9 ms·

I am getting to a point of internalizing the planet's health that I have been keeping my eyes open for therapists that specialize on this topic. It's difficult

I am getting to a point of internalizing the planet's health that I have been keeping my eyes open for therapists that specialize on this topic. It's difficult to not ruminate on what increasingly sounds like dystopian autumn years and winter years that aren't worth living to. It's extremely distressing to read headlines day after day, and the accelerating tone is building. Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? I know there's still a lot to figure out. But each time we figure out more, it seems it's actually worse.

creaghpatr 8y ago
>Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? The article itself has some helpful perspective if you read past the headline: >The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive >New feedback loops are still being discovered >Rockström says there are huge gaps in data and knowledge about how one process might amplify another >Another climate scientist – who was not involved in the paper – emphasised the document aimed to raise questions rather than prove a theory. “It’s rather selective, but not outlandish,” said Prof Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute. “Threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that 2C is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it.” >Rockström said the question needed asking. “We could end up delivering the Paris agreement and keep to 2C of warming, but then face an ugly surprise if the system starts to slip away,” he said. “We don’t say this will definitely happen. We just list all the disruptive events and come up with plausible occurrences … A very nuanced take from the guardian imo! Then again, they pull an unscientific quote for the article conclusion: >“In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight,” said Dr Phil Williamson, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. Tfw there's no penalty for crying wolf...
breakpointalpha 8y ago
Man, you don't have any faith in human resilience? An average global temperature increase of 4c is bad, but survivable easily with modern technology and good planning. 80% of the worlds population live within 50 miles of a coast line. There's still plenty of room inland. You want a retirement plan? Buy land in the the Rockies or the Alps.
- graeme 8y ago
  You're joking, right? It's hard to tell, because people propose "adaptation" seriously quite often. The loss of all coastal cities would be apocalyptic.
  - pliny 8y ago
    While many cities are on a coast, very few of those are built within 1m of sea level, which the 'worst case' (by 2100) projected in AR5. Loss of coastal cities over 100 years is not apocalytic, that is a time scale where people can/will just replace buildings near the advancing coastline with buildings further inland.
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      I am not sure things are quite that linear. Sure, few US cities are on the coasts, but the ones that are happen to be some of the most important pieces of the freight distribution network and economy of North America. If the frequency of catastrophic storms increases by a relatively small amount, we will cross an inflection point and there will be a rapid cascading failure across the entire continent.
  - godshatter 8y ago
    If we lost them all tomorrow, sure. But sea level is rising slowly enough that we can go quite a while just abandoning the land right on the coast that is becoming unusable as it becomes unusable. People will see the writing on the wall and either move farther inland or to some other city, without the apocalyptic aspects. Some cities without higher ground nearby will have a harder time, though. I'm curious if anyone knows of a source of statistics for land area that has been abandoned due to rising sea levels. How quickly is this happening now?
DanielBMarkham 8y ago
