IMO this is the only actual solution that could actually be implemented right now that might actually result in an outcome that doesn't end with humanity going extinct.

Overpopulation is the direct cause of climate change, period. I'm so tired of never hearing actual solutions being discussed. Yet we have a non-stop barrage of climate alarmism news, carbon taxes, and cardboard straws that keeps getting shoved down our throats.

Is there really nothing you can do or are you saying that because you're too lazy to change things?

I'm genuinely curious and I don't mean to start any arguments.

If it's the latter then please with all due respect if you care about your loved ones, society or whatever get your shit together because things are going to get really ugly.

Sure, humanity might not go extinct right off the bat but with how much we're fucking up the planet with fossil fuels, plastic, COVID and an innumerable amount of other things we're definitely going to slowly disappear off the face of the Earth (I'm pretty sure the latter is why fertility is declining and insanity is increasing)

People say humanity is adaptable or some shit but that's probably on faulty premises.

The only reason we are adaptable in the first place is our sophisticated tools so if society collapsed we'd lose access to probably the only thing that made us adaptable in the first place. I doubt stone age tools are going to keep us alive. You can continue deluding yourself if you want, can't blame you.

Life on this planet isn't invincible either, in the right circumstances, everything could be vanquished in an instant.

And us humans definitely aren't infallible gods, so get that anthropocentric nonsense off your head. It's probably why we're in this mess in the first place. Believing we're somehow superior when it's generally agreed upon that we're physically pathetic compared to other species.

Also, apart from that I'd like to mention that if we keep driving species to extinction there won't be much food for us to consume. The human body plan (especially the brain) requires a lot of calories to function so we're also fucked in that regard too.

As for me? I frankly don't care much. I'll help where I can but that's about it. If I'm dead I'm dead. It doesn't affect me much as other people. And if humans really are this dumb then I guess it's for the best we never became an interstellar species.

P.S. the rich are just a bunch of power-corrupt imbeciles so don't worry, they'll get their comeuppance soon enough :)

Defeatism has become the new form of denial, a convenient excuse to shirk responsibility and avoid the uncomfortable truth that action is still possible. The claim that nothing can be done is not a logical idea, but a choice to actively encourage collapse rather then give up anything to slow it.

This attitude is nothing more then self indulgent greed. Accepting collapse without a fight is not a mark of realism or wisdom, it is a desperate rationalization to not disrupt one's routine or take risks.

Yes, immense suffering is inevitable, that’s precisely why doing nothing is so damning. Choosing inaction is choosing to let people suffer more, to let ecosystems die faster, and to let the worst unfold unchallenged.

Defeatism in the face of collapse isn’t just a passive surrender; it’s an active betrayal of humanity and oneself. Defeatism isn’t a lack of hope—it’s a choice to abandon the future to despair. We must reject this new denial and act, not because we can prevent all suffering, but because we can reduce it.

I see the preppers talking about buying food. Great idea. Maybe buying a farm. Sure. Guns and ammo great. Of course do not forget your friends and family are the best option. Maybe but I am not so sure.

First things first get out of town away from people. Remember there is no gas stations so you only need what you can carry. Chose your company wisely your loud mouth brother in a law might get you killed. Because you are going on foot you need to be in shape. Go for walks carring your bug out bag to get used to it. The lighter the better.

Bug out bag a few days worth high protein and carbs. Clothing is optional it might be easy to come by along your way. A good hatchet a good knife and a good saw. Flint and steel. A light but warm blanket and small pot for boi l ing water maybe a spoon. This is basic stuff you might want a toothbrush and other grooming items but remember you have to carry this stuff so keep it light.

Everyone talks about ar15 or a shot gun. I suggest a semi auto 22 like the one your dad bought you when you were 12. Ammo is light and you can carry alot of it. This serves as personal protection from people and maybe predators. This small rifle will also feed you. Anyone can shoot it.

You do not want to be in the open. You want to walk off the road at least a mile or two. Best if you can find a shelter that you can not get to by car. This will be your home base. I would not sleep here or near my camp. A dug out is the best option for bed time. See people may want your supplies it not worth your life.

Keep your fires small and put them out at night as to not draw any attention. After you have everything in order this your new home. Protect it.

