Comment on Humanity will likely survive climate change, but the vast majority of humans won't.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks agoI disagree.
I dont think its particularly likely there will be famines in the next 5 years or so on a scale that can’t be countered by aid.
Sure, economies might start to feel some very serious consequences, shit might start to get very real, I just dont think we’re quite at the point where people start dying.
Cricket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I have mixed feelings about it. I think it’s perhaps 50/50 on whether things really go crazy within 5-10 years. It’s definitely more than 0% chance, especially considering that people have already been dying due to climate change for quite a while now (extreme weather events, drought, and related conflicts).
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I guess it’s subjective.
Sure, climate change is starting to have an impact and more people might die due to malnutrition which is related.
My predictions within 5 years are something like :
I think societal collapse is still a decade away at least. However, the poor and impoverished are certainly going to start to feel the burn.
On the one hand I have a left leaning progressive mind set and have with young children - I’m heavily motivated to try to change our trajectory. On the other hand I’m 43 years old and I don’t remember a period where people weren’t predicting societal collapse in 5 years.
Climate change is bad. Mass extinctions, severe weather events, and famine, are all a certainty in the coming years. However, this needs to be balanced by technological advancements that are going to mitigate the effects. Just as an example, we can produce more food from less land than ever in history.
Cricket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I pretty much agree with most of your assessment. Thank you for mentioning insurance and real estate, as that will particularly impact countries like the US, where the two have been in a feedback loop, greatly inflating home prices.
I just worry that any technological advances will only be used to either directly help people at the top or to make them richer in the process of helping those below. That has been increasingly the trend over the decades.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Yeah, you’re right in that wealthy people are heavily motivated to capture the value provided by new technologies.
However, I don’t think that’s always the case.
Roof top solar is one example. Really high rates of adoption here in Australia. The cost of the equipment has reduced dramatically and it’s a bit silly not to install at this point. It’s good for the planet and it reduces costs for individuals and families of all kinds.
Food production is another one. Yes a lot of farms are owned by large corporations, but a lot of farms are also family operations. If they make more food they make more money and secondary industries can charge farmers more money. In my area this agricultural production is the primary industry and although there might be $100k people in my city almost all employment is in supporting industries, whether that’s maintaining equipment, transporting goods, financial services, et cetera. While there’s always some concentration of wealth it doesn’t seam particularly problematic for the moment.
I don’t really know anything about this but it’s possible that in the future you’ll be able to make synthetic meats at home in a bioreactor.
I guess I’m just saying that while I agree the implications of climate change are bleak, emerging technologies might mitigate the impact on human-kind to some extent.