Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The world population is expected (by the UN) to level off and even start declining this century.
The end of explosive population growth is critically important to stabilizing the world.
Given that much of the ecological damage is being done by only a billion or so of today's 8 billion but the other 7 (then 8, then 9) billion are all planning to live like them, is it reasonable to think we can achieve a soft landing? I'm not a pessimist by nature but I wrestle with this obvious conundrum.
There's not going to be anything soft about our landing.
That does seem to be the most likely scenario. But nothing about the future is certain. There was an article just last week about the philosophy of "hopeful pessimism". Obviously it should really be rebranded "hopeful realism" but otherwise it's quite persuasive. There are always ways to make things better than they otherwise would have been. And, again, the worst scenarios, or even just bad scenarios, are absolutely not inevitable. For example, on the climate issue, there has been a lot of progress in green tech, and the temperature projections are now a bit less bad than they were a decade ago. Not a lot of people know this! Still bad of course, and climate is only one threat among a whole bunch, so optimism is clearly dumb. But nothing is inevitable and so being hopeful is not dumb at all.
That's a long article. I didn't fully read it. But I agree with the idea to reject pessimism. If there nothing to be optimistic about, you can at least not be pessimistic. Why? Because it sucks to be pessimistic. And also, moping has never helped anybody. We learn that as kids, but we seem to have forgotten that as adults.
Completely agree on all counts.
Guess I'm doing my part! You're welcome all.