Well, shit is definitely getting progessively worse. However, are we really at the point where the best narrative has shifted from “climate catastrophe in 30 years or so” to “the end of human civilisation in less than 100 years”?
One is trying to scientifically predict how massive climate systems beyond our current understanding may behave, while the other is just promoting doom hyperbole for clicks. You don’t have to look at the URL to realise it’s a massive multimedia organisation looking for clicks.
You’re going to have hundreds of millions of migrants coming into our countries because they literally have no other place to exist. Of course that will lead to wars, oppression, and genocide. Will the collapse be so bad that there is no human civilization left? I can’t imagine that. But will the civilization look anything like what we’d hope or find acceptable today? Hard to imagine that, either.
That being said, scientists have been hyperbolic for decades because no one gives a fuck unless you use terms like the end of civilization / life as we know it. They only have so many tools to get people to pay attention and from what I can tell none of them have worked, other than I feel there’s an uptick in people choosing not to have kids because the future looks so bleak.
Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they’ve been very cautious abut their statements.
I still remember reading headlines about “likelihood of global warming” then “probably caused by human activities” because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng “most probably”.
But in their “probably” they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.
And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim “no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!”.
Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse (“could” must be what? 75% confidence level???)
We’re going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying “well, they maybe right, but we can’t change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it”.
By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we’re doomed. And the first reactions will be “those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles”.
Yes, to be fair I meant science journalism. Scientists themselves seem quite content to research and collate data and offer dispassionate answers, which is why few people read the academic papers. Other than that clarification, we are in agreement.
Scientists haven’t been hyperbolic. However articles like this one most definitely are, and they do a disservice to the scientists’ claims by doing so. All in the name of getting a few extra clicks.
The present is too bleak for many people to choose to have kids. It’s simply unaffordable in terms of time and money for a lot of people. Rent is unaffordable, both partners have to work but daycare is unaffordable, food and medical are expensive, schools are increasingly fucked up. Then you add the future uncertainty (or rather, probability of dystopia), and why would anyone do that?
It’s either “the sky is falling” and nothing happens (because of all the work we actually did, like y2k, the ozone hole, or acid rain) or “this might be a problem someday” and nothing gets done.
Y2K was a real threat, and it was with significant coordinated effort that it was resolved.
The ozone hole was (and still is) a significant threat, which was mitigated somewhat by a coordinated effort to stop using CFCs. Unfortunately, there are many more gases that cause huge threats to the protection that the upper atmostphere provides, which have by in large gone unacknowledged by human civilisation as a whole.
Personally, I work in high voltage electricity, and I’m acutely aware of the problems with SF6 as a greenhouse gas (insufficiently regulated under the 1992 Kyoto protocol) and how the exponential growth of SF6 electrical switchgear and subsequent inevitable leaks contributes to a hugely under-represneted threat, which is subject to a 20 year delay for the gas to transition from leaks on the surface to gases distributed throuhgout upper atmosphere.
There are indeed very serious and immediate threats facing humanity, but this article does little to draw attention to them, instead distracting with bullshit hyperbole that is only backed up by a url that leads to:
Of course that will lead to wars, oppression, and genocide.
This isn’t scientists being hyperbolic, you’ve invented that on your own just now.
That being said, scientists have been hyperbolic for decades because no one gives a fuck unless you use terms like the end of civilization / life as we know it.
No, they haven’t. If you actually read scientific literature you will find a balanced argument that generally takes into account the previous estimations, regardless of whether or not they were proven false or correct. The only thing you find when you look into the claims of this Vice.com article is:
Mass forced movement of people and cultures have always led to wars, oppression, and genocide. Sometimes it starts with those that are moving and sometimes it starts with those that are already there, but it happens all the time.
Just to add on to what you’ve said here, basically we could potentially have Israel vs Gaza all over the world. That situation is horrific and there are no good guys, just bad guys and victims on both sides. I don’t want to see that all over the world.
Skimming through the report, though, I see no mention of “collapse of society” like the hyperbole in the article. It mentions the collapse of various natural and socioeconomic systems, but the article is nowhere near as reasonably measured as the paper.