I am old enough to have been through several cycles of people announcing various calamities ahead. I'm not going to list them. Your question was about finding perspective, not about this particular issue. For each of these, when confronted by my friends, I have asked them to write down what they are worried about and what disaster they see in 10-20 years. Then later, after that time frame has passed, come back and make an assessment of where we are now. By writing it down they get to judge whether or not their current assessment of the future turns out to be actually as bleak as they imagine it to be. This has not been the case so far. Oddly enough, I think many people find that disappointing as well. I firmly believe when the end of the world finally arrives, there will be a ton of pissed-off people that it didn't end the way they were worrying about all those years. But after being disappointed and a little angry, most of my friends have found some solace and calm in the fact that it's never as bad as you think it's going to be. This has nothing to do with the climate. The same can be said of many, many other personal tragedies that do not involve it. Writing it down and then honestly looking at your thoughts later is a great way to separate your natural inclination for disaster-seeking from what's actually occurring. Everybody has a natural "set point" for either being optimistic or fearing the future. It's important to learn what yours is.
- revscat 8y ago
  Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2 levels, or stop the proliferation of extinctions, or stop the conflagrations currently burning out of control in California, Spain, and elsewhere. Selfish faith doesn’t restore migratory patterns, or ocean temperatures, or arctic ice levels. Record and ever worsening heat waves don’t stop advancing simply because we reply with a “oh, I’m sure everything will work out.” But hey, someone predicted something wrong in the past, so that means I can brush my hands of it. A psychologist would certainly say that’s a healthy attitude to take, but perhaps what is needed to stave off extinction are unhealthy ones. But that might upset someone, and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we.
  - Recurecur 8y ago
tjansen 8y ago
Just google the "Scott Adams rule of slow moving disasters". Even if the climate is changing, it won't happen overnight, and there are many ways to either adjust to climate change, or to adjust the climate itself.
- graeme 8y ago
  "Adjust to climate change" or "adjust the climate" are signs someone has really thought through the likely outcomes or climate change. If we keep burning carbon, adjustment would mean "abandoning all coastal cities and ports". That....is not a cost we can easily pay. "Adjusting the climate" is hubris. Unless it means lowering CO2. Because otherwise, each change has sode effects. Eg a light shade would still leave disastrous ocean acidification, and have other side effects from the shade. We might still figure a way out, but it would involve carbon free or carbon neutral energy, and a way to suck it from the sky.
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    couple things: 1. There's still a lot of uncertainty in the science. I'm not denying climate change, I'm saying that newspapers love to report the worst of all possible scenarios as fact. I used to work in one, I know how they think. Go read the actual papers and take note of the error bars. Try looking at the best of all possible outcomes (which is just as likely), and see where that would leave us. 2. If everything you fear is true, it will happen over a hundred plus years, not the next 10. We will have plenty of time to knock down the building that is now flooding and convert the next one behind it to be the new coast. If you doubt we can do this, go visit Venice. Every building there is built on the one beneath it that sank. If you can find some, talk to some people who have lived through a war. They coped with things that we think of as intolerable. Humans are very adaptable. Finally, you still have to live your life. Make climate change your life's purpose, or shrug and accept it, your life will carry on. You will live another day, and you have to decide what to do in that day. Just keep breathing.
    - graeme 8y ago
      Do you have a source on Venice? That seems totally false. I’ve been there and seen 500 year old buildings. This aeticle indicates that some steps have submerged, but doesn’t mention building on top: https://www.climatechangepost.com/news/2017/9/21/historic-palaces-venice-provide-clue-sea-level-ris/ https://www.climatechangepost.com/news/2017/9/21/historic-pa... As for best case outcome, I don’t see how that is equally likely to all other outcomes. It would just be one case among many, no?
CompelTechnic 8y ago
