this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
134 points (74.6% liked)

World News

49424 readers
1812 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A scientist has made the shocking claim that there's a 49% chance the world will end in just 25 years. Jared Diamond, American scientist and historian, predicted civilisation could collapse by 2050. He told Intelligencer: "I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050."

Diamond explained that fisheries and farms across the globe are being "managed unsustainably", causing resources to be depleted at an alarming rate. He added: "At the rate we’re going now, resources that are essential for complex societies are being managed unsustainably. Fisheries around the world, most fisheries are being managed unsustainably, and they’re getting depleted.

"Farms around the world, most farms are being managed unsustainably. Soil, topsoil around the world. Fresh water around the world is being managed unsustainably."

The Pulitzer Prize winning author warned that we must come up with more sustainable practices by 2050, "or it'll be too late".

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] teolan@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

We need to send a bunch of scientists to the edge of the ~~galaxy~~ globe to create a foundation that will help reduce the duration of the chaos to only a millennia.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago
[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

Calling Jared diamond a historian is just nonsense.

The minute I saw his name I rolled my eyes.

Move along nothing to see here.

[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 72 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"Why 49% and not 50%?" "I wanted it to sound more accurate than it is"

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

Totally. I assume his error margin is about 30 times that difference

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago

Because it's a simple way of saying "We're not quite over that most likely outcome line yet, but we're getting there."

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 55 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"Popsci author repeats claim he's been using for decades to sell books that most anthropologists question".

Man, sometimes I think newspapers and traditional media should be banned from reporting on science at all. I am very critical of social media and what Internet does to communication, but I'll admit that the extremely focused experts that communicate on a narrow field for a living do a much, much better job of parsing published claims than traditional generalist news ever did. I am exhausted of impossible galaxies, stars that "should not exist", healthy superfood, cures for cancer and world-ending events.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 49 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Wow, Jared Diamond and a tabloid.

This seems no more or less likely than before.

[–] YesButActuallyMaybe@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He's playing it very save with 49%. As if he knew math or something

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah, that was another red flag. Margins of error on any kind of calculation like this are going to be big; "roughly half" would be a strong claim. Coming out with an exact percentage about a social sciences issue is crackpot territory.

[–] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

I was gonna say... Was briefly concerned until I saw Jared Fucking Diamond's name.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.

Emphasis added. That's a pretty big bit of weasel-wording there, the world "as we know it" has changed drastically in the past 25 years. Things that we thought were indispensable to the proper functioning of the world order - such as, for example, the lack of a pudding-brained pedophillic fascist in the White House - are no longer operative. Yet we're muddling along well enough, all things considered.

Things are rapidly changing in so many ways right now. Projecting that far forward with any confidence is a bit of a fool's errand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

So that's why I planned to live in mountains and grow my own food. I thought I was high. Thanks Science.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

What does collapse even mean? All humanity dies? Fifty percent of humanity dies? Many die and those that don't revert to Mad Max life styles?

[–] Brutticus@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is something historians struggle with, because "Collapse" has happened before, the most famous of which might be the Bronze Age Collapse, or the fall of the western Roman Empire in 473. Needless to say, those didn't result in human extinction, or even the extinction of human habitation in those locations (so Greece was inhabited before the Bronze age collapse, but that predates Classical Greece, which we think of as it's golden age, and one for humanity).

Specifically, it was (natural) climate change or political turmoil (those usually go hand in hand) making long established trade routes and subsistence patterns untenable, and with it, destroying the power of the people who controlled that trade. There was a reduction in trade, as the elites had the money to import, and the disposition to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. There was certainly some population reduction, because food was not moving as much, and populations were reduced to what the locality could support. I want to note that at this point, we see migrations (although we do see violence). I want to thank Patrick Wyman's podcast for teaching me this answer.

So I think, in this case, I think its likely we see this. The current power structure will probably not survive, although pockets of it may hold on in places, and maybe even survive into the next iteration (so think about the Catholic Church, an ancient roman institution survives to this day). Instead, I expect to see local polities spring up, holding on to or rejecting various aspects of the old world. A process of balkanization implies the rest of the world looks on in horror, but I expect to see some process of it happening everywhere. Immediately, these fragments will resemble the world we recognize, but in the centuries that follow, the world will become unrecognizable to us.

I think its also important to note that like, the destruction of the social order, which would suck for a lot of reasons (like the development of technology like vaccines), doesn't necessarily mean a "dark age." Some knowledge was lost (like Roman concrete in the fall of Rome) but I dont think the fall of the modern world precludes the loss of electricity, or motor vehicles, or even something like the telephone.

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

Thanks for the answer but I'm still not really certain what it would mean to me. I mean if these fascists went away, it might be worth it. Just depends on who rises to take their place.

