idk mate, that discussion doesn't really clarify anything. "we're all going to die" is indisputably going too far and it's a meme that needs to die. it's an agency murdering nihilism - we can do things in the present to limit the damage. it's a rhetorical point but I think it undercuts your argument. you can't cite science and slip to vibes without people rightly calling you on it.
I'm not invalidating the rest of your argument. I mostly agree with you. I just don't think "we're all going to die" is a responsible point. this isn't a gotcha - it's about effective rhetoric.
I disagree with the factual claim - I've seen no data to support it. you've said both that it's how you feel and that it's a factual claim, separately at different times. if this is purely about how you feel, I suggest in the future not trying to lean on the science. if you have studies that show that an extinction level event is plausible or likely, I'd like to read them.
"we're all going to die" is indisputably going too far and it's a meme that needs to die. it's an agency murdering nihilism
No it's not. It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility, even if there is still hope that we might be able to avert it. And it is absolutely NOT agency-murdering nihilism to not stick one's head in the sand and pretend it can't happen. To me, the possibility (even likelihood) that our limited time is nearing its limit, encourages me to do everything I can to improve people's lives and material conditions here and now and bask in the fleeting time we do have on this globe, both as individuals and as a species.
No it's not. It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility, even if there is still hope that we might be able to avert it.
Look either you're talking about how we're all going to die generally, in which case there's nothing we can due to avert it, or you're saying "we're all going to die of climate change", which implies a Venus level degradation of the biosphere that none of the models seem to pointing toward, or you're inappropriately assigning probabilities of death of unspecified large numbers of people to specific individuals.
All I'll say in response to this is that I know exactly what u/LegaliiizeIt means when they talk about some people here willfully misreading and misrepresenting others with pedantry and debatebro nonsense.
Look if you don't want to mount an intellectual defense for the claim "climate change is going to kill us all", that's absolutely okay you are under no obligation to, but I want everyone to know that's position being offered without any backing.
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future. We have already kicked off a mass extinction event that has only just begun. I "offered backing" for this in other comments in this thread, discussing it with someone who demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation, not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence from me for something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future.
A gamma ray burst has an actual and real potential to end our species tomorrow. Yet it would be wildly irresponsible for me to tell people that they're going to die in a gamma ray burst.
not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence
The implication that it is somehow rude to insist that you back up positions that can actively cause distress in other people is not one that I'm going to accept, so complain about "debate-bros" at your leisure but don't expect me to care.
something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
And yet neither you nor anyone else here can point an actual example of any of them actually saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections. My climatologist friend is getting married in August. I'm going to the wedding. They're planning to have kids.
Ok, here's the first result in a duckduckgo search:
Catastrophic climate change outcomes, including human extinction, are not being taken seriously enough by scientists, a new study says. .
Second result
Will Humans go Extinct? Death by ecological contamination or the climate emergency would be slower but still within the realm of possibility. .
Third
Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’ .
Happy now? I hope you realize how reddit-tier it is to demand sources like that when you can easily do a search without forcing the person you're talking to to do it for you with the implication that they're full of shit if they don't do your homework. Not to mention the "well my best friend is [expert in field being discussed] so nyeah."
any [climate scientists] saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections
From the study cited in two of those articles.
This caution is understandable, yet it is mismatched to the risks and potential damages posed by climate change. We know that temperature rise has “fat tails”: low-probability, high-impact extreme outcomes (9). Climate damages are likely to be nonlinear and result in an even larger tail (10). Too much is at stake to refrain from examining high-impact low-likelihood scenarios. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the need to consider and prepare for infrequent, high-impact global risks, and the systemic dangers they can spark. Prudent risk management demands that we thoroughly assess worst-case scenarios.
anything is possible - we can't know the future - but I've read no studies that suggest that literally everyone is going to die. I encourage you to read the whole of the IPCC reports. the summaries leave a lot out and the actual data paints a bleaker picture than what's in the top-level summaries - but I saw nothing that supports the idea that an extinction level event is likely. the clatharate gun would have to go off for that to happen and all indications at present are that the thawing of the permafrost is not resulting in a spike in methane levels because plants are growing in the former permafrost and repurposing the methane.
the actual data paints a bleaker picture than what's in the top-level summaries
There's a reason for that. I've read of meta studies that show climate scientists deliberately downplay how bleak the situation really is, mostly because of political pressure but also because they are afraid of mistakenly spreading paranoia.
