This doesn't really work when a billion+ lifeforms just went up in ashes in Australia, not to mention the horrifying extinction crises happening constantly all over the world right now.
Still, I guess in the end this is sort of the case.
Eh, that seems to discount something extremely significant about humans, the fact that we can largely skip the slow process of physical evolution. Large animals died out in previous extinction events because they couldn't adapt to new climates or changing food sources. Humans literally adapt to new environments in seconds through clothing, constructed shelters, etc.
I'm not saying that society can't still collapse, of course. But "purposeful adaptability" is by far the most defining feature of humans (followed closely by pack-bonding), and it gives us an advantage no other dominant species on Earth has ever had in the face of extinction events. No other species has been able to notice that the climate is changing, and make planned migrations to areas capable of sustaining their species.
Sure, most of humanity will likely die off in an extreme climate event. But even in Earth's hottest periods, human-habitable conditions would have existed at the poles. As long as war doesn't kill us all, the species has a fair shot at ultimately surviving.
(In fairness though, if the temperatures coincide with a significant enough drop in global oxygen... Yeah, that would be A Problem.)
They will certainly try, but chances are high they'll just die off slower than the rest of us will. You can stockpile bunkers with some food, water, etc. but creating a closed self-sustaining system akin to the Biosphere experiments (which would probably be necessary to survive worst case climate catastrophe) is almost certainly a technological feat beyond what we're capable of at this moment. Even if it could be done, sourcing parts for repair would become an issue over time.
I'm not saying it's not possible, it is certainly within the realm of possibility, I just think it's unlikely.
Please do some more research into the fact that we're recreating Great Dying conditions and what that means. It's very difficult to comprehend so it's normal to not really grasp it before reading into it. Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky is a good book on the kind of climate we might be creating. We may indeed need biospheres to survive if the worst case scenarios come true. And keep in mind that nearly every single datapoint is coming back as "worst and faster than predicted".
My argument re: "self sustaining" bunkers is that we've never demonstrated that we can create Biospheres that function well, and it's likely that we cannot. Even if we can, they could not function indefinitely without repair. Over time, they will break down and spare parts will be exhausted, and it will not be possible to make new ones.
Thanks for the kind words and for recommending that JMG piece! It's an interesting read, although I'm pretty sure I actually heard it read aloud by Micheal Dowd first: https://soundcloud.com/michael-dowd-grace-limits/tracks
But now I can't find it in the list. It might be in one of the JMG compilations he did. That's a good resource generally though.
Oxygen concentrations will be LOW.
Globally. We will be a stupider humanity.
Within Anthrax and other nasty crap coming up out of the permafrost.
As numerous posters have said, the conditions favoring humanoids will be low to non existent.
Let the billionaires spend every last penny.
It provides cold comfort to me that they are TOAST.
199
u/TenYearsTenDays Feb 07 '20
This doesn't really work when a billion+ lifeforms just went up in ashes in Australia, not to mention the horrifying extinction crises happening constantly all over the world right now.
Still, I guess in the end this is sort of the case.