That’s my beef here, the article is doing a disservice to the paper by exaggerating things for clicks.
My observation about this is that we’ve moved from an era of asking whether or not climate change is real to one where we try to figure out how serious it is going to be.
Like I’m not even clear on what is meant by collapse.
In a period of just 50 years, major stable empires simply ceased to exist, and it’s believed that sudden (much less dramatic) changes to the climate induced this.
I know people will say “we were casual about it and now look where we are”… but looking at this title, I can already see the debatable points before going into the argue… which is going to create that debate, since the majority of people aren’t going to go into the article anyway.
I could be wrong and there is no way to prove or disprove my belief, but I think humanity would be more united working towards a solution if the majority of media stuck to purely facts. Ultimately, it should have the same content and less divisiveness over projected opinions.
Yeah, see I’m not saying that the article isn’t pointing in the right direction, rather that it is generally wrong in its assertions. In doing so, it is actually causing harm by discrediting objective truth with a narrative filled with flawed hyperbole.
It’s long been a thing that “all the ice is going to melt in 30 years” - for the past 100 years that’s been the best estimate scientists could make. Now, it’s actually happening, and scientists are scrambling to make better predictions - but they do so with a solid understanding of the previous predictions.
However this article does disservice to that effort, because it’s just stretching the previous hyperbole as far as it can with the goal of attracting viewership, rather than with the goal of spreading news in the hope that people will be better educated to make better decisions as a society, and as a species.
Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t be stating so concretely what might happen in 100 years.
Personally, I think that is down to most scientists actually facing the reality. Previous expectation was that humanity will be able to adapt to some degree of changes with some sacrifice - then 2020~2021 demonstrated that assumption to be false.
Well, shit is definitely getting progessively worse. However, are we really at the point where the best narrative has shifted from “climate catastrophe in 30 years or so” to “the end of human civilisation in less than 100 years”?
One is trying to scientifically predict how massive climate systems beyond our current understanding may behave, while the other is just promoting doom hyperbole for clicks. You don’t have to look at the URL to realise it’s a massive multimedia organisation looking for clicks.
You’re going to have hundreds of millions of migrants coming into our countries because they literally have no other place to exist. Of course that will lead to wars, oppression, and genocide. Will the collapse be so bad that there is no human civilization left? I can’t imagine that. But will the civilization look anything like what we’d hope or find acceptable today? Hard to imagine that, either.
That being said, scientists have been hyperbolic for decades because no one gives a fuck unless you use terms like the end of civilization / life as we know it. They only have so many tools to get people to pay attention and from what I can tell none of them have worked, other than I feel there’s an uptick in people choosing not to have kids because the future looks so bleak.
Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they’ve been very cautious abut their statements.
I still remember reading headlines about “likelihood of global warming” then “probably caused by human activities” because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng “most probably”.
But in their “probably” they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.
And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim “no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!”.
Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse (“could” must be what? 75% confidence level???)
We’re going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying “well, they maybe right, but we can’t change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it”.
By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we’re doomed. And the first reactions will be “those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles”.
Yes, to be fair I meant science journalism. Scientists themselves seem quite content to research and collate data and offer dispassionate answers, which is why few people read the academic papers. Other than that clarification, we are in agreement.
Scientists haven’t been hyperbolic. However articles like this one most definitely are, and they do a disservice to the scientists’ claims by doing so. All in the name of getting a few extra clicks.
The present is too bleak for many people to choose to have kids. It’s simply unaffordable in terms of time and money for a lot of people. Rent is unaffordable, both partners have to work but daycare is unaffordable, food and medical are expensive, schools are increasingly fucked up. Then you add the future uncertainty (or rather, probability of dystopia), and why would anyone do that?
It’s either “the sky is falling” and nothing happens (because of all the work we actually did, like y2k, the ozone hole, or acid rain) or “this might be a problem someday” and nothing gets done.
Y2K was a real threat, and it was with significant coordinated effort that it was resolved.
The ozone hole was (and still is) a significant threat, which was mitigated somewhat by a coordinated effort to stop using CFCs. Unfortunately, there are many more gases that cause huge threats to the protection that the upper atmostphere provides, which have by in large gone unacknowledged by human civilisation as a whole.
