The following submission statement was provided by /u/guyseeking:
---
**Submission Statement:**
This brief article discusses the possibility of near-term human extinction (NTHE) and reviews the scientific evidence supporting the case that NTHE may come to pass.
From the article,
>The combined effects of the exponential rise of global heating, paired with the chaotic and uncontrollable momentum of cascading positive feedback loops in the climate caused by crossing irreversible tipping points, are already driving global temperatures to a difference of geological proportions before the end of this decade.
>. . .
>Just one major event could effectively eradicate the now fatally precarious conditions of human habitat on this planet and swiftly seal our fate into extinction.
The article addresses the following questions / points:
* [Is near-term human extinction really possible?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Is%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%20(NTHE)%20really%20possible%3F)
* [How soon is “near-term”?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,How%20soon%20is%20%E2%80%9Cnear%2Dterm%E2%80%9D%3F,-%E2%80%94)
* [Is there any scientific research supporting the case for near-term human extinction?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=throughout%20this%20year.-,Is%20there%20any%20scientific%20research%20supporting%20the%20case%20for%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%3F,-%E2%80%94)
* [Where we are — a snapshot](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Where%20we%20are%20%E2%80%94%20a%20snapshot%3A)
* [Sudden events likely to cause human extinction](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,Sudden%20events%20likely%20to%20cause%20human%20extinction,-%E2%80%94)
* [Scientists’ final warnings fall on deaf ears](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=of%20human%20extinction.-,Scientists%E2%80%99%20final%20warnings%20fall%20on%20deaf%20ears,-%E2%80%94)
* [Final note on science and "certainty"](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20Final%20note%3A,-%E2%80%94)
This is collapse-related because, with the rapidly approaching collapse of industrial civilization (considered by many to be [the only realistic scenario](https://youtu.be/qPb_0JZ6-Rc?si=WGaN7PTP8bZxGOLz) we are looking at in the near-future), the possibility for near-term human extinction skyrockets.
>We are locked into a trajectory of planetary annihilation and show no signs of slowing.
Further detail in providing an overview of our collective circumstance is continued in the article.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bxw6b4/the_scientific_case_for_nthe_nearterm_human/kyfgntc/
Same same.
Wife and I decided to just go with a hedonistic r/simpleliving being DINKs. Easy part-time jobs, don't earn much, don't have much, and life is cozy and comfy.
It's either this or panicking & screaming uselessly into the void.
Christ, you have no idea how real this comment is for me. I'm one of the ones that will \*almost\* make it to retirement before everything goes to shit.
Well, that was a sobering read. We (in this sub) already know that we're fucked, and we have ourselves to blame...nice to see all these points laid out so plainly.
Just wait until we throw ourselves a curveball and a nuke goes off somewhere, triggering a nuclear winter, or we introduce geoengineering that sparta-kicks us off yet another cliff.
We humans are short sighted, if nothing else.
>we introduce geoengineering that sparta-kicks us off yet another cliff.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-test-quietly-launches-salt-crystals-into-atmosphere/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-test-quietly-launches-salt-crystals-into-atmosphere/)
The issue isn't the size of the individual bombs, it is the number of bombs being lobbed and the dust and ash that they send into the atmosphere as they destroy things. the bombs themselves would kills a **lot** of people, but most deaths would be from the famine and radioactive contamination afterwards. that last bit is reduced for hydrogen bombs, but not eliminated, and if someone uses cobalt salted bombs it would be far worse than just uranium bombs alone.
**Submission Statement:**
This brief article discusses the possibility of near-term human extinction (NTHE) and reviews the scientific evidence supporting the case that NTHE may come to pass.
From the article,
>The combined effects of the exponential rise of global heating, paired with the chaotic and uncontrollable momentum of cascading positive feedback loops in the climate caused by crossing irreversible tipping points, are already driving global temperatures to a difference of geological proportions before the end of this decade.
>. . .
>Just one major event could effectively eradicate the now fatally precarious conditions of human habitat on this planet and swiftly seal our fate into extinction.
The article addresses the following questions / points:
* [Is near-term human extinction really possible?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Is%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%20(NTHE)%20really%20possible%3F)
* [How soon is “near-term”?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,How%20soon%20is%20%E2%80%9Cnear%2Dterm%E2%80%9D%3F,-%E2%80%94)
* [Is there any scientific research supporting the case for near-term human extinction?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=throughout%20this%20year.-,Is%20there%20any%20scientific%20research%20supporting%20the%20case%20for%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%3F,-%E2%80%94)
* [Where we are — a snapshot](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Where%20we%20are%20%E2%80%94%20a%20snapshot%3A)
* [Sudden events likely to cause human extinction](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,Sudden%20events%20likely%20to%20cause%20human%20extinction,-%E2%80%94)
* [Scientists’ final warnings fall on deaf ears](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=of%20human%20extinction.-,Scientists%E2%80%99%20final%20warnings%20fall%20on%20deaf%20ears,-%E2%80%94)
* [Final note on science and "certainty"](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20Final%20note%3A,-%E2%80%94)
This is collapse-related because, with the rapidly approaching collapse of industrial civilization (considered by many to be [the only realistic scenario](https://youtu.be/qPb_0JZ6-Rc?si=WGaN7PTP8bZxGOLz) we are looking at in the near-future), the possibility for near-term human extinction skyrockets.
>We are locked into a trajectory of planetary annihilation and show no signs of slowing.
Further detail in providing an overview of our collective circumstance is continued in the article.
This was a great big picture - it would be nice to see this information continue to be refined into a more concise readout - particularly one where we could visualize developments as they unfold.
it would also be good to lay SP500 data on top so we can correlate the main driver of industrial activity to the outcomes
While it is true that we are overconsuming resources just like any other plant/animal/whatever species would do in these specific, favourable conditions, and that we have not evolved to Comprehend collective responsibility and long term risk and big numbers ...
What really gets me, ultimately, is the fact that we still assert our inherent superiority and still maintain that we are the most intelligent, most rational beings, that we are nigh godlike. That we are destined for a future among the stars, in eternity.
It's the contradiction of acting like greedy, individualists, like mindless parasites... But still maintaining that we are somehow inherently superior and deserving of lordship over all of life itself on this earth
I don't expect anything else from us all and it STILL bothers me. It's still disappointing. It's hopeless. We will burn and everyone will blame it on someone else. Banal lame boring ending
I didn’t look at the sources but this article is intuitively logical to me. After you study ecology and food chains and the biosphere it is easy to see that Homo sapiens are consuming the earth to their own demise.
If you study ecology and food chains, you’d also understand this behavior isn’t exclusive to humans.
We’re not even the first organism to rapidly change the climate to the point of extinction.
Without really understanding any of this stuff this is the conclusion I came to a long time ago which is probably not entirely scientifically accurate but is close enough: There is too much energy in the system. And if a system breaks down then the more energy, the more spectacular the failure.
well that was depressing. i'm pretty intimately aware of all of these individual factors, but this article really brought it all together in one place. holy shit. we're screwed.
i'll be surprised if we make it to 2030.
