
The Future Is Grim - matznerd
https://medium.com/@cache_86525/the-future-is-grim-27ca6f7ab07b
======
Gatsky
The ecological history of the earth shows there have been dramatic changes in
climate before. It is speculated/strongly believed that some of these changes
had a strong contribution from organic life eg plants and trees affecting
weathering rates and therefore atmospheric composition. These climate changes
were usually associated with the annihilation of most (sometimes all) complex
life, certainly anything you would ever call an animal.

I just make this point to say that climate change can definitely wipe us out,
just as it has other large animals before.

One issue that isn't discussed much - an ageing population. Obviously this is
a generalisation, but the more elderly are disincentivized to do anything
about climate change. They also lack the resources to really change behaviour,
and are resistant to the kind of sweeping economic and societal changes being
proposed. At the same time, they have a lot of influence on political decision
making or are the decision makers themselves. I don't see a solution to this
problem, aside from waiting until the influence of that generation dies off
(about another 10 years).

~~~
RestlessMind
> I don't see a solution to this problem

Generalizing the problem - if a group of people (X) is disincentivized to
tackle a problem which terribly affects another, possibly bigger, group of
people (Y), and if X also wields a lot of power to prevent any meaningful
solutions to the said problem, then History shows us that it is only a matter
of time before Y will acquire enough power to overthrow X. See - French
revolution, Russian revolution.

But I also disagree with your take that "elderly are disincentivized to do
anything about climate change". I believe that the elderly in the fire prone
areas of California or hurricane prone areas of Florida would be very much
interested in tackling the climate change. A big problem is the lack of
meaningful solutions. Once you have seen enough in the world, you can see
through the gimmicks like banning gas pipelines to all the new houses
(Mountain View) or flight shaming or moralizing against meat by all the
vegans.

------
matznerd
I am personally more of an optimist, but I originally saw this post on
r/collapse and then on r/bestof and now its made it to my FB feed via this
Medium post. I care more about people understanding what a dire situation we
are in so that we can take action ASAP. there are also a number of good links
in here, whether or not you agree that we are locked into this future. It will
definitely take a concerted effort from society to make sure the future is not
grim.

~~~
agumonkey
We need to invent middle layer political onset. Everybody is wondering what to
do, nothing happen yet it should have been so yesterday.

ubiquitous computing, ubiquitous networking yet no spirit no coordination..
strange isn't it ?

~~~
remir
Nothing happens because politicians needs to sell dreams in order to get
elected. The public doesn't want the truth, that's the problem.

There's people out there in very poor shape, smoking cigarettes, drinking
alcohol and eating junk every day and it would take a massive health problem
to get them to change their habits, even tho they feel like crap all the time.

This is essentially the same thing with our society. What needs to be done is
drastic, yet how do you convince people that this is desirable? You can't.
Most people need suffering in order to change.

~~~
agumonkey
Fair point.

I'm calling for a different group of people to sit and think. People with a
bit of abstract math, systemic and various fields (food, geology, ecology,
logistics) to assemble, and reflect on how to migrate people lifestyle
gradually.

Spreading small degrowth groups around, creating nature cattering
associations, educators to turn people from consumers to actors of their
neighborhoods with pleasure and care.

I'm highly convinced it doesn't require much to tip off a whole population in
our case. Because the system is already sick to me. People just need a smooth
path out and the benefits are not far (better diet, more physical exercises,
less loneliness, less stress, less toxic competition, more control over their
life).

------
ncmncm
Taking bets on the most likely path to worldwide civilization collapse, sans
adequate action.

My bet is mass migration north in response to loss of tropical and subtropical
agricultural production drives isolationism, putting fascists in power, who
initiate wars leading to (limited?) use of nuclear weapons. Resulting chaos
disrupts farming, food transport, trade, industrial supply, and climate
disruption response, resulting in more chaos, more fascism, more war, and on
down. Timeline 2030 unless CO2 is actually declining by then.

Reason: already started, action already inadequate.

------
jurassic
> Of all the birds left in the world, 70% are poultry chickens and other
> farmed birds

While the overall thesis of this article may be correct, the writer undermines
themself with the inclusion of misleading statistics like this one. It makes
it sound as if we have killed all the wild birds or shunted them into the food
industrial complex when really these things are fairly independent of one
another. We're simply growing more chickens than ever because people like to
eat meat.

~~~
GrayTextIsTruth
But the bird population has decreased. Deforestation and house cats are doing
a lot of damage.

