Skip to main content

View Diary: New Study Predicts 6m Annual Deaths and 3% GDP Loss by 2030 - But That's Not the Real Story (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  6 million deaths / year = scale of the Holocaust. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ashaman, UltraAyla, mightymouse, sfbob

    It's commonly said that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, and if you add in gays, Roma (Gypsies), disabled, and other targeted populations, you might get to somewhere between 7 - 10 million victims.  

    This is convergent with my estimates going back a few years: that climate change would have a death toll somewhere in the range of the Nazi Holocaust every year.

    "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:31:53 AM PDT

    •  Look at total world population drop over time. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Look at it from the other side, we've got 7 Billion people on the planet now, and it's expected to hit 9 Billion sometime soon (like mid-century?). But that number isn't sustainable, it has to drop, and might drop fast.

      Suppose the population falls by a Billion people over 50 years, that's 20 million per year if we do it gradually, which is twice the Holocaust. Of course, we might easily drop twice that far, and it might not take a full 50 years to get there if violence breaks out (and it probably will). And on our current path of maximum damage at full speed, we might easily lose 3-4 Billion over a generation.

      A century from now, Hitler will be considered an absolute saint when compared to the likes of Inhofe. And advocating Republican principles will be equated to genocide.

      •  that 9 billion figure is looking...Enronesque (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UltraAyla, G2geek

        As each new study is published, the date of catastrophe moves inexorably closer. we have never, in my memory, had a study proven too pessimistic by later analysis. In fact, quite the opposite.
        I think the population projections of 9 billion by 2050 are way off due to this factor. There are already limiting effects occurring (drought, anyone?), and the incentives to bear more children are lessening, both from a cultural perspective and from an agricultural one. Who needs more fieldhands when the fields aren't producing?
        A drop in population is coming, but it may not all be in the form of starvation in the streets. Life expectancy in the US is already dropping for certain demographics, as is the birth rate in almost all Western nations.
        We are approaching a limit, in the mathematical sense. That implies that forces that right now mean each person of child rearing age having 2.4 offspring (or whatever the number) will gradually drop, for the reasons above, and more. That lessens the rate of population growth, how much remains to be seen. Externalities like new disease pandemics, resource wars, and megastorms will definitely take a horrific toll, too.
        A decade or two from now, the current all-important debate over whether or not to rescind the Bush tax cuts or turn Medicare into a coupon program will gain a certain amount of perspective, I'm sure.

        R-Money/R-Ayn, the ENRON Ticket, is not a campaign; it's a hostile takeover bid.

        by kamarvt on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You touch on it later in your comment, but I'm not sure that we won't reach 9 billion. The rate that we went from 6-7 was astoundingly fast, and so all of the causes you mention need to eat away at the rate of growth before we can stabilize or decrease. Still, it remains to be seen where we settle. Whether it's 8 billion or 9 billion, that's a whole lot of people.

          •  we'll settle at 2 billion and then.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            .... grow back to 3 billion.  By that point humanity should have "learned its lesson" and not engage in reckless reproduction or conspicuous consumption.  

            From here down to 2 billion is going to be hell on skids.  From 2 billion back up to 3 billion is going to seem like paradise by comparison, and for that matter it may well be:  a period of rebuilding with optimism, as in Europe after WW2 when things just kept getting better.

            What I find intriguing in a morbid sort of way, is that this roughly matches the time table that the religious right talks about for the tribulation and the rapture and the kingdom of heaven and so on.   So it looks like we get to live through the tribulation, and a century or two later comes the kingdom of heaven.  Or something that would have looked like that, from the perspective of people 2000 years ago with a heck of a lot of insight into human affairs and patterns in nature.

            "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

            by G2geek on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:52:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd like to believe you're correct however (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              1. That kind of loss...possibly as much as 75% of peak population...would be emotionally devastating and might take several generations to recover from.

              2. Humanity has proven over and over again that it is able to take precisely the WRONG lessons away from negative experiences.

              3. The implosion of a world economy based on the current population would itself create enormous amount of collateral damage the nature of which we'd have a hard time guessing at.

              •  yes, but carts and horses.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You say "I'd like to believe you're correct but ...(it) would be emotionally devastating..."

                The fact that it would be emotionally devastating is the effect, not the cause of whether it happens or not.  

                Just because it's horrible, doesn't mean that the horribleness of it will prevent it happening.

                Bottom line is, "only you can prevent forest fires."  

                Only us, all of us acting in concert, can prevent the climate catastrophe that will trigger a dieoff on the scale of 200 - 300 times the Nazi Holocaust.  

                Agreed, humanity often gets the wrong lessons.  The wrong lessons from this one would be that human life is cheap everywhere, but that lesson will be reversed once we hit bottom and start recovering:  the Plagues in Europe cost them 1/3 of their population and the outcome of that was a labor shortage that led directly to the rise of the medieval middle class.

                Yes, econo-splat also has horrific consequences.  It's one of the immediate factors in the dieoff, along with war, famine, pestilence, and plague.  Gee, those have a familiar ring to them, don't they?

                Bottom line: reckless reproduction and conspicuous consumption are the direct causes of what may turn out to be a 300-Hitler holocaust.  It's on us to stop having excess babies and excess baubles, or those babies are going to grow up in a world where they may very well die off in the dieoff.

                "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                by G2geek on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:56:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  yep, exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        7 billion = twice the sustainable population at Western European standards of living.

        So we're already in overshoot, and eco lags being what they are, we can keep going a bit further before the crash hits hard.

        At that point we'll probably head back toward 2 billion, also due to system lags continuing the high death rates for a while past the equilibrium point.

        My only quibble is that your comparison at the end is just a bit far on the hyperbole scale:  

        I would never use the "saint" comparison, but I'd say that "Hitler was the dress rehearsal" or something along those lines.

        Or:  Hitler will be seen as the supreme monster of the modern era through the 20th century, and Inhofe will be seen as the supreme monster of the 21st and 22nd Century.  

        Bottom line is, it's going to be pure distilled essence of evil H-E-L-L for most of the people on Earth for the rest of this century and into the next.  It's going to be pretty bad in the US as well.  And the risk of various forms of mass violence breaking out, in addition to the "natural" dieoff, is extremely high.  

        All so that we can have more and bigger baubles.  Isn't that something?

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:36:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  interesting sense of scale (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That analogy is interesting for providing a sense of scale that we lack when talking about future events - or current events whose cause can't be easily linked in people's minds. It certainly won't convince deniers, who will dismiss is as scare tactics, but for those looking for scale for something they already understand, historical events are so much more tangible.

      •  i'm already looking out to the consequences.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... one or two billion years from now.

        Bottom line: if civilization crashes, and technology goes with it, we may never be able to recover technology to the point of being able to get back into space.   In which case the best we can hope for is a modest existence until the Sun starts expanding and Earth becomes uninhabitable about a billion years from now.

        We will have foreclosed the future for our distant descendants, bringing about the end of all life on Earth at that point, as the predictable consequence of our actions today.  

        And that is the ultimate sin.  

        So in purely moral terms, solving climate change, reducing population and consumption, etc., and thereby preserving our technological capabilities and the ability to spread into space and to other star systems: these points are moral imperatives for our age, and we cannot count on humanity ever getting a second chance if we screw up badly enough.

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:56:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site