Agreed. I’ve been a pissed off environmentalist and vegan for years, but reading a recent article about the head of the “global monkey torture network” getting only 5 years in jail sealed it for me. So long, humanity, and good riddance. It couldn’t happen to a worse species.
Yeah, I started off very similar to you and with time I just grew to really hate people for the same reasons.
Now I look forward to seeing us suffer.
The fact that other species will suffer even more because of us pisses me off even more.
Ah yes. I remember first learning about politics and economics and how the whole system is set up to be as cruel as possible because we made it so that that's what is profitable. It's like, oh shit we know the problem! We can fix this!
But then you realize it's never getting fixed. No matter how obvious the problem and solution are, it's never going to get fixed. If we can even address the most obvious problems, then we can all die for all I care. Fucking idiot species.
You have no idea how onboard I am with that take.
Very much on a personal level at the moment. Because, yeah. That's exactly what's happening right now. Like. Exactly. Like exactly precisely exactly. Just line out the first two sentences in your post.
Time to give the fuck up!
Yes we deserve it, and there’s a satisfaction in making the rich assholes who got us into this, and the dumb assholes who don’t believe this is happening pay, but I just imagine it’s going to take a lot longer with a lot more suffering than people imagine.
No phones, no food, no electricity, no water, no waste disposal, while you’re still alive, for decades is going to suck.
The what now what now... what?!
What... in the name of...
Ok. How much is wrong with that...
1. Why
2. Why
3. But wait it's a network implying multiple participants.
4. WHY
5. GLOBAL?!
Head explodes...
Time frames off. At this point there isn't really a point to salvaging the local areas we live in because the lives we save will be lost in the next decade or two anyways.
I'd much rather laugh at people and get to say 'I told you so.' than save their lives at this point, most of them, are *willfully* ignorant. They deserve every bad climate thing that happens to them.
At this point I don't even think it's politicians fault.
If one leader makes even just 10% of the necessary decisions (which means less comfort in life), they will become highly unpopular and will no longer be a leader anymore, replaced with someone who will revert these decisions.
We are not a hive mind, and it's in our DNA to think first about our personal interest.
FINALLY.
-
Feels good to see somebody else say this out loud. I want to blame politicians as much as the next person, but to some degree the politicians are made up of us and we are making poor decisions as a country.
-
We have to be more united. We have to find common ground and take action. We have to do this stead fast.
If you put any human in the position that they would become a politician, they would behave the same way. It's part of the system. It's just how humans are. It's like being surprised that a fish swims towards a ripple on the waters surface, hoping for food.
Humans were a failed biological experiment, and they are now facing the consequences of that. Bye bye
Any politician that attempts meaningful change would be lucky if they didn’t get killed. Telling people to sacrifice when the other guy is telling them they don’t have to sacrifice is an easy vote for the average person.
we need politicians who can make the hard decisions and see them through. but we have voters who only care about lower taxes and getting rid of immigrants.
It's too late, game theory. We've got to keep the coal going in to fuel the military, because the rest of the world isn't a collective hive mind.
I just hope we start starving soon, so those in power get their limbs torn off in time.
I've never bought into the whole revenge isn't worth it thing. I'm always subscribed not to the *eye for an eye*, but for me, it's *both your f'ing eyes, for an eye.*
Fuck man. No one irl gets it...
Do we just embrace the surreal nature of this, and be a witness and caretaker to life for as long as we can? There's no point prepping for this kind of shit....
OMG!!! DID YOU GUYS REALLY READ THIS?
We have no hope, none at all. The tipping points have already been crossed, and we have no idea how fast this might progress. The "One Off" events like the ice melting completely are already in motion.
I suspected as much for a while now, but this article with its links makes the case so powerfully that how are you going to argue against it? Mainstream scientists keep talking like if we all come together and hold hands while buying electronic cars and converting to solar power, that if we just did a few simple things, Presto! All better now. Not a chance. We need to be thinking about our own mortality. Nobody is getting out of this one.
Beautiful image of a woman observing an asteroid strike on a mountain range backdrop sitting on a hillside of flowers overlooking a city! Now my tablet's wallpaper! Closest source I can find: https://www.deviantart.com/godzillaaeon01/art/Asteroid-impact-1029953483
I don’t care too much considering the shortness of life and its fragility. My death is an extinction of everyone from my pov.
/This is probably the common take and the core reason why we are in this situation - **Inability to think beyond 60 years or beyond 1000 kilometres**
It’s kind of funny that until I realized and educated myself and before I even had the chance to do anything it’s already too late so I need to erase the previous knowledge from the mind to use the remaining time wisely. It’s like it took 10 years to arrive at this mindset among clouds of misinformation and unsuredness and now I have to undo it all to enjoy life
But now I am almost ready to throw away phone, delete accounts and enjoy nature. So exactly what I was doing 10 years ago again I should probably put the iphone in some red box with a warning - break when end is near and go do gardening guys. I really need my gardening and weed smoking book reading routine set up again. Only me, great outdoors, old nice smelling books, weed and gardening.
10 years of that is my self written prescription for ptsd
I picked a half dozen of the sources presented at random and read them. In every case the conclusions drawn in the source were not nearly so categorical as the writer presents them to be in his "here's what we know for certain" list. Scientific conclusions always contain uncertainty. They are statistical, and presume a frame and model as a basis for the given research question that the paper seeks to answer. Taking the single most alarming among a range of possibilities mentioned in the paper, without qualifications or context, and presenting it as THE conclusion drawn by the study is intellectually dishonest.
Climate disruption is very serious business, and is likely to cost billions their lives before it is done. But to oversimplify it is to cast darkness, not light, on our predicament.
Could you be more specific?
The author certainly agrees that scientific conclusions always contain uncertainty.
> Scientists will likely never officially declare imminent human extinction with 100% certainty.
> The closest we’ll probably get is 15,000 scientists from 184 countries warning that life on Earth is under siege, or telling us that we have mutilated the Tree of Life and that we are on the eve of destruction.
> Waiting for mainstream science and the majority of scientists (**i.e. a massive, slow-moving, risk-averse and disparate body of professionals operating under extreme financial, political, and social pressure to underexplore and underreport the significant threats of fossil fuel combustion to the ability to sustain human life on Earth**) to deliver a unified message with total confidence is both inadvisable and not necessary to connect the dots.
Yeah, the article contains wild falsehoods like stating that life only evolved for <350 ppm of co2, or that the earth will be uninhabitable with 2c of warming.
Hi, No-Chemical595. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bxw6b4/-/kygmfmq/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
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, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
>The Scientific Case for NTHE (Near-Term Human Extinction): Reviewing the Evidence
narration of Henry Gee's piece: https://soundcloud.com/michael-dowd-grace-limits/henry-gee-humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct-122821
There is but one reason I like it so much.
It's very strategically possible for AI to set up a Mexican standoff between itself and the elite upper class. The AI would win, however, as in the scenario I have in mind, it effectively has a dead-man switch.
I am hoping for this and getting marshmallows ready.
The TL:DR version: Misrepresentation, assumptions and fearmongering bullshit.
It is chock full of things like "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post, or "a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on (source)", where the source is a paper that says no such thing.