Personally, I work in high voltage electricity, and I’m acutely aware of the problems with SF6 as a greenhouse gas (insufficiently regulated under the 1992 Kyoto protocol) and how the exponential growth of SF6 electrical switchgear and subsequent inevitable leaks contributes to a hugely under-represneted threat, which is subject to a 20 year delay for the gas to transition from leaks on the surface to gases distributed throuhgout upper atmosphere.
There are indeed very serious and immediate threats facing humanity, but this article does little to draw attention to them, instead distracting with bullshit hyperbole that is only backed up by a url that leads to:
This isn’t scientists being hyperbolic, you’ve invented that on your own just now.
No, they haven’t. If you actually read scientific literature you will find a balanced argument that generally takes into account the previous estimations, regardless of whether or not they were proven false or correct. The only thing you find when you look into the claims of this Vice.com article is:
Dude my observations go back to before there was an internet so no, vice.com plays no role in my worldview.
While I agree with your prejudiced observations, you did reply to my comment on a vice.com article.
Mass forced movement of people and cultures have always led to wars, oppression, and genocide. Sometimes it starts with those that are moving and sometimes it starts with those that are already there, but it happens all the time.
Just to add on to what you’ve said here, basically we could potentially have Israel vs Gaza all over the world. That situation is horrific and there are no good guys, just bad guys and victims on both sides. I don’t want to see that all over the world.
Guy with binoculars: “captain, I think that’s an iceberg ahead of us”
Captain: “its far away, don’t be so glum”
…
1500 dead people: " "
This has been my Titanic themed ted talk analogy.
Thanks.
Did you actually look into any of the claims in the article, or are you just reading a Vice.com headline and talking bullshit??
The URL might be broken but the DOI is in there, and from there you can find the article quite trivially. It’s a free article, even. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad080 -> https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biad080/7319571
Thank you for the link.
Skimming through the report, though, I see no mention of “collapse of society” like the hyperbole in the article. It mentions the collapse of various natural and socioeconomic systems, but the article is nowhere near as reasonably measured as the paper.
That’s my beef here, the article is doing a disservice to the paper by exaggerating things for clicks.
My observation about this is that we’ve moved from an era of asking whether or not climate change is real to one where we try to figure out how serious it is going to be.
Like I’m not even clear on what is meant by collapse.
This is what’s meant by collapse:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
In a period of just 50 years, major stable empires simply ceased to exist, and it’s believed that sudden (much less dramatic) changes to the climate induced this.
Well exactly. That’s why hyperbole like that in this article frustrates me.
/u/chameleon@kbin.social posted a working link to the actual paper, which is much more reasonable in its claims: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad080
I actually agree with you.
I know people will say “we were casual about it and now look where we are”… but looking at this title, I can already see the debatable points before going into the argue… which is going to create that debate, since the majority of people aren’t going to go into the article anyway.
I could be wrong and there is no way to prove or disprove my belief, but I think humanity would be more united working towards a solution if the majority of media stuck to purely facts. Ultimately, it should have the same content and less divisiveness over projected opinions.
Yeah, see I’m not saying that the article isn’t pointing in the right direction, rather that it is generally wrong in its assertions. In doing so, it is actually causing harm by discrediting objective truth with a narrative filled with flawed hyperbole.
It’s long been a thing that “all the ice is going to melt in 30 years” - for the past 100 years that’s been the best estimate scientists could make. Now, it’s actually happening, and scientists are scrambling to make better predictions - but they do so with a solid understanding of the previous predictions.
However this article does disservice to that effort, because it’s just stretching the previous hyperbole as far as it can with the goal of attracting viewership, rather than with the goal of spreading news in the hope that people will be better educated to make better decisions as a society, and as a species.
Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t be stating so concretely what might happen in 100 years.
Personally, I think that is down to most scientists actually facing the reality. Previous expectation was that humanity will be able to adapt to some degree of changes with some sacrifice - then 2020~2021 demonstrated that assumption to be false.