EU Climate Change-Consequences

[Ohad]

Maybe we should let climate change to wash the world, because it would make it a better place in the long run.

Let me be clear, i genuinely thought we should stop climate change at first. I am not a troll, or some kind of weirdo. I’m also a vegan activist.

Before you start reading: be aware that our desire to live is also biological, not entirely objective. Once you realize that, you can be open minded to the idea that non existence is not that bad.



Here is why I think one shouldn’t be a climate activist, and shouldn’t make an effort to live a green lifestyle. But the only effort one should make if he wants to do good, is to be anti climate activist. in order to help climate change do it’s thing). I suppose I have had this thought for at least one year, in the darkest deepest part of my mind: the world is full with endless suffering. Therefore, It would be better if life didn’t exist on earth at all.

Now two things:

• we couldn’t destroy all life on earth even if we tried. We got animals here that can even survive in the outer space for a few years, so that’s off the table.

• if humans weren’t on earth, it would be undoubtedly the best thing that could ever happen. And that’s part of the reason why I want climate change to take over the world(to fully or almost fully extinct all humans). A new better world will be born from the ashes of the climate apocalypse. A world free from humans(that create the most suffering on earth, so much that we can’t even imagine). And the apocalypse might even be worth the suffering it will cause to humans and animals.



I know that animals will die and suffer horribly, and that they will be affected first. But remember, the apocalypse will be an extremely short era in earth’s history, which means that it’s close range consequences will be nothing compared to its long range consequences, which will be good.

Most of the avoidable unnecessary victims of now are victims of humans. And yes, the victims of the climate apocalypse will be victims as well. However they will be gone for a good reason for a change.

And it doesn’t really matter who will have to be extinct or be affected first, by the apocalypse. Please notice that I have the perfect reason not to have value of life anymore. The life in the wild must be too bad to consider them as good, therfore it’s not a big loss if a lot of animals die. I’d consider to extinct all life from earth if I could. Animals in the wild suffer from hunger, injuries, weather. One day i saw that poor cat I saw outside, and then realized that there are a lot cats like him. They absolutely must extremely suffer from the rain and cold. Most of us western humans dont know and don’t have to experience even 10% of this pain, because we are so far from this survival situation, thanks to unbelievably accessible and high technology. Now think about all the insects, and ants. Every drop of rain can cause them the most long and painful death. They must be terrified. And this is only a very little example. This is why I don’t think it a loss of animal life on earth will be reduced due to the climate(life is not that good, even bad).

by the way, believe me, I am well aware of horrible consequences of not stopping climate change, to both humans and non humans. And it does make sad not less that it makes you. But I think I really have the perfect reason to be sure that it will be worth it, for the greater good.



Please tell me your notes and your position. I’d also like to hear your arguments if you don’t agree with me.

 

[Graeme M]

I think you first have to have a plausible scenario for this coming apocalypse. I doubt there is any genuine likelihood of mass extinctions in the near future (say the next few centuries), not even of humans. We might eventually see a global average of increase 3-4 C but that isn't going to destroy the world and anyway is itself skewed by warming in polar regions which, let's face it, is hardly making the area less inhabitable.

So I don't share your suspicion that the world will become a blistering hellhole devoid of life because we burned some coal. In reality, I suspect things will not be very much different from today for the foreseeable future. What is of more concern for humans is probably the growing energy shortage, as well as a likely raw materials shortage as a consequence. That may have disastrous consequences for our economies and hence societies but is unlikely to lead to the extinction of human beings. And certainly not of most other species. So far, very very few species have been driven to extinction by climate change and not that many more, comparitively speaking, by human activity overall.

I take your point that the loss of all life on earth is neither here nor there and in fact desirable if we believe that pain and suffering are net bad in the universe. However, on the basis that current activity is unlikely to lead to total extinction of all species and can be expected to eventually lead to a return to a prolific biosphere as humans run out of energy and populations fall, I don't think we should take that into account at all. Life is probably here to stay (barring asteroid impact, of course).

So, the only reasonable course is to support action to reduce adverse human impacts, downscale your own ecological footprint and advocate for even more of that society-wide, and worry less.

 

[Second Summer]

So far, very very few species have been driven to extinction by climate change and not that many more, comparitively speaking, by human activity overall.

I doubt most scientists share that view. Extinction rates today are much higher than background rates, and are higher even than rates during previous mass extinctions. The biodiversity loss is sadly very real and is also a threat to humans.

 

[Graeme M]

I doubt most scientists share that view. Extinction rates today are much higher than background rates, and are higher even than rates during previous mass extinctions. The biodiversity loss is sadly very real and is also a threat to humans.

I didn't say that extinction rates are not higher. Extinction rates are much higher than the background rate when we consider the species extinctions of the past 500 years. However, that is down to the total impact of human activity, not just climate change. I said that the number of species lost due to climate change is very few and that is a fact. It may increase but there is almost zero risk that we are going to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate for more than a few more decades, so it is unlikely that we will cause some vast extinction event from climate change. And currently, I think fewer than one percent of assessed species have gone extinct from all causes in that 500 years.

 

[Second Summer]

I didn't say that extinction rates are not higher.

The way I read your post you were downplaying both species extinction due to climate change and due to human activity overall. I also suspect it can be difficult to correctly attribute a particular species' demise to one or the other cause.

It may increase but there is almost zero risk that we are going to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate for more than a few more decades, so it is unlikely that we will cause some vast extinction event from climate change.

I wish I had your optimism, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate for even just a few more decades, then the effects of climate change will still have very serious consequences in terms of temperatures, extreme weather, sea rise, polar ice cap melt, coastal erosion, permafrost thawing, landslides ... which means many species will move closer and closer to the brink of extinction.

 

[Graeme M]

I wish I had your optimism, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate for even just a few more decades, then the effects of climate change will still have very serious consequences in terms of temperatures, extreme weather, sea rise, polar ice cap melt, coastal erosion, permafrost thawing, landslides ... which means many species will move closer and closer to the brink of extinction.

I would say I am anything but optimistic in regard to the likely trajectory of the human enterprise. Nonetheless, I don't particularly expect any of the consequences of climate change you have suggested to be noticeably worse than they are today. There has always been extreme weather, erosion, landslides and so on.

The projections of bodies such as the IPCC are educated guesses so reality may be better or worse, but those projections are the state of the science. The most likely pathway is SSP2 which shows emissions declining noticeably from around 2050 leading to a temperature increase of maybe 2.5-3.0C by 2100. I think that is probably the most likely outcome simply because we will move away from coal and oil as energy sources in coming decades. 3.0C would certainly cause hardship but would not be a species extinction event. And to be honest, I really doubt we will see 3.0C. But of course, that's just an opinion. My point is that it is extremely unlikely that climate change of itself is likely to lead to some major loss of species. What WILL do that is general human activity - expansion of agriculture, use of pesticides, pollution, over fishing, excessive land clearing and so on.

The biggest challenge we face, as human societies, will be the decline in available energy as we move away from fossil fuels. That is going to be very bad.