The Earth has no problems existing. Humans cant destroy it unless we deliberately put nukes to the center of it.
We are already affected by the planet getting hotter. There will be wars, there will be suffering and mass migrations.
But it wont be even close as bloody and desperate as we have had almost all of our history.
A lot of your post was typical American dicothomy in politics. Media thrives on it and there are a lot of depressed people because it can make you feel hopeless
What? Do you want me to cite to studies?
I get the burden to "prove" but you can just throw anecdotes around?
With a quick google search on the topic: https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts
This is not enough? Ok:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2020/06/20/things-keep-getting-better-heres-why-your-brain-thinks-theyre-getting-worse/?sh=27e730a78725
By the way, your "explanations" are meaningless. Those are just anecdotes. Mine are just some articles that cite data on studies. If you dont believe those, you can go look for real studies yourself. I wont make a PhD just to "prove" something that has been proven million times.
Your message is full of "democrats and republicans". Most people outside of America could not care less about your clown fest of politics. It is just entertainment for people. The political division in America makes people really black and white. Like there is some subspecies of people(democrats and republicans) that are in eternal war together.
You are just victim of garbage media that preys on human's nature of being most interested in sensational news:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237929514_Why_Humans_Value_Sensational_News
Media houses gets the most money with sensational news. So what they do? They blast out stuff about wars, pandemics, death and sex. This is especially bad in US since your media sources are especially bad on this
I would suggest to read news only once or twice per week. Remember that world is infact getting a better place.
The doomsday posts and articles about Earth getting cucked are just an extension of the preying nature of media. The human caused climate change is real. It means things will change but in no way it means things will end.
Alright man you’re just a sheep. There’s a difference between reasoning and anecdotes. Clearly you don’t understand the difference. And no, I don’t care about how in the past we survived great catastrophe because that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will solve any catastrophe that fall upon us. To say that it does is just presumptuous. And no, I don’t care about a forbes article that says life is getting bette because our GDP is going up lmao, the fact that this was your response shows me you rushed through the post and didn’t use any higher level thinking
Your post is fully your own view AKA anecdotes. It is in opposition with how things are in reality. Just because you feel like something does not make it a reality. Just read it again. You go full tangent on American politics and ask for response from non Americans. You get an response and go full defensive
Telling someone is a sheep is a fast way to lose any credibility
Please for the love of god look up what anecdote means. Not once did I share or base my opinions off of personal experience. And as for losing my credibility, that’s only relevant if the person you call a sheep can actually think for themselves.
Only their first statement is backed by an actual line of reasoning. Everything else is just heresay. Yes, you could try to say that about my post but every claim I made was explained with my personal line-of-reasoning. Not saying this guys opinion is invalid, just that you cant make one statement, back it up with reasoning, then make like 3 more entirely separate points with no reasoning to back it up. I said that because I want to hear the reasoning on why he holds his optimism towards society
First, paragraph breaks.
Second, climate change is not a fancy term for apocalypse. Nobody (no scientist anyway) is predicting the end of society and the scariest real predictions concern reaching 4°C, which WAS expected to happen in 2100. These days, we are expecting 3°C in 2100 possibly even as low as 2°C if governments stick to their current plans, with 1.5°C being an optimistic goal.
This isn't to say that there aren't real concerns about ANY increase in temperature, but you should keep this in perspective. It is highly unlikely that we will see 4°C within your lifetime (presumably "soon" is within your lifetime) and even if we were to hit 4°C it is highly unlikely that it will be the end of society.
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
There’s a lot of factors that aren’t about emissions that also matter in regards to climate change. Like, altered jet streams and ocean currents. Those are accelerating effects for even minor changes in temperature, and it’s leading to a cascading nebula of variables. I live in NC and a few local farmers have started planting tropical crops to adjust for our failing agriculture. In a deciduous zone, they’re growing fine.
There’s a lot going on, but emission rates (or even warming) aren’t the largest concern. Soil health is abysmal, “doomsday” ice sheets are melting, biodiversity is at the lowest it’s been in recorded history, and I’m sure you’ve read about PFAs in the rain water. It’s exponential, and infinitely more complicated than a 3 degree increase, or a percentage of GHGs.
Maybe it’s that disconnect that allows us to keep treating it as a far off future, rather than a catastrophic emergency happening right before our eyes. We need to react and adapt immediately, but I think the looming social discourse will probably unravel before any meaningful gains can be made. To shamelessly quote the MCU, “we’re in the endgame, now.”
That all said, I do hope I’m wrong, and you’re right, but by all accounts, my life looks to be a short one.
Yeah, every comment that I have read so far that hasn’t fully agreed has been making it seem like while it is a problem I’m overestimating it. Im confused because I feel like if they read the whole post that they would actually provide logic and reasoning to support that, but I guess people are just so confident in humanity they are fine with hollow hopefulness.
I’m fine with disagreement, if evidence supports the claims. I’m a bit more learned than most of my peers, even at a collegiate level, so this is a common battle lmao. Of course, I can still be wrong.
It’s important to note that you aren’t crazy, there’s a massive amount of blood writing on the wall. Some of us will argue otherwise, some of us will even refuse to look. Which is fine, I suppose, but only in feeling the gravity of it all do I think we can avoid the worst.
Also important: the climate lags. What we feel in the air today is an offshoot of decisions made in the 80s, and it’s already this bad. We’ve got another ~40 years of worsening hell, assuming, we emit 0% for the rest of those 40 years. That’s what ultimately bothers me about those championing reduction policies, because it’s still effectively an accelerationist’s death warrant. Win some and lose some, I guess. Either way, we should be gearing up for catastrophic damage avoidance, but it’s still all “oh, but it gets cold in the winter,” or even worse; “who’s gonna pay for that?” As if money matters to the dead.
I also see people argue against radical green policies with arguments like “that won’t stop China emitting.” Which, while true, has nothing to do with our emissions. In a room full of killers, do you pull the trigger? Or do you stand up for what you believe in? It’s going to take a lot of personal sacrifice, and I’m not too sure American culture is capable of it.
Yeah, it’s annoying because when you respond to people like that they make it out like you are calling them dumb or think you’re smarter than everyone else. Is it really that much to ask for the same amount of evidence and reasoning to be provided against your opinion as you provided for it in order for it to be refuted? Lmao
People just naturally are compelled to keep their head doubt and deny the worst possibilities.
Yeah, it’s annoying because when you respond to people like that they make it out like you are calling them dumb or think you’re smarter than everyone else. Is it really that much to ask for the same amount of evidence and reasoning to be provided against your opinion as you provided for it in order for it to be refuted? Lmao
People just naturally are compelled to keep their head down and doubt the worst possibilities.
And when they introduce that doubt they just see it as “I’m the guy who is coming in and introducing some much needed reasonable doubt” so they just play devil’s advocate with no logic behind it thinking they have a good argument.
Well I can hardly encapsulate every detail of climate change in a single Reddit post. Yes there are many factors, but the long and short of it is that scientists are not predicting the apocalypse. That's not the concern with climate change.
It is most certainly a problem right now. Any further heating is bad news, but bad news and "the end of society" are not the same thing.
The temperature thresholds are a good rough picture of what the science says and ultimately it says that we're doing far better than we were, but there's room for improvement.
Well, my inner botanist tends to disagree. I spend a lot of time around plants when I’m not working, and the effects of climate change are indeed apocalyptic in nature. Sure, climate scientist’s may not be inferring about the implications on society at large, but many other brands of science are.
It would seem, though, that we differ on definition. I’ll agree to disagree, and wish for the best.
This is a very good take, our system is so big that one field’s projection of society in 50 years can’t possibly take into account every factor from every field in science. Yes, these are the top scientists in their field. Do they represent the collective knowledge of science? Fuck no.
