Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 14 2019, @11:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-end-is-near dept.

On our current trajectory, the report warns, "planetary and human systems [are] reaching a 'point of no return' by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order."

The only way to avoid the risks of this scenario is what the report describes as "akin in scale to the World War II emergency mobilization"—but this time focused on rapidly building out a zero-emissions industrial system to set in train the restoration of a safe climate.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 15 2019, @09:03AM (13 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday June 15 2019, @09:03AM (#855944) Homepage Journal

    Limits To Growth is known as a TOTAL AND COMPLETE CON. An absolute Crock. They said, "oh no, we'll run out of Gold by 1981." WRONG! I built Trump Tower in 1983 (started '79) and I put in gold everything. From the Marquis to the T.P. holders -- NO PROBLEM. And even today, I have no problems getting the gold. Zero. Because I have the money!!!!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Redundant=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:27AM (12 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:27AM (#855953)

    Anyone positing growth limits on the basis of resource starvation doesn't get it. The actual limit is energy - at worst, you have to recycle everything, and use a lot of energy in doing so. Unfortunately, the planet is blessed with relatively easy access to more energy that we can currently make use of - oil isn't drilled out yet, there is still a lot of coal in the ground, we are already exploiting shale, and the Athabasca Tar Sands are available, plus all the wind and solar you can use, not to mention nuclear energy: when the chips are down, fast breeder reactors make better use of uranium reserves than current processes.
    Burning fossil fuels is not good for the environment, for many reasons, but current practices can carry on for way beyond 2050. Yes, ecosystems will be destroyed, and coastal cities will be inundated - in fact, entire countries will go underwater, and we are not talking about just minor island states - but none of this is a killing blow to the current approach of energy and resource use. I can see automated machine gun posts and minefields being set up along borders to prevent mass migration due to flooding. The haves will ruthlessly suppress the have nots to maintain their relative advantages.
    The end game is when China and Russia run out of food and use their nukes to provide a migration pathway for their populations. Eurasia and Africa will eventually have a Han Chinese majority population.
    [I'm grumpy and cynical pessimistic today. Having a cold doesn't do much for my mood]

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:24PM (2 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:24PM (#855972) Journal

      The end game is when China and Russia run out of food and use their nukes to provide a migration pathway for their populations. Eurasia and Africa will eventually have a Han Chinese majority population.

      Let's not panic yet. First, the idea that Russia is full of teeming hordes of communists is quite outdated. Today Russia, the largest country on Earth by area, has 144 million people, or less than half the population of the United States.

      Second, China has 1.4 billion people but they are heavily concentrated in about 1/3 of its territory in the East and South; the North, West, and Southwest (Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, Tibet, Yunnan, etc) are practically empty. China's the third largest country in the world, so that's a lot of territory that could accommodate a lot more Chinese. In fact their overall population density puts them at 81st in the world.

      Third, if the Chinese felt like they did need more room then Eastern Siberia is where they'd go, not Europe or the Middle East.

      Fourth, India and Pakistan (and Russia, let's not forget) have nuclear weapons too, so they'd probably have something to say about Chinese territorial expansion at their expense.

      Fifth, Siberia is really huge and really empty. All those aforementioned could nuke each other silly and still have giant tracts of non-radioactive land to inhabit.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:42PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:42PM (#855979) Journal

        Climate change global warming could make Siberia and Canada into prime real estate. Warmer temperatures, lots of water, better agriculture. More bikinis. Could kill Pleistocene Park though.

        Russia is currently very stagnant. China is projected to have population decline to 1 billion or less, due to the lingering effects of the One/Two child policies, demographics, and the trend of birth rates absolutely plummeting in the developed East Asian countries.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:46PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:46PM (#855996) Journal

          I've always harbored a fantasy of living in Kamchatka [thinkingnomads.com]. Rendering it a bit more clement would be fine by me.

          Siberia [wordpress.com]'s no slouch either. It would not be such a bad thing if we all went to live there.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:57PM (8 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:57PM (#856009) Journal

      Unfortunately, the planet is blessed with relatively easy access to more energy that we can currently make use of

      "Unfortunately". Well, why not just burn the bad energy sources while they're still in the ground? That way we get the best of both worlds, increases in pollution combined with zero human progress. Then we can hasten our progress towards the automated machine gun nirvana you want so much.

      The end game is when China and Russia run out of food and use their nukes to provide a migration pathway for their populations.

      Because? You do realize that a) we already would run out of food, if it weren't for our habit of making more food? And b) Russia's population is in decline while China's population growth has declined massively over the past few decades? Sure, they're polluting a lot at present, but they won't always be polluting a lot. Reality isn't following this exciting story.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:29PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:29PM (#856054)

        You ignore is the predictions of the children visionaries of Garabanal, something worse than a thousand earthquakes that will instill a fear like fire into the hearts of all believers and unbelievers is on the way: worldwide communism.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:20AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 17 2019, @03:20AM (#856476) Journal

          something worse than a thousand earthquakes that will instill a fear like fire into the hearts of all believers and unbelievers is on the way: worldwide communism.

