Because someone is trying to extrapolate the collapse of those societies with the collapse of our global one due to climate change (and other factors) but that dog won't hunt for a variety of reasons. It's interesting history, though.
I don't think those civilizations have much in common with today's simply due to technological and scientific progress that has taken place--they were barely literate and subject to mythological reasoning and magical thinking.
I kind of disagree with that. Yes we have more technology and science, but there are also lots of human processes and social orders (like nations and governments) that don't really change. I'm not sure superior technology guarantees the survival of civilization as we know it in the event of some cataclysm, or wide-scale famine... imagine how many things in the world would be messed up if the US and China were to lose all their value/power in a short amount of time.
Also, I think it's a mistake to assume people were dummies back then. If you think about it, humans have accomplished amazing things over the millenia, and some of those discoveries are still important today (every cryptography book still covers Euclid's GCD in its early chapters). Dismissing them as barely literate IMO is ignoring the important lessons that history has for us.
The article also claims that a rise in kidney disease in El Salvador is related to global warming without offering any evidence whatsoever. Correlation is not causation, right? I think that one specious claim undermines the entire article, quite frankly. El Salvador is a nation with all kinds of social problems including a population that is under-educated (to say the least) so I find it hard to believe that heat is the biggest problem there versus dirty water, ignorance of the need to stay hydrated, etc.
Extensive data with multiple very strong correlations, a very plausible biological explanation, and a perfect animal model. There is way, way more here than conjecture.
Sensationalism is not a firm basis for serious debate or serious action. If anything is going to save the human race, it is technology, but to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism. Either way, it sucks.
>>to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism.
Where is the second half of the article where, after discussing at length many bad possible outcomes, the guy goes on to propose detailed social engineering schemes to solve the looming planetary crisis??
Either you did not read this article closely, or you are simply trolling. In my opinion, the real ending of the piece was marvelously open-ended. The author concludes by highlighting the irrational , but quintessential human, tendency to see some bright-side to the whole thing-- here are our climate scientists like Hansen and others, that know the most and see of everyone how screwed we are, still maintaining some faith we'll figure it out. And they didn't need 'communism', 'mega city' or some other nebulous concept to help them to that conclusion-- it was/is either habitual, or fantastical.
You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.
Do you dispute the accuracy of the statements made in the article, or just that they should be put in writing?
If you believe the article to be filled with lies, you could explain why.
If you just think it's filled with truths that should not be uttered, that seems to me like a rather strange position to take. The goal is to build political will in favor of government action that puts a price on CO2 emissions. Terrifying people about things that are truly terrifying, while not guaranteed to help a whole lot, is at worst not counterproductive. And if you happen to terrify/enlighten/educate the right handful of rich people it might just have a tremendous impact.
To be honest I also at times thought the author's alarmism went a bit far and could have scared off serious readers, but as a general principle I still don't think its valid to critique someone on a basis that is non-existent: e.g., the author at no point explicitly endorsed any of the concepts or ideas you mentioned in the GP comment.
You're applying your feelings where there is well-informed scientific consensus on the matter. It's not sensationalism when the science backs it up. It's too bad you don't like it, but nobody really has anything to indicate the contrary.
Why the downvote? The article is clearly concern trolling. Look, if you are worried about overpopulation, the US isn't your primary area of concern. The US is not overpopulated and probably never will be. Maybe some US cities are, but compared to China, India, and Indonesia, we have no overpopulation problem. I'm not sure that "being alarmed" is a good state of mind to be in--Americans suffer from crisis fatigue as it is.
The human race isn't going to solve its problems without either leaving the earth or having a massive die-off. You first.
Yes, the article is blatant fear mongering. Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems. Outside of a Hail Mary technological solution, there is only one way to reduce human activity and that is to have fewer humans.