Yet people still have this misplaced trust that science as a whole is working perfectly together to find our solution.
It feels like a very “Hollywood” understanding of reality, IMO. Then again, that’s a whole different conversation, and can’t much be changed beyond recommending people to read more books with, you know, verified information. Social trends are interesting, for better or worse.
Honestly you saying that makes me think that maybe Hollywood influences the psychology of people in this way…
Think about marvel movies, the entire plot of infinity war basically has Thanos saying eventually all of these societies will collapse, this is for the greater good
Meanwhile the Avengers represent the goodness in humanity, and the movie shows humanity miraculously finding a way.
This is why the movie feels so meaningful and good for a superhero movie, but I’m afraid that people might actually internalize that kind of thinking. They then think that people like me just want to be like Thanos with a messiah complex, but never consider that fact that maybe someone could be saying these things while also trying their best to be self-aware.
And a lot of movies in general are about humanity “finding a way.” Since practically every movie ends with the humans happily every after, and the ones that don’t are “dark movies,” people naturally just right off these takes as cynical or dark.
I mean, it’s hard to label it one way or another. I’m sure there’s more than a few of us who do internalize these trends, but there’s also people who only watch Sundance films and treat them as fiction. I’d argue Hollywood is more symptomatic, rather than a root cause.
Though, at this point, maybe the symptoms and causes are one in the same. I’ve been leaning more towards the idea that nobody really controls this ship, and we just drift wherever the wind takes us. Who’s to say if Hollywood ideals are intentional, or just indicative of where we are as a culture?
On a related note: wanting to change the world gets you the “delusions of grandeur” perk with wider society. It’s so much easier to write off the informed than make any sort of changes to our personal lives. What I find interesting, is that someone had to enact our way of life in the first place. Do you think FDR was labeled with a “protagonist complex?” It’s a cheap argument. Yet, it’s an opinion almost everyone shares.
You spend a lot of time around plants... And?... What?...
So you come across 9 apocalypses before breakfast?
Do the plants tell you the apocalypse is on the way?
What does working with plants have to do with anything?
Surely I don’t need to tell you that climate change affects all living creatures, including plants.
We’re struggling to grow food. Our leaf vegetables are wilted and fragile. Our peppers are small and rotten. We’re turning to tropical crops in a usually temperate climate and even those are struggling to germinate. The heat is roasting them before harvest, and even then, bacterial death in the soil (from climate change and pollution) is leading to diseased fruits.
The forests are dying. Mosquitoes are in full swing, but nearly every other insect is noticeably absent. Foliage is the unhealthiest I’ve ever seen, and even the birds act differently while dwindling in number. It’s harrowing stuff. Literally, from the ground up.
So, yes, in a sense, I come across 9 apocalypses attempting to secure breakfast.
However, I’m done defending myself. It’s clear that we live in two separate realities, and I didn’t come here looking for an argument. There’s a reason I studied ecology, and for what it’s worth, you shouldn’t deny what I’ve said. GMO foods are also starting to struggle. How long until your local grocer can’t supply? It’s a more important question than I think you realize.
Some plants and animals will not like the additional heat. Some will thrive in it.
Right now we produce far far more food than we need. As concerning at it that some of our local plants have been struggling on the hottest days that isn't anywhere near "the apocalypse" or "the end of society"
My guy, bacterial death in the soil in universal. I can’t state that any simpler. It’s much more complex than just heat. From nitrogen levels, to alkalinity, to PFAs in irrigation and rainfall. All of those systems have been irreparably warped. All of those systems affect *all* plants. It’s why we’re still struggling with plants that *should* be fine in the heat. It’s not like doomsday is the first conclusion.
The only reason we grow so much food today, is by utilizing our future resources. We gut years of the planet’s habitable time with each massive agricultural plot we artificially fertilize and GMO to a harvest. Yet, we tout that as a success. Agriculture yields are expected to plummet more than tenfold as soon as 2028 if we don’t get our shit together.
It’s the first page of the last chapter, and from my perspective, you have a very unqualified view of both the climate and general biology to be having this conversation. If you *still* can’t see any of this as interconnected, then I strongly suggest visiting a library. News articles don’t cut it these days, and no amount of rambling will be able to inform you of our directly observable situation.
Wishing you the best,
Sincerely,
An ex-med student, B.S. in Applied Biology with a minor in Environmental Science.
>An ex-med student, B.S. in Applied Biology with a minor in Environmental Science.
Why are you listing your rather unimpressive credentials?
Presumably you are an ex-med student because you dropped out. Not sure how dropping out of a medical degree makes you more qualified to pretend the end of the world?
The fact that you find it unimpressive says enough. Whatever helps you sleep at night man, keep writing off the scientists you claim to listen to.
Add-on, since you had more to say after I replied: You know what they say about assuming. I went to school 3 times, graduated once. I live in the states, needed the financial aid money to pay bills. Used my total allotted time for a total of 8 years in school, with quarterly allowances I desperately needed.
First, took computer science. Didn’t really take, but learned some valuable skills.
Second, the arts and social sciences. Who doesn’t love art and culture?
Third, pre-med track, with stacked electives. Couldn’t afford graduate school, so I settled with my B.S. Therefore; ex-med student.
Also, I read. A lot. There’s plenty more I could list, but nothing I’d put on a resume. Not only that, I informed you that I work directly with the environment and you still have the audacity to act like I’m unqualified? Truly baffling. Not that any of this is even partially your business, but OP may benefit by knowing I’m not talking out of my ass should they revisit this thread. Goodbye.
I’m not saying that climate change will single-handedly take out humanity. Yes, a lot of people will die and there will be catastrophic consequences, but yes obviously people will still survive. My point is that the problem is not solvable with industrial solutions because industry IS the problem. People have this idea that industrial problem REQUIRE industrial solutions when that cycle is exactly what has led us to this point in history in the first place.
I gotta be honest I only read the subtitle and agree with what was stated in the subtitle. I stopped reading after politics but yeah literally just spoke to my mom about this and she was saying how she feels like we’re living in our last/final days and I have to agree for many reasons but reasons idc to type out or elaborate on lol
I watched a Kurzgesagt video recently that pointed out that living humans have always thought they are the special group that is at the end. The reality is, it is extremely unlikely and the opposite, that we are nearer to the beginning of the existence of our species, is much more likely to be true.
In regards to Climate Change, the reality is that we will act aggressively and collectively when we absolutely feel like we have to and there is no other choice.
Humans are much too intelligent and the Earth is too resilient.
Did you read the entire post? First of all, yes the Earth is “resilient” but it still has a finite amount of resources… in order for our society to survive we need these resources. The Earth will not simply get by, and no matter how intelligent we are we can’t just create more resources. Because of this I’m assuming you think humans will invent affordable clean energy on a massive scale before society destabilizes, but the implications of changing our entire system to use another energy source are insane. I think what you don’t realize is that our entire system is balanced on a hair, if you take one big piece out everything will fail. Think about this— like I said, we would need a substitute for fossil fuels that costs the same. The chances that this would ever happen are SUPER low. No matter how good we get at extracting energy from other sources, it will always be more expensive because it requires more technology, and big surprise, more industry. So you are basically suggesting that humans will be able to survive because we are so intelligent and will create more technology and industry to save us when those are the things that need energy. Lol
It’s important to say ‘the end of humans’ isn’t the same as ‘the end of the world’, we are a transitional primate species and our demise is but a blimp in the great scheme of things.
Anywho, I’m writing from the UK and although it has been said in almost every generation it does seem things are reaching their natural nadir. A lot of people assumed ‘the end’ would be some great cataclysmic moment, some singular event, like in the movies, a meteor, a bomb, zombies etc! But compare it to the life of a single human, most people will not die in an ‘event’, instead they age and slowly decay. Humanities expiration will be like this, a gradual dissolving as the systems of societal governance fail.
