/lit/ - Literature

>-berger
>shillin' literally in name

>>16760852
>Shellenberger (...) was introduced to activism and political direct action due to being raised a Mennonite
He's some kind of Crypto-German I believe. He's probably one of those guys you can't believe are not Jewish like the dude from American Pie or the bad guy from the new Star Wars movies.

>>16760852

>>16760840
A climate apocalypse of sufficient destructiveness to outright end humanity is likely not coming. We'll continue to adjust our living situation to contend with the issues. However, not addressing the crisis is how we'll actually end up living in pods and eating bugs.

>>16761002
Schellenberger points out how the "green energy" move away from high density energy sources (nuclear and fossil) towards low density sources (wind, solar and bio) and the West's attempt to thwart the development of fossil fuel infrastructure in developing nations greatly exacerbates environmental damage.
Essentially, the incremental increase in average global temperature and the considerable loss of biodiversity over the last 60 or so years (and much of the damage of the coming decades) could have been avoided if Hippie faggots (in collusion with fossil fuel advocates) hadn't killed Nuclear power.

Instead of adjusting our living situations which is politically unfeasible (in a Democracy), we should thus promote more energy-dense, low-emission infrastructure (Nuclear) to replace high-emission infrastructure (fossil), instead of promoting low-density Solar and Wind to replace Nuclear, while keeping fossil roughly steady (which is currently happening in all Western Nations to varying degrees).

>>16761182
>no damage from nuclear power

>amerilards care more about their tribal politics than the future their children will live in
Three guesses as to why birth rates are declining.

>>16761182
Low density power is a strategic advantage, it's easy to take out a handful of power plants but it's not easy to take out hundreds of solar panels and wind turbines all over the place.
Nuclear is much better in economical terms though.

>>16761182
>Schellenberger points out how the "green energy" move away from high density energy sources (nuclear and fossil) towards low density sources (wind, solar and bio) and the West's attempt to thwart the development of fossil fuel infrastructure in developing nations greatly exacerbates environmental damage.
Based. Hes absolutely correct on this.
>while keeping fossil roughly steady (which is currently happening in all Western Nations to varying degrees).
Ok, but whats the longterm solution. Fossil fuels are finite. Eventually you run out. You can't put a nuclear reactor in your car, so what happens then?

>>16760840
I was to a conference held by an ecologist recently and I liked his take on global warming. No alarmism, he in fact stood against it and said that it did more harm that good. However, he did say that climate change is real and that even if we dropped all fossil fuels right now and switched to clean sources, we'd still have 30 years to deal with its consequences, at least. He basically proposed that our urban infrastructure needs to be altered in order to accommodate our new climate: no more building as close to the coast (not because of rising sea levels, but because storms cause the tide to rise way more than it used to) and other meassures to deal with longer periods of heat, which will be more accentuated, and less cold periods. On top of that, rain will become less frequent but much more intense; our sewage needs to be reformed in order to contain the violence and frequency of pouring rain.

>>16761205
Nuclear power demonstrably causes the least amount of damage of all known methods of power and heat production, both in terms of human deaths per kwh as well as in adverse environmental impact such as emissions and land use. Nuclear waste is a negligible issue as it is extremely dense, very little of it exists and (as it turns out) it can be recycled in the most advanced reactors and thus reduced by another 40% or so.

>>16761241
Perhaps, but in any scenario where the strategic advantages (or disadvantages) of Western power grids become relevant, Climate Change is rendered a non-issue for human civilization. It's like saying Iodine tablets are more valuable than Platinum because a Nuclear War could theoretically start tomorrow.

>>16761262
>Ok, but whats the longterm solution.
There's enough Uranium (and Thorium) to power current human civilization for centuries to come. If the trend for reforrestation and conservation continues at current levels or acclerates, much Industrial damage can be reversed and what can't be reversed can be salvaged.
The equation becomes especially favorable if global population should peak before the end of the century and decline to a lower equillibrium (which the majority of demographists predict).
A civilization which requires more energy than Uranium / Thorium can provide (in the medium term) would have to be so populous that it exceeds the available land mass of Earth (taking agriculture/food production into account)- or incorporate technologies/industries that make it so radically different from the current one that the climate-change discussion is void.

