[removed]

Starter comment: This NYT Magazine piece, using text and illustrations, explains our possible quasi-apocalyptic, but livable future under 2-3C of warming over the next century, instead of 3-5C. The future will be chaotic, full of shortages, extreme weather events, and vastly different than our present, but humanity will live on in a recognizable sense. It will not be extinction, but evolution of our society. How we get to the next phase of civilization is our choice.

Edit: here is a gift link if you hit a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/visualization-climate-change-future.html?unlocked_article_code=7D6FaUU1LOzcRPaMGwYCqVkVU4GTjHBONeVpEZj9LZzBzUspnOXE2Ueol0amEkgig8lTTnUrWCXM_uoYHWRQRunppxv2Cmyn5NXBxHfjO9nkl6B75Qmvd6KwxLzqbXj9B0eqNJYwtrxWsBusfjtCFms0kiYxfLXkjDuHdyTMZAP9Ms7tfTrH1k5eEA9_1Uo8fzdWM46JVK2FOA_Fq0_XRxUZS1pHszU5858ZUO1TD4OtxiFVuZBU5lLxhL5LHoQFYfAa84XZvhT4f19wWLGKUFW7-CI4MaAGLwNjKPqbJmZOFDzSyr5kEQOJRHEo5YBJxRgzDCWQybBiwm_a183chxjyGvF7Tv5AxUKIHb54tjWYQMX_3Z5JeNG_mXkY6g&smid=share-url

[removed]

The following submission statement was provided by /u/nevernotdating:

Starter comment: This NYT Magazine piece, using text and illustrations, explains our possible quasi-apocalyptic, but livable future under 2-3C of warming over the next century, instead of 3-5C. The future will be chaotic, full of shortages, extreme weather events, and vastly different than our present, but humanity will live on in a recognizable sense. It will not be extinction, but evolution of our society. How we get to the next phase of civilization is our choice.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yhgn5d/the_new_world_envisioning_life_after_climate/iudqmlt/

> but humanity will live on in a recognizable sense

This is what I fear the most. This cursed species at least needs to be wiped out for the horrible shit it does.

Awesome paywall mate, the best part of the waters rising is the loss of the rich folks property on the coast

>envisioning life after X

These are usually very bad and alarmist articles. I don’t think they produce good conversation.

and I thought the guy above had a bad opinion

>quasi-apocalyptic

Proof that this is really just alarmism. Such language is horribly inaccurate and incredibly alarmist.

[removed]

humans turned the vast majority of the planet into torture chambers. even a global nuclear war would be more compassionate than allowing humans to continue this shit.

I think we should come to terms with the simple fact that a lot of our choices have been taken from us, or even made for us by now. People should be outraged enough to consider a systemic shift. To consider radical new ideas for society, to embrace them even. /r/cyberstasis seems to get it, but I'm not holding my breath for the rest of humanity.

Ok buddy, maybe you should be the change you want to see in the world.

>!But actually, find God, you’re starting to worry me.!<

It's not alarmist- life will be far more difficult, water and food shortages and mass migrations from warmer climate areas northward are expected. We are already seeing this in some areas. We already have difficulty distributing energy for air conditioning, that need will get worse. Many communities will be displaced due to sea level rise as well. Many, many people will die due to shortages, extreme weather events, and temperature extremes. That IS apocalyptic, just not humanity-ending. If republicans think the current immigration crisis is bad, wait until all this shit hits the fan.

"hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

Often yes. But this one is notable because it manages to be less balls-to-the-wall retarded than the usual climate change hot takes. It at least makes a token effort to remain grounded in fact and not in plain fearmongering.

Above, you see a low effort troll on an obvious throwaway account. Downvote, do not engage.

I’ve always envisioned we’d all be living much simpler lives. Communities would become smaller and more tight knit, the idea of a “global economy” would slowly fade. Not complete collapse or anything, just forced into being less dependent on global supply chains

yeah good job not engaging me.

