Florida professor predicts Amazon rainforest collapse by 2064
By - svetambara
Not if the Brazilian president has anything to say about that. It won't take that long.
True. He's probably planning to carpet bomb the whole thing with napalm if trends hold.
Brazil has nuclear tech capabilities and working nuclear reactors, but we are signatories of never gonna build a nuke bomb. We can kill the world in some other ways.
Tfw you're so passive aggressive you kill the whole planet
Humanity doing together. Everyone doing their best for the future (of omnicide).
I could see him doing this out of spite should he lose the job....
Bolsanaro said to hold his beer ...
Bolsanaro: "*2064? burn this motherfucker down already*"
They’ve damaged land in Suriname and French Guyana, too, the fuckers
There a lot of blame for him but it was unsustainably logged before him and will be after until they realise too late what they have done.
Honestly I wish we'd just invade Brazil. We're already committing all kinds of evil dicking around in the middle east, we could do the same amount of evil but at least gain protecting the Amazon.
Our government would not protect it.
I see a rapid shift in philosophy coming where we start using "environmentalism" to justify all the horrible things we do. It's all the same to the military industrial complex, as long as we're buying missiles, they'll be all for conservationism. The GOP is going to start denying cars to minorities in order to "combat the climate crisis".
We won't stop being evil, but maybe a side effect could be at least half ass protection of the environment.
From the Rainforest to the Make It Rainforest!
Better than the normal fascists we've got now.
Fascists, but they feel about natural habitats the same way they feel about "their women": *those hordes of beasts are coming to steal them*.
Fine. Well deal with the social crap later. At least we'll have the opertunity. People really need to understand the long game right now, but they won't. There are no such things as rights. Let's not forget.
Exactly. If the consequence of saving the earth from becoming a barren hellscape is authoritarianism, we can deal with that later like we have before.
Of course I would prefer to see democracies just do the right fucking thing though
> Well deal with the social crap later
No, you won't, you cocksucker
Ask the ecosystems of Vietnam and Cambodia how that worked out for them
Well now we have drones. We don't even need boots on the ground - just shoot a missile from a drone at any heavy equipment moving into the jungle.
Hi, Kallamez. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/kmfbk6/-/ghhsxuc/) was removed from /r/collapse.
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
That's actually a common trope among people into this stuff. The idea that a multi-national force will come together to essentially take control of the region by force to protect it. The thought is that since the region has such an outsized effect on the health of the planet it isn't fair for it to only be controlled by a single nation.
Cia should make an example out of him. Use him to decorate several trees. Ye be warned.
The US would just exploit it faster and more completely.
America supported the Bolsonaro government takeover. They're exactly the crew the Empire *wants* in place.
I'd rather help the Amazonians (natives) resist
Only one of these strategies has any chance of working.
(it's not the one relying on natives fighting an industrialized power)
Nah, fuck off american scum. You guys already did that in the 60s and installed a military junta that lasted almost 30 years. You fucking shits have no fucking right to act as the world police
Youre right, we have no right, you'll notice that I explicitly said it would be evil.
But I'm just going to be real - the Amazon is more important than Brazil. And everyone suffers the consequences of poor stewardship. Brazil and proven they can't handle the responsibility, so it should be taken away from them.
Enjoy your Vietnam on steroids, you'll probably be drafted to go there.
And they don't have to win, they know that every gringo they send back home in a body bag would weaken the US public support for the war.
We don't need to run a land war in Brazil, we have drones now. All we have to do is drone strike every bit of heavy machinery that tries to move into the Amazon. Very quickly Brazilian support for logging dries up, nobody is willing to risk getting droned.
\> We don't need to run a land war in Brazil, we have drones now.
That sounds dangerously close to "this war will be easy, we'll be home by christmas". Wars tend to be more difficult than that.
And in Vietnam they also had helicopters and bombs, turns out they still needed boots on the ground.
We wanted to take and hold Vietnam. We wanted to own their cities and command their people. Doing that to Brazil would be even more challenging than Vietnam and an absolute disaster.
But I don't give a flying fuck about Brazil's cities or people. They can do whatever they want, as long as it isn't ruin the Amazon. As soon as someone rolls up with some heavy machinery to destroy the Amazon, bam, missile. No boots needed. We don't need to capture the machinery, their house, subdue their family, take their cows, none of that shit it doesn't matter.
There is simply no need for boots on the ground to protect the Amazon. Therefore, the entire "war" can be handled via drones, and completely impervious to any form of resistance, guerilla or otherwise.
\> There is simply no need for boots on the ground to protect the Amazon.
Yes, there is. Because people will flood towards it after bombing campaigns. In fact, a guy like Bolsonaro would constantly run burn ioperations out of spite and to force the USA send the boots.
Also, drones are useless when all you see are treetops. The DEA has been trying to find and bomb coke labs in Colombia since the 80s. It didn't work out so again, boots in the ground is the only real option.
If he does no need to escalate to boots, just start bombing their infrastructure. They need power plants and roads way more more than we need the Amazon to stop burning. They can't even play at attrition.
