
11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change - curtis
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/health/climate-change-hunter-gatherers/index.html
======
mmanfrin
Literal _survivor_ ship bias. Our ancestors did, but many others did not.

~~~
Aloha
_Humanity_ may very well survive.

 _You_ may not.

~~~
quickthrower2
Humanity is a temporary situation. We're going extinct or going to evolve into
something else eventually.

~~~
rukittenme
Not to pick on you but this is a common misconception of evolution. You don't
outgrow your ancestry. You are and your descendants always will be _human_.
Just as they will always be _primates_ and _mammals_ and _animals_.

~~~
Aloha
Based on how evolution has gone over hundreds of thousands of years - I cant
say I agree with you - but mostly in the concept of human-centric-time - yeah,
I'd agree with you - no substantive change happens over 10 generations, but
over 10,000 generations? yes.

Look at dogs, they evolved from wolves, and while both are still canids, we'd
for sure call a dog, not a wolf.

~~~
rukittenme
No. Dogs did not evolve from modern wolves. They evolved from a common
ancestor of both dogs and wolves. If we call that common ancestor "wolves" as
we call the modern wolf it is the fault of language not of cladistics.

------
diego_moita
As they say in the stock market: "Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future
Results"

------
melling
We’ll survive too. It’s just going to cost a fortune. 9 billion people on the
planet by 2050.

The US debt is $21 trillion and we’re adding a trillion a year.

We’re going to need both an economic and technological miracle in about 50
years.

~~~
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
How do you think the US debt plays into that?

~~~
bryanrasmussen
If you have to pay a lot for food and shelter this month it helps if you're
not already significantly in the hole?

~~~
ggggtez
Your intuition based on your finances, does not apply at the scale of a
country. Remember, they can just go to war to take what they want. It's not
the same.

~~~
ianai
If anything, the debt solidifies the US position as the global currency
standard. The US literally owes the world trillions of dollars. Exactly as if
the rest of the world were requesting out currency for use.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
In the old joke when you owe the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem
it's not noted that sometimes the bank decides not to let you owe it 2 million
dollars as a way of mitigating the problem. At any rate the comment was
regarding problems 20 years in the future. I don't know that the U.S will
continue as the global currency standard for various reasons.

~~~
ianai
Unless oil is no longer the chief source of energy. Ultimately I think the US
may do fine for itself so long as it protects its natural resources and
researches (to ultimately switch to) alternative energy.

------
Avshalom
The thing about getting knocked back to the stone age is that if you're the
Jetsons it's the end of the world, if you're the Flintstones it's a Tuesday.

------
8bitsrule
Yeah.... if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't be ancestors ....

------
yorby
CNN, what was the cause of that climate change?

~~~
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
Why are you addressing CNN as if they will respond to your comment?

~~~
yorby
I don't think that CNN is very connected, but that was just a test..

------
sintaxi
A cataclysmic event around 11,600-12,800 years ago is absolutely what the
evidence suggests and nobody covers the topic better than Graham Hancock.
Though he seems to think there were both hunter and gatherers and an advanced
civilization based on the discovery of Gobekli Tepe and other megalithic
architecture located in Peru, Easter Island, Bolivia, China, Egypt, Mexico, &
Japan.

Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic last week. This is well
worth viewing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs)

edit: Down voters should leave a comment. I'm curious what you have to say as
I've spent a lot of time researching this topic.

~~~
fractallyte
I didn't downvote you, but it's most likely because Hancock's ideas are
considered pseudoscientific. He has no academic credentials: has not subjected
his ideas to peer review, or published in any recognized journals.

Plus, you basically said it yourself: _" Hancock gave an unbelievable
presentation on the topic..."_

(That said, these lazy 'drive-by downvoters' are extremely annoying. If any of
them are reading this, shame on you.)

~~~
sintaxi
You are likely right. I don't refute that those accusations exist. Hancock is
a curious writer who bases his theories on the discoveries of all disciplines
such as geology, physics, engineering, & oral history, from both the academic
and non-academic alike which a small handful of very powerful archeologists
seem to have a large issue with.

In particular Hancock refused to dismiss and instead validated Robert Schoch's
Sphinx water erosion timeline and Robert Bouval's Orion Correlation Theory
which both essentially discredits Zahi Hawass's work.

I think the using the term `pseudoscience` is going too far when describing
Hancock, though I know there was a BBC documentary where he was described that
way. His work is supported and respected by many and I even dare say the most
competent academics in their field. Hancock visits all the sites and talks to
every expert he can. I believe he even spent 2 years performing over 200 dives
to explore underwater sites off the coast in Japan. He takes this subject as
seriously as anyone in the field and his commitment is undeniable.

> Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable
> presentation on the topic..."

FWIW - I specifically chose those words for this reason :)

