"I don't deny climate change and it needs to be dealt with. But the doomerism environmentalists scream about is just insane and unproductive." r/worldnews debates on when environmentalists say we may have triggered irreversible warming tipping point.

"I don't deny climate change and it needs to be dealt with. But the doomerism environmentalists scream about is just insane and unproductive." r/worldnews debates on when environmentalists say we may have triggered irreversible warming tipping point.


All those fat cat thousandaire scientists taking advantage of the innocent billionaire industrial tycoons yet again.


I’m a scientist, where’s my billions? I would love to be a fraction as wealthy as these people think 😂 I make below the average salary for a college grad actually, and I was an honors student at a good school with a biochem degree. I even worked in a lab for two years during college. The reality for biochemists is that we don’t make much


I'm a molecular scientist and I wholeheartedly agree. Though I apparently am the reason that we dont have a cure for cancer as apparently my job would be defunct if we did......even though I also work on various other diseases and conditions..but cancer is the vast majority of my work


As a molecular biologist myself, I think the problem is that over the last year, everyone on social media became a molecular biologist.


They said go to college, get a good job and you'll make lots of money. They were wrong. You'll only make lots of money if your job includes working for billionaires and major corporations. I hope people remember these scientists when they complain that poor people should have got a better education.


It’s so true. My degree is in pharmaceutical science actually (I just say biochem because people otherwise think I’m a pharmacy tech or something- it was the same curriculum as biochem, just more pharmacology) and I’ve worked for two major companies. I made shit money at both, and I was the primary QC analyst for a huge cash cow drug. People don’t typically stay in science for the money. My dad is a biochemist with a PhD, but he only started making big bucks when he managed a plant for his company, and even then we were never rich because my mom is disabled (bad osteoarthritis and autoimmune stuff). Plus, my dad had to work out of state just to support our family for several years, and we moved several times. Science won’t make you fabulously wealthy, though it does require long hours (he often worked 80 hour weeks)


Arrested Development Narrator: "They didn't."


I'm an intern at a environmental climate research facility. My boss has a room mate, drives a beat up Volt with a crap ton of miles, and barley scraps by. All of this is so he can provide some what meaningful data to a goverment that doesn't care. I'm not in my field for the money but for fucks sake, I could've just made more if I stayed an electrician.


Kudos to you for switching careers to something you truly love! Your research really is helping every single person on this planet. That is more than most scientists could do, even if we want to. I wish you all the best ❤️


Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for my Sorosbux since 2011.


Half of my relatives are even Jewish! According to these conspiracy ~~antisemites~~ theorists, I should be rolling in the (((Soros money)))


Are you at least a fat cat?


If only!


Rich scientists lol


Look, we can't all be Tony Starks or Reed Richards who 100% profit off their own inventions.


Reed Richards is perpetually running out of money and the Baxter Building is like always in arrears though, despite continuously inventing amazing technology.


To be fair, like 90% of Reed Richards' inventions are one-offs that must have been *incredibly* expensive to develop and are never commercialized.


this is why based Hank Pym is Scientist Supreme and why Reed Richards can suck it


All the rich scientists are in industry lol. And even then they’re still working for billionaires


> All those fat cat thousandaire scientists taking advantage of the innocent billionaire industrial tycoons yet again. Probably (((negative thousandaire scientists))) with student debt and 👌 Soros funding 👌


It's funny that you used echoes because in accounting, putting a number in parenthesis means it's negative. Triple parenthesis must be suuuuuper negative.


Unless I'm mistaken, triple parenthesis is used to imply individual(s) are Jewish or working for them (altough the guy you replied to is sarcastic).


You are correct. I like to try to find more innocuous meanings to those kinds of things though.


There’s no faster way to ruin my day than to read about this shit first thing in the morning.


Hey, watch the documentary called Breaking Boundaries on Netflix. That’s a real feel good documentary how multiple facets regarding the health of the earth is now in a downward spiral and beyond the “tipping point”. Basically saying that we as humans need to reverse the damage done and the earth itself can no longer sustainably fix recover. So that’s cool.


I am sure life and earth will eventually recover a mass existinction event...or at least it has been able to in the past. But humans probably won't make it.


not-so-fun fact: by even the most conservative estimates, we’re already in the midst of the 6th mass extinction event. The estimated “background” rate of extinction (occurring over periods between extinction events) is ~2 mammalian species per 10,000yrs. Very strict criteria must be met in order for a species to be considered extinct, but the present day extinction rate is up to 100X more rapid than the background rate, meaning global biodiversity is in rapid decline.


The extinction rate is up to 1000x the background rate, varying by clade. In my professional opinion, it is probably 500-600x the background rate.


I won’t argue stats with anyone who has ’Bayesian’ in their username 🤓 but I wholeheartedly accept that argument. I went as conservative as seemed reasonable so as to minimize any attempts to discredit the statement, in case someone wanted to argue because they found another credible source using parameters that give a sunnier outlook :/ (edit: I’ll be honest, I just pulled stats from this paper’s abstract https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253)


While I don't agree with most of the people saying it is no big deal, in fairness, that thread was a little doomerish. Obviously, we should be prepared to go into overdrive to reverse climate change, but people on that thread were talking like everyone should prepare to die. It was really odd


Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of climate change killing us all. What I'm much more certain of, is climate change killing millions and further immiserating billions of the most precarious, with political policies inflicting almost maximum casualties in this upheaval, with the caveat that I by demographics am almost certainly in neither of those categories


One thing that's often not discussed is how the climate effects will impact society. The real threat isn't that rising oceans will drown cities, or that more intense storms will ravage the world (though that's obviously terrible). The real threat is that changing weather/climate and rising tides will cause entire regions of the Earth to become uninhabitable, leading to tens if not hundreds of millions of climate refugees. You think the few million Syrian and African migrants in Europe were destabilizing, just wait until most of the Middle East and North Africa become inhospitable to human life.


