> large majority of the scientific community is treating it and calling it an existential threat

I haven’t seen evidence of this. What I see is scientists making measured predictions about massive costs in human life, economies, refugee crises, and wars. Extinctions. Like, horrible stuff. But not extinction or even civilisational collapse.

▲

nixpulvis 3 days ago | parent [-]

So extinctions, but not extinction?

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-]

> extinctions, but not extinction?

Yes. Extinctions are horrible, but they aren’t an existential threat to us. Climate change simply isn’t an existential threat. That doesn’t mean it isn’t urgent. Like, the Bronze Age collapse and black plague and WWII weren’t existential, doesn’t mean they’re fine. But raising the stakes beyond what the science says like this undermines the credibility of the real warnings.

▲

nixpulvis 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think it's really naïve to realize that climate change is an existential threat to many species, but not connect that we are part of the ecosystem which is being put in danger. You are experiencing survivorship bias.

Even if we don't go extinct. It's still an existential threat to our way of life. Which is also a totally valid interpretation of the phrase.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> You are experiencing survivorship bias Ex ante survivorship is literally the delineation between existential and not. > Even if we don't go extinct. It's still an existential threat to our way of life You see why this comes across as bullshit, though. It’s needlessly redefining a word to seem more punchy. We have plenty of perils we massively mobilize against without imagining they’ll exterminate the human species.