[removed]

How about an actual, readable article instead of designers gone wild

Give it some truly deep thought about the implications “implementing this in a very short time”. Think about how deeply ingrained access to high energy density fossil fuels are in every aspect of civilization. We must and the we will make the transition off of fossil fuels, however it won’t be in a very short time. No battery in existence comes close to the energy density of fossil fuel. Entire industries will need to be reimagined. Culture will be changed. We won’t be hopping on jets to visit grandma any more. We’ll be taking trains. We need to push on making the transition as quickly as we can, but don’t kid yourself on how fast it will be done. The NYT article is very balanced and realistic. It isn’t doom and gloom. This world will change.

Are you not taking you head out of the sand? Look around we are on the brink of total societal collapse or war and climate change is wreaking havoc.

>total societal collapse or war

You could’ve had a point but that language broke it.

God ain't doing shit! Hahaha! Talk about bad takes! Hahajaha

Better to break some eggs then not as this point in time I mean if it isn't obvious enough yet the criticism is probably needed

There it is, again

That funny feeling

But you are the issue, according to your own logic. Didn’t you just say humans deserve extinction? And you yourself are human. So if you were consistent with your own theory you would end your existence. Now I don’t want you to do that because your theory is actually wrong and your mindset is too. But I am just pointing out to you that you are inconsistent in your beliefs.

Well then they can find a therapist.

A few thoughts on this. Of course implementation of nuclear and battery driven energy isn’t going to happen overnight. The tech is almost here- like within just a few years.

I also have much more optimism in how quickly battery tech is going to advance. A good solution is evident -and I don’t think it will impact jet travel, normal day to day life much at all. Batteries will reach similar efficiency as fossil fuels much faster than we think.

I’m also making the point the elites could be moonshotting this problem but they don’t. What can normal people do about this but suffer? It’s despicable how those in power divide us over this issue. They’ll cut power and heat to the poor, when more can and should be done- but they don’t? There’s more to this than the NYT is willing to report.

Look at it age like a fine wine?

If my death caused all other humans to die, then you are right that my position would imply killing myself. Since it does not, your argument is just a non sequitur.

But for the sake of argument, lets pretend that my death actually would cause all other humans to die and that, therefore, I would be a hypocrite for not killing myself. Guess what? That still would be irrelevant for the truth of what I am saying. Suggesting otherwise is a Tu Quoque fallacy which in turn is just a special case of ad hominem which in turn is "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

So yeah, "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!" is all this boils down to again.

[removed]

[removed]

I mean what do you want me to say to address your “argument”? That no, humans don’t deserve to die? I’ve already said that. Regardless, your position is disingenuous, or at least delusional, because if you truly thought humans deserve to go extinct then you wouldn’t give a single shit about what happens to humans. If our actions cause us to go extinct, then why does it matter? And if your argument is that other life forms don’t deserve to suffer because of it, then what is your solution exactly? Because I don’t see what else it could be other than worldwide genocide. And since that is obviously never going to happen, your position is unserious and irrelevant.

[removed]

It's article from the hack that wrote uninhabitable earth. Don't waste your time unless you like fiction and fairy tales

If Florida was underwater as predicted, at least DeSantis wouldn't be governor.

I'm very much for educating people about climate change, but f*ck me, that interactive just makes me want to curl into a ball and die.

[removed]

I guess it makes me a doomer, but that 5C, seems way more likely than 2, given what we’ve seen to date

[removed]

20,000 years of this, 7 more to go

Has anyone here read Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy? The ecocentric, cooperative, small-scale human communities she meets when she travels to the future are what I hope more of the world will be able to adopt. But the book is ultimately sad and reminds us that it's a constant battle. I recommend it, though.

[removed]

This guy Bo’s.

I hate reading comprehensive articles like this without sources lined up. Need to know where this data is pulled from and how recently or else I'm just ////: the entire time. Unlike the other commenters I liked the animations though lol v cool

I really hope that does not result in an increase in tribalism/nationalism, which could enable something really apocalyptic (a world war or openly racist/genocidal dictatorships).

“More tight knit” is the opposite of diverse. Lol. I thought diversity was going to save society. More lol.

Like Obama’s two beachfront properties. Or only the “bad guys?” Lol

Why would small communities need to not be diverse?

