zlacker

The article isn't an admission of failure & call to abandon all hope. It's a call to action, aiming to mitigate the worst impacts of the polycrisis.

>>Shrezz+(OP)
Did you read the same article as I did?

I read most of it (I would have preferred study links so I could look at the uncertainties but whatevs) and it basically just said, everything's fucked and our only hope is to go back to small scale agriculture (which would require massive, massive population loss).

Like, the next century is gonna be touch and go for humanity (certainly at our current levels of technological sophistication) but just saying we're doomed is entirely unhelpful.

>>Shrezz+(OP)
If it's a call to action, this is the action:

"Now, I’m just waiting for the end while enjoying the time we have left, like someone watching their last sunset."

>>disgru+o
Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive. We don't have to go backward in order to progress. We've been living unsustainably and wrecking the environment for the past 200 years.

Unfortunately, it's going to take us a lot longer to fix this problem than it did to create it. Hopefully that will be an important lesson learned for future generations.

>>taylod+uC
> Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive.

As well as his/her proposed solution requiring most of the current population to die first as non-fertilizer based agriculture (certainly local agriculture) is really unlikely to be able to feed all of us.

>>Shrezz+(OP)
Yep, that what my mindset is while reading it. Although it's too late to completely stop it, we can only limit it's damage and impact if we want to.

I still blame the US elections of 2000 and 2016 for most of this and I go to my grave with that.