[–] Brutticus@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You just asked what does collapse means, and I knew the answer. I certainly don't know what it would mean for you.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well the purpose for asking what a world collapse looks like was to determine what life for a typical person would be and I consider myself to be a typical person (in the US). I kind of view it like the beginning of the movie Interstellar.

In that movie people still had houses but there were items that were in short supply. People had chronic illnesses and there wasn't much that could be done, so they would die prematurely. Crops were failing and it looked like the end of all, or virtually all, life was approaching. I wonder if that's what it looks like.

A lot of the answers were on a macro scale not a sort of day to day life scale. That's what I meant about what it would mean to me.

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

no more strawberry frosted doughnuts at Dunks.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

And no more Fortnite Battle Pass®.

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

The general breakdown of civilization,.nad mutiple points of fialuer that.can no longer be papered over.

and no one.comes bevase theres been too many disasters. A bridge collaoaes and no one foxes it, a wildfire and no firefighters, a hurricane and no one comes to help, the ibtent goes nldown and.doeat come back up again. The lights go off and don't come back on, your toilet doesn't flush and the grocery store has empty shelves.amd no gasoline available etc

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

A bridge collaoaes and no one foxes it

But... I want them to fox the bridges :(

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 days ago
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Calling Jared Diamond a scientist is pushing it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I checked my magic 8 ball, we are screwed

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I’d rather the magic 8 ball make our decisions than most politicians. We’d have a higher chance of survival

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 27 points 4 days ago (7 children)

MIT predicted society would collapse by 2040 back in the 70s.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That model keeps getting tweaked and rerun, as others have mentioned, its from 'The Limits to Growth, otherwise known as the 'World 3 model'.

In this one, instesd of measuring 'pollution', which was....fairly difficult to get accurate data on... they just used CO2 instead.

Pretty much same result, we are pretty much at the peak of modern civilization right now.

IIRC, thats a screen grab from Paul Beckwith, a pretty well renowned climate scientist... he has a youtube channel, he puts out like a 20ish slide powerpoint recapping other recent climate studies every week or so ...

Basically we are fucked, all our climate models from 5 or 10 years ago were actually too optimistic, we already blew through 1.5C, the SMOC, the Anatactic part of the thermohaline cycle, already collapsed a decade ago, and we did not notice untill the last few months.

We are tracking closer to the '8.5C by 2100' level of climate sensitivity models than anything else.

Insurance companies are basically already abandoning roughly the lower third of the US, too much climate disaster danger, can't afford to insure homes and neighborhoods.

UK Society of Actuaries recently put together their own risk assessment, from the ground up instesd of top down as the World 3 model... they are also predicting massive losses, economic damage, begging governments and insurance companies and banks to adopt mitigation strategies.

That was a pretty good prediction then. "World will end" is obviously a stupid wording, but the point is clear. The entire food supply chain as it is today will collapse, the question is just when it will happen and if we will have completely switched to indoor farming before then.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 8 points 3 days ago

Almost there

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago

Nostradammit!

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Y'know, Quasimodo predicted all this.

[–] icystar@lemmy.cif.su 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (5 children)

That's WAY later than I thought!

This is cause for celebration! 🎉

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 8 points 3 days ago

Where's that remind me bot? Remind me in 2049

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

Civilization doesn't equal the world. Life will carry on and heal from the damage us 'smart apes' have done in our hubris.

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This argument frustrates me greatly. Humans are far more adaptable than most other species, and the damage we are already doing to less adaptable species and ecosystems is incalculable and irreversible. We will kill off much of Earth's life long before we manage to destroy ourselves.

Species are going extinct at a rate of 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than the normal "background rate" of extinction, driven by habitat loss, climate change, and pollution. Every species that we drive to extinction represents a multi-billion year legacy that will never return. Arguing that life will continue after the collapse of humanity is only partly true. There are a hell of a lot of species that will never continue, because our actions destroyed them.

We're also roughly at the halfway point of Earth's ability to support complex life, which emerged about a half billion years ago and has roughly another half billion years before the increased heat of the aging sun disrupts carbonate weathering to the extent that one of the main pathways of photosynthesis is no longer possible. Yes, during that 500 million years, in the absence of ongoing anthropogenic extinction, species will again diversify to fill the gaps. But there will be no tigers or elephants or rhinoceros after humanity, just as there were no non-avian dinosaurs after the asteroid.

I'm not making an argument. I'm learning to identify with a bigger picture for my sanity.

My heart weeps greatly for all of the species that are going extinct on this planet.

And I find some hope that life itself will continue here, even if it's not complex life. Life has survived extinction events before. Life is adaptable.

I'm trying to be less attached to the form life takes, because I can't stop climate change.

So it's something that gives me peace. It's not an argument that what is happening is right. Because it's not.

[–] Brutticus@midwest.social 2 points 2 days ago

"civilization" doesn't even include humanity or technology.

[–] winkly@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Gestures broadly at everything

load more comments
view more: next ›