Doomsday scoreboard
doomsday.march1studios.com
doomsday.march1studios.com
There is no lead-up to the apocalypse. The Messiah will return "like a thief in the night" and "nobody, except my Father, knows the hour of my return" (I probably butchered those two quotes). Either way, the Bible is pretty clear (as was Jesus): there will be zero indication the apocalypse is coming. None. It'll just... start.
But I get what you're saying either way. I just think it's an interesting factlet.
It's pointless to cite the Bible to defend a theological position, because someone else can cite a different part that can be interpreted to say the exact opposite.
If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19.
And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel.
> It's pointless to cite the Bible to defend a theological position
Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context.
Sure, Judaism was word of mouth a long time, and that’s great. I personally can’t remember much, so I think referencing text is fine.
See, that's when you use literal reading. "I'm not adding anything to the text, I'm just interpreting it."
>And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel.
Ezekiel is clearly about events in our past, though.
>Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context.
Meh. There's no internally consistent Christian theology that cites the Bible and doesn't involve generous amounts of cherry picking.
It's not. Christian dogma doesn't even obey the law of identity.
>Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for?
New? Not, not really. It's not at all new that the official position of the church ("Jesus is entirely mortal and entirely divine") is inherently self-contradictory. I mean, what the hell. If I didn't know any better I'd think an atheist came up with it to troll early Christians. Try saying something similar about literally anything else. "The contents of this glass are simultaneously entirely water and entirely mercury." It says nothing good of either the followers or the clergy that that nonsense has been accepted for so long.
"Mr. Archibald Potterfarthing is at the same time the Chair of the Committee and at the same time its most senior ranking member". Accidents, naturally, but co-existing in the same space-of-being. It turns out that "person" and "nature" are distinct (who knew?) and that it is possible for there to be one person with two natures just as well as there can be one person with two titles. But that presumes you believe the authority of the one who told you this - if not, it's useless to talk about it, because why would you ever need to distinguish person and nature unless you had encountered the reality of Christ? Nothing else we have encountered in the universe has (as far as we are aware) two natures. But nothing else behaves like a singularity either - uniqueness is not a proof of non-existence.
Of course, but that falls apart as soon as you reread the dogma. Jesus is entirely human and entirely divine. He is both things in the same way at the same time. He has to be entirely human for his sacrifice to have any meaning, but he has to entirely divine... I can't remember why. So he could be worshiped?
A man who is both a doctor and a judge isn't entirely either one. There are moments of his day where he is neither presiding over a courtroom nor seeing any patients, and there are parts of his body that are neither judicial nor medical. More importantly, when he passes sentence he doesn't exercise his medical privileges, and when he prescribes medicine he doesn't do it in a judicial capacity. Even if both aspects bleed somewhat into each other, they're still mostly compartmentalized.
None of this can apply to Jesus, if the word "entirely" or "fully" means anything. If he dies, he must simultaneously die like mortals do and live on like deities do. So which is it? Did he die or didn't he?
Not quite. He has a divine nature and a human nature. There is only one person, two natures, analogous to one person two job titles. He has both natures, fully.
> Did he die or didn't he?
Having two natures, he can experience things that people without two natures cannot experience. Like the experience of death in His human nature that in no way affected His divine nature (analogous to "experiencing censure as a judge, but still being able to practice medicine"). Fortunately, death isn't a cessation of human nature, merely an interrupting of part of its actuality (that is, an evil). You and I will still possess a human nature after we die. Just as we both would possess a human nature if we lost part of our bodies, we still possess a human nature after we lose our bodies completely in death.
You're contradicting yourself.
>analogous to "experiencing censure as a judge, but still being able to practice medicine"
That's only possible because, as I said, being a judge is not the totality of a person. If you strip a judge of his title the parts of him that are a person still remain. If you strip a person of their humanity then there's nothing left, because there's nothing of a person that's not human.