What any good climate scientist will tell you is that we fundamentally don't know all the feedback loops we have already tripped and know even less about ones that will inevitably be tripped. For example, it's looking likely that Venus was once a lot more Earth-like in terms of what we consider habitable but now for reasons (volcanism?) that aren't entirely clear, it's surface is utterly inhospitable even for extremophiles. We could have already tripped a runaway greenhouse effect without yet recognizing the exact mechanism, but we do know we are changing the climate in ways faster than at any other time outside of mass extinction events. (And we are in the midst of a mass extinction event already, just at the very beginning of it - hence the term anthropocene). Earth has been cold enough in the past, likely several times, that it was completely frozen over, with maybe the exception of a narrow band around the equator. Earth has also been hot enough that animal life has only been able to survive at the poles. Humanity would not survive this. Humanity, despite our spread and obvious adaptability, is also an extremely fragile species for reasons similar to why technology that requires complex supply chains is fragile to sudden shifts.
Human extinction in the next few centuries is not by any means far fetched. That's not to say it's guaranteed, of course, but pretending like it's not in the cards is naive.
There's a reason for that. I've read of meta studies that show climate scientists deliberately downplay how bleak the situation really is, mostly because of political pressure but also because they are afraid of mistakenly spreading paranoia.
yeah, that's my read as well.
We could have already tripped a runaway greenhouse effect without yet recognizing the exact mechanism, but we do know we are changing the climate in ways faster than at any other time outside of mass extinction events.
the present models do their best to accommodate for these unknowns. they're likely wrong and things might be even worse than predicted - we can only account so well for the things we don't know - but the worst case models for runaway CO2 warming don't lead to the earth becoming Venus. they lead to the Earth becoming something like what it was during the Jurassic. it's methane warming that will actually annihilate humanity and the current data on that front is cautiously optimistic (see my earlier point about plants absorbing the methane trapped in the permafrost).
Humanity, despite our spread and obvious adaptability, is also an extremely fragile species for reasons similar to why technology that requires complex supply chains is fragile to sudden shifts.
this contradicts the biological record. human species have adapted to thrive in more environments than literally any other species on earth, excepting the extremophiles. that's not to say that extinction is impossible, only that it's going to take more than displacing the vast majority of people and a collapse of the food chain. if plants are growing, pockets of humanity will find a way to eke out an existence.
I agree with pretty much all of this except for the last bit, which is a lot to get into right now (other species that existed globally going extinct, the surprising youth of our species, genetic bottlenecks pointing to how insanely close we've already come to extinction when climate change wasn't an issue or was so much slower as to hardly be a comparison now, etc.) All that aside, taking everything you said into account, it's still folly not to recognize human extinction in the near future (geologically speaking) as a real possibility and worth considering. Especially given how many unknowns still exist with respect to feedback loops.
But what I was mostly refuting when I first replied to you was the claim that recognizing human extinction as a possibility is "agency-murdering nihilism." And I hope I did that. Again, for me that recognition has gone quite a ways towards making me a better leftist.
I'm not saying that it's impossible for us to go extinct. but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
But what I was mostly refuting when I first replied to you was the claim that recognizing human extinction as a possibility is "agency-murdering nihilism." And I hope I did that. Again, for me that recognition has gone quite a ways towards making me a better leftist.