The great thing about wanting to target machines that cause deforestation, is that they destroy their own cover. So no, the jungle won't hide them.
Yeah that requires a global allignment that begins with brazilian exports being cut off from china, otherwise 'taint happening
We're already in a cold war with China. Fucking with their trade with Brazil is only a minor escalation.,
It's a make believe cold war. If it were real they would flood the market and devalue our currency, they own all our bonds.
Why would they devalue our currency when the American government is doing it for them.
We're already devaluing *our own currency*. We don't need China to fuck us up, we're already intentionally risking hyperinflation.
\> Honestly I wish we'd just invade Brazil.
Haven't you learned anything from Vietnam?
You can't hold a jungle with planes and tanks, you need boots on the ground. And the Amazon would be a nightmare for US soldiers against guerrillas.
The war itself would destroy most of the rainforest as the USA would be forced to use agent orange again to flush the guerrillas out.
We don't need to hold the jungle. We don't need *any* boots on the ground. Just drone strike any heavy machinery moving into the jungle. I don't want to own Brazil, I want to stop the destruction of the rain forsest.
\> We don't need *any* boots on the ground. Just drone strike any heavy machinery moving into the jungle.
And yet that hasn't worked in AFghanistan and they still send soldiers.
Money printers go Brrrrrrr.
That's actually the most optimistic prediction i've seen regarding this
Probably trying to placate all of us honestly. The 2060s *feel* far away and these kind of articles may oddly give most people a little hope that maybe their lives will be somewhat normal. I am not sure most people are equipped to handle this level of despair so they are breadcrumbing us with bad news.
2060 also means it's a problem for the next generation... so the current one can sleep easy at night.
Exact. Which is shitty, but a lot of people are short sighted. I can understand, it is all so overwhelming, but I do wish we could all get our shit together and at least try. Easier said than done when a lot of people are worried about losing their homes and not having enough to eat.
In the 2060s myself and my friends will be in our 80s. My friends' kids will be in their 40s. I feel sorry for them.
That's why we invented ciggarettes.
Everything will be alright once people can get their biscuits and gravy and sit on the rocking chair while playing with their talking parrot they bought in the gift shop outside Cracker Barrel again. Nobody gives a fuck about the future globally, but especially in America.
I read this as describing a satirical 2060s where consumerism has gone completely mad before I realized you were talking about anti-maskers right now.
That sub legitimately makes actively wish for the apocalypse. It turns you into a full-blown misanthrope.
It’s too late at that point what are we going to do?
The tik tok apathetic generation. Yeah we doomed
Bad things happening after I die don't make me rest easy. It just makes me even more disappointed in humanity.
Not only are the 60s closer than we feel, it's also misleading to think in terms of deadlines. It's not like the Amazon will be fine for the next 40 years and then whoopsie, now it's gone. Some people look at collapse timelines and think it's just like a homework deadline (i.e. either you fail or you don't), when in reality the future predictions are endpoints of continuous processes. If we say something will be gone in 50 years, that doesn't mean 50 years of normality. It means it's half gone in 25 years, 20% gone in 10 years, etc.
My agreemenet comes in by December 31, 2063. In time to save the Rainforest.
It's not probably, it's protocol. " err on the side of least drama"
It's quite a difference if you see the disappearance of a deep continuously forest as it's collapse point (which is just a few years ahead), or like here the a total drought that will take a while once it's fallen apart into fractions of a primary forest.
One of the most optimistic predictions I’ve seen on this sub about anything lol
Submission statement: A scientist in Florida has predicted that the Amazon will suffer total drought within the next 50 years.
I agree. The Pantanal, the biggest wetland on Earth just needed 3 years of drought to have 30% of its land burned completely this year alone. It's not wet if it never rains. The Amazon forest can go faster than predicted (trademark pending) too.
I question what is meant by rainforest collapse. Other studies pegged the Amazon dieback (major activated global tipping point) will cross much earlier maybe as soon as the late 2020s where the rainforest transitions from a carbon sink to carbon source and alongside the epic biodiversity loss in one of the richest ecosystems left on the Planet of the Humans.
According to the professor's [paper link](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2021.1842711), the only mention in text of 2064 is:
> In fact, southern Amazonia can expect to reach a tipping point sometime before 2064 at the current rate of dry-season lengthening
Notice the notion of *current* rate. But with ***abrupt*** changes to our dangerous decline in nature, nothing is on a steady, normalized trend. The study does not seem to consider interacting forces: ever increasing human population and hence anthropogenic activities, other global tipping points triggering feedback loops, and cascading effects of biodiversity and ecosystem loss such as food chain impact.
>I question what is meant by rainforest collapse.
I can't give you an exact definition, but the idea is understood. The point at which it doesn't exist anymore. It's really hard to give an exact definition, but maybe 90% destruction will suffice.
We will keep on logging, then die off will occur. And we will still keep logging. We will continue until nothing is left. This is the way we operate.
