Remember folks, this idiot has no qualification in the field, and likes to make up random accusations that he cannot begin to justify. — unenlightened

I'm just suggesting that people refer to reputable scientists. There are a lot of them out there. :)

It'd be more helpful for us casual readers to quote the paper where you think it's wrong and then quote another scientist to back up your claim.

The claim that human extinction and global social collapse are likely due to climate change in the next 10 years is unfounded. No reputable scientist even addresses that question.

What one can find in a reputable scientist is an understanding of what computer simulations tell us and exactly what our limits are in making predictions. A good starting point would be a freshman level textbook on global warming.

I'm just suggesting that people refer to reputable scientists. There are a lot of them out there. :) — frank

You are not going to have the last word on this one Frank. You do not have the reputation yourself that would allow you to say that the author is not a reputable scientist. I have provided evidence that he is, and he has provided copious references to support his claims. You have provided nothing but smoke.

And I will not let your baseless accusations go unchallenged, as long as I am able to post. Perhaps when you have finished, some of us will be able to start discussing the article.

I won't interfere with discussion of the article. I will continue to encourage people to seek information from reputable scientists. I don't think that's unreasonable.

The claim that human extinction and global social collapse are likely due to climate change in the next 10 years is unfounded. — frank

On a cursory reading, I see no specific claim that humans will go extinct due to climate change in the next ten years. You'll need to quote that one. Social "collapse" is a muddier issue.

This:

Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations. — Conclusion

seems reasonable to me.

This:

That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. — Abstract

A lot less likely if near-term unequivocally means within ten years, but then I presume there's evidence for this that will be produced. (And it's a strong claim, so the evidence should be correspondingly strong).

I won't interfere with discussion of the article. I will continue to encourage people to seek information from reputable scientists. I don't think that's unreasonable. — frank

You're presuming the matter under debate. You consider him unreputable because you disagree with his conclusions, right? But his conclusions are the subject of the discussion. So, what you are saying effectively is, none of this is worthy of discussion.

You don't know what a reputable scientist is, Frank, and you are totally unreasonable. What basis do you have for saying the author is not a reputable scientist other than that you don't agree with him? You still haven't provided a shred of evidence or a single reference, or any indication you can even read properly.

seems reasonable to me. — Baden

To me as well.

I initially thought it was just unenlightened who concluded that human extinction and global social collapse were likely due to global warming, but he insisted that the author of the article believes that.

My point from the outset was that whoever it is that believes that: you're out of step with climate scientists.

You consider him unreputable because you disagree with his conclusions, right? But his conclusions are the subject of the discussion. So, what you are saying effectively is, none of this is worthy of discussion. — Baden

He's not a climate scientist. It's worthy of discussion mainly because there is a tendency among some to approach the topic apocalyptically. That does no good for anyone. In some ways, it has the same effect as climate change deniers.

Widespread social collapse could realistically begin in the next 30 minutes.

Imagine that I am a brilliant but disturbed philosopher who walks around all day with a hair trigger loaded gun in my mouth. So long as my day to day situation is relatively stable I might be able to pull this off for some time. If my day to day situation becomes chaotic, the chances of the gun going off goes way up to near certainty.

This is the situation we're in. Climate change will disrupt the delicate balance of a highly interconnected global economy, and in the resulting social/political chaos the nuclear gloves will come off.

Some amount of climate change and social disruption is already built in. We can adapt to that. It's the nukes we should be focused on because 1) that's a game ending threat we can't adapt to, and 2) that's something decisive we could do immediately.

What's happening is that human beings are functioning like a cancer on the biosphere, and so the biosphere is responding by attempting to reject the disease.

Take a breath, unenlightened. I'm not your enemy.

Widespread social collapse could realistically begin in the next 30 minutes. — Jake

True! And human extinction could happen tomorrow. It just takes one asteroid or the right bacteria.

2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so. — unenlightened

A claim like that is sufficient to not take the paper seriously. Maybe the guy should have stopped studying climate change for a few months so that he could learn something about epistemology instead.

The urbanization of humanity is one threat factor which probably doesn't receive enough attention.

Until the 20th century the vast majority of humanity lived on the land, and thus knew how to garden, hunt, forage etc. These days all most people know about obtaining food is how to swipe a credit card at the grocery store. Most people don't keep that much food on hand either because after all, who has room to store 3 months of food in the typical urban apartment?

So, if the highly complex human food supply chain is interrupted social chaos will begin almost immediately. It won't start when people run out of food, but when a critical mass of people conclude they will not be able to replenish their food supply via legal means. The vast majority of security personnel whose job it is to maintain order will be in this same situation, and protecting their loved ones will take priority over protecting you and me.

There can be some measure of good news in all this. We're all going to die from something someday anyway, but we're masters at pretending this is not the case. Events such as are being discussed will puncture this fantasy and bring on a higher level of existential awareness. This will be terrifying for many or most, but it does offer philosophers an opportunity.

What is our relationship with death?

We are assuming that climate change driven crisis is bad because we assume that death is worse than life. Is that true? Do we have any rational basis upon which to come to such a conclusion? Isn't really just philosophical laziness which causes us to leap to such conclusions?

↪unenlightened Take a breath, unenlightened. I'm not your enemy. — frank

Nice one Frank! Like I'm the one making unsubstantiated claims and disrupting your thread. You are the enemy of an interesting discussion, and like I said I'm not giving you the last word. You are the enemy of reasoned debate because you make unsubstantiated accusations in an attempt to pre-empt debate, and now you claim I'm the one with a problem.