How would diversity stop climate change? Do you have any evidence of anyone saying that ever or are you just a troglodyte? I'm betting on the latter.

Like people tend to band together. You’re pretty quick to the ad hominem. Why is that? (I will admit I don’t know what “stoo” is.)

I didn't ad hominem, I asked you a question.

Yes, people will band together. In this case among their communities. I'm thoroughly unsure why you think that would mean people would somehow move from their communities in order to organize themselves by racial lines. That really makes zero sense whatsoever.

Dude stop you called him a troglodyte.

"Bu...But I didn't call him a troglodyte, I just asked if he was a troglodyte!"

Grow up.

I mean, I phrased the question fairly. What they posited made no sense at all. So I was wondering if this was a real question I was responding to or someone just someone pushing some backwards agenda. I'm not taking back the word troglodyte since I have no reason to think otherwise at this point. Thanks for showing up though. I'll apologize if I'm proven wrong but I bet you I don't even get a response.

"I mean, I phrased the question fairly."

No you didn't. If you want to have a fair and courteous debate you can easily do that respectfully. But that's not what you really want, you're just trying to be another edgy reddit intellectual throwing down $5 words that's quick to put people down.

Be better than that.

Lol, big words are scary. What the person suggested was nonsensical. There's a lot of syllables in that last word but thankfully you have Google.

The question is fair. Yes, I suspected them of positing a question with shitty intentions. Learn to deal with that or get off the internet. Anything I've said isn't as garbage as falsely pretending anyone has ever said diversity would solve climate change, or that humans would move to more homogenized communities after climate change. You're a baby and the last person to tell others anything about being better.

Lol I dont think any leftists give a shit about Obama's beachfront properties. That's Obama's problem not the democratic party's. Keep paying for Trump's businesses with federal dollars though you psychos.

Nah I'll stay on here and call you out on your bullshit.

I knew you'd say that. Big words aren't scary, you're just being pretentious.

Why is it that when someone disses Obama people like you ALWAYS think they are Trump sycophants?

So no retort. Got it.

I'm sorry you're poor at using my native language. That's a you problem.

Because complaining about Obama/Clinton/irrelevant democrat is kinda the Trump sycophant thing. If you don't want to be lumped in with them don't act like them.

I'm guessing that rather than accepting a simpler more meager lifestyle and adapting to shortages, the corporate plutocracy is just going to go all Genghis Khan and our future world of 3- 4 billion people is going to continue on with as much waste and abundance as before.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-khan-eco-warrior

Covid 2: Depopulation Boogaloo is going to be a wild ride.

Lolol what a random exchange to read

The climate always changes and has been doing so for billions of years. The earth and humans will live on.

If early pandemicene is any indication, the apocalypse (quasi or otherwise) will be mostly boring and choices will continue to narrow.

Ah I see. A piece of sh*t who thinks that climate change isn’t real. Well guess what? Your parents never loved or will ever love you, nobody loves you, and you know it. Crawl back under the rock from which you came and stop spreading lies about climate change not being real. It impacts impressionable teenagers and young adults who are realizing the ecological horror occurring around them. The same travesties caused by other “climate deniers” as I put it, you included.

So please, for the betterment of all of us. Just shut up.

Edit: I meant to address this to the bottom most comment about someone who thought climate change wasn’t real. The person in question is @PM_ME_CUTE_SM1LE

I am new to Reddit and this is my first reply to a comment. This is why I messed up

>I mean what do you want me to say to address your “argument”?

If you got something to say about the issue, do so. If not, then do not. You may remain silent for all I care. But do not give me that ad hominem shit. I am so tired of it. It is fucking everywhere. Nobody talks about the actual issues anymore, but rather just go after who is saying it; or by extension who these people can be associated with etc.

Who says something is irrelevant for the truth of the statement. A rapist saying that rape is bad does not make it good just cause he is a hypocrite.

>If our actions cause us to go extinct, then why does it matter?

There are other sentient beings we torture and kill. I am convinced that the overall amount of suffering on the earth could be greatly reduced if humans disappeared.

