#Earth 🌏 Will we survive this ? Amazing⚡️ #crashcourse on #collapse & #environment by #ArthurKeller

What people said

cableshaft · 2020-10 · Strong recommendation

If we wipe out the vast majority of the animal and plant life and drinkable water on the planet, how likely do you think we will keep our population at an all-time high? I think it's certainly possible you're right that population will keep increasing for the next, well, 10 years at least, maybe not 20, but meanwhile we're cratering our biocapacity, and we are not going to have anywhere near enough resources left on the planet to sustain that population if we keep going on our current trajectory. There's quite a few experts that say it's already too late, we've already depleted our biocapacity too much, the only way to correct for it is to undergo some form of rapid decline at some point in the future (collapse). I found this video incredibly illuminating on that point (I honestly thought we were still under the limit before watching it, not way past it already): [VIDEO] Extinction may be a bit extreme, humans might be able to survive somehow, but the vast majority will not. Here's one article that discusses the possibility of human extinction. Key quote: "I don’t want to claim that we can’t survive the loss of many, many species. We’ve already proved that we actually can. We’re very adaptable. But I think the bottom line is, you wouldn’t want to find out." [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗

myshpa · 2023-07 · Recommendation

No, our real problem is "overshoot" ( [LINK] ) and the the "Great Acceleration" ( [LINK] ). ‘Overshoot’ occurs when humanity consumes bio-resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate and waste production exceeds nature’s assimilative capacity. Overshoot is a meta-problem: climate change; plunging biodiversity; pollution of land, air and waters; tropical deforestation; soil/land degradation etc., etc., are all co-symptoms of overshoot. Climate change is an excess waste problem — CO2 is the greatest waste by weight of modern techno-industrial economies. We cannot solve any major symptom of overshoot in isolation. Indeed, the mainstream approach to emissions reductions will not only fail to subdue climate change but, by promoting material growth, will exacerbate overshoot ( [LINK] ). Almost everything we undertake follows a pattern resembling a hockey stick, growing exponentially long after we've already surpassed safe boundaries. This has been happening for several decades now, at least since 1970. The carrying capacity of our environment has been deteriorating for decades, and recently, the rate of its decline has escalated. It is on the verge of entering free fall, if it hasn't already (nicely explained here [VIDEO] ). We should have stopped using fossil fuels yesterday and started changing our diets, reforming agriculture, reforesting, restoring habitats and biodiversity, reforming financial systems, promoting degrowth and implementing UBI to address inequality, etc., etc

Read the original HN comment ↗

myshpa · 2023-07 · Recommendation

> when the alternative is decarbonizing using cleaner technologies There (might not be) enough fossil fuels left, and EROI is falling fast, so the question is whether we'd able to do this before the energy runs out and our economy will be forcibly reduced by nature. > carbon capture once that technology matures I'm worried that's just a technological pipedream. No such technology will probably exist for decades at the scale needed. We'd need millions of such factories. In fact, we already have such "technology", it's called forests ... but we're not doing that either. > Carrying capacity isn't fixed No, it's not. We've extended it in the past, but now it seems that it started decline ... and might enter freefall soon. I'd suggest this for more info: [VIDEO] > energy isn't fixed either Yes, and it's heating the planet and oceans 100x more than what we're consuming now. 5 atomic bombs every second now, is it? I'm aware that 254x254 km2 of solar panels would be enough for all our energy needs (except storage) ... but we're far from that. Even in the most optimistic scenarios we're targeting 25-30% of renewable energy in 2050 ... not really enough. > science fiction scenario where we become a type 2 civilization I'd like us to get there. But we might as well be at the end of the runway, looking at the great filter with our own eyes right now.

Read the original HN comment ↗