          Which isn't saying much. For example, I live in an area that generates hundreds of barely detectable earthquakes each year. Sure, worldwide Communism would suck, but it's not going to happen in the next few generations. Capitalism and democracy are succeeding too well for that to happen.

      • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:41PM (5 children)

        by pTamok (3042) on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:41PM (#856056)

        Unfortunately, the planet is blessed with relatively easy access to more energy that we can currently make use of

        "Unfortunately". Well, why not just burn the bad energy sources while they're still in the ground? That way we get the best of both worlds, increases in pollution combined with zero human progress. Then we can hasten our progress towards the automated machine gun nirvana you want so much.

        The end game is when China and Russia run out of food and use their nukes to provide a migration pathway for their populations.

        Because? You do realize that a) we already would run out of food, if it weren't for our habit of making more food? And b) Russia's population is in decline while China's population growth has declined massively over the past few decades? Sure, they're polluting a lot at present, but they won't always be polluting a lot. Reality isn't following this exciting story.

        I don't actually want an 'automated machine-gun nirvana', I'm just not in a good mood right now. Probably shouldn't be posting.

        Yes, Russia's population is in decline, which is why I envisioned the end-game as being Eurasia and Africa having a Han Chinese majority. However, Russia still has a significant arsenal of workable nukes, and is unlikely to lie down quietly while the migration of hungry Chinese takes place. The Soviets were not confident of preventing a Chinese incursion in 1969: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict [wikipedia.org] , and I don't think the balance-of-power has improved much in the Russian's favour since then.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:14AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 17 2019, @03:14AM (#856470) Journal

          while the migration of hungry Chinese

          What hungry Chinese? Reality isn't following the narrative, remember?

          • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday June 17 2019, @04:46PM (3 children)

            by pTamok (3042) on Monday June 17 2019, @04:46PM (#856693)

            Well, if there are to be no hungry Chinese, one or both of two things needs to happen:

            1) The population needs to decrease* faster than anticipated agricultural losses due to climate change ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2017-07/28/content_30275360.htm [chinadaily.com.cn] )
            2) The Chinese government needs to abandon its policy of food self sufficiency and is able to buy food in from elsewhere.

            *Actually the total daily energy intake need of the Chinese population needs to remain below agricultural losses due to climate change. This is easier if the population decreases and/or yields are improved. For any given population, agricultural yield improvements needs to match any climate change losses. Obviously, climate change means some currently unproductive areas can be brought into production. Whether that gets you out of the 'Malthusian hole' is another matter.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @07:38PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 17 2019, @07:38PM (#856750) Journal

              The population needs to decrease* faster than anticipated agricultural losses due to climate change

              There are two things to remember with that. First agricultural losses are likely to be negative due to increased agriculture at higher latitudes combined with only a modest decline at near equatorial latitudes.

              Second, we would only need modest technological improvements (most which are already developed and merely need to be implemented in the developing world) to keep up with the residual population growth of the entire world.

              The Chinese government needs to abandon its policy of food self sufficiency and is able to buy food in from elsewhere.

              Which wouldn't be a hard problem should they choose to do so.

              • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday June 17 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)

                by pTamok (3042) on Monday June 17 2019, @08:50PM (#856792)

                The population needs to decrease* faster than anticipated agricultural losses due to climate change

                There are two things to remember with that. First agricultural losses are likely to be negative due to increased agriculture at higher latitudes combined with only a modest decline at near equatorial latitudes.

                Second, we would only need modest technological improvements (most which are already developed and merely need to be implemented in the developing world) to keep up with the residual population growth of the entire world.

                The Chinese government needs to abandon its policy of food self sufficiency and is able to buy food in from elsewhere.

                Which wouldn't be a hard problem should they choose to do so.

                On the agricultural losses, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I suspect climate change will affect agriculture profoundly in ways we do not suspect right now.

                On the food self-sufficiency, it's a funny thing, but getting people to change their mind when it is an ideological change can be rather difficult. However, you could well be right: as long as China maintains a massive trade surplus, it will have the cash to buy food. If the alternative is a restless population that threatens the political power structure, I can see rules being bent to allow reliance on foreign food supplies to maintain public order. Of course, if sufficient food can't be bought...

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 18 2019, @10:39AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 18 2019, @10:39AM (#856926) Journal
                  As to food self-sufficiency, it's merely another rather difficult problem. I don't see China getting enough people to make a nuclear war with Russia appear desirable.