Fun fact: the Syrian refugee crisis was caused by a conflict that was, in part, caused by a drought, which was, in part, caused by climate change.


Yea people seem to assume that it will all be self contained shoot in the us; how likely is it that we dont have mass migration from the west coast(and other droughty areas) to the great lakes or similar locations.


10s of millions is peanuts, it will only be bad because of politics, like the current migration wave. The concern is 100s of millions or billions of people being displaced. This cannot be stopped by anything short of either a fundamental restructuring of society or literall 20m-tall walls with machineguns, with all of the 'well-off' being complicit in mass murder.


India's already rapidly heading towards being uninhabitable with the theoretically unsurvivable conditions already occasionally arising briefly, and that's 1.3 billion. Not counting Bangladesh which isn't having it any better either.


You had me in the first half.


Yup, that's what I believe too. Climate change can't kill us all, climate change probably can't kill even half of us. Climate change will kill and displace a lot of people and then we ourselves will start killing each other in much greater numbers for resources and land.


Yeah, that is the expected worst case scenario.


It's the foregone conclusion at this point. The "we're running out of time" pleas from scientists haven't been like pushing the date back or anything, and we're getting to the point of it being too little too late unless some miracle technology is produced in the next few years with the total lack of political will to stop climate change. Like the other person said: I'm still probably not gonna die because of it, but that doesn't mean no one will.


I am a bit more optimistic that we can keep things under 2C, in that there has actually been some significant progress, IIRC status quo projectections have dropped half a degree in the last decade.


From what I have seen, business as usual projections fell from 4°C of warming by the end of the century to 3°C by the end of the century. Though I don't have a source offhand.


I will need to ask my brother, but him and his partner are meteologists researchers, specialising in a climate change role. Both of them are definitely very green, left-wing etc. Although that's not like someone who's done work for decades in metereology/climate change, they both say that the news makes it too doom and gloom. It's not too late at all. They said that there definitely is still time to really help slow down climate change and hopefully reverse the effects eventually. I usually never say things like this without a source, I'll need to ask them their sources when I see them in a few days. I definitely trust their judgement though personally, they're *incredibly* smart with constant scholarships (unlike me lol), my brother's whole life has been meteorology since he was about 4. They said it's still a serious issue, and it could cause a massive refugee crisis and the extinction and suffering of many species if not enough is done. However, they told me the main point is, lots of people who don't do research in the area are incorrectly claiming its too late from a vastly limited understanding. A lot of the news is making it out like the whole world is going to die because it's too late to reverse massive destruction/a massive refugee crisis - but it's not at all (according to them and other researchers they know). Apparently it was needed to cause mass concern in the news in the beginning to try get most of the world on board for change, so it was needed to exaggerate the worst outcomes as the probable outcome a bit. However, they said it's definitely not too late, and the news and people who are not well researched and spreading misinformation - are actually quite harmful. People need to have hope, remember to properly fact check and realise that there definitely is time. I will try and provide sources in a few days when I see him, but I know there are researchers talking about this if you search. however, this depends on capitalistic, wee vulture politicians committing to their agreements for 30 years, which who knows if that will happen 🥴 massive changes will be needed, they are definitely possible though and it is not too late at all. the issue is more about a lot of the world's economic system... tl;dr: we haven't run out of time at all and it's actually a bit harmful for research funding to incorrectly claim that's the case. this is according to my brother and his partner, both metereologist researchers to do with this and the researchers they know. (will provide sources in a few days when I see him, but if you search about this I'm sure you will find adequate resources).


I see people on climate change threads who seem to literally expect some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland scenario a la Mad Max or Fallout to happen in their life time. I have to avoid the comment sections of stuff like that now because doomers get to me and make my anxiety levels rise even more than the objective truths about climate change do.


same. i think the anxiety (for me) also worsens because it’s a feedback loop of doomerism that does nothing to propose solutions or even think of ways to, i don’t know, grieve, i guess. they’re all circling the drain and trying to take everyone down with them, rather than trying to better their own lives and the lives of everyone around them, since they’re so convinced everyone is going to die tragically within their lifetimes. if they’re that far resigned to their powerlessness, it’s highly bothersome they can’t just make what they can of it and improve lives on the way. it *has* to be everyone else joining them in the suffering. tl;dr i hate doomerism and i really wish doomscrolling was easier to avoid without going completely kaczynski—but hey! there’s profit to only posting doomer headlines, so milk it!! /s


>I see people on climate change threads who seem to literally expect some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland scenario a la Mad Max or Fallout to happen in their life time. In at least some parts of the world I think that will be unavoidable. The rich middle east areas like UAE only exist because of oil money. When they no longer have money coming in and summer temperatures are 140 degrees, those skyscrapers and luxury resorts will sit abandoned. I don't see Miami fairing too well either, being underwater. It may not be Fallout, but it will be awful.


Indeed, there are many countries and (sub)regions in the world - primarily in the tropical and subtropical zones - where protracted droughts inevitably will start impacting agricultural output, especially affecting small farmers, which make up a huge part of these countries' economies. In these same countries/regions, extreme heat events will start affecting the most vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, the sick, and the poor, causing health care systems to fail and life expectancy to start dropping. It will be similar to the way COVID has been culling our elderly populations - and has slightly affected life expectancy levels across the globe - but it will be of a different order and on a much larger scale. This is not going to be Mad Max, but we'll see more countries joining the ranks of "failed nations", as their economies get sucked in a downward spiral, people losing their jobs and livelihoods, standard of living declining, crime levels going up, all triggering social and political instability, and an increase in economic migration/refugees around the world. Just think of the current U.S. border issues or the EU's challenge dealing with the ever-increasing stream of migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East, except that now we will start seeing migration from other climate-vulnerable regions that were - up to now - considered stable. Noe of this will happen overnight, but we definitely will see things evolve in that direction in our lifetimes and we won't have to wait for the ocean levels to rise, before it will become a major issue for all countries around the world.


