‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Starting in 2050 According to a report from Australia as reported by Vice

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
7,947
168
106
#1
New Report Suggests ‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Starting in 2050

The report is not saying that humanity will come to an end with the start of it happening at the year 2050. It is just explaining that models which assume that people do nothing could lead to dire consequences that do have the distinct possibility of pushing the human governments to the breaking points in many cases.

The scenario warns that our current trajectory will likely lock in at least 3 degrees Celsius (C) of global heating, which in turn could trigger further amplifying feedbacks unleashing further warming. This would drive the accelerating collapse of key ecosystems “including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic.”

The results would be devastating. Some one billion people would be forced to attempt to relocate from unlivable conditions, and two billion would face scarcity of water supplies. Agriculture would collapse in the sub-tropics, and food production would suffer dramatically worldwide. The internal cohesion of nation-states like the US and China would unravel.

Pretty disturbing projections.

I am under the impression that most members of governments of other rich countries accept that Climate Change is a crisis but it seems that somehow they look at the U.S. for leadership.
Of course if this is the case we have a real problem because one party in the U.S. has leadership that denies Climate Change while the other party is set on pushing candidates who advocate middle of the road policies to their top leadership positions.

The U.S. in its current political state can't be the leader on tackling the issue of climate change....



_________________
 
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#2
Sweet, I'm on prime real estate.

The catch here is that to make any grand change will require a complete overhaul of many systems in place today. What that means is economic downturn as people have to pay those even higher prices for those new systems (because nothing new is cheaper). Government subsidies can only go so far. At the end of the day most people will be broke.

The # 1 thing that needs to happen is population control. No one in the US wants to consider that though.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,136
357
126
#3
The # 1 thing that needs to happen is population control. No one in the US wants to consider that though.
If you read the OP you’d see your wish is soon to be granted.

The results would be devastating. Some one billion people would be forced to attempt to relocate from unlivable conditions, and two billion would face scarcity of water supplies. Agriculture would collapse in the sub-tropics, and food production would suffer dramatically worldwide.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
#5
New Report Suggests ‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Starting in 2050

The report is not saying that humanity will come to an end with the start of it happening at the year 2050. It is just explaining that models which assume that people do nothing could lead to dire consequences that do have the distinct possibility of pushing the human governments to the breaking points in many cases.




Pretty disturbing projections.

I am under the impression that most members of governments of other rich countries accept that Climate Change is a crisis but it seems that somehow they look at the U.S. for leadership.
Of course if this is the case we have a real problem because one party in the U.S. has leadership that denies Climate Change while the other party is set on pushing candidates who advocate middle of the road policies to their top leadership positions.

The U.S. in its current political state can't be the leader on tackling the issue of climate change....



_________________
So someone else has to step up to the plate. Who's it going to be? Whoever becomes the leader is going to write some of the biggest checks in the history of ever. I'm rooting for the EU, I think they can do it.
 
Dec 12, 2000
19,869
635
126
#6
Welp, so much for shoving 60% of my 401k in a target 2055 fund. 2045 or bust suckers!
 

ondma

Senior member
Mar 18, 2018
389
109
61
#7
So they say the situation is "almost impossible to quantify", but then make an alarmist prediction setting a date for the point of no return? OK, no contradiction in that.
 
Jul 13, 2005
25,700
568
126
#8
So they say the situation is "almost impossible to quantify", but then make an alarmist prediction setting a date for the point of no return? OK, no contradiction in that.
You do know what quantify means?? don`tcha??
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,073
1,033
136
#9
Humanity and all other lifeforms on our planet exist in a very narrow band. What we require for our existence is on this planet and that's it. We foul this place up beyond repair in our lifetimes and that's it. The problem is that as long as people remain personally untouched by the changes in climate, many will deny that there is a problem to be addressed. So we keep dumping waste in the ground, air and waters of our planet, as if there will never be any consequences. Know those plastic beads they put in body washes and shampoos? They are turning up in the flesh of the fish we eat. People will not want to do anything until it is probably too late to do anything about it.

