Humans can't endure temperatures and humidities as high as previously thought
This is a well studied phenomena and a much feared one.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41597-022-01405-3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41597-022-01405-3</a><p>My lived experience of growing up in a 95+ percent humid city that had 85-100 degrees day time temperatures in summer remembers that the saving grace of the coastal city was the sea breeze setting in at 5.30ish without fail everyday.<p>During my time in this southern city(I hear that it isn’t so anymore), there was an aggressive tree planting agenda so much so that if they laid down a road, it would go around the older trees.<p>And when I first came to America and landed in Southern California, I experienced the zero humidity dry desert heat that made every inhale so piercingly painful with bloody crusts blocking my nostrils.<p>I still have trouble maintaining&#x2F;regulating core body temperature because I am primed to sweat but there is no humidity. My blood is also thicker which made higher altitude sports more challenging for me because this genetic factor designs your heart and lungs to work differently.<p>Wet bulb temperatures will wipe out millions of people overnight if we don’t bring down global temperature. Yes, we haven’t understood climate science properly. But there is no denying that one can’t go wrong with planting more trees.<p>India, for example is more green precisely because of global warming but that’s because trees thrive in the tropics, soaks in the carbon and there is an almost fanatical reverence for trees(iirc). But not everywhere. Wet bulb temperatures will kill
Indians in a narrow northern swath precisely because it’s land locked and parched that trees can’t thrive.<p>So there will always be hostile and unhabitable land in our world where it takes more resources than it would be worth to make it human friendly. Where net net, it contributes more to global warming that we are only hastening our eventual demise.<p>This is one of the reasons for two of my very deeply held core beliefs: 1. We are past carrying capacity. 2. Not all land is viable and no amount of ‘high density housing’ hacks will solve the resource allocations&#x2F;scarcity equations.<p>That’s why I feel so helpless when in California there is so much misguided illiterate enthusiasm for high density housing projects at government level. And that magically rearranging world population distribution through migration is somehow feasible. These politicians and policy makers have never travelled outside the USA or lived anywhere else. They don’t understand that just because India or China has 1+ billion people, we can replicate those numbers and enjoy a better quality of life just because California is richer.<p>Even between India and China, there are so many variables and that’s why India is the largest producer of wheat and is largely food sufficient while China has depleted aquifers and relies on the rest of the world for its calorie needs. Latitude, longitude matters.<p>One needs a long perspective. We need to curb population growth stat and maintain a healthy breeding population. This is for  120-150 years ahead. In that time, we need to rebuild resources and learn to use resources effectively.<p>The world was 500 million in 1600 and 3.5 billion in 1975. We will be 9-10 billion by 2050 and we are burning through planetary resources. We are setting ablaze our only home. Time to hit the brakes and reset.<p>The solution is two fold: 1. Bring population a little below carrying capacity. This can be anywhere between 1-3 billion. We will live longer. We should live healthier. 2. Rebuild resources and find alternative renewable energy for our way of life. This is a true emergency.<p>In the short term, healthy procreation done responsibly starting with removing social&#x2F;religious&#x2F;cultural pressure to have more babies. Secondly, trees. One can’t go wrong with planting more trees. It could be the only solution. This means for long periods of time, a lot of land mass has to be given up and back to nature for rewilding and recreating habitat. After adopting something like E.O.Wilson’s Half Earth strategy, we can implement currently unsuccessful ideas like high density housing projects. At this point, they will start to make sense and deliver expected results of sustainability.<p>It’s a long road and require global cooperation. I am not encouraged by current events and can’t see how any of the above can be globally incorporated. Again..to start with..separation of church and state .. as in religion and state.. is the first step. Private faith influencing public policy was our first pitfall in the timeline of our civilization. Faith is powerful and it was meant for the soul. It has become corrupted as it is being used for power plays and has in turn poisoned the wells that feed the flock in the commons.<p>I am not optimistic about our species’ survival, but if I were to try this would be my two-step starting point.