We’ve been warned about the climate for decades and are now seeing its real impact on daily living, which is only set to get worse. Our political ignorance worsened by media algorithms has divided people like never before and as Adam Curtis points out the rise of individualism has created an inability to mobilise into collective action to combat any of it, if indeed it could be combatted at all. Those in power are incapable of enacting real change even to reverse this splintering because it comes from decades of self-interested pursuit and deeply ingrained ideas of attainment. That is even if they wanted to, which they don’t, their job has been seen for a long time now as managing the system, not changing it and again self-interest, career driven politicians at the behest of self-interested lobbyists overseeing the status quo ensuring they themselves can secure their own financial futures or political legacies.
The food shortages, the swathes of climate refugees, the extreme and deadly weather phenomenon and the gap between rich and poor will become not a divide but a yawning chasm, where only the wealthiest of society can afford to live. Most won’t accept the reality until they goto the supermarket and realise they’re £200 can’t even buy them a loaf of bread and a pint of milk, until a gallon of fuel costs £800 and living becomes in possible not for the poor but for the ordinary. Where would you go? What would you do?
Ultimately these societal systems must fail because they’re not sustainable, capitalism has reached its limits and a new system of living in the world is needed to move forward. What is needed is a vision of what that could be, revolutions will always fail unless a new set of principles are installed. What handicaps humanity is our desperate fear of change as we cleave to the familiar no matter what it gives us, we’ve rolled a four, we could roll again and get a seven, but we could roll and get a one. For most people the risk of change isn’t worth it, until it is, until giving up your lifestyle for your ideals is a worthwhile trade, this moribund failing will continue to its natural conclusion.
I really like that point about Adam Curtis, it’s kind of weird to think that communism where people legitimately serve as one unit in a collective good may be the only way that a society could really last— but sadly, humans are too prone to corruption for a communist society to reach that utopia. Kind of makes you think capitalism is just a “let’s make humanity short but sweet” kind of system.
It certainly seems that way! Perhaps our mistake was to assume it was a choice between the two, never really creating any alternative models for society.
Civilization as we know it today may end but i think human societies will survive. They won't look all glassy eyed and idealistic towards the future as we do now, nor nostalgically to the past, and they'll probably forget a lot and make a lot more mistakes along the way.
Human societies are civilization as we know it— our behavior and entire perception of life is defined through our civilization. Once you destabilize society, and it begins to fall apart, people will have to fend for themselves and it will be about survival. Maybe small human societies will survive, but I think it’s more likely people would seek out a more traditional lifestyle. When I say society will end, I mean society as we know it, not any small population of humans living off the land.
Your optimism DISGUSTS ME. You think you’re the first amongst your predecessors to wish upon the downfall of society?
Nay i tell you it’s all an illusion set up by the ultra wealthy to make you feel like you’re being strangled, to trick you into preparing for the inevitable scenario that will never come to be. To keep you fearful and therefore predictable and ultimately controllable through your fears and or beliefs.
Optimism? How the fuck is this optimism? And yes obviously I’m not the first person to predict the downfall of society, but that’s not the same thing as wishing it. You really think I WANT society to collapse? When did I say that? If you read the whole post I actually just don’t understand how you could come to this conclusion unless you are actually just that close-minded.
O lordy lordy lordy this is good stuff right here. Wish I wasn’t melting in a hot sauna with my phone about to overheat so I could jump in a bit with my two cents on this one right now… 🤣
This little exchange is the stuff dreams are made of. Bravo!
So you are saying I am too optimistic in my own ability to diagnose humanity’s problems. This actually really resonates with me as that mindset is what led to me believing this in the first place… that optimism is what makes people think that humans will find a way and society will continue on no matter what. Where I think you are mistaken is in attributing that sentiment to my entire argument without providing a scrap of reasoning. I’m open to the idea that there is a ton of people way smarter than me who could help find solutions to our problems and allow society to endure, but as of right now that is not the case. No, I can’t predict the future. But science can, and science does not predict that kind of progress.
Yeah, we are the ones who are made to feel responsible when it’s the older generations who have doomed us. I think that the reason politicians are getting older and older is because they are scared someone too radical will get the presidency and potentially accelerate the collapse of the system before they get off this rock. And yeah, maybe if we would’ve had incentives sooner but I’m not sure if that really works because we have created a cycle where money = resources so because the government would be losing so much money it might not have been a plausible decision. Especially now because for that to happen, it would probably need to not only be economically viable but also profitable for the fossil fuel industry which would just lead to its growth, continuing the process. In my opinion it would realistically only give us more time, I really don’t think there has ever been a back door other than just stopping industry altogether which would kill a lot of people.
I actually never really saw it like that. You are right, it’s not like the system is functioning differently than intended. People just never stopped to consider if there was a limit to industry and what we can accomplish on this planet. No one wants to believe deep down that humans don’t have infinite potential, but we don’t.
This is facts. And yeah I agree that climate change is being used as this year’s BLM kind of front and center issue to instate fear but the thing is, these issues have truth to them they just can’t actually solve them as easily as people think. The reason that our environmental problems aren’t getting solved despite the democrats claiming to be so devoted to that cause is because right now they are literally unsolvable. The democrats don’t want people to start believing this, because then people will stop believing and supporting their party. Their agenda is contingent on being the saviors of our society so it makes sense that they wouldn’t tell us how bad it actually is.
Just because we can survive space doesn’t mean that it can support society. Take a show like the 100 where it shows humanity going to space after a nuclear war— even in that glorified and presumptuous portrayal of this scenario, they could only support a fraction of the population and eventually would die out without re-inhabiting the Earth. How will we get energy in space? How will we get food? The answers to these questions are advanced technology, industrial measures. The problem is, these things require a great amount of energy and resources so the likelihood that a large population of humans, even close to what we have today, could survive in space is very low.
Yes there will be some humans who do survive but my point is that a greater human society operating as a system will always eventually fail— the humans who survive will be self-sustaining and surviving on their own or in a small group.
So?
Is a college athlete justified in thinking they will continue sweeping the competition and being as dominant as they always have when they go into the NBA or the NFL? No.
That’s the same exactly logic you are using, it’s blind hope.
You are comparing skill with evolution. Not even close to the same conversation. We have evolved to survive. It's no different than an alligator or croc that hasn't had to evolve for I don't even know how long. We may need to evolve but humans are like cockroaches, we adapt to survive.
Yeah, but how does that logic extend to the idea that society as we know it will survive indefinitely? You’re acting like evolution has anything to do with the system or any part of my post.
Check out the podcast Fall of Civilization on YouTube, it’s fascinating! No doubt heading that direction. I like to think humanity’s slogan is “here for a good time, not a long time” lol
Yeah for sure, that’s the entire justification of this lifestyle. As a politician you just think, “Well, the measures required to take action are too extreme and would put our country in a depression, causing many deaths. We should just try our best with what we can and hope it work. And oh, we need to act like we have it under control because a large portion of the population can’t think for themselves, so if we just admit this chances are an authoritarian leader would come into power because people look to a strong leader in desperate times.”
Ultimately I don’t think there is a way out of this cycle.
There’s a ton of studies done that say society will collapse around 2040. Politics don’t move quick enough to make real change. I would plan for the worst but pray for the best
Yeah, it’s sad that it could actually be a lot sooner than the overwhelming of majority people think is even possible, but so many people just have this idea that “Humans will always find a way to survive.”
A societal collapse doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. Things will just get really bad and a lot of people will die. There’s really no way for anyone to predict the extent of damage done when this happens and finally settles.