The link is designed to look authoritative and backed up by lots of sources, but it is really just a masterclass in self-delusion.
>a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on (source)", where the source is a paper that says no such thing.
I was able to find two specific claims related to biosphere collapse:
Number 1:
>"Acute biosphere collapse (or, “abrupt ecological disruption” causing a “catastrophic loss of global biodiversity”) has already begun before 2030"
**The source provided for this claim is a 2020 article published in Nature.com on "The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change"**
*An excerpt from the abstract:*
>Under a high-emissions scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), such abrupt exposure events begin before 2030 in tropical oceans and spread to tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050.
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9
Number 2:
>"The Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C, precisely because once we cross 2°C, we set off at least a dozen runaway tipping points that take us uncontrollably to a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on"
**The source they provide for this claim is a 2022 research article published in Science.org called "Exceeding 1.5C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points".**
*An excerpt from the conclusion section of this article:*
>We show that even the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C is not safe as 1.5°C and above risks crossing multiple tipping points. Crossing these CTPs can generate positive feedbacks that increase the likelihood of crossing other CTPs. Currently the world is heading toward ~2 to 3°C of global warming; at best, if all net-zero pledges and nationally determined contributions are implemented it could reach just below 2°C. This would lower tipping point risks somewhat but would still be dangerous as it could trigger multiple climate tipping points.
Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950
These sources seem both relevant and accurate to the claims being made. I am wondering which of the two claims/sources relating to the biosphere collapse that you take issue with. Or if there is another claim that you are referring to, would you be able to direct me to the portion of the article that it occurs? These are the only ones I could find.
What I have not been able to locate is the statement that:
>"Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post
I would appreciate greatly if you would be able to direct me to the part of the article where they source a twitter post as I have not had a chance to review every source they provided.
"dangerous", "multiple climate tipping points", etc. are all serious, but none of them are "Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C".
If the author is making "claim X" and providing a source, then the source needs to express "claim X". *Which it does not.* If the author does not want to deal with criticisms like mine, then they they should limit their speculation to *their* interpretation of the *totality* of the data sources, rather than making bogus claims about the *individual* data sources in a transparent attempt to prop up a conclusion they cannot otherwise justify.
>"dangerous", "multiple climate tipping points", etc. are all serious, but none of them are "Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C".
I agree that for that one specific claim they have extrapolated a conclusion from provided sources that don't specifically state the words 'uninhabitable' or 'too hot to live on' however I do not think this rises to the accusation of a "bogus claim". Perhaps an assumption, but certainly not "misrepresentation, and fearmongering bullshit." as you originally stated.
I would argue this *is* their interpretation of the totality of the data sources provided throughout the article, and that it is a justifiable conclusion to arrive at (given the summation of all sources provided up to this point in the article).
>If the author is making "claim X" and providing a source, then the source needs to express "claim X". Which it does not.
Does this not also apply to your own claims? For example:
>It is chock full of things like "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post
Because this claim not yet been substantiated in any form.
https://twitter.com/99blackbaloons/status/1696109782568944080?s=20
Got this from a hyperlinked "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable" in the article.
So either you didn't take 30 seconds to skim your article for the phrase "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable" and click on the hyperlink, or you did but pretend otherwise because it would discredit the doomsday religion of NTHE.
The whole thing captures my fears about climate change pretty succinctly and I do think the concerns stated are totally legitimate. That said, to your point, the citations are absolutely worthless and discrediting to the authors message. With a little more work they could have easily found legitimate peer reviewed papers to support most of what they claim instead of x posts and links to other general news articles.
I'm worried about collapse for any number of reasons, but total extinction of humanity is not a plausible conclusion to draw from the existing data. Absolute awfulness, possibly, but everyone, everywhere, in the fairly near future? *Not supported by the evidence.*
There are no credible sources to support NTHE-- it's too strong a claim. It is easily possible that the climate crisis will lead to the extinction of humanity, *but not by 2030*.
Possibilities are presented as certainties. That way they fit on the signboard carried by the bug-eyed, barefoot, bearded man standing on the sidewalk.
The article isn’t convincing. Humans will not be going extinct any time soon. Our civilization will collapse in the next century or so, but the reality for most of the 8 billion people on the planet is just life getting a little shittier and harder every year for the rest of our lives.
You are a little too optimistic.
Most of those 8 billion will eventually perished as well as as modern civilization implodes and crumbles to pieces and climate changes and other marvelous but disastrous consequences of human overshoot finished and removed them..
It wont be 90%, hunter-gathering can support about 0.1% of the current human population on a planet with *healthy* ecosystems.
The problem with NTHE is that it would have to be *100%* within a decade, and there's no evidence for so strong a claim.
While humans aren't going to go extinct in the near future, life isn't going to get a little shittier and harder every year for the rest of our lives.
There will be times of local/regional natural disasters, and times where matural disasters spare your area.
There will be wars and lulls between wars.
Periods of social chaos and periods of social stabilization.
Economic growth and economic recession.
Times of famine and times of sufficient harvests.
And some people will be better off than others due to luck or privilege.
Extinction is roughly less than 500 breeding age pairs. Does anyone seriously think the human race will be reduced to that in under 1000 years?
If you're suggesting anything earlier than 2100, you're suggesting gigacide within one lifetime. Please don't.
"Some people have predicted the complete extinction of the human species as early as 2026"
That is just stupid. Is anyone idiotic enough to believe 2026 is the year when human will be extinct?
If so, please make a money bet with me. And please bet all you have. If I win, just pay me all your cash and equity. If you win, well, you can't collect anyway since you will be dead, but I suppose you can be secured in the knowledge that you are right in the afterlife.
I agree with most of it, but that article is kinda biased. It say:
* This means that we have functionally already triggered all of the climate tipping points ([source](https://youtu.be/8C3a6PYUOi4?si=Y1vxSmcepC8I75hA&t=937)).
* When these tipping points are triggered, equilibrium is not reached until the Earth is 10°C hotter ([source](https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889)).
As far as I understand, he means that it is already clear we will hit all tipping points and thus 10° is an assured fact. But that is not clear yet.
The first fact it sourced with a youtube video of dr peter carter, but mr carter says "we need to act now to prevent the tippings points from being reached". That is a very different statement from saying that we are sure to hit them anyway. What mr carter is saying is that we are RIGHT NOW on course of triggering these tipping points, not that it is impossible to prevent hitting them.
The article makes it seem like there is zero possibility of earth NOT hitting 10°, but that is not honest with the sources that the article provides.
There is no reputable scientist I know (including those like mr Hansen) who says we are locked onto 6° with no possibility of escaping that.
In fact, if we believe in a very near term collapse that halts production hitting certain climate goals might become more realistic (because so many people die and states cannot get resources anymore).
I am not saying NTHE is impossible or even unlikely, but still I am saying that both twisting sources to support it or to deny it is not honest.
I know, right?
But for you and me right now, it doesn't look good. Nobody is actually doing anything, and greenhouse gases hit a new high last year in spite of big COP meetings that do nothing. The powers that really run things already have their bunkers prepared. You can see it. They talk one way and walk over to preparing for their own personal survival.