~~~
jurassic
I don’t doubt the bird population has declined. But the stat cited above
doesn’t convey any information about the decline.

If you have 30 wild birds in your property and you setup a barn with 70
industrial meat birds inside, you did not necessarily obliterate the wild
population.

------
beetwenty
When I see articles with so many various facts assembled together, I have to
remind myself that the author cannot possibly be an expert in all of them, and
so the story is just that - a story.

Which doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done, or that many of
the predictions will come to pass, just, the full story is never going to work
out quite how anyone expects. And that's enough to have some hope.

~~~
pan69
Looking at the chart of the climate summit targets, we don't really seem to
have a history of doing the right thing. I would love to share your optimism
of "some hope" but to me it seems that as a species we're simply incapable.

[https://miro.medium.com/max/696/1*NHFNUj3lns_y-3srODj-
zg.jpe...](https://miro.medium.com/max/696/1*NHFNUj3lns_y-3srODj-zg.jpeg)

------
ilaksh
I have read a lot saying that in many countries population is imploding,
indicating that the overpopulation fears may be dated.

~~~
renjimen
We're currently at +90 million people per year. The UN predicts that to drop
by around 1 million people per year [1], which would mean the total population
is still increasing for another 90 years.

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-
growth](https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth)

------
brenden2
Humans have an incredible history of adaptation and survival, and I do agree
climate change is a big problem. The metrics are all going the wrong way, but
I see the fallout (famine, disease, death, etc) as a natural corrective
mechanism. Earth has a long history of hot and cold periods, the only
difference being this time it's largely caused by humans.

We survived the plague, world wars, and much more, so I think we (as a
species) will still be around on this rock for a long time to come.

~~~
Tronno
Of course humans will survive, but what about our civilization? That seems
less likely.

I also fear the "natural correction" will be violent, painful, and potentially
apocalyptic in scale. Watching everything we built crumble, watching our
children suffer, etc, would be horrific. We have to do something.

~~~
brenden2
Entire civilizations have been destroyed before, notably the Roman Empire.
Humans came back stronger and more well off.

~~~
ncmncm
Humans, outside cities, were not then dependent on long-distance food
transport.

Furthermore, the Roman Empire was not destroyed. It declined over centuries.
Catastrophic collapse is an entirely different phenomenon.

It matters which humans. If you mean that after six billion starve, the
remnants will have access to substantial remaining infrastructure, OK.
Probably the wars won't destroy most of it.

~~~
brenden2
FWIW the word "collapse" appears 7 times in the Wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire)

~~~
ncmncm
The retraction of the western part of the empire, and move of the capital to
Constantinople, was conflated as a collapse via the anti-oriental bias of
Gibbons, which has colored subsequent perceptions. The Empire carried on as a
major power for centuries after.

------
Damorian
I can only read so much far-left death cult nonsense before rolling my eyes
and closing the tab. How many cherry picked stats can you fit in one article?
Look at the number of people removed from extreme poverty. Look at the price
cliff solar and electric vehicles are falling off. Every "problem" is a
hypothetical projection that I have no doubt will be addressed once they turn
into economic problems. I'm not losing sleep about fresh water when I'm paying
a fraction of a cent for a gallon. If I could talk to a person from the future
1000 years from now, my first question isn't "how many degrees did the Earth
warm from climate change" it's "how many star systems have humans colonized."

~~~
ncmncm
In a thousand years, it will be looked back on as we do the Black and
Justinian plagues. It will inspire awe: "They knew, and did nothing?"

Humanity, and even civilization, will certainly recover fully within two
centuries, three at the outside.

This does not inspire confidence in the immediate future.

~~~
Damorian
I expect climate change will look more like Y2K than the black plague. If
anything the increase in precipitation, higher temperatures, longer growing
season and CO2 concentration will help humanity more than it hurts with mass
afforrestation and better crop yields.

~~~
ncmncm
You just keep telling yourself that. Doing nothing is the easiest thing, and
no one will blame you, personally, after.

~~~
Damorian
Don't make assumptions. I have both an electric car and a 7kw solar system on
my home. Not because I'm saving the world or smelling my own farts, but
because it makes economic sense. That is the reason, the only reason, climate
change will be solved.