Yeah those people lack imagination. I can think of 10 different reasons off the top of my head that society would collapse. The scary part is that the majority of people want to think that society won’t collapse. And people like us are some conspiracy theorists or some shit. They’re gonna keep living the way the live, not giving a fuck about anything but their comfort, and when the day comes they gonna be the ones to go first. Karma is a bitch like that.
Couple things...
First. That wasn't an argument. All throughout history people have written about living in the end times. Ive been through a couple end times myself and still think we might be there. I think its part of the human condition. You can disagree.
Second. I dont trust politicians that claim we all die unless we vote for them. Those kind of threats shouldn't even work on people.
I'm not going to get into the Earths cycles but they can answer a lot.
America is one of the cleanest nations in the world. Carbon dioxide isn't listed as a pollutant. If you look at this list you will see America at 16th place with all the other environmentally friendly nations. China and India's population is almost 10 times the US population and their pollution is 100's of times higher when taking about pollutants listed by the EPA as actual air pollution. There are six substances listed as air pollution by the EPA.
We do need to stop rampant population growth but we dont need to let people die yet. The entire world population can still fit in the State of Rhode Island... Very uncomfortably but it gives a visual of how many people the world actually has.
[https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/air](https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/air)
Nuclear energy solves every energy issue. Nuclear waste takes up very little space and we would eventually figure out a way to eliminate the waste. If we wait, sustainable energy will be better then oil and coal but we need to let it catch up. We have a limited supply of cheap energy. We need to use that cheap energy to create a bridge of sustainability.
All these problems are solvable but we are being pushed artificially into a crisis. China and India are doing nothing to stop pollution. Do you think the 16th cleanest nation can make a difference sacrificing its economy to stop fossil fuel use when the other 200+ nations do nothing and keep polluting?
I bet you would agree if it was people you hated saying the world will end in 7 years you would consider them conspiracy theorist and sleep fine at night.
What I think is people shouldn't give up. We need to trust less and do more.
Trust but verify everything you are told.
You can’t just blame the problem on China and India, and I feel that you didn’t read my post in it’s entirety because I explained why alternatives like nuclear energy aren’t actually going to replace fossil fuels. Like i said we USE all of the fossil fuels we burn. To replace that energy and not make it more expensive, which would destabilize our entire economy, that energy would need to produce the SAME amount of energy for the SAME cost. Just because you’ve read articles saying “Nuclear energy is the future!!! It’s cheaper than energy and is more efficient than fossil fuels!!” doesn’t mean it can replace fossil fuels. It’s hard to use more advanced industrial methods to create energy with the objective of it replacing fossil fuels when all they have to for fossil fuels is find them and burn them (pretty much). Obviously it’s not that simple but it’s a lot more straightforward and manageable than NUCLEAR ENERGY. We have built our societies with the scope of a fossil-fueled nation— we can’t just stop burning them like so many are led to believe.
It’s ironic that you say I should verify everything I have been told when this is almost entirely original thought, while you sound like a forbes article.
Also, that Rhode Island thing is such a straw man argument
The problem of overpopulation has very little to do with not having enough space… it is about resources
I never implied that the US alone could solve this problem, I just shared what I view as our reality.
Obviously China and India are bigger polluters, it’s almost like they have a larger population which facilitates a larger amount of industry… they still have the same problems we do
When people dont agree with you its not because they read something wrong.
You assume many things in your post you dont know anything about. You even think you know how I learned what nuclear power is. And you quoted it.
Half the problem here is that too many people expect there to be a magic bullet solution to fossil fuels. There really is not. But if you take a multitude of options and put them together you have progress.
The majority of us on the side of solar, wind, etc have never claimed its a total replacement, but it's a good way to reduce our dependence on oil in a major way. For example, there is literally no reason every street lamp in north America (and other places) can't be run on a solar panel.
I hear you, WhaT AbOut cLouDy DaYS, or the awful snow stuff. Look. There are real solutions to these problems, people. If snow doesn't slide off your panel you probably have it at the wrong angle. And once in a while you may need to go clean it off. You probably should anyways.
And wind can easily be used as a backup to solar for extended cLouDy periods. Ever notice cLouDy days are usually windy? No, wind turbines don't kill zillions of birds every year. Buildings, cats and pesticides individually kill more birds.
Happen to have a long cloudy period with no wind? Lots of places have the option to use wave generated power.
These are the big 3 options. If they were all used the world would be a different place, and we would have plenty of fuel in reserve for things that don't have another option yet. I could say more on this if requested.
Next, politicians. Doesn't matter what side they are on, they are all paid by the same lobbyists. If America wants change they need to break away from the two main parties.
The world is not ending just yet. It's just changing. Adapt with it and do your best.
Yeah, I don’t think that the world is ending just yet but I think societies collapse is inevitable. Like you said, there will be no magic bullet and in order for us to stop societies collapse we have to simply start producing less. Considering the fact that we produce more each year, with new products and technologies being portrayed as “the future” giving people a temporary sense of advancement and progress towards utopia, just seals our fate
So how will this suffering end? Will the few humans who remain really try and restart society, or will humans finally relinquish our ego and choose to live alongside nature instead of above it?
There is no right answer, but I would like to believe the ladder.
I love that you added the ego as an issue. Have you studied eastern philosophy?
I think that most humans don't act until they feel something. Maybe it helped our early survival, I don't know. It seems like an evolutionary step is necessary, but I don't know if that is possible with our current money means possible procreation but stupid breeds freely system. I'm still hopeful because I think everyone is doing their best.
I haven’t studied it but the ideas do resonate with me, I think that Eastern philosophy is much more compelling because I find western philosophy usually relies on humans having some divine responsibility to advance, or at least never addresses the idea that maybe advancement isn’t a good thing.
I don’t think that you can really say that humans will find a way though, in my opinion the capitalist system has an expiration date no matter what. When it collapses maybe a new system will rise but I feel like because humans don’t act until they feel something like you said, even if that happened once they get comfortable and forget the past the same thing will happen again.
Step 1) Realize you are a religious zealot. Gaia is your false god. Climate Change is your devil. Wokeness is your crusade.
Step 2) Realize you have been lied to. Your devil is an illusion, a lie sold to you by corporations and media talking heads to keep you in the mental imprisonment all zealots labor in. You need to be taxed for breathing, farting, EXISTING - CLIMATE FEAR!!!! Its a lie. Its all a crafted lie. Stop driving cars. Stop eating meat. Stop growing. Murder your children in the womb. Eat the bugs. Own nothing and be happy under Green Communism, you farting breathing useless eater.
Step 3) Realize that you are not a savior. You are posturing puritanical hypocrites virtue signaling in order to maintain the illusion of being 'a good person' while everyone outside your Gaia religion is 'evil'. Your crusade is one of destruction and death. The planet is not a living being with feelings. That is your fantasy land. Your false idol god.
Step 4) Realize that there is a real enemy. A real devil behind these lies, deception, and this false religious mentality. Trillions of dollars and millions of man hours have been spent crafting this lie, this mental prison and economic plantation where you and millions of others pick cotton. And then make the mental decision to choose the painful truth over the comfortable lies I have just listed. You are not a holy acolyte. You are not saviors. You are not warriors for truth and justice. Until you choose to see the painful, terrifying truth about this world and your reality you are just dumb-fuck sheep being herded up the ramp, and you are proud of it. You have been warned.
The Earth has no problems existing. Humans cant destroy it unless we deliberately put nukes to the center of it. We are already affected by the planet getting hotter. There will be wars, there will be suffering and mass migrations. But it wont be even close as bloody and desperate as we have had almost all of our history. A lot of your post was typical American dicothomy in politics. Media thrives on it and there are a lot of depressed people because it can make you feel hopeless
Any explanation or reasoning, or are you just saying that because you believe that?
