• @guriinii
    link
    471 year ago

    I’m 38 and I think I’ll see this in my lifetime.

      • Alto
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        Bit younger than that but hi. There’s a reason I’m not having kids

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -131 year ago

          Because that worked so well in the movie Idiocracy.

          • Alto
            link
            fedilink
            15
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sorry, not bringing some poor bastards into a world that’s only going to get worse.

            And are you actually basing the decisions you make on a movie?

            • @Nutteman
              link
              61 year ago

              A scary amount of people do

            • @CADmonkey
              link
              11 year ago

              I think they are pointing out that it doesn’t matter how many kids you have, someone else is going to have a bunch they can’t care for.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      It’s a brutal contrast of the world we grew up in , the only certainty seems to be that the next year will be worse than the last , and death . Which doesn’t seem so bad all things considered.

  • Poggervania
    link
    fedilink
    271 year ago

    Reminds me of a bit that George Carlin did regarding climate change: “The planet’s gonna be fine. The people are FUCKED!

    • themeatbridge
      link
      171 year ago

      Just want to point out for all the people who say things like “We didn’t know how bad it would be…” George did that bit in 1992, and everybody knew exactly what he meant. Jimmy Carter warned of climate change while he was president.

      We’ve known for nearly 50 years, and we did almost nothing to stop it.

  • @Donjuanme
    link
    161 year ago

    Sounds conservative to me. I feel like to cap it to a billion we’d need massive agriculture overhaul and renewable energy investment, and neither of those are valued in profit or political capital.

  • @ConfuzedAZ
    link
    121 year ago

    27,000 deaths a day approximately. According to the WHO 150,000 people die every day right now. 385,000 people are born every day. I mean it sounds bad, but in this context it doesn’t sound that bad…

    • themeatbridge
      link
      131 year ago

      Exactly, and it’s not like it’s going to be me dying. It will be someone else. Thanks to denial, I’m immortal.

      • @ConfuzedAZ
        link
        11 year ago

        Yeah, honestly I think the estimate may be low, or perhaps white the death toll is not what is expected the actual quality of life is going to take a huge bit.

      • @ConfuzedAZ
        link
        51 year ago

        Yeah. Don’t blame people at all for not having kids. Frankly the planet probably needs less humans.

        • Alto
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          The planet can absolutely support more humans.

          We’d just have to be something that even halfway resembles responsible about it. Good luck with that part

          • @QuandaleDingle
            link
            11 year ago

            The planet can absolutely support more humans.

            As the world becomes more industrialized and its citizens desire more of the “first world life”, I’m starting to be wary of that view.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Causing 15% of deaths is a big deal. Maybe not as much a big deal as Doomsday Next Tuesday, but a big deal nevertheless.

    • @vanderstilt
      link
      11 year ago

      I can’t imagine that birth rate keeping up much longer.

  • @demonquark
    link
    61 year ago

    What are the most likely causes of death? Are we talking average life expectancy drops by a couple of years, but quality of life remains constant? Or are we talking famine and war due to a loss of areable land?

    I assume it’s a little of both, but it’s useful to know which sides the scales tip.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      It’s an estimate of premature deaths based on CO2 emissions.

      "Pearce and Parncutt found the peer-reviewed literature on the human mortality costs of carbon emissions converged on the “1,000-ton rule,” which is an estimate that one future premature death is caused every time approximately 1,000 tons of fossil carbon are burned.

      “Energy numbers like megawatts mean something to energy engineers like me, but not to most people. Similarly, when climate scientists talk about parts per million of carbon dioxide, that doesn’t mean anything to most people. A few degrees of average temperature rise are not intuitive either. Body count, however, is something we all understand,” said Pearce, a Western Engineering and Ivey Business School professor.

      “If you take the scientific consensus of the 1,000-ton rule seriously, and run the numbers, anthropogenic global warming equates to a billion premature dead bodies over the next century. Obviously, we have to act. And we have to act fast.”"

  • @forksandspoons
    link
    41 year ago

    Afaikt the paper refernced in the article is The Human Cost of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Semi-Quantitative Prediction and the 1,000-Tonne Rule. .

    From the abstract:

    The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10^12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10^9 future premature deaths (10% of projected maximum global population), spread over one to two centuries.

    The key part of this being that it specifies 2C of warming. According to the climate action tracker, with current policies are on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by 2100. So assuming no further polices to move back to 2C or less, the 1 billion deaths could be larger.

  • roguetrick
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    That sounds low enough to ensure a dystopian future. It could be much higher and still get there easily.