“I’m F—-ing Terrified” - Economist REFUSED To Have Kids Over Climate Change

The Urgency of Climate Change [00:00]

• A participant expresses deep concern about climate change, advising young men to learn survival skills like hunting due to expected societal collapse.
• He believes the future looks catastrophic, not bright, and questions the decision to have children in the current climate.
• This perspective is rooted in extensive reading of climate change literature and discussions with climate scientists.

  "given the fact that I expect climate change to cause the social system to collapse, I'd say learn how to hunt."

Economic Models vs. Scientific Reality [02:34]

• The other participant dismisses a Department of Energy report suggesting climate change is exaggerated, calling it "total nonsense."
• He blames economists, specifically mentioning William Nordhaus, for trivializing climate change dangers and hindering action.
• Nordhaus's 1991 prediction of a 0.25% GDP reduction from 3° warming is cited as an example of economists underestimating the impact.

  "This is William Nordhaus. And if I had to blame anybody blamed that the state of the what I expect to be the state of the planet in the next 10 years is William Nordhaus."

The Misinterpretation of Data [03:45]

• The critique focuses on economists mistaking weather for climate and using current temperature-GDP data to predict long-term global warming impacts.
• This approach is deemed fundamentally flawed because it doesn't account for the true meaning of rising temperatures over time.
• The Department of Energy report is suspected of being based on such flawed economic reasoning.

  "Now as part of that he assumed that a roof would protect you from climate change. Okay. So you mistook weather for climate change."

The Existential Nature of Climate Change [06:36]

• The argument is made that climate change is an existential challenge, not a trivial one, contrary to what economists suggest.
• A survey of climate economists in 2020 showed an average prediction of a 25% GDP reduction with 7° warming by 2220.
• This contrasts sharply with climate scientists' views that more than 5° warming could mean human extinction.

  "It's actually existential challenge. And on that front uh like there's a there was a survey but I'll give you an idea of how different economists are from scientists on this front."

Arrogance and Misunderstanding [16:48]

• One participant argues that human arrogance and a lack of understanding of the planet's dynamics are the greatest dangers.
• He believes that assuming we can alter the planet without consequences is a dangerous mindset that could lead to destruction.
• This perspective suggests that the current trajectory, if unchecked, could destroy the planet's capacity to support civilization.

  "And there's a arrogance to believe we can do anything we like to the planet and won't come back and bite us."

Underestimating Future Dangers [17:19]

• The participant aligned with climate scientists believes that the primary mistake made is underestimating, not overestimating, the dangers.
• The concept of "wet bulb catastrophe" is introduced, highlighting potential risks to livestock at lower temperatures than humans.
• It's noted that scientific models, often written in older programming languages, may not be updated quickly enough to fully capture emerging threats.

  "So we're under we're potentially underestimating the dangers we face. Not overestimating."

The Pursuit of a Golden Future [20:13]

• Despite the dire warnings, there's a belief that humanity is close to a "global golden future" if learning and expansion continue.
• The potential for off-world production to alleviate Earth's resource strain and waste is discussed.
• This optimistic outlook is contrasted with the current damage being done to the biosphere.

  "I think we're close to a global golden future. This is what pisses me off because it's so dangerous."

Off-World Outposts and Knowledge Preservation [21:11]

• The idea of human outposts on Mars is supported as a means to preserve knowledge if Earth's civilization collapses.
• Elon Musk's involvement in politics is criticized, but his vision for space colonization is seen as crucial for safeguarding human progress.
• This serves as a contingency plan against destroying the biosphere before reaching a sustainable future.

  "So like I was supporting Musk because I I really want to see a human outpost on Mars or anywhere off planet because my feeling is we're not going to stop the damage we're doing on the planet."