Climate collapse

About that fundamental restructuring of society… what do you all think that looks like? Can we get it done before climate refugees trigger WWIII? Or are we looking at climate change + some series of holocausts? How far are we willing to let this go?

Groundwater, the source of 40% of India’s water needs, is depleting at an unsustainable rate, Niti Aayog, a governmental thinktank, said in a 2018 report. Twenty-one Indian cities – including Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad – are expected to run out of groundwater by 2020, and 40% of India’s population will have no access to drinking water by 2030, the report said.


We (humans as a ‘dominant’ species) are doomed. We really aren’t all that clever. We copulate stupidly.

The planet will survive!


I don’t disagree, but, ever the optimist, I’m hoping for some ideas here (however futile they may be…)

I wish I was optimistic but I don’t know how we could possibly restructure our society at this point. It’d mean giving up so many of the creature comforts and conveniences we now take as given. I mean… travel, stupid music gear, fruit all-year, air-conditioning, medical equipment, etc etc. Without fossil fuels and raw materials none of that exists. I think those things will have to be taken away from us, or we’ll have to face some awful hardships.

Those 100 companies are just the beginning of the chain, no?


Totally agree. I want to imagine what that life is really like. I want to imagine whether we can move to it proactively. It will be easier if we prepare before things start shutting down…

oh boy. i just said that “prep” word


The ‘unthinkable’ is to accept diminution as a species.

How that would come about is, given our proclivities, likely to be ‘cataclysmic’.

Survival is hardcoded into us. So there will be ‘pain’. The scale of universal time will obviate our pain, in the rather short term.

Humans, in the future, will hopefully be less self-obsessed.


I don’t think diminution is unthinkable. I’m thinking about it.

1 Like

Lynn Margulis has some nice quotes:

“Life is a planetary level phenomenon and the Earth has been alive for at least 3000 million years. To me the human move to take responsibility for the living Earth is laughable - the rhetoric of the powerless. The planet takes care of us, not we of it. Our self inflated moral imperative to guide a wayward Earth or heal a sick planet is evidence of our immense capacity for self-delusion. Rather, we need to protect us from ourselves.”

“Despite our very recent appearance on the planet, humanity combines arrogance with increasing material demands, even as we become more numerous. Our toughness is a delusion. Have we the intelligence and discipline to vigilantly guard against our tendency to grow without limit?”


I feel that is a strong denial of the reality of the anthropocene that is entirely unjustifiable. Humanity has altered every ecosystem irrepairably and we have no choice but to take responsibility for that fact.


since lines is a place where there is some emphasis on the choice of words, and i read three times “climate change” here in the last 30 minutes (edit that was 90 minutes ago), i’ll just share the Guardian’s recent stance about words and the end of a human-livable world: .

(I’d love the discussion here to convince me that it’s even worth discussing. This topic makes holes in my brain as it irrationally triggers an inability to reconcile the fact that i know how bad it will turn and that very deep glow telling me that all culture can’t just end.
More specifically, given how little my impact as a change agent can possibly be, there is only one rational and seemingly useful conclusion i get to — that is obliteration. That’s how unthinkable it is to me. So i avoid looking at it and i keep myself a somewhat clear conscience by realizing that my consumption choices are more reasonable than my statistical peers. I also choose to be childfree (for many other reasons but this one (the probable end of any version of the world i would live in) is good enough).
This post took me way too long as it got me to revive my reading of “The road” and my viewing of “The sacrifice”.


for any in the US like me who haven’t really been keeping up with climate change politics outside of a vague existential dread in the back of your mind every time you experience an irregular weather event, i thought this video was pretty well done.

i try to buy local. i don’t own a car and try to take public transit instead of ride shares. i avoid meat as much as i can. i try to be optimistic. but it’s so hard


Doesn’t anybody think about revolution any more? Or do we really think we can vote away capitalism? I doubt it.

Revolution, by the way, doesn’t have to mean war. It could mean withdrawal.


This thread prompted me to relisten to an interview with the documentary film maker Adam Curtis on Chapo Trap House. I highly recommend listening to the entire interview, as there are many quotable moment, but this is one that stands out in particular. Also, highly recommend watching his films Hypernormalization and The Century of the Self.

SO in answer to your question, what you need is a powerful vision of the future. With all its dangers. But it is also quite thrilling. It will be an escape from the staticness of the world we have today. And to do that, you’ve got to engage with the giant forces of power that now run the world, at the moment. And the key thing is that in confronting those powers, and trying to transform the world you might lose a lot. This is a sort of forgotten idea. Is that actually you surrender yourself up to a big idea and in the the process you might lose something but you’d actually gain a bigger sense, because you change the world for the better. I know it sounds soppy, But this is the forgotten thing about politics. Is that you give up some of your individualism to something bigger than yourself. You surrender yourself - and it’s a lost idea.

I haven’t quite integrated this sentiment into my life, growing up in the arch-individualistic milieu of the 80s and 90s in the United States. I do think real change extends beyond the paradigm of personal responsibility and consumer choice that is so prevalent in neoliberalism. Making the “right” choices such as buying an electric car will only do so much when, as was pointed out 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all emissions.


The hippies had this idea. They created communes. Some people are up for it, most are not. As others have mentioned above it’s very hard to get a significant portion of the population to back pedal the creature comforts we’ve gotten used to in the second half of the 20th century. It will take a catastrophic event. We will witness the sixth extinction and then changes will start on a big enough scale. Of course it might be too late at that point.

My parents were hippies. I’m whatever you call the next gen of that.

1 Like

@kirklandish I love that Adam Curtis quote, thank you.

Electric cars have emissions too (unless your local power plant is entirely renewable, which isn’t true in most parts of the world. And even then, mining and processing the metals in battery manufacture also involves emissions)


phrase of choice in the past month here (at home, in person, amongst friends) has been “climate collapse”

“change” just doesn’t convey any information whatsoever.

linked before but that quote when it was delivered (with burial underneath) is a thing to be heard.


During a year, every week students did protests here(Belgium), for a greener world. Election, just finished and the racist party was the big winner! Revolution? I don’t think it works.

Let earth decide and let mankind be erased from the planet.

1 Like

Just changed the topic title.


Depending how we decide to handle climate refugees, war may be a way for mankind to erase itself from the planet.