11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change
cnn.com
cnn.com
You may not.
A: "I don't care; eventually I'll be dead anyway"
While a true statement, it minimizes the real implications of a valid question.
My feeling is if we evolve into something with just a brain and no body (with the help of technology perhaps) then that is something else. But you can also argue it is still human if that species has the same emotions. But maybe it wont.
Look at dogs, they evolved from wolves, and while both are still canids, we'd for sure call a dog, not a wolf.
The US debt is $21 trillion and we’re adding a trillion a year.
We’re going to need both an economic and technological miracle in about 50 years.
"Surviving" and "prospering" (and even "maintaining status quo") are completely different things.
I mention this because climate change, while it might not have an outsized immediate effect on the countries that control the most guns/wealth, it could have major immediate consequences for populations with food insecurity, and therefore long-term consequences for populations that we currently consider food-secure. This extends to violent conflict as well.
Before we have a conversation about this, I urge everyone to research the degree of soil depletion in formerly-colonized Africa, and then compare that to the degree of soil depletion elsewhere in the world (including never-colonized parts of Africa).
(For bonus points, research how much of that soil depletion occurred since the end colonialism).
The numbers are widely available.
Colonial crop management was a boon for native Africans, not a bust.
I love this slanted viewpoint.
Of course deforestation, drought, erosion, population pressures, or the geologically induced and inherently low soil fertility had anything to do with it, did it? Nope, it was all the stupid white farmers fault.
If nuclear fusion takes off, we have more power then we ever need, and mass pumping Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a viable thing suddenly.
Then there are looming miracles in food production. Lab grown meat and indoor farming in high rise buildings could massively raise food supply.
And lastly, autonomous robots doing construction & logistic work, and beyond that replacing basically every heavy lifting job on the planet. There are ~50 millions or so car produced annually, what if we started to pump these kind of numbers in robots? There could be "landscaping projects".
Throw all these technologies together and earth might look like Coruscant sooner then we think.
> If nuclear fusion takes off, we have more power then we ever need, and mass pumping Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a viable thing suddenly.
...and it will still be cheaper for the rich to climate control their own domes than the entire atmosphere.
> Then there are looming miracles in food production. Lab grown meat and indoor farming in high rise buildings could massively raise food supply.
...for those who can pay for it.
> And lastly, autonomous robots doing construction & logistic work, and beyond that replacing basically every heavy lifting job on the planet. There are ~50 millions or so car produced annually, what if we started to pump these kind of numbers in robots? There could be "landscaping projects".
...and robots would consolidate all of the money into the hands of the wealthy elite even more, since they no longer have to pay workers.
Technology is important but ultimately it is only a tool. Without massive social change, technology will continue to fall into the hands of people who only use it to enrich themselves.
The federal government additionally had hurricane and flood damage events, among others, totaling a record-breaking $306 billion for 2017 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017...).
These numbers aren't going to trend downward anytime soon.
A lot of the cost is absorbed through private means -- insurance, private funds and donations, and a lot of unfortunate people just end up eating the cost -- but if the federal government were to try to cover everything related to natural disasters, it would approximately rival the interest paid each year on federal debt.
We are seeing now the beginnings of the effects that scientists started warning us about 30 years ago. They aren't going to go away. They're only going to get bigger and more expensive and, like frogs in boiling water, we'll continue debating the merits of climate science while paying for the destruction of entire communities and it won't even occur to us that the things are related.
So as US deficits continue to increase and the tax-and-spend cycle continues through several different administrations, other programs are going to get cut back in an attempt to reduce debt (or to pay for whatever administration's favorite thing is today).
People who don't live in coastal areas or areas prone to wildfire, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter weather, or other climate-related natural disasters, might think, hey, I'll be okay.
But the money's gotta come out of somebody's pockets.
Do we save the expensive real estate or buy people out?
This will surely be made worse in that a) we're moving out of a US-centric era and toward a more multipolar world, and b) recent US politics would make any serious lender wonder how likely they are to get paid back.