Regular walks to town for trade or just to see if social systems are back online is recommended but you must be very careful. They will most likely out for months or even years. Do not trust anyone everyone will be desperate and hungry.

Back at camp you find water and food. Hunting rabbits and birds are your best options. Foraging would be a great daily activity if resources are available.

Please add to this plan as you see fit remember gold silver and cash will most likely be worthless food and water take priority.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the climate change awarness and class consciousness. It’s inspiring to see so many people turn left and aware there is a war going on for centuries, a class war.

But reading every day about impending Syria-style civil war in the US? Come one guys. I know this may hit you in the gut and it most definitely will get downvoted hard, but please hear me out.

I am also one of those late broke millenials who has given up his hope to make a change in the world. The worldwide coronacrisis has had its potential to force the world to rethink itself and take a more communal, environmental path. But it hasn’t. It is only natural to imagine a global change is only possible through total collapse. We yearn this. It is our last brink of hope. Our lives and the state of world is so bad that we’d rather wish for a civil or world war, because it gives us hope something better, something new will emerge from the ashes.

But it won’t. Not in our lives. Not ever, maybe. Yes, climate change will fuck humanity, but it won’t happen overnight. There won’t be a rapture. It will happen gradually, with people adapting over generations. Yes, many will die and there will be chaos in the global decline of population and resources. But the rich are wary of this. They are prepared. Capital finds it’s own way for unlimited growth. It’s not just some detached people in their mansions and bunkers smirking at what is happening to the world. Capital and it’s agents had centuries to prepare themselves against any threat. It lived through numerous crisises. It even survived numerous revolutions fought against it, and infiltrated those societies.

So please, stop wondering how will the war happen, because it is already happening. The class war. Pitting common folk against each other so they forget who is the real enemy. Stop theorizing how will the collapse happen, because it won’t. Not yet. Remember, civil and world wars only happen because the rich let them happen.

You can do more by educating others about class warfare. Acting locally. Building small communities from bottom to top. Plotting against the capital. I don’t know, I don’t have a slightest idea how to start a world revolution in this day and age. Maybe you guys across the ocean have a better chance because you can arm yourselves. But be wary of the capital and it’s agents. It is smarter, more powerful, better organized and has access to a hell of a lot more resources than we have.

But we have a major advantage, we don’t have anything to lose.

I can't sleep so I decided to write this post. I've been getting kind of annoyed with the collapse stuff going on. I want to get this off my chest. Mod's be like "if you don't like the state of the sub, post stuff you want to see." Here goes.

The world is a very complicated place and many of the red flags that pop up for "collapse" are just bad things that happen sometimes. Further, THE COLLAPSE, the big one so to speak, the point where we have global collapse, is decades away. By collapse I use Jared Diamond's definition. "A drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.”

I'm not going to go through everything. I am going to go through several things I think of when I think of misplaced collapse doom. Then, I will explain why we will not collapse by Tuesday.

Climate change. Is it a thing? YES! Do we need to be concerned about it? Absolutely. But not everything is a climate collapse.

Wildfires. Posts come up often on wildfires. (this one)[https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/unjpoz/these_wildfires_are_crazy/] has over a thousand upvotes. Fires are 1. [a good thing for forests](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/24/stop-blaming-climate-change-for-californias-fires-many-forests-including-the-redwoods-need-them/?sh=57386aa70b33) 2. [Primarily caused by poor forest management](https://www.ddponline.org/2017/10/29/climate-change-iq-question-7-forest-fires-climate-change/#more-499) 3. [not unprecedented](https://www.ddponline.org/2017/10/29/climate-change-iq-question-7-forest-fires-climate-change/#more-499) 5 times more acreage was burned in the 1930's. 4. [Could be significantly improved with proper management](https://news.stanford.edu/2021/08/04/new-wildfire-strategy-california/)

In short, wildfires are normal. The intensity of the fires and the damage they've been causing is primarily an issue of governance, not climate change. That means it is fairly simple (if not easy) to address. Frankly, when politicians blame climate change, they're shifting their own responsibility for the issue onto other problems. AND It's not helpful to point to something which has been going on for as long as we've been keeping records as some sort of harbinger of collapse. This stuff is normal, man made, and relatively easy to keep in check.

