• magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.

    • DieguiTux8623@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Automation replaces manual works, AI replaces intellectual ones. No need for cheap labor in the short term.

      • nomecks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what’s in short supply right now? People who know how to automate stuff.

        • DieguiTux8623@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am at risk of losing my own job since it can be quite easily replaced by AI. The original post was about people having to die, so I hope to be counted in that number.

      • TwoGems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        AI learns from existing human work. Without innovation it will learn nothing of value.

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This rule is actually “an order of magnitude best estimate”, which means it’s more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

    That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

    “When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom,” explains Pierce.

    “We’ve done that here too and it still doesn’t look good.”

    Translation: 10 billion people will die.

    2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. That’s the sad part. I think most people sort of accidentally think that, without really critically thinking about it.

        The people who will suffer most area already invisible to most others.

        In NZ we’re trying to reduce carbon emissions in farming to the cries of farmers “but you’re killing our jobs” neglecting that they’re indirectly killing actual people.

    • Urbanfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Europe over 60,000 people died in 2022 due to heatwaves.

      People are blind to these deaths because they’re not being taken out by a single devastating event, but rather a series of small events the people brush off as “they were going to die anyway”.

      It’s one of the reasons I’ve not, and will not have children. This is getting exponentially worse and I couldn’t image the horror that our future will face.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        … meanwhile we’re compensating people who built $10m houses on cliff tops, who then cut down the trees securing the cliff edge, and are now finding out that cliffs erode, and their houses are failing into the sea.

        … we’re exempting farmers from paying the actual costs of their carbon emissions while they pollute or water ways with reckless abandon. It’s only the poor fuckers down stream who’ll get sick and die.

        … While we still argue if old and sick people should die of COVID so that fashion shops can still hock their tat manufactured halfway around the world and shipped here on ships that burn the shittiest fuel available.

        I have had kids, and lament the world I’m giving to them.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least with the house on the cliff example it’s the insurance companies paying for it though right? Hopefully their premiums were priced appropriately and the insurer doesn’t raise everyone else’s rates to cover their folly. I’ve no doubt they would if that’s the case, but I presume their actuaries did a decent job computing that risk so who knows.

  • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This article is bogus. It doesn’t even mention the power or thoughts and prayers once!

  • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are some real disgusting people here. Anyone who thinks that the solution to climate change is to kill a lot of humans should consider going first.

    • Skies5394@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This issue is that nature is going to start with the people who contribute the least to the issue.

      If only the people contributing the most could actually feel the pressure.

      • AccmRazr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        And those who contribute the least to this issue are also likely the ones who want it fixed the most.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can easily see white nations gunning-down brown migrants by the millions to keep them out.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      By resetting earth. I wonder what species will wander the lands and waters in millions of years…

  • xT1TANx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It only took 250 years since the industrial revolution to utterly doom our world.

    • Baut [she/her] auf.@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Calling people viruses is probably not the best way to go about it. It’s the way we’re doing economy at a global scale, not inherent to us as a species.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “1 billion people on track to die”… I guess we’re doing an empirical test of the trolley problem.

    We have a choice between inconveniencing some people (especially some very rich people); vs saving billions of lives by switching tracks. And apparently the empirical choice is to equivocate and delay so that we stay on the path of death and ruin. … It isn’t the solution I would have chosen personally.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you pull the lever, ultimately nothing changes because the tipping point was wooshed past in the 1990s and this first billion will be the lucky ones who dont survive to witness the extinction of the human race

  • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is quite a lot of extra discussion regarding the 1000-ton rule in the artual report itself (link can ne found in the article). Here are some excerpts:

    it is likely more than 300 million (“likely best case”) and less than 3 billion (“likely worst case”) will die as a result of AGW of 2 °C.

    A more recent attempt at quantifying future deaths in connection with specific amounts of carbon was published by Bressler [69]. Coining an economically oriented term “mortality cost of carbon”, he claimed that “for every 4434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature”. His predictions were confined to deaths from extreme heat when wet-bulb temperature exceeds skin temperature (35 °C).

    Some interesting stuff in there.

    I would’ve added more but holy shit the mdpi.com mobile website is atrocious to copy stuff from. It keeps throwing me at the end of the entire article, highlighting everything.

  • Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is so funny how stuiped people are as they can’t see they are the reason. In China they need to wear masks due to the pollution makes the air unbreathable. They also burn coal to get electricity to run AC, especial now with the heat weaves.

    • Lexam@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “people” You and me are not the reason. We are stuck in a system created by the rich to exploit us. And like most parasites they are going to keep taking and polluting until there is nothing left.