But you're right because: people have faith right up until they don't.
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
Now they're on the Euro things may well be different. Never give away sovereignty over your currency.
Really what is national debt in a nation with soft (non-exchangeable for gold) sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt other than an increase in the money supply - or a commitment to make such increase when bonds mature?
You're right, I phrased it incorrectly - the US could indeed default on its "debt" if it chose too - and maybe the current administration is more inclined to consider doing so - but it would be a choice - it never has to, if it chooses not to.
One thing the US can't and won't ever do is pay down all that debt. The associated contraction in the money supply would be economically devastating, and is basically inconceivable.
To quote the last line of your linked article "As far as the debt limit is concerned, the government really shouldn’t be run like a business." Sometimes this concept is bandied around, that a government is like a household or a business and needs to balance its budget. This is wrong, a government (of a country with sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt) is a government, and should govern, adjusting the money supply to help balance the economy, letting off steam (by running a surplus, taxing more than it spends and taking money out of the economy) when the economy is running "hot" and opening the throttle (by running a deficit, spending more than it taxes and putting money into the economy) when the economy is running below capacity - excess unemployment and underemployment, productive capital laying idle etc. (The devil is of course in the detail, with different regions and sectors performing very differently, and lots of purely political distortions.)
Over time an economy that grows will naturally require more money to operate, so the default state of public finance should be deficit. It is somewhat inappropriate and unfortunate that we characterise this as "debt".
I disagree that the US couldn't pay off its debt. Back when Greenspan was running the Fed, this looked like a possible outcome. People were worried that it would be problematic if the US stopped selling T-bills, as so much is benchmarked to them. The easy solution was to keep on doing some borrowing at the same time as running a surplus elsewhere, so that the US did have some debt, but was not a net debtor. But I don't recall anybody saying it would be devastating.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFII5
It looks like it's trending up recently, but still well below 1% adjusted for inflation.
I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.
Coastline shrinking, New York gone? go to war take some coastline from Canada and Old York from England!
The fact that one organization (say, USA federal gov't) owes a bunch of money to other organizations (say, other agencies or various companies) doesn't say much about how much resources we have available. Since in this regard "we" isn't about the federal government; the debt doesn't show what resources are available, it's just a measure about which organization controls how much of them.
Put another way, the debt is an IOU for extra work that has already been done.
Maybe we should add another trillion a year for projects that make us more resilient against the climate.
So just reset it to zero.
Who are those people? People with pensions. Some people with IRAs or 401Ks, depending on their investment mix. The kid whose grandma gave him a savings bond. And, indirectly, lots of people who are going to expect their insurance company to have the money to pay their claim...
A lot of alarmism if you ask me.
) Persistently recurring conditions such as flooding, drought, and higher temperatures
) More frequent and/or more severe extreme weather events
) Sea level rise and temperature changes
) Decreases in Arctic ice cover, type, and thickness
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-...
One thing that short 2015 report does not cover is reduction in crop yields that frequently lead to conflict.
No wonder we’re screwed.
Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic last week. This is well worth viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs
edit: Down voters should leave a comment. I'm curious what you have to say as I've spent a lot of time researching this topic.
Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..."
(That said, these lazy 'drive-by downvoters' are extremely annoying. If any of them are reading this, shame on you.)
In particular Hancock refused to dismiss and instead validated Robert Schoch's Sphinx water erosion timeline and Robert Bouval's Orion Correlation Theory which both essentially discredits Zahi Hawass's work.
I think the using the term `pseudoscience` is going too far when describing Hancock, though I know there was a BBC documentary where he was described that way. His work is supported and respected by many and I even dare say the most competent academics in their field. Hancock visits all the sites and talks to every expert he can. I believe he even spent 2 years performing over 200 dives to explore underwater sites off the coast in Japan. He takes this subject as seriously as anyone in the field and his commitment is undeniable.
> Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..."
FWIW - I specifically chose those words for this reason :)