A normal person according to Christianity is closer to having two natures in the way you describe, because their body is mortal while their soul isn't. But Jesus' body should be equally as divine as his soul. So then how can it die? If he was just an immortal soul in a mortal body then he was just a regular human.
He could die in the same way the bush could burn in front of Moses without becoming a burnt object. Divinity is not corrupting or corruptible.
To be entirely divine is to be equal to God, untouched by sin and incorruptible.
These two states cannot coexist within the doctrine itself. Jesus cannot be entirely human and entirely divine any more than matter can be antimatter.
>He could die in the same way the bush could burn in front of Moses without becoming a burnt object.
But that makes it not entirely a bush, or else not entirely a fire. Something other than "a burning bush" is going on there. It looks like that, but it cannot be that.
If Jesus' soul wasn't corrupted by sin like any other mortal human then he wasn't entirely human. If Jesus was entirely human, he cannot also be divine, since God cannot coexist with sin. If Jesus can be both, then original sin is not an immutable transgression and the persistent state of evil and God's eternal judgement are simply arbitrary, and God can make exceptions whenever He likes.
Which is the actual answer because there are instances in the Bible of humans who just ascend to Heaven because God liked them, despite that supposedly being existentially impossible. God simply sometimes bends the rules, He just won't do so for you or I.
Assuming one wants to take all of this seriously and assume the Bible has univocality and try to interpret mythology with logic, which to me always seems like a bad idea.
This is false, fortunately. "Human" and "sin" are not necessary to each other. Sin is not natural to man. The gift of original justice could not be passed on from Adam to his children because he threw it away. This lack of a gift is what is called "original sin" and its effects include all of the disordered expressions we find ourselves inclined to from birth. But this lack of a gift is not necessary to being human.
Which allows God to take on human nature without being in the state of sin ("like us in all things but sin"), but accepting the punishment for sin (death) to redeem us and offer a new gift of mercy that restores the original gift of justice for those who accept it. Since God is outside of time, He can even give the fruits of that gift "before" that gift is realized in time (Elijah, Mary).
A "burning bush that isn't consumed" has at least the excuse of being a literary device. The narrator is describing what he sees in front of him, not describing the process at the physical level, so we can imagine that the bush wasn't literally on fire, but rather surrounded by some mystical flame, or shining, or whatever we can dream up.
The story of Jesus isn't like this. Jesus is supposed to have literally died. There's no possible metaphor there. In Christian theology Jesus is a literal scapegoat; he has to have died, as in his vital processes ending and his soul leaving his body to go to the afterlife. If he didn't do that after being tortured, crucified, and stabbed, then he wasn't fully human.
>Divinity is not corrupting or corruptible.
Exactly. So where's Jesus' uncorrupted, divine, lifeless body? Don't tell me it ascended to heaven, because normal human bodies don't do that.
Jesus did literally die. His soul and body were uncorruptible. That's why he was able to descend to Hell for three days, and why his fully mortal and fully divine body was able to be raised up. Dying is simply the separation of soul from body. Resurrection is the rejoining of those.
Mortal bodies of all will be raised in the Second Coming. It's not as correct to say normal human bodies don't do that, as it is to say normal human bodies don't do that yet.
So to clarify: just as the bush was literally on fire, yet did not combust, Jesus literally died, yet did not decompose.
How can you know that? From within the canon of the text, all we have is Moses' testimony. How can you be so sure that what he described as a burning bush was literally a burning bush, as in the matter of the bush undergoing rapid oxidation without being consumed?
>It's not as correct to say normal human bodies don't do that, as it is to say normal human bodies don't do that yet.
Sure. I'll accept "they don't do that yet". So since they don't do that yet, and they didn't do that during Jesus' times, if Jesus' body did do that, then his body wasn't fully human.
AH, THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM! Cartesian dualism isn't the best lens to view human nature through and it makes talking about Christ's nature harder than it needs to be. The human person is a being whose nature is body+soul. The separation of the soul and the body at death is an evil brought about by sin. Put another way, death is injurious to human beings, not natural to them. (See https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3164.htm#article1).