recognizing the possibility is natural and good - that billions are going to die should give everyone cause for reflection. my point was more about the conviction and certainty of the claim. it's just not in line with the best science available right now. saying "our civilization is likely doomed" is a defensible claim. so is "it's possible we go extinct" is also defensible. saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism. it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
No. If Earth's climate begins to approach Venus levels of bad, humanity will be done and gone long before that. Extremophile bacteria right now wouldn't be able to survive on the surface of Venus where it's hot enough to melt lead. There is no reason to think this isn't also possible for Earth (in fact it's an inevitability, just far enough out that humanity is statistically likely to have gone extinct for other reasons first). I really don't think most people comprehend how narrow the range is for continued habitation of animal life, let alone mammalian, let alone one species of mammals. The whole idea that "even with catastrophic environmental collapse, we intrepid humans will find a way! We'll eke out an existence and pull through!" strikes me as the same kind of thinking that allow Musk fans to talk about colonizing Mars as if there's even a remote chance even within the next couple generations. Imo, the failure to recognize human fragility is a kind of anthropocentrism and unintentional hubris. Yes, we have spread over much of the globe but only during a brief (geologically speaking) time when everything was nearly perfect for us. And even then we came so close to extinction where literally only a few thousand individuals existed on Earth and as a result we have very very little genetic diversity (which tangentially, unrelated to this conversation, is another fun fact to throw in the faces of racist reactionaries). Many other species have spread more effectively and over far more of the globe than we have and the vast majority of them are already exinct.
Again, Earth already has gone through climatic events that humanity, even with all our current and modern technology, could not survive. Humanity wouldn't live through a "snowball earth" which has already happened. Humanity wouldn't live through a permian-triassic equatorial pangaea which has already happened. The latter included a runaway greenhouse effect - something we may have already tripped. It's not even the first time that life is what caused it's own mass extinction. Human extinction level climate change is in the worst-case-scenario realm. But something else you probably already know about, something heard often in climate-aware circles, is how many of the projected "worst case scenarios" of the last few decades have turned out to be what actually came to pass.
saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism.
Humanity will last longer than the lifespan of anyone here, even the children of anyone here, I think it's safe to say. But it will not and can not last forever. Why is it philosophically acceptable when the fact that an end of humanity will happen is qualified with whatever sufficiently large epoch you personally want to put on it, but it is unacceptable "nihilism" to suggest it could likely happen in the next couple millenia or so?
it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
Why? Does someone given a terminal cancer diagnosis necessarily want to just go out and (CW) intentionally end their lives all the quicker (accelerationism)? Or decide they may as well become self-serving assholes and do their damndest to take everyone else out too (reaction)? I'm sure it's happened but it's obviously not the norm. It's difficult, it's painful, it's terrifying to contemplate when the end is nigh (on a personal level, a civilizational level, or at the level of a species), but it's not nihilistic to accept it. On the other hand, it would be philosophically naive though understandable if a person couldn't accept it.
The only thing that my so-called doomerism has changed as far as my behavior is inspire me all the more to try to do what I can to increase human well-being and the well-being of all sentient life while I still can. And I know I'm not the only one, I'm reminded of Breht O'Shea from Rev Left Radio who has frequently talked about the difficulty he's had in reconciling with the reality of climate change but how much better of a leftist and person it's made him.
Climate "doomerism" is not and does not necessitate nihilism, and it definitely isn't in conflict with being a good leftist.
idk mate, that discussion doesn't really clarify anything. "we're all going to die" is indisputably going too far and it's a meme that needs to die. it's an agency murdering nihilism - we can do things in the present to limit the damage. it's a rhetorical point but I think it undercuts your argument. you can't cite science and slip to vibes without people rightly calling you on it.
deleted by creator
I'm not invalidating the rest of your argument. I mostly agree with you. I just don't think "we're all going to die" is a responsible point. this isn't a gotcha - it's about effective rhetoric.
deleted by creator
I did say that? I'm not trying to dunk on you.
deleted by creator
I do and continue to disagree on that point. I think it's wrong and I think it's rhetorically bad strategy. that's not a dunk. it's just disagreement.
deleted by creator
I disagree with the factual claim - I've seen no data to support it. you've said both that it's how you feel and that it's a factual claim, separately at different times. if this is purely about how you feel, I suggest in the future not trying to lean on the science. if you have studies that show that an extinction level event is plausible or likely, I'd like to read them.
No it's not. It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility, even if there is still hope that we might be able to avert it. And it is absolutely NOT agency-murdering nihilism to not stick one's head in the sand and pretend it can't happen. To me, the possibility (even likelihood) that our limited time is nearing its limit, encourages me to do everything I can to improve people's lives and material conditions here and now and bask in the fleeting time we do have on this globe, both as individuals and as a species.