Know the line "Think of the children!"? If we can't leave them a better planet than when we got here then it's all bullshit, isn't it? Because nothing else matters if they don't have a planet that they can live on, does it?

Nope.
 
Apr 8, 2002
40,983
77
126
#10
We love to act like the end of the world is coming. Things are being done. More things will be done over the next 30 years. Technology is progressing. By 2050 I will be shocked if there are any combustion engine cars on the road. That is a big help to the environment. Next will be the retirement of coal plants over the course of the next 30 years. Manufacturing converting to electric or natural gas. Ect ect. Will we be free and clear by 2050? No, but we will be progressing towards massive reductions in Co2 emissions. I think the big thing in the next 100 years will be Co2 capture and storage. Which have the potential to reverse our effects on the atmosphere.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#11
Al Gore, around 2008, told us that the ice caps could be gone by 2015 or so, too. Don't listen to the doom and gloom predictions.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
7,947
168
106
#12
I think the big thing in the next 100 years will be Co2 capture and storage. Which have the potential to reverse our effects on the atmosphere.
I hope you are right

I would just mention again that these projections assume the worst case scenario in that none of the advances that you propose as happening in the next 30 to 100 years take place.


___________
 
Jun 19, 2006
18,187
713
136
#13
Al Gore, around 2008, told us that the ice caps could be gone by 2015 or so, too. Don't listen to the doom and gloom predictions.
Al Gore predicted that Earth’s “ice caps” will melt away by 2014.

Mixture
About this rating

What's True
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.

What's False
Gore did not himself make these predictions but said (in some cases erroneously) that others had; Gore never referred to a year-long lack of ice for both poles, but instead largely referenced Arctic sea ice in the summer.


~Possibility~
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#14
Al Gore predicted that Earth’s “ice caps” will melt away by 2014.

Mixture
About this rating

What's True
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.

What's False
Gore did not himself make these predictions but said (in some cases erroneously) that others had; Gore never referred to a year-long lack of ice for both poles, but instead largely referenced Arctic sea ice in the summer.


~Possibility~

Yea, he made millions going around talking about the FUD, the doom and gloom sea level rise... then he bought ocean side property.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,487
1,025
136
#15
The reality of climate change isn’t a straight line. It's zig and zag but mostly the ice caps and glaciers are melting.

Look at Dwarka.. a civilization that is called the height of Indian civilization and worshiped by a billion people in India has all its cities lies underwater now.

1560189100615.png

Pretty much the future of Trump voters.. their greatest civilization and their height will be underwater eventually.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,371
725
126
#16
Yea, he made millions going around talking about the FUD, the doom and gloom sea level rise... then he bought ocean side property.
Even if that were true (in the way you're trying to claim, which it isn't), that's nothing compared to the trillions the fossil fuel industry has made doing what you're allegedly so hysterical about Gore over. Hell, Bush and Cheney made more than that alone. But hey, don't be a hypocrite or anything.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,371
725
126
#17
Sweet, I'm on prime real estate.

The catch here is that to make any grand change will require a complete overhaul of many systems in place today. What that means is economic downturn as people have to pay those even higher prices for those new systems (because nothing new is cheaper). Government subsidies can only go so far. At the end of the day most people will be broke.

The # 1 thing that needs to happen is population control. No one in the US wants to consider that though.
I don't agree. There's no reason that doing this stuff couldn't be a big stimulus economically. I mean, that's literally what was happening in the US. Its been helping China.

Population control isn't the issue. In fact, doing that makes human extinction more likely at this point. Now, we could definitely use some major population redistribution.

Yeah no one wants to consider that because you're arguing for genocide (you'll claim you're not and its about birth control or some other such, but the only way you can do what you're talking about in time for it to matter with regards to climate change is genocide). Which, cool and all, but I prefer not to get my climate change solution ideas from literal comic book super villains (since no doubt you'd claim some objective method, i.e. the Thanos plan).
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#18
The reality of climate change isn’t a straight line. It's zig and zag but mostly the ice caps and glaciers are melting.

