Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaegerpicker | Hacker News Reader

Sure and I agree with that but that doesn't mean that armageddon isn't coming either. For example Climate Change and the Covid19 pandemic, both are examples of very real problems with the potential to severally harm/kill large numbers but both are dismissed with that attitude. I'm not sayin that the sky is falling in either case, though with Climate Change I can't imagine not thinking that, but if we continue to ignore them it's very likely that we will make human kinds worst nightmares come true.

View on HN

I think the earth is too large to have an Armageddon over a very short period of time (perhaps the span of one life.) Instead, things become worse at local scale. Yemen has been having (and continues to have? I haven't kept up) a nice, local Armageddon. The United States is large, and well resourced. Short of nuclear war, there will be nice places in the US for a long time, even if the overall measure of things becomes objectively worse. It may just be that "disaster" and "Armageddon," as BurningFrog has suggest is a pretty bad heuristic. The climate crisis is quite real, but it won't make the whole earth unlivable in a short period of time. Instead, some places will get worse, and humanity will be squeezed into different locales.

[edit]

I do accept that it could become a whole-earth disaster that affects everything, but my point is that this may take generations.

Well, you've jinxed it now.

> For example Climate Change and the Covid19 pandemic, both are examples of very real problems with the potential to severally harm/kill large numbers but both are dismissed with that attitude.

No. I have that attitude, and I'm not dismissing either!

I think they're both serious problems that will cause a lot of pain as they're being worked through.

What I disagree with is doomsday scenarios where they'll be the end of human civilization.

See also radiation/nuclear power. The risks should ABSOLUTELY be taken seriously, but so should the alternatives to nuclear power.

> What I disagree with is doomsday scenarios where they'll be the end of human civilization.

I don’t know anyone that’s concerned about end of human civilization. What they are concerned about is the end of their lifestyle, part of which is due to relative world peace, which is in turn due to resources being somewhat available, at least to those with power.

Once those resources stop being so (cheaply) available, then you’ll see conflicts start emerging again. I already see it in my country, the US, with the widening gaps in places with economic opportunity and those left behind.

Add in water, electricity, changing weather patterns and there will be some pain in the future.

> What I disagree with is doomsday scenarios where they'll be the end of human civilization.

The problem I have with this argument is that "the end of human civilization" is such a high bar that it's practically a tautology that it won't be met.

WW2 didn't end the human civilization - it didn't even make a dent. In fact, if the Axis had won the war, conquered the rest of the world, and massacred everybody between Moscow and Shanghai, the human civilization still wouldn't have ended.

So any talk about whether the civilization will end or not, ultimately doesn't mean much.

There have been doomsday Climate predictions as long you can go back. Historically, look at the flood stories and you can see climate worry in biblical times. More recently Miami Beach is always going to be underwater 5 years from the prediction date. It's a serious problem, but there has always been a cult like following to climate change. Personally, I think it's best to ignore the hysterical predictions and focus on your own impact and responsibilities

That's assuming that only controlling our own impact is sufficient to limit the problems.

periods of global cooling and warming have always happened (ice age). The fear is our activities are accelerating the change, not that it causes it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com