Not really a hot take... but climate change is going to make covid look like peanuts.


It's just the way r/worldnews is. I had to unsubscribe for my own sanity.


Climate change is already here. It’s to late to stop. But the difference between the best and worst case scenarios are vastly different. Doomers are too far into misery to take action to reduce the damage climate change will bring. They’re the environmental equivalent of Bernie or busters


I really gotta commend the effort put forth in making this thread!


The people who are claiming it's a conspiracy of scientists will loudly be yelling "HOW COULD WE HAVE KNOWN?!?!" when shit starts to fall apart.


Or itll be like Covid and theyll just forever deny it exists or suggest injecting the atmosphere with bleach to clean it


Until their house gets destroyed by fire or flood, they’ll deny deny deny. “I don’t see any indication of Global Warming!” as their favorite beach vacation spots are fucked over year after year.


Idk ive seen people who had loved ones die of covid who said it's not a big deal or doesnt exist


my wife's grandma died of covid and her parents still are antivax and believe covid is a hoax, i can confirm


Ask a nurse who treated these morons what they did when they were dying of a disease they didn’t believe was real.


Unless they’re hooked up to a ventilator they probably won’t change. Even then sometimes people still don’t care. It’s a strange sort of denial mentality that I’m sure there will be books and thesis based on. Like yeah we don’t *have* to wear masks if you’re vaccinated. But you could pass something along that might not effect you to a young child/person with a compromised immune system that isn’t able to get a vaccination yet. Besides I haven’t caught a cold or the flu since last winter and it’s been amazing.


Even then, the ‘don’t politicize a disaster’ crowd will be out in force I’m sure.


Once your house goes underwater you can then sell it to Aquaman.


That's one thing I'm not sure people understand. As the oceans rise, do they think the beaches will just move inland? I'm moderately sure we will just stop having beaches most places. Water will cover coastal land and became swamps, bayous, and things similar to mangroves. Or just mud beaches. Do the climate deniers realize their beach days are over if they don't fix this?


I know people in Louisiana that lost their house to floods a few years ago and still deny climate change.


No, it'll be like covid where it's simultaneously fake and also an intentionally engineered weapon.


I mean, they already make the excuse that China contributes a large amount to global warming so why should we have to do anything. Little Johnny pissed in the cookie jar so i get to also. But as official US policy from Republicans


"listen, johnny is pissing in the cookie jar. I know I pissed in the jar before he did, and he's doing it in part because I'm paying him to, but the fact that he is doing it now means I never need to stop."


An hour later "Why do my cookies taste like piss? How could we have foreseen this event? Its your fault for not convincing me hard enough!"


Shit started to fall apart fifty years ago. The problem isn't people not seeing what's happening, it's people not understanding and refusing to accept it.


>Shit started to fall apart fifty years ago. Exactly!! Those "doomerism environmentalists" have been screaming forever. Now climate change deniers think that the environmentalists' demand is unproductive and insane because we are 5 fucking decades late to act on this issue. (and still no substantial action has been taken)


It just pisses me off when people choose to to be even more anti environmental simply because environmentalists are so passionate about it. As someone in the PNW, we are seeing the effects of it now. I’m terrified of the wild fires now.


It’s literally the same mentality of “well you started talking too much about civil rights and all that so I became a fascist”


That sounds like a lot of kids at my highschool/college


> “well you started talking too much about civil rights and all that so I became a fascist” I have seen exactly this but unironically.


No, they were bigots all along.


But you don't understand, the sun is just extra hot! WHAT ABOUT THE ICE CAPS ON MARS?!?!?!


The ultra rich are already trying to get the fuck off of earth.


add a century to that. And misogyny may have played a direct role, as it was a female scientist that first showed CO2 trapped heat. Even a 1912 newspaper article warned how burning coal affected the climate. Well over a century of corroborating evidence of basic theories, and now that we have the wealth of human knowledge at our fingertips, we get "nah, bro...ain't happenin'. Fake News!"


Catastrophic climate change is already here, just not where we live.


It's everywhere.


We already hit that point. Every year we are having wilder and wilder hurricanes. But since this people probably live in Europe or the north of USA they don’t care because it almost never hits them. They will care when there’s thousands or millions of climate refugees.


>They will care when there’s thousands or millions of climate refugees. I already feel sorry for those poor souls. After 2015, there is no way in hell that Europe will accept even 0.1% of the people who will be fleeing from the global south. I have no doubt that we will see a massive spike in far-right rethoric. The mediterranean will be a graveyard Even my own country in Europe will probably be half desert in a few decades, I really hope we atleast are able to adapt.


2015 was nothing compared what is to come in terms of refugees and it effectively pushed the entire EU far to the right, within the decade we will probably see frontex machine-gun boats and there will be a lot of saddy puppy eyes on TV but ultimately that will be deemed necessary.


>The mediterranean will be a graveyard Yup. So will the US-Mexican border.


> But since this people probably live in Europe or north of USA they don’t care because it almost never hits them. A lot of these people live along the Gulf of Mexico, in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, places *directly* impacted by hurricanes. Denial is a political stance as strong as steel.


as a southerner, i can say it's worse than that. Even those whom acknowledge that climate change is happening, still vote republican to "own the libs".


Damn i was hoping they wouldn’t deny if they’re directly affected by it, but here we are :/


Those'll just be "immigrants" to them.


There are already, they just get called refugees or migrants, depending on the region they’re from. Both the Central American migrations and the Syrian civil war are rooted in climate change - the former was exacerbated by generally hotter and dryer conditions, the latter by drought.


Rrright. Because climate change denial is totally unheard of in the US, it's all that Europeans and Canadians!


*Everything is changing. The Last Normal Year is in the past somewhere. The future is hungry.*


It will be in the tens or hundreds of millions as the oceans rise more. Most of America's population is on the coast, and 40% of the rest of the world lives within 100 miles of a coastline. That's not even taking into account the ones being affected by increased drought and flooding, or extreme weather.