Look either you're talking about how we're all going to die generally, in which case there's nothing we can due to avert it, or you're saying "we're all going to die of climate change", which implies a Venus level degradation of the biosphere that none of the models seem to pointing toward, or you're inappropriately assigning probabilities of death of unspecified large numbers of people to specific individuals.
All I'll say in response to this is that I know exactly what u/LegaliiizeIt means when they talk about some people here willfully misreading and misrepresenting others with pedantry and debatebro nonsense.
Look if you don't want to mount an intellectual defense for the claim "climate change is going to kill us all", that's absolutely okay you are under no obligation to, but I want everyone to know that's position being offered without any backing.
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future. We have already kicked off a mass extinction event that has only just begun. I "offered backing" for this in other comments in this thread, discussing it with someone who demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation, not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence from me for something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
A gamma ray burst has an actual and real potential to end our species tomorrow. Yet it would be wildly irresponsible for me to tell people that they're going to die in a gamma ray burst.
The implication that it is somehow rude to insist that you back up positions that can actively cause distress in other people is not one that I'm going to accept, so complain about "debate-bros" at your leisure but don't expect me to care.
And yet neither you nor anyone else here can point an actual example of any of them actually saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections. My climatologist friend is getting married in August. I'm going to the wedding. They're planning to have kids.
Ok, here's the first result in a duckduckgo search:
Second result
Third
Happy now? I hope you realize how reddit-tier it is to demand sources like that when you can easily do a search without forcing the person you're talking to to do it for you with the implication that they're full of shit if they don't do your homework. Not to mention the "well my best friend is [expert in field being discussed] so nyeah."
No, try again.
From the study cited in two of those articles.
anything is possible - we can't know the future - but I've read no studies that suggest that literally everyone is going to die. I encourage you to read the whole of the IPCC reports. the summaries leave a lot out and the actual data paints a bleaker picture than what's in the top-level summaries - but I saw nothing that supports the idea that an extinction level event is likely. the clatharate gun would have to go off for that to happen and all indications at present are that the thawing of the permafrost is not resulting in a spike in methane levels because plants are growing in the former permafrost and repurposing the methane.
There's a reason for that. I've read of meta studies that show climate scientists deliberately downplay how bleak the situation really is, mostly because of political pressure but also because they are afraid of mistakenly spreading paranoia.
What any good climate scientist will tell you is that we fundamentally don't know all the feedback loops we have already tripped and know even less about ones that will inevitably be tripped. For example, it's looking likely that Venus was once a lot more Earth-like in terms of what we consider habitable but now for reasons (volcanism?) that aren't entirely clear, it's surface is utterly inhospitable even for extremophiles. We could have already tripped a runaway greenhouse effect without yet recognizing the exact mechanism, but we do know we are changing the climate in ways faster than at any other time outside of mass extinction events. (And we are in the midst of a mass extinction event already, just at the very beginning of it - hence the term anthropocene). Earth has been cold enough in the past, likely several times, that it was completely frozen over, with maybe the exception of a narrow band around the equator. Earth has also been hot enough that animal life has only been able to survive at the poles. Humanity would not survive this. Humanity, despite our spread and obvious adaptability, is also an extremely fragile species for reasons similar to why technology that requires complex supply chains is fragile to sudden shifts.
Human extinction in the next few centuries is not by any means far fetched. That's not to say it's guaranteed, of course, but pretending like it's not in the cards is naive.
yeah, that's my read as well.
the present models do their best to accommodate for these unknowns. they're likely wrong and things might be even worse than predicted - we can only account so well for the things we don't know - but the worst case models for runaway CO2 warming don't lead to the earth becoming Venus. they lead to the Earth becoming something like what it was during the Jurassic. it's methane warming that will actually annihilate humanity and the current data on that front is cautiously optimistic (see my earlier point about plants absorbing the methane trapped in the permafrost).
this contradicts the biological record. human species have adapted to thrive in more environments than literally any other species on earth, excepting the extremophiles. that's not to say that extinction is impossible, only that it's going to take more than displacing the vast majority of people and a collapse of the food chain. if plants are growing, pockets of humanity will find a way to eke out an existence.
