We all know something very, very bad is going on with the climate.
It's not like TESLA has some magic pixie dust that can save the world tomorrow. Environmental impact from current ICE cars is fairly small compared to the pollution caused by mass manufacturing with no recycling, heavy industry, coal burning, shipping, etc. People buying more Teslas are a drop in the ocean when it comes to saving the environment, like putting a band aid on a slit artery.
People buy TSLA because it makes them money and buy Teslas because they're nice cars. If they really wanted to save the environment, they would ride a bike.
I agree the problem is bigger, but non-industrial transport is about 15% of CO2 emissions in the US. It's nontrivial. There is also the grid storage business.
Anyway, I don't care to make this about Tesla/TSLA but the stock movement has made me wonder if there was material news I was unaware of. That could be a breakthrough in efficiency or that is good for Tesla, or it could be much worse than expected climate forecasts that might direct very large spending their way (among other things).
That's only true in countries that did absolutely nothing. The reality is that when you stop burning coal then unchanged emission sources like cars grow in relative terms and become more important.
That's a triumph of hope over experience if ever I heard one. We need an urgent intervention right now. The chances of it happening? Pretty damn close to nil, I'd say.
There is no Planet B. The energy expenditure required to 1) terraform Mars and make its environment habitable to humans, and 2) get enough people there... is several orders of magnitude harder than fixing our problems here on Earth.
Even if that plan was viable: we simply don't have the time to do so before we kill ourselves off.
And we'll likely all die reasonably content knowing it's not our problem. We're among the last generations that can expect to ride the current peak in human success before the hard bounds kick in and things either become much more difficult or more likely just completely collapse.
We all love to rest easy on the fallacious idea that (as Carlin put it) "the earth will be fine, it's us who are fucked."
It sounds nice, but the reality is far worse. Beyond a certain temperature bound, the entire biosphere collapses... completely.
"Oh but there are extremophiles that survive insane conditions!"
And what do they feed on? Organic particulate matter that filters down to them from the rest of the biosphere that depends on relatively tight temperature bounds.
Natural selection can only keep up with a certain degree of change in the mean of temperature before it just collapses.
If we generate the conditions for the collapse of human civilization, it's more likely than not that we also take all life on Earth with us.
And statistically... that means the end of life, period. That our planet happened to have the particular temperature bounds for long enough for life to emerge is vanishingly unlikely.
> And what do they feed on?
You are underestimating the diversity of metabolism in bacteria/archaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Metabolism
As a weird example, there is an isolate cave in Romania, with a weird source of energy http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150904-the-bizarre-beasts-l... . (If that's all life that all life that will survive, it looks like a nightmary scenario. But killing completely all the biosphere is very hard.)
Also, Cyanobacteria will probably be fine. They almost killed accidently everyone else in the past, but there are not hard feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
And even if they do, why do you assume they (species adapted to environments entirely distinct from 99.99% of Earth) will somehow exist long enough to speciate into a robust planet's worth of species?
The species that exist today have largely survived because collectively they exist in homestasis and regulate their environment. If every tree suddenly disappeared the human race would be gone within hours. Similarly if every warm blooded animal suddenly disappeared plants would start dying in droves within a few days.
You write below that you work in mathematical biochemistry. What research are your conclusions based on; which authors, measurements etc.?
> All of us reading this right now are going to die just barely seeing the true extent of the outcomes.
Do you feel scared of this collapse you are predicting? Are you distraught by humanity's destruction of our home, because you would you like to see Earth and humanity's beauty continue?
I guess the overarching theme/question for me is: if all this is true, where, and in what, do you find meaning?
Edit: to be clear, I am asking for your personal experiences and strategies. I am not looking for any advice.
That doesn't mean that a total collapse in our food supply is around the corner, but it does suggest a collapse in the availability of certain micronutrients to a large proportion of the population.
What that means is that the outcomes of certain nutritional deficiencies will likely become commonplace diseases societies will now how to cope with. That will of course also affect politics.
[Edit: Just realized you wrote the comment I was replying to - so OK I see what you're saying]
The biosphere has already got a match in our insane devouring of habitat and industrial-scale poisoning program known as modern agriculture. Not to mention the ocean acidification, garbage patch, and overfishing. People look at me a little nutty, but I seriously think in 100 years the oceans will have nothing alive in them larger than your finger. There will be no tigers, no elephants, no bison, no deer, few or no birds.
The necessary reactions to make a photosynthetic carbohydrate production chemical pathway energetically feasible actually only exist within extremely narrow temperature bounds.
You honestly don't understand how naive you are. You're disguising hope by what sounds vaguely scientific.
Not to mention: exactly where do you think those temperate zones will exist?
I don't hang around hackernews to get insulted. It's not what we do around here.
Being told by someone that they think you're wrong isn't an insult.
If you buy the reassuring yet nonsensical idea that "the humans are fucked, the planet will be fine", you can be adequately classified as cherry-picking a minimally discomfiting worldview, against all evidence. That's not an insult.
It's chemosynthesis fueled by a continuous stream of organic silt from above and volcanic vents, not magical planetary heat.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that caused this mess (i.e climate catastrophe) in the first place.
Had people prioritized their grandchildren and great-grandchildren instead of short-term profits then the effects of climate change would have been mitigated long ago. For example, companies like Exxon knew of what lay ahead. They chose to condemn future generations using precisely the same logic as you.
You're (I think) likely objectively completely right.
Time literally means nothing to the universe. So the idea we can kill all life in the universe, or are somehow responsible for the creation we live in is oddly religious to me.
Yet you place no real import in the demise of humanity so I'm not sure how to parse it.
This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea, but the current theory pretty much completely rules out your completely unsuppported take.
Gravity is to our best knowledge not symmetric in time, and neither is heat. (Every other fundamental force in QCD is though.) The likelihood of the emergence of life decreases as overall entropy increases.
Moreover, the emergence of life at any point in the universe is already vanishingly unlikely.
If we kill life on Earth, the likelihood of life emerging again is strictly less than that of life on Earth existing as it does. And beyond a certain temperature bound, it's simply impossible. The viability of informational molecules like RNA (even silicon based variants) vanishes above around 60-70C.
Lol. The fermi paradox is not my idea, neither is the great filter as one the possible explanations. But the presumption in both is that we are not alone as intelligent life, not to mention simple life.
You mention the goldilocks theory, which indeed states that life probably has an incredibly thin temperature band in which it survives. But that just means life is unlikely on most planets, which means almost nothing in infinite space and time.
The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
If anything the most likely situation is finite but comtinuosly expanding.
> The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
This is still entirely wrong, on the basis of basic thermodynamic principles that are relatively well empirically supported.
Even if life has emerged before us, the probability of it happening again only decrease over time.
And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works.
The drake equation and fermi account for that, using something like "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns".
Most of these ideas are probabilistic based on sizes that are just immense beyond comprehension. But I still find them more grounded than the pre-Copernican hubris that we are somehow central to all this.
> And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works
How do you figure that?
To analogize: the vanishingly unlikely probability of landing a dart precisely in the center of the bullseye on a finitely sized dartboard implies nothing more than the same for an infinitely large dartboard.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
You're confused here, did you read the mathematical definition of your own article?
It has nothing to do with what you think, it starts with the presumption of P(E) = 1 or P(E) = 0 for almost never.
That's not what we are talking about with small probabilities.
Investors have been too stuck on the environmentally friendly thing to see that they make great cars and that's not even the only thing they do.