Swedish Professor: We may need to rethink cannibalism and begin eating human flesh to save the planet from climate change.

Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results wrote:

sbeefyk2 wrote:

But think about the time scale here. If the oceans are currently rising about 4mm per year. After 100 years that's 0.4 meters. After 1,000 years that 4 meters. 4 meters can be devastating. But that's after 1,000 years with everything else remaining the same. 1,000 years from now we will likely be inhabiting another planet. Or figured out an energy source that produces virtually zero pollution. Or we'll all be dead from a nuclear holocaust.

I think too many people forget climate change is far slower than we think. The cycles are over thousands of years. Not decades. We only have data for about 100 years. Maybe a little more but it's spotty. There's no way to guess cycles that last thousands of years with only 100 years of data.

https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg

I'm actually very confused over how this image was obtained.

This is the paper they claim to cite (for those who have access). Several things.

1) The image you posted that claims to be sourced from the paper is neither in the paper, nor the supplementary information. At best, it is taken based on some of the available data in the paper, though why they used it rather than a much more accurate diagram provided directly in the actual paper is beyond me. My favorite part is that they put the disclaimer from the authors in extremely faint text, indicating that every bar is + or - 2 inches due to variability in predictions. In short, all sea level rises could have been drops, and vice versa, with the only exception being the 10th and 20th centuries.

2) The paper is a mathematical model and is semi-empirical in nature (the authors openly indicate this). The authors repeatedly indicate comparisons and contrasts to other models, and provide a huge number of disclaimers indicating that empirical data outside of the last century is based on models rather than actual data.

3) The authors also indicate that based on their model, in the complete absence of human-derived climate change, the total sea level change in the last century would be half of what it currently is. That still leaves it at double or more the change experienced by every other century, which is actually interesting.

4) The authors indicate very specifically that the standard deviation associated with each mean measurement (all those nice little bars in that bar graph) are nearly 100% of the absolute value of the means themselves. Ex. They state that the GSL from 0 - 700 CE is 0.1 mm/year plus minus 0.1 mm/year. This means that for all non-empirical datapoints, the changes could easily range anywhere from twice as large as the given value, to values that are virtually zero. The actual paper has a graph that indicates this.

For the record, I actually DO believe in climate change. However, it is very irritating when uninformed people make commentary on it using "research" without actually understanding what the research is. The researchers themselves make absolutely no commentary beyond the actual parameters and nature of the model, because they KNOW there is variability associated with it, and admit that the community is still trying to work out inconsistencies across individual predictions. Somehow, everything they say gets taken out of context and we have doomsday predictors saying that life will end in a matter of years. We also have people like you spouting the predictions of a semi-empirical model as fact, when even the makers of the model do not claim that it is fact.

The obvious fault in your logic, is the idea that climate changes at a linear pace (both with our contemporary human-driven disruption, along with historical patterns). This, of course, is not quite how it works, and the current concern, among other things, is the *rate* of change being much faster than your typical natural 'background' variation in climate.

Our best understanding is that the rate of warming has been accelerating in recent decades as we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and will quite likely accelerate further as natural feedbacks start to kick in (decreasing albedo as ice caps melt, disrupted ocean currents, and methane released from melting permafrost). So the expectation is that a lot of effects of climate change we experience, like sea level rise, will accelerate in the coming decades.

So far, sea level rise has been modest because there hasn't been all that much melt from large continental ice sheets (eg, Greenland, Antarctica) ... yet. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the observed rise in sea levels has been driven by thermal expansion of warming water. But when ice sheets like the West Antarctic give way––and by all accounts this irreversible process is showing signs of starting––we'll see oceans rise by many inches if not feet, rather than millimeters.

Moran! We have 12 years! 12 years!!!

A O C wrote:

Moran! We have 12 years! 12 years!!!

Nope, down to 11. Maybe.

I would assume WADA would make it against the rules for athletes to consume the flesh of humans contaminated by the use of PEDs.

Indeed a Modest Proposal

alpha wrote:

To paraphrase: "We're all frightened over something we have no control over". Solution: "Let's start eating each other".

Elvin wrote:

Tell me what I'm missing, here: If climate change is real and is as serious as some people are predicting, it will kill off a massive portion of the population. That massive die-off will then result in decreased human environmental impact. The problem fixes itself, no?

