InfernalCorg t1_ixayd0k wrote on November 22, 2022 at 2:07 AM

Reply to comment by FjorgVanDerPlorg in TIL that in 2003, scientists "resurrected" an extinct species of Ibex, bringing back one living specimen, only for it go extinct again seven minutes later when the specimen died of a lung defect by mausoliam95

> both you and science are looking at these risks individually, not studying the cumulative effects of multiple crises going critical in the same time period.

How? What are we failing to account for? A nuclear war mid-climate change would still be catastrophic, but unless I'm missing something it wouldn't have that many synergistic effects.

> with all our "efforts" to counter these problems coming up way short of the mark

You understand that this is mostly because we don't have the political willpower to fix things, not because we don't know how, right? When things get dire, even billionaires will pick survival over money.

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_ixb0tll wrote on November 22, 2022 at 2:25 AM

Lol you're putting your faith in the same science that has consistently said "we got it wrong, it's actually much worse/happening much faster than expected", for the last decade - that has been the climate change song.

Systems are complex and their interactions often have wide reaching consequences.

Try maybe: a series of lethal Pandemic outbreaks caused by thawing permafrost, including a novel virus with a long incubation rate and also a very high mortality rate, at the same time as that same permafrost releasing gigatons of methane to poison the air (clathrate gun hypothesis), oceans dying along with the amazon, resultant shortages triggering a nuclear war/use of weaponized nanotech, viral/eugenic warfare, country's facing extinction deciding to fuck everyone else at the same time (US for example could carpet nuke most of the planet), on and on.