MIT Forecasts Civilization Will Fall By 2040

[@diegosolis9681]

So, you are telling me we still gotta do this shit for another 17 years? Goddamnit!

[@juliebarks3195]

Patience my child Patience. All good things come to those who wait.

[@kaushikvsmaniyan]

🤣😂

[@erniebuchinski3614]

Good news, Diego! It's now 2024 . . . only 16 more years of this sh*t! 😜

[@diegosolis9681]

@@erniebuchinski3614 Nuclear super powers: "Haha, about that... I give it 2"

[@xwarx1000]

Hahaha😂😂

[@kimwelch4652]

You do not have 17 years. Societal collapse is not an event -- It is a process. We are already in that process. We've already dropped a level due to previous crises from which we really haven't recovered, and each new crisis wears down our capacity to respond until we drop another level. Adaptability is inversely proportional to the level of specific adaptation. We are highly adapted to an environment that is rapidly disappearing. Collapse will continue until we lose a sufficient amount of our current adaptations (i.e., civilization) to begin actually adapting to the new situation. The problem is that the situation is changing rapidly so we may not be able to catch up to it.

[@flyhi2773]

It can collapse though and literally over night. The cracks do I agree first though. Falling value of wages. Rising levels of poverty and homelessness. Government debt especially, corporate and private debt too though. Failing agriculture from drought or floods. Rising food and energy prices we today call a cost of living crisis. Rising migration as people migrate from the first and worst hit areas, the poorest nations least able to absorb these price rises. But in the end a collapse can occur literally over night. In the past, they've always been local, Easter Island the most famous but equally similar might be Titanic, the wealthy elite escaping in half full lifeboats. We haven't seen a global collapse of mankind before but there's always a first time for everything. World's banks collapse it would all collapse, literally overnight. But for flights and shipping commandeered by Governments to head off to sea and remote islands, the crews given the opportunity, probably with family, to join I the escape and at least a chance of survival. All flights stop. All shipping, fuel stations, electricity, food deliveries, water treatment, how long would most survive? The vast majority? I'd give them less than three months and less if a flu like bioweapon were unleashed by the escapees.

[@kimwelch4652]

@@flyhi2773 There is a difference between countries or nations and civilizations. The Maya were multiple nations some of which did disappear overnight when conquered by their neighbors, but the Mayan civilization took hundreds of years to collapse primarily due to the degradation of their farmlands by overpopulation and overdevelopment. Rome did not fall in a day, and neither did Easter Island. Our global civilization (which includes all the countries in the world) is collapsing. It is not going to happen overnight, and it will entail decades of recurring crises that erode our capacity to maintain our various societies. Eventually, we will lose the capacity to repair or maintain the services that keep our civilization running, but we'll spend a good century of things slowly breaking down while we make do day to day. There will be no place to run to, no place safe, and no place to hide. Don't bother digging a bunker because you will never get the signal to go into it. Treat your neighbors well lest they eat you.

[@flyhi2773]

@kimwelch4652 When I say over night it means over night in the grand scheme of things. Meaning, we've been around for millions of years. The length of time between the pyramids being built and the days of Caesar and Cloepatra is longer than the time between those two and us today. I don't expect man to go extinct I might add but civilisation as we know it? I reckon it's getting so fragile it COULD disappear almost over night. In reality possibly, some poorer third world countries may pretty much collapse first. Is sort of happening with some but my view is it could happen and might well happen close to over night... All it needs is for the world's banking system to collapse. Not saying it will but it could. I can even see Government intentionally collapsing it. Why? Well...if they thought your way threatened their survival and it was all going to collapse at some point in the not too distant future anyway, it would be better for them to control it in order to aid their escape. All Governments have survival plans. My father was a diplomat, in reality part of the British intelligence community, AT TIMES a Government advisor, mostly to Margaret Thatcher. Long retired, retired mid 1990s but if you think they won't plan to survive, you're very much mistaken. Its a perk of the job...they can plan to survive. And they do. Where threats can be detected decade's in advance, they begin to prepare decades in advance. They'll keep it going as long as they can, literally have to, wouldn't work otherwise but if they so much as THINK it's going to collapse anyway, and in the not too distant future to threaten them and their escape and survival plans, do not put it past them to make it happen, globally when it suits them. Many seem taken in, disguise themselves as caring humanitarian, people as they do but behind closed doors, all but a few are highly dispensable. In reality, those at the top only care about themselves. This requires some. Can't survive on their own, but it's comply or they'll find someone who will. Months, years, in the scheme of things taking thousands and thousands of years to go from building the first permanent settlements, a few years even, would be overnight. Secondly, the Maya etc didn’t have the technology we have today. This being the digital age, everything depends ultimately on electricity. Maya etc may have local floods, fights, whatever but ours is a whole different world… And Governments do hold the power to literally switch it all off over night. This is the thing…mankind has not seen a global over night collapse ever, but there’s a first time for everything, this time, no nukes required…Though they’ve developed EMP weapons that do the same thing; shut it all down, literally everything with a microchip in it. That’s not just aircraft but buildings, cars, trucks, practically everything.

[@kimwelch4652]

@@flyhi2773 As I said, governments can fall overnight. The Roman republic fell to the Roman Empire, but Roman civilization ran through Byzantium times. Humans and pre-humans may go back 2.5 to 3 million years depending on how you defined human, but civilizations only started 12 to 20 thousand years ago counting Göbekli Tepe. The EMP bombs are not as effective as advertised though they can wreck havoc on infrastructure. It isn't the destruction of infrastructure that destroys a civilization, but the exhaustion of social capacity that results in the inability to repair the damage. The US has literally bombed countries into the stone age, but it did not end them as countries or even win the war. Infrastructure can be rebuilt social institutions when they fail are far more difficult to put back together.

[@rick-nv7im]

We need only one mad dictator who pushes the red button once,I know a couple. I heard some new juicy societal collapse related pfas story,hold tide?Farmers are using pesticides (on scale)mixed with pfas to make the pesticide work longer!!!! Cosmetics contain pfas to keep it longer on the skin,so children mainly girls are using more and more make up and ointments wich will help them to get less and less fertile. We are poisoning ourselfs globally and the economic growth cult will not stop this money machine!!!And even if they will it’s already way to late.The climate problems we encounter every day are the result of our behavior from the 1970’s after that time co2 levels raised exponential.Every year the fuel production breaks the record of the year before,so we have to create a revolution,to have a chance but the world leaders don’t want that the masses don’t want that too.We are fckd if we do and fckd if we dont!!!@@kimwelch4652

[@ryanpetty8843]

Who would’ve ever thought that greed would be humanity’s downfall?

[@proto-geek248]

Me.

[@MISTdesigns88]

This is always how empires fall. Its history. But heaven forbid anyone understand “if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it”

[@davidgdraper6269]

I think it’s greed/envy along with in ability to communicate.

[@joshanonline]

Greed is what drove humanity to its peak tho, so greed is only responsible for setting a 'bar' to measure its downfall. It would be like saying climbing a ladder caused your fall. No, what causes a downfall is many reasons with different degrees on different times, by different types of people and processes.

[@joshanonline]

@@davidgdraper6269 Correct. I would add Apathy and stupidity as well. In Cuba, for example, envy and ideology drives many bad things to happen. Many people do bad things to those that they envy (experienced this myself) And ideology causes meritocracy to fall, such as allowing incompetent people making horrible decisions (experienced this too) And ultimately, apathy allows all the bad stuff to happen as people don't care for either the problem nor the solution.

[@danwebber9494]

I was born in 1970, and every graph in my lifetime has peaked between 2030 and 2050. I’ve always assumed I’ll see the apocalypse from my porch rocking chai in my 70’s. It’s been a good run.

[@AwoudeX]

I'll be in my late 60's, hope i manage an early retirement ^^

[@learnwhispering]

Me to. At 20, 1990 told my keeper girlfriend there was no point to breed. She didn't like hearing that. Unregulated Growth is called cancer in a limited system.

[@deer105]

I was born in 73 and I think Gen X will definitely be in the most vulnerable position because of our age when this happens.

[@TheAireaidLord]

@@learnwhispering shut up

[@die_lokki287]

​@@learnwhisperinganti natalism is a sin and a genocide

[@realsatoshihashimoto]

It's actually "growth" that will stop. It's inevitable that growth cannot persist forever in a finite system without eventually hitting a limit. Rather than a societal collapse, perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to shift away from the obsession with continued "growth" into a stability mindset where the goal is to live sustainably in balance with the environment.

[@__ET___ET__]

Let's be real. People aren't smart enough to do something about it

[@__ET___ET__]

@@aaronkerrigan241 I'll agree on that

[@greenthumb8266]

Not going to happen, capitalism is based on infinite growth, those at the head of the bus knew that wasn’t a thing so they began purposely making things that wear out, you can have growth in capitalism if your refrigerator runs for a lifetime, make things cheaply , sell more stuff.

[@realsatoshihashimoto]

@@greenthumb8266 Capitalism is based upon an impossibility. Infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. This is why Capitalism will ultimately fail, leaving behind a ruined planet.

[@phrenologisto]

That would be nice. Not sure why we're waiting for everything to burn down before we start figuring out how to put out this sort of fire, but it's almost like people prefer the illusion of this way of life being good, than they fear being wiped out by an extinction they're currently participating in.

[@OldOneTooth]

People are having less kids because you can't afford them as resources are becoming more scarce while our demand increases. Remember that collapse 2000 2020 it's not an instant it's a start. Rome didn't fall in a day it weakened over time then tore itself apart until we hit a dark period where society had fragmented and records weren't kept. It's happened other times too.

[@koltoncrane3099]

Well it’s not necessarily about scarcity or demand. Like you mentioned Rome. Rome started to inflate its money by having lower percentages of silver or gold etc. the government quite literally STOLE from soldiers etc. paying them in devalued money basically stealing part of their labor. Governments today steal through inflation but also through wasted taxes. Before 911 the pentagon admitted they lost 3 trillion. We have demand for resources as the U.S. has endless war. Just cause there’s demand for it doesn’t mean it’s real. It’s technically artificial as the government created the demand. Well I guess also ya had China enter the WTO. The last 20 years cheap Asians worked and made things for the west. That was deflationary. What I don’t like is the U.S. not putting the U.S. first. The U.S. always puts war and power and global dominance first. Biden could have called Ukraine and said you’ll not Join nato and Russia you can have Donbas. There’d be no war. Politicians democrats included love the never ending growth. They claim we care about global warming and pollution but then go and waste however much pollution needed to have American power over Ukraine. It’s like we’re not goin to make Ukraine a state or tax it.

[@nothing2see315]

The dark ages seem like a lie, how could so many incredible structures get built during that time period with no one writing blueprints and keeping records

[@niks9652]

​@@nothing2see315it's possible some parts where still thriving whilst others were collapsing

[@dinosgura]

Resources have been always scarce in history, so stop with all the global warming bs.