The only way to possibly fuck this up is to continue building exlusively low-density infrastructure for the next 100+ and then ALSO run out of oil and gas (very unlikely) so there's no energy left to build a global Nuclear infrastructure.

>>16761182
Its actually amazing how much hippies fucked everything up and so many boomers either pretend they didn't or still think they were "Good"

>>16760938
>cryptogerman
>literally has a normal german name

>Michael Shellenberger (born 1971) is an American
dropped

>>16761262
>You can't put a nuclear reactor in your car, so what happens then?
Cars are an abomination anyway.

>>16761504
while youre ignoring the situation of how uranium is actually mined for your moral argument, lets not forget that energy production isnt even the main issue. our retarded consumerism to make profit for (((((someone))))) drives us to endlessly produce garbage we dont need that ends up in nature and fucks up our bodies and psyche, continueing to remove us from the human condition.

where does berger get his funding

>>16761628
almost like their 'movement' was fake shit like every other codified movement in the 20th century

>>16761628
I's genuinely impressive how quickly the Hippie subculture turned from a bunch of pacifist primitivists into an anti-human pedophilic deathcult.
German Hippies for instance raped so many children, actual pre-teen children not horny 15-year-old instagram sluts, but actual children, it's really heartbreaking. Doesn't fit the narrative though so it's never mentioned. Similar situation in other countries I suppose.

>>16761262
>cars
eh, you can pour all kinds of shit into internal combustion engines with minor modifications.
Besides, if you remove electric power and heating from the global emissions equation and use fossils for mobility exclusively, you can probably do so sustainably with how efficient modern engines have become.

>>16761504
What makes you think we are not already above our carrying capacity as a species? No species just stops right at their carrying capacity, they all overshoot it causing it to decrease. We should have leveled off decades ago and now we are over the limit and will fall to a point below our original carrying capacity.

Also this >>16761792. Uranium extraction requires fossil fuels, its enrichment is also incredibly energy intensive. Everyone always comes up with this wildly advanced technologies and ideas to solve energy problems, but they are never as simple as they seem.

>>16761852
>you can pour all kinds of shit into internal combustion engines with minor modifications
You need to be more specific and think of this on the scale of hundreds of millions of vehicles. How is this 'shit' not going to be dependent on fossil fuels? Any sort of biodiesel will require vast amounts of farmland and fossil fuels in order to produce it.

>>16760840

>>16760840
Global Warming is not an issue and if it was we could (and would) fix it for a measly sum of a couple dozen Billion USD of geoengineering.
Loss of Species / Habitats is merely an ethical issue, not a practical one.
As long as warming and / or biodegration doesn't exceed an improbable treshhold where safe shelters and crop yields are threatened on a global scale, human civilization wil not be in existential danger, though some nations / populations might.

However, since all this is blatantly obvious it really sucks that some dude needed to write a book about it. It's like Jordan Peterson pointing out that, duh, Christian mythology carries meaning and genuinnely baffling millions of people with this insight. How retarded can you get to have to have this spelled out for you?

>>16760840
Haven't read it and know nothing about its thesis. But here's my two cents.
Climates are the definition of unpredictable. We can't even predict the weather beyond a week from now. Climate is merely the weather amalgamated over the long term. Logically, therefore, if we can't predict the weather short term we have no good chance of predicting the climate long term. So any claims about climate doom and gloom are immediately logically suspect because the premise that you can predict climate is itself unfounded.
There are exceptions and caveats. Long term geological evidence can point to broader patterns and frequencies of hot rises and cold dips, and the data about a trend towards hotter seasonal averages over thee past decades is indisputable. And predicted phenomena like increased hurricane activity and wildfires have been confirmed.