~~~
benschulz
Lots of things make economic sense. That does not make them possible, let
alone probable. What makes you so confident in our ability to find solutions
that you predict we will look back on global warming as similar to Y2K?

~~~
Damorian
"where there's a will, there's a way." Like I said, these problems are
hypothetical and immaterial. If people were struggling to drink clean water or
get food, they'll prioritize it with their time and money to solve it. We're
dealing with massive time scales to solve these problems. The media makes
money off the hyperbolic, pseudoscientific fanfiction they churn out and
politicians are elected by fear. "97% of scientists believe in climate change"
doesn't mean "97% of scientists believe we've caused the Apocalypse and it's
over for humanity in the next decade." It simply means "97% of scientists
think the world is warming and is caused in part by human activity."

~~~
ncmncm
Yes, you probably will not be blamed personally.

------
hellofunk
> billionaires caused the climate change and how they are building bunkers and
> buying NZ passports to fly there when [shit happens]

Why NZ?

~~~
moocow01
Yeah doesn't seem like a well conceived plan if there really is a consensus
amongst the super rich to isolate themselves all together on one relatively
small island. First of all globally there are a hell of a lot of super rich
people. Secondly I'm not sure you'd want your neighbors to all be other
aggresssively well resourced people in a world of survivorship. Third, if the
masses blamed the super rich for the catastrophes of the world we'd know where
to find them.

~~~
ncmncm
The masses never blame the super-rich. Instead, they hate their immediate
bosses (who hate theirs). Politically, we mostly resent the party of the
middle managers.

We are a "managed population", following Edward Bernays's program from one
century ago.

------
mudil
Serious questions. What is wrong with a hypothetical scenario that our
children will have to move to Antarctica and northern Russia to grow corn and
grapes? I mean after all, people moved all the time. Civilizations collapsed
in the past from lack of water where it used to be plentiful, and other
natural disasters wiped out entire civilizations. And we are still here,
living well, eating organic food, drinking clean water and watching Netflix.
And we are living longer and better, and in the West we have more forests than
a century ago. How do we even know that these naysayers are correct while
those that blamed witches and proclaimed impending apocalypses were wrong?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Drinking clean water, watching Netflix and utilising over 50% of the earth's
entire landmass. The best, most fertile, most productive half.

What are we planning on doing, digging up a trillion tonnes of the formerly
fertile soil from previous areas and transporting it? I very much doubt that
Antarctica and northern Russia have soils that are as amenable to agriculture
after a few millennia frozen solid. Even if the area were enough, which it
isn't, yields would likely plummet.

Civilisations collapsed in the distant past, migrated and fell, yet there was
a glut of available land everywhere. So hardly surprising here we still are --
we were nowhere near limit. Somewhere else fertile and usable could be found.
Borders weren't controlled.

To give a rough example, the UK currently has a population around 68,000,000.
The black death in the 1350s led to the population falling from around 3m to
1-1.5m. London's population fell 60% from 120,000. I don't know the population
during the Roman civilisation period, but well under a million. 200k perhaps?
That's a hell of a lot more area per person, and a huge amount of scope to
relocate come catastrophe.

p.s. The West has more forest than a century ago because most of Europe's
forest was clear cut centuries ago. What's been planted particularly in the
19th and first half of the 20th century is monoculture forestry, completely
unrelated to the former temperate rain forests and other mature native forests
that once thrived, long ago. It's certainly nothing to crow about.

~~~
vraid
The population of roman Britain is estimated at 2-3 million at its peak. Well
above the early medieval population.

[https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Roman-
Britai...](https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Roman-Britain)

[https://books.google.se/books?id=t7KeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT260&redir...](https://books.google.se/books?id=t7KeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT260&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

~~~
ncmncm
Historical population estimates necessarily have a very large admixture of
conjecture.

Direction of changes, short term, are more reliable where there is
information, but with long periods without information, so only rare
baselines.

------
sbierwagen
Someone should let this guy know that Medium lets you put inline images in a
post.

------
Udik
> A study by the Pentagon confirms [there will wars caused by migrants]

The reading of newspapers confirms that the Pentagon is causing wars today.

Some of the climate change scare is a huge distraction from much more
important and actual issues, on which we have much more agency and yet we've
decided to ignore.

Just to give an example, we seem to be extremely worried about populations
living on a bare subsitence level- that is, without secure food sources,
decent housing or sanitation- being threatened by climate change. And somehow
we've decided that we need to invest trillions not to take them out of
poverty, but to keep them in the same poverty but with a better climate.
Priorities.

~~~
smitty1e
Reports from the other side of the argument contend that the modern age
continues to drive down the number of people in dire straits.

So one idea is to step back from the messengers and wonder who drives the
messages: how much of this reporting is intended to manipulate policy?