If you want a healthy viewpoint that fully internalizes the incentives and actions of the people of the world, I have one to offer. Most people just want to be comfortable. This is fine. We do not care much about the death of other animals, as evidenced by continuously choosing not to become vegetarians. Even if a large number of species collapse because of warming, human agriculture will go on easily and the resilient species will continue to inhabit landscapes all over the world. If anyone starves to death, it will only be to the extent that they already do, which is almost exclusively because of coordination problems, not for a worldwide lack of food. Humans are resilient and easily solve problems when they are urgent. If we lose a degree of technological or economical development while fighting this problem, consider that these are not factors that truly make people happy. Quality time with good friends and family is what counts. We are sufficiently advanced that detrimental lifestyle changes incurred while solving problems related to climate change will be small in comparison to the great health and lifestyle improvements we have made so far. The poorest people around the world have seen their incomes rise rapidly in recent years (i.e. the "Elephant Curve"). Climate change will have relatively little impact in comparison to humanity continuously bootstrapping itself into higher levels of wealth through markets, government, and collaboration. Compare the level of action you have personally taken to fight global warming to the level of action you feel (and advocate) people should be taking. Talk is cheap. Actions reveal preferences. In a broad perspective, given today's frontier of possible technology and lifestyles, people would rather live a first-world middle class lifestyle, accepting the additional risk of climate change caused by this lifestyle. Fighting this preference is not without cost, and humanity has chosen that a different fight can occur later, solving individual symptomatic problems when these problems have urgency.
- plesner 8y ago
  Will agriculture go on easily though? If you look at just two effects, increased variability of the weather and loss of arable land because of rising sea levels, how do those alone not lead to lower output and greater insecurity?
  - Brometheus 8y ago
    Agriculture in Europe for vegetables is already concentrated in Spain's greenhouses...
lloeki 8y ago
> Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? Don't lie to yourself, it's no good trying to build some delusional version of the world, your subconscious mind knows how to look through the cracks of the mirror and the dead weight will rear its head at some point and pull down at the worst possible moment. Getting some perspective is about learning to take a step back and contemplate (practicing mindfulness and meditation may help in strengthening the matching neural pathways). Yet keep in mind that it does not mean being indifferent[0]. Pick your fights, choose to act upon what you can and desire to[1]. Find balance. [0]: (Warning: copious profanity) https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck [1]: https://i1.wp.com/thebestintent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ikigai_Toronto-star.jpg https://i1.wp.com/thebestintent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/...
tambourine_man 8y ago
Things are going to get a lot tougher climate wise, and unnecessarily so, which is a shame. But we'll still be here, making science and art. That much you can rely on.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  That much you cannot rely on.
fsloth 8y ago
You could just stop reading the news. Humans are not built for dealing with planetary scale events. It's not a cop out. Just live your life like you have so far, and try to be happy and kind to fellow beings. If you have resources to affect the outcome then please do muster your troops, but your message implies this is not so - you are like the most of us, mostly powerless. Personally, I just don't care. No, not that I don't care for our species or our planet, what I mean is that I'm fine with whatever scenario arrives. If it's full blown apocalypse ... I'll save my distress for when that day arrives (hopefully it won't). I'm a small bag of meat. I try to live my life ethically, and find joy in small things that bring me pleasure. Then, one day I will be dust. I'm fine with that. Being scared because everyone screams "calamity calamity calamity!" just puts you on full stress for no good reason.
AndyMcConachie 8y ago
