this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1710 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2500 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irkli@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No. That's simplistic and wrong. Huge swaths of the planet will remain nicely habitable. But large swaths won't, and disease increase and economic failures will make things very terrible.

But this "all gonna die" stuff is dumb and wrong. Sorry.

Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn't take long before the entire population is at risk

Ontario's great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is

Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.

We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It won't matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.

It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it's 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.

[–] hup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.

Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?

Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we'd face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean 1% nearly broke the EU?

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Syrian refugees were the end result of climate shift in Syria.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see how this answers my question.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The movement of a tiny group of people relative to the size of the EU drastically shifted the entire political structure of the EU, leading to Brexit and several other countries considering the same. Magnify that affect by the number of people that will be moving due to climate change, and you get an extinction event.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

You're totally right. The billionaires who caused all this will survive either way.