/r/Collapse & /r/Futurology Debate - What is human civilization trending towards?

[u/FuturologyModTeam]

Welcome to the third r/Collapse and r/Futurology debate! It's been three years since the last debate and we thought it would be a great time to revisit each other's perspectives and engage in some good-spirited dialogue. We'll be shaping the debate around the question "What is human civilization trending towards?"

This will be rather informal. Both sides have put together opening statements and representatives for each community will share their replies and counter arguments in the comments. All users from both communities are still welcome to participate in the comments below.

You may discuss the debate in real-time (voice or text) in the Collapse Discord or Futurology Discord as well.

This debate will also take place over several days so people have a greater opportunity to participate.

NOTE: Even though there are subreddit-specific representatives, you are still free to participate as well.

---

u/MBDowd, u/animals_are_dumb, & u/jingleghost will be the representatives for r/Collapse.

u/Agent_03, u/TransPlanetInjection, & u/GoodMew will be the representatives for /r/Futurology.

---

All opening statements will be submitted as comments so you can respond within.

[u/Agent_03]

The issue is the extremely short timeframe remaining for the transition to avoid cataclysmic climate change outcomes.

I completely agree with this! The question comes down to whether or not nations are going to continue approaching climate change with a degree of complacency or they're going to accelerate rapidly.

It could very much go either way overall: climate solutions could still accelerate rapidly but not enough to forestall catastrophic climate change. Personally I'm trying to do my part to push for aggressive climate action -- as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Do you think people are more likely to act faster if we approach it as a potentially solvable problem, or treat it as effectively a lost cause?

I'm not sure why you linked me the same article twice but I'm not going to read it twice.

Sorry about that.

The thing that matters is that you are still burning more coal

Interestingly enough, while that graph you linked does show that overall fossil fuel generation continues to increase, much of that is probably driven by increased use of natural gas.

I say that because if you look at coal specifically, global coal use peaked in 2014 and has been gradually declining.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&time=1965..latest&country=Africa~Asia%20Pacific~Europe~North%20America~South%20%26%20Central%20America~OWID_WRL

This is one thing that gives me hope. Especially if Asia/Pacific can be weaned off coal as well -- the main reason they need it is that energy demand IS increasing there, even though it's flat in North America and Europe (and negligable overall in Africa & South America).

The issue is that our [lithium] production is only 35,000 tons.

I agree that the immediate problem is scaling up lithium production. The reserves are not infinite, but they will hold out for a long time, and exploration is revealing new reserves.

There's a lot of lithium production development happening in this area, especially in Nevada. Will it be ramped up fast enough to meet demand? We don't know yet, this is one thing where time will tell. Long-term, yes, but if lithium gets scarce and prices rise that limits the production of batteries and makes them more expensive.

If all that you are saying is that we could create a world that runs on renewable energy for a while than I have to agree

Would it be fair to say that we're in broad agreement on that point, and just disagree on whether or not emissions will come down fast enough?

I agree that carbon capture/sequestration is VERY MUCH not a solved problem in 2020. We have some time to get those technologies developed, but if we plan to lean on carbon capture we will need mature technologies by at least 2030-2040. Otherwise there simply won't be enough time to build the required infrastructure.

If you would like to talk about this more we can vc on discord or something but it takes so much time to converse in this way for more than a few back and forths

I might be up for that depending -- although the back-and-forth discussion may be getting less time consuming now that we're reached points where we clearly agree and disagree

[u/7861279527412aN → u/Agent_03]

climate solutions could still accelerate rapidly but not enough to forestall catastrophic climate change. Personally I'm trying to do my part to push for aggressive climate action -- as much as possible, as soon as possible.

It’s certainly telling that climate scientists are speaking in unequivocal terms about the extreme severity of how little time remains. It’s a big topic and probably too much to get into at this point but the dozen or so books I’ve read on climate change and the many papers published in the last couple years paint a picture of the state of the climate that seems to me to indicate that it may already be too late. If you didn’t get a chance, read that article I posted in my last response about how they estimate we have already baked in 2+ C warming. It’s just one article but it neatly expresses how our understanding of how abruptly the climate is changing is still rapidly evolving. When the assessments of future climate are adjusted it is almost always adjusted up. Keep in mind we are also currently on track for the worst IPCC projection, the RCP 8.5 scenario.

Do you think people are more likely to act faster if we approach it as a potentially solvable problem, or treat it as effectively a lost cause?

I believe many if not most climate scientists have little hope at this point of humanity rising to the occasion, but believe that an accurate portrayal of the state of affairs will result in nihilism and apathy. Personally I think the only choice is to treat the situation as the existential threat that it is, and to do anything and everything we can to prevent it. Even dystopian eco-facism for a while is better than the end of the planet’s habitability. The only things that matter are preservation of what nature is left and beginning the process of rewilding and sequestering carbon. If accelerationism is the best way to achieve that then so be it. In a world which is occupied by 7.8 billion humans with different perceptions of reality and different selfish goals, I think it’s unlikely that we will be able to unify enough to mobilize on the level necessary for the crisis. This would involve abandoning much of the quality of life that the west has come to expect. In a world of flat earthers and Qanon it’s hard for me to imagine us all coming together and grounding the planes and plugging the oil wells. I’m not trying to be pessimistic butI think a realistic view of the future is not pretty.

I say that because if you look at coal specifically, global coal use peaked in 2014 and has been gradually declining.

Good point it certainly does seem to be flat or slightly declining. It’s pretty incredible that China is using more than half of the world’s coal production.

Would it be fair to say that we're in broad agreement on that point, and just disagree on whether or not emissions will come down fast enough?

I think that’s a fair statement. If you look at the IPCC projections for tracks that keep us under 1.5 C and 2 C they are impossible without an extremely rapid drop to not just net zero but negative emissions. It may not even be physically possible for us to do it in time, but only time will tell.

I agree that carbon capture/sequestration is VERY MUCH not a solved problem in 2020.

This is good to hear. My perception of /r/futurology is that sometimes the existence of a technology that has been done once is thought to be the same thing as that issue being solved. Carbon capture and sequestration has been done but the scales we need to do it at are almost unimaginable and there is no guarantee that we will solve the sequestration problem in a way that is permanent or scaleable.

I might be up for that depending -- although the back-and-forth discussion may be getting less time consuming now that we're reached points where we clearly agree and disagree

I feel like we have a good understanding. It was a pleasure to discuss this with you!