Animal melting pot created by climate change could lead to new disease outbreaks(science.org)
science.org
Animal melting pot created by climate change could lead to new disease outbreaks
https://www.science.org/content/article/animal-melting-pot-created-climate-change-could-lead-new-disease-outbreaks
90 comments
People pushing extreme and divisive politics and religious beliefs are more likely to get votes when people are frightened and under stress. Unfortunate but true.
[deleted]
Or, perhaps, we should stop doing gain of function research in the same way like we are nit doing human cloning research?
Gain of function research is very important in that you get to see how a pathogen behaves. From this you can formulate a plan/vaccines/treatment etc. It is too difficult to infer from what is already known. You just gotta be careful.
I am disturbed and worried by the infectious disease alarmism that the 21st century's safetyism has metastasized into.
Agreed, Corona has made us hyper sensitive to fears of illness. I hope this blows over.
For example monkeypox does not have the potential to have even close to an impact like Corona to the population and health system. Simply because most people are not promiscuous. Fears that it will involve to something spreading significantly beyond sexual encounters are unfounded at present. Edit: Like I said: significantly. I know it can spread in other ways but it's not doing so at levels which are harmful to society as a whole.
And I'm not saying it's just an LGBTIQ+ thing either, like most of the media are doing now. But it does spread mostly through sex right now which eliminates it as a risk for most of the population (being monogamous) and thus as the possibility of completely stopping society like Covid did (and i'm saying that as a person who is not monogamous)
I'm not saying it's harmless and yes we have to fight it but it's not another covid.
Illness is a risk and one that we can't ban completely. We just have to deal with it, and it's not worth completely throwing our lives around to have a minor effect on that risk.
For example monkeypox does not have the potential to have even close to an impact like Corona to the population and health system. Simply because most people are not promiscuous. Fears that it will involve to something spreading significantly beyond sexual encounters are unfounded at present. Edit: Like I said: significantly. I know it can spread in other ways but it's not doing so at levels which are harmful to society as a whole.
And I'm not saying it's just an LGBTIQ+ thing either, like most of the media are doing now. But it does spread mostly through sex right now which eliminates it as a risk for most of the population (being monogamous) and thus as the possibility of completely stopping society like Covid did (and i'm saying that as a person who is not monogamous)
I'm not saying it's harmless and yes we have to fight it but it's not another covid.
Illness is a risk and one that we can't ban completely. We just have to deal with it, and it's not worth completely throwing our lives around to have a minor effect on that risk.
> Monkeypox can spread to anyone through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact, including:
> - Direct contact with monkeypox rash, scabs, or body fluids from a person with monkeypox.
> - Touching objects, fabrics (clothing, bedding, or towels), and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox.
> - Contact with respiratory secretions.
https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/transmission.html
> - Direct contact with monkeypox rash, scabs, or body fluids from a person with monkeypox.
> - Touching objects, fabrics (clothing, bedding, or towels), and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox.
> - Contact with respiratory secretions.
https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/transmission.html
It can yes but it does not do so significantly, that's the difference.
Its current patterns show it's not spreading that way at levels that could be harmful to society.
Its current patterns show it's not spreading that way at levels that could be harmful to society.
And yet if you look at the number of cases separated by sexes, it paints a whole different picture.
That might be skewed due to testing practices, lots of places will only test you if you're a homosexual or bisexual male.
African monkeypox cases, for example, are not concentrated among gay men. 60% of the affected are men and 40% are women:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
African monkeypox cases, for example, are not concentrated among gay men. 60% of the affected are men and 40% are women:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
I doubt that it's a testing thing. Very few cases are asymptomatic and the disease gives a really painful rash. It is very unlikely to pass unnoticed.
I do agree that it's not just gay men. I'm sure it will/has already spread to swinger clubs etc. But I do think it is related to promiscuity in general, meaning most of the population will not be affected. The cases originating from non-sexual interaction are a really small minority.