When I was in 3rd grade my teacher noticed that I was terribly stressed about something and asked me what it was. I told her I was terrified of thermo-nuclear annihilation. I was afraid of nuclear war so much as a little kid that my teacher noticed. She talked with my parents and there was intervention to help me with my feelings. Talk to others about your feelings. Doesn't necessarily need to be a therapist. It could be a friend or a family member. But talk to people because I don't think you're being unreasonable or weird. I think your reaction is perfectly normal and even healthy. If more people felt like you we might be in a better place with the environment.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  same. I remember "knowing" that I was not going to make it to 40 years old because nuclear war was unavoidable. I turned 50 this year.
dvh 8y ago
I use word based filter in my rss reader that hides certain topics I'm tired if hearing for millionth time. Recently when I was adding "Trump,Putin,Russia, Russian" I discovered my previous filter was "Ebola". I realized that I haven't heard about Ebola for very long time just because of this filter and it made me really happy.
gotrythis 8y ago
Hi. There was a time years ago, when I felt I was going crazy, yelling into the void, while everyone around me was saying nothing is happening. The Spice Girls breaking up made all the headlines the day the Union of Concerned Scientists report that the world was burning was regulated to a clip on page 20. It was like living in a Twilight Zone episode. Later, I realized I was in a stage of grief, and I've gone through all the stages over the course of a decade. Since, I've had discussions with psychologist friends who have gone through a similar process, and they also strongly believe that everyone is in a stage of grief about climate change. Most people are in denial. It's just too big to deal with so they avoid it. When they are finally pulled out of denial, they get angry, start raging and protesting at the people still in denial to change their ways. Then they start bargaining, coming up with ideas like moving inland and going off grid, or reducing emissions. Depression comes when they realize nothing will make a difference, so may as well kill ourselves now. Then acceptance that the world as we know it is probably going to end, perhaps slowly over the next few generations or tomorrow if a tipping point is reached that creates the perfect storm. They make peace with it and live the best life they can, which often looks like being in denial again. It's a painful process to go through. I was lucky and came out the side the most balanced and happy I've ever been, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going crazy. Society is crazy, learning about climate change makes you crazier. I was going un-crazy, letting go of my delusions about society and the world and my delusions that I could change people. As to your question, I've actually considered training to become a therapist to help people going through a similar journey. I think it's going to become an important field in the future.
- roryisok 8y ago
  I've definitely felt like I'm in the stages of grief. This feels accurate. We're collectively facing our own mortality, in the way that everyone who lives long enough must eventually. And just like that personal mortality, the future is unknown. Our world could end next year, or in a hundred years. I can't save myself or my family any more than I can stop them getting a fatal disease or being hit by a truck. All we can do is spend all the time we've got together, and hope it's longer rather than shorter. I hope that doesn't sound too morbid. It's a good philosophy to live by regardless of whether or not the end is nigh. To put it another way, the world is going to end in our lifetimes. And that's ok. Because the world ends for everybody, at the end of their life.
macandcheese 8y ago
My way to rationalize it? People thought the same thing years before you, or I, was born. And they'll think the same years after the both of us are gone. It can be demoralizing, yes, but ultimately a stoic approach seems to me the best way to "think away" things like this.
roryisok 8y ago
This is how I cope. 1. Do what you can. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Vote green with your wallet and your ballot card. Eat less meat. Drive less. Work remote. Buy second hand. Grow your own veg. Buy carbon offsets. Plant trees. 2. Accept that things are going to change, and there's not much we can do about it. 3. Enjoy life, spend time with your family. You won't regret it even if some miracle saves us. 4. Stop reading the guardian because they have a hard on for the apocalypse
shdh 8y ago
Just accept that humanity will go extinct at some point. This is an eventuality.