[@OldOneTooth]

@@dinosgura we certainly could stop the climate change bs if we stop putting more carbon into the air than is absorbed. When you're in a room filling with smoke and people say, stop the coughing bs, if you put less smoke in the room than is settling out, sure enough soon the coughing bs stops as the air returns to a stable low smoke environment.

[@kortyEdna825]

For boomers and senior citizens, the current market and economy are unnecessarily harder. I'm used to simply purchasing and holding assets, which doesn't seem applicable to the current volatile market, and inflation is catching up with my portfolio. My biggest concern is whether I'll survive after retirement.

[@Pamela.jess.245]

Just buy and invest in Gold or other reliable stock , the government has failed us and we cant keep living like this.

[@brucemichelle5689.]

Yes, gold is a great investment and a good bet against the devaluating dollar, been holding some for awhile now, I’m grateful my adviser’s moment by moment changes in the market are lightening quick, cos who know how much losses I would’ve had by now.

[@PatrickFitzgerald-cx6io]

Please can you leave the info of your lnvestment advsor here? I’m in dire need for one

[@brucemichelle5689.]

Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Marisa Michelle Litwinsky” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.

[@PatrickFitzgerald-cx6io]

Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

[@uncletrick1]

Historically, human beings have been exceedingly terrible at two things: Predicting the future and not killing each other.

[@ajwright85]

The trend of recent generations having fewer children is not just a choice. All things are NOT equal. It is more difficult to raise a family now more than ever. Between the expenses, lack of support, and the difficulty in dating, the social climate is NOT sustainable to raising a family. It now takes TWO incomes to have the money to raise a family, and then no one is home to raise the kids. Daycare is more expensive than ever. Older generations are more reluctant to assist in childrearing for the young parents. And dating is a nightmare. The list goes on and on... But sure, it's a "choice"... A forced choice.

[@breakcreate6936]

A 'suckers' choice.

[@jonb4020]

Interesting comment. 🙂

[@tanler7953]

I agree. However, the problem is that it's not a managed scenario. It's just a reactive one. Should demographics be managed? And to what extent should individual choice be curbed by the government? I mean if population growth or decline is controlled, then shouldn't we have the best possible babies, raised in the best possible conditions?

[@blackorchid2494]

​@@tanler7953 4b honestly the US birth rate should be 0.78% like South Korea humanity does deserve new life!

[@ajwright85]

@@tanler7953 If we don't want the population to decrease due to the modern difficulties for young couples to raise families, then the best thing we can do is stop the rich/poor gap from continuingly expanding. We need more policies that support a middle class.

[@Ron_Leonard]

I love this optimism, I'd only given it another five years. I learned of the crisis in the seventies (Limits to growth), spent the eighties in energy conservation (went bankrupt), worked for a charity in the nineties pushing 'alternative (energy) technology' (CAT) and since then trying to run away, while getting old and sceptical. Conclusion, just be kind as you can.

[@alancoe1002]

Damn good answer.

[@tidtidy4159]

I read limits to growth in the 70s. It changed my life. The idea has been vilified out of existence by the free market ideology

[@spiritzweispirit1st638]

Does it Really Matter? All a Preset Anyway! oH? Did I Type that OutLoud?! 🌐

[@dogdude4897]

I didn't think we'd make it this long, but here we are. Maybe you know this podcast "Enviromental Coffeehouse", if not, check it out...🙋‍♂️

[@TravisJones812]

The seventies projections were way off. The world, excluding Africa, hit peak baby in about 1990, and even with Africa included, only about 138 mln babies are born per year on average, with that number not changing markedly in 40 years. Even if you had an average global lifespan of 80 and 138 mln born per year, you're only at about 11 bln people, but realistically since a greater proportion of that 138 is in Africa, which has a GDP of about 3.1 trillion, the rest of us face no threat to our food and water supply. The Americas are set - the population of North and South America is about a billion and will never be as high as China's or India's. The biggest threat to planetary stability would be climate change in India (which has a population density 3x that of China and 4x that of France) pushing out a wave of hundreds of millions of refugees. The way to mitigate that is greater overland transit capacity from China and Russia. ourworldindata.org/grapher/births-and-deaths-projected-to-2100

[@pootpooterson4664]

“I’m too selfish to consider giving things up for the sake of the future.” Humanity’s epitaph.

[@Friedrich-ck2le]

“People of privilege will always risk complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” ~~John Kenneth Galbraith~~ p,s, Edit out the Elon Musk reference. If the producer of this video considers Musk as the epitome of human development, God help us.

[@gregdemeterband]

will we all be forced into Self sustaining efficiency? OMG! that's impossible!

[@Dr.Weed8]

How do you allocate resources? Greed is good, greed works “gecko”

[@JANEMERCURY-p6z]

exactly

[@Hempgodess69420]

What happened in America this week. It proves humans will give up anything to serve their needs. They're darkest grossest needs and wants.

[@marcocappelli5124]

I learned recently of the massive insect population decline happening across the globe, which is the reason why one may not have to clean their windshields as often as decades ago, or why we don't see fireflies as often (I haven't seen one in years). This has the potential to cause a trophic chain collapse that would affect pollinating plants, in the end, putting the survival of our species at risk.

[@UselessKnowbody]

For bees, yes. For the majority of insects, we could certainly do with less. Nature goes through a cataclysm every 12,000 years and fixes itself after these mass extinction events. The last one sunk Atlantis, and the next one is coming in about 10 or 20 years.

[@danielefabbro822]

You joke, this week I have kinda 20 fireflies in my garden every night. The problem is that it's about years that I don't see them. It's incredible to see many like in these days.

[@katrinasomers687]

I have noticed the decline in various insects in New Zealand too, especially circadas

[@robliptak93]

I am fortunate to have lightening bugs on my 1/2 acre property in the suburbs. Three other houses on my street display those insects. Nothing on the other 12 houses. Guess which houses use lawn care services? I was even told by one gentleman that lawn care doesn’t kill lightening bugs, it just kills grubs. Some species live two years in the ground…as grubs. 😢

[@marcocappelli5124]

@@robliptak93 Yeah, as much as light pollution is said to be one major cause for the insect decline, it seems to be nothing in comparison to the 'grass lawn' deserts. I've heard of people who have radically increased the population after rewilding a tiny portion of their yards.

[@vaticinus]

11:43 Human beings have NOT always tried to grow. For thousands of years the lives of most people was exactly the same as the lives of their grand parents. We are living in unprecedented times when we go from horses to space rockets in one person's life time. "Growth" is a new concept that started with the industrial revolution.

[@paulespinoza1994]

Look at what’s happening we just have a G4 Geomagnetic storm that affected certain systems and amounts to small opening in the earths ozone layer. One expert on the earths ozone stated that some areas of the earth’s ozone layer is as thin as a dime. He said that is very concerning not to men the earths weather system being whipped lashed like never before and so called 100 year storms occurring damn near every year now. I am an optimist so I am not going to guess when the world will be flipped on its head but I am not ignoring it either look up feed back loops and how they are directly putting this planets future in great peril. Do your own research no matter what you believe the more informed the populace the better off we will be or at least prepare so that some of civilization remains and keeps the human race going well into the future.

[@vaticinus]

@@aaronkerrigan241 For over two millions years there was no change in the stone tools our ancestors made. About 10,000 years ago some significant change started to happen as some groups were forced to adopt agriculture, they eventually mastered it and started building civilizations, but even those civilizations grew over the course of thousands of years, NOT a couple centuries or decades. The best indicator for economic growth has been population growth. On average the population grew very slowly from 10,000 BCE to 1700 (by 0.04% annually). After 1800 this changed fundamentally: the world population was around 1 billion in the year 1800 and is now, at around 8 billion, 8 times larger. From 10,000 BCE to 1700 there was growth but it was imperceptible. What we've done since the 1800s is unnatural and unsustainable. We have become accustom to expecting rapid growth so therefore we pursue more rapid growth, until we fall of the cliff. And we may already be falling, most young peoples lives are not as good as their parents lives were.

[@jameswilliamsgb]

@@paulespinoza1994 You are as close to the truth as most others will get.

[@phrenologisto]

This is the real problem. We're acting like this has always been the plan when really it's an artifact of global war... not even just industry, but the war industry. We converted the products to not have guns (cars and planes) or the factory to make something new (washing machines, driers, etc), but we maintained the pace of global war as the pace of modern life. It's catastrophic intergenerational trauma that made us contestants in a race to our own extinction, hoarding resources as insulation for ourselves against the hardship the hoarding of resources creates - it's even the same mindset as global war! WWII never ended, it came home.

[@vaticinus]

@@phrenologisto Good point. Its been noted the US won the cold war by out growing the Soviet Union. Now China is trying to do the same to the US.

[@voxxiigen7797]

I can’t help but think the people complaining about “not enough population” are actually hoping for a steady supply of cheap labor.

[@seanu6840]

Try not to think it’s not your forte

[@stayhungry1503]

they are also worried about the end of a supply of underaged girls from poor families to places like epsteins island. underaged girls is literally the raison d'etre for a lot of the super rich. if they dont get their old nasty hands on those sub-18 girls they are like "whats the point?"

[@HonorableBeniah-A]

If I wanted cheap labor I would just open the borders and keep the people crossing labeled “noncitizens” so said crossers earn a small percentage of what the people labeled “citizens” earn.

[@Weidjeep]

@@seanu6840 so true lol.

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

Ya think? That’s all any of this is about. They don’t want Americans to have more kids bc those kids will grow into adults that don’t want to do slave labor. So they’d rather citizens have less kids and they’re happy to import the cheap labor they can exploit. And anyone who is against their agenda will simply be dismissed as a racist conspiracy theorist.

[@Williamesq12327]

I've been diligently working, saving and contributing towards early retirement and financial freedom, but since covid outbreak, the economy so far has caused my portfolio to underperform, do I keep contributing to my 401k or look at alternative sectors to meet my goals?

[@jessicasquire]

keep contributing to your 401K, remember you are in for the long haul, but I'd suggest you consider financial advisory

[@tahirisaid2693]

Agreed, having a good financial advisor is invaluable, my portfolio is well-matched for every season of the market and has just yielded 120% from early last year. I and my advisor are working on a 7 figure ballpark goal, tho this could take another year.

[@Erikkurilla01]

mind sharing info of this person guiding you please? truly appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress, thus the search for a reputable advisor

[@tahirisaid2693]

Her name is. 'JULIANNE IWERSEN PLUMLEE'. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.