>We will continue until nothing is left.
When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will **still not** realize, ~~too late~~, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money.
fixed that for him.
*profit* over EVERYTHING, grandma
What percentage are we at now?
15-17%. And dieback, which I've been incorrectly calling die off, occurs at around 25%. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/science-and-health/2019/11/18/20970604/amazon-rainforest-2019-brazil-burning-deforestation-bolsonaro
I remember hearing it was under 20 years away. Add in exponential logging, fires, and dieback, and it won't be that long. No way it makes it to the end of the century.
à la "The Lorax"
Uhm, I read an article last year claiming the Amazon already turned into a carbon source.
Edit: it's estimated that about 20% of the Amazon already made the switch
So if I may ask you, what is the honest look at the future and day-to-day life at that point? Biodiversity death will surely impact every industry (bare with me I’m a yokel trying to grasp this all). Economies will collapse. Are we talking apocalypse style living where government is no more, it’s a free-for-all for food/shelter? Do you think organized survival is possible at this rate or are we truly going to go extinct within 100 years?
Honestly, I don't know. The future is extraordinarily uncertain. Eventually, when certain regions are impacted (famine, drought, year-to-year climate, day-to-day weather, water, air, food, etc.) humans will flee or evacuate their areas and even migrate to more habitable places even across country lines. Food and medicinal supply may eventually have to be rationed, possibly even mass processed for consumption... We should all enjoy these stable times while it lasts! Pursue you creative passion and love deeply another soul(s)! Yes, whatever you do, don't be a Mr/Ms Lonesome!
How sad. I am slowly coming to terms with my grief and am attempting accept what I cannot change on my own. I've been deeply passionate about the enviornment-especially the Amazon- since I was in the second grade. I had hope that our generation would fight for what matters, for our world. When I reached adulthood, the harsh reality of our powerlessness hit me. No matter what I do the machine is much bigger than me. No matter how many trees I plant or animals I rehab, or how obsessive I am about recycling and minimalism and veganism, it's never enough. And how do we fight that when the inequality amongst humans is so pervasive and cruel. We don't even know how to help our own species, let alone complex ecosystems we barely understand.
I'm still going to do everything I can to be a good person and help every creature and person I encounter, but I now approach life with a sense of mourning and loss. Our beautiful Earth is dying. We are dying. How lucky we were to witness its existence, and how equally devastating that now we must potentially witness its end. I love you all. Sincerely and genuinely. I hope we can all get through this while maintaining some sense of dignity and grace.
>No matter how many trees I plant or animals I rehab, or how obsessive I am about recycling and minimalism and veganism, it's never enough.
maybe, maybe not, but [this couple](https://www.boredpanda.com/brazilian-couple-recreated-forest-sebastiao-leila-salgado-reforestation/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) planted 2 million trees. so they've definitely made a local difference.
>And how do we fight that when the inequality amongst humans is so pervasive and cruel.
i see the changes percolating. soo many people are *pissed* at the meager efforts of the gov and those in power. they clearly showed their cards about how they feel about *the people*.
'let's sell of our stocks before we announce how fuct covid is'
'let's give it all back to our coroporations'
1200$ plus 600$ maybe? that's what they think will help? we shoulda hung these motherfuckers long ago.
why keep politeness when these ~~politicians~~ assholes will smile to your face and tell you what you want to hear, AND THEN still build the pipeline, or fuck the earth by dumping waste since it's cheaper. AND NEVER EVER HAVE TO PAY for their crimes because they write the retarded-ass laws that *we* have to abide by.
fuck them. they don't deserve dignity and grace.
You're right. I think I'm just super depressed. This helped put things into perspective. Thank you.
It very complicated, as far as my knowledge on the topic (it's more than just a topic) goes we would need to change every machine that works by burning a fossil fuel by an electric one and leaving them in the underground, plus removing it form the air.
I don't fear dying, not even if it a slow death like the one given by the changes in climate, I can see that problems are relative but that doesn't mean I didn't like life, as widely as you can think of the word.
But since I'm part of life it's a bit sad to die, even if your place is going to be occupied by new life.
Keep loving if that keeps you calmed.
None of what I said is proved.
Even of we were to go completely electric as a society, the impact of mining the crazy amount of metals required to do so would be shocking. Not to mention e-waste is an extremely disturbing problem. Look up Agbobloshie on youtube. It's a city in africa that is a literal toxic burning waste dump where everyone is poor and sick. It's all toxic waste from the developed nations. Def not trying to poo poo your idea because I think it's part of the solution, just brining attention to other issues.
My plan is — no word of a lie — to build an energy independent chalet near a freshwater lake in Nunavut. I’m still figuring out what to do about food, but I figure I’ve got 10-15 years to make it happen before it really gets bleak.
This kind of thing has already happened before, and yes, the Amazon is doomed - actually twice doomed: by both humans in the area, and also by projected precipitation pattern changes (for most of it) and temperature increase.