But what you can't infer is how all this will play out. You have to factor in arctic greening, ocean currents, and much more that cannot be reduced to just temperature change alone.

>>16760840
>funded by your friendly oil company

>>16761792
>the situation of how uranium is actually mined
Obviously, the negative environmental impact calculation of Nuclear power takes mining into account. Spoiler: it doesn't change the outcome. Even less so for Thorium, which is more abundant and energy dense than Uranium.

>(((((someone)))))
Jews are profiting disproportionately from the labour surplus of post-Industrial civilization becasue they tend to be over-represented in (or own) the institutions which issue and circulate money (banks and central banks) and are the chief practioners of usury. However, nations which were relatively free of their influence such as Zarist Russia, Meiji Japan and others, exhibit similar economic and Industrial growth rates, thus showing that the (unjust) Jewish absorption of wealth and assets is irrelevant to the discussion of Industrial-age and post-Industrial environmental impacts created by human societies.

>produce garbage we dont need
This is an excellent point, we need a meritocracy of consumer goods and a real discussion about the values societies strive for. Additionally, planned obsolescence should be outlawed and visciously persecuted.

>>16760840
The cover intrigued me, so I googled it and a review in The Guardian came up.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/09/false-alarm-by-bjorn-lomborg-apocalypse-never-by-michael-shellenberger-review
Of course, The Guardian is known to have published some stupid shit, so let me summarize it real quick:
>their argument (is) that adaptation to climate crisis impacts is easier and cheaper than emissions cuts
>we should just ride it out to 3.75 degrees in 2100, while rebuilding our infrastructure for the new climate, we'll adapt and all will be fine
Is that really what is claimed in the book, OP?

>>16761873
>What makes you think we are not already above our carrying capacity as a species?
The fact that global agricultural land-use has declined over recent decades, not increased, even though the global population has grown steadily, and continues to do so. Meaning, unless we drastically overshoot the most radical predictions for the global population peak, there will be no issues regarding food supplies, which is the limiting factor for population sizes in any model. Unless Africa rebounds to 20th century level birthrates, this is virtually impossible.

>Uranium extraction requires fossil fuels, its enrichment is also incredibly energy intensive
Priced in.

>Everyone always comes up with this wildly advanced technologies
But that's the thing, Nuclear reactors are an old as shit technology, they have been around since the fucking 50s, we know how they operate and we know that their performance is superior to all other methods of power and heat production currently available.
In fact, the actual new models, the latest generation reactors, can brun nuclear waste as fuel. There are roughly 100.000 Tons of nuclear waste located in the US. They are readily available, don't need to be mined, refined or treated in other ways. You could literally just build a flock of modern nuclear reactors, throw in your nuclear waste and generate the anual U.S. electricity demand at 2020 levels a dozen or so times over, maybe 20x.

I just don't understand why people doubt what Nuclear reactors can do when they have literally done so for half a century and produced the most amazing results in the history of heating water in oder to turn a thing.

>>16760852
>The entire anglo world perceives german names as jewish even the obvious non stereotype kike ones

>>16760938
>the dude from American Pie
The fuck?

>>16762189
>Is that really what is claimed in the book, OP?
Not at all. The Guardian is a fucking joke lmao.

The book is a long string of basic truisms like "There's more energy in a Ton of Coal than there is in a Ton of Wood" or "Industrial farming can produce more calories on a sqm of land than organic farming can" which he uses to discredit some prevailing (or newly emerging) false assumptions about the relationship between economics and environmentalism, further showing how these assumptions and narratives inform poor policies with unitended outcomes, especailly in Western countries.
There's virtually no controversial content in the book whatsoever, as others have pointed out, aside from some hypothetical calcualtions on Shellenberger's part, such as advising India to burn more fossils, more quickly, thus increasing wealth, thus lowering birthrates, thus lowering the (future) energy demand of a (compartively smaller) Indian population by 2060 or something. which might be correct, I'm not sure, but I'd like to see more data on that than: dude trust me, I have polar bears on my book cover haha!