[@Erikkurilla01]

I just curiously searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon. Thank you

[@seanarthur8392]

Jordan Pieterson is wrong. The prediction that by 2000 we would be starving to death isn't wrong in principle, just in scope. Compared to the quality of the land, the water, the absence of pollutants and the nutritious quality of the food we make, we ARE starving to death...slowly. Every human is full of chemicals that are not natural, with micro plastics that affect hormones and reproduction, and food is only a fraction as nutritious as it used to be, even back in 1950, let alone 1850. The air is horrible, the water is undrinkable without cleaning, and our food is just this side of being more poison than nutrient. WE ARE STARVING, it is just a slow motion dance to the end.

[@TEKim-lk6op]

Only starving because we choose to eat the shitty food that Big Food Corporations peddle.

[@rogerbrownreacts8528]

They are basically saying the Rich are the Problem

[@proto-geek248]

That's what everyone's always been saying.

[@terryjones3447]

Always point fingers outwards because there is no way that you as an individual could be responsible. Like all predictions this one will not come true. To say the rich is the problem as if you aren't using the resources and products that make them rich. More idiots online like you recycling Marxist and malthusian bullshit. Guaranteed global collapse is not on the way.

[@terryjones3447]

Humans are really good at adjusting behavior over time. It's call adams law of slow moving disasters.

[@TheMr02drop]

Greed is the problem. If you want to call that the rich, ok, but most of us are greedy in one way or another.

[@HamptonGuitars]

Look at French history, now there is even worse income disparity than then.

[@timmccarthy94]

Perpetual growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable.

[@koltoncrane3099]

Tim Yet perpetual growth is exactly what the government needs even if you’re a Democrat! You need growth and taxes to do handouts or to have endless war.

[@franciswarnock8977]

Edward Abbey ;-)

[@josefwissarionowitschstali1225]

God's endgame WILL change our societies FOREVER. The catch is that 99 out of 100 people will not survive it on earth.

[@teddybearroosevelt1847]

@@josefwissarionowitschstali1225Oh yeah God has a plan

[@gods-best-friend-gbf]

Lust and Greed are the ultimate killers of any civilization in this universe. They cause population to rise and so does pollution, corruption, crimes, competition, poverty, diseases, global warming, climate change and natural disasters.

[@alderom1]

This is the first generation that faces worse conditions than previous ones. You just haven't noticed the beginning of collapse.

[@mayatara1980]

Those of us who are paying attention, are seeing it.

[@billbo7630]

I think you might have to be dead not to notice.

[@alderom1]

@@billbo7630 But the video ignores it

[@chizorama]

Heard that exact same thing at the end of the 70's, yet here we are. Seems the same narratives are recycled every generation.

[@visamedic]

That’s funny. So many say that…then you tell them that the Bible predicted all…ALL of this happening, and all,of a sudden people respond ‘oh, well it’s always been like that….’ . The condition is real. It WOULD happen if God doesn’t step in (which the bible says that as well), but he says he made this planet to be inhabited forever, and that the meek would reside on it. You will not, EVER, get any real hope from ANY promise, ANY man makes. Everything we do, AT BEST, is a 1/4 measure, not even a half measure. Our arrogance and desire to be master over a domain, that we have no freaking idea how it ACTUALLY works, and why, has caused this. And the video ignores this because they actually think they’re gonna fix something that they broke, and don’t understand.

[@sorinaina71]

it's not growth, it's greed.

[@LehtusBphree2flyFPV]

TRUMP

[@SumFugaziSalt]

I think your assumption that they changed their prediction is slightly misinterpreted. This book was written in the early 70’s, before there were any emission standards, and before there was wide scale recycling , before there was limits to ozone depleting chemicals which alone would have created a disaster decades ago . Their models have been accurate, however as a society we did avert the worst of the first few models through adaptation and efficiency which has also increased over 30% in the last 25 years) , however our pollution problem is currently far far worse on a global scale . What the limits to growth did not account for was the effects of pollution on the worlds climate systems. It wasn’t until the early 80’s that ice core data and other paleo data started becoming available . Had we continued on the same “business as usual” that existed in the 70’s we would be in much closer alignment with the first and second models . There is a more recent paper written on the limits to growth that accounts for some of the adjustments in our efficiency as a society to use materials , but also accounts for some of the newer data that represents our current pathway as far as pollution ( greenhouse gasses primary) , I’m not sure if it includes models on peak oil but that is also a major factor considering our entire civilization including the ability to create new technologies relies heavily on hydrocarbons, so while it was impossible to account for every exact probability and pathway in 1970, as a macro study it was more accurate than not.

[@playinglifeoneasy9226]

If anything, I would say, the fact that we have not collapsed already is a success story for the measures that we’ve taken and we shouldn’t say oh then that’s enough we should say we should make more measures because they will be attainable and that will make a difference, and as long as we are continuing to kick the can down the road, we have the chance to outrun this so that we don’t actually collapse. We know that these things work because we healed the ozone layer, so we have no reason to say that we won’t do it usually they say it’s gonna cost jobs, but here we have an unusually low unemployment to the point that I don’t think that’s a problem we need to be concerned about if not when

[@elasticharmony]

The construction industry is a good indicator, they have many empty buildings but build more and more.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@playinglifeoneasy9226 Just go and calcuate how much its costs to own a family house, the medical bills of full term pregnancy and childbirth, the cost of raising a child, the cost (and possibly loans) or ensuring a higher study for them, how much cost of living has increased compared to just 5 years ago, and finally, after all these humongous cost, what are the chances that you can bestow a good life to your kids. Calculate all that and tell me we're not in the process of a collapse. If you don't faint doing all of these, then do one more thing - just calculate the disparity between the top 1%, the 10% and the bottom 90% and how it grew since the study. Then tell me if a welfare and wealth distrubuted society is the better choice or not.

[@innertubez]

I think the video was referring to which years the original charts used for when the collapse would happen (2000-2020 vs the current 2040).

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@innertubez Actually, looking at the reality, I feel like the 2000-2020 scenario happened quite well. And we're living it.

[@DesertRat332]

Water is what I worry about. The Colorado is drying up because we pump so much water out of it for agriculture and continued residential growth. We are going to pump the aquifers in California, Texas and the great plains dry. Where will the potable water come from?

[@koltoncrane3099]

Deseret rat I’ve thought about that. Las Vegas wanted to do a pipeline north to an aquifer. Luckily the judge blocked it cause the water rights between Utah and Nevada wasn’t finished. But Las Vegas did the same length could build a pipeline tk the ocean. You then could use a nuclear reactor and run a desalination plant and pump water to Las Vegas and Phoenix. It’d be expensive but cheaper than other options. That way those two states could sell water shares to Utah and Colorado so they could use more water rather then running a pipeline further. But remember the dust bowl. That was made by a 89 year cycle. It’s been proven by counting tree rings. There’s studies on it. Anyways we’re soon to the same cycle that made the dust bowl. The dust bowl in Kansas had temperatures get to 115! Imagine that. Did you know in the Great Depression we basically had a huge drought?

[@koltoncrane3099]

The other thing in my view is we need way less people building in California or Las Vegas or Phoenix. Honestly like it’s the cities that seem to be the problem as rural or small towns tend to grow slowly cause they don’t have massive job growth. It’s the cities that need to be fixed not the most I think. Maybe there could be some incentive for people in LA or phoenix or Las Vegas to move east of the Mississippi. If people would leave the cities and go east where they have plenty of water that would solve that. But then it would destroy the environment back east as more cities are built. Another issue is rivers being opened up. Damns are being destroyed in California which maybe good for salmon but that’s horrible for storing water or hydro power. Another river I read they send water down to save an extinct fish in the bay and took or limited farmers water. Many people speculate that they claim it’s to keep the salt Water at a certain percent in the bay. However it may be that sewers etc leak into the bay and human waste is causing more fresh water to flush out the bay. Facebook has some water groups and has some interesting charts and speculations as to why sometimes politicians seem to waste water or wants to change all their reservoirs etc.

[@100perdido]

Nestle's and Coca Cola will sell you the potable water you need, for a price. And instead of stock dividends, they might give share holders cases of water instead of money.

[@alfonstabz9741]

what I observe Distillation technology is getting cheaper. I don't know about the desalination technology but that will solve much of the worlds water problem.

[@saulgoodman8933]

And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them.

[@lv4077]

This MIT “prediction” exemplifies the beauty of being an academic.You’re able to hypothesize on any subject and you pay no price for being wrong.

[@myekuntz]

Gawddamm too true

[@elasticharmony]

Yes but who listens?

[@lv4077]

@@elasticharmony Sadly,hiding behind the imprimatur of the letters MIT,many people take these people seriously.The major contributors to these hypothetical scenarios are computer modeling and government grants that reward new and destructive sounding threats. Academicians are not paid to study great outcomes. There’s nothing that attracts more government funding, than scenarios that instill fear in the voters. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public in fear ,thus clamoring to be led to safety,by menacing it with an endless stream of hobgoblins all of them imaginary” H L Mencken

[@hokuspokus8766]

That's why meteorology is the best profession.

[@ericlipps9459]

@@lv4077 It does make sense to anticipate possible disasters in order to mobilize resources to prevent them. Refusing to change course when you're headed for a cliff is not a good idea.

[@MasterMayhem78]

I remember as a kid half the cars on the road, half the size of most freeways, half the densities of suburban areas, half the population of children in each school. Now it seems we are shoulder to shoulder at all times, freeways packed and dangerous, schools overcrowded, and too many people everywhere we go. Tell me we’re not overpopulated.

[@BigWillie01]

Not yet. Your experiencing to many people in one spot.

[@robmartin914]

It's not overpopulation, it's just the density of people in major cities mostly from people moving to those cities as is the case in immigration etc., i've lived in the suburbs, of NYC, then lived in NYC and now I live upstate, there's far less people where I am now compared to the cities and suburbs, there's enough space on earth and we have the resources and almost the capability to find new resources to sustain the population, I think in the next couple of decades we'll develop better technology where we can send crafts to go mine asteroids for resources, as far as population growth, people also die too so overpopulation is almost impossible, the only thing that ends or drastically diminishes civilization is either the natural climate cycle of earth sending us into the coming ice age, an massive asteroid or comet impact or full scale nuclear war, the latter is the most likely one imo but in the end, no one really knows anyway so it's all speculation

[@didforlove]

we are in population overshoot

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

Population and consumption have to decline precipitously if we have any chance of surviving overshoot.

[@calebcampbell5951]

@@didforlove Uh no we are in a population decline. We are actually having fewer and fewer children in developed countries, to the extent that the economy will be greatly hurt

[@drpattia]

Sorry MIT you're 10 yrs off, try 2030

[@auntbarbara5576]

💯

[@phrenologisto]

Not only that, but we're acting like it's a loss. This was only a useful project if it didn't create a doomsday device, but it has. What we're holding onto IS the suicide pact. The net result of what we've been doing is suffering which means it isn't progress and instead, we're clinging to the source of our suffering like it's the only thing holding us together, while it tears us and the planet, apart. It's a collective Stockholm syndrome that justifies our continued participation in a way of life that PROMISES to kill the future, and a lack of courage that keeps us from leaving the burning wreckage of a demonstrably terrible idea... truthfully, I dont understand why our species hasn't simply changed course to devote our efforts to restoring the planet rather than continuing to destroy it and acting like we still have 10 years to make things worse and "live our lives". It's a bizarre reaction to a concrete reality

[@eatonmahfeelins]

MIT is wrong but a random in the YT comments is right?

