A new study has found that much of the world will face uninhabitable temperatures if we continue on the current course of climate change as situation grows more dire
The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
Alright. I’m sorry to have annoyed you. I was just hoping for a discussion.
We have a difference of opinion and that’s alright. My concerns surrounding the Holocene extinction event triggering total ecosystem collapse need not be yours.
I’m a human behind a screen, just like you. It’s free to be kind to people, even when you disagree with them.
That’s totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.
I’m primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I’m thus unwilling to take a “we don’t have to worry about human extinction because it’s statistically unlikely” stance. I’m also not attempting to assert that that’s your stance, either. I don’t know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.
I really appreciate your reply, and I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I’m coming off as an ass.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7
Don’t miss this bit:
Oh sweetheart.
Did you google “human extinction science” and link the first result without reading it?
The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.
It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.
I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.
It’s impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who’s just making stuff up and claiming that it’s a plausible assertion.
You’re not being realistic, you’re being dramatic.
Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.
Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.
Alright. I’m sorry to have annoyed you. I was just hoping for a discussion.
We have a difference of opinion and that’s alright. My concerns surrounding the Holocene extinction event triggering total ecosystem collapse need not be yours.
I’m a human behind a screen, just like you. It’s free to be kind to people, even when you disagree with them.
You haven’t annoyed me. I’m sorry if my manner offends you.
No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate that human extinction is likely.
That’s totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.
I’m primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I’m thus unwilling to take a “we don’t have to worry about human extinction because it’s statistically unlikely” stance. I’m also not attempting to assert that that’s your stance, either. I don’t know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.
I really appreciate your reply, and I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I’m coming off as an ass.