I agree with pretty much all of this except for the last bit, which is a lot to get into right now (other species that existed globally going extinct, the surprising youth of our species, genetic bottlenecks pointing to how insanely close we've already come to extinction when climate change wasn't an issue or was so much slower as to hardly be a comparison now, etc.) All that aside, taking everything you said into account, it's still folly not to recognize human extinction in the near future (geologically speaking) as a real possibility and worth considering. Especially given how many unknowns still exist with respect to feedback loops.
But what I was mostly refuting when I first replied to you was the claim that recognizing human extinction as a possibility is "agency-murdering nihilism." And I hope I did that. Again, for me that recognition has gone quite a ways towards making me a better leftist.
I'm not saying that it's impossible for us to go extinct. but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
recognizing the possibility is natural and good - that billions are going to die should give everyone cause for reflection. my point was more about the conviction and certainty of the claim. it's just not in line with the best science available right now. saying "our civilization is likely doomed" is a defensible claim. so is "it's possible we go extinct" is also defensible. saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism. it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
No. If Earth's climate begins to approach Venus levels of bad, humanity will be done and gone long before that. Extremophile bacteria right now wouldn't be able to survive on the surface of Venus where it's hot enough to melt lead. There is no reason to think this isn't also possible for Earth (in fact it's an inevitability, just far enough out that humanity is statistically likely to have gone extinct for other reasons first). I really don't think most people comprehend how narrow the range is for continued habitation of animal life, let alone mammalian, let alone one species of mammals. The whole idea that "even with catastrophic environmental collapse, we intrepid humans will find a way! We'll eke out an existence and pull through!" strikes me as the same kind of thinking that allow Musk fans to talk about colonizing Mars as if there's even a remote chance even within the next couple generations. Imo, the failure to recognize human fragility is a kind of anthropocentrism and unintentional hubris. Yes, we have spread over much of the globe but only during a brief (geologically speaking) time when everything was nearly perfect for us. And even then we came so close to extinction where literally only a few thousand individuals existed on Earth and as a result we have very very little genetic diversity (which tangentially, unrelated to this conversation, is another fun fact to throw in the faces of racist reactionaries). Many other species have spread more effectively and over far more of the globe than we have and the vast majority of them are already exinct.
Again, Earth already has gone through climatic events that humanity, even with all our current and modern technology, could not survive. Humanity wouldn't live through a "snowball earth" which has already happened. Humanity wouldn't live through a permian-triassic equatorial pangaea which has already happened. The latter included a runaway greenhouse effect - something we may have already tripped. It's not even the first time that life is what caused it's own mass extinction. Human extinction level climate change is in the worst-case-scenario realm. But something else you probably already know about, something heard often in climate-aware circles, is how many of the projected "worst case scenarios" of the last few decades have turned out to be what actually came to pass.
Humanity will last longer than the lifespan of anyone here, even the children of anyone here, I think it's safe to say. But it will not and can not last forever. Why is it philosophically acceptable when the fact that an end of humanity will happen is qualified with whatever sufficiently large epoch you personally want to put on it, but it is unacceptable "nihilism" to suggest it could likely happen in the next couple millenia or so?
Why? Does someone given a terminal cancer diagnosis necessarily want to just go out and (CW) intentionally end their lives all the quicker (accelerationism)? Or decide they may as well become self-serving assholes and do their damndest to take everyone else out too (reaction)? I'm sure it's happened but it's obviously not the norm. It's difficult, it's painful, it's terrifying to contemplate when the end is nigh (on a personal level, a civilizational level, or at the level of a species), but it's not nihilistic to accept it. On the other hand, it would be philosophically naive though understandable if a person couldn't accept it.
The only thing that my so-called doomerism has changed as far as my behavior is inspire me all the more to try to do what I can to increase human well-being and the well-being of all sentient life while I still can. And I know I'm not the only one, I'm reminded of Breht O'Shea from Rev Left Radio who has frequently talked about the difficulty he's had in reconciling with the reality of climate change but how much better of a leftist and person it's made him.
Climate "doomerism" is not and does not necessitate nihilism, and it definitely isn't in conflict with being a good leftist.
deleted by creator