>>16761983
Is the magnitude of the consequences of these "suspect" claims great enough to warrant immediate action?

>>16762068
dangerously based

>>16761957
>Loss of Species / Habitats is merely an ethical issue, not a practical one.
This is absolutely untrue. Without honeybees, whose populations are declining for example, the agriculture would collapse. Not to mention all the potential medical findings and compounds that can be discovered in various plants and other substances found in rainforests. If fish stocks collapse, no more fish to eat.

>>16762068

1. I was also thinking of the awful working conditions of the mines

2. wasmt refering to any stereotype, the expression was jokingly chosen, but to the elite business owners and politicians and whoever else may profit generally

3. I dont care about how much any specific person "deserves" to have a consumption good, we shouldnt use plastic for everything and most things outright shouldnt be produced in the first place and yes producers of anything should be responsible for the moral issues surrounding their products life cycle

>>16761384
>geo-thermal suspiciously not included

>>16762402
This is what's uncertain. One can say better safe than sorry, but fundamentally reconstituting the economy from the ground up for something that just *might* happen is sketchy. It's just not clear. What is clear is we should take care of the planet and not trash it. We are shitting in our own bed. We should collectively want to live in a nice tidy planet, while now we are treating it like some garbage strewn ghetto.

>>16762293
This Zuckerberg-looking motherfucker here? He's not a Jew. Shocking, I know. There's a funny anecdote about Steven Spielberg casting him for some movie, because he assumed the guy was Jewish - it was only when Steven walked up to him on set one day and said "Oi, Shalom, Mazeltov, my Bubbele, want to head down to the Synagogue later to suck on some Baby dicks cheh heh?" (or something along those lines, I can't remember) and the guy replied "What the fuck my dude", that he realized the error he had made.

>>16761983
>Climates are the definition of unpredictable. We can't even predict the weather beyond a week from now. Climate is merely the weather amalgamated over the long term. Logically, therefore, if we can't predict the weather short term we have no good chance of predicting the climate long term.
Except that you're wrong. Weather is a chaotic system, climate isn't.

why do people still think climate change is real? it’s pure religion. these moralist faggots love to FEEL like they are fighting for the side of good, and because of that the world keeps getting shittier by the day

>>16762425
We really need to phase out plastics as much as possible and as soon as possible.

>>16762440
His character in that film is Jewish. Doesn't his grandmother freak out when she sees he wants to marry Willow from Buffy.

every climate activist reading this, if you really care about nature and not just vain moral narcissism please commit suicide for a real solution

>>16762450
stop repeating what they told you cuck faggot. there is no we.

>>16762449
Who fucking cares.

The reality is pollution and that has to be stopped.

>>16762439
I tend to agree. There are basic tenets and best practices that should be culturally engrained as a counter to people's natural tendency towards greed and maximizing profits. It should be possible to have our cake and eat it too, but not when there are so many more than happy to take the lion's share of the cake at the expense of others at the table and even at the expense of the table itself, in this case the table being our environment. Sorry for the extended metaphor.

>>16762471
We, as in every single member of mankind. That's we. What's your fucking problem anyway, are you midwitted?

>>16762472
i think many would agree that less pollution is good, just fuck off with the climate change crap. these people are just repeating what they were told, they are neo-christians and people aren’t going to listen to what they say just to spite them.

>>16762449
please go suck on a tailpipe. even if climate change isn't real, is it so wrong to want to live in an environment where we can drink clean water and aren't being diagnosed with respiratory disease at an increased rate

>>16762422
>Without honeybees, whose populations are declining for example, the agriculture would collapse.
That's a stupid myth, we can grow and deploy pollinators, or pollinate artificially. Bee extinction would be tragic from a conservationist perspective, but of minor consequence from an agricultural perspective. Humans could survive in a wasteland of
monocultures and equatorial dessertification, devastated rainforests and industrial medicine, acidified oceans and land-locked aquafarms.
Whether that's a form of exitence worth living is another question entirely.