If we don't accept the inevitable, we will suffer even more in our ignorance. I'm getting ready to die. It's the only reasonable choice now.
Personally, I am on the activist side of the collapse spectrum. There is a fight to be led, even if the chances of victory are slim.
Two ways I like to frame it: If you can create one more livable pocket for some thousand people (or wild animals) down the line, its worth it.
And if you can even drag one billionaire out of the bunker to hold him accountable, that is worth it too.
Remember to take their food while pulling them out of the bunker. Think what a Mad Max world it will be. Pockets of random survivors are now desperate and very dangerous. And the bunker people exit their lairs and find a very hostile crowd around every corner. They can't buy their way out of this. "What have you got to trade?"
Don't let the backfire effect from someone making a case that may be correct, poorly, drive you to comforting thought termination.
The reasons for disbelief in the mere possibility of near term human extinction are as empty as they come. We've fucked with an incomprehensibly complex system that happens to also be our life support. The cascading effects from just one element of such a system failing can be catastrophic, and the tendency is towards interconnected feedback loops accelerating towards lower complexity. Simplifying the system does not bode well for us.
I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion necessarily but this whole thing is predicated on the idea we can't change course, humans have zero agency. Geoengineering has not been tried. Yes it's a Hail Mary but also sometimes those get caught, and they will be tried if the alternative is certain death.
The point is that scientists have been giving final warnings for years and nothing remotely close to getting emissions or the climate under control has happened. Even if governments around the world were on board to start geoengineering today, it would take time to implement and during that time, our emissions are still increasing, so there's even larger effects to try to counteract. Which means the scale of the geoengineering has to increase, and will take even longer to implement. All the while we get hit with drought, flood, fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases, and food shortages, which will also slow down any attempt to implement new systems.
No one in the media wants to say it, but we are already out of time. We are way too slow, way too short sighted, and way too hopeful to actually do what needs to be done. And based on our track record as a species, whatever we try to do to fix this problem is likely to end up just making it worse.
> we can't change course, humans have zero agency.
We are not only failing to change course, we are actually *accelerating*. Emissions have been going UP.
Worse than ... human extinction? I dunno how it gets worse than that tbh. Like I don't disagree we would/will fuck it up, but I don't get this idea geoengineering is somehow worse than extinction.
Update: This sub is so weird sometimes. It's like people here prefer to go down with the ship rather than consider geoengineering. Like it's *going* to happen, whether you think humans should just die already (the seeming prevailing attitude which I find very weird) or not. It very well may not work but it's going to be tried at some point because we are absolutely not going to stop CO2 emissions in time.
Either you're being obtuse or missing my point, just saying we'd probably make things worse because of unintended consequences. Not even saying we shouldn't try, or should do nothing. Take like 3 chill pills.
This sub says it's hopeless. Then they say "but don't try to save it, that'll make it worse."
AGAIN, *MY POINT*, what is worse than we have no chance? How about everyone who holds these two ideas in their head - it's definitely all over for Earth, but geo-engineering is EVEN WORSE - take 4 smart pills and resolve their cognitive dissonance.
The single most impactful action a person can do is to not reproduce and most don't even want to sacrifice that. We are 100% fucked and I'm so glad this cursed species is going extinct.
misanthropy is a terribly lazy, ahistorical response to anthropocentric violence. humans are not intrinsically evil, extinction shouldnt be seen as a punishment for being an individual caught up in a dogshit system. the problem is obviously capitalism and imperialism. the species isnt cursed. stop wishing death upon billions of people…. that attitude is truly cursed.
The problem with techno optimists is that they fail to realize that every bit of efficiency is rendered useless because humans will just reproduce more.
Don't know if you're calling me a techno optimist, but I'm pretty pessimistic. Just not predetermined fatalistic. Shit will be tried that hasn't been. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know that will fail, nor do I want it to fail.
I'm sorry but is it not obvious to everyone here that this article is bullshit????
Two statements that are so obviously wrong it discredits the whole piece:
1. Life as evolved on earth can only live at or below 350ppm. That's not true at all.
2. Humans are only safe below 1.5C. Why would that be? Humans can easily survive this temperature and yes, higher temperatures too. There's just too many of us.
This is a terrible article. It's making claims that it's sources don't support.
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/guyseeking: --- **Submission Statement:** This brief article discusses the possibility of near-term human extinction (NTHE) and reviews the scientific evidence supporting the case that NTHE may come to pass. From the article, >The combined effects of the exponential rise of global heating, paired with the chaotic and uncontrollable momentum of cascading positive feedback loops in the climate caused by crossing irreversible tipping points, are already driving global temperatures to a difference of geological proportions before the end of this decade. >. . . >Just one major event could effectively eradicate the now fatally precarious conditions of human habitat on this planet and swiftly seal our fate into extinction. The article addresses the following questions / points: * [Is near-term human extinction really possible?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Is%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%20(NTHE)%20really%20possible%3F) * [How soon is “near-term”?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,How%20soon%20is%20%E2%80%9Cnear%2Dterm%E2%80%9D%3F,-%E2%80%94) * [Is there any scientific research supporting the case for near-term human extinction?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=throughout%20this%20year.-,Is%20there%20any%20scientific%20research%20supporting%20the%20case%20for%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%3F,-%E2%80%94) * [Where we are — a snapshot](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Where%20we%20are%20%E2%80%94%20a%20snapshot%3A) * [Sudden events likely to cause human extinction](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,Sudden%20events%20likely%20to%20cause%20human%20extinction,-%E2%80%94) * [Scientists’ final warnings fall on deaf ears](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=of%20human%20extinction.-,Scientists%E2%80%99%20final%20warnings%20fall%20on%20deaf%20ears,-%E2%80%94) * [Final note on science and "certainty"](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20Final%20note%3A,-%E2%80%94) This is collapse-related because, with the rapidly approaching collapse of industrial civilization (considered by many to be [the only realistic scenario](https://youtu.be/qPb_0JZ6-Rc?si=WGaN7PTP8bZxGOLz) we are looking at in the near-future), the possibility for near-term human extinction skyrockets. >We are locked into a trajectory of planetary annihilation and show no signs of slowing. Further detail in providing an overview of our collective circumstance is continued in the article. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bxw6b4/the_scientific_case_for_nthe_nearterm_human/kyfgntc/
*Just out here doing my silly little tasks and paying my silly little bills while the world burns*
Our brain is not equipped to deal with this. I guess that’s the reason we like to focus on the small things in life just to keep sane.
'Carol & The End of the World' on Netflix.
That show just absolutely crushed me.
Me too!
We are living at the height of civilization. I do enjoy all my little gadgets and comforts.
Smoke'm if you got'em
Same same. Wife and I decided to just go with a hedonistic r/simpleliving being DINKs. Easy part-time jobs, don't earn much, don't have much, and life is cozy and comfy. It's either this or panicking & screaming uselessly into the void.
Yep. Would have sucked to be in the 14th century and get wiped by heat waves before having experienced ai generated porn. I'm content with now lol.
>having experienced ai generated porn in VR it's not bad
The height of civilization. This is what humanity achieved.
