I feel kinda bad for the front-end sub contractor who just had to complete a checklist of PR friendly tweaks. To be fair, that pop-up box that wasn’t written by the same crust of greedy and incredibly toxic executives who have driven the company towards mislabeling food, wasting fresh water and polluting the earth etc
Except the slope of your graph looks like a kicker ramp while OP looks more like a quarter pipe, so it really doesn’t look like population growth can account for the uptick in heat deaths
Devil’s advocate: type of population also makes a difference. If that uptick in population is predominantly elderly, for instance, you’re gonna see the rate of susceptibility skyrocket relative to the whole.
But that is not to dismiss the reality of climate change. It just illustrates the potential for dangerously synergistic factors to be considered when evaluating risk that we’ll need to keep in mind as we try to keep existing in this ever-hotter world.
Still a 4x population increase since 1970. The point is op’s graph is misleading not climate change doesn’t exist. Even then you still have to account for demographics and such. Here’s a more dramatic graph for you: https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/846acbf1-0480-4548-8413-8566e641a0f5.webp
And I don’t know if it is misleading, why does it make sense to adjust for population here? Like, objectively more people are preventable dying from heat, and “There would be fewer preventable deaths if fewer people were around to die of preventable causes” isn’t a very satisfying answer to that problem.
When looking at data on causes of death, adjusting for population size provides important context and allows us to make fairer comparisons over time. The raw number of deaths increasing could be due to a number of factors not directly related to topic. While that isn’t the case here, it necessary to factor this in.
However, you raise a fair point - we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
Perhaps there is room for nuance - we can acknowledge that adjusting for population provides useful perspective, while also recognizing that any preventable loss of life to extreme heat is highly concerning and worthy of solution-oriented discussion. If we aim for intellectual honesty and keep our shared goals of truth and human welfare in mind, we are more likely to have productive dialogues on complex issues like this. You’d call out opposing groups if they were to do this, but it’s fine if it supports a narrative you agree with? We know the climate’s changing we’ve all stepped outside. It’s not necessary to use tactics like this to gain public favor.
This was a really well written comment that gave me a bit to think about, so thank you for the effort you put into it. I’m definitely emotionally engaged by this issue, so maybe I just needed to hear someone else say this
we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
lemmy.world
Active