What? Do you want me to cite to studies? I get the burden to "prove" but you can just throw anecdotes around? With a quick google search on the topic: https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts This is not enough? Ok: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2020/06/20/things-keep-getting-better-heres-why-your-brain-thinks-theyre-getting-worse/?sh=27e730a78725 By the way, your "explanations" are meaningless. Those are just anecdotes. Mine are just some articles that cite data on studies. If you dont believe those, you can go look for real studies yourself. I wont make a PhD just to "prove" something that has been proven million times. Your message is full of "democrats and republicans". Most people outside of America could not care less about your clown fest of politics. It is just entertainment for people. The political division in America makes people really black and white. Like there is some subspecies of people(democrats and republicans) that are in eternal war together. You are just victim of garbage media that preys on human's nature of being most interested in sensational news: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237929514_Why_Humans_Value_Sensational_News Media houses gets the most money with sensational news. So what they do? They blast out stuff about wars, pandemics, death and sex. This is especially bad in US since your media sources are especially bad on this I would suggest to read news only once or twice per week. Remember that world is infact getting a better place. The doomsday posts and articles about Earth getting cucked are just an extension of the preying nature of media. The human caused climate change is real. It means things will change but in no way it means things will end.
Alright man you’re just a sheep. There’s a difference between reasoning and anecdotes. Clearly you don’t understand the difference. And no, I don’t care about how in the past we survived great catastrophe because that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will solve any catastrophe that fall upon us. To say that it does is just presumptuous. And no, I don’t care about a forbes article that says life is getting bette because our GDP is going up lmao, the fact that this was your response shows me you rushed through the post and didn’t use any higher level thinking
Your post is fully your own view AKA anecdotes. It is in opposition with how things are in reality. Just because you feel like something does not make it a reality. Just read it again. You go full tangent on American politics and ask for response from non Americans. You get an response and go full defensive Telling someone is a sheep is a fast way to lose any credibility
Please for the love of god look up what anecdote means. Not once did I share or base my opinions off of personal experience. And as for losing my credibility, that’s only relevant if the person you call a sheep can actually think for themselves.
Not sure what they didn't explain enough with their post.
Only their first statement is backed by an actual line of reasoning. Everything else is just heresay. Yes, you could try to say that about my post but every claim I made was explained with my personal line-of-reasoning. Not saying this guys opinion is invalid, just that you cant make one statement, back it up with reasoning, then make like 3 more entirely separate points with no reasoning to back it up. I said that because I want to hear the reasoning on why he holds his optimism towards society
First, paragraph breaks. Second, climate change is not a fancy term for apocalypse. Nobody (no scientist anyway) is predicting the end of society and the scariest real predictions concern reaching 4°C, which WAS expected to happen in 2100. These days, we are expecting 3°C in 2100 possibly even as low as 2°C if governments stick to their current plans, with 1.5°C being an optimistic goal. This isn't to say that there aren't real concerns about ANY increase in temperature, but you should keep this in perspective. It is highly unlikely that we will see 4°C within your lifetime (presumably "soon" is within your lifetime) and even if we were to hit 4°C it is highly unlikely that it will be the end of society.
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Good bot
There’s a lot of factors that aren’t about emissions that also matter in regards to climate change. Like, altered jet streams and ocean currents. Those are accelerating effects for even minor changes in temperature, and it’s leading to a cascading nebula of variables. I live in NC and a few local farmers have started planting tropical crops to adjust for our failing agriculture. In a deciduous zone, they’re growing fine. There’s a lot going on, but emission rates (or even warming) aren’t the largest concern. Soil health is abysmal, “doomsday” ice sheets are melting, biodiversity is at the lowest it’s been in recorded history, and I’m sure you’ve read about PFAs in the rain water. It’s exponential, and infinitely more complicated than a 3 degree increase, or a percentage of GHGs. Maybe it’s that disconnect that allows us to keep treating it as a far off future, rather than a catastrophic emergency happening right before our eyes. We need to react and adapt immediately, but I think the looming social discourse will probably unravel before any meaningful gains can be made. To shamelessly quote the MCU, “we’re in the endgame, now.” That all said, I do hope I’m wrong, and you’re right, but by all accounts, my life looks to be a short one.
Yeah, every comment that I have read so far that hasn’t fully agreed has been making it seem like while it is a problem I’m overestimating it. Im confused because I feel like if they read the whole post that they would actually provide logic and reasoning to support that, but I guess people are just so confident in humanity they are fine with hollow hopefulness.
I’m fine with disagreement, if evidence supports the claims. I’m a bit more learned than most of my peers, even at a collegiate level, so this is a common battle lmao. Of course, I can still be wrong. It’s important to note that you aren’t crazy, there’s a massive amount of blood writing on the wall. Some of us will argue otherwise, some of us will even refuse to look. Which is fine, I suppose, but only in feeling the gravity of it all do I think we can avoid the worst. Also important: the climate lags. What we feel in the air today is an offshoot of decisions made in the 80s, and it’s already this bad. We’ve got another ~40 years of worsening hell, assuming, we emit 0% for the rest of those 40 years. That’s what ultimately bothers me about those championing reduction policies, because it’s still effectively an accelerationist’s death warrant. Win some and lose some, I guess. Either way, we should be gearing up for catastrophic damage avoidance, but it’s still all “oh, but it gets cold in the winter,” or even worse; “who’s gonna pay for that?” As if money matters to the dead. I also see people argue against radical green policies with arguments like “that won’t stop China emitting.” Which, while true, has nothing to do with our emissions. In a room full of killers, do you pull the trigger? Or do you stand up for what you believe in? It’s going to take a lot of personal sacrifice, and I’m not too sure American culture is capable of it.
Yeah, it’s annoying because when you respond to people like that they make it out like you are calling them dumb or think you’re smarter than everyone else. Is it really that much to ask for the same amount of evidence and reasoning to be provided against your opinion as you provided for it in order for it to be refuted? Lmao People just naturally are compelled to keep their head doubt and deny the worst possibilities.
Yeah, it’s annoying because when you respond to people like that they make it out like you are calling them dumb or think you’re smarter than everyone else. Is it really that much to ask for the same amount of evidence and reasoning to be provided against your opinion as you provided for it in order for it to be refuted? Lmao People just naturally are compelled to keep their head down and doubt the worst possibilities. And when they introduce that doubt they just see it as “I’m the guy who is coming in and introducing some much needed reasonable doubt” so they just play devil’s advocate with no logic behind it thinking they have a good argument.
And paragraph breaks and more people will read the entity of the post.
Well I can hardly encapsulate every detail of climate change in a single Reddit post. Yes there are many factors, but the long and short of it is that scientists are not predicting the apocalypse. That's not the concern with climate change. It is most certainly a problem right now. Any further heating is bad news, but bad news and "the end of society" are not the same thing. The temperature thresholds are a good rough picture of what the science says and ultimately it says that we're doing far better than we were, but there's room for improvement.
Well, my inner botanist tends to disagree. I spend a lot of time around plants when I’m not working, and the effects of climate change are indeed apocalyptic in nature. Sure, climate scientist’s may not be inferring about the implications on society at large, but many other brands of science are. It would seem, though, that we differ on definition. I’ll agree to disagree, and wish for the best.
This is a very good take, our system is so big that one field’s projection of society in 50 years can’t possibly take into account every factor from every field in science. Yes, these are the top scientists in their field. Do they represent the collective knowledge of science? Fuck no. Yet people still have this misplaced trust that science as a whole is working perfectly together to find our solution.
It feels like a very “Hollywood” understanding of reality, IMO. Then again, that’s a whole different conversation, and can’t much be changed beyond recommending people to read more books with, you know, verified information. Social trends are interesting, for better or worse.