Look at Dwarka.. a civilization that is called the height of Indian civilization and worshiped by a billion people in India has all its cities lies underwater now.

View attachment 7253

Pretty much the future of Trump voters.. their greatest civilization and their height will be underwater eventually.

Human activity didn't do that.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#19
Even if that were true (in the way you're trying to claim, which it isn't), that's nothing compared to the trillions the fossil fuel industry has made doing what you're allegedly so hysterical about Gore over. Hell, Bush and Cheney made more than that alone. But hey, don't be a hypocrite or anything.

The fossil fuel industry makes money because we consume huge amounts of energy and that's the lowest cost way of getting the energy we need. It takes a pretty large lithium ion battery to contain as much energy as is in a gallon of gasoline.

I wonder how things look, cradle to grave, when looking at mining lithium ore, pulling the lithium (a very reactive metal) out of the ore, and then the energy and possible environment costs in recycling those materials.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,790
941
146
#20
Yea, he made millions going around talking about the FUD, the doom and gloom sea level rise... then he bought ocean side property.
Miami Beach and clear weather tidal flooding says hi
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#21
Miami Beach and clear weather tidal flooding says hi
Go figure, a place that is 3' above sea level and on the ocean can flood sometimes. Did you see the "flooding" of the ancient city posted by the other poster? It went under water too. Now, quick, blame humanity.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,790
941
146
#22
Go figure, a place that is 3' above sea level and on the ocean can flood sometimes. Did you see the "flooding" of the ancient city posted by the other poster? It went under water too. Now, quick, blame humanity.
Lol. You think they built Miami Beach to flood due to tides several times each year.

It’s flooding in part due to sea level rise. They’ll be spending half a billion in mitigation.

North Carolina says hi too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.newsobserver.com/news/technology/article210413904.html
 
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#23
I don't agree. There's no reason that doing this stuff couldn't be a big stimulus economically. I mean, that's literally what was happening in the US. Its been helping China.

Population control isn't the issue. In fact, doing that makes human extinction more likely at this point. Now, we could definitely use some major population redistribution.

Yeah no one wants to consider that because you're arguing for genocide (you'll claim you're not and its about birth control or some other such, but the only way you can do what you're talking about in time for it to matter with regards to climate change is genocide). Which, cool and all, but I prefer not to get my climate change solution ideas from literal comic book super villains (since no doubt you'd claim some objective method, i.e. the Thanos plan).
You cannot seriously say 'population' isn't an issue. It is the essence of the issue and as much part of the issue as everything people are blaming it on - less people = less of the rest. Moving them around isn't going to change that. I do agree with you in that coming up with a non-draconian way do you go about that other than trying to convince people NOT to have children - which is a much longer term goal than we probably have time for - is not likely to happen.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for how it could be a big stimulus though because China as an example, also limits their population.

We already know that in the States it will mean spending more. Capitalism would have to be re-imagined for it not to. More government regulations generally also mean more cost. One way or another, what we're describing here will require vasts amounts of someones money and I doubt any of these billionaires are going to be volunteering their savings for it. It's hard to get people to make the right decisions for the year, let alone 30 years into the future. It will be interesting to see what happens once the troll is out of office. I have a feeling it will still be business as usual.
 
Last edited:
Jul 11, 2001
21,665
282
126
#24
We're Doomed, Now What?

I read this recently. Honestly I can't say he's wrong. I look at clogged freeways, I see all these people even in liberal haven where I live who aren't alarmist and I have to think we're screwed, at least in terms of sustaining the planet anything like what we're used to. The mass extinction is going on willy nilly. I read that one too. I hate to be a pessimist in my old age because I know it's such a cliche. I grew up an optimist, it's hard to shake, but if you are optimistic now I think you have your head in the sand.

The Republicans, I hear that they are climate change deniers across the board with one possible exception, being Kovich. He acknowleges the problem but doesn't see any way of doing anything. Given his position, you can see that as defeatism in the face of the recalcitrance of his party.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#25

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS