Unlikely. Maybe more like your children’s children will be highly inconvenienced and have to change their lifestyle to one you wouldn’t want to live- and then maybe their kids or somewhere down that line would die from climate change after the world became less and less as we know it and quality of life and daily routine changed drastically as time went by. But I mean- it’s not as catchy on a sign, and the overall message of doing our part for the future is a noble one. Or at least civic. Of course to those kids that would just be “the world” since they’d never known any other world. So really it’s more like “if you want our future humans to live in a world closer to the one you know...” but I digress. Fight the good fight and best of luck.
It’s a serious issue- but the prognosis is dramatic. Miami Beach has a population of 92,000 or so. Projections state that 94% of the area will be underwater by 2100. I that happens and if the population doesn’t increase at all- 94,000 people will die! Unless... they migrate. Which people tend to do when faced with slowly increasing fatal hazards. Migrate or adapt. So it’s still highly unlikely those people would die. We are very likely to see global population density increase to the point where areas see densities closer to what some of the current most dense places see- for reference- the entire population of the world could fit in Texas with room for every family of 4 to have a single family home and yard. So yes- the world would fundamentally change and things would likely get more scarce- but the predictions of mass death are perhaps not as dire as they might seem. Death from wars or riots or shortages or disease or crime in areas effected by refugees... those are harder to pin.
Evidence indicates humanity experienced at least one mass extinction event in the past. Say 90% of humans die from climate change. What happens? Those able to survive migrate. Breed. Man made pollution is almost non existent as industry and consumerism and waste are. Technological progress reverts to a much simpler stage and we must rebuild. Likely with the though in mind that we don’t want that to happen again. Centuries pass with the world human population in primitive decimation. Ecosystems repair themselves and evolve. As the meme says: “Life finds a way.” And that’s IF this grand prediction of death actually occurs. Climate change is changing our world, pollution is killing people with over 1.2 million dead in India in 2017 from air pollution. But saying that isn’t the same as a claim half a billion people would stand in a pot while being boiled alive.
"Researchers at MIT warn that if climate change remains unchecked (Business As Usual-scenario = RCP 8.5) over half a billion people will, from 2070 onwards, experience humid heat waves that will kill even healthy people in the shade within 6 hours. The Wet Bulb Temperature (WBT) would exceed 35°C (95°F), at which the body – of any mammal – cannot cool itself, overheats and shuts down."
If you think that you cannot die in 95 degree heat, think again. Because at this wet bulb temperature, the air is so humid that sweating does nothing to cool the body.
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/09/non-survivable-humid-heat-for-over-500-million-people/
Also, your enzymes in your body, responsible for many functions including nutrient breakdown and the maintenance of homeostasis, start to degenerate themselves or cause instability in the the DNA/RNA replication process
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
Unless we're setting up for the next stage of evolution. Organisms react to their environment, and the fittest pass on their genes. Humans that survive the heat waves are likely to have children that survive more heat waves, repopulating the Earth in no time
I wouldn't cite that WordPress blog if you want to look credible.
.
One small example from their About page: "Climateguide consists of a website to the aim of aggregating knowledge and facilitating discussion about how climate change will effect geographical regions."
Consists of a website to the aim...?
Also, "effect" as a verb means to create or bring about, as opposed to "affect" which means to interfere with the normal operations of or change in some way.
.
There's plenty of good info about climate change and pollution; use it.
I would t question the credibility, Credible and educated sources have been making predictions about climate change for a long time. Here are some made around the very first earth day:
Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Of course for death tolls- Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1970 that: Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Of course- about 25,000 people door a day from hunger- but there’s more than enough food to feed the world. That’s economics and politics, not climate change.
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”Or the life magazine Article staying all urban dwellers would need gas masks in daily life by 1980... Ecologist Kenneth Watt predicted an exhaustion of all crude oil by 2000.
Climate change IS real. I believe all evidence supports manmade climate change IS real and we can do something about it and should. However- people are bad at thinking ahead years let alone decades or centuries, as well as in subtle terms of the impact of seemingly small changes or things happening far from our lives. There’s a proclivity to resort to sensational, immediate, and personal claims to try and build urgency and importance. That’s not good. It could take hundreds of years to make a real difference in what we’ve done. It’s also not a fight that is ever won. The tech gets cleaner- look how much cleaner we’ve gotten since the industrial revolution. But- 100 people dumping a barrel of oil in a lake each or 168,000 people dumping a quart each is still going to damage the ecosystem.
As the population increases and more of the world population is able to access technology and goods- increases efficiency doesn’t have the same positive impact, it’s more an offset of negative impact, better than nothing but much like switching from eating 10lb of fudge a day to 10lb of low fat fudge. You just die slower. So this is a fight that humans will be fighting until we go extinct or discover some “perfect” system of technology that fits cyberneticaly with the environment. Meaning that those children and their children and onwards will be still trying to stay ahead of man made climate change.
Establishing a thought process that we can ever “beat” man made climate change in an industrial society is counter productive. We have to fight it, and every generation of humans will- likely forever. It’s tempting to “go big” to push people to act- but what happens when the sky doesn’t fall, and repeat that for decades or centuries? People become numb to it and deny it and point to all the times the predicted doom never occurred. Look at people living in war zones. Or just becomes a part of life- something that happens or doesn’t. Not something they feel they can change. People put it out of mind and focus on living whatever life they want. That is the danger- a real danger to thin predictions of fortune tellers with degrees.
If you think that you cannot die in 95 degree heat, think again. Because at this wet bulb temperature, the air is so humid that sweating does nothing to cool the body.
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/09/non-survivable-humid-heat-for-over-500-million-people/
.
One small example from their About page: "Climateguide consists of a website to the aim of aggregating knowledge and facilitating discussion about how climate change will effect geographical regions."
Consists of a website to the aim...?
Also, "effect" as a verb means to create or bring about, as opposed to "affect" which means to interfere with the normal operations of or change in some way.
.
There's plenty of good info about climate change and pollution; use it.
Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Of course for death tolls- Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1970 that: Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Of course- about 25,000 people door a day from hunger- but there’s more than enough food to feed the world. That’s economics and politics, not climate change.