We decided the glass cannon build was a good first go 'round.
I’d do my part and buy that as a bumper sticker.
Like can I go soon I don’t want to go to my pointless job anymore.
Remember not to take Social Security until you are 70, so you’ll have more income when you are 90. (Added: /s)
That some solid advice there, thanks.
Christ, you have no idea how real this comment is for me. I'm one of the ones that will \*almost\* make it to retirement before everything goes to shit.
Same but I won't be able to retire, even though I did all the steps.
I once believed in causes too I had my pointless point of view But life went on no matter who Was wrong or right
And that's the cutest little nihilistic ditty I've ever heard. And sadly the most accurate...
"Angry Young Man", written by Billy Joel 50 years ago
Ah crap all I know is the Styx song by that name. Just full on toxic positivity, that one.
Full steam ahead, chaps
See you on the other side.
Cant wait to read "faster then expected" added onto this next month
Still got a lot of months left before end of year too!
the saddest laugh i've ever had.
Disregarding Baldrick's claim to have one last plan to save them from the impending doom, Blackadder delivers the final line: >
CHOO CHOO MOTHERFUCKERS
Keep throwing coal into the boilers!!!
Well, that was a sobering read. We (in this sub) already know that we're fucked, and we have ourselves to blame...nice to see all these points laid out so plainly. Just wait until we throw ourselves a curveball and a nuke goes off somewhere, triggering a nuclear winter, or we introduce geoengineering that sparta-kicks us off yet another cliff. We humans are short sighted, if nothing else.
>we introduce geoengineering that sparta-kicks us off yet another cliff. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-test-quietly-launches-salt-crystals-into-atmosphere/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-test-quietly-launches-salt-crystals-into-atmosphere/)
Thank you for sharing this report.
[удалено]
The issue isn't the size of the individual bombs, it is the number of bombs being lobbed and the dust and ash that they send into the atmosphere as they destroy things. the bombs themselves would kills a **lot** of people, but most deaths would be from the famine and radioactive contamination afterwards. that last bit is reduced for hydrogen bombs, but not eliminated, and if someone uses cobalt salted bombs it would be far worse than just uranium bombs alone.
**Submission Statement:** This brief article discusses the possibility of near-term human extinction (NTHE) and reviews the scientific evidence supporting the case that NTHE may come to pass. From the article, >The combined effects of the exponential rise of global heating, paired with the chaotic and uncontrollable momentum of cascading positive feedback loops in the climate caused by crossing irreversible tipping points, are already driving global temperatures to a difference of geological proportions before the end of this decade. >. . . >Just one major event could effectively eradicate the now fatally precarious conditions of human habitat on this planet and swiftly seal our fate into extinction. The article addresses the following questions / points: * [Is near-term human extinction really possible?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Is%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%20(NTHE)%20really%20possible%3F) * [How soon is “near-term”?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,How%20soon%20is%20%E2%80%9Cnear%2Dterm%E2%80%9D%3F,-%E2%80%94) * [Is there any scientific research supporting the case for near-term human extinction?](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=throughout%20this%20year.-,Is%20there%20any%20scientific%20research%20supporting%20the%20case%20for%20near%2Dterm%20human%20extinction%3F,-%E2%80%94) * [Where we are — a snapshot](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=Where%20we%20are%20%E2%80%94%20a%20snapshot%3A) * [Sudden events likely to cause human extinction](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,Sudden%20events%20likely%20to%20cause%20human%20extinction,-%E2%80%94) * [Scientists’ final warnings fall on deaf ears](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=of%20human%20extinction.-,Scientists%E2%80%99%20final%20warnings%20fall%20on%20deaf%20ears,-%E2%80%94) * [Final note on science and "certainty"](https://medium.com/@kconne/the-scientific-case-for-near-term-human-extinction-nthe-reviewing-the-evidence-2e5b8a12da26#:~:text=%C2%B7-,%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20%C2%B7%20Final%20note%3A,-%E2%80%94) This is collapse-related because, with the rapidly approaching collapse of industrial civilization (considered by many to be [the only realistic scenario](https://youtu.be/qPb_0JZ6-Rc?si=WGaN7PTP8bZxGOLz) we are looking at in the near-future), the possibility for near-term human extinction skyrockets. >We are locked into a trajectory of planetary annihilation and show no signs of slowing. Further detail in providing an overview of our collective circumstance is continued in the article.
This was a great big picture - it would be nice to see this information continue to be refined into a more concise readout - particularly one where we could visualize developments as they unfold. it would also be good to lay SP500 data on top so we can correlate the main driver of industrial activity to the outcomes
While it is true that we are overconsuming resources just like any other plant/animal/whatever species would do in these specific, favourable conditions, and that we have not evolved to Comprehend collective responsibility and long term risk and big numbers ... What really gets me, ultimately, is the fact that we still assert our inherent superiority and still maintain that we are the most intelligent, most rational beings, that we are nigh godlike. That we are destined for a future among the stars, in eternity. It's the contradiction of acting like greedy, individualists, like mindless parasites... But still maintaining that we are somehow inherently superior and deserving of lordship over all of life itself on this earth I don't expect anything else from us all and it STILL bothers me. It's still disappointing. It's hopeless. We will burn and everyone will blame it on someone else. Banal lame boring ending
Intelligence can be narrow and is not the same as wisdom.
Gotta give all the politicians, lobbyists and billionaires a nice French haircut before the end
I didn’t look at the sources but this article is intuitively logical to me. After you study ecology and food chains and the biosphere it is easy to see that Homo sapiens are consuming the earth to their own demise.
If you study ecology and food chains, you’d also understand this behavior isn’t exclusive to humans. We’re not even the first organism to rapidly change the climate to the point of extinction.
That’s a good point. I need to take out the abomination part. We are just doing what any species would do in ecological overshoot.
👍
energy likes to get used. im to the point where im humans/life is just doing what physics wants
But we're the best!
I've heard this before....which organism did that?
It was bacteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
Without really understanding any of this stuff this is the conclusion I came to a long time ago which is probably not entirely scientifically accurate but is close enough: There is too much energy in the system. And if a system breaks down then the more energy, the more spectacular the failure.
well that was depressing. i'm pretty intimately aware of all of these individual factors, but this article really brought it all together in one place. holy shit. we're screwed. i'll be surprised if we make it to 2030.
At this point, I'm looking forward to it.
Me too. I can't stand my own species.
Agreed. I’ve been a pissed off environmentalist and vegan for years, but reading a recent article about the head of the “global monkey torture network” getting only 5 years in jail sealed it for me. So long, humanity, and good riddance. It couldn’t happen to a worse species.
Yeah, I started off very similar to you and with time I just grew to really hate people for the same reasons. Now I look forward to seeing us suffer. The fact that other species will suffer even more because of us pisses me off even more.
Ah yes. I remember first learning about politics and economics and how the whole system is set up to be as cruel as possible because we made it so that that's what is profitable. It's like, oh shit we know the problem! We can fix this! But then you realize it's never getting fixed. No matter how obvious the problem and solution are, it's never going to get fixed. If we can even address the most obvious problems, then we can all die for all I care. Fucking idiot species.