"Why didn't the Democrats do anything to fix this?"


I think the comment about “riding out on your riches” is spot on. There’s a very American attitude that we use our money/wealth/resources to “buy” our way out of any geopolitical or natural crisis. Initially, that will work for a bit, but I fear that when that breaks we’ll have nothing else in the way of resiliency planned and the social crisis will be much worse here than in many comparable countries.




Early on during the coronavirus pandemic I heard a bunch of people attended some teleconference about how to be a megalomaniacal madmax style compound tyrant and control their security forces by kidnapping and threatening their families. Yes, that's completely sustainable. It amazes me how absolutely dedicated some people are to being terrible human beings instead of far simpler solutions. What happened to them that makes them fear so much, or maybe, what *didn't* happen?


At a certain point that kind of logic requires you basically forming an entire government and country structure to support yourself. It’s just cleaner and easier to convince people to work for you if you can offer them and their family a better life. Paying people to hold guns to the heads of everyone is ridiculously expensive


Right but sometimes the currency of the land stops being money and starts being some other resource you can't get from someone else. Like food and water and air-conditioning. Also keep in mind that eventually we'll reach the point where you don't need to pay anyone to hold the gun. We're busy replacing every worker we possibly can with robots and AI. That doesn't stop at driverless pizza delivery and robotic Amazon wearhouses. The goal, no matter how outlandish it seems, is to replace everyone or nearly everyone on every payroll with AI and bots, as much as they possibly can. We already have police drones, and that technology constantly improves. One cop can soon occupy the same physical space as two or three by controlling drones (that also happen to be safe from harm when people fight back). That's what automation fundamentally is: do more with fewer people. People joke about those dancing Boston Dynamics robots but eventually they *will* replace human soldiers and cops in the field. Not entirely, but mostly. Suddenly you've just significantly lowered the cost of maintaining your own security, the chances of civilians succeeding against you, and the chances of betrayal.


A lot of billionaires come from tech and have a high trust in technology so they probably think of dudes with guns as a temporary solution until they get killbots.


Douglas Rushkoff [wrote about something like that](https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1) in 2018. Apparently he was giving a talk somewhere to some hedge fund guys about "The Future of Technology." I'll quote the most relevant part. > The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down. > This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time. > That’s when it hit me: At least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the aging process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape. Now, I genuinely don't know how trustworthy the author is and I have no idea how to actually figure that out. I'll leave that to someone else I suppose.


I've always thought that piece was a little bit "just so" to be 100% true. Rushkoff isn't just some random joe from the street, but he's an expert in viral media and technology. I'm not sure why a bunch of billionaires would approach him for advice about the future. If a billionaire is interested in survivalism there are very scary men out there who have made their whole careers being "relocation" and "bugout" experts. I'm sure Rushkoff is a smart guy but he's a non obvious choice to have a several hours long meeting. Skimming Amazon his books appear to be about technology and it's impact on society. But he doesn't appear to be an expert on water resources, bunker design, incarceration technology(sidenote- do human grade shock collars like we see on TV actually exist? That seems like a step too far even for our PIC), etc.. In other words while he could have high level ideas, I'm not sure how helpful Rushkoff would actually be for a hypothetical billionaires. The other thing that gives me pause is that Rushkoff appears to be the only source of the security collar meme. To my knowledge no other public intellectuals have come out with similar stories. No journalist’s stories that I have read about elite panic have ever mentioned it as an option. The timing of his article is also very convenient. In 2017 the [New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich) published a very popular piece on elite panic. That article is the reason we know that Steve Huffman thinks he'd be king in the post-apocalypse. It also mainstreamed(at least for the terminally online) the idea of elite panic and their bunkers. This is important because Rushkoff publishes his medium article in 2018, and I'd argue people were more likely to believe it because the New Yorker article exists. So here's my(bored at work and completely unqualified) take on what happened. Rushkoff is set to publish his book *Team Human* in 2019. The thesis of the book is basically the end of his medium piece- cooperation is the only way we get through this, we need to reconnect and try to work together to solve the climate crisis/our societies big problems. That's great, I think we can all agree on that. This is where I put on my tin foil hat. Remember, Rushkoff is an expert on viral media. I think he took a conversation he really had, probably some hypothetical at a Silicon Valley dinner party, and he punched it up to make it more likely to go viral. Because honestly, it's a pretty effective short story and I can see why communities like /r/collapse latched onto it. You have the wealthy who despite having the intelligence to see what's coming are too blinded by their pride and lust for power to do the obvious and simple fix. Instead they construct elaborate contraptions to hang on to their power. It sounds believable, because on a less cartoony level it's what is happening in our world. tl;dr- the idea is probably roughly true, but the specific story is probably allegorical


Human “shock collars” do exist but they are [typically made to be worn as around the waist.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_belt) For a tech billionaire turning those boring “correctional devices” into movie villain shock collars could be a fun weekend hacking project.


Of course it’s considered a torture device in other countries. America never ceases to amaze me.


That's what worries me the most about the research into anti-aging and effective immortality. I'm 100% pro this research since if we can prevent the majority of aging related diseases we can prevent a whole lot of human suffering. It also assumes we come up with a way to mitigate population. But the real thing that worries me is the current crop of billionaires and elites that exist are NOT the type of people we want to continuously accumulate wealth and power forever. Death is their only limit at this point. We effectively have to fix all of human society before we can realistically pursue this research.


I saw a documentary about this called Altered Carbon.


Haha yeah this really is 99% of the plot of Altered Carbon.


> They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? Obvious answer is to let them live on the compound with their family. That way they are also protecting themselves, their family and their own food.


Yeah, but why would they collectively follow the orders of the CEO? The passage discusses that the real threat there is that they'll simply organize their own leadership, and the guy at the top will be booted.


In other words, pull a Gilead.


> I genuinely don't know how trustworthy the author is and I have no idea how to actually figure that out. This article is shared on Reddit somewhat often and it's such a convenient narrative that I've always had those kind of doubts about it.


