Industrial Civilizational Collapse predicted by a 1972 model. We're right on schedule

[Hellobolis]

Cool story.

1) Decarbonization is already within our technological means. It's entirely a function of administrative or political inaction.

2) We don't have a couple of decades, regardless, because of how much time was and still is being wasted as a result of Point 1.

climate change isn't going to collapse civilization, certainly not within 20 years. only complete biosphere collapse will cause civilization collapse, and even if we have started an irreversible process towards that, it'll take a couple centuries to kill off the earth even if we tried.

[uuuhname]

kinda hard to disagree when we have giant resource sucking corporations that operate in a manner that would seem utterly insane to normal people.

[Hellobolis]

What technology?

the ones you cut out of the quote?

[Shadowferal]

the ones you cut out of the quote?

Oh you mean the magic shit that isn't working now...

[Hellobolis]

Oh you mean the magic shit that isn't working now...

take a look at the netherlands. tiny country, second largest agricultural export in the world. and you mean to tell me there is going to be a bottleneck on food in the next 20 years? yeah right.

if solar panels won't work, nuclear always will. if push really comes to shove with fossil fuels we'll just swap to that. but the whole green energy thing is obviously never going to completely take over, but it can certainly lower the load on other systems.

and if you are going to deny that the internet/GPS/mobile devices have changed the world on a fundamental level, and that that technology hasn't fully peaked yet, we'll yeah then i guess the world is doomed.

[Elegiac]

climate change isn't going to collapse civilization

Something disproved by literally every civilization that has collapsed as a result of climate change.

[Forogil]

Those dates were predicted on the assumption that consumption and growth trends wouldn't change from the 1970 models.

Which was a ridiculous assumption and gave incorrect results.

Now they try to change the assumption and gets a new result - but it doesn't seem more reliable than the original one.
This is looking like the forbidden topic of religions predicting the imminent end of the world for almost two millennia - and every time it doesn't happen the date is adjusted; and people think that the original prediction was still good.

[jonnysensible]

we're going up 4 degrees by 2100 imo. Likely to be taking a big L civilization wise.

[Elegiac]

we're going up 4 degrees by 2100 imo. Likely to be taking a big L civilization wise.

I really don't get why people are still of the belief that capitalism as a system is remotely compatible with sustainable civilization.

How exactly one reconciles "must constantly be growing or be at risk of collapse" with "we have a finite amount of resources that can be extracted at a given time without consequence" is beyond me.

[uuuhname]

I really don't get why people are still of the belief that capitalism as a system is remotely compatible with sustainable civilization.

How exactly one reconciles "must constantly be growing or be at risk of collapse" with "we have a finite amount of resources that can be extracted at a given time without consequence" is beyond me.

they seem to think after we're done using all our resources here we can do what they do in IDK Dead Space and just go off to other planets and take resources from there.

[Elegiac]

they seem to think after we're done using all our resources here we can do what they do in IDK Dead Space and just go off to other planets and take resources from there.

Which is as stupid an argument as saying you don't need to brush your teeth because implants exist.

Socially, it would cost far less than our present way of doing things; but it wouldn't permit the obscene amounts of personal wealth we see today, so that's bad (for Reasons™).

Part of it is that people assume they are wealthy because they have access to lots of Stuff™ when in actuality they're just slightly more privileged drones. They have no conception of what the ruling class in the West actually looks like.

[uuuhname]

Which is as stupid an argument as saying you don't need to brush your teeth because implants exist.

Socially, it would cost far less than our present way of doing things; but it wouldn't permit the obscene amounts of personal wealth we see today, so that's bad (for Reasons™).

Part of it is that people assume they are wealthy because they have access to lots of Stuff™ when in actuality they're just slightly more privileged drones. They have no conception of what the ruling class in the West actually looks like.

going by how the uber rich like Elon Musk thinks of people in general it should be a giant red flag, or how Jeff Bezos doesn't want you to have a life outside of work. like they can't even be bothered to hide the fact they see everyone beneath them as automatons that only exist to make them richer. the contempt could not be any more obvious.