Water. [The southwest won't have drinking water!](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/u8x557/northern_arizona_may_see_drinking_water_cutoff_as/) [States will loose electricity](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/uje5ed/over_the_last_3_years_lake_powell_has_dropped/) This isn't exactly wrong, but is way oversimplified. Even the worst predictions for Lake Mead don't show the lake dropping below the level needed to generate power until into [2026](https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/crss-5year-projections.html). The limit is 950 feet.

The situation is much worse for lake Powell. [the graphs source](https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/crss-5year-projections.html)

As you can see though, it's a concern but not guaranteed. Meanwhile there are lots of mechanisms to prevent worse case outcomes, even if the drought worsens. Why does the graph end at 2026? [That's when the Colorado river compact expires](https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/News/Blog/Detail/colorado-river-compact-agreement) Currently, water rights are based on non existent water flows. States are allocated more water then the basin has. This has led to serious overdraw. The end of the treaty will force the states to renegotiate water rights based on realistic projections. Right now first users have absolute rights. In other words, a farmer in California gets to use water, even if municipal taps in Phoenix run dry. When you see posts like [Northern Arizona may see drinking water cutoff as Lake Powell continues to dry up](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/u8x557/northern_arizona_may_see_drinking_water_cutoff_as/) understand that 1. there is plenty of water. It's just not being allocated properly. 2. The Law of the River expires soon. Allocations rights could very well change soon. If you live in the area, pls make some time to pressure your politicians so cash crop farms don't get to squander your water while cities die of thirst.

Speaking of the farmers, ["By retiring less than 10% of the irrigated acreage from production, we could eliminate the existing million acre-foot overdraft on the Colorado River"](https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/05/12/colorado-river-overdrawn-retire-farmland-can-solve/3109406001/) The southwest isn't running out of water. It's being stolen. Of course the people in charge aren't going to tell you, "we may have to cut off water to your city so we can steal it." They're going to [blame climate change](https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/30/us/west-drought-lake-powell-hydropower-or-water-climate/index.html#:~:text=The%20water%20levels%20at%20Lake,in%20the%20last%20three%20years.&text=The%20Colorado%20River%20irrigates%20farms,water%20for%2040%20million%20people.) 80% of the water use in the basin is for irrigating [alfalfa and forage crops](https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/05/12/colorado-river-overdrawn-retire-farmland-can-solve/3109406001/) Y'all are going to be ok with a little less alfalfa. Just like the fires, climate change makes the problem worse, but this is a problem of governance.

War.

Idk what to say to this really. War is normal guys. Be mad mods. I'm not posting a source for this. Normal things are not indicative of collapse. It might be fair to call this the start of the collapse of the usa led global order. Idk. Is this the start of THE COLLAPSE. No. War is a regular occurrence. Warmongers [be like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdLi5UUsxxM). It's fine to post stuff about Ukraine. It's a big deal. But [stuff like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/ux0voh/ukraine_invasion_may_be_start_of_third_world_war/) is wack. I'm not going to go into why Ukraine won't be WW3. I think given how long the war has lasted and [bidens statements](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia-ukraine-00011049), it should be obvious. If this is genuinely contested perhaps I'll do another post. Let's look at the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the war.

Famine.

We are told [the war risks famine](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/vfq8ev/russias_war_in_ukraine_is_risking_global_famine/). This is not true, for the same reason "climate change causing forest fires" isn't true. I'm not trying to downplay the severity of the problem. Just like with wild fires, people will have their lives seriously affected by this. Some will loose their lives. However, the primary problem here isn't the war. The problem is globalization and capitalism monetizing food. Around this time last year, The UN reported [41 million](https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094472) at risk of famine. Right now, the UN is reporting [44 million](https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14894.doc.htm) at risk. I know this is way oversimplified. The point is simply that headlines like ["Lack of Grain Exports Driving Global Hunger to Famine Levels, as War in Ukraine Continues"](https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14894.doc.htm) are not the whole truth (y'all seeing why I opened with the fires and climate change?). A look at Egypt's food security plan illustrates the problem. Egypt is planning to [tripple wheat acreage](https://www.voanews.com/a/egypt-rolls-out-agricultural-projects-to-tackle-future-food-shortages/6587190.html). They are looking to buy from india who are projected to have a [record harvest](https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2022/04/egypt-wheat-supplies-in-focus-while-usda-reports-highlight-u-s-wheat-exports-south-american-production/).

