Intensifying global heat threatens livability for younger and older adults | Hacker News Reader

Intensifying global heat threatens livability for younger and older adults

iopscience.iop.org

16 pointsSomeone13 comments

Higher temperatures reduce "the level of physical activity that a person can safely sustain without experiencing an uncontrolled rise in body temperature" is hardly surprising.

For those of us who have lived in a hot climate its a statement of the obvious. Not only that, its a lot harder to concentrate so it affects mental work as well as physical. That is why, for example, air conditioning is an aid to productivity in hot climates - Lee Kuan Yew claimed air conditioning was a critical factor in Singapore's prosperity.

This seems like a reasonable analysis.

One thing I think it neglects is the ability of people to adapt, and the fact that people don't adapt until forced to. For example, in many countries will provide shelters when conditions reach the point that it is necessary to do so:

https://tribune.net.ph/2025/03/10/doh-directs-hospitals-to-s...

https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2025/06/17/5LYKRPNYTJEQ...

You can search, there are hundreds of examples.

Additionally, individuals and families put thought and effort into solving this for themselves. Setting up a room with a beat up old window AC and salvaged insulation, even if they they can only run during peak times to provide protection for their elderly relatives, for example. People in these countries aren't going to start suddenly dying by the millions when it gets to hot, they will adapt and overcome.

Rich industrialized countries should provide some kind of compensation, it's manifestly unjust for rich countries to keep all the benefits while poor people have to reallocate already meager resources to survive the consequences. Rich countries should provide offsetting investments in education and infrastructure. It would be a massive benefit to a poor community that depends on importing diesel to generate electricity if they were provided with wind and solar capacity, especially solar in this case. This would directly make their AC use more affordable as well as reduce additional emissions.

CO2 levels are detectably weakening human bone and making you more anxious at current levels: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5 (look at the CO2 level over time image for a sense of perspective)

CO2 levels are increasing your risk of diabetes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...?

They are not slowly increasing, they are hockey sticking. The worst case is coming to pass. People are addicted to optimism here. It is unfounded - there is one action and it is to reduce CO2 emissions drastically at the expense of economic growth or we will destroy the world as we know it.

It cannot be overstated how dire the situation is.

> CO2 levels are increasing your risk of diabetes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...?

Are you sure? FTA: “Higher CO2 emission was not associated with larger changes in diabetes prevalence.”

I agree with you. People are far too optimistic. On a practical level, though, how much of these increasing issues can be temporarily ameliorated by better ventilated houses, schools, offices, etc.? In other words, does reducing the average exposure of CO2 help or is it really about the outdoor level? I could see the average mattering, but I could also see how spending time in an environment that is <400ppm CO2 (basically never happens now) could cause our bodies to rapidly expel CO2 and "reset" our internal levels.

My dire warning is in fact secondary to the climate changes, which are much worse and are already causing regional famines and human migration in the Levant and East African.

People do not appreciate how fragile modern life that we've become accustomed to can be. A few famines, a few supply chain breakdowns, the wrong conflict escalations - together at the wrong time could effectively end homo sapiens as an advanced intelligent species. Our big break was easily accessibly surface hydrocarbons, which we have mostly burned through. That enabled advanced materials science, electrical engineering, metallurgy that all build upon each other. As the species has gotten larger, it allowed greater specialization. If we have a massive drawdown in population as the result of a self-inflicted climate crisis, there is a nontrivial possibility we we never recover to current levels of advancement.

The first abstract says:

"If these trends continue, blood bicarbonate values could be at the limit of the accepted healthy range in half a century, and Ca and P will be at the limit of their healthy ranges by the end of this century. "

Hardly hockey sticking. CO2 levels are likely to be lower by the end of the century.

The second abstract concludes:

"This study does not support the hypothesis that CO2 emissions, a leading driver of climate change, may be linked to increasing trends in obesity and diabetes, though there was an indication of possible link between CO2 and obesity."

"CO2 levels are likely to be lower by the end of the century"

This is not well supported by any evidence that I'm aware of.

These are scientific papers, they couch things in conservative wording. The fact that these papers exist ought to alarm you, and CO2 levels.

Atmosphere CO2 concentration is accelerating, and enter areas of uncontrolled feedback loops

There is a large scale switch to non-fossil fuel energy sources. We are probably close to peak oil anyway so there is no choice with oil. A lot of countries have abandoned coal, and while some continue to build coal power there is no reason to think the current trend will continue as alternatives get better.

I am not aware of any evidence that current trends will continue for another 74 years.. Ten years, certainly, but not for three quarters of a century.

Silver lining here: perhaps these health risks will help speed along the rich pedos in charge to shuffle off their mortal coils

Having children in 2026 is a very selfish and completely asshole thing to do.

We're destroying the world as fast as we can. Our emissions are going up FAST. We're melting every bit of ice on the planet. We're deforesting for more beef at an insane rate. We're using more plastic than ever.

If you have a child today, you're a selfish asshole. Their world is going to be so, so bad. Famine, crazy weather patterns, mass human migration, wars, resource scarcity. This is what you're gifting your children.

Inb4 everyone has their excuse. Nobody is willing to sacrifice, at all, for the greater good.

Everyone wants to blame boomers but nobody since has done SHIT and when young folks stand up, suing for their right to a livable environment, most people tell them they're being "doomers" or "cynical". We're just as bad as our grandparents, we just have more excuses than they do.

My parents were born literally in the middle of World War II, and they did fine.

I was born in the middle of the Cold War and lived through mass protests, acid rain, at least two pandemics and the GWOT. And I did fine.

My kids are going to be fine.

Have you seen population pyramids for the west ?

There will be too few people.

Additionally I will argue that if you care about the environment and our planet, it is your duty to have children and educate them about all these things.

Regarding the doomerism, I will brush it off as internet caused (too much news/social media)

Nobody knows what is going to happen and where. For all we know things might go amazing. It doesn't look like it, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com