Doomers

Economics is not just the "dismal science". In some cases it's completely unhinged.

I clicked on the title thinking it was an actual paper.

A set of environmental crisis posters dating back to the 1960s, introduced with a quote from the 1970 State of the Union address given by US president Richard Nixon:

“The great question of the 1970s is shall we surrender to our surroundings or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land and to our water?”

In my opinion, all of the issues portrayed are still issues and what progress has been made is tiny in relation to the problem and more than offset by further deterioration overall.

(Edit: note that some browsers (DDG and Brave on Android) refuse to load the site, citing some kind of global block list.)

I didn't expect to be reading such a well-written and knowledgeable document on this subject from the Catholic Church. A long read which combines scientific fact with compassion.

I'd like to make some real-life doomer friends. I'm having trouble figuring out how to do that, though. Finding them hanging out in common physical spaces isn't really viable in today's world (especially near where I live), so meeting them organically isn't a good bet. I could organize a social gathering in my area (Eastern KY, USA, for reference) targeting doomers specifically, but I don't know where I'd advertise it. This little community is great, but it's also pretty small.

Any ideas on how I could pursue something like this?

A talk relating systems theory to global civilisation. The takeaway being that the world depends on fossil fuels, to which there is no direct replacement, and that collapse is inevitable when these fuels are taken away. Sadly, there are no actual tips relating to enjoyment. This talk has been expanded upon by the author in a dedicated video series but this is the compact version.

My thanks to Prof Jem Bendell for expressing better than I could how misguided Rebecca Solnit and her ilk really are.

I thought it was interesting that the Canadian wildfires are emitting more carbon than all of the rest of its human activities combined.

I think this chart bears no explanation.

About the author's struggle to find someone among his friends to speak to about collapse. He says, "Most of all, I want someone to hug me and say, “I know. I’m scared, too.” Lots of good links in there for further reading.

I ran across this article recently and thought I'd post it for comment. Ms Solnit addresses what she considers "doomer evangelism", and aims her criticism directly toward folks like me and others who might share my views. Although she makes some salient points, I regard most of her supporting assertions as not representative of my reaction to climate catastrophe. Not surprisingly, I take such misrepresentations personally and will take a moment to address one of these distortions.

Ms Solnit makes her thesis one that describes doomers as those who have surrendered in advance, do nothing to participate in efforts to achieve carbon neutrality, and who, by these actions, encourage others to do nothing. That is simply not true. Setting aside the fact that individual participation is a negligible activity, I'd posit that most doomers are already engaged in activities that support efforts to mitigate their own contribution to warming the planet.

I'll point to myself as an example: I live in a rural northeastern US community, where mass transit is nonexistent. When I did live in a city, I used public transportation whenever I could. I drive a hybrid vehicle and have plans to purchase an EV as soon as I can. I engage in recycling and avail myself of the local composting program. I am deeply cognizant of my water and electricity usage and actively seek ways to limit that consumption. I limit my purchases of products that use single-use plastic by buying in bulk whenever possible. I buy local produce and meat whenever possible, almost exclusively during growing season. I support local, regional and national policies that encourage conservation of natural resources and those that limit the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

These efforts are expensive and consume a larger than average financial burden for me, especially considering that I am retired, and living on a nearly fixed income. I am doing everything I can possibly do on an individual level to contribute to a healthier planet. I know it's not enough, and I recognize that larger societal and political realities prevent me from doing more. Yet, Ms Solnit would arrogantly declare my efforts to be settling for the worst outcome by doing nothing.

I have many more issues with Ms Solnit's view which I haven't the time or energy to presently address. Among them is her premise that my considerations are based on outdated research or misinformation. I'll save that discussion for another day.

A short essay about looming catastrophe and people's reactions to it.

FTFA: Former IPCC chief Prof Bob Watson, said: “I am very concerned. None of the observed changes so far (with a 1.2C temperature rise) are surprising. But they are more severe than we predicted 20 years ago, and more severe than the predictions of five years ago. We probably underestimated the consequences.”

10 basic points on the health of the AMOC, which if halts, will kill everything in the ocean.

The green revolution ended in 2015, when the number of food insecure people began to rise. Around 2.3 billion people in the world were moderately or severely food insecure in 2021, or nearly 30 percent of the global population – more than 350 million more people than in 2019.

It's just a matter of time until simultaneous crop failures, exacerbated by a non-resilient agricultural system, will force conflict between the few maintainers of the current economic system and everyone else.

What the ultra-rich want is to sustain and extend the economic system that put them where they are, but that system is unsustainable.

so... tipping point passed, or what?

It seems as though every week brings news that some predictor of climate change has been given less consequential value than warranted.

This week brings news of research that examines the likelihood of simultaneous global crop failures, and it's not a happy outlook.

FTFA:

Admittedly, this may all seem hopeless. But unlike a terminal illness, we know exactly what the problem is, we know exactly how to fix it, and we have all the solutions we need now. What is required is that we pay attention and get serious — quickly. Our future depends on it.

Yeah, right.

In 1970, Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich published a famous book, The Population Bomb, in which he described a disastrous future for humanity: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.”

Looking at population demographics, it's plain to see we're in trouble now. A society with no babies, has no future. We're all gonna starve to death with food riots tearing apart the fabric of society while the cities all burn.

Better make sure you got your long term food and water storage, seed banks and grid-out cooking skills up to snuff!

Last year, 48% of honeybee colonies in the US died off. Beekeepers claim improved strategies have stabilized populations, but broad challenges remain.

When the honeybees are gone, humanity's demise is certain.

This study, newly published in Nature Sustainability, explores the influence of primary stress, additional stress, and erratic events on Earth System, using data from 4 recent environmental collapse events. As one might expect, results pointed to -39% - 80% acceleration in global ecosystem collapse predictions, potentially advancing current models' catastrophe deadlines from 2100 to 2030.