A claim like that is sufficient to not take the paper seriously. — Terrapin Station

Reason that, or just be quiet, because a claim like yours is sufficient reason not to take you seriously, without an argument, maybe some references to support it, which the author has already.

Reason that, or just be quiet, because a claim like yours is sufficient reason not to take you seriously, without an argument, maybe some references to support it, which the author has already. — unenlightened

Here's how that reads to me: "I (, unenlightened,) also do not know enough about epistemology to realize why a claim like that is a problem."

What is it that obstructs us from grasping that a highly efficient, entirely realistic, thoroughly non-theoretical, technical mechanism for collapsing civilization in less than an hour is already fully in place and ready to launch at the press of a button by a single person? — Jake

Knowledge of epistemology?

Here's how that reads to me: "I (, unenlightened,) also do not know enough about epistemology to realize why a claim like that is a problem." — Terrapin Station

And that reads to me like you cannot provide any justification and so resort to ad hom.

Has anyone actually read the article, by the way?

General note:

Please talk about climate change with reference to the paper and the evidence within or elsewhere for its claims along with counterevidence, for those who disagree, from other scientific sources. Everything beyond that will be subject to deletion unless there's a very good reason for its inclusion.

(And this rule generalized goes for all discussions in the science/tech category, which this is now in).

The claim that human extinction and global social collapse are likely due to climate change in the next 10 years is unfounded. — frank

I see no specific claim that humans will go extinct due to climate change in the next ten years. — Baden

I can't find it either. Unenlightened found it somewhere in the article. Maybe he could quote a larger portion that includes that claim.

I thought un's point was the un didn't make the claim not that the author necessarily did.

I thought un's point was the un didn't make the claim not that the author necessarily did. — Baden

Unenlightened said he was quoting the article here:

I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction." — unenlightened

I thought that was from unenlightened until he insisted that it was in the article.

I still don't see that specific claim being made or un claiming the author made it, but he can speak for himself, of course.

Do you not see that in my post that is a quote of the article? So it is not my words. Will you now withdraw your false claim about me? — unenlightened

If unenlightened is actually the source of that sentence instead of the article, then I withdraw my statement that the author of the article is an idiot.

Unless you can quote otherwise, it seems to me, neither un nor the article writer made the specific claim that humans will go extinct within ten years. So, why are we discussing it?

Unless you can quote otherwise, it seems to me, neither un nor the article writer made the specific claim that humans will go extinct within ten years. So, why are we discussing it? — Baden

Unenlightened said he was quoting the article here:

I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction."
— unenlightened

We're discussing it because unenlightened has been adamant that the article is from a reputable scientist who claims that global social collapse is inevitable and human extinction is possible due to climate change in the next ten years.

I think we can all agree that no reputable climate scientist claims this.

@unenlightened

You could easily clear this up by quoting the section of the article where the author states that global social collapse is inevitable and that human extinction is possible due to climate change.

Different people speak of a scenario being possible, probable or inevitable. In my conversations with both professionals in sustainability or climate, and others not directly involved, I have found that people choose a scenario and a probability depending not on what the data and its analysis might suggest, but what they are choosing to live with as a story about this topic. That parallels findings in psychology that none of us are purely logic machines but relate information into stories about how things relate and why (Marshall, 2014). None of us are immune to that process. Currently, I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.

The above is a quote from the article that will be under discussion in just a few more pages, hopefully, and is a replica of the last quote in my opening post, without my added bolding. So the last sentence expresses the author's interpretation of the evidence he has presented, and obviously, in context, allows that other interpretations are possible. And being a generous minded fellow he doesn't even insist that other interpretations are idiotic lunacy, or disreputable. My understanding is that the author considers human extinction a possible consequence of climate change. I think one would need that time machine to confidently say it was impossible.

Has anyone read the article yet?

Please talk about climate change with reference to the paper and the evidence within or elsewhere for its claims along with counterevidence, for those who disagree, from other scientific sources. Everything beyond that will be subject to deletion unless there's a very good reason for its inclusion. — Baden

The very good reason for the inclusion of nuclear weapons in a discussion about climate change is that these weapons will be the reason that climate change will be catastrophic.

Climate change can be catastrophic on it's own. As example, let's say that human populations are reduced by half. We can adapt to that. We can adjust to the new social and environmental reality. A big problem, but a fixable problem.

If climate change triggers the use of nuclear weapons, a very reasonable prospect if climate change does indeed cause widespread social chaos, the equation changes entirely. It's still probably not human extinction, but the set back would be of an entirely different scale. Not only would much of the infrastructure of civilization be destroyed, but the environment would be dramatically affected immediately, not over a period of years, decades, centuries.

What's happening in this conversation is the same thing I am so often bellowing about. Thought operates by a process of conceptual division. And so you are trying to divide climate change from nuclear weapons. Conceptually, that is obviously possible. But...

Climate change and nuclear weapons are not divided from each other in the real world.

Thus, to the degree members and mods insist on such a division, you are engaged in fantasy.

Again, a respectful request. If the mods find it necessary to delete this post, ok, I respect your ownership of the forum. But please delete my account along with the post. Only takes a second, right?

If you can not tolerate reading this post, you are not qualified to read any of the rest of my posts either.