Is the world being destroyed?

What I am calling the apocolyptic prophecy of doom is the believe that there is a realistic chance that human civilization will end in the foreseeable future from climate change (or plastics, or GMOs, or fertilizers or any other number of things in this thread).

There are lots of specific prediction being made by credible scientific organizations. These predictions include the increase in average global temperature, sea level rise, potentially difficult local climate effects. Credible scientific organizations make lots of predictions based on the science.

There is no credible scientific organization predicting the collapse of human civilization.

Keep science separate from science fiction.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What I am calling the apocolyptic prophecy of doom is the believe that there is a realistic chance that human civilization will end in the foreseeable future from climate change (or plastics, or GMOs, or fertilizers or any other number of things in this thread).

There are, indeed, people who expect an apocalyptic end of human civilization in the foreseeable future. Define "foreseeable future" — fifty years? A hundred? I don't think any of use participating on this thread have expressed that belief. I am, however, somewhat relieved that I am nearing the end of my expected lifetime. A crowded, filthy planet overrun with desperate, squabbling humans and devoid of a productive ocean and ancient forests isn't all that attractive even if we were still to consider ourselves "civilized".

2 Replies

On this thread we have had 16 pages of outraged whining from the ideological left exagerrating not just climate change, but a host of politically one-sided issues.

There are no realistic solutions being offered. There is no acknowledgements of the trade-off that need to be made. There is no understanding of the economic impacts or the need to work together.

The ideological left is in no position to enact change. Quite the contrary, with their inability to deal with any reality outside of their political bubble makes them uniquely unqualified to work for the kind of cooperative change that needs to happen to address climate change (or any other of the challenges facing modern society).

The world needs to come together to face our challenges. Read any of the pages of of this ridiculous thread. The outraged, exeragerated sermons from the ideological left are making things worse.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Actually, Walter has defended the idea that the end of human civilization in the foreseeable future is a real possibility.

I respect him for that. He is the only one with the courage to take this stand. If we aren't talking about the imminent destruction of the Earth, than this comparison with the Titanic is silly (as I suggested).

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

A crowded, filthy planet overrun with desperate, squabbling humans and devoid of a productive ocean and ancient forests isn't all that attractive even if we were still to consider ourselves "civilized".

This is not science. It is a dystopian view from science fiction.

Saying that plastics are increasingly being detected in oceans and that this has had some impact on wildlife is scientific. Saying that we are facing a planet "devoid of a productive ocean" is apocalypic science fiction.

Understanding the difference is important.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. There is not a single scientifically reputible organization stating that the end of human civilization due to climate change is a possibility.

EVERY scientifically reputable organization SHOULD be saying that "the end of human civilization due to climate change is a POSSIBILITY."

EVERY ONE OF THEM. AND EVERY LOGICIAN ALSO.

The alternative is to assert that there is NO POSSIBILITY that the end of human civilization due to climate change...which would be both illogical and absurd.

Quote:

3. You still haven't answered the question directly. Can I assume that (inspite of the lack of any scientific institution saying so) that you believe that the end of human civilization from climate change is a real possibility?

Without a single doubt whatever...the end of human civilization from climate change is a real POSSIBILITY!

The alternative is to say that there is absolutely NO CHANCE WHATEVER that the end of human civilization will happen as a result of climate change...which is so absurd no intelligent person would assert it.

You do realize that...right?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Of course he does, he’s trolling.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

On this thread we have had 16 pages of outraged whining from the ideological left...

So predictable – why is concern for the environmental health of the biosphere and future of human civilization an ideological stance? It hardly qualifies as "whining", that's just your inaccurate characterization used for rhetorical effect.

Quote:

There is no acknowledgements of the trade-off that need to be made.

What "trade-off" are you talking about? Some centrist fantasy where the wealthy nations accept hundred of millions of climate refugees in exchange for their promising to work for lower wages or something? Some centrist scheme where we halve all the attempts at establishing a carbon ceiling – "Okay, instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 90% we'll compromise at 45%".

Quote:

The ideological left is in no position to enact change.

Nor is the ideological right or the ideological center. It's industrialism that's enacting change – change for the worse. Positive change can only be accomplished by confronting industrial pollution and the economic systems which allow it.

Quote:

The world needs to come together to face our challenges.

Show us where that's happening. The world has known about the ramifications of a heating globe for decades. Yet massive coal-powered power plants are under construction in Asia, as if there were no problem at all.

Quote:

The outraged, exeragerated sermons from the ideological left are making things worse.

You obviously don't understand what a "sermon" is. No one's spouting "sermons" in this thread, with the possible exception of you, the self-proclaimed "scientist". There is actually a surprising dearth of moralistic platitudes here. So explain how anything in this thread is "making things worse"? Are you insinuating that discussing this issue releases CO2 into the atmosphere or something? How do five or six people on a message board manage to have such a deleterious effect on the planet?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sure Frank. I misspoke.

I want to make the difference between a "significant possibility" and a possibility.

Scientists are confident in making predictions about sea level rise. They are suggesting a real possibility of localized famines. Any scientist will tell you it is possible that all of life on Earth will be wiped out by a freak gamma ray burst tomorrow and none of this will matter.

Reputable scientific organizations are saying there will be sea level rise and more violent weather. No reputable scientific organisations are saying that human civilization is going to end.