I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views. A man who is promiscuous is viewed a as a 'cool go-getter'. A promiscuous woman is viewed as a 'slut' (Note: I don't agree with that!!). So it's just more common in men at first.
I do agree that it's not just gay men. I'm sure it will/has already spread to swinger clubs etc. But I do think it is related to promiscuity in general, meaning most of the population will not be affected. The cases originating from non-sexual interaction are a really small minority.
I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views. A man who is promiscuous is viewed a as a 'cool go-getter'. A promiscuous woman is viewed as a 'slut' (Note: I don't agree with that!!). So it's just more common in men at first.
>I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views. A man who is promiscuous is viewed a as a 'cool go-getter'. A promiscuous woman is viewed as a 'slut' (Note: I don't agree with that!!). So it's just more common in men at first.
So women are immune? This theory makes no sense.
So women are immune? This theory makes no sense.
Absolutely not.
I'm just saying they are less likely to engage in this kind of activity due to societal stigma, so it will appear in lower numbers and later for them.
I'm just saying they are less likely to engage in this kind of activity due to societal stigma, so it will appear in lower numbers and later for them.
But the men if they are not homosexual must be having sex with women, right? Have you seen the proportions? Because this is not a 2:1 kind of thing.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Your theory is that a few select women are massive whores?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Your theory is that a few select women are massive whores?
> Your theory is that a few select women are massive whores?
You keep putting words in my mouth. And furthering the stigma I'm arguing against.
I will not continue discussing in this thread.
You keep putting words in my mouth. And furthering the stigma I'm arguing against.
I will not continue discussing in this thread.
> I doubt that it's a testing thing. Very few cases are asymptomatic and the disease gives a really painful rash. It is very unlikely to pass unnoticed.
It does not matter, testing capability was – still is? – quite limited and if you didn't belong to an at-risk group, test sites would just send you home.
It does not matter, testing capability was – still is? – quite limited and if you didn't belong to an at-risk group, test sites would just send you home.
>I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views.
Those same societal views make it so women are more likely to underreport their number of sex partners, whereas men are more likely to overreport. Even without taking that into account, the numbers are not that different, with men having more extremely outliers (more zeroes, more super high counts).
The social stigma hasn't been relevant for decades beyond muddying self-reports.
Those same societal views make it so women are more likely to underreport their number of sex partners, whereas men are more likely to overreport. Even without taking that into account, the numbers are not that different, with men having more extremely outliers (more zeroes, more super high counts).
The social stigma hasn't been relevant for decades beyond muddying self-reports.
Bit of a nitpick, but it was not Corona which conducted a psychological operation against the global population, it was people.
Unless promiscuity has gone way way up in recent years, it seems like something else might be going on. There have been previous outbreaks of monkeypox outside of Africa, including in the US about 20 years ago. They all pretty rapidly petered out.
Why is this one different?
Why is this one different?
Because this one spreads more though sexual contact. It's already been confirmed this is not the same variant that made it out of Africa before.
It appears as alarmism until the evolutionary dice roll lands on "Ebola-like severity with Covid-like infectiousness". Some prudent concern and hard thinking being applied to unpredictable tail risks isn't alarmism.
>Some prudent concern and hard thinking being applied to unpredictable tail risks isn't alarmism.
That is fine as long as same is applied when it does not suit the $uits.
That is fine as long as same is applied when it does not suit the $uits.
I think if that happened you'd see people actually taking it seriously.
We definitely would be, but there's also pandemic preparedness which can be worked on now.
This isn't a far-fetched as you might think. This damned virus seems to mutate at an alarmingly fast rate.
Which happened with the Spanish Flu. There was a mutation that made it more deadly for young people.
Such concerns also apply in the abstract to some unknown future virus which may work via a different mechanism to Covid and be capable of something far worse in terms of mortality*infectiousness.
Such concerns also apply in the abstract to some unknown future virus which may work via a different mechanism to Covid and be capable of something far worse in terms of mortality*infectiousness.