Sure you can’t hold on another two decades? Cuz that’s when the US military estimates the collapse of our society due to failing infrastructure and a myriad of other sociological instabilities stemming from climate change.




Americas infrastructure is already basically being held together by duct tape and wishful thinking. It's not going to take much more to really knock us on our asses. I mean the electrical grid in Texas is on the verge of collapsing for a 2nd time this year and it's not even particularly hot here yet.


>I think the comment about “riding out on your riches” is spot on. There’s a very American attitude that we use our money/wealth/resources to “buy” our way out of any geopolitical or natural crisis So funny thing about that. I dunno if you play games at all or if you happened to ever play Civilization 6 which added climate change to the game. It quickly became apparent that the best way to handle climate change in the game was to fully embrace pollution - fuck the planet & get rich. This put you in a position of wealth that allowed you protect your cities from the rising sea levels. Meanwhile if you instead invested into clean energy - you fell behind the countries that relied on cheap dirty energy and gave no fucks about carbon footprint. A winning strategy was to let global warming get as bad as possible while reaping as many benefits in the process and investing zero resources into mitigation. This put you in a stronger position over other nations who instead diverted their economic proceeds into carbon captures etc. Those who were already behind economically and technologically or with heavy dependence on coastal cities were simply obliterated regardless of what they did. This clearly isn't an exactly accurate representation of reality as many sources of clean energy are reaching the point of being as cheap as dirty energy - but it still shows a perspective that is actually present in reality.


That's what happens when the goal is to beat the other players as opposed to achieve the best outcome. Civilization is by its nature a zero-sum game. It's in your interest to shoot yourself in the foot if it means you can shoot your neighbors in the chest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlEscMLjy0 A great discussion of why civ is the way that it is. TL:DR it is a western view of a empire building.


I wonder if this game-balance was intentional. I've not yet played Civ 6 properly, but am addicted to Civ Revolution, and have played several hours of it per week for the last few years. It's a wonderful and satisfying game, but I think it reflects a (cynical?) view that war and conflict are inherent in human nature. I'm useless at playing as a peaceful civilisation and believe that the game is basically a war of attrition - if you can hold a mountain pass with a defensive army then you can often pit the other civs against each other; they must direct more resources towards building more troops than you, whereas you are able to build libraries and make technological advances ahead of the other civs; eventually a tipping point is reached, where your technologically-advanced war machines can plough straight through the enemy's archers.


>I wonder if this game-balance was intentional. It wasn't really. The idea was that players would be forced to work with other nations and use diplomacy to get other nations in line to address climate change. Polluting a lot greatly added to the diplomatic penalty your nation suffered and essentially locked you out of diplomatic victory - but you didn't care at all if you were going for scientific victory - and if you were going domination it could actually help. In the end it doesn't really matter to you if the rest of the world was renouncing you and sending you diplomatic nastygrams for being a Captain Planet Villain when you had a military and economy strong enough to simply ignore their threats. I know there have been numerous patches to the game since I played so maybe the meta has shifted so that the Sly Sludge approach to victory may no longer be as viable.


Most people also aren't aware that it's not just the climate effects and rising sea levels that we need to be worried about. We're already in the midst of the Holocene extinction. There is a very real potential scenario where we cause huge portions of the food chain to collapse. Acidification of the oceans could kill off many of the fish species we rely on, either directly or through the death of the microplankton that form the basis of the food chain. And changing climate will also reduce the use able land available for farming, leading to further destruction of natural environments as new farmland is cleared, causing further extinctions. Changes to the water cycle could also cause widespread droughts and lead to mass water scarcity. Then on top of that, you will have all the social and political issues that result from lack of basic necessities like food and water. Take the civil war in Syria. It was precipitated by a massive, years-long drought and resulting famine. Now imagine that scenario beyond just one corner of the middle east. This is the chain of events that people worry could lead to the end of civilization, not just rising sea levels and warmer temperatures.


> There is a very real potential scenario where we cause huge portions of the food chain to collapse. This is the part I think the people who spout "I doubt it will kill us all, just a decent chunk of us" seriously don't understand, extinctions can quite easily start cascading, and sure it might not get literally every last one of us, but when there's a few thousands left who are forced to live in a cave and subsist on moss, it might as well have. Plus y'know, the sheer arrogance to be like "well, we'll only kill the vast majority of life on the planet, but at least we'll survive!" is just, urgh.


Let's be clear: only the wealthy will reap the benefits of "buying their way out of this". The country you're in will be less relevant than how connected you are and how much money you can spend to relocate and hoard resources. As usual, no one will assist the poor, even in the richest nations, but especially here in the States. We'll be left to suffer and die as we always are. Hell, even now when things are relatively stable, it's virtually impossible for a poor person or even a lower middle class person to relocate to a different state, let alone emegrate to a country like Canada. All of which is being compounded by the fact that at a time when the people of earth need to be united and focused on our survival, we're instead seeing a rise of facism and fraying of democracy in multiple countries, including the US. Technology and mass media have been and continue to be slowly tuned into perfect tools of control, and it's working. The worst people are making progress at taking absolute power, and it could not possibly be happening at a worse time. There are two distinct doomsday scenarios happening at the same time: a facist dystopian future and apocalyptic climate disaster. They both exacerbate the other, and in both cases, things don't look good for the average non-wealthy people of Earth if we don't do something drastic, and soon.


>As usual, no one will assist the poor, even in the richest nations, but especially here in the States. They'll be left to suffer and die as we always are. Oh of course. But you know the American attitude: “I’m a hard worker. Hard workers are rewarded in America. Ergo I’ll be saved from the rising waters (metaphorically or literally) while the lazy people drown.” >All of which is being compounded by the fact that at a time when the people of earth need to be united and focused on our survival, we're instead seeing a rise of facism and fraying of democracy in multiple countries, including the US. The worst people are working to take absolute control, and it could not possibly be happening at a worse time. I don’t think the rise of fascism is coincidental to the climate crisis. It’s an alternative to working together, that totalitarian corporatist control and purging of the degenerates will mean we can advert the crisis without having to touch the lifestyle of “real” Americans.


