this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1624 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39099 readers
2283 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Not quite. Once global economies collapse, being wealthy won't mean jack shit.

You'll likely have the best chance of survival if you know survival skills such as hunting, foraging, and how to build a shelter.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sort of like how being rich didn't matter when the Roman empire collapsed?

Oh wait we were left with kings and peasants, and far worse wealth inequality than there was before, and there was almost a thousand years of that before humanity started making progress again. Those were called the Dark Ages.

Anyone trying to say the rich won't survive is completely ignorant of history.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well, it might not be the same rich, but someone will be rich and, by definition, will have the means to live. Your right, but its kind of an always true statement. The wealthy ppl of Rome certainly did not fair well in the collapse of Rome and power moved to new places in that time.

[–] FireMyth@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not If it's unlivably hot outside. Those skill mean jack if nothing can stand the heat.

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's why people will migrate to places where it was once too cold but now it's habitable.

[–] SolarMech@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ecosystems there won't necessarily fare all too well. Trees are drying up because they aren't used to that dryness/heat. New trees will take time to grow and they don't necessarily support the same species.

The mix of species you used to have that lived in a balanced way is being disturbed by various invasive species.

I'm not saying those ecosystems will necessarily collapse, but there is a nonzero risk that they might.

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what the future may bring.

I predict a lot of uninhabitable zones will become habitable while habitable zones will become uninhabitable.

Perhaps the biggest barrier to survival will be the ability to migrate to these new habitable zones.

[–] FireMyth@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What uninhabitable zones are you looking at?

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tundras, such as in Canada, Russia, and Norway.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tundras aren't going to be all that liveable just because the temperature is a bit nicer. They'll still get very dark in the winter. Like 24-hour darkness, in some of it. Some people thrive, some people cope, some people go batshit crazy when daylight hours drop below about 4 hours a day.

That's actually the easy part. Most tundra is sitting on top of permafrost. I worked on low latitude tundra for one summer and if my experience there is representative, melting permafrost is going to turn a lot of tundra into swampland for a long time.

Even if I'm wrong about the tundra turning into swampland, there isn't really all that much room. Good luck cramming a few billion people above 55 or 60 degrees latitude.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The tree line is moving pole-wards thanks to global warming; the gain is less than what's lost by the desert line moving pole-wards, but it's something.

Good luck cramming a few billion people above 55 or 60 degrees latitude

Realistically, you need less than 1m² of terrain per person if you stack them in high enough buildings. Look at how China is doing it.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I'm glad I'm old enough to not have to consider living at the population density you suggest. I find the population density of Saskatchewan to be quite enough. I lived in a small city (Saskatoon) for 40 years and the last 10 were flat out miserable. The first 30 were tolerable only because we escaped to nature every weekend.

[–] FireMyth@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

I suppose that's true- had kinda forgotten those regions existed honestly.

[–] AquaTofana@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'd imagine places like Svalbard. Technically it's inhabitable now, and has been for decades but it's the most Northern year round sustained population on the globe.

Further North is Arctic tundra and there isn't a sustained population. Maybe he's referring to areas like that.

Though I will say that back in 2019 I saw an article about how every winter a bunch of Reindeer in Svalbard die due to climate change. As the spring rolls in and snow melts, Reindeer corpses are left behind in the fields 🥺.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

The wildfires that will consume the Siberian wilderness when it thaws will likely change opinions on living there

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

And everyone knows being an refugee is a non-stop party!

[–] FireMyth@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The entire world is heating. The artic/antarctic doesn't have the landmass to sustain population. Everywhere else is already either habitable now but won't be soon or already too hot to be habitable.

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Everywhere else is already either habitable now but won’t be soon or already too hot to be habitable.

That's not true. Look at the tundras of Canada and Russia for examples to the contrary.

[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Any billionaire would be smart to build a massive self-sufficient compound (complete with temperature-regulated indoor farms, solar panels/wind turbines, huge stockpiles of supplies, firearms and a loyal crew of mercenaries or some armed drones to defend from intruders), because I really do think that we are gonna have to adopt the prepper mentality within the next few decades.

We mocked people for prepping for nuclear war, zombie apocalypses and raptures, but soon we are going to see the climate well and truly turn against us.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Climate collapse will make it more important to be able to move food around the world. The effect will be to strengthen hierarchies capable of managing global-scale food enterprises. The result will be a hyper-wealthy class that transports food, sustains local farmers via trade, and suppresses them to keep power. Farming will be what everyone does, and it will be essential to keep them doing it as yields will plummet.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You'll likely have the best chance of survival if you know survival skills

Funny you say it like that... I know some self-un-survival skills, so that should also work out fine.