Jesus is fully man. His human nature is body+soul. His human soul is immortal, as all human souls are. Unlike other human beings (other than Adam and Eve before they sinned) He was not subject to death as a punishment for sin, but He accepted it on our behalf. When He died, he really died. His soul and His body were separated and for three days He could be spoken of as "not a man". See https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#article4 for the details. Follow that up with https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article4 for how that relates to us. One particularly striking quote - "[c]onsequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" during those three days."
Jesus is also fully God. His divine nature is perfect and unchanging. His divine nature is immutable (not merely immortal) and was not subject to death. Thus Jesus was subject to death in His human nature not in His divine nature.
>Jesus is also fully God. His divine nature is perfect and unchanging. His divine nature is immutable (not merely immortal) and was not subject to death. Thus Jesus was subject to death in His human nature not in His divine nature.
This is maddening. Okay, so these are the logical relationships between the terms,
* Jesus is fully God.
* God is immutable.
* Something immutable is also immortal (and by contraposition, something mortal is not immutable).
* Jesus is fully man.
* Jesus is mortal and died.
Correct? None of this is in dispute, I assume, since it's what you said. Alright. To this I answer: if Jesus is mortal then he is not immutable, and if he's not immutable then he's not fully God. If you insist he is God then that's a contradiction by the terms you yourself laid out. The supposed two natures don't matter if they lead to this conclusion.
To give a simple analogy, you can make a sword that's sharp only halfway along its length and is blunt the rest of the way. The statements "the sword is sharp" and "the sword is blunt" are both simultaneously true. What you can't do is make a sword that's both sharp and blunt all throughout its length. You can say, "well, God can do the logically impossible". Fine. But then you're telling me that I'm right, that Christian theology does contain contradictions.
You are both a eukaryote and three-dimensional. Everything you do is in the capacity of a three-dimensional eukaryote and there's no way for you to momentarily abandon one of those natures while you do something. Not without fundamentally changing what you are.
Jesus' must be equally and inextricably imbued by these natures if he is to be said "wholly" human and divine. More so, in fact, because at least your atoms are not eukaryotic. So if Jesus changes, God the Son also changes, because Jesus is God the Son. They're two names for the same thing. If they're not the same thing, if Jesus does not completely overlap with God the Son, then Jesus is not wholly divine. There are parts of him that are not divine. That's a tenable position, but it's not the position of the church.
1. Everything that is (in the "esse" sense) of Jesus must be both. This seems to be your position. This is also an immediate contradiction since then either God changed or Jesus' humanity always was. Variations of this position (since it has several) have been defined heresy for literally 1,500 years. 2. Jesus is both God and man completely (not "the appearance of man" or "a man apart from God, divinized by God at a later point"). This is the position of the Church.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM
> 464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
> 465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88
> 466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90
> 467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God's Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed: Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91
And here is the kicker:
> We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92
>2. Jesus is both God and man completely (not "the appearance of man" or "a man apart from God, divinized by God at a later point"). This is the position of the Church.
Uh huh. And what, in your mind, is effectively the difference between those two statements? Because to me those are two ways of communicating the exact same idea. That is, the exact same state of affairs is properly conveyed by two different sequences of words. Don't answer my question by pasting four paragraphs of sophism. I have no interest in it. All you need to answer is: in what situation would exactly one of those statements be true?
The day the church successfully uses its position on the divinity of Jesus Christ to engineer something rather than letting it remain as an abstract bit of sophistry, I promise I'll shut up about it.
Mathematical proofs are internally consistent. Also, yes, mathematics is used in engineering. For example (as if one was needed), GPS is all about geometry.
>Do you deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, His divinity, or how the “church” defines it?