>>16762463
Trans people are truly the most emphatic climate activists; poetry.

>>16760938
yeah yeah yeah whatever rabbi

whats this book say about the green new deal

>>16762482
Yeah, what I'm saying is that climate change is irrelevant to the fact of pollution. I remember being disgusted in the late 90s seeing pictures of the birds in the Pacific Ocean with the plastic inside them, that kind of thing, and it's not necessary to use so much plastics in and for everything there are alternatives which are biodegradable and don't kill the birds and the fish.

In a way I sometimes wonder if this climate change versus deniers thing isn't just a massive distraction from the real issue which any sensible person would be on board with. And then there's other bullshit going on like the water in Flint, and people are saying: who fucking cares it's niggers and poor people lol Michael Moore. Are people going literally brain dead?

>>16762503
I'm not ok with this, I really love bees and honey.

>>16762462
I've never seen the movie American Pie and I'm glad for it, I only know it by cultural osmosis.

>>16761262
Cars should be banned. Take the /n/ pill.

>>16762438
>huge costs
>localized to a few specific regions, usually far away from urban centers

It's probably better than wind or solar in theory, but can't be used practically unless we develop some crazy technology that can utilize the heat in truly extreme depths. It's mostly an exotic pipe-dream, just like tide plants, atmospheric kites, kinetic batteries etc.
Might be a good alternative for commercial ac systems in rich countries though, if the prices go down some more.

>>16762578
>Cars should be banned.
How to create a global economic depression in one easy step.

>>16762605
I was reading about a proposed cable from Iceland to Scotland, probably in The Spectator magazine from 2003-05. As far as I know it's clean once it's set up and the initial cost is dramatically offset by the longevity of the plants so long as they are well made. It's good food for thought at any rate.

>>16762612
That is a small price to pay for the end of c*ges.

>>16761182
>Schellenberger points out how the "green energy" move away from high density energy sources (nuclear and fossil) towards low density sources (wind, solar and bio) and the West's attempt to thwart the development of fossil fuel infrastructure in developing nations greatly exacerbates environmental damage.
>countries that can't even build or maintain conventional coal, gas and hydropower infrastructure should instead build nuclear reactors that are orders of magnitude more technically demanding.
"Hippies made me do" it doesn't really explain China and India.

>Instead of adjusting our living situations which is politically unfeasible (in a Democracy), we should thus promote more energy-dense, low-emission infrastructure (Nuclear) to replace high-emission infrastructure (fossil), instead of promoting low-density Solar and Wind to replace Nuclear, while keeping fossil roughly steady (which is currently happening in all Western Nations to varying degrees).
Fracking killed nuclear, but all of his buddies are invested in fossil fuels so he can't say that. Instead, he's created a conspiracy theory about how environmentalists killed nuclear rather than market forces.

>>16762635
Sound interesting, but probably a really hard sell, politically.

>>16761002
Yeah. 130 degrees is awight. All the animals can take it. The burning deserts of the equatorial regions won’t miss those rainforests either. There’s enough ocean to take all the acidification the world can throw into it.. we’ll have plenty of algae to eat for several more generations. No cannibalism will ever happen. Science will save us. Keep recycling though

I’m open to nuclear power but I’ve heard people shit on this guys argument’s for it in particular

>>16760840
does anyone think climate alarmism is secular variant of apocalypticism? they always speak about it as if it were

>>16761797
Big nuclear?

>>16762802
its not a "conspiracy theory" the environmental movement has been anti-nuclear since the turn of the '70s. Germany banning nuclear after Fukushima, Austria in 1978, Italy banning it after Chernobyl, California putting a moratorium on nuclear plants in 1976 - none of these decisions nor others like them had anything to do with fracking. Nuclear has been crippled by the politics of irrational fear and misinformation by Green activists who have been promising us a utopia powered by solar and wind power for going on 50 years now without delivering.