creaghpatr 8y ago

>Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? The article itself has some helpful perspective if you read past the headline: >The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive >New feedback loops are still being discovered >Rockström says there are huge gaps in data and knowledge about how one process might amplify another >Another climate scientist – who was not involved in the paper – emphasised the document aimed to raise questions rather than prove a theory. “It’s rather selective, but not outlandish,” said Prof Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute. “Threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that 2C is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it.” >Rockström said the question needed asking. “We could end up delivering the Paris agreement and keep to 2C of warming, but then face an ugly surprise if the system starts to slip away,” he said. “We don’t say this will definitely happen. We just list all the disruptive events and come up with plausible occurrences … A very nuanced take from the guardian imo! Then again, they pull an unscientific quote for the article conclusion: >“In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight,” said Dr Phil Williamson, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. Tfw there's no penalty for crying wolf...

breakpointalpha 8y ago

Man, you don't have any faith in human resilience? An average global temperature increase of 4c is bad, but survivable easily with modern technology and good planning. 80% of the worlds population live within 50 miles of a coast line. There's still plenty of room inland. You want a retirement plan? Buy land in the the Rockies or the Alps.

graeme 8y ago
You're joking, right? It's hard to tell, because people propose "adaptation" seriously quite often. The loss of all coastal cities would be apocalyptic.
- pliny 8y ago
  While many cities are on a coast, very few of those are built within 1m of sea level, which the 'worst case' (by 2100) projected in AR5. Loss of coastal cities over 100 years is not apocalytic, that is a time scale where people can/will just replace buildings near the advancing coastline with buildings further inland.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    I am not sure things are quite that linear. Sure, few US cities are on the coasts, but the ones that are happen to be some of the most important pieces of the freight distribution network and economy of North America. If the frequency of catastrophic storms increases by a relatively small amount, we will cross an inflection point and there will be a rapid cascading failure across the entire continent.
- godshatter 8y ago
  If we lost them all tomorrow, sure. But sea level is rising slowly enough that we can go quite a while just abandoning the land right on the coast that is becoming unusable as it becomes unusable. People will see the writing on the wall and either move farther inland or to some other city, without the apocalyptic aspects. Some cities without higher ground nearby will have a harder time, though. I'm curious if anyone knows of a source of statistics for land area that has been abandoned due to rising sea levels. How quickly is this happening now?

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

I am old enough to have been through several cycles of people announcing various calamities ahead. I'm not going to list them. Your question was about finding perspective, not about this particular issue. For each of these, when confronted by my friends, I have asked them to write down what they are worried about and what disaster they see in 10-20 years. Then later, after that time frame has passed, come back and make an assessment of where we are now. By writing it down they get to judge whether or not their current assessment of the future turns out to be actually as bleak as they imagine it to be. This has not been the case so far. Oddly enough, I think many people find that disappointing as well. I firmly believe when the end of the world finally arrives, there will be a ton of pissed-off people that it didn't end the way they were worrying about all those years. But after being disappointed and a little angry, most of my friends have found some solace and calm in the fact that it's never as bad as you think it's going to be. This has nothing to do with the climate. The same can be said of many, many other personal tragedies that do not involve it. Writing it down and then honestly looking at your thoughts later is a great way to separate your natural inclination for disaster-seeking from what's actually occurring. Everybody has a natural "set point" for either being optimistic or fearing the future. It's important to learn what yours is.

revscat 8y ago
Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2 levels, or stop the proliferation of extinctions, or stop the conflagrations currently burning out of control in California, Spain, and elsewhere. Selfish faith doesn’t restore migratory patterns, or ocean temperatures, or arctic ice levels. Record and ever worsening heat waves don’t stop advancing simply because we reply with a “oh, I’m sure everything will work out.” But hey, someone predicted something wrong in the past, so that means I can brush my hands of it. A psychologist would certainly say that’s a healthy attitude to take, but perhaps what is needed to stave off extinction are unhealthy ones. But that might upset someone, and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we.
- Recurecur 8y ago

tjansen 8y ago

Just google the "Scott Adams rule of slow moving disasters". Even if the climate is changing, it won't happen overnight, and there are many ways to either adjust to climate change, or to adjust the climate itself.

graeme 8y ago
"Adjust to climate change" or "adjust the climate" are signs someone has really thought through the likely outcomes or climate change. If we keep burning carbon, adjustment would mean "abandoning all coastal cities and ports". That....is not a cost we can easily pay. "Adjusting the climate" is hubris. Unless it means lowering CO2. Because otherwise, each change has sode effects. Eg a light shade would still leave disastrous ocean acidification, and have other side effects from the shade. We might still figure a way out, but it would involve carbon free or carbon neutral energy, and a way to suck it from the sky.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  couple things: 1. There's still a lot of uncertainty in the science. I'm not denying climate change, I'm saying that newspapers love to report the worst of all possible scenarios as fact. I used to work in one, I know how they think. Go read the actual papers and take note of the error bars. Try looking at the best of all possible outcomes (which is just as likely), and see where that would leave us. 2. If everything you fear is true, it will happen over a hundred plus years, not the next 10. We will have plenty of time to knock down the building that is now flooding and convert the next one behind it to be the new coast. If you doubt we can do this, go visit Venice. Every building there is built on the one beneath it that sank. If you can find some, talk to some people who have lived through a war. They coped with things that we think of as intolerable. Humans are very adaptable. Finally, you still have to live your life. Make climate change your life's purpose, or shrug and accept it, your life will carry on. You will live another day, and you have to decide what to do in that day. Just keep breathing.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Do you have a source on Venice? That seems totally false. I’ve been there and seen 500 year old buildings. This aeticle indicates that some steps have submerged, but doesn’t mention building on top: https://www.climatechangepost.com/news/2017/9/21/historic-palaces-venice-provide-clue-sea-level-ris/ https://www.climatechangepost.com/news/2017/9/21/historic-pa... As for best case outcome, I don’t see how that is equally likely to all other outcomes. It would just be one case among many, no?