Further, while there will be famines, following the pattern of the modern era, it will be man made. The UN says [a third](https://www.wfp.org/stories/5-facts-about-food-waste-and-hunger) of all food is wasted, and i've seen lots of studies suggesting its about [50%](https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/world/world-food-waste/index.html). More importantly, there is food. We have enough food. The problem is not production. It's always been cost and distribution. This famine isn't caused by the war; it's caused by capitalism making food a commodity. If the resources put towards cash crops were put towards staples, the world would be awash with food. Further, the problem is global supply chains. Countries depend on ukrainian and russian grain not because they can't grow food themselves, but because russia and Ukraine grow it cheaper.

I think it's fine to talk about the food issues. They are definitely collapse related. Sri Lanka has collapsed. My problem is twofold. First, I don't like the framing. The issue isn't really the war. The problem is that food is being treated as just another commodity and not something people need. Globalization/capitalism caused this problem. Second, and more importantly, the coming famine is not a harbinger of THE COLLAPSE. Like most problems its a political issue that's fairly simple, even if difficult, to solve. Lot's of countries are already making tremendous effort both to minimize the impact and to prevent this problem from happening in the future. I know I have vastly oversimplified the food situation. I haven't talked about fertilizers for example. The point is not to explain the food situation in detail. All I wanted to do was point out how this is not THE COLLAPSE.

Hopefully y'all can extrapolate this kind of reasoning to other issues. A lot of the political stuff is even worse. OH MY GOD. ROE WAS OVERTURNED. COLLAPSE! Chill. Not every bad thing that happens is a sign of collapse. Think through the issues. Ask yourself what are the primary causes of the issues. Are they easily solvable? Are they relatively normal? How feasible is a solution, or at least mitigation? Also try to differentiate the scale of the collapse. Is it the collapse of a respected judiciary? Collapse of the USA as a functional power? Collapse of the world's economy? THE COLLAPSE?

For all you newbees out there let me give you a schooling on collapse 101. Basically everyone is going to die by 2100, and not from old age. The simple reason is energy.

Everything in industrial life is energy intensive. For every [calorie of food, we put in 10 calories of fossil fuel](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/#:~:text=According%20to%20Pollan%2C%20for%20every,means%20a%20break%2Deven%20system.) I think we could do a lot better than that honestly. But not insanely better. Maybe 5:1. You need stupid amounts of energy to feed 8 billion + people.

There will be no transition to "renewables." The sun is renewable. The wind is renewable. Rivers are renewable (so long as the climate holds). Solar panels are not renewable. Wind turbines are not renewable. Hydroelectric dams are not renewable. I'm not going to talk about nuclear because I find the idea that anyone who thinks collapse is likely would advocate for nuclear power plants to be mind numbingly stupid. Sure they're "safe" when everything is normal. Collapse isn't normal. The proverbial dung is going to hit the fan and nuclear reactors are something I don't want to worry about. If anyone wants me to go in depth on why they're bad, maybe I'll make another post. Additionally, I will not be responding to "this company did x y or z in a lab". I'm interested in industrial scale production. nothing else will suffice. When that technology starts to scale, I'll pay attention. For example, I used to say you need fossils to produce the heat required for steel mills. There have been some cool electric arc steel mills coming out of Europe. They're industrial plants, not lab experiments. I'll pay attention to that.