>>16761205
Nuclear power is some of the safest in the world and doesn’t release CO2 at all

>>16761262
>Fossil fuels are finite. Eventually you run out

In over 200 years, after the movie “Aliens” is fucking set.

> You can't put a nuclear reactor in your car, so what happens then?

I wouldn’t be surprised if you could fit a reactor in a car in 2200

>>16762422
>This is absolutely untrue. Without honeybees, whose populations are declining for example

Honeybees are domesticated animals like cows. Has fuck all to do with an ecosystem.

> the agriculture would collapse.

Most crops don’t use insect pollination.

> If fish stocks collapse, no more fish to eat.

Most fish we eat today are farmed, not caught.

>>16761983
>And predicted phenomena like increased hurricane activity and wildfires have been confirmed.

Nope.

>>16762439
>What is clear is we should take care of the planet and not trash it.

Why?
Let’s fucking destroy earth, harvest all of its mineral wealth, and go live in space instead

>>16762449
>it’s pure religion.
I sincerely hope the denialists are right; I just think they're totally wrong.

>>16764393
No.
This would be real and final.

>>16762422
>Without honeybees, whose populations are declining for example, the agriculture would collapse.
Not true, most crops don't depend on bees for pollination.

Climate reports for policy makers refuse to include feedback loops in their models.
Climate change has consistently been worse than models have predicted.
Climate change will cause cascading ecological collapse by 2050.
There will be a billion people displaced by sea level rising and four billion displaced by drought.
The refugee ‘crisis’ of yesteryear will soon seem like a joke. So will the Bronze Age collapse.
Your surviving fearful countrymen will descend into tribalism.
You will witness decades of horror and atrocity before you die.
Civilization outside of techno-feudal bubbles will collapse.
Literature will be dead.
You were warned.

>>16764816
Yeah.
We’ll get along without the ones that do.

And corn syrup is better than honey anyway.
Everything’s fine.

>>16764800
Climate change is not an existential threat to mankind.

>>16764838
Honeybees are fine

>>16764904

>>16764820
>Literature will be dead.
Honestly the least likely thing on your list

>>16764911
If we stop using pesticides and whatever else that’s killing them.
Yeah. The little creatures will fare better in the extinction event. Bees might make it in the end.

>>16764914
Do you seriously fucking think that humans could go extinct because it got slightly warmer and the seas got slightly higher gradually over the space of several decades?

>>16764933
>Muh extinction event

Fuck nature kill it all

>>16764947
You start drinking some beer, then some more, then some more, and so on. Surely your body will tolerate it over the years, and nothing bad could possibly happen

>>16764955
We can tolerate a slightly warmer world, yes, and we can tolerate a world with slightly higher sea levels. It’s never going to become like Venus and the seas will never cover all the land. Neither of those things are physically possible. Climate change is not scary or a threat

>>16764820
>Climate reports for policy makers refuse to include feedback loops in their models.
>Climate change has consistently been worse than models have predicted.

This might be true, but I always wonder when people talk about climate change advancing so rapidly it becomes a runaway process causing massive damage every year until civilization is toast in 15 or 25 years, why wouldn't we spray sulfates into the upper atmosphere to slow the process down and buy ourselves some time? Do you realize that this is already possible with existing technology and would cost a negligible amount of money? It's just a question of whether you're willing to do it re: concerns about pollution, but if the planet is about to rapidly go to pieces its obviously the lesser of two evils. We already know that it would work, its based on the same principle behind why major volcanic eruptions cause a temporary cooling effect.

>>16764961
The human species will survive. Civilization? Its survival is no sure thing.

Also, there's a lot of room for bad living conditions between current Earth and Venus.

>>16764950
*click*
You first, my fertilizer.

>>16764997
>The human species will survive. Civilization? Its survival is no sure thing.

Civilization would be unharmed past having to move population centers around.

