
Wars, plagues, famines, economic issues and tyranny all existed 200 years ago. Only someone living in a very cushy position in the first world would be reasonably assured that life wouldn't be worse in the future. The future is always uncertain. Even now, for all we know the covid 19 virus may evolve into some incredibly virulent and deadly disease at any time. That was doubly so when the black death was still occurring, before antibiotics, along with a plethora of diseases we're only somewhat aware of today such as polio and leprosy.
You have an inaccurate view of the world if you think the bottom 25% of humans ever had any real assurance life was going to get better rather than worse. Making moral judgements on them is an easy way to sound naive. For example you're implying African slaves in the Americas were "bad people"(your words) because they had children despite knowing their children would be enslaved. It's incredibly simplistic to think that anyone ever had that kind of assurance except for the very most privileged in society. We're not in a wholly novel situation, we're returning to the uncertainty that our ancestors had to deal with. Forever chemicals and microplastics are a new poison, and one I really am concerned about to tell you the truth, but poison itself isn't new.
And you're just as ethically required to commit suicide as you are to not have kids-- they both are means to lower the anguish in the world. How can only be ethically required to care about my kids possible pain, but simultaneously not required to care about about the billions of working class around the world working their fingers to their bones mining our lithium and making our food and goods, for pennies a day, just to survive? The lithium batteries in our phones that were using to discuss this, are a testament to the way we are engaged in this awful system. I don't know why one humans anguish is acceptable to be a part of while another unborn humans anguish would be a moral sin. Either contributing to the pain and blood inherent in the system is bad, or its okay. It doesn't really matter whose kids are suffering, in the grand picture of morality-- you owe the same moral duty to do no harm to the kids other people created as you owe to your potential kids
Wars, plagues, famines, economic issues and tyranny all existed 200 years ago. Only someone living in a very cushy position in the first world would be reasonably assured that life wouldn't be worse in the future. The future is always uncertain. Even now, for all we know the covid 19 virus may evolve into some incredibly virulent and deadly disease at any time. That was doubly so when the black death was still occurring, before antibiotics, along with a plethora of diseases we're only somewhat aware of today such as polio and leprosy.
You have an inaccurate view of the world if you think the bottom 25% of humans ever had any real assurance life was going to get better rather than worse. Making moral judgements on them is an easy way to sound naive. For example you're implying African slaves in the Americas were "bad people"(your words) because they had children despite knowing their children would be enslaved. It's incredibly simplistic to think that anyone ever had that kind of assurance except for the very most privileged in society. We're not in a wholly novel situation, we're returning to the uncertainty that our ancestors had to deal with. Forever chemicals and microplastics are a new poison, and one I really am concerned about to tell you the truth, but poison itself isn't new.
And you're just as ethically required to commit suicide as you are to not have kids-- they both are means to lower the anguish in the world. How can only be ethically required to care about my kids possible pain, but simultaneously not required to care about about the billions of working class around the world working their fingers to their bones mining our lithium and making our food and goods, for pennies a day, just to survive? The lithium batteries in our phones that were using to discuss this, are a testament to the way we are engaged in this awful system. I don't know why one humans anguish is acceptable to be a part of while another unborn humans anguish would be a moral sin. Either contributing to the pain and blood inherent in the system is bad, or its okay. It doesn't really matter whose kids are suffering, in the grand picture of morality-- you owe the same moral duty to do no harm to the kids other people created as you owe to your potential kids
As shitty as it is going to be for us, we'll adapt and survive.