Honest question: what is worrying to you? Is it the idea that infectious disease being used as the pretext to create an environment of fear and compliance, such some unwanted social transformation which is actually predicated on ulterior motives can proceed over objections? Is it the idea that people overestimate the degree of control people can actually exert over these diseases, leading to hubristic reactions? Do you object to being alarmed about infectious disease as such?
You were likely similarly disturbed by the climate alarmism in the 90s, 00s, 10s, still right now?
There is something between panic mode and ignore it..
There is something between panic mode and ignore it..
Yep. It all started with the ozone hole alarmism.
I remember acid rain coming before the ozone hole problems.
So long as multinational corporate media controls the messaging, you can expect the fear porn to effectively control the masses. Hitler's Mein Kampf should be taught in school (or perhaps The Myth of the Twentieth Century), as the means by which "the people" can be influenced and their perception of reality guided are still used today.
Agreed.
What most people talking about corporate media and "fear porn" (eyeballs for advertising) fail the mention though is that there's also a ton of independent "fear porn" (fear of government, fear or corporate media, etc.) produced under the guise of anti-corporate or anti-government or anti-random-thing. Meanwhile they're all getting paid by our advertising overlords.
Getting rid of corporate media doesn't suddenly solve this problem. The alarmist torch will continue to burn bright because of advertising.
What most people talking about corporate media and "fear porn" (eyeballs for advertising) fail the mention though is that there's also a ton of independent "fear porn" (fear of government, fear or corporate media, etc.) produced under the guise of anti-corporate or anti-government or anti-random-thing. Meanwhile they're all getting paid by our advertising overlords.
Getting rid of corporate media doesn't suddenly solve this problem. The alarmist torch will continue to burn bright because of advertising.
And don't forget to add the potential risk for long dormant Anthrax and other virus strains to reemerge due to the thawing tundras (along with methane pockets).
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-climate-expose-epidemics.html
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-climate-expose-epidemics.html
Reminder: the biggest source of new diseases is animal farming.
Especially in countries that allow massive use of antibiotics. (like the US)
Especially in countries that allow massive use of antibiotics. (like the US)
> Reminder: the biggest source of new diseases is animal farming. Especially in countries that allow massive use of antibiotics.
Reminder, this is obviously false.
Animal trade, human travel and commerce, alien species, exotic pets, exotic wildfood ... are much, much, much worse.
The only animal diseases that we had studied seriously and extensively are:
1) Human diseases
2) Diseases of pets. Canine and feline diseases
3) Diseases of human food. Poultry and cattle, and some fishes.
We farm since 3000 years or so and have spent huge resources into researching each disease of cattle. Anything hidden in cattle that could affect human has affected us since 1000 years ago and is definitely not new. A farm would be the last place to look for a lot of new diseases.
Reminder, this is obviously false.
Animal trade, human travel and commerce, alien species, exotic pets, exotic wildfood ... are much, much, much worse.
The only animal diseases that we had studied seriously and extensively are:
1) Human diseases
2) Diseases of pets. Canine and feline diseases
3) Diseases of human food. Poultry and cattle, and some fishes.
We farm since 3000 years or so and have spent huge resources into researching each disease of cattle. Anything hidden in cattle that could affect human has affected us since 1000 years ago and is definitely not new. A farm would be the last place to look for a lot of new diseases.
> the biggest source of new diseases is animal farming.
There was a study(I don’t have a link handy) on microbiota in Neanderthal dental plaque. You’d be surprised, but pathogens existed even before farming.
There was a study(I don’t have a link handy) on microbiota in Neanderthal dental plaque. You’d be surprised, but pathogens existed even before farming.
> You’d be surprised, but pathogens existed even before farming.
Yet if you look at recent papers from microbiologists and virologists you'll find that the field experts are very concerned at the rapid evolution of antibiotic resistant pathogens linked to the widespread use of antibiotics in animal farming.
There is a whole field of research on the topic, not just a paper or two, and they've been sounding the alarm for almost a decade.