However, I am not a Utilitarian. I view human behavior, most notably our irresponsible use of unearned knowledge, to be inherently evil and thus deserving of retribution.

>And since that is obviously never going to happen

Climate change could potentially lead to conditions that make humans go extinct.

> Nobody talks about the actual issues anymore, but rather just go after who is saying it; or by extension who these people can be associated with etc.

We’re talking about it now. So why don’t you state your position clearly? What is your solution to the problem you are pointing out? I mean what would you do to resolve it? Not something vague like “humans should go extinct”.

> I view human behavior, most notably our irresponsible use of unearned knowledge, to be inherently evil and thus deserving of retribution.

What does this even mean? What unearned knowledge? How is it unearned and how would it be earned? What is the knowledge itself?

The initial comment was about an article that speculates humans surviving the climate catastrophy. I reacted to this saying that I hope humans will be wiped out by it. That is all.

I cannot do anything to resolve the problem of human nature. There is no moral progress, only technological progress. Technological power outpaced human capacity to act responsibly, which remained on the same level it was when we were still inhabiting caves. As a result, living things are being burned and tortured alive in all the creative ways humans can devise. It would be poetic justice if humans ended up burning themselves to ashes as well, thus ending their brutal reign and allowing nature to renew itself.

>How is it unearned and how would it be earned?

The use of scientific power doesn't require the same discipline that is needed to first attain it. Intellectual rigor and reason is used to initially unlock the power, but once the key has been found any witless brute has access to it. The result is the corruption of practical reason which thinkers such as Horkheimer have pointed out; reason is merely being used as a means to an end. This purely instrumental use of reason ignores all obligations and duties that arise when the same capacity to reason is applied to judging ourselves. Despite being capable, the human mind hates to reflect on itself and can't bear to submit itself to rational scrutiny.

Reason is like a benevolent goddess who blessed some degenerate mud dweller with all kinds of amazing wonders but instead of holding her in veneration, the ingrate turned her into his harlot. To me, that makes the human animal the lowest of all animals.

> I reacted to this saying that I hope humans will be wiped out by it. That is all.

Ok, fair enough.

> I cannot do anything to resolve the problem of human nature. There is no moral progress, only technological progress. Technological power outpaced human capacity to act responsibly, which remained on the same level it was when we were still inhabiting caves. As a result, living things are being burned and tortured alive in all the creative ways humans can devise. It would be poetic justice if humans ended up burning themselves to ashes as well, thus ending their brutal reign and allowing nature to renew itself.

It would be poetic indeed, I can’t argue with that. The only thing that I would add is that human beings are the victims of their own ignorance as well, we too are living beings that suffer from our mistakes. I guess I say that because I don’t view our potential extinction as punishment or justice, but merely as neutral consequence of our own behavior. It’s not a good or bad thing, it is just equivalent to a child learning the consequences of his actions the hard and painful way.

> The use of scientific power doesn’t require the same discipline that is needed to first attain it. Intellectual rigor and reason is used to initially unlock the power, but once the key has been found any witless brute has access to it. The result is the corruption of practical reason which thinkers such as Horkheimer have pointed out; reason is merely being used as a means to an end. This purely instrumental use of reason ignores all obligations and duties that arise when the same capacity to reason is applied to judging ourselves. Despite being capable, the human mind hates to reflect on itself and can’t bear to submit itself to rational scrutiny.

Can’t argue with this either to be honest.

> Reason is like a benevolent goddess who blessed some degenerate mud dweller with all kinds of amazing wonders but instead of holding her in veneration, the ingrate turned her into his harlot. To me, that makes the human animal the lowest of all animals.

Although most people it seems do not have much reason at all. Can’t even misuse what you do not have.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, but I think maybe the only disagreement is in how we respond to these ideas. I might be wrong, but I think you are somewhat bitter and the prospect of human extinction almost satisfies you. Whereas I view it as an avoidable tragedy, and it is tragic not because people will not exist, as I don’t view that as inherently bad, but because we have destroyed and squandered away what we have been given, when we could have been so much better.