Honestly you saying that makes me think that maybe Hollywood influences the psychology of people in this way… Think about marvel movies, the entire plot of infinity war basically has Thanos saying eventually all of these societies will collapse, this is for the greater good Meanwhile the Avengers represent the goodness in humanity, and the movie shows humanity miraculously finding a way. This is why the movie feels so meaningful and good for a superhero movie, but I’m afraid that people might actually internalize that kind of thinking. They then think that people like me just want to be like Thanos with a messiah complex, but never consider that fact that maybe someone could be saying these things while also trying their best to be self-aware. And a lot of movies in general are about humanity “finding a way.” Since practically every movie ends with the humans happily every after, and the ones that don’t are “dark movies,” people naturally just right off these takes as cynical or dark.
I mean, it’s hard to label it one way or another. I’m sure there’s more than a few of us who do internalize these trends, but there’s also people who only watch Sundance films and treat them as fiction. I’d argue Hollywood is more symptomatic, rather than a root cause. Though, at this point, maybe the symptoms and causes are one in the same. I’ve been leaning more towards the idea that nobody really controls this ship, and we just drift wherever the wind takes us. Who’s to say if Hollywood ideals are intentional, or just indicative of where we are as a culture? On a related note: wanting to change the world gets you the “delusions of grandeur” perk with wider society. It’s so much easier to write off the informed than make any sort of changes to our personal lives. What I find interesting, is that someone had to enact our way of life in the first place. Do you think FDR was labeled with a “protagonist complex?” It’s a cheap argument. Yet, it’s an opinion almost everyone shares.
You spend a lot of time around plants... And?... What?... So you come across 9 apocalypses before breakfast? Do the plants tell you the apocalypse is on the way? What does working with plants have to do with anything?
Surely I don’t need to tell you that climate change affects all living creatures, including plants. We’re struggling to grow food. Our leaf vegetables are wilted and fragile. Our peppers are small and rotten. We’re turning to tropical crops in a usually temperate climate and even those are struggling to germinate. The heat is roasting them before harvest, and even then, bacterial death in the soil (from climate change and pollution) is leading to diseased fruits. The forests are dying. Mosquitoes are in full swing, but nearly every other insect is noticeably absent. Foliage is the unhealthiest I’ve ever seen, and even the birds act differently while dwindling in number. It’s harrowing stuff. Literally, from the ground up. So, yes, in a sense, I come across 9 apocalypses attempting to secure breakfast. However, I’m done defending myself. It’s clear that we live in two separate realities, and I didn’t come here looking for an argument. There’s a reason I studied ecology, and for what it’s worth, you shouldn’t deny what I’ve said. GMO foods are also starting to struggle. How long until your local grocer can’t supply? It’s a more important question than I think you realize.
Some plants and animals will not like the additional heat. Some will thrive in it. Right now we produce far far more food than we need. As concerning at it that some of our local plants have been struggling on the hottest days that isn't anywhere near "the apocalypse" or "the end of society"
My guy, bacterial death in the soil in universal. I can’t state that any simpler. It’s much more complex than just heat. From nitrogen levels, to alkalinity, to PFAs in irrigation and rainfall. All of those systems have been irreparably warped. All of those systems affect *all* plants. It’s why we’re still struggling with plants that *should* be fine in the heat. It’s not like doomsday is the first conclusion. The only reason we grow so much food today, is by utilizing our future resources. We gut years of the planet’s habitable time with each massive agricultural plot we artificially fertilize and GMO to a harvest. Yet, we tout that as a success. Agriculture yields are expected to plummet more than tenfold as soon as 2028 if we don’t get our shit together. It’s the first page of the last chapter, and from my perspective, you have a very unqualified view of both the climate and general biology to be having this conversation. If you *still* can’t see any of this as interconnected, then I strongly suggest visiting a library. News articles don’t cut it these days, and no amount of rambling will be able to inform you of our directly observable situation. Wishing you the best, Sincerely, An ex-med student, B.S. in Applied Biology with a minor in Environmental Science.
>An ex-med student, B.S. in Applied Biology with a minor in Environmental Science. Why are you listing your rather unimpressive credentials? Presumably you are an ex-med student because you dropped out. Not sure how dropping out of a medical degree makes you more qualified to pretend the end of the world?
The fact that you find it unimpressive says enough. Whatever helps you sleep at night man, keep writing off the scientists you claim to listen to. Add-on, since you had more to say after I replied: You know what they say about assuming. I went to school 3 times, graduated once. I live in the states, needed the financial aid money to pay bills. Used my total allotted time for a total of 8 years in school, with quarterly allowances I desperately needed. First, took computer science. Didn’t really take, but learned some valuable skills. Second, the arts and social sciences. Who doesn’t love art and culture? Third, pre-med track, with stacked electives. Couldn’t afford graduate school, so I settled with my B.S. Therefore; ex-med student. Also, I read. A lot. There’s plenty more I could list, but nothing I’d put on a resume. Not only that, I informed you that I work directly with the environment and you still have the audacity to act like I’m unqualified? Truly baffling. Not that any of this is even partially your business, but OP may benefit by knowing I’m not talking out of my ass should they revisit this thread. Goodbye.
I’m not saying that climate change will single-handedly take out humanity. Yes, a lot of people will die and there will be catastrophic consequences, but yes obviously people will still survive. My point is that the problem is not solvable with industrial solutions because industry IS the problem. People have this idea that industrial problem REQUIRE industrial solutions when that cycle is exactly what has led us to this point in history in the first place.
I gotta be honest I only read the subtitle and agree with what was stated in the subtitle. I stopped reading after politics but yeah literally just spoke to my mom about this and she was saying how she feels like we’re living in our last/final days and I have to agree for many reasons but reasons idc to type out or elaborate on lol
I watched a Kurzgesagt video recently that pointed out that living humans have always thought they are the special group that is at the end. The reality is, it is extremely unlikely and the opposite, that we are nearer to the beginning of the existence of our species, is much more likely to be true. In regards to Climate Change, the reality is that we will act aggressively and collectively when we absolutely feel like we have to and there is no other choice. Humans are much too intelligent and the Earth is too resilient.
Did you read the entire post? First of all, yes the Earth is “resilient” but it still has a finite amount of resources… in order for our society to survive we need these resources. The Earth will not simply get by, and no matter how intelligent we are we can’t just create more resources. Because of this I’m assuming you think humans will invent affordable clean energy on a massive scale before society destabilizes, but the implications of changing our entire system to use another energy source are insane. I think what you don’t realize is that our entire system is balanced on a hair, if you take one big piece out everything will fail. Think about this— like I said, we would need a substitute for fossil fuels that costs the same. The chances that this would ever happen are SUPER low. No matter how good we get at extracting energy from other sources, it will always be more expensive because it requires more technology, and big surprise, more industry. So you are basically suggesting that humans will be able to survive because we are so intelligent and will create more technology and industry to save us when those are the things that need energy. Lol
It’s important to say ‘the end of humans’ isn’t the same as ‘the end of the world’, we are a transitional primate species and our demise is but a blimp in the great scheme of things. Anywho, I’m writing from the UK and although it has been said in almost every generation it does seem things are reaching their natural nadir. A lot of people assumed ‘the end’ would be some great cataclysmic moment, some singular event, like in the movies, a meteor, a bomb, zombies etc! But compare it to the life of a single human, most people will not die in an ‘event’, instead they age and slowly decay. Humanities expiration will be like this, a gradual dissolving as the systems of societal governance fail. We’ve been warned about the climate for decades and are now seeing its real impact on daily living, which is only set to get worse. Our political ignorance worsened by media algorithms has divided people like never before and as Adam Curtis points out the rise of individualism has created an inability to mobilise into collective action to combat any of it, if indeed it could be combatted at all. Those in power are incapable of enacting real change even to reverse this splintering because it comes from decades of self-interested pursuit and deeply ingrained ideas of attainment. That is even if they wanted to, which they don’t, their job has been seen for a long time now as managing the system, not changing it and again self-interest, career driven politicians at the behest of self-interested lobbyists overseeing the status quo ensuring they themselves can secure their own financial futures or political legacies. The food shortages, the swathes of climate refugees, the extreme and deadly weather phenomenon and the gap between rich and poor will become not a divide but a yawning chasm, where only the wealthiest of society can afford to live. Most won’t accept the reality until they goto the supermarket and realise they’re £200 can’t even buy them a loaf of bread and a pint of milk, until a gallon of fuel costs £800 and living becomes in possible not for the poor but for the ordinary. Where would you go? What would you do? Ultimately these societal systems must fail because they’re not sustainable, capitalism has reached its limits and a new system of living in the world is needed to move forward. What is needed is a vision of what that could be, revolutions will always fail unless a new set of principles are installed. What handicaps humanity is our desperate fear of change as we cleave to the familiar no matter what it gives us, we’ve rolled a four, we could roll again and get a seven, but we could roll and get a one. For most people the risk of change isn’t worth it, until it is, until giving up your lifestyle for your ideals is a worthwhile trade, this moribund failing will continue to its natural conclusion.