I don't have a problem answering this question, but I would like to know what my personal position has to do with anything.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
Stop trying to figure out which scary new technology is the Number of the Beast. Stop trying to figure out which scary new politician is the Antichrist. Stop trying to figure out what any of that shit means, it doesn't mean anything anymore and the only apocalypse that's going to happen is the one we ourselves create, in part because we persist in our delusion that we don't really have to worry about this world because God's going to burn it all down anyway.
It is threadsafe. The documentation is very clear about this.
> As described in Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies, societies become more complex as they try to solve problems. [...] Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning the consumption of resources, or other forms of wealth).
> When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of energy, or difficulty in gaining access to it, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge. Tainter, who first identifies seventeen examples of rapid collapse of societies, applies his model to three case studies: The Western Roman Empire, the Maya civilization, and the Chaco culture.
> For example, as Roman agricultural output slowly declined and population increased, per-capita energy availability dropped. The Romans "solved" this problem by conquering their neighbours to appropriate their energy surpluses (as metals, grain, slaves, other materials of value). However, as the Empire grew, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc. grew with it. Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory. [...]
> It is often assumed that the collapse of the western Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off. Tainter notes that in the west, local populations in many cases greeted the barbarians as liberators.
I've checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_formatting_and_storage_bu... and I can't see what I could be muddling it up with, either. Spooky!
So it's not as if "everything works" then suddenly "everything doesn't"
And it's only for operations that care about the sign / compute deltas / use signed numbers, otherwise it's 2106-02-07 06:28:16 UTC.
From memory, the rough argument was that society depends upon input flows of energy, resources (metals etc) and food. Society needs to allocate resources and energy to extract these inputs. Energy sources such as fossil fuel reserves are finite stocks, some are cheap to extract (high energy return on energy invested). Over time we consume and deplete the high EROEI reserves and have to move on to consuming the lower EROEI reserves. This means that the fraction of energy society needs to allocate for energy extraction increases over time, so there's less energy for other uses. Similarly, we deplete the cheap to extract stocks of metal required to build and maintain industry, leaving stocks that require higher inputs of metal and energy to extract. Similarly for agricultural yields, as we mine and deplete accumulated stocks of nutrients out of the soil.
The business as usual scenario leading to "overshoot and collapse" behaviour is that we have increasing population, increasing industrial capital and increasing demands for energy, food and resource inputs, while the fraction of energy and resources that need to be allocated to energy, resource and food production grows over time. The fraction of remaining surplus energy and resources that can be allocated to things like education, healthcare, research, art decreases over time. At some point the growing fraction of energy and resources that needs to be allocated to energy and resource extraction becomes so large vs the existing population and industrial base that there simply isn't enough surplus to maintain healthcare, education, research, etc at the same level.
The "Overshoot and collapse" dynamic describes stocks of population, industry etc growing to peaks well beyond sustainable levels before the above dynamics catch up and cause them to rapidly decline.
The researchers did a bunch of modelling of alternative scenarios, exploring how to avoid these "Overshoot and collapse" dynamics.
"In 2010, Turchin published research using 40 combined social indicators to predict that there would be worldwide social unrest in the 2020s"
In particular they count a US civil war as an apocalyptic event… lots of countries and societies have been completely wiped out, though, which must(?) be more apocalyptic.
Maybe the point of the site is just that apocalypses tend to happen unexpectedly?
Ten times the GDP, three times the population and our military stuff mostly works, Ukraine has done a phenomenal job with what they had but Russia turned out to be even more of a Basket case than expected.
The problem is how much damage they can do before we put them back in their box and whether getting the shit kicked out of them would triggger a nuclear exchange which would get really out of hand.
I'm not saying anyone predicted those or something. It's just that the notion of doomsday is quite vague.
I'm trying to broaden some notions here. Prediction might not be exactly absolute prediction, and doomsday might not be exactly absolute doomsday.
Perhaps some great threats were averted precisely because someone predicted them (for example, the great leaded gasoline poisoning).
No one want to live in the middle.
