this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
175 points (96.3% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2310 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This rule is actually "an order of magnitude best estimate", which means it's more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

"When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom," explains Pierce.

"We've done that here too and it still doesn't look good."

Translation: 10 billion people will die.

2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

My wild ass guess is humanity will eventually die back to, at best, bronze age population levels.

[–] cerevant@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nature knows how to solve this problem.

[–] Skies5394@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This issue is that nature is going to start with the people who contribute the least to the issue.

If only the people contributing the most could actually feel the pressure.

[–] AccmRazr@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

And those who contribute the least to this issue are also likely the ones who want it fixed the most.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Nature is already working on it and ramping things up.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

By resetting earth. I wonder what species will wander the lands and waters in millions of years...

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm thinking the Octopuses finally take over if they survive the warming oceans.

[–] Munisk@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Probably cockroaches, I've seen the film

[–] magnetosphere@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.

[–] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Automation replaces manual works, AI replaces intellectual ones. No need for cheap labor in the short term.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Robots cost money. Sweatshop slaves work for food.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Robots don't sleep. They don't get sick. They don't have federally mandates days off. They don't commit self delete via rooftop if you overwork them. If you can be replaced by something that can do your job at 10% the speed for 1% the total cost, you will be. Such is the way of capitalist automation.

[–] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago

There are some real disgusting people here. Anyone who thinks that the solution to climate change is to kill a lot of humans should consider going first.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

I wish I could be an optimist, too.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

And with your help we can make sure that that number includes those that need to die.

[–] malloc@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.

Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out

[–] magnetosphere@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.

In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.

In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.

Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"1 billion people on track to die"... I guess we're doing an empirical test of the trolley problem.

We have a choice between inconveniencing some people (especially some very rich people); vs saving billions of lives by switching tracks. And apparently the empirical choice is to equivocate and delay so that we stay on the path of death and ruin. ... It isn't the solution I would have chosen personally.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Titan sub vs 300+ refugees in the med.

[–] catreadingabook@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"... over the next century," continues the article after the catchy headline.

Not that people dying is a good thing, but I was kind of hoping they'd be people alive right now. If 1/8th of the world treated climate change like it was personally going to kill them, we might still have a chance of turning things around. (As a bonus, can oil giants really keep their execs safe from 1 in 8 highly motivated people?)

[–] Hank@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It kills the poor. Noone care about that, not even the poor as they won't be informed enough to know what's going on.

[–] mochi@lemdit.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Definitely, because poor people don't watch the news and can't read.

[–] Hank@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Half the people in industrial countries barely grasp the seriousness of the situation so what do you expect from a farmer in Africa who thinks witchcraft is real?

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It doesn't need to kill them to completely disrupt social order. There's an estimate out there that there will be up to 1 billion climate refugees by 2050. The Global North already does not handle refugees as well, even though they consistently cause a large amount of the refugee problems.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

A century isn't that long and 1 billion people is a huge portion of the global populace.