I beg to differ while also finding both the article and your stance to be conservative and reductive in its analytical approach while suffering from linear reasoning.
Given that modern agricultural processes depend on fossil fuels at every stage - from cultivation to transport - it is imprudent to be overly optimistic about our current pr…
I beg to differ while also finding both the article and your stance to be conservative and reductive in its analytical approach while suffering from linear reasoning.
Given that modern agricultural processes depend on fossil fuels at every stage - from cultivation to transport - it is imprudent to be overly optimistic about our current predicament. For example, in a study published in “Energy Policy,” it was estimated that the modern food system consumes roughly ten calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy produced. This fact alone should caution against a conservative outlook.
Moreover, the phenomenon of warmer winters, leading to species migration, is a significant concern. This is not merely a shift in populations but spells a systemic biospherical alteration that current models struggle to predict. Studies on bird and mammal migrations have shown shifts in ranges in response to climate change, reflecting this unpredictable nature. Labeling such a complex process as a mere inconvenience is both anthropocentric and arguably narcissistic.
Additionally, the analysis overlooks the potential consequences for poor countries where conditions are approaching wet-bulb temperatures, which are lethal to humans. Research in “Nature Climate Change” highlights regions that may become uninhabitable due to extreme heat and humidity, exacerbating inequalities.
The reduction in snow accumulation at the tops of mountains due to warmer winters is another overlooked factor. This snow, when melted, often provides crucial water supplies for human populations. For example, the Hindu Kush Himalayan region serves as a critical water tower for more than a billion people, and reduced snowfall has serious implications for water security.
Taken together, these factors underscore a profound dependence on fossil fuels that characterizes our civilization. Assertions that this dependence will vanish without significant societal upheaval are unsupported by the available evidence. Far from being a peripheral concern, this dependence is central to our way of life, and its ramifications are likely to be felt across the biosphere and human society alike until modern civilization undergoes substantial transformation.
P.S tipping points alone can lead to exponential changes that no animal can adopt to.
1. You mention my stance is conservative. What do you mean? I'm trying to be nuanced here. My stance is: This is really bad, but it's not world-ending bad. Do you disagree? Specificity here would help.
2. Indeed our dependency on fossil fuels is bad. I wish we didn't have it. But:
i. We're moving away from them pretty fast right now (solar! wind! Exponential growths!)
ii. We know how to move away even faster (nuclear!)
iii. We know how to revert its climate change impact in the short term while we transition
iv. Outside of that, the only issue might be that we're running out of them, but we're not.
3. I agree that species migrations is an important factor. My understanding is that its impact falls into the "species extinction risk" that I mention, which I quantify as "probably higher than 1% and much lower than 50%" from what I know today. this is bad! But not Earth-ending. Why would claiming this be narcissistic? I can agree that it's anthropocentric though. On this, what would be the best way to quantify the value of this biodiversity?
4. Wet bulb is a serious issue. So far, this is accounted for in the "hot vs cold deaths" argument. I think you might be suggesting that there might be a non-linearity there. I agree. But if that's true, there might be an even stronger non-linearity: human adaptation. Wet bulb has a known solution: AC. It's a matter of throwing money (and tech) at the problem. Based on the past track record of humanity, I believe we will AC the world faster than wet bulb temperatures will become a problem?
5. The water security is indeed a serious problem. This might cause many downstream problems.
6. I did not assert "that this dependence will vanish without significant societal upheaval"! AFAIK. Please point out to me if I did. Overall, I think this is the most salient part of your comment. I fail to understand specifically what it is that I said that you disagree with.
7. Tipping points are by far the single most important wild card here. As I've mentioned before, the entire analysis assumes no massive tipping points. Today, this is supported by evidence AFAIK. AMOC is the one that seems most likely at this point, and its effects would not be great indeed.
1. The stance, owing to its nuanced nature, overlooks the multifaceted nature of the system. Models that were forecasted, with ever-increasing accuracy through artificial intelligence and supercomputing, to predict the climate phenomena we are witnessing today for later in the century, are now too generalized and outdated. The subtlety that your argument underscores also neglects the interconnectedness of multiple chains within the biospheric system. While these may not portend a world-ending scenario, they certainly pose an extreme risk to modern civilization, predicated on infinite growth and extractive practices, and this alone should serve as a substantial warning against excessive optimism.