People of Easter Island took out their lovely big forests, home to some unique largest tree species in the whole Pacific region - down to very last tree. Very soon, human population of the island collapsed to merely few percent of what it once was.
Other example is Egypt, which [once had great and vast forests](https://www.crystalinks.com/egyptrees.html) - but nowadays, as seen even from space photos, is one huge pile of sand. And, of course, old egypt civilization, together with most of its knowledge, laws, traditions and very people has since disappeared, too. Little more than ruins remained.
Similar story with Greece - home to a number of great civilization of old times. Back in the past, that region had, [quote](https://erenow.net/ancient/an-environmental-history-of-ancient-greece-and-rome/8.php), "thick deciduous forests of downy oak; in the Bronze Age (the third and second millennia BC), by sparser woods or macchia with evergreen holm oaks and pines; and starting around 900/800 BC, by olive and walnut trees". Nowadays, again as seen from space (even on google maps), the place is largely desert.
One particular consequence of this knowledge - is grimly simple yet obvious: if nearly all of it is going to die anyway - then why don't we exploit it while we still can. That's Bolsonaro's rationale, i bet, - and while it's ethically questionable, from purely reason's viewpoint, it holds much merit.
Would be great to see what Egypt once looked like. Can’t even imagine the beauty.
Irak was the Garden of Eden. Look at what 10 thousand years of agriculture does to a land's soil.
But we're doing it much quicker now - by multiple orders of magnitude.
Libya and Syria were major wheat producers during the era of Ancient Rome
Now look at them
Syria still grows wheat. They used to grow more, but the Civil War has hurt their ability to do most things. The whole middle east is fucked by everyone desire to get their oil reserves. Also, Iraq was the garden of eden thousands of years ago. As much as humans contribute to climate change, weather patterns also change independent of human interaction, especially over thousands of years. You can't make a desert by just cutting down trees.
The logic looks like this: Dr: “If you don’t stop smoking, you will likely get lung cancer and die.”Patent: “Welp, I’m going to die anyway, might as well smoke more!”
Nope, you're mistaken (or lying). It's not the same logic. And it's easy to demonstrate why.
Because all humans die, you see. Even if the patient would respond "oh ok, i quit smoking at once, today!" and do it, - he'll die anyway, perhaps few years or decades later, but it's no big difference. But this is not the case with forests, you see. Healthy forests are able to exist pretty much forever. To be more precise - for millions of years, even hundreds millions years in some cases. And yes, we do have examples of it - some further details [are here](https://www.oldest.org/geography/forests/).
This difference alone makes comparing forests' demise to human demise to be invalid, in principle.
But even further, there is even greater failure you made: your comment assumes that there is a binary choice Bolsonaro has: "will we, or will we not, cut down Amazon Forest?". Akin to "will or will not the patient quit smoking" decision. Truth is, Bolsonaro does not have this binary choice. All he can change is speed of the process: to make it either somewhat faster or slower logging / clearing / exploitation of that forest. That's the maximum of his actual ability. You see, human mind is one single point of decision making for the whole community of cells which form a human body. But socium is entirely different matter. Millions of minds make decisions, and many of them conflict each other. One must not compare any large country's "doing" to a single person decision-making process in cases like this.
Hey I see you met my dad!
Easter island collapse was far more complicated than that. Sorry to nitpick, because I appreciate your broader point, but the idea that they simply collapsed in a vacuum of tree felling has been debunked. If you wanted to pick one thing among the multiple reasons, it was contact with Europeans. When we first encountered them their forests were almost all gone but they were a thriving society with a patchwork of gardens etc, didn't carry weapons. Fast forwards to a few outside encounters and they were a much reduced population who had died of mysterious disease outbreaks, carried weapons and fought among themselves. Their intricate gardens lay fallow and they were feverishly progressing through the process of cutting down the last trees to put up more statues..... to knocking them down out of desperation. Then we took them as slaves as they starved until they were all almost gone.
It's not actually so different than the Americas regarding contact with Europeans and disease ravaging their populations.
>If you wanted to pick one thing among the multiple reasons, it was contact with Europeans. When we first encountered them their forests were almost all gone but they were a thriving society with a patchwork of gardens etc, didn't carry weapons.
Damn, we must have been real assholes to these Europeans for them to collapse afterwards like that.
Interesting, although at first glance it worries me as "non-woke" theory being replaced with "woke" theory. I am almost certain this is not the case though. What is the best fresh source I can read about all this?
Fall of civilizations podcast covers it well.
Many thanks! Before I listen, did they provided links to the primaries like papers and books?
Shit I'm so busy, just left work for a climbing trip. I think so. Yes I think so. Good luck
Many thanks again! Best of luck in climbing!
Thanks. I'd encourage you to listen to them all.!!
> When we first encountered them their forests were almost all gone but they were a thriving society with a patchwork of gardens etc, didn't carry weapons. Fast forwards to a few outside encounters and they were a much reduced population who had died of mysterious disease outbreaks, carried weapons and fought among themselves.