[This article](https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/) is pretty good. The materials that power civilization. Plastic, steel, concrete, ammonia, all require fossil fuels for industrial scale production. Crucially, beyond being an energy source, industrial civilization is built of fossil fuels being a materials source. Petrochemicals in particular, but also coal products, natural gas products, etc. Turbines, solar, and electric all [require petroleum in their construction](https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/renewable-energies-rely-petrochemicals-oil-and-natural-gas). Fossil fuels are a prime component of just about every commodity in our modern life. From asphalt to rubber, from toothpaste to shampoo, from curtains to umbrellas. Additionally, all the "renewable" energy is heavily subsidized by cheap fossil fuels. How do you mine silicone, and transport it to refineries? Diesel powered machinery. How do you transport solar and wind panels from the place their manufactured to where they're installed? Diesel powered machinery, on petroleum based roads. The workers involved are all feed a diet of oil and natural gas (see above). The ships that take stuff across vast distances, powered by petroleum. The ports they unload, built out of concrete made from coal. What's the most abundant material in hydroelectric dams? concrete. What about wind turbines? concrete. What's used to make concrete? Coal. [10%](https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2018/09/crushing-environmental-impact-chinas-cement-industry/#:~:text=It%20takes%20200%20kg%20of,the%20nation's%20total%20coal%20consumption.) of Chinese coal use is for their concrete industry.

I'm not going to go into the traditional issues with renewables, like energy storage, reliable power generation, etc. Y'all know this stuff. The biggest problem with renewables is that they only produce electricity. Electricity is [20%](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/electricity) of total energy use. You may be able to electrify some of the rest, but not much. Good luck electrifying a Boeing 737. Electricity is not suitable for most things. In particular, industry and transportation. The industries that make the basic stuff we need to live, like [fertilizer](https://www.fertilizerseurope.com/fertilizers-in-europe/how-fertilizers-are-made/), and other materials covered above NEED fossil fuels in their production. Let me repeat. NO AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CAN SUBSTITUTE. Further, the machines import to industrial processes like industrial trucking, heavy machinery, tractors, harvesters, excavators, etc, can not be electrified. Diesel fuel has something like [64 times](https://www.mne.psu.edu/toboldlygo/Publications/Journals/2012_Logan_JPR_BatteriesVsGenerators.pdf) the energy density of the best lithium batteries. There is no way to electrify those heavy machines. To provide the power, there would need to be so many batteries that the machines would crus the field, destroy the roads, and have very little operating time. The key for operating time is recharging. I talked to a trucker the other day at a gas pump. He put in about 300 gallons of diesel, in about 15 minutes. There's no battery on earth that can recharge fast enough for him to meet his contracts. For lots of the big machines, they run nearly 24/7. In harvest and planting time time, agricultural machinery will run for extended periods of times with no breaks. An 8 hour break to charge your machines every 6 hours is unacceptable when you have mere weeks to harvest many thousands of acres.

All of this is moot. There aren't enough resources to electrify everything. BUT 1403186. THERE ARE ENOUGH MATERIALS. Sure. Theoretically. But if we wanted to electrify everything the mines would take up [37%](https://www.rainbowjuice.org/2021/06/life-after-fossil-fuels-book-review.html?showComment=1622941680123) of the surface of the earth. That's insane. I also recommend checking out the pretty insane graphs for the price of materials like lithium, cooper, cobalt, nickle etc. There's no way we can afford to electrify everything. The resources needed are on a whole other scale. And guess what we're going to be using to mine, process, refine, transport, manufacture, assemble all those materials to make all the solar and wind and stuff? That's right, petroleum and coal.

For more of the myriad of reasons why solar, wind, and hydro are incapable of replacing fossils, check out https://energyskeptic.com/

Fossil fuels are the key to our civilization. Climate change? no problem. We can build sea walls, irrigation, desalination plants, everything needed to adapt. Soil degradation? No problem. We can build hydroponics, vertical farms, etc. I could go on. No problem we face is catastrophic as long as energy and materials remain stupidly cheap. Unfortunately, we're fucked here. We're getting pretty close, if we're not already at, peak everything. When companies want to extract a resource, they go for the easy stuff first. You don't go for off shore artic drilling when oil is bubbling out of the ground in Pennsylvania. Same thing for minerals and other resources. You extract the highest quality, easiest access materials first. This means that the more you extract, the more energy intensive and costly it is to extract more. This is why we're fucked guys.