2. Wishing without action is akin to a lake without water. To respond to the subclauses,
i. Who does ‘we’ refer to in the premise’s context? If the allusion is to the global economy, then this constitutes hollow propaganda. Fossil fuel demand has risen to an all-time high, once again. Consider the global data chart on energy consumption and the sources from which that energy is derived; humanity is nowhere near relinquishing its tenacious grip. Such an assertion verges on delusion and is founded on confirmation bias.
ii. Building and activating a nuclear plant requires a decade or more. Approximate calculations indicate that humanity would need to construct around 400 nuclear plants each month for the next decade to supplant fossil fuel energy extraction, not accounting for the projected increase in energy demand.
iii. Tomas, would you be kind enough to elucidate what you mean by “We know how to revert its climate change impact in the short term while we transition”?
iv. Regarding “running out of them,” could you please specify what the statement aims to convey, and more explicitly, to whom “them” refers?
3. My quantification approach is both holistic and dialectical-materialistic in nature. As it stands today, the distribution of living biomass offers a stark insight into what humanity confronts. A mere 4% of living biomass is classified as wild, with the remainder being domesticated animals and humans. The exponential growth in population and corresponding urbanization, whose fundamental premise was human-centered planning, signifies a paradox overlooked by many critics. Catton’s “Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change” already articulated the complexities of overpopulation and urban sprawl. Your hypothesis seems to suffer from a human-centric perspective, neglecting the necessity of a comprehensive approach to understanding.
4. This clause resonates strongly with my objection to your conservative stance that overlooks peripheral issues. Air conditioning, to state it succinctly, is but a short-term remedy. Present-day power grid infrastructure lacks the capability to meet high-demand periods, a deficiency glaringly evident during extreme weather events across extensive geographical expanses. In North America, the absence of meaningful investment in grid resilience even during times of stress is apparent. Your premise appears flawed, predicated on an unduly optimistic projection of future technological solutions. The uncritical embrace of techno-solutions gives me great pause, especially when considering the naivete that has led some to believe in unending growth. While not dismissing the potential of specific technologies, I acknowledge the very real apprehensions surrounding their implementation within systems controlled by autocrats and oligarchs, whose actions often seem driven by a desire to maintain the status quo.
5. I take exception to the use of the term “might.” This word, in my view, trivializes the challenges that humanity is both facing now and poised to encounter, and casts a shadow of doubt over meticulously researched findings on water security. I emphatically disagree with this characterization, Tomas.
6. My apologies for any confusion on my part. The assertion was crafted in a manner similar to the argument you have presented.
7. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) may reach a tipping point between 2025 and 2050, with the median forecast at 2037, subject to a margin of error. The tipping point for Greenland’s ice sheet may have already occurred; the Amazon is now a net emitter of CO2. These represent critical junctures in our climate system; it behooves us not to overlook corresponding tipping points within social and other animal systems.
I beg to differ while also finding both the article and your stance to be conservative and reductive in its analytical approach while suffering from linear reasoning.
Given that modern agricultural processes depend on fossil fuels at every stage - from cultivation to transport - it is imprudent to be overly optimistic about our current predicament. For example, in a study published in “Energy Policy,” it was estimated that the modern food system consumes roughly ten calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy produced. This fact alone should caution against a conservative outlook.
Moreover, the phenomenon of warmer winters, leading to species migration, is a significant concern. This is not merely a shift in populations but spells a systemic biospherical alteration that current models struggle to predict. Studies on bird and mammal migrations have shown shifts in ranges in response to climate change, reflecting this unpredictable nature. Labeling such a complex process as a mere inconvenience is both anthropocentric and arguably narcissistic.
Additionally, the analysis overlooks the potential consequences for poor countries where conditions are approaching wet-bulb temperatures, which are lethal to humans. Research in “Nature Climate Change” highlights regions that may become uninhabitable due to extreme heat and humidity, exacerbating inequalities.
The reduction in snow accumulation at the tops of mountains due to warmer winters is another overlooked factor. This snow, when melted, often provides crucial water supplies for human populations. For example, the Hindu Kush Himalayan region serves as a critical water tower for more than a billion people, and reduced snowfall has serious implications for water security.
Taken together, these factors underscore a profound dependence on fossil fuels that characterizes our civilization. Assertions that this dependence will vanish without significant societal upheaval are unsupported by the available evidence. Far from being a peripheral concern, this dependence is central to our way of life, and its ramifications are likely to be felt across the biosphere and human society alike until modern civilization undergoes substantial transformation.
P.S tipping points alone can lead to exponential changes that no animal can adopt to.
Thanks Alexey! Fantastic debate. Reactions:
1. You mention my stance is conservative. What do you mean? I'm trying to be nuanced here. My stance is: This is really bad, but it's not world-ending bad. Do you disagree? Specificity here would help.
2. Indeed our dependency on fossil fuels is bad. I wish we didn't have it. But:
i. We're moving away from them pretty fast right now (solar! wind! Exponential growths!)
ii. We know how to move away even faster (nuclear!)
iii. We know how to revert its climate change impact in the short term while we transition
iv. Outside of that, the only issue might be that we're running out of them, but we're not.