Actually even that doesn't work. Francis Fukuyama correctly identifies problem with American society that has hamstrung our solutions to problems is something he calls Vetocracy. The fact is there are too many Veto Powers in american government. No matter how many people say "I want to enact a solution", it often times just takes one community board member, one senator, or one lobbyist to say "I don't" and nothing happens. In theory this is a politically neutral effect, but of course in practice a "nothing ever changes" crisis is a crisis that inherently hurts progressives more than conservatives. Every time we try to build renewable energy systems, one man refuses to sell his house to build the solar farm. One man says "I don't want this nuclear plant anywhere near me". One lobbyist says "no way, i don't want this to cut into my business", and we all have to listen to them because they have a Veto Power, either through some obscure nothing community meeting you didn't go to but he has a PA keep track of every single one that comes up, or because some legislator somewhere with a deciding vote agrees with them.


It's gonna rock their minds when they realise money is some shit humanity made up and the environment doesn't give a damn about it


> If you don't think that climate scientists have a vested financial interest in switching over to green energy than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. So amazing they can spend so much time trying to figure out how this could be a scam, then they don't even consider what things would look like if the threat were real.


"Wealthy environmentalists, like AOC" lmfao


Interesting how she can be both a wealthy elite and a laughably poor former bartender at the same time 🤔 Schrodinger’s Congresswoman


Just want to share kudos on how well formatted this is. Considering that this is the subreddit equivalent to watching monkeys throw shit at each other in the zoo, you guys always impress with the academic presentation.


Shit like this > Call me cynical but I think that they're just trying to use the threat of the end of the world to try and get more funding and scare people into buying their expensive "green" technology. says a lot about that individual as a person.


Yep, > You actually believe people are motivated by a desire to make the world a better place and not by their own ambition and self interest? That's adorable. Like mate, don't @ yourself like that


I never really got this. Yes, it's my very own ambition and in my interest that the world doesn't burn down? I like breathing fresh clean air? When will these people realize that WE ARE INDEED DOING THIS FOR OURSELVES? Earth will remain. In some shape or form, nature will ALWAYS persist, it might just be that the entire planet turns into a toxic volcano. It's nature, nevertheless. But if we keep this up, we won't. We are the ones who get destroyed ultimately, not our planet.


They think all people are selfish assholes because they are selfish assholes. They can't imagine that a person can do something out of good will, and they project this shittyness to the whole world. For this reason they think the whole world is out to get them because everyone is as shitty as they are.


This is also true.


Nature will persist but not before we exterminate 95% of life on the planet.


That's called a self-report.


They genuinely believe that's how the world works because they can't imagine people being good without the literal threat of eternal torture hanging over them... And even that's filled with caveats.


This is literally what tens of millions of Republicans think though


Yeah. It says a lot about them as people.


Imagine if people acted like this for other types of bad climate news. Headline: “massive wildfire threatens homes across northwest” These dipshits: “Wildfire sounds so doom and gloom, I don’t want to give a shit if you make it sound so negative. Can you at least call it an unusual heat wave?” The other dipshits: “you know, if everyone just gave up using electricity, living near trees, or thinking the word ‘campfire’ we wouldn’t be in this mess 😒🌱”


Climate doomism is actually one of the foremost issues that climatologists are fighting against. The idea that we've reached some point of certain doom is not supported by the vast majority of scientific research. https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/summer-2020/michael-mann-on-climate-denial-and-doom


I used to work for a environmental services company and our research showed exactly the same. People responded better to innovation and framing the situation as the environmental revolution (playing off the industrial Revolution). The more negative the language, the more people tuned out and ignored the message. Americans want to see an economic opportunity and they’ll get behind it more.


I like the term "environmental revolution," I picture myself driving one of those electric mercedes g wagons across the desert for some reason


Man what is it with important issues having shit messaging? Every single time it feels like there are versions of English that regular people use vs the scientific community and we keep falling down the same set of stairs over and over when those differences clash.


The problem imo is that a lot of these discussions are had by people who are super smart but just shit at wording things in a way that’s accessible to the average person or even academics outside their field. It reminds me of college socialists who get mad at their working class high school dropout relatives for not having read Marx.


there’s also a lot of propaganda churned out to cast aspersions to their research, because if scientists were just *believed*, they’d propose a far higher threat.


Academics spend so much time around each other they forget how dumb the average person is.


It’s an important point. Climate change denial is flat out stupid and dangerous. Climate doomerism at least recognizes the problem, but it’s also very counterproductive. It’s a hard line to navigate because climate science is very complicated, but public conversation is always dominated by very watered-down versions of complex topics. The sentiment of “the planet is going to die” gets a lot more attention than a 6 paragraph essay on the expected range of temperature increases and the different impacts it will have on different regions. It’s also really unfortunate how popular the idea of a “point of no return” is. Sure, the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today will inevitably lead to a certain amount of warming. But this concept is used by so many people as a license for apathy. It’s so important people realize that while climate change will have many negative impacts no matter what, +2 degrees is much better than +4 degrees is much better than +6 degrees


Yeah we haven't reached a live role play of the book of Revelation. But we have reached a point where things won't be like they were before. We can still prevent it from getting worse.


Yeah, it really sucks to have a conversation about it because it’s either “climate change is a lie perpetuated by the elite to turn our kids into gay communists” or “why do you even bother being a teacher when all your students are going to die in literally a decade”


Maybe it’s all in the language then? Like saying “irreversible” damage, I feel like when doomers hear the word “irreversible” that makes them think that no matter what we do it’s all over.


Yes that is very prevalent, for just as many people deny climate change, there's many that think that we're completely screwed no matter what, which isn't true. Yes, we have made irreversible damage to the earth, but there is still time to keep our planet from dying.


