this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
57 points (90.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34293 readers
1150 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

A hotter era than we've ever had during human civilization...
https://xkcd.com/1732/

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

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).

[–] nitrolife@rekabu.ru 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the complete scheme of temperature fluctuations

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

That peak during the Eocene is an interesting thing to study in the context of this question. Wikipedia's got some good articles: Early Eocene Climactic Optimum and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

In a nutshell, IMO; it wasn't all that bad in the grand scheme of things. There were some extinctions but life carried on and some of it did quite well.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

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.