[@davidstyles1654]

Yes! Emphatically yes !!​@@eatonmahfeelins LOLs

[@maxzomick8733]

2029

[@Bermyfrog]

I've been trying to do my part by consuming less and minimalizing my life. I moved recently and ditched over half of my possessions, and am currently going through more of my things. Our society is too greedy and too obsessed with wealth and materialism, no one takes the time to enjoy life.

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

America and elsewhere must reject illusions of debt-based consumerism, an infinite world of pleasure with no foundation of morality, or see an end to current freedom and prosperity.

[@AlbertPOost]

The demographic implosion might save a part of the world's population, as water shortages and, with that, food shortages are growing rapidly.

[@donaldbroham3994]

While I applaud you I must point out that just because you are consuming less doesn't mean manufacturing companies have taken you and others like you into consideration. The truth won't be told because corporations aren't in the truth business, they are in the profit business. And since the 60's or 70':s the corporations, who are by far the largest consumers of pretty much everything, and by far the worst polluters, have managed to convince people that's it's the individual that is to blame. I see first hand how much companies and corporations waste and in the last 20 months or so have made over 100k intercepting that waste before it hits the landfill. I'm not trying to tell you your labors are in vain and less things equal more time to spend with things that really matter, like friends and family. And the corporations will continue to consume every available resource to manufacture their products and what does not get sold will get written off as a tax deduction and sent off to the land fill and those deductions will add up to more than you and I will ever make in a 1000 lives and that waste will fill up more land fills than you and I could fill up in a 1000 lives and the pollution created to manufacture those goods that were sent off to the landfill will....you get the point. So, you see, it's not your fault but you have been given the blame and have accepted it also.

[@donaldbroham3994]

There is one product I do endorse that, in my opinion will improve your happiness and well being, the trash bag. Fill it up with all the stuff you don't want or need and donate it. That way it fill up someone else life with stuff they don't need and then they will maybe make the discovery you have made and they will go buy trash bags. And maybe this cycle will continue until years later when one of those things have become en vogue again, and someone will find one of those items you threw away years ago but is now worth a small fortune and they will sell that item and live quite comfortable off the profits.

[@longydongy1004]

Now tell the phaggz at the WEF to do likewise and watch them laugh

[@Cloneufc]

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -Albert Einstein, 1932. "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." Even the brightest people are often wrong.

[@LucyKelly-of6cu]

So facts, as far as they are known, don't matter? Shall we stake the world on that?!

[@benjaminlund5154]

“Facts” can only operate within the bounds of our current understanding. Look at where we’ve come in the last 200 years of technological growth? “Facts” deduced now will quickly become obsolete as technology continues to outpace our ability to understand its ramifications. Not to say everything will be fine, merely to say that no one has any idea what the world is going to look like in 100 years, so these doom and gloom posts based on what humanity is currently doing are coming from a point of technological ignorance.

[@richardhastie1432]

This study was in 1970, just before the collapse of Bretton Woods. Along with the factors that MIT noted, some of which are now becoming evident, the post-Bretton Woods economic system always had a natural end point. Central Bank attempts to extend the current system, using excessive debt, means we a taking more & more future demand now. This shortens the timeline for eventual societal collapse. History shows us that the sort of currency degradation we've seen over the past 50 years, ends empires.

[@procerusgigas]

@@LucyKelly-of6cu Facts that were calculated more then 50 years ago with a pen and paper.

[@rfichokeofdestiny]

@@richardhastie1432 So far you're the only commenter that knows what's really going on here. There's a lot of nonsense about "glowball warmening" and "too many people" and "plastic" and "evil greedy capitalism." It's the politicization of monetary policy that is going to take down the world. And every nation on Earth is contributing to it to some degree. The American hegemony is built on it and those running it have become astonishingly arrogant and isolated from ordinary people. A day of reckoning is quickly coming but it won't really be good for us either.

[@markco61]

I'm 63 years old and got to begin life just before the "great society" reached it's peak and began it's collapse (interesting how those 2 occurred simultaneously) and to what it's become now....never thought my final years would be something beyond Orwellian to say the least. Greed indeed does kill...the spirit or energy of existence is all that matters you fools who made this possible.

[@Soccerexgaming]

Lucky

[@markwestfall9410]

If history teaches us anything, it is simply this: every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. And empires that rise, will one day fall. -Princess Irulan, DUNE Frank Herbert Every civilization carries the seeds of its own destruction, and the same cycle shows in them all. The Republic is born, flourishes, decays into plutocracy, and is captured by the shoemaker whom the mercenaries and millionaires make into a king. The people invent their oppressors, and the oppressors serve the function for which they are invented. - Mark Twain. Civilization began with the agricultural revolution and exploded with the industrial. It is unsustainable.

[@sustainablerenewableintegr8311]

It's never about "limited" resources. It's always about unlimited greed for power

[@PondLeHockey1234]

MUAD’DIB

[@garybarr1045]

You are 100% correct. Each civilization sets itself up its own self-destruction. Modern society has told Mother Nature to go screw herself. If she can't conform to man's ways, she isn't worth saving. Sure, sure, sure. Now we will see how man handles Mother Nature's comeback, which will show little mercy for modern man's foolishness. Man has created a full crisis-mode culture fully bent on not changing its ways, but making nature conform to man's ways. Big, big, mistake.

[@Amygondor]

Irulan was part of the problem. Remember she was in line to a throne, in line to inherit a big centralized empire. People like her can be smart in fiction, but they are dumb in reality. Just look at how easily her family was deposed by "inferior" people who are always smarter, more intelligent and more clever by design. Your intelligence is directly proportional to your capacity and willingness to live off your own capital. Irulan, lime every noble in history, lived off public money paid by herr family's vassals. She was a dumb tick like all politicians.

[@howes1960]

When violence is the language you speak, it is the tongue you will be spoken to in...

[@patrickdailey90]

You can't have uncontrolled growth, something has got to give. In addition to this, there are other non quantitative factors that come into play, such as breakdown of the society , racial problems, war, lack of personal responsibility , breakdown of social cohesion that will speed up the collapse of industrial civilization.

[@neilreynolds3858]

You have to have uncontrolled growth as long as you have uncontrolled population growth and people who want to improve their lives. Most of the controlled proposals I've seen guarantee that the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer but they try to cover that part up.

[@garybarr1045]

It gets complicated, but the end result is the same, the end of idiot man as he presently is.

[@BillDavies-ej6ye]

@@neilreynolds3858 This makes no sense at all. The point being resources are finite. Perhaps each generation can extract more benefit, but uncontrolled population growth? Forever?

[@TheBeanFactory]

What do you mean about uncontrolled growth? We know that the global population will max out reasonably soon and start declining, but it won't just collapse. The world is the most peaceful it's ever been. It's not great, but there were constant wars before, way more than now. We just didn't have the technology to communicate that. Racism is bad and it names the occasional resurgence, especially white supremacy lately. That said, even most racists would disagree with the idea of slavery; something they would support just a century or two ago.

[@rosewoo2151]

Cancer - dictionary definition: malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis. b.

[@rajeev_kumar]

They mean to say, "They won't have enough people, on this planet, to exploit."; if the population is more, the humans can be treated like sheeps and if it is less, they can't be treated like sheeps.

[@nathanielacton3768]

The AI and robotics revolution doesn't 'need' more people. The "they" will have what they need increasingly without people needed to supply it.

[@FredrickWendroff-um2kn]

Sheep's ?

[@СлышКупи-ы3е]

​@@nathanielacton3768 The AI is stupid, the robotics highly depends on cheap labor to be made from rare earth metals, and the maintenance requires highly specialized human operators which they lack greatly due to inefficiency of modern Capitalistic system where profit stands before versability You will not be paid for your talents, you are paid to be loyal

[@grahamparsons1070]

@@FredrickWendroff-um2kn😂

[@grahamparsons1070]

We are and have been “sheep’s” since the dawn of money

[@grey5135]

The fall has already started at this point the question is when does it hit rock bottom to the point where things literally can't get any worse and they start getting better because I think it's going to get way way way way way way way worse we're already in the fall though. Just haven't crashed on the rocks yet at the bottom. But its coming quickly

[@jasonnolan394]

I think we’re the frog in the pot of water. Things are worsening so gradually that we don’t notice it day to day…. but when you look back 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, you start to realize how far quality of life has fallen, and how frayed civilization has become. So we remain content in the proverbial pot of warming water, oblivious to just how unbearable it will become.

[@thehighend4545]

At a helicopter view, it isn't that bad. Today, sure. Last year. yep. Overall? I don't know about that.

[@josephfilm73]

The info is out there. I couldn't breathe during the Canadian wildfires. Lungs hurt and that smoke blocked out everything. People know what is coming, but mostly feel powerless to stop it. We might have if we worked at it during the 1980s, but too many people were greedy and didn't care. So now civilization has to collapse. 8 billion, 10 billion, or whatever was never sustainable all of those individuals all wanting more. 20 years give or take, that is the time remaining. The next decade will be tough, the 10 after that will be nightmarish. Enjoy your food and comfort now, it is all going away. Humanity turned into a swarm of locusts.

[@wvejumper]

Just to defend frogs, they’re not that dumb. They will hop out of a pot when the water gets too hot.

[@justbeegreen]

Exactly… PFAS in the water in every town, extreme droughts and floods, air pollution, pandemic, and too many people using up resources…

[@outtakontroll3334]

you might go back to say india a hundred years ago and see if you think it is better

[@MathieuDeVinois]

Each year is already worse than the year before. We are already in the process of collapse. There is no way out.

[@darrinheaton2614]

Not at all. We're just infinitely more aware of global events than at any other time in history. Looking to the left of this comment section, I see youtube has recommended a video of a story of a guy that killed 2 people in Haiti 3 days ago. We're not coming to an end, although the end might come tomorrow. In any case, everyone watching this video is going to end at some time between now, and about 80 or so years. Is that a catastrophe? Depends on the way you look at it.

[@sparkybob1023]

Optimism and hope, can propel us to adaptive and novel societies .

[@garybarr1045]

Right on!

[@carlstephens1532]

​@darrinheaton2614 they missed the part about spraying the sky's Chem trails , they are spraying more and more. Tell us why

[@tripzville7569]

Agreed.