This is, actually, controvercial to say the least. Can you please give me any source which would demonstrate actual proof of this?
> Then we took them as slaves as they starved until they were all almost gone.
I very much doubt it. Folks back few centuries were not stupid enough to sail all across pacific to just get some slaves to Europe or US when they have times closer and very large populations of native americans and african people. It just does not compute - not now, neither back then.
> It's not actually so different than the Americas regarding contact with Europeans and disease ravaging their populations.
One does not exclude the other. Sure, when "great nations of Europe" visited Easter Island, they did bring some nasty germs in there and plenty natives died to it, but this does not cancel the fact that native, very large trees of Easter Island were used by natives there for many centuries to make large fishing boats, with which they were able to fish far into the ocean all around the island, an thus support much bigger population than without such boats. No big trees - no big fishing boats - way less food. This one particular cause of pre-european collapse there is very clear and confirmed by plenty evidence iirc - and, is not the only one such cause, merely an example of how it was quite very deadly to cut all the big trees down for that particular civilization / society.
P.S. Oh and no problem, it's OK to talk some details. I spent quite some time studying Easter Island story myself, in the past. What i definitely figured out - is that there are some conflicting views, nowadays, in publications, about circumstances of past times, especially collapse times. Thus, care and verification efforts must be taken studying their story.
Never thought of it like that. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
That is actually terrible logic, very few things in life are truly inevitable. That's usually just a turn of phrase that people use to justify their selfish actions.
Can Amazon forest - most of it - be saved at least "in theory"? Why yes, it can. In theory. It is physically possible to have whole mankind mobilize and do more than enough to save it. Carefully irrigate by adding artificial streams where needed, desalinated water if must be. Doing massive ecological monitoring and intervening in most careful way possible, like helping declining species in that forest to maintain their balance and numbers, like ensuring no economical activity of any sort whatsoever takes place there, like banning all people from the whole Amazon forest except native tribes, strictly enforcing it, etc etc.
However, my above post says "doomed", "by humans in the area". Because my above post is not theory, but realistic estimate. People in there, and people in large corporations as well - do things they do for good reasons. Understanding why they do what they do and what (in most cases) forces their hand - is something i have at least a little bit of.
With the climate, however, even the theoretical answer, to the best of my knowledge - is "no, it can't be saved". Note, i spent several years meta-researching cutting edge climate mechanics. I know things about it vast majority of people never heard of, like massive interaction between biosphere and climate, with the former regulating the climate itself massively. Like PDSI modelling calculations into the future and which factors make them be what they are. Etc. Basically, official "IPCC" position is much politics; reality is, even if humans would now start doing all they can to revert climate change forcings created during last ~100 years by industrialization and overwhelming "domestication" of grassland type ecosystems for agricultural purposes - it would most likely still be not enough to prevent [massive Amazon droughts becoming new norm](https://www.imagevenue.com/ME12RDCR) in just a few decades into the future.
So you see, when i was saying "doomed" above - it was a simplification. To save space / time. Reality, as usual, is a bit more complex than a single word. But for practical means and purposes, i am plenty sure i was not wrong. Imminent death of almost all of Amazon rainforests is indeed one such case - a thing which is, practically, "truly inevitable".
I am sorry.
>nowadays, as seen even from space photos, is one huge pile of sand. And, of course, old egypt civilization, together with most of its knowledge, laws, traditions and very people has since disappeared, too. Little more than ruins remained.
Why are you pretending those things are connected?
Forests are known to be excellent soil moisture protectors. Egypt, Greece, Amazon, Easter Island - all those are close enough to the equator for it to matter very much. Humans over-exploited forests time and time again, there are many more examples of it from Siberia, Europe, Asia, both present and past.
When forests are gone in tropical countries / regions - high temperatures and insolation, plus wind near surface, do short work of upper soil moisture. Long story short, things get dry. And civilization of the past, they did not have high-tech ways like desalination or deep drilling for water. It's well known that whole cities in ancient Egypt failed once once abundant access to water in the city - stopped to be a thing. Water is, indeed, life.
As for why humans tend to wipe out forests - it's very simple: by grabbing what they want with no restraint. I've seen it with my very own eyes in some boreal forests in 1980s and 1990s, when merely in about 1 decade local population (town) of ~50000 people managed to massively reduce amount of fish, berries, mushrooms and other "yummy!" wild things naturally growing there - in large radiues (dozens miles!) around the town. It's really insane how much people affect forests when going to "use" them. And very sad.
Of course, whole story is much, much more detailed and in many parts not reliably known. But what modern science established by digging into remains of those civilization is more than enough to be sure about things i said above, at keast afaict.
P.S. It is kind of rude to tell someone they are pretending, by the way - at least when they are not. ;)
In what way?
Fascism doesn’t necessarily have to involve racism but often runs hand in hand because of minority populations often being from “outside”.
I’m not gonna waste time trying to make arguments for fascism because that is absolutely not my intention but this really depends on who you ask. I lurk amongst a lot of different groups of people online (some of whom are rather terrifying). This system can be completely based on ideological or religious divides. Fanatical governments in places like Iran are essentially fascist in definition.
