Hacker News Reader

Saying “zero humans left alive is a likely future” suggests you are basing your perspective based on fear and ideology and not science. Science of course tells us that climate change will risk higher sea levels, increased erratic weather, etc. but this is so far away from your preposterous notion of zero humans left alive. This is the danger of politicizing science.

View on HN

Maybe they're referring to increased migration from the Global South ?

There are unfortunately few people studying worst case scenarios, but it's not like "science" doesn't consider it possible (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119). This is not likely, but it's hard to quantify how unlikely it is.

Suggesting otherwise is not accurate and downplays the possible tail risks.

the problem with this low probability events far out into the future is if you reduce the chance of one low probability event then you might increase the chance of another low probability event. you may decrease the chance of catastrophic climate change due to global warming but increase the chance of global cooling such that there is no actual change in risk. or you may increase the chance that a large part of humanity is wiped out by an asteroid because you have slowed down industrial progress. or any other weird butterfly effect because you are looking at inherently low probability events and trying to build policy around costing them. how these low probability events end up being handled is just whoever has the most convincing narrative which is not a good way of running policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com