It seems to me that nature will keep itself in equilibrium.

Nope. In this worst case scenario, the carbon dioxide emitted directly (human activity) and indirectly (permafrost thawing) is there to stay for a long time, so it will be a newer, hotter equilibrium.

Also, one has to consider that the main polluters can probably handle the changes (USA, Europe, China) as they have vast land areas that will stay quite liveable. Most impacted are tropical countries that do not contribute that much to the problem. So, a massive die-off in tropical countries would not stop the problem. (Well, at that relatively remote date, I guess we'll already use renewables, because of technological improvements, hell, we're almost there.)

Even there, I doubt there will be a massive die-off. Climate change being progressive people will migrate over half a century, recurrent local conflicts will occur (note that today, water use is a key issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), some zones will be impoverished.

Who is this "we" that is "rethinking" cannibalism?

Might not some of "us" already practice it?

Don't Christians practice cannibalism at each service where they receive communion?

At first, small producers will pioneer the market for human consumables, but once it catches on, look for big players like Tyson and Hormel (as well as perhaps Phillip Morris and Altria in brand expansion moves)Hormel to take over and dominate.

Also, this is not a new idea, the Professor just stole it from Jonathan Swift.

KTHXBAI wrote:

Way ahead of this cat, I eat snatch on the regular.

I could open a dam restaurant from all the cats around here. Smh.

True story. A Chinese restaurant came to town about twenty years ago, honestly its the best Chinese to anyone who has ever tried it, but no bs, the cat population in the city went from overrun to ZERO within a couple months. Used to see cages behind their store back then. It makes great general tso's and sweet and sour chicken too.

Swedish chef?

The human body developed to process carbohydrates from plant matter to continue hunting woolly mammoths and the like. We are all born runners.

The need you have for meat facilitates a tortured life (animals, human) so its important to think where it came from and how its spent its life. Plenty of plant based ways of getting protein also.

You cant eat humans for one simple fact, Prions; will make mad cow disease look like Sunday brunch on the Channel Islands.

comedyrelief wrote:

The price of oil will render those doomsday scenarios obsolete. A lot of the easy oil has been extracted, as we increasingly rely on harder to extract reserves (tar sands, heavy oil, shale oil, etc.) the price of oil will increase to the point that alternative fuels and electric vehicles make more sense.

What we really need to do is genetically engineer some mammoths and reintroduce them to Canada and Russia.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-bringing-back-mammoths-stop-climate-change-180969072/

Trackbot, show us a picture of Putin riding a mammoth, shirtless

Morals aside, I'm pretty sure the only ill effect from eating humans comes from eating brain / CNS tissue. So let's keep that out of the equation and start with people who don't pay taxes. We'll be living in a utopia within a decade.

Okay so Elizabeth Warren says we have to cut our CO2 emissions by 50% in 11 years or we are doomed (does this same standard apply to China and India who are behind most of the recent growth, much of which has been fueled by our demand for cell phones, digital televisions, solar panels and LEDs). Funny, I think in the next year or so she is going to be travelling by plane with a horde of people all over the US visiting every state. If she is sincere in her belief that the 50% curb in emissions is necessary, then she should travel for her campaign exclusively by train, the most efficient form of transportation, the way candidates did in the 1800s.

+1 wrote:

Elvin wrote:

Tell me what I'm missing, here: If climate change is real and is as serious as some people are predicting, it will kill off a massive portion of the population. That massive die-off will then result in decreased human environmental impact. The problem fixes itself, no?

It seems to me that nature will keep itself in equilibrium.

My thought exactly. Nature is a self correcting mechanism.

This has been mostly true since the earth's existence. However, it doesn't mean we won't wipe ourselves out completely. We are just a tiny fraction of nature, and of course the earth doesn't care if we can no longer breathe the air or drink the water and consume the food. Until 250K years ago, there was ecological equilibrium (when looking at shorter time scales, say between ice ages) but our arrival butchered that. So yeah, the earth will correct itself without us, no problem. Keep in mind that over 99% of all species that have existed on our planet have already been wiped out, how likely are we to stick around forever?