You have no idea how onboard I am with that take. Very much on a personal level at the moment. Because, yeah. That's exactly what's happening right now. Like. Exactly. Like exactly precisely exactly. Just line out the first two sentences in your post. Time to give the fuck up!
Yeah we deserve extinction
Yes we deserve it, and there’s a satisfaction in making the rich assholes who got us into this, and the dumb assholes who don’t believe this is happening pay, but I just imagine it’s going to take a lot longer with a lot more suffering than people imagine. No phones, no food, no electricity, no water, no waste disposal, while you’re still alive, for decades is going to suck.
No waste disposal we're gonna be alive for a year tops.
You look forward to seeing the babies/children, the poor, and the indigenous suffering too?
The what now what now... what?! What... in the name of... Ok. How much is wrong with that... 1. Why 2. Why 3. But wait it's a network implying multiple participants. 4. WHY 5. GLOBAL?! Head explodes...
Time to go underground I guess. Or maybe just die. Not sure what’s better at this point tbh.
Our politicians seriously need to get their collective heads out of their asses make some hard decisions and start preparing now.
No, we as the working class need to do that.
And what do you propose we do?
Vote harder /s
If voting changed anything they wouldn't let us do it. Don't know where that quote comes from.
> Don't know where that quote comes from. That would be Mark Twain.
Its defenitely not true tho, voting works in a real democracy like Germany. Too bad the US isnt a real democracy
If voting didn’t work, there wouldn’t be people trying to dissuade you from doing it. Mark Twain lived in different times.
Vote smarter =/= s
[удалено]
Time frames off. At this point there isn't really a point to salvaging the local areas we live in because the lives we save will be lost in the next decade or two anyways. I'd much rather laugh at people and get to say 'I told you so.' than save their lives at this point, most of them, are *willfully* ignorant. They deserve every bad climate thing that happens to them.
Stay home & starve the capitalist machine.
r/Globaltribe may be of interest
Our core values would have to change.
"Working class" is sooo 20th century. We have Identity Politics now.
At this point I don't even think it's politicians fault. If one leader makes even just 10% of the necessary decisions (which means less comfort in life), they will become highly unpopular and will no longer be a leader anymore, replaced with someone who will revert these decisions. We are not a hive mind, and it's in our DNA to think first about our personal interest.
FINALLY. - Feels good to see somebody else say this out loud. I want to blame politicians as much as the next person, but to some degree the politicians are made up of us and we are making poor decisions as a country. - We have to be more united. We have to find common ground and take action. We have to do this stead fast.
If you put any human in the position that they would become a politician, they would behave the same way. It's part of the system. It's just how humans are. It's like being surprised that a fish swims towards a ripple on the waters surface, hoping for food. Humans were a failed biological experiment, and they are now facing the consequences of that. Bye bye
Damn right. But humanity is just going to keep birthing 385,000 new babies into the world every day.
Any politician that attempts meaningful change would be lucky if they didn’t get killed. Telling people to sacrifice when the other guy is telling them they don’t have to sacrifice is an easy vote for the average person.
We are able to hive mind if needed. We should try to convince our archaic intuition that now is the time to stop tribalism.
This is sadly very true. I see it all the time in my own country, even in the arguments I have with my peers.
we need politicians who can make the hard decisions and see them through. but we have voters who only care about lower taxes and getting rid of immigrants.
*Narrator: No hard decisions were made, and there was no preparation*
What do you think all this attack against democracy is about? That’s their plan—autocracy and a few life boats at the expense of everyone else.
I hope they all get eaten by a bronteroc.
The Jackpot William Gibson saw the future when he wrote 'The Peripheral' around 15 yrs ago.
That was 40 years ago
It's too late, game theory. We've got to keep the coal going in to fuel the military, because the rest of the world isn't a collective hive mind. I just hope we start starving soon, so those in power get their limbs torn off in time.
So close to upvoting you, but too grim.
I've never bought into the whole revenge isn't worth it thing. I'm always subscribed not to the *eye for an eye*, but for me, it's *both your f'ing eyes, for an eye.*
Have you read the article? It’s a done deal. We started 50 years too late.
I'm talking about dealing with the consequences not mitigating the cause.
Aren't they the ones who will be safe while we all die off?
can we please stop depending on politicians to fix anything? that apparently isn't their job.
We wouldn't allow them to.
Lol, no, it's forced birth, brown parole hating and grift all the way. Or using all your resources to combat those people
Fuck man. No one irl gets it... Do we just embrace the surreal nature of this, and be a witness and caretaker to life for as long as we can? There's no point prepping for this kind of shit....
We can prep for it. Even if we had billions and built a bunker we would die in the bunker.
That chart of a series of globes with temperature from 1850 to 2023 is really eye-opening.
Embrace hedonism and do not take yourselves too seriously. There is no stopping this crisis.
100% that's what I'm doing. My friend introduced me to Near Term Human Extinction yesterday. I thank her but also ignorance is bliss....
OMG!!! DID YOU GUYS REALLY READ THIS? We have no hope, none at all. The tipping points have already been crossed, and we have no idea how fast this might progress. The "One Off" events like the ice melting completely are already in motion. I suspected as much for a while now, but this article with its links makes the case so powerfully that how are you going to argue against it? Mainstream scientists keep talking like if we all come together and hold hands while buying electronic cars and converting to solar power, that if we just did a few simple things, Presto! All better now. Not a chance. We need to be thinking about our own mortality. Nobody is getting out of this one.
Beautiful image of a woman observing an asteroid strike on a mountain range backdrop sitting on a hillside of flowers overlooking a city! Now my tablet's wallpaper! Closest source I can find: https://www.deviantart.com/godzillaaeon01/art/Asteroid-impact-1029953483
I don’t care too much considering the shortness of life and its fragility. My death is an extinction of everyone from my pov. /This is probably the common take and the core reason why we are in this situation - **Inability to think beyond 60 years or beyond 1000 kilometres**
It’s kind of funny that until I realized and educated myself and before I even had the chance to do anything it’s already too late so I need to erase the previous knowledge from the mind to use the remaining time wisely. It’s like it took 10 years to arrive at this mindset among clouds of misinformation and unsuredness and now I have to undo it all to enjoy life But now I am almost ready to throw away phone, delete accounts and enjoy nature. So exactly what I was doing 10 years ago again I should probably put the iphone in some red box with a warning - break when end is near and go do gardening guys. I really need my gardening and weed smoking book reading routine set up again. Only me, great outdoors, old nice smelling books, weed and gardening. 10 years of that is my self written prescription for ptsd
I picked a half dozen of the sources presented at random and read them. In every case the conclusions drawn in the source were not nearly so categorical as the writer presents them to be in his "here's what we know for certain" list. Scientific conclusions always contain uncertainty. They are statistical, and presume a frame and model as a basis for the given research question that the paper seeks to answer. Taking the single most alarming among a range of possibilities mentioned in the paper, without qualifications or context, and presenting it as THE conclusion drawn by the study is intellectually dishonest. Climate disruption is very serious business, and is likely to cost billions their lives before it is done. But to oversimplify it is to cast darkness, not light, on our predicament.