Yeah, I agree with everything you said. I just mean it would prolly be better to use different words besides “irreversible”. To me using that word is like telling someone who wants to change careers “should’ve got a better major”. Like yeah? Maybe they should’ve put more thought into a better major, but they can also still go back to college/bootcamp to change their career paths. It sounds similar with Earth in that we should’ve treated it better but now it’s like this and we gotta fix it, and “irreversible” (that word is starting to lose it’s sound) doesn’t do a good job of implying we’re not totally boned imo.


Maybe saying something like permanent damage? Or even long term effects. Something to convey some long-lastong effects but that will also get across that it's not the end of the world. It's conveying the difference between sustaining a chronic injury and dying


I think long term effects is pretty alright at the very least a great step in the right direction. It doesn’t carry the same “negativity” as irreversible. It says that what we’ve done has had damage on the planet but it doesn’t make it sound like we can’t go back and improve.


Yeah, this reminds me of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister making excuses for ignoring a humanitarian crisis in another country. >In stage one we say nothing is going to happen. >Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. >In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do. >Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.


The trouble is that people hear we've "passed the point of no return", and then think that because they've heard that before, it means it's not true. But there are lots of points of no return, and we just keep passing new ones.


There really needs to be a huge public service campaign dedicated to educating people about climate change. There’s a lot of misinformation out there that needs to be fought for the sake of, if nothing else, public mental health. Whether it’s looneys saying “Climate change” is a George Soros conspiracy to steal American guns, or the clinically anxious/ depressed who think Earth will be Venus part 2 in 30 years despite that being a long debunked possibility. We need to learn how to have a real conversation about climate change, as free from hyperbole as possible.


For anyone not reading the article: It's not that Michael Mann.


Exactly my feelings, glad to see some sanity.


Can’t believe “doomerism” has made its way into common parlance


I mean, it's just nihilism with anxiety.


It never wasn't, when Limits to Growth was released in the 70's they were labelled as Prophets of Doom.


Hey I'm a doomerist just as much as the next guy but what they did to Mick Gordon was not cool


r/worldnews is one of the worst subs on reddit bar none. You cant expect anything better from there and it has 25 freaking million members Read the article, make up your own minds and leave. Dont waste time on the comments especially if your country is on the r/worldnews shitlist (usa,china,brazil,Israel, etc)


The fact that most people there are so politically braindead makes things insufferable to read. It's just unhealthy.


r/anime_titties is a great world news alternative. (The underscore is *VERY* important for obvious reasons). Far smaller community, but the conversation is usually a lot more intelligent and they come down hard on shills/obvious narrative pushing/agenda posting/propaganda/fake news.


>Dont waste time on the comments especially if your country is on the r/worldnews shitlist Really depends on the thread, it's wild how different it can be


I'm pretty far left and the destruction of the environment scares the shit out of me. The thing about the "irreversible damage" argument is that it is actually unproductive. It's like telling a smoker they've done irreversible damage - because even if they do recognize that they're past a breaking point, they won't care unless they can see or feel the effects of it. I'm not calling anyone a "doomer" and I think we need to make many changes to our environmental policies. But yhere are absolutely better arguments to be made about the destructive things we've done to the environment and the consequences we face *now* - which can be parlayed to further action that might help push back that "irreversible damage" line.


Irreversible damage doesn't mean that everything has already turned bad, it just means we need to work even harder to fix it. If you accidently break a window of your car (and in this case for some reason the window is completely unreplaceable) and you have no other way to drive where you need to go, you're still going to use it and try to protect the other parts like the engine and the tires. Just because there's parts of the Earth that might be damaged beyond a reversable point doesn't mean we can't still keep it stable if we work hard enough.


I see "irreversible" and my immediate reaction is that there's nothing to do to fix it. I would venture a guess that the majority of people feel the same - it's a messaging issue and your explanation is already too much nuance for people even though it's correct.


The problem is, at one point the framing was "we need to do something so that we don't inflict irreversible damage" which is more positive, but decades have passed and nothing was really done so now we're likely currently experiencing or about to experience some of the "irreversible damage" that was being talked about, so the best we can really do is try to limit how much irreversible damage is done. And because there are still shitheads denying the severity of the impacts of climate change, people need to be reminded of how serious it is and the fact that we can't really just fix it later. Also, a lot of the real "doomers" are actually just ex-climate change deniers. The original series of positions that they took were: 1. It's not warming 2. If it is warming, it's not us 3. Even if it is us, warming is actually good 4. What even *is* global temperature/Science is a liar And they would switch between them pretty much freely. Later they added another one: * maybe warming is bad, but doing anything about it would be worse It was always obvious where this was going: if preventative measures were taken it would be "obvious the whole thing was a lie" (like they've done regarding things like acid rain), while if they weren't it would go to "it's too late to do anything about it" which would then be used to blame the very people who tried to do something about it. It shouldn't be a surprise they're now starting the shift to arguing we shouldn't try to do anything because there's no point anymore.


>I think we need to make many changes to our environmental policies. Every time. 99% of the post is about anything but this in any detail, the real shit that matters and hugely aids in credibility. Without that extra info you're barely making an argument, faffing about what things are called or how they look is just a waste of time


It's like yelling at a kid who breaks a plate. It's probably good policy to make the kid clean it up, but yelling at the kid about what an idiot they are isn't productive.


We saw the effects in Texas this winter and now again happening with people about to be unable to use their damn acs.


Whole islands where people lived for generations are already underwater or otherwise no longer habitable. There’s no going back, we can’t fix that. Basically all climate activists I know acknowledge that. It’s not about selling some green new technology, it’s about finding out how to do more with less and how to adapt to the new climate successfully.


"I totally think we should definitely do something about climate change, but you'll only ever find me either shooting down every single idea to actually do something about it, or calling you an alarmist."


