Humans have never had the numbers they’ve had right now. It would be very hard to eradicate 8 billion individual organisms.
EDIT: for those downvoting, I'd like to discuss why you don't agree. I mean, climate change, war, etc. What else can you call it?
If we launch all of our nukes, we might collapse civilization, but even that would likely leave humans around. We might get stuck in our gravity well for a long time, though.
Whatever makes us go extinct will either be cosmic or something we haven't invented yet.
We cool our bodies by sweating, a process which ceases to work at about 95 degrees at 100% humidity, or 115 degrees at 50% humidity. Its been estimated that an average temperature of above 122 degrees F would kill off all mammalian life on the planet.
Currently the earth is warming at about 1/3rd of a degree F per decade.
> Currently the earth is warming at about 1/3rd of a degree F per decade.
Every decade our technological capability increases dramatically. We're already working on climate engineering. Nothing here will extinct us.
See the July 19, 2022 Issue of the Scientific American, "How Hot Is Too Hot for the Human Body?"
// I would frequently go running //
Recall, it's 95 degrees at 100% humidity. The more humid the air, the less sweat will evaporate. I don't care if you are Jesus Christ Usane Bolt Superstar, above 95 degrees at 100% humidity, if you run long enough you will get heatstroke.
// Nothing here will extinct us // Extinction has happened to every other species of Homo. Every. single. one. I wonder how many of them accurately predicted when and why they would go extinct....
I was born and live in heat, so when I hear cold climate SF denizens say the end is nigh, I have to chuckle.
I took a look at your source [2]. I'll have to read the underlying literature. The way this is presented to a lay audience doesn't make it clear if they're controlling for acclimation. I'm not educated in physiology beyond an undergrad class, so I'm not sure if their measure is a good proxy.
It'll take sixty years to raise the temperature two degrees, after which I'll probably be dead. It'll take centuries to push into dangerous ranges. I think we're already building the tech to deal with this, and very little growth is exponential. This is going to be yet another sigmoid. And in geologic times, just noise.
I will say I am worried about loss of species diversity. But I'm more worried about a lack of cheap energy to fuel our ascendent climb to the next stages. And more worried about nukes.
As far as green tech goes, I've always been worried about particulate matter in the air leading to cardiopulmonary diseases. So it's not a bad thing and I've never once been against it.
What I am concerned about is that we're teaching Gen Z and Gen Alpha to just give up. Go look at /r/GenZ and all the threads about climate - these kids are just giving up on life because of these memes. In reality, their lives will not be impacted by climate change whatsoever. We're scaring them to death and their entire generation is experiencing trauma because of this.
We do need to control these systems, and we do need to protect ecosystem biodiversity, but this hysteria is ridiculous.
[1] I just measured the water temperature.
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-hot-is-too-ho...
Did you measure your body temperature? Were you able to cool yourself by sweating, or was your body temperature monotonically rising?
Recall, it is recommended that you go to a doctor if you have a fever of over 103 degrees, and over 108 degrees you risk brain damage.
Soaking some nice heat into your sore muscles in a 20-minute shower is one thing; but 24/7 your body is absolutely, positively not able to cool itself down is quite another.
// They don't control for so many things, let alone acclimation. //
Hey man, I gave you a source as requested. Whether or not evaporating water can cool down a body of a certain volume and surface when that body is internally generating heat--that isn't a matter of acclimation, its a matter of thermodynamics.
// after which I'll probably be dead // And why think about extinction after I'm dead, eh? :-) But far before 60 years passes, you'll find yourself in the age demographic for which death from hot weather is a risk. The body's ability to thermoregulate degrades as we get older, alas...
// worried about a lack of cheap energy // Wind farms are already cheaper to build than coal-fired plants. And if you factor in all the externalities, fossils fuels don't even come close to being a cheap source of energy.
// we're teaching Gen Z and Gen Alpha to just give up... this hysteria is ridiculous // Worrying about how the media affects "kids these days" is a normal, expected part of the aging process :-) ....maybe, perhaps, the thought that Gen-Z and Gen-X are just giving up is a bit, well, I won't say hysterical, but perhaps a bit hyperbolic? And inasmuch as they are going to be here longer than we are, they do have a bit more of a stake in the future than we do.
First, you've got those folks who are in deep denial about how much we've utterly fucked our climate, i.e. "don't look up, just vote down!" Included in this group are those who think/feel "things got better over the past 100 years, so the next 100 years must be better too!"
Then you've got the astroturfers who are paid to minimize any discussion of climate disaster for whatever reason; governments, political movements, oil companies, etc. I see those in comments on the larger newspapers, they swarm in and state contradictory "facts" that confuse people and shut down discussion.
Personally, after the experience of COVID-19, the inability of governments to give up the easy money from oil etc, and the lack of reaction to extreme weather events, I think humanity is utterly doomed. If anyone survives, I don't think there will be more than a couple million people left at the end of this century.
People talk about "oh we'll just do X, Y, and Z to fix things" while forgetting that we'll have to do those things while dealing with:
Ecosystem and food supply collapse.
Resource wars.
Massive refugee migrations.
Worsening climate.
Do we also air condition the farms?
Even if that were possible, humanity has shown that we will only do something worldwide when we're absolutely forced to. We will not be able to do that while dealing with the disasters that come with global climate catastrophe and ecological collapse.
A refresher in thermodynamics is in order here....thermal energy is...energy, which is a conserved quantity. Heat doesn't just disappear. An air conditioner cools the inside air by making the outside air hotter.
And (thermodynamics strikes again) it also creates yet more waste heat in the process.
// if people are free //
Doesn't matter how free people or the markets are, thermodynamics is for real. We are not air-conditioning our way out of this.
The best counterargument to the population trend argument is that we're in the midst of a Wile E. Coyote period. Along with that though one still needs to account for:
- What's different about weapons today versus say 1970s?
- Why climate change, despite being a serious (and to be clear: actual risk), isn't amenable to solutions like the Montreal protocol that've succeeded in the past?
But sure the Montreal protocol and even the response to COVID 19 shows what can be accomplished should everyone work together. But it wasn't too late in either case then, and they were easier to solve. Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons.
Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc", I'd consider overpopulation as big a threat as climate change, the fact it's increasing each year is part of the problem.
I believe that would be after you've run off a cliff but before gravity has noticed.
The sibling reply expressed this as well. Wile E. runs off a cliff, the forward momentum keeps gravity in check but only for a short time.
The fact that human population continues to grow isn't by itself sufficient evidence that there are no existing parallel, possibly embryonic, trends developing that'll change that later. The period where both of these are true would be similar to when Wile E. is no longer on solid ground and hasn't yet fallen. It's a temporary and (on a relative basis, which could exceed human lifespan for sufficiently complex or slowly moving trends) brief period.
To be clear, I don't think it's an accurate view of where we are today. On the other hand, had the changes we've seen since 1970s not come to pass, it'd be harder to say. (An example that is climate change specific is the exponentially decreasing cost curve for solar energy.)
> Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc"
So long as the focus is on the definitive then IMHO there is value in looking hard here. Otherwise, why bother?
> Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons.
Can you say more?