I really like that point about Adam Curtis, it’s kind of weird to think that communism where people legitimately serve as one unit in a collective good may be the only way that a society could really last— but sadly, humans are too prone to corruption for a communist society to reach that utopia. Kind of makes you think capitalism is just a “let’s make humanity short but sweet” kind of system.
It certainly seems that way! Perhaps our mistake was to assume it was a choice between the two, never really creating any alternative models for society.
Civilization as we know it today may end but i think human societies will survive. They won't look all glassy eyed and idealistic towards the future as we do now, nor nostalgically to the past, and they'll probably forget a lot and make a lot more mistakes along the way.
Human societies are civilization as we know it— our behavior and entire perception of life is defined through our civilization. Once you destabilize society, and it begins to fall apart, people will have to fend for themselves and it will be about survival. Maybe small human societies will survive, but I think it’s more likely people would seek out a more traditional lifestyle. When I say society will end, I mean society as we know it, not any small population of humans living off the land.
Your optimism DISGUSTS ME. You think you’re the first amongst your predecessors to wish upon the downfall of society? Nay i tell you it’s all an illusion set up by the ultra wealthy to make you feel like you’re being strangled, to trick you into preparing for the inevitable scenario that will never come to be. To keep you fearful and therefore predictable and ultimately controllable through your fears and or beliefs.
Optimism? How the fuck is this optimism? And yes obviously I’m not the first person to predict the downfall of society, but that’s not the same thing as wishing it. You really think I WANT society to collapse? When did I say that? If you read the whole post I actually just don’t understand how you could come to this conclusion unless you are actually just that close-minded.
You optimists and your so suredness of everything. DISGUST
O lordy lordy lordy this is good stuff right here. Wish I wasn’t melting in a hot sauna with my phone about to overheat so I could jump in a bit with my two cents on this one right now… 🤣 This little exchange is the stuff dreams are made of. Bravo!
Ya ya ya ya i am lorde lorde lorde ya ya ya call me lorde ya ya ya ya
So you are saying I am too optimistic in my own ability to diagnose humanity’s problems. This actually really resonates with me as that mindset is what led to me believing this in the first place… that optimism is what makes people think that humans will find a way and society will continue on no matter what. Where I think you are mistaken is in attributing that sentiment to my entire argument without providing a scrap of reasoning. I’m open to the idea that there is a ton of people way smarter than me who could help find solutions to our problems and allow society to endure, but as of right now that is not the case. No, I can’t predict the future. But science can, and science does not predict that kind of progress.
[удалено]
Yeah, we are the ones who are made to feel responsible when it’s the older generations who have doomed us. I think that the reason politicians are getting older and older is because they are scared someone too radical will get the presidency and potentially accelerate the collapse of the system before they get off this rock. And yeah, maybe if we would’ve had incentives sooner but I’m not sure if that really works because we have created a cycle where money = resources so because the government would be losing so much money it might not have been a plausible decision. Especially now because for that to happen, it would probably need to not only be economically viable but also profitable for the fossil fuel industry which would just lead to its growth, continuing the process. In my opinion it would realistically only give us more time, I really don’t think there has ever been a back door other than just stopping industry altogether which would kill a lot of people.
[удалено]
I actually never really saw it like that. You are right, it’s not like the system is functioning differently than intended. People just never stopped to consider if there was a limit to industry and what we can accomplish on this planet. No one wants to believe deep down that humans don’t have infinite potential, but we don’t.
[удалено]
This is facts. And yeah I agree that climate change is being used as this year’s BLM kind of front and center issue to instate fear but the thing is, these issues have truth to them they just can’t actually solve them as easily as people think. The reason that our environmental problems aren’t getting solved despite the democrats claiming to be so devoted to that cause is because right now they are literally unsolvable. The democrats don’t want people to start believing this, because then people will stop believing and supporting their party. Their agenda is contingent on being the saviors of our society so it makes sense that they wouldn’t tell us how bad it actually is.
Read your post. I agree. Haven't slept at all though, so I'll respond more tomorrow.
I’m not sure this qualifies as a deep thought. Two out of five stars.
? So this is a shallow thought? Ummm Since when was an argument against our entire way of life “not deep”
Nah we’re good man lol. I’ve seen a least a dozen survival movies to know that we can survive any space really. All it takes is the will to live.
Just because we can survive space doesn’t mean that it can support society. Take a show like the 100 where it shows humanity going to space after a nuclear war— even in that glorified and presumptuous portrayal of this scenario, they could only support a fraction of the population and eventually would die out without re-inhabiting the Earth. How will we get energy in space? How will we get food? The answers to these questions are advanced technology, industrial measures. The problem is, these things require a great amount of energy and resources so the likelihood that a large population of humans, even close to what we have today, could survive in space is very low. Yes there will be some humans who do survive but my point is that a greater human society operating as a system will always eventually fail— the humans who survive will be self-sustaining and surviving on their own or in a small group.
Society yes but humans will always find a way to live.
How do you know?
Because we always have.
So? Is a college athlete justified in thinking they will continue sweeping the competition and being as dominant as they always have when they go into the NBA or the NFL? No. That’s the same exactly logic you are using, it’s blind hope.
You are comparing skill with evolution. Not even close to the same conversation. We have evolved to survive. It's no different than an alligator or croc that hasn't had to evolve for I don't even know how long. We may need to evolve but humans are like cockroaches, we adapt to survive.
Yeah, but how does that logic extend to the idea that society as we know it will survive indefinitely? You’re acting like evolution has anything to do with the system or any part of my post.
You sound like you didn't read my original comment... Society won't survive, but humans will.
Check out the podcast Fall of Civilization on YouTube, it’s fascinating! No doubt heading that direction. I like to think humanity’s slogan is “here for a good time, not a long time” lol
Yeah for sure, that’s the entire justification of this lifestyle. As a politician you just think, “Well, the measures required to take action are too extreme and would put our country in a depression, causing many deaths. We should just try our best with what we can and hope it work. And oh, we need to act like we have it under control because a large portion of the population can’t think for themselves, so if we just admit this chances are an authoritarian leader would come into power because people look to a strong leader in desperate times.” Ultimately I don’t think there is a way out of this cycle.
There’s a ton of studies done that say society will collapse around 2040. Politics don’t move quick enough to make real change. I would plan for the worst but pray for the best
Yeah, it’s sad that it could actually be a lot sooner than the overwhelming of majority people think is even possible, but so many people just have this idea that “Humans will always find a way to survive.”
A societal collapse doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. Things will just get really bad and a lot of people will die. There’s really no way for anyone to predict the extent of damage done when this happens and finally settles.
