Edit: We survived an ice age and we’re very highly adaptable. Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The majority of humans won’t survive the next 100 years, because almost nobody lives to be 100.

    Do you mean that the majority of people currently alive will die due to climate change?
    Do you mean that humanity’s population will drop by over 50% and will not recover?
    Do you mean that in the future, the majority of deaths will be due to climate change, even in 200 years from now when the new (much hotter) equilibrium will be all anyone has ever known?

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think there will be a large decline in population numbers, but it should be through low birth rates and not through wars/famines. also, it will take probably a century or longer, and not happen within a few years.

      we’re facing extreme economic pressure in the next 5 years to successfully implement economic reforms (tax the rich, universal basic income) to be able to survive. but, as many people have pointed out already, UBI is ultimately only a bandaid solution, because it relies on political goodwill from activists fighting for the good cause, and that makes it questionable whether it can stay implemented un-interruptedly for very long times. so, population decline would make the society more resilient because people could demand higher wages, because there’s lower supply of human labor, and that would be a long-term solution.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        But would that really constitute “the vast majority of humans won’t [survive]?”

        I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t understand what OP means by that claim.