1.5°C climat goal is gone with 2024/2025 being every day being above that. A positive view of science says we are heading to a 2.7°C hell by 2100. Thought with current politics that is highly doubtful and we might already have that with 2050.
Especially fellow young people, i would like to hear your look apon the future, are you doing something now because you probably wont be able to do it in the future?
How will you imagine life will be like? Will you have to move because of the rising sea levels?
For me i see black. Its over and this is the coldest we will ever have it. I am enjoying somewhat livible summers and lukewarm winters (I remember when there was snow) as long as i can. The future is done for and im angry and sadend by all the people that dont care or actively fight against enviormental policies and living
The last decade has shown us how stupid humans are and how unprepared we are for the complex future that awaits us.
We’re fucked.
Enjoy what you can, while you can.
Get to the furthest large major city away from the equator or I’d die in 40C heat. Anything in the 40s latitude is already toast.
I think I’ll be dead before we see any life changing differences.
Unlike those who came before me, I DO care, and I want us to turn shit around, so my kids don’t have to deal with an apocalypse, but, I’m not completely against a giant meteorite ending it all at any moment.
Ditto, except the kids part, decided against having them just right in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis. I too wouldn’t mind a mass extinction event, as long as it’s quick.
I understand not WANTING everything to end at any given time, but it also just seems like the perfect solution to EVERY problem.
I mean just look at us a species, we’ve developed massively on the technological level, but underneath the clothes we’re still the same, fighting over imagined gods, resources etc. So yeah, fuck it, bring it on.
this is called ‘suicidal thoughts’
Is it?
I wouldn’t be the one doing the killing, so I don’t think it should count as suicide.
But, I really don’t know. Just seems like it should be a different term. Extinctual thoughts, maybe?
I think it still counts.
Passive suicidal ideation is thinking about not wanting to live or imagining being dead.
It definitely is. It’s a mental health problem, not a valid environmental or political take.
Doing my part to stop the spread of humanity by not having kids. I don’t really care what the future holds. The planet’s fine and will be so much better off without us (c’mon, meteor!) and I’m still pretty confident that the oligarchs will get what’s coming to them. Or their offspring will get what was coming for their parents. Regardless, that’s something to live for…
Same, but Coronal Mass Ejection
Same, but gamma ray burst.
By calling it the “coming dystopia” and “a 2.7°C hell” you’re starting this question off with a highly biased direction indeed.
The whole world isn’t going to turn into some kind of Mad Max inferno of devastation and death. Some parts of it will become less habitable, and there may be mass migration as a result, but most of the world is going to still be perfectly livable afterwards. It’s the disruption of shifting everything around that’s going to be the biggest problem.
However, I have now committed a heresy by saying climate change is not the Apocalypse, so this will get downvoted. The answers more in line with the “it’s the end of the world” narrative will be upvoted instead, people will have their fear reaffirmed (for fear leads to anger, and anger leads to dopamine), and ironically this may lead to less useful preparation in the long run that exacerbates the problem.
“All opinions other than mine are only supported by dopamine highs” - wow, what a great new way of being condescendingly dismissive!
OP actually left the consequences of climate change open. No, it probably won’t be a Mad Max inferno. Probably not. But we also don’t know where the tipping point of the oceans is, because they are storing a shit ton of carbon. Hit that tipping point, and that carbon may well suddenly be released into the air, and then the shit hits the fan.
But even if that scenario doesn’t happen, and the world is still theoretically perfectly livable, you mentioned one of the main problems: mass migration. We already see what that’s doing today. We’re not far away from World War 3 anymore. So yes, the question is perfectly legitimate.
(And before anyone thinks it: I’m not blaming the migrants, of course they’re not at fault, they have every right to look for a better life. The people at fault are entirely different, but it doesn’t change the fact there is a causational relationship)
As I commented elsewhere, a lot of people in our generation are masking deep seated suicidal fantasies and convincing themselves that they are a valid response to the world around them. That’s obviously not good for anybody and makes them just as volatile as the other death cults currently in existence.
And ironically, it makes them quick to reject any attempts to make things better. Why bother attempting solution X when we’re all just going to die anyway? Eat, drink, and be merry!
The thing that bothers me a lot about this is how many people oppose even doing research into geoengineering. It’s like they fear the possibility that a solution will be found, thus disrupting the conclusions of doom that they’ve already come to and apparently found some kind of strange comfort in believing.
Ignorantly believing there will be minimal consequences to our unplanned terraform is why we are in this mess. The problem is not simply “climate change”. Ecological collapse is a much larger concern. We are significantly altering the chemistry of the entire biosphere; the atmosphere, land and ocean with literally thousands of chemical compounds. We have killed off ~70% of the natural worlds macroscopic organisms over the last 50-100 years, and are already at the point where 95+% of all animal biomass is our livestock. We consider species “not endangered” if there are like 10k of them. Does 10k humans isolated to one geography sound like a healthy, extinction-resistant population?
