this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
560 points (96.7% liked)

World News

38878 readers
3006 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Societal collapse is the best thing that can happen right now, capitalism will not save the workers nor the environment. Only a complete revolution can save the workers, the environment, and the future of humanity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

If you take a look at history, you'll notice a pattern:

  1. civilization/empire/society/whatever X begins forming
  2. X is at it's peak, it's situation is pretty stable and prosperous
  3. event Y starts
  4. as a result, X's situation begins to worsen
  5. X has fallen completely, it's previous members now struggle with disease, famine, and political instability
  6. whoever survives begins to form a new civilization/empire/society/whatever
  7. repeat

And honestly, I don't think that the left at it's current state is anywhere near strong, large, or unified enough to be the one to rise from the ashes. It's better to do what we can now, and save the revolution for when we are able to actually succeed at it.

We'll burn down capitalism one piece at a time.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 21 hours ago

societal collapse will be even worse for the ecosystem. we have created unspeakable machines that will unleash terrible consequences without us to properly maintain them. see nuclear reactors (which i support). there's no 'throw your hands up and surrender' solution. it all requires us keeping the machine running until we can safely dismantle it. it's possible but the means to do it is a bit nasty.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Your accelerationist bullshit does nothing but harm us all

[–] [email protected] 5 points 22 hours ago

I'm not an accelerationist, but they aren't wrong.

it's not that I want a collapse, but at some point soon(very soon) the only answer will be for a collapse.

I stopped fighting against corpos years ago because the only way to stop them would restrict my freedom and take me away from my family. all I can do now is to stay informed, plan, and educate myself and family.

I'm not rich. I have no bunker. my mind is sharp. my goal is to survive what comes next. not because I want it to happen, but because corpos won't stop and my government sold me out long before I was born.

[–] GhiLA 3 points 22 hours ago

I'm not all for his rhetoric that it will be an improvement, but I'm not doubting it won't happen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Better to understand it is inevitable and prepare for it instead of sticking your head in the sand about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Even better to understand that there may be no coming back. We’ve burned bridges behind us and populated way beyond any ability to survive without it. We desperately need this society to succeed because there may be no alternative anymore

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 day ago

So back to the rule of kings and Strongman Despots.

Because that's what a social collapse will get you every time. There will be no "worker's paradise".

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Do you actually think that?

As though we just do societal collapse on Wednesday and then start living our best lives on Thursday?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

As though we just do societal collapse on Wednesday and then start living our best lives on Thursday?

Commenter never said that. So you're just strawmannning. Do you honestly think capiatlism and consumerism will do an about face and start taking care of the rapidly degrading environment? If not, it would seem that we then we need to change how we behave, soon-- right? Accelerationists are at least doing something, even if it may not be the right plan, while you are whining to keep the exact status quo going thats killing us all, and doing nothing to improve things .

To use a metaphor: dont criticise the fat guy working out at the gym while you youself are sitting on your butt, are also fat and have ice cream on your face. If you want to criticise, get off your ass and get to work on something better. Otherwise shut it and let the adults figure out how to save your ass while you do nothing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

I didn't say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you're just strawmanning.

Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn't really understand what societal collapse entails.

I also didn't suggest that capitalism will save us - that's another straw man.

Your metaphor is disingenuous.

This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it's inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that's a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If capitalism is allowed to continue it will render humanity extinct. If we collapse now, and are reduced to a fraction of our population this century, humanity may live.

I don't enjoy that being the best option we have at this point. It brings me no joy. But what brings me less joy is knowing that we won't even make a choice. We will continue blindly waddling along and as capitalism consumes the world, we will wonder who will save us. And no one will.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is anyone actually claiming that we're on a path to extinction? That's hyperbole.

This type of thinking is not constructive in any way.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event the earth has experienced. As ecosystems collapse, organisms at the top of the food web are in peril. Yes, humans are in danger of extinction.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What a silly thing to say.

You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?

Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.

Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.

Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Claiming that human extinction is possible

What a silly thing to say, indeed. Of course it's possible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.

Let's all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

Interesting thought. What is the nutritional profile for slime mold, can humans survive eating just slime mold?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7

Don't miss this bit:

The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh sweetheart.

Did you google "human extinction science" and link the first result without reading it?

The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.

It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Our 200 kyr track record of survival **cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities **

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you're just not very bright.

"much higher extinction probabilities" doesn't really mean anything.

The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.

This is where it says that:

Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.

So, a "much higher probability" might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn't consider those factors, they're out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.

Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Look, I know it's not something anyone wants to confront, but I'm not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There's no need to be condescending.

I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who's just making stuff up and claiming that it's a plausible assertion.

You're not being realistic, you're being dramatic.

Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.

Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Alright. I'm sorry to have annoyed you. I was just hoping for a discussion.

We have a difference of opinion and that's alright. My concerns surrounding the Holocene extinction event triggering total ecosystem collapse need not be yours.

I'm a human behind a screen, just like you. It's free to be kind to people, even when you disagree with them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You haven't annoyed me. I'm sorry if my manner offends you.

No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate that human extinction is likely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

That's totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don't think it's likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.

I'm primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I'm thus unwilling to take a "we don't have to worry about human extinction because it's statistically unlikely" stance. I'm also not attempting to assert that that's your stance, either. I don't know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.

I really appreciate your reply, and I'm not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I'm coming off as an ass.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm afraid it's not going to save anyone, because it's going to be a collapse with many casualities mainly on the side of the poor, not a revolution. I imagine it as a social disaster. The rich will be ok.

[–] GhiLA 3 points 22 hours ago

The rich are only safe if they keep every grain of gunpowder and lump of c4 in there with them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The rich will be ok and their kids will repopulate earth. With a plow, a hammer and a sicle. Oh the irony...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Richfolk are known for their strong survival skills.

My odds are on them being the first ones killed and looted when the shit really hits the fan.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Probably by the very armies and security forces they hired to protect them from that in the first place, once they realize that the rest of society collapsing means there probably won't be consequences for forcibly inheriting their employer's estate.

Or maybe it will be whoever holds the keys to the safety system they built when they realised they'd be at the mercy of their security forces.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

What's the richman gonna give his army? Money?

His army's got the guns. It's one versus the entire staff, on a private island, at the collapse of society, and you think the guys with all guns and no food are gonna treat their boss with the civility that's expected in a typical employee/employer relationship?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Societal collapse doesn’t guarantee anything for people who want any kind of revolution

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Most people forget they are probably just gonna die in an apocalypse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

We are gonna die anyway. At least with societal collapse there will be a chance that not everyone will die from climate collapse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

We can put paper bags over our heads if we forgot our towels though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Human death and suffering are guaranteed...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Societal collapse is enviable, the downfall of humanity however is not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It means industry and industrial pollution stops.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Except it might not. In fact it might increase the dependency on fossil fuels as supply chain and the electrical grid break down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

Covid lockdown taught us it basically just needs most cars of the road. There's a million ways we COULD fix everything, basically overnight. We just won't

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I doubt they'd be a net increase. So much CO2 is from industry and average people aren't going to know how or were to get their own coal or oil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Idk... I'd rather just fix this issue and not have to find out the hard way 🤷

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

We had easy solutions to covid, but people decided that "their way of life" was more important then other people's lives.