But of course, leave it to the HNers to handwave the whole problem away.
EDIT: the FDA is "well aware" and still has some of the most lax regulations amongst developed countries since decades...
Yet if you look at recent papers from microbiologists and virologists you'll find that the field experts are very concerned at the rapid evolution of antibiotic resistant pathogens linked to the widespread use of antibiotics in animal farming.
There is a whole field of research on the topic, not just a paper or two, and they've been sounding the alarm for almost a decade.
But of course, leave it to the HNers to handwave the whole problem away.
EDIT: the FDA is "well aware" and still has some of the most lax regulations amongst developed countries since decades...
The FDA is well aware of antibiotic resistance due to overuse in livestock and is taking steps to mitigate the issue.
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/antimicr...
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/antimicr...
Yes, but is it the “biggest” sort of antibiotic resistance?
If Covid-19 was a trial run we are in very big trouble. Already it seems that we've given up trying to control the spread of it, and I think the damage done to public trust over the past 2-3 years will make it extremely difficult to try non-pharmaceutical preventions again. We may end up just not reporting on it, and adopt the Trumpian method of pandemic management
Personally I think the Covid-19 was handled much better by the western world.
Look at how China is doing right now. Their population has almost no exposure to the virus, meaning every outbreak is still significant like it was for us in the early days.
We've moved beyond that where it's now a fact of life and no longer hampering us or saturating the health system. We have enough natural defenses along with the vaccines to give us adequate protection and we can live our lives again. We do control but it's on the health system impact, not the spread of the virus as such. And letting our immune system do the job it evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to do, supplemented by vaccines when necessary is really working out well for us.
Meanwhile China is stuck in a groundhog day loop of zero-covid policy that is really harming their society. I think in the western world we've handled it really well, we've accepted the inevitable and dealt with it in a way that had the least impact on society. Our focus on balancing freedom with prevention has really worked out well.
I do think a zero-covid policy could have worked but it would have been in February/March 2020 when total containment was still on the cards. In April/May when it spread to the entire world we were already past that point. At that point 'living with it with the least impact' became the only possible option.
I'm not a Trump follower at all but in Europe we have essentially adopted the same policy as the US did without the ridiculous misinformation of injecting bleach etc :P
Look at how China is doing right now. Their population has almost no exposure to the virus, meaning every outbreak is still significant like it was for us in the early days.
We've moved beyond that where it's now a fact of life and no longer hampering us or saturating the health system. We have enough natural defenses along with the vaccines to give us adequate protection and we can live our lives again. We do control but it's on the health system impact, not the spread of the virus as such. And letting our immune system do the job it evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to do, supplemented by vaccines when necessary is really working out well for us.
Meanwhile China is stuck in a groundhog day loop of zero-covid policy that is really harming their society. I think in the western world we've handled it really well, we've accepted the inevitable and dealt with it in a way that had the least impact on society. Our focus on balancing freedom with prevention has really worked out well.
I do think a zero-covid policy could have worked but it would have been in February/March 2020 when total containment was still on the cards. In April/May when it spread to the entire world we were already past that point. At that point 'living with it with the least impact' became the only possible option.
I'm not a Trump follower at all but in Europe we have essentially adopted the same policy as the US did without the ridiculous misinformation of injecting bleach etc :P
Their official numbers are 5k deaths in 2 years. Are we seriously believing in any official number coming from them?
I think there’re much better ways to reason about it rather than “hurr durr China government lies”. It’s not something you believe or don’t, we’re not talking about god. Just put forward a hypothesis based on data for how many deaths there should be there.
> “hurr durr"
Tangent-- nowadays, why is it not okay to use the word retarded, but still okay to perform the same "imitations" of mentally disabled people? The latter just feels much more mean-spirited to me.
Tangent-- nowadays, why is it not okay to use the word retarded, but still okay to perform the same "imitations" of mentally disabled people? The latter just feels much more mean-spirited to me.