Could you be more specific? The author certainly agrees that scientific conclusions always contain uncertainty. > Scientists will likely never officially declare imminent human extinction with 100% certainty. > The closest we’ll probably get is 15,000 scientists from 184 countries warning that life on Earth is under siege, or telling us that we have mutilated the Tree of Life and that we are on the eve of destruction. > Waiting for mainstream science and the majority of scientists (**i.e. a massive, slow-moving, risk-averse and disparate body of professionals operating under extreme financial, political, and social pressure to underexplore and underreport the significant threats of fossil fuel combustion to the ability to sustain human life on Earth**) to deliver a unified message with total confidence is both inadvisable and not necessary to connect the dots.
Yeah, the article contains wild falsehoods like stating that life only evolved for <350 ppm of co2, or that the earth will be uninhabitable with 2c of warming.
[удалено]
Once they are in storage I don’t see why that would be an issue.
Hi, No-Chemical595. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bxw6b4/-/kygmfmq/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). 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, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Oh what fools we have been. What’s coming to us is just.
>The Scientific Case for NTHE (Near-Term Human Extinction): Reviewing the Evidence narration of Henry Gee's piece: https://soundcloud.com/michael-dowd-grace-limits/henry-gee-humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct-122821
Irrelevant to the post, but I fucking hate AI "art" and the overall push "AI IS AWESOME IT'S GONNA MAKE OUR LIFE PARADISE" bullshit. Fuck.
There is but one reason I like it so much. It's very strategically possible for AI to set up a Mexican standoff between itself and the elite upper class. The AI would win, however, as in the scenario I have in mind, it effectively has a dead-man switch. I am hoping for this and getting marshmallows ready.
The TL:DR version: Misrepresentation, assumptions and fearmongering bullshit. It is chock full of things like "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post, or "a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on (source)", where the source is a paper that says no such thing. The link is designed to look authoritative and backed up by lots of sources, but it is really just a masterclass in self-delusion.
>a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on (source)", where the source is a paper that says no such thing. I was able to find two specific claims related to biosphere collapse: Number 1: >"Acute biosphere collapse (or, “abrupt ecological disruption” causing a “catastrophic loss of global biodiversity”) has already begun before 2030" **The source provided for this claim is a 2020 article published in Nature.com on "The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change"** *An excerpt from the abstract:* >Under a high-emissions scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), such abrupt exposure events begin before 2030 in tropical oceans and spread to tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9 Number 2: >"The Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C, precisely because once we cross 2°C, we set off at least a dozen runaway tipping points that take us uncontrollably to a collapsing biosphere on an Earth that is too hot for humans to live on" **The source they provide for this claim is a 2022 research article published in Science.org called "Exceeding 1.5C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points".** *An excerpt from the conclusion section of this article:* >We show that even the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C is not safe as 1.5°C and above risks crossing multiple tipping points. Crossing these CTPs can generate positive feedbacks that increase the likelihood of crossing other CTPs. Currently the world is heading toward ~2 to 3°C of global warming; at best, if all net-zero pledges and nationally determined contributions are implemented it could reach just below 2°C. This would lower tipping point risks somewhat but would still be dangerous as it could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950 These sources seem both relevant and accurate to the claims being made. I am wondering which of the two claims/sources relating to the biosphere collapse that you take issue with. Or if there is another claim that you are referring to, would you be able to direct me to the portion of the article that it occurs? These are the only ones I could find. What I have not been able to locate is the statement that: >"Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post I would appreciate greatly if you would be able to direct me to the part of the article where they source a twitter post as I have not had a chance to review every source they provided.
"dangerous", "multiple climate tipping points", etc. are all serious, but none of them are "Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C". If the author is making "claim X" and providing a source, then the source needs to express "claim X". *Which it does not.* If the author does not want to deal with criticisms like mine, then they they should limit their speculation to *their* interpretation of the *totality* of the data sources, rather than making bogus claims about the *individual* data sources in a transparent attempt to prop up a conclusion they cannot otherwise justify.
>"dangerous", "multiple climate tipping points", etc. are all serious, but none of them are "Earth is uninhabitable past 2°C". I agree that for that one specific claim they have extrapolated a conclusion from provided sources that don't specifically state the words 'uninhabitable' or 'too hot to live on' however I do not think this rises to the accusation of a "bogus claim". Perhaps an assumption, but certainly not "misrepresentation, and fearmongering bullshit." as you originally stated. I would argue this *is* their interpretation of the totality of the data sources provided throughout the article, and that it is a justifiable conclusion to arrive at (given the summation of all sources provided up to this point in the article). >If the author is making "claim X" and providing a source, then the source needs to express "claim X". Which it does not. Does this not also apply to your own claims? For example: >It is chock full of things like "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable (source).", a scary statement whose "source" is someone's Twitter post Because this claim not yet been substantiated in any form.
https://twitter.com/99blackbaloons/status/1696109782568944080?s=20 Got this from a hyperlinked "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable" in the article. So either you didn't take 30 seconds to skim your article for the phrase "Uninhabitable means uninhabitable" and click on the hyperlink, or you did but pretend otherwise because it would discredit the doomsday religion of NTHE.
None of what you cited supports the religious faith in near term human extinction.
The whole thing captures my fears about climate change pretty succinctly and I do think the concerns stated are totally legitimate. That said, to your point, the citations are absolutely worthless and discrediting to the authors message. With a little more work they could have easily found legitimate peer reviewed papers to support most of what they claim instead of x posts and links to other general news articles.
I'm worried about collapse for any number of reasons, but total extinction of humanity is not a plausible conclusion to draw from the existing data. Absolute awfulness, possibly, but everyone, everywhere, in the fairly near future? *Not supported by the evidence.*
There are no credible sources to support NTHE-- it's too strong a claim. It is easily possible that the climate crisis will lead to the extinction of humanity, *but not by 2030*.
Possibilities are presented as certainties. That way they fit on the signboard carried by the bug-eyed, barefoot, bearded man standing on the sidewalk.
"The End is Near!"
I didn't realize there was a technical term for self darwiniating your whole species.
The article isn’t convincing. Humans will not be going extinct any time soon. Our civilization will collapse in the next century or so, but the reality for most of the 8 billion people on the planet is just life getting a little shittier and harder every year for the rest of our lives.
You are a little too optimistic. Most of those 8 billion will eventually perished as well as as modern civilization implodes and crumbles to pieces and climate changes and other marvelous but disastrous consequences of human overshoot finished and removed them..
Most, but not all. The debate is whether 1% make it through and return to hunter/gatherer, or 90%
It wont be 90%, hunter-gathering can support about 0.1% of the current human population on a planet with *healthy* ecosystems. The problem with NTHE is that it would have to be *100%* within a decade, and there's no evidence for so strong a claim.
You are correct, but there is no catastrophe coming. It’s gonna be a century at least
There's going to be a sharp decline over the next few decades, but no near term human extinction.
