Hacker News Reader

Comment by earthtolazlo | Hacker News Reader

Why do almost no population projections take climate change into account? We're rapidly heading towards a much less habitable earth. The projections I've seen with Africa at a population of 3-4 billion people by 2100 would be laughable if the whole situation wasn't so damn tragic.

View on HN

Because current projections don't reach population levels where we exhaust the capacity of the earth, at best we'd face reduced material wealth.

Why the situation tragic? The universe does not care the sea levels or temperatures are different from what they were in 1700, just as the universe does not lament the great oxidation event which wiped out most of the species inhabiting the planet at the time.

In fact I'd argue that most humans are elated that cyanobacteria 'destroyed' the planet.

Just about every model shows significant increases in drought and desertification across most of the world's currently arable land with more than a couple of degrees of warming, which is the path we're currently on. Couple that with the fact that most land at far northern latitudes does not have the soil quality necessary to support large-scale agriculture, and we're looking at global famines that billions of people are unlikely to survive.

we're looking at global famines that billions of people are unlikely to survive

If I were part of a shadowy oligarchic cabal running the world, I'd be willing to trade-in worldwide chaos for the 21st century equivalent of a Hydraulic empire, where technologically enabled food production replaces irrigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire

Conspiracy trash aside, if there are billions to be made helping the world avoid yet another Malthusian disaster, someone will make it.

>Conspiracy trash aside, if there are billions to be made helping the world avoid yet another Malthusian disaster, someone will make it.

Who made their millions off the Irish potato famine, other than the British businesspeople who caused the famine by making Irish food unaffordable to the Irish?

Well there, you said it yourself. There were tariffs causing a market distortion at play. People were already making money off of that, and acted to protect it. That's not the only Malthusian disaster the world has faced.

That's a huge simplification of the famine. The root causes of the famine are generally attributable to rental law in Ireland and the disincentives it created towards farmers investing in land and/or farms scaled to the right size for economies of scale.

Usually when we talk about tragedy, we are talking about a human experience. I am not sure why you are talking about the 'universe'.

What do you mean by "capacity of the earth"? People per square metter of land? Consumption of oxigen? Consumption of fresh water? Per capita arable land and average agricultural output?

You could argue that we are already past the carring capacity of Earth as of today, and the reason we do not see a massive dieoff today is that we are, so to speak, burning our runaway instead of generating (enough) revenue.

With regards with your "Why the situation tragic?" comment... I also felt a great relief when I realized that we (as global society) will not wipe life on earth, and probably will not even wipe human life on earth with our colective stupidity.

However, a drastic reduction in population is due during the next 100 years or so, and most of it wont be voluntary. A lot of needless suffering is going to happen, and no, it will not matter much in the grand scheme of things. Do you really need to be so smug about it, though?

"Tragic" relates to humans, not the universe. Yes, humans are elated that cyanobacteria changed the face of the Earth, and would be quite sad if a similar event happened now that wiped out humanity.

This nonsense about "the universe doesn't care about our climate" has got to stop. No, it doesn't, but humans also don't care about what the universe cares about.

If you want to take such a large view that the fate of people doesn't matter, then go for it, but don't be puzzled when you end up in a tiny minority by doing so.

>In fact I'd argue that most humans are elated that cyanobacteria 'destroyed' the planet.

The rest of us would be elated if you grew a sense of empathy for your fellow humans.

He/She is probably referring to the "Great Oxygenation Event"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

I know. I just think we ought to care about our own conspecifics more than about pre-Oxygenation bacteria.

I think you're confusing not having empathy / caring with not sharing your political views.

1. NOT the whole world is heating up. It varies and some places are cooling, but no, generalise. 2. Areas like Russia and upper Asia will provide more arable land, these countries will experience a boon 3. The problem isn't the world, the problem is the sky high population growth in Africa/Middle East. Google "Population of ANY AFRICAN/MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY"

Incorrect, The whole world is heating up except <0.1% habitable area, definitely not enough to make the statement above incorrect

See: http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

I think everyone wishes you could be correct but the situation where tundra/permafrost areas warm to a point that it is possible farm would cause a catastrophic release of Carbon on par with direct human activity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13079066

But the problem is, as you go further from the equator, you get less square miles per degree of latitude. So if we lose arable land around the equator, and gain it in Siberia, that's still a net loss of arable land.

you think the earth's climate 100 years out is remotely predictable?

No, but it sure as hell is going to deteriorate noticeably. The only question is by how much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com