Its almost like every socialist/communist country that has existed has either been bombed to bits by the us or other countries or had so many embargoes place on it that it is impossible for it to function...


Climate scientist here, can confirm, I am getting fabulously wealthy off my crippling climate anxieties


I legit read worldnews and my mind went wht is the shitposting hentai sub talking about climate change but then i remembered that's worldpolitics


i hate climate doomerism and i'm an avowed environmentalist. I don't think going out there every day telling people we're screwed really helps people want to make meaningful change


The trouble is "meaningful change" relies on political and social will that even *minor* changes can't gain. You can't say "it's technically possible to fix these issues as long as this unlikely sequence of events leading to even partial global cooperation occurs"


It’s not just political and social change. That’s far from the only factor in the climate crisis issue. Technology is one of the biggest shots we have to fixing this crisis, something huge is something like fusion energy which is still being worked on, could totally change the game considering the largest co2 polluters come from energy production. There’s also more such as carbon skimmers or bio engineering that could really change the game when they get developed. Yes politics helps or hurts but it’s not the only thing. Doomerism hurts the cause just as much as denial. I personally avoid this by taking “irreversible” as more of a statement that should we not do anything, yes it will become a large problem, like the earth can no longer unassisted reverse the awful damage we as a society has done


This stuff stresses me out


And i’m just sitting over here horrified that this is even a discussion. I already feel like the world is ending and it makes me want to cry. Just help the environment. There’s no caveat.


At the risk of sounding like whatever a doomer is, it’s demoralizing af as someone who doesn’t have the power to change things to continuously see stuff like that article published and see no one in power want to do anything that’s required besides token allowances. I genuinely feel like it’ll end up the worst case scenario, not because I’m resigned to it, but because COVID showed up that all it takes is to inconvenience people to have them not want to support policies to benefit them.


>If reports of us being past the point of no return on global warming are to be believed, we passed it 5 years ago. What an absolute fucking moronic take. Next time a tornado or hurricane or snow storm happens in his area he should be given a warning the day of, not before. What the fuck else are scientists supposed to do other than warn people repeatedly that we're fucking up the planet? Hell, governments were warned that coming pandemics would get worse yet no one cared until it was too late. In just 300 years we've fucked up the planet beyond human repair...300 years out of the hundreds of thousands we've been on this planet for. Yet idiots like these are somehow still skeptical and think environmentalists have some sort of agenda. You know those same environmentalists living in mansions and driving yachts and taking private jets.


Our focus should not be on tipping points and positive feedback loops. While they do exist, their effects barely hold a candle to the effects of *human activity*. Ask any scientist, and they’ll tell you that it’s never too late. If anything, doomerism is detrimental to environmental efforts.


None of these people will ever learn that long-term, compounding damage to a system will eventually accelerate the damage to a point that it's irreversible.


i can't doom this hard bruh it gives me depression


Well because when we have an “end of the world” for rich people it’s just a raise in price on ur coffee, but for poor people it’s genuinely them dying off. We have seen it with tons of ancient civilizations: they destroy their environment and it makes them have to move or die. Eventually there’s no where for us to move to.


When I saw your post starting with short lines in cursive, I thought they are some black metal lyrics. Thanks for a good write up!


I'd love people like them to just spend one summer in India without an AC. The temps used to get around 40-42 a decade ago, but now they easily cross 48 C, sometimes even 50. People sitting in their centrally air conditioned houses with temp controlled showers and automated garage doors have _NO_ idea how the rest of the world lives.


So i guess the coral reefs are becoming white just so they don't get scratched away by cops. I guess the trees alongside the southern sahara border is just to look good. /s Seriously, even indonesian villages are getting polluted with fucktonnes of plastic and chicago's river was so polluted that at one point, it could catch fire. Hell, europe keeps getting hotter every fuckin summer! How can you say with such confidence that they're just doomers when its mother nature doing her very best to kill all humans as if they were a virus upon the eaeth?


Rather be a panicking doomer going overboard to fix a problem than a person who says we shouldn't even try to fix it cause they think it's not happening lol


>Rather be a panicking doomer going overboard to fix a problem I thought the whole gripe people had with doomerists is that they demoralize everyone and are defeatists? (= "we're already doomed" -> doomers)


There's so many options in between though...


You know I think climate deniers are next to the dumbest people as flat earthers. But climate doomist are not super far away from that either. In fact, many climate scientists actively try to dissuade people from doomerisms as it tends to make people complacent, why work if it’s over anyways? We still have ways out of this, but it’s going to take a lot of hard work from a lot of people to come up with new technologies that can effectively deal with this crisis. Right now the biggest problem is that if we don’t do anything, it will spiral out of control, not that it already has. The earth itself can not make up and contain what we have pumped into the atmosphere, so now it’s up to us to do better and invent technologies to reverse this.


We don't even need new tech. There are low tech ways out of this. What is lacking is political will.


These people need to be treated like climate change denialists.


Elected to Congress and paid in oil wealth?


The only conspiracy is the Right/GOP/Conservatives going out of their minds to deny and suppress this science field. Back in the early 00s, during the Bush era, Conservative talk radio and tv hosts were busy victory lapping the Bush win over Gore and celebrating the end of the Clinton presidency. Because Gore was outspoken on climate research, those same (mis)infotainment slugs filled up hours of airtime cherry picking rumors and myths to rally their audience behind the narrative that Climate Change research was a snow job from vindictive, powerless Democrats/Progressives. Motives? Socialism (allegedly). The right wing whipped their base into a frenzy to deny climate research as just a scam to burden businesses with higher taxes and Joe Average with higher gas prices. They framed the whole thing as a cash grab. They kept alleging that monitoring stations were improperly placed and maintained, that the stations reporting temp increases were placed over open flames or atop mechanical exhaust outflow vents. And they're still doing it. Anyone that blindly dismisses climate research is a waste of ecosystem resources and would do well to speed themselves towards the compost heap. At least then they'll do something helpful.