1999: Spanish designer Paco Rabanne announces that the Mir space station would crash on and destroy Paris in between the 28 July 1999 lunar eclipse and the 11 August 1999 total solar eclipse, the two somehow interacting to create magnetic interference, leading to the station crashing at 11:22 on the 11, as predicted by a 17th century fresco in some abbey that shows an eclipse, a clock at that hour, and a sentence "you will know the hour of your death but not the day"... Also Mir would have hypothetically contained a Russian atomic bomb, which is what would destroy Paris, and possibly leading to some all-out nuclear war.
Or we could be living in universe inside like a raindrop of larger universe that may hit the ground and burst any moment.
But, the one thing I always find interesting, philosophically, about believing the world-as-we-know-it is coming to an end is that all of the things people are concerned about will happen no matter what.
Being afraid of the end of the world is ultimately being afraid that we will lose the things we have, that our work will be lost to time and history, that ultimately we will return to a void and all of "this" will have been for nothing.
However, all of that is true either way. You will lose everything you've ever loved over time in life, all the work you've done will be lost to time, in the end all of your efforts will be for nothing and even that won't matter.
The "end of the world" scares people because it forces them to discard the normal tools they use combat these many existential anxieties, but the world continuing to go on doesn't actually resolve any of those anxieties.
> I found my way forward through an 18th-century Samurai manual, Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s “Hagakure,” which commanded: “Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.” Instead of fearing my end, I owned it. Every morning, after doing maintenance on my Humvee, I’d imagine getting blown up by an I.E.D., shot by a sniper, burned to death, run over by a tank, torn apart by dogs, captured and beheaded, and succumbing to dysentery. Then, before we rolled out through the gate, I’d tell myself that I didn’t need to worry, because I was already dead. The only thing that mattered was that I did my best to make sure everyone else came back alive. “If by setting one’s heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead,” wrote Tsunetomo, “he gains freedom in the Way.”
[1] https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
The world is inevitably going to end, our work isn't going to be forever preserved into the future and there will be no "end of history" until there are living humans.
The thing is that the world can end in many ways. My world can end in many ways. I'd rather pass on with a clear consciousness, with my faculties preserved more or less, and with a legacy of having at least tried to make the lives of other that tiny bit better, so I'm aware if I'm not vigilant I can spend my final days suffering from an avoidable disease or accident or regretting I wasted my life chasing a better tomorrow that never came while neglecting what I already have today.
This is virtually the same for all society. It's going to fade into oblivion, but it matters a great deal that the process is as gentle as possible for everyone involved.
I think people like Ray Kurzweil are essentially religious. Instead of a messiah and heaven, they think of salvation in terms of a singularity, immortality, or a way of ascension. It feels very religious to me, and as such, detached from reality and physical possibilities.
Even if upload does not produce a singularity or the like it still is a huge step towards getting more time to address other issues and it makes interstellar solutions viable. But when we can read out the human mind remains an unknown.
Having finished both The Fourth Turning and End Times recently, Strauss and Howe’s specific guesses as to what might fuel the next crisis are laughably off track even if their broad strokes still paint a compelling (and at times, frightening) picture, while Turchin feels more prescient in his observations.
Ultimately, though, Turchin has the better message: even when a crisis destroys an empire, the world continues onward. That gave me some bleak hope to hang onto.
I think that they Simon–Ehrlich wager showed how laughable they were but I guess we have to revisit every couple of decades.
I could see why the ones with several hundred years deadline are "pending"
Step 1: become accomplished in some field Step 2: ??? Step 3: write about the anti Christ and predict when it will occur
Switch your steps 2 & 3.
Step 4 is profit.
If anything, we have a much better shot at surviving the next mass extinction than we had at surviving prior ones, now that we have so many advantages.
I probably won't survive it because I'm a smooth brained weakling, but some humans surely will
Most species have gone extinct.
