I'm not saying that it's impossible for us to go extinct. but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
But what I was mostly refuting when I first replied to you was the claim that recognizing human extinction as a possibility is "agency-murdering nihilism." And I hope I did that. Again, for me that recognition has gone quite a ways towards making me a better leftist.
recognizing the possibility is natural and good - that billions are going to die should give everyone cause for reflection. my point was more about the conviction and certainty of the claim. it's just not in line with the best science available right now. saying "our civilization is likely doomed" is a defensible claim. so is "it's possible we go extinct" is also defensible. saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism. it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
No. If Earth's climate begins to approach Venus levels of bad, humanity will be done and gone long before that. Extremophile bacteria right now wouldn't be able to survive on the surface of Venus where it's hot enough to melt lead. There is no reason to think this isn't also possible for Earth (in fact it's an inevitability, just far enough out that humanity is statistically likely to have gone extinct for other reasons first). I really don't think most people comprehend how narrow the range is for continued habitation of animal life, let alone mammalian, let alone one species of mammals. The whole idea that "even with catastrophic environmental collapse, we intrepid humans will find a way! We'll eke out an existence and pull through!" strikes me as the same kind of thinking that allow Musk fans to talk about colonizing Mars as if there's even a remote chance even within the next couple generations. Imo, the failure to recognize human fragility is a kind of anthropocentrism and unintentional hubris. Yes, we have spread over much of the globe but only during a brief (geologically speaking) time when everything was nearly perfect for us. And even then we came so close to extinction where literally only a few thousand individuals existed on Earth and as a result we have very very little genetic diversity (which tangentially, unrelated to this conversation, is another fun fact to throw in the faces of racist reactionaries). Many other species have spread more effectively and over far more of the globe than we have and the vast majority of them are already exinct.
Again, Earth already has gone through climatic events that humanity, even with all our current and modern technology, could not survive. Humanity wouldn't live through a "snowball earth" which has already happened. Humanity wouldn't live through a permian-triassic equatorial pangaea which has already happened. The latter included a runaway greenhouse effect - something we may have already tripped. It's not even the first time that life is what caused it's own mass extinction. Human extinction level climate change is in the worst-case-scenario realm. But something else you probably already know about, something heard often in climate-aware circles, is how many of the projected "worst case scenarios" of the last few decades have turned out to be what actually came to pass.
saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism.
Humanity will last longer than the lifespan of anyone here, even the children of anyone here, I think it's safe to say. But it will not and can not last forever. Why is it philosophically acceptable when the fact that an end of humanity will happen is qualified with whatever sufficiently large epoch you personally want to put on it, but it is unacceptable "nihilism" to suggest it could likely happen in the next couple millenia or so?
it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
Why? Does someone given a terminal cancer diagnosis necessarily want to just go out and (CW) intentionally end their lives all the quicker (accelerationism)? Or decide they may as well become self-serving assholes and do their damndest to take everyone else out too (reaction)? I'm sure it's happened but it's obviously not the norm. It's difficult, it's painful, it's terrifying to contemplate when the end is nigh (on a personal level, a civilizational level, or at the level of a species), but it's not nihilistic to accept it. On the other hand, it would be philosophically naive though understandable if a person couldn't accept it.
The only thing that my so-called doomerism has changed as far as my behavior is inspire me all the more to try to do what I can to increase human well-being and the well-being of all sentient life while I still can. And I know I'm not the only one, I'm reminded of Breht O'Shea from Rev Left Radio who has frequently talked about the difficulty he's had in reconciling with the reality of climate change but how much better of a leftist and person it's made him.
Climate "doomerism" is not and does not necessitate nihilism, and it definitely isn't in conflict with being a good leftist.
I'm not saying that it's impossible for us to go extinct. but the climate is going to have to approach Venus levels of bad for even small pockets of humanity to disappear.
recognizing the possibility is natural and good - that billions are going to die should give everyone cause for reflection. my point was more about the conviction and certainty of the claim. it's just not in line with the best science available right now. saying "our civilization is likely doomed" is a defensible claim. so is "it's possible we go extinct" is also defensible. saying "literally everyone is going to die", without qualification, is nihilism. it's a philosophical path that leads to accelerationism or other forms of reaction.
No. If Earth's climate begins to approach Venus levels of bad, humanity will be done and gone long before that. Extremophile bacteria right now wouldn't be able to survive on the surface of Venus where it's hot enough to melt lead. There is no reason to think this isn't also possible for Earth (in fact it's an inevitability, just far enough out that humanity is statistically likely to have gone extinct for other reasons first). I really don't think most people comprehend how narrow the range is for continued habitation of animal life, let alone mammalian, let alone one species of mammals. The whole idea that "even with catastrophic environmental collapse, we intrepid humans will find a way! We'll eke out an existence and pull through!" strikes me as the same kind of thinking that allow Musk fans to talk about colonizing Mars as if there's even a remote chance even within the next couple generations. Imo, the failure to recognize human fragility is a kind of anthropocentrism and unintentional hubris. Yes, we have spread over much of the globe but only during a brief (geologically speaking) time when everything was nearly perfect for us. And even then we came so close to extinction where literally only a few thousand individuals existed on Earth and as a result we have very very little genetic diversity (which tangentially, unrelated to this conversation, is another fun fact to throw in the faces of racist reactionaries). Many other species have spread more effectively and over far more of the globe than we have and the vast majority of them are already exinct.
Again, Earth already has gone through climatic events that humanity, even with all our current and modern technology, could not survive. Humanity wouldn't live through a "snowball earth" which has already happened. Humanity wouldn't live through a permian-triassic equatorial pangaea which has already happened. The latter included a runaway greenhouse effect - something we may have already tripped. It's not even the first time that life is what caused it's own mass extinction. Human extinction level climate change is in the worst-case-scenario realm. But something else you probably already know about, something heard often in climate-aware circles, is how many of the projected "worst case scenarios" of the last few decades have turned out to be what actually came to pass.
Humanity will last longer than the lifespan of anyone here, even the children of anyone here, I think it's safe to say. But it will not and can not last forever. Why is it philosophically acceptable when the fact that an end of humanity will happen is qualified with whatever sufficiently large epoch you personally want to put on it, but it is unacceptable "nihilism" to suggest it could likely happen in the next couple millenia or so?
Why? Does someone given a terminal cancer diagnosis necessarily want to just go out and (CW) intentionally end their lives all the quicker (accelerationism)? Or decide they may as well become self-serving assholes and do their damndest to take everyone else out too (reaction)? I'm sure it's happened but it's obviously not the norm. It's difficult, it's painful, it's terrifying to contemplate when the end is nigh (on a personal level, a civilizational level, or at the level of a species), but it's not nihilistic to accept it. On the other hand, it would be philosophically naive though understandable if a person couldn't accept it.
The only thing that my so-called doomerism has changed as far as my behavior is inspire me all the more to try to do what I can to increase human well-being and the well-being of all sentient life while I still can. And I know I'm not the only one, I'm reminded of Breht O'Shea from Rev Left Radio who has frequently talked about the difficulty he's had in reconciling with the reality of climate change but how much better of a leftist and person it's made him.
Climate "doomerism" is not and does not necessitate nihilism, and it definitely isn't in conflict with being a good leftist.