InfernalCorg

InfernalCorg t1_iyj0e6s wrote

> Where is the saving if, for example, Finland and Japan were to use the same gauge?

You can build the same model of train for both. Yes, it's not a huge issue, but standardization is generally a better than the alternative in industrial fields.

42

InfernalCorg t1_ixayd0k wrote

> 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.

1

InfernalCorg t1_ixaxouy wrote

Or you'd operate in low-oxygen environments via rebreathers, yeah. I'm not suggesting it'd be trivial, only that even drastic changes to our environment are unlikely to wipe us out.

3

InfernalCorg t1_ixaw13d wrote

> I dont think its a coincidence that the rise in plastic pollution coincides with a global decline in fertility rates.

You don't? Why does fertility rate correspond more closely to economic development than plastic use, then?

>Because the problem is that we are trying to extinct ourselves in pretty much every imaginable way.

There are quite a few more people trying to not go extinct. There's no plausible scenario (barring a gamma ray burst, asteroid, supernova, etc) where the human race goes extinct. The climate's going to suck for a century, but things will still be livable. War isn't fun, but even a thermonuclear war results in most humans living - the global south finally lucks out for once.

It's possible we go out via some sort of confluence of negative events, but it doesn't seem likely enough to dwell on it. Doomerism isn't productive.

3

InfernalCorg t1_ixavmj7 wrote

Hardly. A particularly bad catastrophe might take is back as far as 1970s tech, but a single decent library'd be enough for us to rebuild from more-or-less scratch.

And even if we went full "atmosphere not oxygenated enough to sustain human life" we'd still have holdouts in bunkers with life support. There are eight billion of us and we're remarkably hard to eradicate.

2

InfernalCorg t1_ixaoa0v wrote

I understand the pessimism, but we're unlikely to go extinct. Most extinction-level threats that we control involve rogue general AI.

Mass population reductions on a biblical scale, now, those are likely. It's going to be a rough few decades.

−3