[@Lord-DJ]

80 years ago my grandmother was scrapping chicken legs to eat, now I have everything I could ever have wanted. Give it 100 years and it'll go full circle as you cannot get exponential growth unless we find a new planet every few years.

[@robertshiell887]

From what I have seen of most people, I simply cannot see having a decrease in population being a particularly bad thing.

[@HeywoodJablowme58]

If u want to live under the rule of the ppl reproducing the most than yah ok.

[@robertshiell887]

@@HeywoodJablowme58 Unfortunately that’s how it works.

[@paulwheeldreyer7127]

This is a weirdly common sentiment. Do you think that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other forms of social safety nets are good. If you do, you shouldn't want population decrease. Societies need working age people to fund those programs.

[@terrysutton8452]

⁠​⁠@@paulwheeldreyer7127 Yes. Population decrease means more older people who can’t work, and less younger people who can work. That’s why China dropped its one child per family policy. The UK is responding by raising their retirement age, but long term that isn’t going to work, especially with the strain that’s already apparent on the health system.

[@boembo6627]

As long as it's poor brown people?

[@kbmblizz1940]

It is not the date that is important, it is the trajectory & acceleration of the rate of change. Does it matter, other than selfish reasons, if civilization crash in 20 years or 100? We should do our best to leave a future for humanity & other beautiful sentient beings, they're all innocent.

[@deadwingdomain]

Tell that to the excelerationists an rich who believe the fourth turning us unavoidable

[@chrisbova9686]

They plan on crashing it as soon as they start building it. The building phase involves labor currency and property. The destructive phase takes all the chips off the table that were given value and takes all the land and art.

[@chrisbova9686]

The date is important if you declared it was year 0 last, and there is a real good chance we just don’t know who is in charge… but they seem to be Rome.

[@sterix_gg]

Direction is more important than speed

[@eric2500]

@@chrisbova9686 not clear which comment you are responding to.

[@wakeup8052]

Population collapse due to low birth rates in the next few decades is a mathematical fact. But that's just one piece to the puzzle

[@blueodum]

It will happen at different speeds in different parts of the world, so it will not be a collapse, just a decline. Luckily, the rich world is generally the part with the lowest birthrates, so we can import people if we need them.

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

@@blueodum Import the third world, become the third world.

[@HamptonGuitars]

Considering there's WAY too many people to be sustainable, that should be a good thing.

[@rlcernick]

@@HamptonGuitars Unfortunately not. The less people that are born each year, the less people there are to solve the problem. Less people means not enough people to do the work that it takes to keep feeding humanity. As the population begins to decline, it will compound and decline even more rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100, 75% of todays population will cease to exist. 6 Billion people are going to vanish in the next 75 years through lower birth rates and starvation.

[@editfazekas3854]

@@rlcernick Feeding humanity does not require hand-men anymore. It is machinized. You don't need more hungry people to produce food as it would be a ponzi scheme and you know the end of those.

[@noisepuppet]

The problem is an economic system that requires growth, or else it crashes. We shouldn't have to tell adults this: Compound growth forever isn't possible in any physical system. Suppose the real economy grows at a healthy rate of roughly 3% per year. This means about 3% more real stuff of value produced, meaning about 3% more consumed. This means the real economy doubles in size every 25 years. Which means it doubles in size 4 times per century. Look at the current global economy. We don't need to ask if it's sustainable. We need to ask if double that is possible, because in 25 years, it'll be double. Quadruple in 50 years. 8 times bigger in 75 years, 16 times bigger in a century. Whatever you think the system will bear, just look another 25 years down the road and double it. And that's at just around 3% average growth. Much below that, and investors aren't interested in participating. No sure prospect of growth, and they shut it down, and the whole damned thing locks up. We've seen it. But in previous crashes, there were always new natural resources, new consumers and laborers, new countries to encompass in the world economy. Not anymore. The only way to keep systemwide profits up these days is stage magic and accounting fraud. Real growth is pretty much done.

[@Wrathnar_the_Unreasonable]

Robert Heinlein said "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." The survival of society would take a shift from blinkered selfishness (stupid) to enlightened self-interest (intelligent). There is no way that could possibly happen, unfortunately.

[@bodhiapurva3887]

It would take a quantum shift or leap happening right now to change the situation. Us humans are so set in their ways that a change of that magnitude is not on the cards as you say.

[@soarornor]

This has a major Club of Rome/Limits To Growth/WEF vibe to it.

[@w0tnessZA]

Good to see some people have their eyes wide open.

[@ddaffyduck9636]

Some do .i keep my mouth shut about these subjects because socially they are poison.open dialogue with strangers on the internet about woe begotten subject matter is what Im here for though.Its like a game of Zork where information zergs right into your face.

[@FuriousImp]

So you're saying limitless growth is possible on a finite planet?

[@sterix_gg]

@@FuriousImp It's not but it's also important to specify what we mean by growth. It's then also important to clarify what's the best approach towards growth. It's then also important to clarify what areas do we need to grow at and which ones are unnecessary. Point being that in a monetary based system, growth means first and foremost, well... monetary growth. Resources come second, as in that it's profit first and everything else comes after. If it's good for profit to over consume then we shall promote overconsumption. We'll use the power of advertising and marketing to achieve that. Monetary efficiency and resource efficiency also don't always mean the same thing, planned obsolescence being a prime example of that. This also applies to the topic of sustainability. The problem is that business as usual means profit >>>> all, and this is the model that world inevitably follows simply due to the system it's operating on... and a system reinstall wouldn't change anything. We need a new system.

[@phrenologisto]

​@@sterix_ggso you read limits to growth and just decided for yourself "nah, that's bs"? Im guessing you're older than 60. Am I right?

[@forgingmagick4470]

Yep these big CEOs and governments around the world are too blame and they're not going to quit until something stops them they want that money and power

[@neilreynolds3858]

Well, if you want to survive a collapse of civilization, money and power is a rational choice, right? You can't fault people for making rational choices when civilization is becoming irrational. It's not my plan but I understand it.

[@shroomer3867]

@@neilreynolds3858 Money isn't a rational choice when society collapses. Power? Sure, that's a given. But money? If we used gold bars and the currency had some inherent value to it then sure I'd give you that one, but most of the world uses some sort of fiat currency which has no inherent value to themselves or even worse, just a number in a bank. Who holds that value? Governments and institutions, and now, tell me, what governement or institution is going to be left standing after a major societal collapse happens? Absolutely none my friend. So, no, holding money isn't as rational as you'd think it is, sure it can get you power but it might be too late and the transfer rate of currency --> power/weapons/bunkers/etc. might be too high at the point when you actually start seeing the symptoms.

[@leefrancis007]

You don't realise they are the ones pushing for a one world order and removal of all your rights.

[@steelearmstrong9616]

@@neilreynolds3858 Money is used to control us plebs

[@Torrque]

Ya, because all the average, self indulgent, obtuse masses have nothing to do with it. Rrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiggghhhttt….

[@howardaltemus9814]

We are say 70-80% thru the now on-going mass extinction. Witness the 65% loss of trees, the 90% loss of birds, plankton, fish, insects, and worms which are the core element of a healthy soil, and on & on…

[@KyleGertner]

For as useful as plastics are, we need to cut down on disposables and only use it for necessary things. Time to go back to growing food in a garden. I know people that have a break down when the internet goes down for an hour. I know people who don't know how to get hot water if it doesn't come from the tap. If the electricity goes out for any real length of time, most people are screwed.

[@PsychologicalApparition]

Even if they have electricity! Some of my friends on FB did not know how to prepare food and were facing issues by not being able to purchase pre-made consumables at the market. Seriously! couldn't even make one meal! :/

[@gimpee8113]

true, those disposable in the past are for storage and can use forever but now only use once. I just don't know why we are driving ourself to the end of road.

[@zenastronomy]

one of the reasons no one wants kids is because they can't spend time as a family with kids. ppl wanted large families before as they spent time with their children, cooking, cleaning, farming, working etc. that familial bond fathers and mothers loved having children. nowadays, parents are stuck in an office prison and children are stuck in a school prison and they never socialise with each other. the result is ppl no longer want kids. as they'd rather socialise with their friends or on Internet. As kids aren't around parents enough for them to enjoy their company.

[@reubenmorris487]

Don't forget about the amount of people who would be unfit parents. Endocrine disruptors in the environment are making it harder to "have kids" anyhow...

[@annodomini2012]

The superrich have clawed back all the gains made by the middle class in post WW2 and now have the nerve to tell overworked apartment renters that they are selfish for not having kids? Clearly they need to pay more taxes

[@oceanbreeze1440]

They also don't want to bring children into a dying world.

[@caty863]

@@reubenmorris487 Those endocrine disruptors don't exist here in Africa. All the 21 year-old girls I meet have kids already. I am genuinely concerned by the young men who would like to marry. The only option now is to accept to be a step dad. In my time (I am 40 now), we used to complain if you married a girl and found out she wasn't a virgin.

[@richardjarrell3585]

There’s the cost of raising children when the prices are escalating while wages are stagnant: just look at the exponentially increasing cost of a college education and that of buying a house.

[@grantcanada1]

It is just too costly everywhere in the world to have a family. It's too stressful.

[@thomas__1258]

I think you statement here nailed it .. Families needed and balanced resources, time, resources, knowledge passed to siblings, love for family members, yes!

[@tiffanyisaacson1407]

Im not sure why someone would bring a human into this f up world.

[@danmarshall3225]

And yet my girlfriend and I have 5 kids between us and we make 250K a year as a couple. Get an education.

[@celestial_s]

250k isn't enough to support 5 kids now

[@dild0sled]

@@danmarshall3225 You don't even need an education or money thought. I got 3 kids, no college or university, only I work, and on paper I make minimum wage. I have a house, no debt, wife's got a minivan and I got a car. Single income to support a family of 5+ was the EXPECTED NORM for quality of life for the previous generation, you just got duped. You gotta work smarter, not harder.

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

We don’t have 17 years, we don’t even have 7 years. The entire human civilization is heading to a crude awakening. Buckle up because it is going to get bumpy.

[@didforlove]

why ?

[@eric2500]

Important: MUSK is not an innovator. He is an investor in tech who got lucky. Now he thinks he knows what is good for the rest of us - how much speech, who can say what, he wants to control the wavelengths or rather the internets, like this You tube here. So a potential decline in celebrities sounds like a bonus.

[@bigjohnson7415]

Indeed! I think his Asperger's is really kicking in!🤔 Seems he managed it well for a couple of decades, but old age is catching up with him.

[@greatcondor8678]

Elon is trying to bring back free speech to Twitter and KZbin that liberals are taking away from us. You sound like liberals.

[@robertlee6949]

@@bigjohnson7415 Amazing how he want from shining to shit once he wised up and dumped the lefty bullshit.