I also use the word “retarded” without reservations, so can’t answer. To me it has nothing to do with clinically ill people. Rather, those who are retarded by choice.
There is no point in trying to control the spread of it any more. At this point the majority of people have already been exposed. Control was never a feasible goal in open societies.
could?
nope... will. This is not a new and unexpected idea
nope... will. This is not a new and unexpected idea
That COVID-19 is new in humans, is incredibly fast spreading, evades both vaccines and tests worries me. Now it just needs to pick up some genes that can cause it to be more deadly and we are in a lot more trouble.
Did a postgrad degree in Mol Bio a while back, and I cannot think of any reason why this virus has/will not pick up genes that would increase its pathogenicity.
Did a postgrad degree in Mol Bio a while back, and I cannot think of any reason why this virus has/will not pick up genes that would increase its pathogenicity.
> Did a postgrad degree in Mol Bio a while back, and I cannot think of any reason why this virus has/will not pick up genes that would increase its pathogenicity.
Yeah. We've been lucky so far, comparatively speaking. It's insanity to insist on unmitigated rolling of the dice, though.
Yeah. We've been lucky so far, comparatively speaking. It's insanity to insist on unmitigated rolling of the dice, though.
> evades both vaccines
How so? Vaccines generate a good T cell response.
How so? Vaccines generate a good T cell response.
Something very important that I didn't mention in my post - the virus mutates very quickly and each of the major variants seems to evade the vaccine of the last major variant.
Here in Australia I will be going to get my 4th shot in a few weeks. I only get one 'flu shot a year though in comparison, and I got MMR decades ago.
Here in Australia I will be going to get my 4th shot in a few weeks. I only get one 'flu shot a year though in comparison, and I got MMR decades ago.
> each of the major variants seems to evade the vaccine of the last major variant
I think that COVID vaccines aren’t variant-specific.
I think that COVID vaccines aren’t variant-specific.
When will this torrent of panic porn related to 'climate' let off? Probably only when there is a more immediate, more tangible, more real threat to write about - war, famine, pestilence and death come to mind and all seem to be champing at the bit to be let free. It is not as if the climate has been static during the evolution of Homo Sapiens and still we made it through, through the Roman and Viking warm periods, through the little ice age, through the volcanic winters of Tambora and Krakatoa, through the several plague epidemics, through the decimation of the population due to several famines, through the most recent glaciation and through the massive changes caused by the industrial revolution and - lo and behold - through the more intense warm period of the 1930's which (together with certain agricultural practices) gave rise to the Dust Bowl in the USA.
Earth will abide. Mankind will abide. The climate will keep changing as it has always done. Some areas will become more amenable to agriculture, others will become less so. The planet will become greener due to the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and later it will become more barren when the carbon dioxide content goes down again as it has done countless times already.
Earth will abide. Mankind will abide. The climate will keep changing as it has always done. Some areas will become more amenable to agriculture, others will become less so. The planet will become greener due to the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and later it will become more barren when the carbon dioxide content goes down again as it has done countless times already.
I hear statements like this and I think about the Y2K problem. So many developers crunched ridiculous hours to fix all the bugs that were very real and would have had very real consequences. Miraculously, they managed to fix most of the severe issues so the world didn't suffer any serious damages. The aftermath was unbearable though, with all the "skeptics" gloating as they felt vindicated. "See, it was all a big hoax!" It wasn't, of course, but those people will never know otherwise.
Now, the annoying part here is that this is the best case scenario for the climate as well. If mankind does in fact manage to turn around this massive force, people like you will simply be gloating and claiming that there was nothing to worry about in the first place.
Now, the annoying part here is that this is the best case scenario for the climate as well. If mankind does in fact manage to turn around this massive force, people like you will simply be gloating and claiming that there was nothing to worry about in the first place.
What’s the name for this phenomenon where the greater the success, the less it’s appreciated?
“Sysadmin”
In the USA it is called the IRS, here in Sweden we call it Skatteverket, in the Netherlands it would be 'de belastingdienst'.
