
Bill Gates Q&A on Climate Change: ‘We Need a Miracle’ - plhetp
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/bill-gates-q-a-on-climate-change-we-need-a-miracle
======
akie
No, what we need a catastrophe. People will stubbornly ignore inconvenient
truths until they're undeniable and until the immediate cost of denying is
higher than the cost of doing something. You see this in all areas of life
(regarding healthy habits, for example), and I fear that unfortunately nothing
substantial will happen until the shit hits the fan.

~~~
ck2
I think you are missing how humanity typically keeps doing detrimental things
even after catastrophes.

Only thing that would stop this would be population decimation.

Given the aging of our nuclear stockpiles or the possibility that Trump might
be elected, we might get to see what decimation does. If we live.

~~~
gjm11
I think Trump would be a terrible president (though probably less terrible
than it _feels_ like he would be) but it seems unlikely that he will decimate
the human population. Even with the original meaning of "reduce by 10%" rather
than "reduce to 10%".

~~~
ck2
I'm actually more afraid of what he will do if he loses.

He doesn't take demotions well.

Yes I mean the Roman decimate. It's what the USA did to the Iraqi population.

------
moonshinefe
I always enjoy reading what Bill Gates has to say these days. For obvious
reasons at this point.

He's completely right of course on climate change. And yet, the US is about to
elect likely one of two exceedingly wealthy individuals who don't remotely
care about these issues right now.

It'll be interesting to see in 40 years whether or not humans take this
seriously enough / avoid disaster. Let's not forget this very modern internet
was created in the last like 15-20 years, huge advances can happen and Gates'
optimism isn't a pipe dream that's never happened.

------
jdimov10
We have a miracle. It's called nature, and otherwise uber-smart idiots
routinely underestimate its miraculous powers.

~~~
FreeFull
Once humanity drives itself extinct, nature will fix everything, sure. That
won't help humanity though.

~~~
ekianjo
Worst case scenario, it won't reach that point and instead you will have a lot
fewer humans down the road and therefore things will go back to where they
were in the long run.

There's a way bigger risk of catastrophe having 50 000+ thermonuclear warheads
pointed at all major cities in the world than with climate change. Yet people
act these days as if nukes did not exist anymore or something.

~~~
moonshinefe
In my reading of history, the more likely scenario is disease will wipe out
most. Mutually assured destruction has seemed to work as a deterrent thus far
since the 40s.

~~~
ekianjo
> Mutually assured destruction has seemed to work as a deterrent thus far
> since the 40s.

I'd recommend you read "Command and Control" and you'd be less convinced.