It is possible that Joe Biden is really an extraterrestrial in disguise. If that is your point, I can't argue with it.

On one side we have scientific predictions about climate change. On the other side is science fiction presenting a possible apocalyptic future.

There is a difference between science and science fiction (although most views presented in science fiction meet Frank's view of possible).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sure Frank. I misspoke.

I want to make the difference between a "significant possibility" and a possibility.

Scientists are confident in making predictions about sea level rise. They are suggesting a real possibility of localized famines. Any scientist will tell you it is possible that all of life on Earth will be wiped out by a freak gamma ray burst tomorrow and none of this will matter.

Reputable scientific organizations are saying there will be sea level rise and more violent weather. No reputable scientific organisations are saying that human civilization is going to end.

It is possible that Joe Biden is really an extraterrestrial in disguise. If that is your point, I can't argue with it.

On one side we have scientific predictions about climate change. On the other side is science fiction presenting a possible apocalyptic future.

There is a difference between science and science fiction (although most views presented in science fiction meet Frank's view of possible).

Max...anything that is not established as impossible...is POSSIBLE.

This is not my view of "possible"...it is THE meaning of possible.

As for "possible" versus "significantly possible"...perhaps you mean "probable" or "likely" or something like that.

A thing is either possible or impossible. If it is not established as impossible...it is at least POSSIBLE.

Not sure how many planets the scientists you mention have studied to determine the probability of destruction due to climate change (man made or otherwise), but I suspect NONE.

So there is no true probability.

YOU are misstating and gratuitously manipulating science's stance on this question every bit as much as the people against whom you are arguing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You are making the same argument here that you make about the existence of God on the religious threads.

I get your point (although the parallel here makes me chuckle).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are making the same argument here that you make about the existence of God on the religious threads.

I get your point (although the parallel here makes me chuckle).

Max...NO SCIENTIST ALIVE knows the long-term impact of what is happening right now because of human activity.

We may be a lot closer to an apocalypse than you suppose...and there are very few scientists saying the possibility of that scenario is so remote that we shouldn't unnecessarily concern ourselves about it.

Just my opinion, but I see the people arguing caution here to be making a lot more sense than you on this issue.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

The ideological left is in no position to enact change.

Quote:

Nor is the ideological right or the ideological center.

I don't think that the changes needed here have particularly much to do with the orientation of a political party. (Not with churches either - although e.g. the Evangelical Church of Germany is a pioneer in battling climate change.)

The science is irrefutable.
Less certain, however, is the strength of political will to act upon it.

But if you have political leaders ,who recognise that exceptional times require exceptional measures, these challenges can be met.
Unfortunately, there aren't many of such leaders - if any at all. (Who cares about the possible loss of entire countries in the Pacific, if you don't live there?)

Science's verdict is clear: there is no more room for manoeuvres, delays or procrastinations in dealing with a crisis which is this generation’s responsibility to address.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

We aren't arguing about the science. The fact that the climate is changing due to human activity is irrefutable.

We are arguing over the science fiction. This thread is proposing an apocalyptic vision of the end of human civilization. This is an ideologically motivated moralistic fantasy This isn't what the science is sating.

The science says what it says. Once you step beyond this to speculate on the end of civilization or a zombie uprising or an attack from another dimension... it is no longer science (even if you start with scientific premises for your narrative).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Science's verdict is clear: there is no more room for manoeuvres, delays or procrastinations in dealing with a crisis which is this generation’s responsibility to address.

This is one of the things that really frustrates me. Science is not political.

Science is based on objective experiment. A scientific conclusion must be well defined and testable.

Science's verdict? No! It is your verdict based on your personal judgment. Science does not deal with platitudes, generalities or moral judgements.

You are taking a subjective ideological stance based on your personal sytem of values and attaching the phrase "science's verdict" to it. In doing this, you are making science subject to your ideological beliefs. In this case it is no longer an objective system of testing hypothesis.

If science always matches with your political ideology, you are almost certainly doing it wrong.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The science says what it says. Once you step beyond this to speculate on the end of civilization or a zombie uprising or an attack from another dimension... it is no longer science (even if you start with scientific premises for your narrative).

Well, now I understand why categorise all the research institutes for climate impact research (that are those addressing crucial scientific questions in the fields of global climate change, climate impacts, and sustainable development) to be non-scientific.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Seriously, max, you have no idea about my ideology or if I even have one.

Of course, "science verdict" is a personal conclusion - I adopted it from authors of the report.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I suspect there was zero chance you would reach a different verdict even vefore you saw the evidence.

Your judgement is biased... even outside the fact that you are speaking on behalf of science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I suspect there was zero chance you would reach a different verdict even vefore you saw the evidence.

I've admitted that I didn't get all what was written in those 1,800 pages - and I admit additionally that I even didn't read all of them - but the summary. (And I listened to what was said by the head of the research department "Transformation Pathways" at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Prof. Dr. Elmar Kriegler, a German and a lead author of in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

You heard what you wanted to hear. If there was any contradictory points, or ideas that challenged your political narrative, you ignored them.

And you left with the same political ideas you came in with.

Science is based on well-defined ideas that are testable. Your political proclaimations are not well-defined or testable. That doesn't (in itself) make your political narrative wrong.

But it isn't science.

1 Reply

Is the world being destroyed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know