In certain circumstances - perhaps. But far from always being so. Further, there are good reasons to intentionally avoid fascism - we now know all too well how deadly mind plague that is. Thus reason itself is much against it.
Besides, i think it's much more wrong to try and "discredit" rationality and reason by attempts like this one. Ability to understand, to see links between causes and consequences - "reason" - is one very important and powerful tool of human species. Like all tools it can be used for both good and bad. But trying to stay away from it - will not help anybody, in itself.
It will happen “faster than expected.”
Studies like this that throws out conservative dates is why there's no sense of urgency to our ongoing ecological crises. As I commented above, in actual paper that year is mentioned in a different context and its corresponding end note suggests it is based on a 2005 current rate with no consideration of faster than expected, abrupt rates.
A year far in the future like 2050, 2060, or 2064 de-sensitizes and confuses leaders and general public. Scientists need to come together with a unified position and really discuss larger interacting forces and not their selective case studies that their models treat in a vacuum. I am starting to think climate deniers are lessening with climate adapter types growing: those who acknowledge our environment problems but think it is an adaptable situation with constant, linear changes.
Another optimist posing as a scientist.
Well I'm saying as a scientist that we don't have a lot of hope
Why is it so fucking difficult for people to understand that trees are waterpumps and absolutely essential to the entire biosphere because they pump out the water that would otherwise run underground and be sequestered away from the rest of the ecosystem? That's why rain forests are ***\*rain forests\****; they continually recycle the same water from ground to atmosphere. They create their own rain by recycling it. But nope, we're busy obliterating forests the world over and struggling to figure out why there's no damn water, trying to desperately pump it out of the ground and divert rivers to our thirsty suburban lawns and fields.
It's not that people don't understand. It's simply the tragedy of the commons.
It's a little ironic because much of Florida will be underwater around that time.
They have their "sunny day floods" now, so named so that they can pretend it's not happening and it shouldn't put a damper on the all important real estate market. I sat next to a municipal staffer who was telling me about raising the roads and infrastructure. I asked her how much they were raising it and she said 1-2 feet! So they only plan for that road to be there for maybe 50 years? Why bother raising it?
Perhaps the existence of the article and the cat video getting 80k upvotes are related
Most people don't care.
I mean, come on, a video of a cat that can't handle a flower on its head or some boring article about an important event a 100 years from now
Most of us will be prolly too old to care by then.
Good luck to Gen Z and Gen Alpha though.
Gen Alpha? Matches if there is some form of collapse during the Gen Z years. Gen Z would be the last of the old world. Gen Alpha the start of a new lesser one.
Haven't heard "Gen Alpha" before. Lets hope that they get a different name. Or at least named Alpha for another reason other than being the first post collapse generation. It's a real probability though.
Anybody born from ~2011+ is Gen Alpha. The last Gen Alpha kid should be born about 2025.
You've not heard about it because the oldest generation A is only 9 years old at max. There irrelevant atm.
And "Alpha" is merely a stand in name for now. Should a big event occur, or a significant trend, then "Alpha" will be replaced by a more fitting name.
For example, it was originally "Generation Y". But that later changed to "Millennial". Or how "Generation Boomer" would have originally been merely "Generation W".
What? Boomers are called Boomers because they are the Baby Boom generation, born after WWII through the fifties. Generation X is the first round of their kids, born in the 60s and 70s who seemingly stood for the opposite of their parents, at least at the time.
>Should a big event occur, or a significant trend, then "Alpha" will be replaced by a more fitting name.
Yes. For the Generation W, the "significant trend" was the boom in births post WW2. As well as the boom in the economy.
Hence the name "boomers" stuck. Without those events, that Generation would have a totally different name.
That's true that without WWII their name would have been different, but it wouldn't have been W. Because there was no Generation V, Generation U, Generation T, before them, they would've had different names (The Lost Generation, for example). Nobody started naming generations after letters until there was Gen X. If you can find evidence of any generation being lettered before that name began, please share it with me
You're correct, generation naming is actually a fairly recent trend, Gertrude Stien coined the name "the lost generation" then jump to 1991 when generational theorists Neil Howe and William Straus wrote the book "Generations" and we're responsible for most of the names that we use for the pre 1991 generations. Since then generation naming has been a truly communal effort, with the consensus being dominant.
The default is always an alphabet. The alphabet is merely a placeholder. Its not meant to be the actual name.
The thing is, in the last 100 years, nearly every generation had some major defining feature. So those placeholders were quickly made redundant and a new common name was used.
E.g Silent Generation, Greatest Generation, Boomers etc.
But Generation X is unique for *lame* reasons. Nothing big or worthy of note occured during the era of Generation X. So there wasn't an event or trend big enough to derive a name to replace the temporary placeholder "X". So the X stuck by default.