Maybe 'its effect is understood, noticed and valued' is closer to my intention than 'appreciated'. As appreciation of something that is despised quickly hits a floor, it loses it's correlation, but not to the depth of its sarcastic potential as you've duly exploited.
The reason this gets so much attention because it's hot to give as much drama to climate changes as possible.
It's speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation.
There are much bigger impacts than climate change on disease development, yet these hardly get the same attention.
It's speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation.
There are much bigger impacts than climate change on disease development, yet these hardly get the same attention.
The point is that a lot of the Y2K doomsday predictions were completely insane and wouldn't have come to pass even if no work were done to fix anything.
I agree that climate change is not an (human) extinction event like many people try to frame it.
And yes climate change is a constant in history. However what is new is significant change in the timescale of a human life. Meaning we won't adapt gratefully as a society. Previously cities becoming uninhabitable would be abandoned slowly over the course of centuries.
Now we will have a situation where a significant portion of the population will have to move in their lifetime. That's the kind of stuff that causes hostility and wars. And given how good we've become at mass-killing humans, that is a frightening prospect.
And yes climate change is a constant in history. However what is new is significant change in the timescale of a human life. Meaning we won't adapt gratefully as a society. Previously cities becoming uninhabitable would be abandoned slowly over the course of centuries.
Now we will have a situation where a significant portion of the population will have to move in their lifetime. That's the kind of stuff that causes hostility and wars. And given how good we've become at mass-killing humans, that is a frightening prospect.
Uhm, there is an extinction event happening right now, and it is caused by human activity, partially by CO2 emissions. That's not just something people are saying, it's the scientific consensus.
None of the scientists say we'll be extinct.
Some areas will become uninhabitable. Others will become more habitable. Humanity won't go extinct.
Some other species will yes, but that was not what I meant. And we've made species extinct long before the industrial age :( I should have elaborated.
Some areas will become uninhabitable. Others will become more habitable. Humanity won't go extinct.
Some other species will yes, but that was not what I meant. And we've made species extinct long before the industrial age :( I should have elaborated.
Right. In biology, an extinction event is typically defined as a period with an increased overall rate of extinctions, irrespective of any one species. So that was the source of the confusion.
Have you ever played the factory building game "Factorio"?
It's an amazing lesson in scale. In the early game, it's pretty easy to recover from supply chain issues and refactor your setup to adjust to your growth needs and expansion across the land. Once you reach mid to late game, and something goes wrong, your whole factory starts to grind to halt as you try to diagnose where in the whole system things have clogged up, you need to measure and monitor throughput to make sure you are producing the materials needed for consumption by other machines at a rate that is sustainable. Refactoring at this point really means shutting most of it down and building from the ground up again.
Kind of like humanity 100s & 1000s of years ago. Most of life was localized, food, raw materials. We were not over fishing the seas or pushing the soils to the limit. The scale of humanity now, is such that all the supply chains, food and resource requirements depend on such a plethora of things running as they have been, uninterrupted (gas, food, water supplies, raw materials, spare parts).
That is why this argument about "climate disasters in the past" really never made sense to me. This is an entirely different game.
And yes, "humanity" may survive. But just like the factory that stops working that needs to be largely deconstructed and re-built, a lot of people will be unnecessarily plunged into hardship, famine and probably death. Economies and societies will be affected in ways we really can't imagine.
The question then is, what will humanity and society look like after? And what will our successors and future generations think of their ancestors who had the time, knowledge and the technology to ease or circumvent their suffering.
It's an amazing lesson in scale. In the early game, it's pretty easy to recover from supply chain issues and refactor your setup to adjust to your growth needs and expansion across the land. Once you reach mid to late game, and something goes wrong, your whole factory starts to grind to halt as you try to diagnose where in the whole system things have clogged up, you need to measure and monitor throughput to make sure you are producing the materials needed for consumption by other machines at a rate that is sustainable. Refactoring at this point really means shutting most of it down and building from the ground up again.