[Elegiac]

going by how the uber rich like Elon Musk thinks of people in general it should be a giant red flag, or how Jeff Bezos doesn't want you to have a life outside of work. like they can't even be bothered to hide the fact they see everyone beneath them as automatons that only exist to make them richer. the contempt could not be any more obvious.

Nooooo but you see if you criticise a despot for being despotic it must mean because you're jealous of not being a despot yourself. /s

[uuuhname]

Nooooo but you see if you criticise a despot for being despotic it must mean because you're jealous of not being a despot yourself. /s

oh god please you might actually summon the one who unironically argues this...

[Milchshake]

Is this just like one of the "New US Civil War-Wish-Fulfilment-Threads"? But with extra steps.

I think what they're really saying, "Me and my Very Online Friends will hoard all of the cool podcasting jobs in the New World Order."

[Mihalik]

Which was a ridiculous assumption and gave incorrect results.

Now they try to change the assumption and gets a new result - but it doesn't seem more reliable than the original one.
This is looking like the forbidden topic of religions predicting the imminent end of the world for almost two millennia - and every time it doesn't happen the date is adjusted; and people think that the original prediction was still good.

You can move the dates by a decade or two, through certain breakthroughs and such but we are still very much on track to burning our house to ground. The model doesn't claim "inevitable end of the world" scenarios. On the contrary. It's simply saying we aren't doing enough to prevent it.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this just like one of the "New US Civil War-Wish-Fulfilment-Threads"? But with extra steps.

I think what they're really saying, "Me and my Very Online Friends will hoard all of the cool podcasting jobs in the New World Order."

You haven't read the article have you? Or have you recently signed up to the climate change will magically fix itselfbandwagon?

[Elegiac]

Is this just like one of the "New US Civil War-Wish-Fulfilment-Threads"?

No, this is a "climate change is an existential threat to civilization and our current civilization does not have adequate institutions to deal with said existential threat" thread.

[Forogil]

You can move the dates by a decade or two, through certain breakthroughs and such but we are still very much on track to burning our house to ground.

A bold statement - backed up by very little.

If we look at the new report it's actually not predicting that we will burn the house to the ground.
Instead it sees two possibilities: either a collapse or a that high technology development allow us to stabilize society at a high level - and this difference will be clear by 2050.

That's just a vague prediction - but it clearly suggests that the paper tells us that the best solution seems to be to make that high technological development the reality. It's just that "society will collapse" generates more clicks.

[Shadowferal]

MIT predicted society would collapse by 2040. New data tells how we're doing

Director Advisory, Internal Audit & Enterprise Risk at major accounting firm KPMG, updated the LtG model in a published finding in the Yale Journal of Ecology in November 2020.

In Herrinton’s estimates, the world’s population, industrial output, food, and resources will rapidly decline. The 2100s will be comparable to the 1900s, according to Vice. However, Herrington is treating her research as a personal project as a precaution to see how well the MIT model holds up.

Herrington’s study concluded that society has about another decade to change courses and avoid collapse, by investing in sustainable technologies and equitable human development.

[Draco-Onis]

MIT predicted society would collapse by 2040. New data tells how we're doing

Director Advisory, Internal Audit & Enterprise Risk at major accounting firm KPMG, updated the LtG model in a published finding in the Yale Journal of Ecology in November 2020.

In Herrinton’s estimates, the world’s population, industrial output, food, and resources will rapidly decline. The 2100s will be comparable to the 1900s, according to Vice. However, Herrington is treating her research as a personal project as a precaution to see how well the MIT model holds up.

Herrington’s study concluded that society has about another decade to change courses and avoid collapse, by investing in sustainable technologies and equitable human development.

Sustainable technologies exists already but they are not "profitable" not to mention the amount of bribing I mean lobbying behind the old tech makes it near impossible to have them implemented on a wide scale same goes for equitable human development. The ship has sailed we will do something about it when it's too late and impossible to stop.

Maybe society will change its entire way of living to adapt or collapse in the process either way capitalism is failing big time.