3. I agree that species migrations is an important factor. My understanding is that its impact falls into the "species extinction risk" that I mention, which I quantify as "probably higher than 1% and much lower than 50%" from what I know today. this is bad! But not Earth-ending. Why would claiming this be narcissistic? I can agree that it's anthropocentric though. On this, what would be the best way to quantify the value of this biodiversity?
4. Wet bulb is a serious issue. So far, this is accounted for in the "hot vs cold deaths" argument. I think you might be suggesting that there might be a non-linearity there. I agree. But if that's true, there might be an even stronger non-linearity: human adaptation. Wet bulb has a known solution: AC. It's a matter of throwing money (and tech) at the problem. Based on the past track record of humanity, I believe we will AC the world faster than wet bulb temperatures will become a problem?
5. The water security is indeed a serious problem. This might cause many downstream problems.
6. I did not assert "that this dependence will vanish without significant societal upheaval"! AFAIK. Please point out to me if I did. Overall, I think this is the most salient part of your comment. I fail to understand specifically what it is that I said that you disagree with.
7. Tipping points are by far the single most important wild card here. As I've mentioned before, the entire analysis assumes no massive tipping points. Today, this is supported by evidence AFAIK. AMOC is the one that seems most likely at this point, and its effects would not be great indeed.
1. The stance, owing to its nuanced nature, overlooks the multifaceted nature of the system. Models that were forecasted, with ever-increasing accuracy through artificial intelligence and supercomputing, to predict the climate phenomena we are witnessing today for later in the century, are now too generalized and outdated. The subtlety that your argument underscores also neglects the interconnectedness of multiple chains within the biospheric system. While these may not portend a world-ending scenario, they certainly pose an extreme risk to modern civilization, predicated on infinite growth and extractive practices, and this alone should serve as a substantial warning against excessive optimism.
2. Wishing without action is akin to a lake without water. To respond to the subclauses,
i. Who does ‘we’ refer to in the premise’s context? If the allusion is to the global economy, then this constitutes hollow propaganda. Fossil fuel demand has risen to an all-time high, once again. Consider the global data chart on energy consumption and the sources from which that energy is derived; humanity is nowhere near relinquishing its tenacious grip. Such an assertion verges on delusion and is founded on confirmation bias.
ii. Building and activating a nuclear plant requires a decade or more. Approximate calculations indicate that humanity would need to construct around 400 nuclear plants each month for the next decade to supplant fossil fuel energy extraction, not accounting for the projected increase in energy demand.
iii. Tomas, would you be kind enough to elucidate what you mean by “We know how to revert its climate change impact in the short term while we transition”?
iv. Regarding “running out of them,” could you please specify what the statement aims to convey, and more explicitly, to whom “them” refers?
3. My quantification approach is both holistic and dialectical-materialistic in nature. As it stands today, the distribution of living biomass offers a stark insight into what humanity confronts. A mere 4% of living biomass is classified as wild, with the remainder being domesticated animals and humans. The exponential growth in population and corresponding urbanization, whose fundamental premise was human-centered planning, signifies a paradox overlooked by many critics. Catton’s “Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change” already articulated the complexities of overpopulation and urban sprawl. Your hypothesis seems to suffer from a human-centric perspective, neglecting the necessity of a comprehensive approach to understanding.
4. This clause resonates strongly with my objection to your conservative stance that overlooks peripheral issues. Air conditioning, to state it succinctly, is but a short-term remedy. Present-day power grid infrastructure lacks the capability to meet high-demand periods, a deficiency glaringly evident during extreme weather events across extensive geographical expanses. In North America, the absence of meaningful investment in grid resilience even during times of stress is apparent. Your premise appears flawed, predicated on an unduly optimistic projection of future technological solutions. The uncritical embrace of techno-solutions gives me great pause, especially when considering the naivete that has led some to believe in unending growth. While not dismissing the potential of specific technologies, I acknowledge the very real apprehensions surrounding their implementation within systems controlled by autocrats and oligarchs, whose actions often seem driven by a desire to maintain the status quo.
5. I take exception to the use of the term “might.” This word, in my view, trivializes the challenges that humanity is both facing now and poised to encounter, and casts a shadow of doubt over meticulously researched findings on water security. I emphatically disagree with this characterization, Tomas.
6. My apologies for any confusion on my part. The assertion was crafted in a manner similar to the argument you have presented.
7. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) may reach a tipping point between 2025 and 2050, with the median forecast at 2037, subject to a margin of error. The tipping point for Greenland’s ice sheet may have already occurred; the Amazon is now a net emitter of CO2. These represent critical junctures in our climate system; it behooves us not to overlook corresponding tipping points within social and other animal systems.