[@bigjohnson7415]

@@robertlee6949 Amazing how the Reichwing LOVES Musk now, even though he's mostly responsible for developing the entire EV ecosystem and markets in the US. And we KNOW how much y'all loves ya some Electric Cars, don't we? No, what Muskie loves is his Tax Cuts, not anything to do with any other Rightwing policies. Simple as that.

[@Stable_Genius]

​@@robertlee6949 nah, Musk was always a conman. Just took people some time to realize.

[@ObservantDog]

"I don't want to set the world on fire... I just want to start... a flame in your heart."

[@stawmy]

I remember my Mother singing that song, as we filled the sandbags for the shelter....

[@Kingedwardiii2003]

Fallout fans when there’s a nuclear war (they won’t get to be a wasteland explorer)

[@stawmy]

@@Kingedwardiii2003 Well, they will. For a very short time...

[@bobhope4949]

@@Kingedwardiii2003I’m gona explore your moms wasteland……..😬

[@artlewellan2294]

I'm trying to finish an essay titled "The Walking Communities of 2040" - a 4-part series, each part 500 words or so. The Part-4 summary is unfinished. The essay is loosely based on the 1976 novel "Ecotopia" by Earnest Callenbach with a few updates in modern tech applications. The premise of Ecotopia was the need to make living arrangements without the need for personal cars and the transport of essential commodities reduced to least distances. My thinking along these lines of urban planning began in 1992 with the rise movement of light rail and bus systems. Little did I know then how corrupt transportation planners devise obstructions that limit transit system potential that poses a threat to automobile-related business empires (finance, insurance, marketing, sales, manufacture; construction of roadways and car-dependent housing; pay to park, pay to drive toll roads, etc etc). Near last on this list of powerful business interests are petroleum industries because the others don't care how we power cars and trucks. They care only that we remain car-dependent. The essay Part-4 Summary (land-use and development reforms) broadens Callenbach's San Francisco City Center urban planning scenario to the level of entire metropolitan area systems. Commuting would become a thing of the pass. Light rail is considered an "anti-commute" system. Obsolete buses that do not convert to EV adequately evolve into whole systems that create seamless transfers bus-to-rail and between bus lines. Traffic volume decreases 75% or so. Autonomous Vehicles (at level 3 "driver assist") maintain safe speeds while leaving drivers behind the wheel in control.

[@williambuchanan77]

It's pretty obvious that the way nations are run drastically needs to change if we are to have a better and brighter future. Sticking to the same old vile corrupt playground for the world's worst possible people just isn't working.

[@danrubin4506]

No we did not “always try to grow.” Civilizations rise and fall, but stable indigenous cultures have persisted and survived by respecting and staying in balance with the limits of the living world.

[@nathanhawee5373]

I'm 35 and sae this coming around 2005. When I was like 16. Literally everything I've been telling ppl for over a decade is all happening right now So if your not preparing you need to be

[@EmeraldView]

No amount of preparation will save you or anyone else.

[@nathanhawee5373]

@EmeraldView I'm not worried. Unless I die in a nuke or from poison or radiation I can hunt and grow my own food. Make my own medicine. So unless I go in the initial whatever. I'll be ok

[@keithjoseph128]

Prepare for what exactly?

[@phrenologisto]

I dont understand how anyone can prepare. What are you preparing for? You're imagining a future that isn't supported by current ecological trends. Unless the goal is to be the last person on an earth so hostile you can't leave your bunker, species level action in the direction of restoring life and not taking resources is the only direction that nudges humanity away from extinction. Or be a prisoner in your little bunker until it gets cooked by cascading reactor failure. I was like you. I had a whole community of supplies prepared because, as you know, you can't do much without a tribe. But then I saw extinction up close and realized there's no human structure that can save us from what's coming. It's not just a new climate, but an exponentially more alien one. We didn't stop when we needed to, now there's no "after"

[@razorsharplifestyle101hard9]

Will th stock market still exist at that time is the question.Compound interest make the rich richer.And the dark side of compound interest makes the poor poorer.So one the stock market cease to exist then something terrible and new will the order of the world.

[@JJSurma]

I really enjoyed this video, but I have a suggestion to improve your audio quality. There are a lot of plosives in your narration. Plosives are caused by blasts of expelled air hitting the mic's diaphragm and they're most audible when your facing forward and talking directly into the mic. To avoid this, turn your mic to a 45-degree angle when you're narrating. Hope it helps!

[@leewilliams2094]

In the 1970s MIT said we would be out of oil before 1990..

[@idokwatcher2062]

They are not all knowing, advance in technology made digging deeper in highly hostile areas possible, and shale oil is profitable now

[@joseenoel8093]

🏆! I once did the mistake of asking a much younger person who MTI was, I got no response, they walked away! 😮

[@marcoklaue]

Did they really say that? Do you have a source? I thought the 70s oil crisis was more about availability (turmoil in the Middle East) than about quantity...

[@maxis2k]

They also said in the 1970s we were heading to a global ice age. Made entire documentaries on TV about it. Then less than 20 years later, everything was global warming! The O-Zone! We're gonna die! And then it was we only have until 2012 to stop climate change. Oh nevermind, 2020. Oh wait, now it's 2040. Hmm, did I just hear a boy crying wolf somewhere?

[@bmolitor615]

what's yer point, spell it out for us :)

[@willm5814]

Collapse? No it will just be a step change from a consumer-based, extraction-based model to a circular, creative model - this will seem like the end of the world to those that are making out like bandits in the current model- to those that are being dominated and exploited there is a tremendous upside potential.

[@RaptorFromWeegee]

get over your marxist socialist fantasies.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

I was told that as a 16 year old, some 50 years ago, and I am still here.

[@bipl8989]

That's the amazing thing.

[@wittiza2102]

People has always thought that they live near the end of days. Just look att the book of revelation.

[@phrenologisto]

The children of the silent generation, the boomers, are the people holding back meaningful change in the direction of stabilizing the planet. I cant tell if it's out of pride that you can't admit this was all the wrong way to do it, or out of an obsession with the heroism of your parents and a blindness to any critique of what came out of the war. Either way, that's some really specious reasoning. If I throw you a grenade that's supposed to blow up in 5 seconds, and those 5 seconds pass, will you go and pick it up, assuming it's actually fake? You're betting in the wrong direction against risk. When insurance companies and scientists agree that something bad is coming because of how we're living, you'd hope to have something better than "hasn't happened yet" as proof that they're wrong. If a smoke detector goes off and so does your CO detector, do you check where they're made and suggest it's a hoax because they're made in China, or do you leave the house? You're currently betting the future of all life that your detectors are all faulty, despite going off at the same time and even smelling smoke in the air. For a generation of gamblers, you really don't understand risk management

[@ayugoslav5554]

​@@wittiza2102Book of revelation is now, dummie

[@bryck7853]

@@wittiza2102 they live near the end of _their_ days...

[@tashuntka]

I live simply, so that others can simply live. I have nothing fancy, I mean no thing. But I don't do without....I do within.

[@AliceEade-st2yc]

Love 'I don't do without, I live within' personally find simple pleasures such as reading a book or taking walk in nature food for the soul

[@sentientflower7891]

Civilization collapse arrives no later than 2040 and the Malthusian collapse follows immediately. As to the observation that the present generation isn't having children, that is a very substantial signal that at some biological level the human species realizes that time has run out. Because a child born in 2023 reaches adulthood by 2041. It is a merciful thing to not have children.

[@mr.monitor.]

It's pointless to bring more children into the world at this juncture.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@mr.monitor. reproduction is not a matter of human free will.

[@mr.monitor.]

@@sentientflower7891 sure it is.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@mr.monitor. it isn't. Humans are just as much an animal as any other animal.

[@mr.monitor.]

@@sentientflower7891 animals have birth control?

[@jazfarm5726]

Limits To Growth has been around since the 70’s. Where ya’ll been?

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Preaching unlimited growth and (claimed) cool technology featuring RGB lighting, while stealing people's wealth, sovereignty in the back-end.

[@daylight44ful]

exactly bro

[@TheBeanFactory]

And yet we've made massive strides and growth since the 70s...

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@TheBeanFactory Can you show anything that didn't: 1. Make the planet severy uninhabitable. 2. Accumulated 99% of the world's wealth in top 1%'s hand and left everyone else impoverished. 3. Make the cost of everything unbearable. 4. Make life so uncertain for everyone to the degree that people are afraid of taking children. Parents are just not sure what horror is waiting for their children.

[@TheBeanFactory]

​@@aniksamiurrahman6365 1) Uh, last time I checked, the planet is still habitable. Climate change is a concern, but it's still overall habitable. Advancements in renewable energy have helped. GMOs have been massively beneficial to the entire world. While some unfortunately still starve, it's not a matter of how much food we produce, but the logistics of getting it to war torn areas. 2) Compared to when? Hundreds of years ago, we had serfdom and only royalty had even remotely bearable lives. And even royalty lacked indoor plumbing and modern medicine. While not perfect, many countries have a welfare state that has enabled a large portion of the population to have better lives. This was not the case even one hundred years ago (Great Depression). 3) That's statistically false. Again, while not perfect, people are wealthier and have more purchasing power than before. Exceptions exist of course. Lack of housing supply in the US has caused issues. On the other hand, good as a % of disposable income is incredibly lower than 100 years ago. In fact, it rose ever so slightly recently in the US - because people are eating out so much. Technology is incredibly affordable compared to a few decades ago. It used to be a sign of wealth to own two vehicles in a family, have a color TV, etc. People have a false understanding of PPP from 4-5 decades ago. Overall, people are much better off now. Life expectancy continues to rise as a whole. 4) People are more aware of global events because of real time news, but how is it worse now? WWII saw tens of millions of lives lost. Many just from famine in Eastern Ally countries during that timeframe (the decades surrounding it). China was severely impoverished. Since then, while still having many issues, many millions have been brought out of poverty. In general, those with lower incomes have more children. It was common to have a life expectancy of 40-60 and have a dozen children while living in extreme poverty not too long ago. The children worked from very young ages and many died. Now, in developed countries, even the lowest bracket of income families have the most children, but it is quite less. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Children are no longer dying at extreme rates nor do they have to work at young ages. Instead, they have the ability to go to school and engage in recreational activities. The highest income bracket has the least children. People that make $hundreds of thousands and $millions only have a few children. They can afford more. Also, while exceptions exist, it's quite hard to pretend the average family was actually taking good care of 6, 8, 12 children more than a hundred years ago compared to 2-3 now. The children were responsible for family income, had disease, and lost their parents at an early age. That's less likely now. Developing countries unfortunately haven't made a lot of these strides but they aren't actively worse than hundreds of years ago, on average.

