Collapse

789 readers

9 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.

Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.

RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemm.ee

maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee

eris@lemm.ee

Plants losing appetite for carbon dioxide amid effects of warming climate (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/collapse@lemm.ee

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/18853458

The findings are very stark. Emissions now need to fall by 0.3% per year, just to stand still. That’s a tall order since they typically increase by 1.2% per year,”

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is it just me, or does this feel like one of those "nono, you need to stop and deal with this shit right now" interjections?

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Im.no longer sure it can be dealt with, ? I mean if we stopped emitting tomorrow, maube... but even in some fantsy land if a majorty starting voting Green etc ti change policy direction, then it woukd take decades at 10% a year reduxtion (which is a greater annual emissions reduction every year then we saw during the covid shutdowns) and it seems like too many tipping points will have been crossed ?

As the article states we need to reduxe emissions 0.3% a year just to stand still and yet we're still increasing emissions!

This isn't an enginnering or science problem, this is a human behavioural problem.

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Honestly, this is my main blocker in all things related to life at this point, I'm starting to get the feeling we're way past the major tipping points and it's all damage control from here onward.

But I still think we should at least try everything we possibly can. I'm thoroughly a pessimist in terms of convictions, but rationally I have to accept the fact that we barely understand anything about anything.

I mean, we can even look at the decline itself as an example: everything started accelerating beyond most predictions, which pretty much indicates that we didn't really know the full set of ramifications which came attached to every element of the equation, we're looking at this with flawed understanding. This, to me, also indicates that there's a possibility that we don't much understand the flipside, either, and we haven't even actually tried that route yet. Pessimism in thought, optimism in action.

Edit: and, yeah, I agree with you, this will be down to a paradigm shift in the very way we value and interact with our environment, and the kind of people we are now (speaking in terms of averages, not individuals) would be incapable of sustaining the necessary changes.