>>16764999
Your precious “nature” is being exterminated by glorious mankind as we speak. There is no reason whatsoever for us to preserve such a wasteful thing.

>there are people in this thread who honestly believe that climate change just means "temps go up, who cares?"
Enjoy that your fresh water scarcity and crop failures.

>>16765008
Anon, I love humanity a lot, but we do depend on the wider ecosystem in many ways, some of which we don't even know. Our destruction of nature is a sad thing.

>>16764961
>We can tolerate a slightly warmer world, yes, and we can tolerate a world with slightly higher sea levels.
Yes. Which is what we’ll get if we slow/stop carbon emissions in the next ten years.
Ut of course we’re not on track to doing that. We will egg on such an increase in temperatures that deserts will grow, famines will become permanent and migrations will REALLY start to happen. Species will start to go extinct at an alarming rate and eventually catch up to humans. All depending on what we do in the next ten (or longer?) years.

>>16764994
I think the problem is potential unknown side effects of pumping a particular compound on the delicate atmosphere we have

I mean idk, maybe it's worth a shot still

>>16765017
>Anon, I love humanity a lot, but we do depend on the wider ecosystem in many ways

Name one.

>>16760840
If we end up killing the planet because we were to selfish and lazy to find a better way to live I hope we fail to flee to another system and die here. What a pathetic end to our species if it comes to that.

>>16765024
>Yes. Which is what we’ll get if we slow/stop carbon emissions in the next ten years.

That’s impossible so give up on your fantasies.

> We will egg on such an increase in temperatures that deserts will grow

Ongoing desertification is less significant than the accompanying ongoing increase in foliage density elsewhere in the world. What’s so bad about deserts, anyway?

> famines will become permanent

No empirical evidence of this.

> and migrations will REALLY start to happen.

Cool I guess.

>>16765024
They have been saying that for 10 years, supposedly we should be suffering right now, we arent, its just more leftwing apocalyptics

>>16765201
Killing earth is basically impossible. You’re an alarmist moron.

>>16765219
Killing ourselves off is very possible, your deluding yourself because your afraid to face reality. If the world gets hostile enough we could be thrown into resource wars that will tear apart our current order. There are already millions of people suffering the effects of climate change and the only areas that seem fine are the uper rich nations that can hoard resources for now. Even that will dry up if we're not careful.

>>16765230
>Killing ourselves off is very possible

Not even nuclear war would kill off humans. We’re not going anywhere.

> If the world gets hostile enough we could be thrown into resource wars that will tear apart our current order.

Sounds cool. Would love to be a member of a PMC in that time.

> There are already millions of people suffering the effects of climate change

Oh no, suffering from an extra two degrees Fahrenheit. So much pain

>>16765246
You’re a brainlet ass. Just so you know

>>16765257
Lol okay have fun dying because it’s 2 degrees hotter

>>16765024
>famines will become permanent

if we actually reach the point with climate change where hundreds of millions or billions of people starve (compare to the present where obesity is a bigger global health problem than hunger), there will 100% be geoengineering to cool the atmosphere, the technology for which already exists

>>16765335
>the technology for which already exists
Where, what?
>obesity is a bigger global health problem
Ha! Bullshit

https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE

anthropogenic global warming is non-falsifiable.

>>16765491
False

>>16765533
Non-false

>>16762612
>This will be terrible for the economy!

>>16764961
lol you think it will be a gradual descent that we can just fix when it gets too bad? At a point a sudden qualitative change will take place where the environment fails to reach homeostasis and will abruptly be destroyed.

>>16766012
Wars due to resource scarcity will kill most people. Maybe complete climate collapse occurs first, but apocalypse occurs either way.

>>16764480
>"Big" Nuclear
>Literally getting shat on for 40+ years and constantly losing market share despite having the best product/service in their industry

>>16765024
>famines will become permanent
Fucking about time, far too many people on the planet. We're no longer able to just go to war because of faggot nuclear warheads.

>>16765533
Tranny

>>16766131
False