CompelTechnic 8y ago

If you want a healthy viewpoint that fully internalizes the incentives and actions of the people of the world, I have one to offer. Most people just want to be comfortable. This is fine. We do not care much about the death of other animals, as evidenced by continuously choosing not to become vegetarians. Even if a large number of species collapse because of warming, human agriculture will go on easily and the resilient species will continue to inhabit landscapes all over the world. If anyone starves to death, it will only be to the extent that they already do, which is almost exclusively because of coordination problems, not for a worldwide lack of food. Humans are resilient and easily solve problems when they are urgent. If we lose a degree of technological or economical development while fighting this problem, consider that these are not factors that truly make people happy. Quality time with good friends and family is what counts. We are sufficiently advanced that detrimental lifestyle changes incurred while solving problems related to climate change will be small in comparison to the great health and lifestyle improvements we have made so far. The poorest people around the world have seen their incomes rise rapidly in recent years (i.e. the "Elephant Curve"). Climate change will have relatively little impact in comparison to humanity continuously bootstrapping itself into higher levels of wealth through markets, government, and collaboration. Compare the level of action you have personally taken to fight global warming to the level of action you feel (and advocate) people should be taking. Talk is cheap. Actions reveal preferences. In a broad perspective, given today's frontier of possible technology and lifestyles, people would rather live a first-world middle class lifestyle, accepting the additional risk of climate change caused by this lifestyle. Fighting this preference is not without cost, and humanity has chosen that a different fight can occur later, solving individual symptomatic problems when these problems have urgency.

plesner 8y ago
Will agriculture go on easily though? If you look at just two effects, increased variability of the weather and loss of arable land because of rising sea levels, how do those alone not lead to lower output and greater insecurity?
- Brometheus 8y ago
  Agriculture in Europe for vegetables is already concentrated in Spain's greenhouses...

lloeki 8y ago

> Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? Don't lie to yourself, it's no good trying to build some delusional version of the world, your subconscious mind knows how to look through the cracks of the mirror and the dead weight will rear its head at some point and pull down at the worst possible moment. Getting some perspective is about learning to take a step back and contemplate (practicing mindfulness and meditation may help in strengthening the matching neural pathways). Yet keep in mind that it does not mean being indifferent[0]. Pick your fights, choose to act upon what you can and desire to[1]. Find balance. [0]: (Warning: copious profanity) https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck [1]: https://i1.wp.com/thebestintent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ikigai_Toronto-star.jpg https://i1.wp.com/thebestintent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/...

tambourine_man 8y ago

Things are going to get a lot tougher climate wise, and unnecessarily so, which is a shame. But we'll still be here, making science and art. That much you can rely on.

m_mueller 8y ago
That much you cannot rely on.

fsloth 8y ago

You could just stop reading the news. Humans are not built for dealing with planetary scale events. It's not a cop out. Just live your life like you have so far, and try to be happy and kind to fellow beings. If you have resources to affect the outcome then please do muster your troops, but your message implies this is not so - you are like the most of us, mostly powerless. Personally, I just don't care. No, not that I don't care for our species or our planet, what I mean is that I'm fine with whatever scenario arrives. If it's full blown apocalypse ... I'll save my distress for when that day arrives (hopefully it won't). I'm a small bag of meat. I try to live my life ethically, and find joy in small things that bring me pleasure. Then, one day I will be dust. I'm fine with that. Being scared because everyone screams "calamity calamity calamity!" just puts you on full stress for no good reason.