Kind of like humanity 100s & 1000s of years ago. Most of life was localized, food, raw materials. We were not over fishing the seas or pushing the soils to the limit. The scale of humanity now, is such that all the supply chains, food and resource requirements depend on such a plethora of things running as they have been, uninterrupted (gas, food, water supplies, raw materials, spare parts).
That is why this argument about "climate disasters in the past" really never made sense to me. This is an entirely different game.
And yes, "humanity" may survive. But just like the factory that stops working that needs to be largely deconstructed and re-built, a lot of people will be unnecessarily plunged into hardship, famine and probably death. Economies and societies will be affected in ways we really can't imagine.
The question then is, what will humanity and society look like after? And what will our successors and future generations think of their ancestors who had the time, knowledge and the technology to ease or circumvent their suffering.
> still we made it through, through the Roman and Viking warm periods
Yes, but not 8 billion of us living in vast cities with 80+ year life expectancies.
Are you prepared to live like a viking again?
Yes, but not 8 billion of us living in vast cities with 80+ year life expectancies.
Are you prepared to live like a viking again?
Well, seeing as how I live on a 17th century farm in the Swedish countryside, heating the home with two wood-burning stoves and cooking on the same... Also, during the Viking age wine was made in Sweden. Greenland was called 'Greenland' because it was in actuality more green than it is now. When the warm period came to an end the settlements on Greenland were mostly abandoned, there were no more wine harvests in Sweden and eventually the world settled into the 'little ice age'.
Realise also that cold weather kills far more people than warm weather does [1]:
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. (source: The Lancet)
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.h...
Realise also that cold weather kills far more people than warm weather does [1]:
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. (source: The Lancet)
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.h...
Yes, you are very lucky to live unbothered in a nice farm in an ideal place that with warmer climates will become even better agriculturally.
Now, I don't know if you've noticed, but the world is not entirely made up if rural Sweden
Now, I don't know if you've noticed, but the world is not entirely made up if rural Sweden
Of course I noticed. I noticed that the world has become a lot greener due to the increased CO₂ content in the atmosphere [1,2] which used to be seen as a good thing but somehow now is presented as a problem [3]. From Malthus to Gore, from the Silent Spring to Extinction Rebellion, eschatologists have been around for a long, very long time yet... Earth abides. Mankind abides.
[1] https://blog.creaf.cat/en/noticies-en/the-world-has-become-g...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says...
[3] https://grist.org/climate-energy/earth-is-getting-greener-he...
[1] https://blog.creaf.cat/en/noticies-en/the-world-has-become-g...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says...
[3] https://grist.org/climate-energy/earth-is-getting-greener-he...
You are strawmanning an opinion about a single metric.
Sure, molds are great for the environment! Molds in your lunchbox? not so much. You have built a whole narrative out of sparsely collected news pieces on a single issue.
Sure, molds are great for the environment! Molds in your lunchbox? not so much. You have built a whole narrative out of sparsely collected news pieces on a single issue.
Green is good for the environment because the plants absorb the CO2. You have cause and effect backwards.
Not to mention, you neglect the waves of climate refugees who will be on your farm's land as soon as their not-Sweden cannot produce the crops that your land provides.
Not to mention, you neglect the waves of climate refugees who will be on your farm's land as soon as their not-Sweden cannot produce the crops that your land provides.
1. How many people live in cold weather areas like rural Sweden?
2. How many live in warm weather areas like rural Bangladesh?
2. How many live in warm weather areas like rural Bangladesh?
> Probably only when there is a more immediate, more tangible, more real threat to write about - war, famine, pestilence and death come to mind and all seem to be champing at the bit to be let free.
And at that point, it will be far too late. Hell just look at France, Italy and Germany right now - France has had to cut output of their few remaining reactors that are not broken down because the rivers are too dry and hot to supply adequate cooling water, Germany's Rhine is almost incapable of letting ships float, meaning that the country's most important freight waterway is at 25% capacity and soon none at all, and in Italy the agricultural sector faces never-seen-before bad harvests due to the drought which is the hardest since 1800 [1] when the measurement of weather began.
