There’s probably some truth (well, not in the literal prediction sense; more the plausible model sense) in the tweet. The motivation for both the tweet and the like is probably more about love of contrarianism and enjoyment of heterodox modeling than actual information.
Start with it as a literal comparison. If you don’t think global warming is a near-term risk to civilization in the first place, then there are a LOT of things which are plausibly bigger risks. Then consider how to interpret “Population collapse due to low birth rates”. one can imagine paths to a collapse of innovation and commerce, followed by further supply-chain failures and food riots.
Seems pretty low likelihood to me, but like most altruism debates, I’m happy if anyone wants to devote energy to such things, even if I don’t find it compelling.
There’s probably some truth (well, not in the literal prediction sense; more the plausible model sense) in the tweet. The motivation for both the tweet and the like is probably more about love of contrarianism and enjoyment of heterodox modeling than actual information.
Start with it as a literal comparison. If you don’t think global warming is a near-term risk to civilization in the first place, then there are a LOT of things which are plausibly bigger risks. Then consider how to interpret “Population collapse due to low birth rates”. one can imagine paths to a collapse of innovation and commerce, followed by further supply-chain failures and food riots.
Seems pretty low likelihood to me, but like most altruism debates, I’m happy if anyone wants to devote energy to such things, even if I don’t find it compelling.