Ask Lemmy

Ignorantly believing there will be minimal consequences to our unplanned terraform is why we are in this mess. The problem is not simply "climate change". Ecological collapse is a much larger concern. We are significantly altering the chemistry of the entire biosphere; the atmosphere, land and ocean with literally thousands of chemical compounds. We have killed off ~70% of the natural worlds macroscopic organisms over the last 50-100 years, and are already at the point where 95+% of all animal biomass is our livestock. We consider species "not endangered" if there are like 10k of them. Does 10k humans isolated to one geography sound like a healthy, extinction-resistant population?

It's not gonna be 2.7c by 2100. It will be 3-4c. We were told we wouldn't hit 1.5c until ~2035 and we're already there — as I've believed for over a decade, because I actually listen to scientists instead of fossil-fuel-operated political orgs like the IPCC — and we're on track to blow past 2c before 2050. ~25% of all Co2 ever emitted was in the last ~15 years, and another ~25% will be emitted in the next ~15. We can't predict compounding feedback loops we know little about, or any of the many unknown unknowns that are guaranteed to exist.

I'm not saying the world will definitely be a "Mad Max inferno of devastation and death" — the entire natural world has already been through the majority phase of "devastation and death" — but everyone living today would almost certainly consider 2100 to be a dystopia.

"All opinions other than mine are only supported by dopamine highs" - wow, what a great new way of being condescendingly dismissive!

OP actually left the consequences of climate change open. No, it probably won't be a Mad Max inferno. Probably not. But we also don't know where the tipping point of the oceans is, because they are storing a shit ton of carbon. Hit that tipping point, and that carbon may well suddenly be released into the air, and then the shit hits the fan.

But even if that scenario doesn't happen, and the world is still theoretically perfectly livable, you mentioned one of the main problems: mass migration. We already see what that's doing today. We're not far away from World War 3 anymore. So yes, the question is perfectly legitimate.

(And before anyone thinks it: I'm not blaming the migrants, of course they're not at fault, they have every right to look for a better life. The people at fault are entirely different, but it doesn't change the fact there is a causational relationship)

Stop straw manning, nobody said it will be the apocalypse or the end of the world, they said it would be a dystopia or at the very least pretty shitty to what we have right now.

This is like telling a Roman as the empire is falling: "don't worry it's not the end of the world, sure a barbarian horde might come through every couple years raping, burning and pillaging, but you'll survive"

Natural disasters are gonna get worse, famine and food insecurity are gonna become more common, mass migration causes a lot of social strife. Again going back to the roman example a large reason for the fall was the huns moving into Europe causing cascading migrations that destroyed the empire. All of this sounds pretty dystopic to me, maybe not mad max levels, but definitely parable of the power levels.