It's simple logic. If you need to discuss a new Generation thats *literally still being born*, then you need to use a temporary placeholder name to describe that Generation. Because events haven't occured yet that can be associated with that gen.
I've commonly seen the greek alphabet being used as placeholders after Gen Z, the end of the English alphabet.
Imo Gen Z might stick as a name. Because "Z" sounds pretty cool as its the last Alphabet.
Actually generation naming is a fairly recent trend, Gertrude Stien coined the name "the lost generation" then jump to 1991 when generational theorists Neil Howe and William Straus wrote the book "Generations" and were responsible for most of the names that we use for the pre 1991 generations. Since then generation naming has been a truly communal effort, with the consensus being dominant.
> Should a big event occur, or a significant trend, then "Alpha" will be replaced by a more fitting name.
I'm thinking "Omega" might be more fitting.
Boomers hated Gen X until Millennials came of age. They said all the same things about us - lazy, entitled, slackers, etc.
good luck omega babies of the year schwartz 2.0
How on earth all flora and area isnt a world heritage site yet with no access to any money people?
That is a pretty conservative estimate, but it isn't all or nothing. We already feel the impacts of the gradual collapse.
Said it a thousand times, I'm so glad I'll be dead in 30 years
The biosphere that we need to live won’t make it until 2064. I hate to break that to everyone.
As long as we're not still referring to the Amazon as "the Earth's Lungs" bullshit.
55% of the worlds Oxygen comes from the Oceans. Far more important than a big forest. [sarcastic irony folks]
["Scientists estimate that 50-80% of the oxygen production on Earth comes from the ocean. The majority of this production is from oceanic plankton — drifting plants, algae, and some bacteria that can photosynthesize."](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html#:~:text=Scientists%20estimate%20that%2050-80,some%20bacteria%20that%20can%20photosynthesize.)
["...the Amazon produces around 6% or less of the planet’s oxygen.](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/amazon-doesnt-produce-20-of-earths-oxygen/)
The problem isn't that we won't have enough oxygen but it's the amount of carbon that is stored in the Amazon. All this carbon will be released in the air and that's the big problem here.
And the fact that * it's one of the last bastions of rich biodiversity. You know... that thing you really can't bring back once it's extinct because it's genetic information that disappears entirely.
[map of all rainforest](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Koppen-Geiger_Map_Af_present.svg/1024px-Koppen-Geiger_Map_Af_present.svg.png)
data on the size % of Amazon vs all other RF wasn't readily available... it looks like the Amazon is around 40% of all RF. ... and of course all the other RF are danger of human damage too.
["... Amazon RF stores about 150 billion to 200 billion tons of carbon."](https://interactive.pri.org/2018/10/amazon-carbon/science.html#:~:text=The%20Amazon%27s%20sprawling%20forest%2C%20nearly,that%20carbon%20into%20the%20atmosphere.)
and i wouldn't be so sure dropping global oxygen levels isn't its own major problem: https://www.oxygenlevels.org
I thought it was more like 70%
I read 70% sometimes, and 50-80% other times.
Right on par with [the API's 1980 estimate of "globally catastrophic effects" on page 13](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Force-Meeting-1980.html) we must live to see these bastards held accountable
HA. By 2064 we won't have regular contact with something so far away.
The speed they are clearing it,it will be gone within 10 years
By 2064? that's cute. You may as well say the future is bright and make us think everything is going to be all right.
tldr: There was a drought in 2005, it took the forest 5 years to recover from it. The dry season is getting longer, by 2064 a drought as long as the one in 2005 would be happening once every 6 years, giving the forest no chance to recover.
He's taking an ongoing process, assumes it's a linear curve and then extrapolates. Take this with a grain of salt.
When something like this keep happening: [https://news.mongabay.com/2020/12/devastating-fires-engulf-brazilian-pantanal-wetlands-again/](https://news.mongabay.com/2020/12/devastating-fires-engulf-brazilian-pantanal-wetlands-again/)
Ah, an optimist
So, a prediction from Florida Man? Seems legit.
2064? So, judging by historical climate “predictions” we should prepare for the Amazon to collapse around this time next year, then.
>For the Amazonian case, a tipping point need not only lead to tropical savanna. Other terminal possibilities include transition to an open, deciduous system or to what has all the appearances of a degraded, secondary forest with low biomass.
>Alternatively, deforestation could alter land-surface albedo and the flux of latent heat, thereby compromising the forest’s ability to recycle moisture and sustain the amount of precipitation it needs to survive. Recycling, which accounts for 25–50% of Amazonian precipitation, is essential to the forest’s long-run sustainability
The people who are destroying the Amazon don't realize that the Amazon is at the same parallel as the savannas in Africa.
>Wet parts of the Basin such as the northwest have grown wetter, and dry parts in the south and southeast have grown drier.
Fire and flood.
>it is reasonable to conclude that human disturbance comprises the root cause of the observed anomalies
>By sustaining cascades of recycled moisture via evapotranspiration, tropical forests act as moisture pumps in delivering water vapor from the oceans to continental interiors. 39 , 40 As a consequence, air masses generate two times more precipitation when traversing tropical forests than when passing over land surfaces with little vegetation.