AndyMcConachie 8y ago

When I was in 3rd grade my teacher noticed that I was terribly stressed about something and asked me what it was. I told her I was terrified of thermo-nuclear annihilation. I was afraid of nuclear war so much as a little kid that my teacher noticed. She talked with my parents and there was intervention to help me with my feelings. Talk to others about your feelings. Doesn't necessarily need to be a therapist. It could be a friend or a family member. But talk to people because I don't think you're being unreasonable or weird. I think your reaction is perfectly normal and even healthy. If more people felt like you we might be in a better place with the environment.

marcus_holmes 8y ago
same. I remember "knowing" that I was not going to make it to 40 years old because nuclear war was unavoidable. I turned 50 this year.

dvh 8y ago

I use word based filter in my rss reader that hides certain topics I'm tired if hearing for millionth time. Recently when I was adding "Trump,Putin,Russia, Russian" I discovered my previous filter was "Ebola". I realized that I haven't heard about Ebola for very long time just because of this filter and it made me really happy.

gotrythis 8y ago

Hi. There was a time years ago, when I felt I was going crazy, yelling into the void, while everyone around me was saying nothing is happening. The Spice Girls breaking up made all the headlines the day the Union of Concerned Scientists report that the world was burning was regulated to a clip on page 20. It was like living in a Twilight Zone episode. Later, I realized I was in a stage of grief, and I've gone through all the stages over the course of a decade. Since, I've had discussions with psychologist friends who have gone through a similar process, and they also strongly believe that everyone is in a stage of grief about climate change. Most people are in denial. It's just too big to deal with so they avoid it. When they are finally pulled out of denial, they get angry, start raging and protesting at the people still in denial to change their ways. Then they start bargaining, coming up with ideas like moving inland and going off grid, or reducing emissions. Depression comes when they realize nothing will make a difference, so may as well kill ourselves now. Then acceptance that the world as we know it is probably going to end, perhaps slowly over the next few generations or tomorrow if a tipping point is reached that creates the perfect storm. They make peace with it and live the best life they can, which often looks like being in denial again. It's a painful process to go through. I was lucky and came out the side the most balanced and happy I've ever been, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going crazy. Society is crazy, learning about climate change makes you crazier. I was going un-crazy, letting go of my delusions about society and the world and my delusions that I could change people. As to your question, I've actually considered training to become a therapist to help people going through a similar journey. I think it's going to become an important field in the future.

roryisok 8y ago
I've definitely felt like I'm in the stages of grief. This feels accurate. We're collectively facing our own mortality, in the way that everyone who lives long enough must eventually. And just like that personal mortality, the future is unknown. Our world could end next year, or in a hundred years. I can't save myself or my family any more than I can stop them getting a fatal disease or being hit by a truck. All we can do is spend all the time we've got together, and hope it's longer rather than shorter. I hope that doesn't sound too morbid. It's a good philosophy to live by regardless of whether or not the end is nigh. To put it another way, the world is going to end in our lifetimes. And that's ok. Because the world ends for everybody, at the end of their life.

macandcheese 8y ago

My way to rationalize it? People thought the same thing years before you, or I, was born. And they'll think the same years after the both of us are gone. It can be demoralizing, yes, but ultimately a stoic approach seems to me the best way to "think away" things like this.

roryisok 8y ago

This is how I cope. 1. Do what you can. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Vote green with your wallet and your ballot card. Eat less meat. Drive less. Work remote. Buy second hand. Grow your own veg. Buy carbon offsets. Plant trees. 2. Accept that things are going to change, and there's not much we can do about it. 3. Enjoy life, spend time with your family. You won't regret it even if some miracle saves us. 4. Stop reading the guardian because they have a hard on for the apocalypse

shdh 8y ago

Just accept that humanity will go extinct at some point. This is an eventuality.