It’s not gonna be 2.7c by 2100. It will be 3-4c. We were told we wouldn’t hit 1.5c until ~2035 and we’re already there — as I’ve believed for over a decade, because I actually listen to scientists instead of fossil-fuel-operated political orgs like the IPCC — and we’re on track to blow past 2c before 2050. ~25% of all Co2 ever emitted was in the last ~15 years, and another ~25% will be emitted in the next ~15. We can’t predict compounding feedback loops we know little about, or any of the many unknown unknowns that are guaranteed to exist.
I’m not saying the world will definitely be a “Mad Max inferno of devastation and death” — the entire natural world has already been through the majority phase of “devastation and death” — but everyone living today would almost certainly consider 2100 to be a dystopia.
Whoever said the consequences would be “minimal?” I’m saying they won’t be apocalyptic. It’s not the literal end of the world, as so many people are fretting about. People are deciding not to have children because they think humanity’s going to go extinct in a generation or two.
I’m not saying the world will definitely be a “Mad Max inferno of devastation and death”
Well there you go, then.
People are not having kids because they believe their children will be worse off than they are; that persistent inflation, natural disasters, famine, resource wars, actual wars, austerity, mass migrations, fascism/feudalism are all but guaranteed for a majority of humanity over the next century.
Barely anyone believes or cares about us going completely extinct.
Stop straw manning, nobody said it will be the apocalypse or the end of the world, they said it would be a dystopia or at the very least pretty shitty to what we have right now.
This is like telling a Roman as the empire is falling: “don’t worry it’s not the end of the world, sure a barbarian horde might come through every couple years raping, burning and pillaging, but you’ll survive”
Natural disasters are gonna get worse, famine and food insecurity are gonna become more common, mass migration causes a lot of social strife. Again going back to the roman example a large reason for the fall was the huns moving into Europe causing cascading migrations that destroyed the empire. All of this sounds pretty dystopic to me, maybe not mad max levels, but definitely parable of the power levels.
There are people literally rooting for human extinction in this very thread.
Sea rising by 2100 is proyected on 0.6 meters.
And sea rising predictions made in the 90s haven’t been the more accurate.
The harmful consequences of climate change have more to do with desertification, hotter summers, more energetic storms. And of course the fear of breaking some oceanic current and send Europe into an ice age.
In general is hard to say what will be that thing that will make people say “ok, we really fucked up”. As it’s incredibly hard to predict the consequences of such a fast climate variation. Sea level rise was the jam in the 90s early 00s but as predictions fall short on that front and even the worse numbers doesn’t look like mass migration number for a few centuries at least, worries are more focused on other things that could happen.
I think the Earth is in a state of transitioning to a hot era, which it has done many times before. We are coming out of a cold era as we speak. The future might look bleak while we scrounge as it happens. But the Earth will bounce back. I’m not worried.
A hotter era than we’ve ever had during human civilization…
https://xkcd.com/1732/Yup, and the rate of change is massive compared to every other time climate has shifted. What normally takes tens of thousands of years we’re speed running in a couple hundred. This doesn’t give a lot of time for life to adapt to the rapid changes, and all the associated affects that come with it (sea level change, sea salinity change, currents shifting, etc).
The “current path” scenario tends to assume we can maintain/grow the rate of carbon emissions indefinitely.
However, the short term disruption of COVID demonstrated an immediate and pronounced drop in temperature based almost entirely around the reduction of industrial transportation (planes and cars, primarily) and subsequent drop in electricity demands due to a decline in global commerce.
I see people insisting on the apocalyptic scenario while simultaneously clinging to this notion that we can keep cramming more particulate into the atmosphere unabated forever. It can’t be both.
They have multiple scenarios though.
Page 571 of https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-2021-the-physical-science-basis/future-global-climate-scenariobased-projections-and-nearterm-information/309359EDDCFABB031C078AE20CEE04FDExplanation of SSP:
That’s certainly better. But they all describe themselves in terms of high or low population growth.
What happens when we mix low rates of reproduction with shrinking life expectancy. China and Japan are both experiencing population decline, while Europe is scheduled to join them in another decade.
Countries facing harsh environmental or hostile military environments have seen even worse outcomes. Between 1991 and 2015, Ukraine lost 20% of its population. The war has only accelerated this trend.
Gaza is on track to lose over 50% of it’s population, relative to 2023, before the end of the year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen are facing similar plights.
The US is also in the early stages of a manufactured population crash, with drastic shifts in domestic policy curbing immigration sharply, spiking infant/maternal mortality, and ratcheting the risk of infectious disease spread. This, after COVID cleared over a million excess deaths inside two years.
SP1 and SP3 both posit slow population growth. But neither posit the consequences of a more rapid and economically turbulent decline.