>Biomass burning associated with deforestation releases aerosols to the atmosphere that inhibit the rain-making mechanism of clouds, further diminishing precipitation
One can learn about a new feedback loop every day.
>Reduced precipitation following deforestation also means less infiltration and baseflow into streams. Without groundwater contributions during the dry season, rivers can dry up completely. Irrigated agriculture, which may or may not follow deforestation in the short run, adds consumptive pressure to both surface and groundwater storages and disrupts the hydrologic cycle by drawing down aquifers and lowering stream discharge. Consumptive use by agriculture exhibits an effect all its own on the hydrologic cycle, independent of land cover change. Another independent effect highly relevant to Amazonia involves the return of moisture to the atmosphere as a function of land use. Soybean farming in particular diminishes evapotranspiration relative to native vegetation, thereby lowering precipitation.
>A landscape with numerous patches possesses an abundance of forest edges, which intensifies convection relative to expanses of unbroken forest. This produces more local rainfall in what is referred to as a “vegetation breeze” effect, with precipitation increasing over some range of forest clearance
>**Unfortunately, deforestation makes them vulnerable by providing ignition sources and pathways for fire contagion. Then when drought occurs, agricultural fires escape ignition sites to burn through nearby forest, killing trees and stockpiling organic fuels for future fires, which become increasingly frequent as deforestation continues. In essence, fire produces fire in a positive feedback loop intensified by deforestation and drought.**
>This emergent fire regime puts the ecosystem at risk of grass invasions that suppress robust forest recovery, paving the way to a biome switch. 85 That a tipping point transgression has never occurred in Amazonia provides little assurance about the future, given today’s threat environment including, in addition to deforestation, anthropogenic fire and logging.
OK, I have to stop.
You’ve met Florida Man and Florida Woman, now meet Florida Professor.
Change My View: The tipping point when the amazon goes into terminal decline is something we won't recognize until 10 years after it happened. Any predictions, especially those mentioning a year rather than a decade, are dodgy modeling at best.
wait if we try really hard will it happen sooner??
I hate to say it, but this will *also* become, "sooner than expected."
Probably sooner. All the other predictions made have turned out to be underestimated with regard to how fast they would happen. So much of the world burned last year the smoke alone changed weather patterns.
Awfully optimistic, that's the best news I've read all day. I guess Bolsanaro decided to start planting trees?
Sounds about right
Covid for Gaia.
He's being nice. "ERr on the side of least drama"
Theres goes all of my efforts since grade 2... lol to think some people actually believe theyre saving the rainforest....
Maybe 2064, maybe 2100....It does not make any difference. It is coming soon enough.
Can American Senators get in on little insider trading with the napalm manufacturer?
Brazilian president: “Hold my beer...”
Optimist are we?
This is why I never had wanted children.
Honestly, I am so jaded by these predictions. We were warned in 2000 that the UK would be devastated by a "Siberian like climate" by 2020.
Apparently the Arctic was going to be completely ice free by 2020. We would be out of Petroleum by 2020. None of which has come true. Has any of the dire climate change/global warming/global Cooling predictions thrown around come true? This sort of "prediction" is what causes climate change denialists.
Bingo. There needs to be a more wise approach without claiming big events on certain dates. Letting people know rates of decline without making big predictions that don't come true so that idiots can point to it to prove the whole thing false. Letting people know the rate at which the rainforest is declining over X years, for example, is good because I feel most people can extrapolate from there, though I may be affording some folks too much credit. I also find that the emphasis is far too skewed toward "Climate Change" when the reality is that there is a multifaceted, interconnected ecological crisis at play involving climate, pollution, species extinction, ocean acidification, etc.
But most of all, people need to wake up to the fact that resources are finite, and most people here are aware of the fact that our consumption rate just simply cannot be sustained without some fairly extreme consequences or scarcity.
If the Amazon uses less water, then there's more for the rest of us!
I thought that the majority of the USA's beachfront property was supposed to be underwater by now
ThE lUnGs Of ThE pLaNeT
Amazon owns a rainforest now, huh? Wow, must be amazing (or should I amazong) to work at that company. When you need some fresh air, just stroll through the rainforest outside the building. The big question is, will the collapse of Amazon's rainforest devalue its stonks?
Nah, you can still use Acacia Confusa which is from southeast Asia. Tastes far less horrible anyways.
“With a bit of luck, his life was ruined forever. Always thinking that just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he’ll never know.”
Hunter S. Thompson
its weird for some reason I dont think i would want to do any of those dmt blasts. i am curious about having some of santa's mushroom. i just would want to take it with someone who has before because i heard too much can kill you.
Hi, biderjohn. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/kmfbk6/-/ghe6sm0/) was removed from /r/collapse.
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
They are trying to cut it down and sell it before it dies. I’m not for that, but it is what they are doing. So why the burning. Idk. Maybe they think the ash will help.