[@sunso1991]

Its about right, a in law of mine quit her middle school teaching job (9 years) last year. after a few drink i guided the topic to find out why she quit. she broke down and cried, what she told me was horrifying, the schools are getting so dysfunctional, the kids are out of control, the parents do not parent. i started to dig into the topic and was really shocked by how much reading/math had dropped just in the last 4 years. the kids are disrespectful, violent, uneducated, socially awkward. by the time Millennials are about to retire, Gen A would be about 35-40 years old, the bulk of the working force. i really can imagine they are totally incapable of normal function, and social collapse is highly likely

[@nataliearter1384]

It's true. Teaching has become a nightmarish career choice.

[@anthonyb5279]

Yep I see that too.

[@signalfire6]

With AI and computers, school is a waste of time for most kids. It was for me back in the 50s-60s. The kids should be kept at home or in libraries of sorts (babysat) and let the AI figure out what they might be good at or where their curiosity aims them. About half the population is too stupid to do anything much more than manual labor and they may be doomed except for a meager welfare-type subsistency. It's always been thus - survival of the fittest.

[@anthonyb5279]

@@signalfire6 Survival of the fittest is BS! You don't know what change will make what trait advantageous. What is weak now could be strong in a different environment. Mice were stronger thanT-Rex after the asteroid. Technocrats are stronger than Quarter Backs after glasses were invented. If our technocrat world fails manual labor will be more survivable than understanding astrophysics.

[@davepastern]

part of this is due to an over reliance on technology. Part of it is due to lazy parenting.

[@StuJones-gn7te]

That fourth scenario, stability, actually was IF we had started that back.when the study was published, 52 years ago, in 1972. It DID NOT suggest that it could be possible at any other point.

[@Surfer-727]

How are electric cars and trying to go to Mars going to save the planet ?

[@Muddslinger0415]

They are not going to

[@Surfer-727]

Magical thinking I guess.@@Muddslinger0415

[@EmilKlingberg]

The planet? who cares. The people are what matters. Getting to mars is a great step in the direction of going interstellar. A crucial one to ensure humanity's future. As for electric cars, well I like them because they are quiet, quick and produces little local pollution. Not to mention the power is a 100th of the cost vs gas. Less moving parts, less repairs required. Torque control is more precise, which leads to better safety. And later on possibly better AI driving systems.

[@Surfer-727]

Agreed. Gas cars get cleaner every decade as reported in a video John Stossel made several years ago. @@Muddslinger0415

[@tinmachine693]

The people? Who cares? Planet Earth will continue with or without us

[@sjs928]

The water is warm and getting hotter , we are the frog

[@johnmachinmegavegan8378]

Nice analogy but, in biological reality, the frog jumps out of the water when it becomes uncomfortable. Humans, on the other hand, ain't that bright.

[@Sammasambuddha]

At least >this< frog is swimming in milk. 😂

[@sealedindictment]

😱

[@Saviliana]

@@johnmachinmegavegan8378 Actually we had been trying to jump out of the boiling water for quite a few time, but then they just put the lid over the pot and start stirring the water around to make it seems like not a good time to jump out.

[@Ketalean-o7s]

Damn nice one

[@dreadhead170]

The 4th theory/model will never happen.There will be a collapse.

[@diegokricekfontanive]

I find it surprising that no mention whatsoever is given of what caused all this mess, which is how humans think. And therefore the only way to change this insane course is to radically change average human thinking skills individually.

[@corkydukeII5898]

The average 'man' is really only preoccupied with 3 things in life....sex, beer & sports. I don't really see a bright future with this in mind

[@corkydukeII5898]

@@JohannesDonnerstich Those are all secondary to their main focus

[@BoatsArtsPolitics]

Diego: Put up or shut up. Almost all USA States have 'private school' laws that allow employing high school graduates as 'teachers' k-12. Maybe the rich would file their income taxes, if they had had college educated teachers.

[@BoatsArtsPolitics]

​@@corkydukeII5898: 1) Even women's magazines validate that is true about men. Men rate work, sports, and their own children in some order as the 3 most important parts of their lives. A woman only comes 3rd if a man has no children. 2) Average men work with their muscles, not their intellect. 3) Anthropologists assert that the survival of a society depends on old women, not on men of any age.

[@konstantinrebrov675]

What caused all this mess is the "western urbanized industrialized" civilization. This is the problem in how humans think. To radically change average human thinking means starting to think like a Medieval society, like a third world countries, North Korea for example, or Amish people. We need to return to a Neo-Medieval society, pre-Industrial, although there can be limited industries producing for some tools and anything that you might buy at the dollar store. Return to a simpler lifestyle, rural, agrarian, autarchic, traditional, reactionary, peasantry. A distributed civilization, like the Holy Roman Empire, all over the whole entire planet, each small region self-governing via direct elections of village chiefs. No more big countries or empires.

[@EricSmith-qm7xb]

I remember when you took your appliances to a shop and had them fixed and fridge and freezers lasted 45 or 50 years. So, we are the problem by not making things that last. We ruin everything we touch. We used to have returnable bottles but we had this idea of one-use products. We are really the problem and if we could just retreat about 120 years back on some things and go forwards on a few others we could make it work but we make a decision like a company executive and right or wrong we stick with it. We need to change that attitude..

[@Gamebent1]

The simple fact that planned obsolescence was "invented" and then incorporated into all facets of production says it all...

[@seitanbeatsyourmeat666]

Things are now made to have a short life. That fridge has built in “planned obsolescence”. On top of that, new appliances are more energy efficient, from new tech… we need the best tech (that would require companies to stop stepping us up in buying products to maximize profits… what, you think each new apple product is “revolutionary”?! No. They’re messing with us) and max life of that tech/make it repairable. This requires the government to step in and require these things of companies, which right wingers fight because they view it as government overreach, aka Big Daddy Government. These same people happily buy an 8$ McDonald meal heavily subsidized by BDG with no complaints (a meal that would cost in excess of 25-30$ per person! At McDonalds!), while taxpayers foot the bill. Socialism is already here, for corporations. We need government to force corporations to clean up the air they polluted, charge a true price on inventory and get rid of planned obsolescence… for a START

[@rdhudon7469]

I have a 50 year old freezer in my basement that purrs like a kitten and no shrunken ice cubes. Old school defrost. My first income stream was from bottle hunting. Lol

[@EricSmith-qm7xb]

@@rdhudon7469 So why did we go to a Throw away World?

[@Gamebent1]

@@EricSmith-qm7xb It's more profitable for companies

[@pauobunyon9791]

Look how young people are already more involved with internet than they are with each other ! Scary times

[@pauobunyon9791]

@moonwater5116 touché ...😂

[@angeladansie4378]

They are interacting with each other on the internet. And I can see why they choose to interact that way. I'm a progressive living in a very conservative area. Interacting with my fellow townspeople can be very confrontational. Apparently, I don't have the right to support progressive policies in rural America. If not for the internet, I would feel rather lonely in my political views

[@garybarr1045]

Part of the young people and their internet consumption is because their seniors have blown the lid off of the sanity of living in harmony with planet earth. Their seniors, of which I am a 79-year-old member, swore to conquer nature and make nature bend to man's ways. Big mistake. Now both humanity and Mother Earth are paying the price. Do I blame the younger generation for their attitude? Hell no! Their attitude is a response to the hell hole they have been left with that is now on full-life artificial sustainment with man-made systems, all of which are about to collapse or go completely into crisis mode. I actually feel sorry for the younger generations. They are all but screwed.

[@garybarr1045]

Hey, Moonwater, I think you better reread my comments. My statement is that we of the older generations have screwed the younger generations royally. They, and perhaps you, are going to have to pick up the crumbs we have left them. The younger generations are going to have to dump "free-market capitalism" for an environmentally friendly and man-friendly green and sustainable capitalism based upon need that is friendly to planet earth first, and then man. All I can follow up with is "good luck."@moonwater5116

[@theobserver9131]

Peoples Internet habits are definitely unhealthy, but that has nothing to do with the collapse of civilization. lol.

[@FilmPunk]

I studied various things anout 15 years ago. I concluded it would start in 2020 and end in 2050 but i had a date of 2040 i couldnt see thr meaning in. 2025 will be a year of energy issues with an oil shock in saudi arabia.

[@FilmPunk]

Go away and look up your governments long term plans for housing, motorways, food etc. they all end 2040 or 2050 no matter when the plan started. I add that I worked as a disaster recovery manager and change manager for some global companies Inc oil.

[@Mark-in-Texas]

In my opinion the reason Elon and others are concerned about decreasing populations is because the current economic model is dependent on an ever increasing population to buy stuff for economic growth. Additionally, in the United States, we have a poorly designed Social Security system in which current workers are paying the retirement benefits for the retired workers, but with the Baby Boomer generation beginning to enter retirement we will have a rapid rise in the number of retirees. Personally, I think the world would be far better off if the human population was greatly reduced so we'd have a decreased impact on Earth and all life we share it with, but we'd probably have to eliminate the current economic model if we were to maintain advanced and cohesive societies. I do think the economic struggles people have is contributing to people have less children, but I think we also need to create incentives for people not to procreate, and then focus more on the children that are born so that they can be the best possible versions of themselves.

[@maxmason6779]

this is reasonable.

[@JohnGalt1960]

The "rich" can be rendered irrelevant if the rest of us stop supporting them by buying their stuff. Without "us",they are meaningless.

[@Champignon1000]

Not so easy but perhaps possible, but you'd have to grow your own food etc.

[@stevenrowlandson9650]

Same thing with the real estate market and CBDCs or cryptos. If these are shunned and boycotted they are worthless and meaningless.

[@andrewmannson7543]

Stopping the purchase from corporations is gonna be hard because of thr sheer amount of stuff one company may have under their belt, for if their coca cola stops being profitable, they still have like 30 different products and 10 different services they still make profits off

[@claudelebel49]

Why depressed? It is a fact that everything comes to an end including the sun and the Galaxy we inhabit. In any case, the only time you have is now and it has always been so.

[@jarichards99utube]

THE KEY UNDERLYING Driver of the "disruption of the ecological cycle" is - TOO MANY PEOPLE.. WE CAN'T "Tech" our way out of THAT...! : ( -70SomethingGuy

[@justcollapse5343]

The conclusion to the reality of our #overshoot predicament and #LimitsToGrowth should never be - "..have more children". Every child not born is one that neither suffers collapse, nor contributes to it.

[@Viconius]

Binary reaction isn't reasoning, "...have more children" / "...have fewer children" is just rationalizing an argument. The “Argument Clinic” sketch from the television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, episode 29, “The Money Programme” (1972).

[@TessaDebra-jo6cs]

Truth!

[@FredtheDorfDorfman1985]

They’ve made sure that nobody can afford to have kids anymore.

[@proto-geek248]

Unless you're a minority.

[@PaddyPatrone]

Complete nonsense. The poorest people on the planet have most kids.

