4 ms·
A social collapse would coincide with an economic collapse and lower emissions. Honestly, speaking as a former climate change-adjacent geophysicist, I'd take it
by cultus 7y ago
A social collapse would coincide with an economic collapse and lower emissions. Honestly, speaking as a former climate change-adjacent geophysicist, I'd take it.
It is becoming fairly clear we will have revolutions. At some point, things will deteriorate to the point it will happen. Normalcy bias is a hell of a drug, and we are all sniffing it really hard.
The ruling class is unwilling and unable to solve this or any other wide-scale societal problem we have. Ruling classes never yield power without force.
- yters 7y agoWhy do you prefer that outcome? Social and economic collapse could cost millions of lives, and mostly among the poorest parts of the world.
- cultus 7y agoWe're headed towards a collapse either way, with many, many millions dying. Very possibly billions over the course of this century. Either it's a major society upheaval leading towards positive change, or it's just general societal breakdown as civilization as we know it becomes impossible. Our current political-economic system is simply not up to the challenge, so not having upheaval is not an option. A comparatively mild collapse sooner is better than later. This really is an existential threat like we have never experienced.
- yters 7y agoHave you considered alternative scenarios?
- cultus 7y agoYes. This is something I think about quite a bit, since I did used to work on climate-change related geophysics. If we started combating climate change decades ago, we wouldn't need such a drastic change. Realistically, no real change will happen for another decade, but our backs are already up against a wall. Having waited so long, the changes required are unbelievably radical and painful, in that our entire way of life must change. AOC and Bernie's Green New Deal is woefully inadequate, and that's considered extreme. I can't see that happening when we can't even figure out how to make paper face masks.
- yters 7y agoBut if human civilization has flourished in much warmer earth in the past, why are you so convinced that a warming globe is necessarily a bad thing? Humans seem pretty adaptable, especially if the change is slow like climate change seems to be. That would seem like a good alternative view to investigate before putting all your money on "destroy the current world order".
- cultus 7y agoHuman civilization has not flourished in a much warmer earth. That is 100% falase. Human civilization has only existed during the Holocene, which has been a period of stability. We are now in the Anthropocene. These changes are also very fast. By 2050, we will be living in a different world. Even in the 2030s, climate change will cause massive amounts of instability in developing countries due to droughts and famines, and huge migrant crises. It only takes 2-3 major food producing regions to have significantly failed harvests at once to have a famine on the scale of 1-2 billion going hungry. With a stable climate, this hasn't happened. However, it becomes more likely all the time. The changes we are facing will lead to large portions of the tropics being uninhabitable without A/C and unsuitable for agriculture. That is where most of the world lives. This change is happening very fast, faster than we can adapt. Our industrial civilization depends on immense resource consumption on a global scale. This will be completely disrupted. Trust me, I know a lot about the climate and its effects. It is a bad thing. No one seriously says it isn't. It's delusional to think it could be a good thing. Your line of thinking is just a continuation of the denialist garbage that got us into this mess.
- yters 7y agoI'll take your word you are an expert, and what you say sounds alarming. I cannot make all the connections, though. For instance, much of the Middle East lives in temperatures that fry eggs during the midday. I was in Afghanistan during the summer, not always with A/C. Not pleasant, but I wouldn't say uninhabitable. I also wonder about being unsuitable for agriculture, since plants flourish in greenhouses, which are quite hot and humid. On the other hand, I can accept there will be large droughts, famines, and huge human migrations in the future. Our population continues to both climb dramatically, while congregating in a few very dense areas, mostly the cities where living is easier. That is clearly an unsustainable model.