Personally, I do not believe climate change can kill us off. The worst case predictions are pretty dire (and beware the worst case makes the IPCC look tame--there is not enough data on methane hydrates for it to be in the IPCC model, but the worst case estimates are worse than the IPCC estimates and they will probably stack.) But I consider extinction likely because we can move around. An animal that loses 90% of it's habitat loses 90% of it's population but the survivors are pretty much the same as before. But are those humans who will be killed off just going to sit there?
It’s bound to happen eventually
Because, IMO, Russia would be destroyed the first time they threatened NATO.
Maybe. Or maybe the big powers might realize that sending hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to die in an all out war (depending on how big it gets and who else gets involved) is a harder sell than settling on appeasement and so smaller states would lose their sovereignty.
I live in Latvia. If there's no risk of MAD, then what's to prevent some opportunistic Russians from invading my country and seeing whether NATO would actually do something about Article 5? Some are pondering whether that's not a direction that Russia could move in even now - stage something relatively small and see how NATO responds. They're already regularly violating our airspace and doing cyber warfare against us and trying to drum up opposition to our government (as flawed as it may be) by the ethnic Russian people.
Could go either way.
We (I'm an American) have four ballistic missile subs that no longer carry ballistic missiles because of arms reduction treaties. The subs still exist, though, with each of the Trident launch tubes instead holding 7 Tomahawks. They are built to hide and they're very good at it--we can't even reliably track them ourselves. That means they could sneak in to launch points some distance from Russia. The Ukraine war has shown that heavy air defenses sometimes work against ground hugging missiles (but remember the Moskova--despite fearsome anti-air capability it for some reason couldn't engage two sea hugging missiles), but ares without heavy defenses fare poorly against even crude low altitude stuff. Expect most of those Tomahawks to get through, and there goes Russia's logistics capability. Most stuff of importance is within Tomahawk range of the coast.
There are many societies which have collapsed. We can't know who predicted it because they are dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
And of course, this list will no longer exist after societal collapse.
If any of your acquaintances are ever in doubt of anything ever happening, this will be a handy guide for them to consult.
1. Events, including big ones like 9/11, don't unfold like in the movies as even direct consequences are often far removed.
2. Pax Americana + Hypernormalization + Cheap Food + Digital Escapism = a drug which convinces its users of neverending stability and order.
Europe is already struggling with few millions people trying to enter over several years. I can't imagine what happens when large parts of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh become literally deadly during the hot season. That would displace ~1B people basically at once (if you stay and you don't have Air Conditioning you die). The following turmoil will be like nothing we ever saw before as a species (IMHO).
As a rat race where the competition is between humans then rich people have a comparative advantage regarding how to survive the ravages.
So the future is less about avoiding climate catastrophe completely - that won't happen when the rich and powerful don't care.
The future is about surviving the issues until enough people die that emissions takes care of itself.
Either a lot of people die thus reducing emissions, or specific groups die thus reducing the capability to generate emissions on behalf of others. Or maybe enough tragedies happen that moral conscience does hold sway. Likely a combination of the above.
For supporting the continuation of my genes, maybe I should invest in property in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Greenland/etc etc.
I gotta say I didn't know about this Johnny Silverhand post, but I hope that if these things don't come to fruition he still finds time to stick it to the corpos in the most rockerboy way possible.
I mean that's bad but it's much better than what I picture in my head as an apocalypse
...remember it only takes one to be right!
People are persistently presented with perils (plagues, parasites, pollution, power-hungry politicians, propaganda, plutonium-powered projectiles, etc...) and humanity keeps finding a way through (though certainly at great personal and population-wide cost sometimes).
Some pretty serious chokepoints in the full history (including research suggesting that something reduced our ancestors numbers by ~99% a little under a million years ago) and yet this particular strain remains.
Thank you for sharing your hopes for the better outcome no matter what, I'm with you on this.
What would a Denesovian say about this?
"Not much", outside of what they'd contributed to any surviving lines.
To your point, whether we're winning or losing very much depends on how we define our team.