Rapid Loss of Habitat for Homo sapiens (2021) [pdf]

https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Academia-Letters-Number-498-Rapid_Loss_of_Habitat_for_Homo_sapiens.pdf

by westcort • 3 years ago

28 15 3 years ago

guymcpherson.com

abecedarius• 3 years ago

Considering there's much more land area in Canada and Siberia than on the equator, and it's underpopulated, this is a stretch.

I expected an article on the prospect of out-of-control AI rendering the Earth uninhabitable to humans much sooner than in centuries.

nemomarx• 3 years ago

My understanding is that a lot of that area is really hard to build and farm on, due to rock close to the surface or other problems? The temperature changing might help with some of it but it's not going to be ideal bread basket land without some other work, right?

epicureanideal• 3 years ago

The farmland could be moved north. Literally digging up the soil and moving it.

firebot• 3 years ago

It's mostly forested and much wetland. Much of history they've been rain forests. Just like Nebraska used to be at the bottom of the Ocean, and yet at Ash falls you can find much more recent pristine Camel and Rhino fossils, amongst others. But in Nebraska! Perhaps 10 to 12 million years old, also horses and various birds.

agomez314• 3 years ago

. Shortly thereafter, our species will disappear from Earth. Those who choose to live in artificial “habitats” such as belowground bunkers will experience an environment rich in ionizing radiation as nuclear power plants melt down uncontrollably, unstable local temperatures, increasing inability to secure clean water and healthy food, and other significant challenges to the continuation of human life.

bit of a downer ain't it? I disagree with the premise that the current change of the climate is irreversible (like, forever?). I would like to see more evidence to point to the current trajectory as bringing humanity and life on the planet on to the edge of extinction, or more mildly, for it to become unrecognizable to us today.

avmich2• 3 years ago

Although the future of humanity might be short and unpleasant, this is no reason for despair. All adults know we will die. Similarly, we have long known that all species go extinct. Our character is defined by how we live in light of the terminal diagnosis we were given at birth.

There could be other opinions, of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

The mass of each disk would be about a gram, adding up to a total of almost 20 million tonnes.[9] Such a group of small sunshades that blocks 2% of the sunlight, deflecting it off into space, would be enough to halt global warming.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Cost_and_fundi...

Musk has predicted that a Starship orbital launch will eventually cost $1 million.

According to projections, Starship will bring 100 tons to LEO per launch, so if it costs $1 million, then 20 million tons will cost $200 billions. That mass will require about 200,000 launches. Multiply it by 3 to also carry the fuel - the sunshade should probably be deployed not on LEO but e.g. in L1 point of Sun-Earth system. Musk talked about a lot of flight per day - so many that some deliveries served by aviation could be served by Starships - so from many launchpads the total of 1000 launches per day doesn't look impossible.

We still have some technical ideas for how to deal with the problem. We still need more efforts in many areas.

tempestn3• 3 years ago

Elon Musk predicts a lot of things. Full self driving, hyperloops, under-city tunnel networks for traffic, multiple Starship launches per day...

Anyway, even within the realm of engineered solutions, I expect there are options more practical than enormous space sunshades.

avmich2• 3 years ago

I expect there are options more practical than enormous space sunshades.

Even better. But at least we have this scheme, which was considered some time ago already.

NettleBurr• 3 years ago

A bit like Mr Burns blocking out the sun… sounds like it would be used for all kinds of geopolitical fights. I can’t imagine that being a good or stable solution

hn_throwaway_99• 3 years ago

This author is a perennial quack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson :

He has made a number of future predictions that he thought were likely to occur. In 2007, he predicted that due to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012. In 2012, he predicted the "likely" extinction of humanity by 2030 due to climate-change, and mass die-off by 2020 "for those living in the interior of a large continent". In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026", which he based on "projections" of climate-change and species loss.

Real, systemic change will be needed to fight climate change. It does no good to hype up idiots like this guy.

javajosh• 3 years ago

If I was a climate change denialist, I would fund inaccurate, hyperbolic claims specifically to discredit the other side. This is more valuable than an actual lie.

chmod775• 3 years ago

And here I thought this was merely a joke paper.

tempestn3• 3 years ago

Parts of this seem almost scientific, but when you get to things like catastrophic meltdowns of nuclear facilities, it's just absurd. Even if you accept that global warming will lead to the extinction of humanity, it won't happen overnight. Nuclear plants can be safely shut down before there's literally no one left to work them.

FrankBlack• 3 years ago

Per the EU, shutting down a plant can take 20 to 30 years (assuming it is planned and not due to a crisis a la Fukushima) https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissi...

tempestn3• 3 years ago

That's the full decommissioning process, not the process that would be required to avoid a meltdown.

Rapid Loss of Habitat for Homo sapiens (2021) [pdf]

Related Stories