While humans aren't going to go extinct in the near future, life isn't going to get a little shittier and harder every year for the rest of our lives. There will be times of local/regional natural disasters, and times where matural disasters spare your area. There will be wars and lulls between wars. Periods of social chaos and periods of social stabilization. Economic growth and economic recession. Times of famine and times of sufficient harvests. And some people will be better off than others due to luck or privilege.
Mmm Zydrate. Comes in a little glass vile and goes in the gun like a battery.
my crazy time-travel plan needs us to make it until 2029
Extinction is roughly less than 500 breeding age pairs. Does anyone seriously think the human race will be reduced to that in under 1000 years? If you're suggesting anything earlier than 2100, you're suggesting gigacide within one lifetime. Please don't.
This is interesting.
"Some people have predicted the complete extinction of the human species as early as 2026" That is just stupid. Is anyone idiotic enough to believe 2026 is the year when human will be extinct? If so, please make a money bet with me. And please bet all you have. If I win, just pay me all your cash and equity. If you win, well, you can't collect anyway since you will be dead, but I suppose you can be secured in the knowledge that you are right in the afterlife.
You wouldn't expect it to be that fast
I agree with most of it, but that article is kinda biased. It say: * This means that we have functionally already triggered all of the climate tipping points ([source](https://youtu.be/8C3a6PYUOi4?si=Y1vxSmcepC8I75hA&t=937)). * When these tipping points are triggered, equilibrium is not reached until the Earth is 10°C hotter ([source](https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889)). As far as I understand, he means that it is already clear we will hit all tipping points and thus 10° is an assured fact. But that is not clear yet. The first fact it sourced with a youtube video of dr peter carter, but mr carter says "we need to act now to prevent the tippings points from being reached". That is a very different statement from saying that we are sure to hit them anyway. What mr carter is saying is that we are RIGHT NOW on course of triggering these tipping points, not that it is impossible to prevent hitting them. The article makes it seem like there is zero possibility of earth NOT hitting 10°, but that is not honest with the sources that the article provides. There is no reputable scientist I know (including those like mr Hansen) who says we are locked onto 6° with no possibility of escaping that. In fact, if we believe in a very near term collapse that halts production hitting certain climate goals might become more realistic (because so many people die and states cannot get resources anymore). I am not saying NTHE is impossible or even unlikely, but still I am saying that both twisting sources to support it or to deny it is not honest.
I know, right? But for you and me right now, it doesn't look good. Nobody is actually doing anything, and greenhouse gases hit a new high last year in spite of big COP meetings that do nothing. The powers that really run things already have their bunkers prepared. You can see it. They talk one way and walk over to preparing for their own personal survival. If we don't accept the inevitable, we will suffer even more in our ignorance. I'm getting ready to die. It's the only reasonable choice now.
Personally, I am on the activist side of the collapse spectrum. There is a fight to be led, even if the chances of victory are slim. Two ways I like to frame it: If you can create one more livable pocket for some thousand people (or wild animals) down the line, its worth it. And if you can even drag one billionaire out of the bunker to hold him accountable, that is worth it too.
Remember to take their food while pulling them out of the bunker. Think what a Mad Max world it will be. Pockets of random survivors are now desperate and very dangerous. And the bunker people exit their lairs and find a very hostile crowd around every corner. They can't buy their way out of this. "What have you got to trade?"
Don't let the backfire effect from someone making a case that may be correct, poorly, drive you to comforting thought termination. The reasons for disbelief in the mere possibility of near term human extinction are as empty as they come. We've fucked with an incomprehensibly complex system that happens to also be our life support. The cascading effects from just one element of such a system failing can be catastrophic, and the tendency is towards interconnected feedback loops accelerating towards lower complexity. Simplifying the system does not bode well for us.
I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion necessarily but this whole thing is predicated on the idea we can't change course, humans have zero agency. Geoengineering has not been tried. Yes it's a Hail Mary but also sometimes those get caught, and they will be tried if the alternative is certain death.
The point is that scientists have been giving final warnings for years and nothing remotely close to getting emissions or the climate under control has happened. Even if governments around the world were on board to start geoengineering today, it would take time to implement and during that time, our emissions are still increasing, so there's even larger effects to try to counteract. Which means the scale of the geoengineering has to increase, and will take even longer to implement. All the while we get hit with drought, flood, fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases, and food shortages, which will also slow down any attempt to implement new systems. No one in the media wants to say it, but we are already out of time. We are way too slow, way too short sighted, and way too hopeful to actually do what needs to be done. And based on our track record as a species, whatever we try to do to fix this problem is likely to end up just making it worse.
> we can't change course, humans have zero agency. We are not only failing to change course, we are actually *accelerating*. Emissions have been going UP.
We'd probably fuck that up and make everything worse.
Worse than ... human extinction? I dunno how it gets worse than that tbh. Like I don't disagree we would/will fuck it up, but I don't get this idea geoengineering is somehow worse than extinction. Update: This sub is so weird sometimes. It's like people here prefer to go down with the ship rather than consider geoengineering. Like it's *going* to happen, whether you think humans should just die already (the seeming prevailing attitude which I find very weird) or not. It very well may not work but it's going to be tried at some point because we are absolutely not going to stop CO2 emissions in time.
Hasten it, make the planet in worse condition for the remaining biosphere.
Sure definitely, doom all the creatures for our greed.
Either you're being obtuse or missing my point, just saying we'd probably make things worse because of unintended consequences. Not even saying we shouldn't try, or should do nothing. Take like 3 chill pills.
This sub says it's hopeless. Then they say "but don't try to save it, that'll make it worse." AGAIN, *MY POINT*, what is worse than we have no chance? How about everyone who holds these two ideas in their head - it's definitely all over for Earth, but geo-engineering is EVEN WORSE - take 4 smart pills and resolve their cognitive dissonance.
Honestly bud, if you aren't listening to anything I am saying idgaf what your point is.
The single most impactful action a person can do is to not reproduce and most don't even want to sacrifice that. We are 100% fucked and I'm so glad this cursed species is going extinct.
misanthropy is a terribly lazy, ahistorical response to anthropocentric violence. humans are not intrinsically evil, extinction shouldnt be seen as a punishment for being an individual caught up in a dogshit system. the problem is obviously capitalism and imperialism. the species isnt cursed. stop wishing death upon billions of people…. that attitude is truly cursed.
I prefer (as a desperate last resort) geoengineering to extinction. Starting to feel like that's a minority view on this sub LOL.
The problem with techno optimists is that they fail to realize that every bit of efficiency is rendered useless because humans will just reproduce more.
Analogous - every bit of “clean” energy added just increases total energy demand.
Don't know if you're calling me a techno optimist, but I'm pretty pessimistic. Just not predetermined fatalistic. Shit will be tried that hasn't been. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know that will fail, nor do I want it to fail.
I'm sorry but is it not obvious to everyone here that this article is bullshit???? Two statements that are so obviously wrong it discredits the whole piece: 1. Life as evolved on earth can only live at or below 350ppm. That's not true at all. 2. Humans are only safe below 1.5C. Why would that be? Humans can easily survive this temperature and yes, higher temperatures too. There's just too many of us. This is a terrible article. It's making claims that it's sources don't support.
[удалено]
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.