But same here: we have enough problems trying to survive on Earth, we should focus our great talents on that.
> as we get closer to colonize other planets
We won't colonise mars, and we definitely won't go further than the solar system. Just look at the distances, it's completely absurd.
BTW, "because I don't know means that I'm not wrong" is dumb, and dangerous.
Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior.
It's a great way to sell some solar panels, though.
EDIT: also, let me be clear (because I know how your brain works): I love that we're getting cleaner air. I love that we find alternative sources of energy. That's all amazing! But I predict there's never a "finish line". We'll never do good enough, and our kids will always die. Or our kids' kids. I'm not affected by that thought anymore.
Yep, climate denier. You put your belief before the scientific consensus. You may as well believe that the Earth is flat, it would not be less valid than your current position. Except that your kids won't die because of the Flat Earthers, probably.
> It's a great way to sell some solar panels, though.
Sure, many people try to sell their shit pretending it is "green". Tesla comes to mind (or Tesla before it became the nazi brand, I don't know nowadays).
> We'll never do good enough, and our kids will always die.
Well your kids will probably live in wars, global instability and die because of the climate change. Sure, they would eventually die anyway. Keep what you are saying now in mind, for when you'll have the discussion with your kids in a couple decades. Remember to tell them "we're living in a shit world, uh? Back in the days, I was one of those people who proudly didn't care. Enjoy now."
Why do you feel we can't colonize Mars? Or perhaps any of the asteroids? Perhaps not in this century but do you feel it'll never happen?
Depends on what you call "colonising". We may be able to send a few humans there, just for the sake of doing something super costly and completely useless. We as a species won't independently survive there.
We, as a species, are on the verge of collapsing on Earth, which has all the conditions needed for life. We literally are failing to survive on Earth. Why the hell would we put resources into sending a few people to mars?
> Perhaps not in this century but do you feel it'll never happen?
The way we are going now, long before next century we will be in a place where a large portion of Earth (around the equator) is unlivable. As in, without life support we won't be able to survive outside. It's cute to think about colonising other planets, but at some point we should have priorities.
Humanity is not on the verge of collapsing on Earth. Not even close. There is billions of us and our number is going up. Even with the worts climate change predictions the threat is not that we will all die, but that some of the places where we live now becomes uninhabitable and that our descendants will have a worse time living in the future.
> We literally are failing to survive on Earth.
That's literally not true.
You don't understand the meaning of "collapse", do you?
Second, you talk about "the worst climate change predictions". That's completely absurd. Quite obviously "the worst climate change prediction" implies that we all die.
Finally, you say "some of the places where we live now becomes uninhabitable and that our descendants will have a worse time living in the future". Not sure if you are aware of that problem or if you are just mentioning it because you quickly read it here. If we reach 4 degrees of warming (and that's a prediction if we don't change anything, knowing that we have already passed 1.5 earlier than expected), a large part of Earth around the equator will become unlivable (not as in "there is no more food, you have to import" but as in "you can't survive outside without life support).
We're talking billions of people. What happens when half of the population of the planet has to relocate while the other half has issue growing food (because of course, the rest of the Earth is also impacted), do you think?
That's wars, global instability, lots and lots of deaths, and the end of society as we know it. That's collapsing.
If you understand "prediction" to mean "any bullshit made up by anyone" then yes. But if you mean by "prediction" what we think is likely to happen based on available data and knowledge then not.
> Not sure if you are aware of that problem or if you are just mentioning it because you quickly read it here.
I'm aware of the problem. That is why I wrote what I wrote.
> If we reach 4 degrees of warming (and that's a prediction if we don't change anything, knowing that we have already passed 1.5 earlier than expected), a large part of Earth around the equator will become unlivable
Correct. And that is really, really, really bad. So bad that we don't have to overstate how bad it is.
> That's wars, global instability, lots and lots of deaths, and the end of society as we know it. That's collapsing.
That's societal collapse. That's really really bad. But you were talking about species level collapse. Let me quote you "We literally are failing to survive on Earth." That's not the case. We don't have to overstate our case. Extinction is not the danger we are facing here. It is continued living on the species level in a much more precarious, dangerous, unpleasant way. It's failing to thrive, not failing to survive.
I don't have to go that far, really! The IPCC models are systematically observed to be optimistic. 4 degrees is not particularly pessimistic.
> That's societal collapse. That's really really bad. But you were talking about species level collapse.
Even nitpicking here doesn't work. If you lose 90% of your population, as a species, it's collapsing.
I understand the point you are trying to make: "it's not clear that the humans species will disappear, just most humans". And I'm not saying it's clear. I'm saying it is a risk. Because we are not wild animals. Most humans, if you don't give them prepared food in a plastic bag, can't survive. And we're talking about surviving in a much harder world (4 degrees means that growing crop is harder in many ways).
But again it is a moot point. What's the point of going around saying "Guys don't be scared, we won't disappear as a species. Most of us here will die, still, but that's not as bad".
Now, let me address your nitpick: We as a society are on the verge of collapsing, and we as a species as well. With a non-zero risk that the entire species will go extinct.
The point is to be accurate.
> Guys don't be scared,
I didn’t say to not be scared. There is such a thing as surviving something, but wishing that you didn’t.
> Now, let me address your nitpick
You said we are about to go extinct. I think we are not. If that is a nitpick i don’t know what is material disagreement.
You want to be accurate, please also be when it doesn't work in your favour. Let me quote what I said:
> We, as a species, are on the verge of collapsing on Earth
I said "on the verge of collapsing", not "about to go extinct".
Again, I would argue that we are, right now, building the conditions of a collapse, meaning that many (most?) humans may not survive it. It's not just climate change, it's essentially all the planet's limits we know. Did you know that we have probably already lost the Amazon?
But well, what's the point of arguing, you agree that it's really, really, really bad. Sorry if you don't like my wording, I'll try to do better next time ;-).
The main reason, however, is that humans can't co-operate on a scale that would be needed to do it. World events show it clearly right now.
This is not the age of colonial exploration where a small band of Europeans use their weapons to overpower the natives and grab their resources and take their fertile land. This is deciding to live in the middle of a frozen desert where there is nothing.