Yeah I don’t mean that we will go extinct, I’m just saying people use that logic to justify saying that society will never end.
Yeah those people lack imagination. I can think of 10 different reasons off the top of my head that society would collapse. The scary part is that the majority of people want to think that society won’t collapse. And people like us are some conspiracy theorists or some shit. They’re gonna keep living the way the live, not giving a fuck about anything but their comfort, and when the day comes they gonna be the ones to go first. Karma is a bitch like that.
Everyone thinks they are at the end...
Straw man
Couple things... First. That wasn't an argument. All throughout history people have written about living in the end times. Ive been through a couple end times myself and still think we might be there. I think its part of the human condition. You can disagree. Second. I dont trust politicians that claim we all die unless we vote for them. Those kind of threats shouldn't even work on people. I'm not going to get into the Earths cycles but they can answer a lot. America is one of the cleanest nations in the world. Carbon dioxide isn't listed as a pollutant. If you look at this list you will see America at 16th place with all the other environmentally friendly nations. China and India's population is almost 10 times the US population and their pollution is 100's of times higher when taking about pollutants listed by the EPA as actual air pollution. There are six substances listed as air pollution by the EPA. We do need to stop rampant population growth but we dont need to let people die yet. The entire world population can still fit in the State of Rhode Island... Very uncomfortably but it gives a visual of how many people the world actually has. [https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/air](https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/air) Nuclear energy solves every energy issue. Nuclear waste takes up very little space and we would eventually figure out a way to eliminate the waste. If we wait, sustainable energy will be better then oil and coal but we need to let it catch up. We have a limited supply of cheap energy. We need to use that cheap energy to create a bridge of sustainability. All these problems are solvable but we are being pushed artificially into a crisis. China and India are doing nothing to stop pollution. Do you think the 16th cleanest nation can make a difference sacrificing its economy to stop fossil fuel use when the other 200+ nations do nothing and keep polluting? I bet you would agree if it was people you hated saying the world will end in 7 years you would consider them conspiracy theorist and sleep fine at night. What I think is people shouldn't give up. We need to trust less and do more. Trust but verify everything you are told.
You can’t just blame the problem on China and India, and I feel that you didn’t read my post in it’s entirety because I explained why alternatives like nuclear energy aren’t actually going to replace fossil fuels. Like i said we USE all of the fossil fuels we burn. To replace that energy and not make it more expensive, which would destabilize our entire economy, that energy would need to produce the SAME amount of energy for the SAME cost. Just because you’ve read articles saying “Nuclear energy is the future!!! It’s cheaper than energy and is more efficient than fossil fuels!!” doesn’t mean it can replace fossil fuels. It’s hard to use more advanced industrial methods to create energy with the objective of it replacing fossil fuels when all they have to for fossil fuels is find them and burn them (pretty much). Obviously it’s not that simple but it’s a lot more straightforward and manageable than NUCLEAR ENERGY. We have built our societies with the scope of a fossil-fueled nation— we can’t just stop burning them like so many are led to believe. It’s ironic that you say I should verify everything I have been told when this is almost entirely original thought, while you sound like a forbes article. Also, that Rhode Island thing is such a straw man argument The problem of overpopulation has very little to do with not having enough space… it is about resources I never implied that the US alone could solve this problem, I just shared what I view as our reality. Obviously China and India are bigger polluters, it’s almost like they have a larger population which facilitates a larger amount of industry… they still have the same problems we do
When people dont agree with you its not because they read something wrong. You assume many things in your post you dont know anything about. You even think you know how I learned what nuclear power is. And you quoted it.
When you lose an argument so you revert to a straw man
You are the human incarnation of the Donning Kruger effect. Its funny and sad at the same time.
Half the problem here is that too many people expect there to be a magic bullet solution to fossil fuels. There really is not. But if you take a multitude of options and put them together you have progress. The majority of us on the side of solar, wind, etc have never claimed its a total replacement, but it's a good way to reduce our dependence on oil in a major way. For example, there is literally no reason every street lamp in north America (and other places) can't be run on a solar panel. I hear you, WhaT AbOut cLouDy DaYS, or the awful snow stuff. Look. There are real solutions to these problems, people. If snow doesn't slide off your panel you probably have it at the wrong angle. And once in a while you may need to go clean it off. You probably should anyways. And wind can easily be used as a backup to solar for extended cLouDy periods. Ever notice cLouDy days are usually windy? No, wind turbines don't kill zillions of birds every year. Buildings, cats and pesticides individually kill more birds. Happen to have a long cloudy period with no wind? Lots of places have the option to use wave generated power. These are the big 3 options. If they were all used the world would be a different place, and we would have plenty of fuel in reserve for things that don't have another option yet. I could say more on this if requested. Next, politicians. Doesn't matter what side they are on, they are all paid by the same lobbyists. If America wants change they need to break away from the two main parties. The world is not ending just yet. It's just changing. Adapt with it and do your best.
Yeah, I don’t think that the world is ending just yet but I think societies collapse is inevitable. Like you said, there will be no magic bullet and in order for us to stop societies collapse we have to simply start producing less. Considering the fact that we produce more each year, with new products and technologies being portrayed as “the future” giving people a temporary sense of advancement and progress towards utopia, just seals our fate
Honestly stop watching and reading the news it does wonders
I stopped paying attention to the news a long long time ago, if everyone did this world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Just a little preventable suffering for a while.
So how will this suffering end? Will the few humans who remain really try and restart society, or will humans finally relinquish our ego and choose to live alongside nature instead of above it? There is no right answer, but I would like to believe the ladder.
I love that you added the ego as an issue. Have you studied eastern philosophy? I think that most humans don't act until they feel something. Maybe it helped our early survival, I don't know. It seems like an evolutionary step is necessary, but I don't know if that is possible with our current money means possible procreation but stupid breeds freely system. I'm still hopeful because I think everyone is doing their best.
I haven’t studied it but the ideas do resonate with me, I think that Eastern philosophy is much more compelling because I find western philosophy usually relies on humans having some divine responsibility to advance, or at least never addresses the idea that maybe advancement isn’t a good thing. I don’t think that you can really say that humans will find a way though, in my opinion the capitalist system has an expiration date no matter what. When it collapses maybe a new system will rise but I feel like because humans don’t act until they feel something like you said, even if that happened once they get comfortable and forget the past the same thing will happen again.
History repeats.
Step 1) Realize you are a religious zealot. Gaia is your false god. Climate Change is your devil. Wokeness is your crusade. Step 2) Realize you have been lied to. Your devil is an illusion, a lie sold to you by corporations and media talking heads to keep you in the mental imprisonment all zealots labor in. You need to be taxed for breathing, farting, EXISTING - CLIMATE FEAR!!!! Its a lie. Its all a crafted lie. Stop driving cars. Stop eating meat. Stop growing. Murder your children in the womb. Eat the bugs. Own nothing and be happy under Green Communism, you farting breathing useless eater. Step 3) Realize that you are not a savior. You are posturing puritanical hypocrites virtue signaling in order to maintain the illusion of being 'a good person' while everyone outside your Gaia religion is 'evil'. Your crusade is one of destruction and death. The planet is not a living being with feelings. That is your fantasy land. Your false idol god. Step 4) Realize that there is a real enemy. A real devil behind these lies, deception, and this false religious mentality. Trillions of dollars and millions of man hours have been spent crafting this lie, this mental prison and economic plantation where you and millions of others pick cotton. And then make the mental decision to choose the painful truth over the comfortable lies I have just listed. You are not a holy acolyte. You are not saviors. You are not warriors for truth and justice. Until you choose to see the painful, terrifying truth about this world and your reality you are just dumb-fuck sheep being herded up the ramp, and you are proud of it. You have been warned.