i agree, this is less about civilization collapse and more about poor resource management. toss in a little wilful ignorance on the problem solving of humans, and you end up with this doom and gloom stuff. feels like ive been readin this crap my entire life (ozone!)
its proven mature societies populations stabilize, and resource management is just humans not being dicks to each other (a notable roadblock).
i think there will be societal shrinkage, but it aint constanza just-out-of-the-pool shrinkage. certainly not a collapse
the OP link is to a gloom and doom person who claims we should all just give up.
my point is that the whole idea of ‘giving up’ is not plausible as a state in which we ever exist. given what we have actually accomplished as a planet, and what we can accomplish in small, mature communities the link is to hyperbolic nonsense
I’m confused. You called out the ozone issue in a way that made it sound like you believed the ozone crisis was over-hyped because we don’t hear about it anymore.
We don’t hear about it anymore because nations of the world actually took action together, and it was solved. In your response, you seem to agree with that.
Doomerism encourages apathy and helplessness. I don’t agree with resigning ourselves that the situation is unfixable. Every .1 degrees we can shave off is worth fighting tooth and nail for. As far as whether humanity as a whole is sustainable indefinitely, I don’t buy it. Even if we run out of rare earth metals 1000 years from now that’s 1000 years we have to fix that problem.
The universe is unsustainable, life is inherently doomed because of entropy. Doesn’t mean we should give up because there will be no usable energy in 100 trillion years or whatever. The sun will burn out in a billion, the earths orbit will be too hot in 100 million. Would that still not be worth living for just because it can’t be saved? Where does it go from no point to worth fighting for?
(OP I’m not arguing with you I’m pointing out the problems I have with the article. I do agree it’s gonna be bad no matter what… all the more reason to try)
I don’t think this is totally accurate. There’s a point to be made sure but nobody knows for sure what will happen.
i agree, this is less about civilization collapse and more about poor resource management. toss in a little wilful ignorance on the problem solving of humans, and you end up with this doom and gloom stuff. feels like ive been readin this crap my entire life (ozone!)
its proven mature societies populations stabilize, and resource management is just humans not being dicks to each other (a notable roadblock).
i think there will be societal shrinkage, but it aint constanza just-out-of-the-pool shrinkage. certainly not a collapse
The healing of the ozone layer was one of the most successful examples of global human cooperation.
You’re undermining your own point. That kind of cooperation and commitment is what we NEED to be doing but aren’t
no, not really.
the OP link is to a gloom and doom person who claims we should all just give up.
my point is that the whole idea of ‘giving up’ is not plausible as a state in which we ever exist. given what we have actually accomplished as a planet, and what we can accomplish in small, mature communities the link is to hyperbolic nonsense
I’m confused. You called out the ozone issue in a way that made it sound like you believed the ozone crisis was over-hyped because we don’t hear about it anymore.
We don’t hear about it anymore because nations of the world actually took action together, and it was solved. In your response, you seem to agree with that.
The circles have me spinning.
I mwant that the Op link ignores humans ability to problem solve, like we have with the ozone.
That’s before half of our country doesn’t believe in a virus, much less the effects of climate change.
Ahhh makes sense now
But you also must remember that the Ozone Layer issue was before social media became a thing.
Surely we’re at the point where we can at least agree that whatever is going to happen is not going to be good.
Doomerism encourages apathy and helplessness. I don’t agree with resigning ourselves that the situation is unfixable. Every .1 degrees we can shave off is worth fighting tooth and nail for. As far as whether humanity as a whole is sustainable indefinitely, I don’t buy it. Even if we run out of rare earth metals 1000 years from now that’s 1000 years we have to fix that problem.
The universe is unsustainable, life is inherently doomed because of entropy. Doesn’t mean we should give up because there will be no usable energy in 100 trillion years or whatever. The sun will burn out in a billion, the earths orbit will be too hot in 100 million. Would that still not be worth living for just because it can’t be saved? Where does it go from no point to worth fighting for?
(OP I’m not arguing with you I’m pointing out the problems I have with the article. I do agree it’s gonna be bad no matter what… all the more reason to try)