[@jackuzi8252]

@@PaddyPatrone That's changing. If there's one societal positive of smartphones, it's that even in the poorest countries people can get information. The UN used to predict that global population would peak in the 2080s and then gradually decline, but indications are that it will peak in the 2060s because of changing patterns, especially in low-income countries.

[@BennyB5555]

I keep saying. Regular people stop buying things and owing. Live off less. Keep debt to minimum. Try to live off grid. Carry arms. Grow enough to feed your circle.

[@rexharrison2066]

The underlying problem is we choose not to get along together. We need to find a vision broad enough to unite all of humanity's diverse elements.

[@wolfgangouille]

Most of us do, only a handful of psychopath think they can exploit others and plant the seed that the problem is not then but our neighbor.

[@gloriabeckley7464]

Is there any example in nature where grow is endless and unbroken? What is it?

[@The0ldg0at]

The growth of BS in advertisement seems endless and unbroken to me. That's what they call Creativity, isn't it?

[@gloriabeckley7464]

@@The0ldg0at That’s not nature but I concur.

[@_VISION.]

The physical universe

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

@@_VISION. We actually aren't sure regarding that topic. Scientists have come up with quite a few theories on how the universe could end

[@_VISION.]

@@CCS-RRSR-SM but it hasn't ended

[@XOPOIIIO]

The fact that advances society exists for just about 200 years over the 4.5 billion of Earth's history, suggests that it's hardly sustainable. Personally I think it's not necessary to have all these things we don't need, ones basic human needs are satisfied no further expansion brings more happiness. I'm pro-capitalism, but not pro-consumerism per se, consumerism is the flaw of human nature, not the result of capitalism.

[@AgeofCraccadilliaassent]

Beg to differ consumerism created by capitalism for the profit motive. Obsolescence is a great example all shit and garbage we don't need

[@lv4077]

It’s certainly your right to live as simply and frugally as you like.That’s very considerate for the hedonists out there .They appreciate your frugality

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@lv4077 If the meaning of hedonism is to enjoy the life as much as possible, then frugality is definitely the most hedonistic approach. If you measure enjoyment by the amount of immediate pleasure, then you could call heroin addicts the happiest people in the world.

[@lv4077]

@@XOPOIIIO You make an excellent point.My comment was intended to reflect the perception of hedonism as an everything,all the time definition.I suppose profligate would be more appropriate.

[@TheBeanFactory]

What are you talking about? Human civilization has only existed for well under a million years. We didn't evolve to modern humans until more recently. And you're making it sound like advanced society has stopped existing. We've continued to grow society.

[@stevefitt9538]

I assume the poster is named Cooper. Cooper, you do NOT understand exponential growth. Even very slow growth on a finite planet will always end when resources are all used up. Exponential growth goes like this (note, I start with 2 ones so the total doubles each doubling time after the 1st). 1+1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128, etc. At 3%/yr growth, the doubling time is 24 years 72/3 =24. Doubling the resources at the start, just adds 1 doubling time = 24 years. Look at my list of numbers, I started with 256 resource units and used 128 at the end of the doubting time =64, that is half of what I started with. Then in the next 24 years I used all of the last 128 units to use all 256 units. Exponential growth always ends.

[@suzisimulkra]

Sadly many cannot comprehend the exponential. Being a very gifted person I can, until I run out of fingers and toes.

[@SLM-hf1cr]

This is what happens when you have too many mathematicians posing as scientists. Human beings are prone to exaggerating threats they can't control and ignoring those they can to begin with, then you have people substituting math for actual thinking and what you end up with is a senseless mess. Anytime you hear the word "model", know that any model is only as good as it's components and assumptions and is at the mercy of someone's bias. It's alot like "AI" in that respect. That said, a lot of doomsday predictions are seeded into society by globalist elites attempting to manifest some horrendous future where they have the greatest control over humanity. It's quite disgusting.

[@batm38]

Nature has it's own way of control system to maintain balance between organisms nd environment.Its a part of it.

[@ericlipps9459]

And one of nature'smechanisms is starvation.

[@didforlove]

It’s happening 😂

[@eneto7785]

I agree with the vision we are already collapsing, but as many societies in the past, living people can not perceive they are falling. Ask for old people at 90´s and they will assure our world is very very worse than that they used to live, even with world wars. We loose quality and value references for almost everything, joy, peace, effort, friendship, love, respect, faith, so we just can not see how bad we are. I feel sad for giving this world to my young daughter

[@MrUltranuman]

You can feel it coming.

[@mstrG]

2040 it's not a prediction but a Objective , with roadmap, milestones, budget and tight schedule. Idea was planted in societies before 2000.

[@edwardxuereb1222]

Past predictions did not consider future technological breakthroughs. Although a gloomy scenario is also possible, there are alternative possibilities as well. These may include: recycling resources, using new sources of resources from space (e.g. asteroid mining), using more renewable energy sources and developing nuclear fusion power stations.

[@zaneshark]

The elite don't want to share resources or power. They want a subjugated and destitute population of peasants.

[@TheDigitalPillars]

"How will we make it?" "Maybe we shouldn't." - The Thing (1982)

[@caileach1]

Yes the rest of the beautiful life on this planet will survive without human beings. Covid and isolation proved this. Yes how nature can take back. So hopefully personally ‘no human being should be able to ‘push a button’. That is such a horror. Much better would be the natural flow of things like a meteor taking us out. I would like to see the beauty in life continue… So yes humans wiped out by their own hubris, which causes a deeper viral infection like a worldwide pandemic on a continual basis until it is done.

[@caileach1]

F’n Musk personally, wants to ‘father’… the human race- lolololol

[@joeanderson8839]

The only thing that we can be sure of is that everything will change. Nothing will be the same. If our government wants people to have more children than they need to make it easier for our children to be successful by designing society and our economy so that they will have the resources to succeed.

[@PaddyPatrone]

No it wont. Doomers always see the end of the world coming. Always

[@daisyl2629]

That’s right. The choice is stark, either we look after everyone, or we look after no one and humanity will be devastated.

[@garethwilliams4467]

that sounds like the mantra of those that can't rise to the top through competition. Now tell me any society in nature that thrives and doesn't embrace competition.

[@jeffreystewart9809]

The true problem is human greed and tribalism. The shift we need is an emphasis on a general education on how our minds work. We're running new technology on old software. Its time to update the software.

[@DS-lk3tx]

Oh.. should we institute government schools for the masses? We can call it public education for the better good or some shit.

[@DwightStJohn-w1l]

First call I've seen in three decades of the net. for a Liberal Arts degree.

[@beringstraitrailway]

A couple years before computers that fit in your pocket became common MIT was trying to develop a $100 laptop. Now we all carry a smart phone in our pockets, many of which cost less than $50

[@audreyplaysnice2086]

what smart phone are you buying that costs less than $50?

[@Turbo_JAM]

So they failed/got it wrong completely then. There isn’t anything like that available for $50.

[@rhammond7517]

The thing is If you take and not replace or replenish the things you take the problem is some of the things we can't replace so time to think about a different way to live

[@BoatsArtsPolitics]

We were taught about futurology at UCLA. What we were taught was that at Stanford and other universities and elite think tanks there was bewilderment concerning every futurology computer program producing results predicting complete disaster. Target dates would come and go with no disasters occuring. Futurologists could not explain their failures to achieve accurate predictions. The computers always produced alarming predictions of doom that never occurred. I mulled this over for some decades before I realized what the computer programming error is. And the problem with the failed programs that predict disasters IS a programming error. People can SEE the core problems like the computers and extrapolate, also. However where the computers fail but people succeed is that people set about with human CREATIVITY to solve the problems that pull society down. The computer programmers DON'T factor in enough human CREATIVITY in problem solving. It may well be that the computer forecasts actually are accurate. But if so, people's problem solving efforts avert the disasters. If the computer programmers factored in enough human creativity, computer social forecasts and real outcomes could more closely match.

[@TheSpecialJ11]

I agree with you, but it looks like with every crisis, our adaptability is reducing, weakening, like a sick person left weaker after an infection getting sick again, and even weaker after that infection.

[@McFly-yb7kc]

Good job bro. Yes the algorithm is broken. The conclusion is; stop relying on computer predictions that historically are false.

[@Soccerexgaming]

Not surprised the school system is controlled by politicians

[@jeannedouglas9912]

I think we're all screwed if we don't become truly humble again and figure out a way to get all the plastic and toxins out of our oceans and rivers etc...

[@MasterMayhem78]

People need to start by living within their means. To curb plastics we need to move back to glass, paper and metal containers, all of which are truly recyclable.

[@terminator700]

That stuff will be there for thousands of years. Microplastics will eventually probably become part of ecosystem. We need to adapt to it

[@Shhhoooooo]

Just because its people from MIT doesn't mean its well thought out. The debacle at Harvard shows us that. But yeah... We're fukd.

[@starboy1100]

Yep. We are fucked proper.

[@Delosian]

100% recycling would fix the resource problem. As would unlimited cheap energy, such as in the form of fusion power. With unlimited cheap energy we could use thermal depolymerisation (a.k.a. gasification) to turn pollution into useful resources. With unlimited cheap energy we could create new soil faster than we are allowing it to deplete through overuse. With unlimited cheap energy we could desalinate seawater to irrigate crops and provide drinking water.

[@dild0sled]

It wouldn't even have to be close to 100% recycling to fix most issues. The problem is long standing private interests.

[@Delosian]

@@dild0sled Agreed, and we can always improve on the technology in the future.

[@gloriabeckley7464]

Toilet paper is a perfect example of what is wrong with society. Destroy forest, dirty clean water, build huge plants to remove the use toilet paper, use huge amounts of energy to make the water “safe” again, and repeat.

[@lv4077]

You sound like an upbeat conversationalist.I bet you’re a real hit at parties and weddings.

[@rick-nv7im]

Sustainable alternative please!

[@lv4077]

@@rick-nv7im Doesn’t exist.Take 10 minutes and think what that term really means.Do you really believe windmills and solar panels are sustainable? Look into their manufacture and maintenance ,there’s nothing @sustainable “ about them.If your goal is to doom third world country inhabitants to a life of misery,take away energy.I’m amazed at the stupidity and ruthlessness of well meaning idiots that push for anti human policies that doom “developing” countries to destruction and failure.You really have to be an elitist to believe your fabricated Co2 narrative is the best be all end all to poor nations.

[@lv4077]

The sustainable alternative is decreasing the world population. WEF has already discussed a target of 1 billion people. That means about 7 billion of us need to disappear. I suggest the anti-toilet paper people go first.

[@David-ng7cr]

Get educated ​@@lv4077

[@dhj1182]

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." Stein's Law, Herbert Stein, economist

[@gedeuchnixan3830]

"study" sounds pretty much like what Blackrock CEO said "we have to force behavior".

[@madkillerz007]

those people disgust me