We are already in the catastrophic scenario, we can only hope and act to make it not worse than it already is - but without panic there won't be any change!
[1] https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/das-schlaraffenland-verdurstet-...
And at that point, it will be far too late. Hell just look at France, Italy and Germany right now - France has had to cut output of their few remaining reactors that are not broken down because the rivers are too dry and hot to supply adequate cooling water, Germany's Rhine is almost incapable of letting ships float, meaning that the country's most important freight waterway is at 25% capacity and soon none at all, and in Italy the agricultural sector faces never-seen-before bad harvests due to the drought which is the hardest since 1800 [1] when the measurement of weather began.
We are already in the catastrophic scenario, we can only hope and act to make it not worse than it already is - but without panic there won't be any change!
[1] https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/das-schlaraffenland-verdurstet-...
[deleted]
These comments always remind me, that 'Don't look up' really did capture human ignorance pretty accurately.
> still we made it through, through the Roman and Viking warm periods, through the little ice age, through the volcanic winters of Tambora and Krakatoa, through the several plague epidemics, [etc etc etc]
I mean, humanity made it through. No-one is realistically concerned that global warming is going to entirely wipe out humanity. A lot of _people_ didn't make it through, though.
I mean, humanity made it through. No-one is realistically concerned that global warming is going to entirely wipe out humanity. A lot of _people_ didn't make it through, though.
Remember, “nothing will be the same as before” or “this is the new normal”, all things that turned out to be false but which were uttered relentlessly as the pandemic was starting. I’m blaming it on the good old Apocalyptic spirit that we’ve experienced since at least the Middle Ages, in the case of Global Warming we’ve even got our own Jeanne d’Arc in the person of Greta Thunberg.
Happens every summer
To me it feels like a big grasp for meaning for many of the climate activists.
Without religion or kids giving a reason to live, mostly living for oneself is very depressive. (I know also people with kids do this)
Having a goal higher than yourself, especially that is of the highest moral purpose is very liberating.
It comes at a cost though, reason goes out of the window.
This doesn't mean there aren't real concern, but yeah the world is not ending.
Without religion or kids giving a reason to live, mostly living for oneself is very depressive. (I know also people with kids do this)
Having a goal higher than yourself, especially that is of the highest moral purpose is very liberating.
It comes at a cost though, reason goes out of the window.
This doesn't mean there aren't real concern, but yeah the world is not ending.
I question your premises:
Why do you think all climate activists do not practice religion?
Why do you think fighting for the environment is not part of a moral purpose?
Why do you think climate activists lack a sense of meaning?
Why do you think all climate activists do not practice religion?
Why do you think fighting for the environment is not part of a moral purpose?
Why do you think climate activists lack a sense of meaning?
Because we all do.
The part about carbon credits is financial engineering that inverts the incentives and the political resolve of most economically lagging regions of the world (the most polluting ones) to do anything about the above - because it is political and religious. Religious as in focused on redistributing resources based on beliefs - akin to buying away your sin in Catholicism, and political when it is ignoring the fact that a lot of climate regulation in developed world simply outsources the dirty work to the undeveloped/developing world for the lower cost of production, thus not actually helping the planet. Or that politicians of both camps are heavily backed by the two dominant energy production camps and reliably fund whoever is backing them with regulation instead of building engineering solutions to mitigate the wider range of risks for people.
The world needs low cost ways to move housing, redirect water, feed people, provide energy, find and plan for regions at risk, identify and contain outbreaks, all engineering and social problems, as soon as physically possible. The religious and political fights that are happening instead make all of that less possible and even impossible when it shouldn’t be. The short term thinking is leading to politicians pulling the rug on a still not completely outlined problem in their own favor, instead of preparing 8 billion people for resilience and education to re-architect us into a better position for survival in the face of change.
People with the technical understanding of what is needed need to run for office and communicate what is needed to the world.