I recommend going to https://energyskeptic.com/2022/peak-fossil-fuels-overview-of-peak-oil-coal-and-natural-gas/. They have lots of data on peak everything too. Go check it out. As we blow past peak everything, everything will become much more expensive, at the same time that we have less energy to get at it, and at the same time we're demanding ever more. This will create a situation of slowed economic growth, followed by economic stagnation, and eventually collapse. THE COLLAPSE will occur when we cannot materially sustain this way of life. Barring a black swan event like an asteroid, that is the only way we will truly collapse. Even something like a nuclear war, while catastrophic, will only temporarily slow our civilization down. It won't destroy our capacity to do industrial things, we'll rebuild and continue until we hit hard physical limits. Collapse will not happen by Tuesday.

Personally, when I'm tracking collapse i'm looking at three things. 1. How close are we to reaching the material limits of the planet? 2. How will the hardship faced during this process like economic stagnation play out? 3. How habitable will the planet, and my region be post collapse?

That's the kind of stuff I'd like to see on the sub. I'll be open for comments for a bit. If I don't get to you immediately I will within a day or so.

1. Most people on this thread aren't sad about humans going extinct because we're all very aware of our flaws as a species. And those flaws have always been incompatible with our future as a species. So collapse was always guaranteed to occur for us.

2. The thing that most people on this thread seem to be upset about is the fact that 99% of species are going to go extinct alongside us. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old & life has existed here for 3.7 billion years. Life has managed to cling on even in the most unhospitable conditions. There is literally life near thermal vents in the deepest parts of the ocean. Tardigrades can survive temperatures close to absolute zero and withstand heat beyond the boiling point of water. They can shrug off the vacuum of space and doses of radiation that would be lethal to humans.

So yes, most species are at risk of extinction but those species were destined to either go extinct like the mammoth, saber-toothed tiger, and Neanderthal or evolve into new/different species in a few million years. Every single species is temporary & a tiny blip in the grand overview of our planet's timeline. The absolute worst case scenario is that we kill off 99.9% of life that would have disappeared even without us & life completely recovers after a few hundred million years.

Life doesn't always turn out the way we imagine, and that's ok. Life will take a beating but life will persist & make a comeback just like it has for billions of years. It sucks but it's not the end of the world . . . just the end of the world "as we know it". And the world "as we know it" was always destined to be a temporary thing.

It's a place to examine the vileness of so much human behavior and attitudes. You can discuss capitalism as the culprit -- politics is welcome -- and you can discuss ideas of a basic flaw in humankind -- soteriology is welcome. Basically, anything to do with human vileness, and its flipside, instances of deep kindness and humanity, are open topics.

I won't censor anything except cruelty. The only rule is don't be cruel.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HumanVileness/

Every solution or suggestion seems to be put through the lens of "Does this help me" instead of "is this right for the planet or humanity" (depending on what you think should be the primary focus). If you are aware of collapse and the causes of it, it really doesn't make sense to repeat the same mistakes.

Classic example is any discussion on space colonisation/space habs. The main objection that's raised is that the elites are just trying to escape and leave us behind with the mess they made. Frankly, if that guaranteed the survival of the species then it would be a decent deal, not ideal, but a good back up plan. It would suck that those people are the ones that get to live, but it's better than everything truly being gone. The issue with all those plans is that they are a massive usage of resources while being extremely unlikely to actually help human survival, not "who gets to survive".

We need to accept that real long term solutions to these massive problems might not be beneficial to us as individuals, our families or even to our whole countries. (Need for degrowth in the 1st world for example)

Edit - I have no idea why so many are replying that colonizing space is unfeasible. That's literally my conclusion for the 2nd paragraph - "The issue with all those plans is that they are a massive usage of resources while being extremely unlikely to actually help human survival, not "who gets to survive"." The technology and economics of it doesn't make sense.

If so, I haven't seen any.

Please shout out if you believe the future will eventually be brighter than the past, even if it means deep struggle along the way, or the belief that somehow, when the pain is high enough, civilization will correct itself.

I realize that reading Collapse depresses many people...or perhaps depressed people are attracted to Collapse. What Reddit's /r/Collapse Can Teach Us About Doomscrolling | Time

Many of you will probably response with the notion that being optimistic is impossible given the current reality, but that is still a mental state of mind.

EDIT: This started to get upvotes, but the downvotes clearly show what people feel. Pessimism.

A couple of threads here recently have prompted this. We must not allow open, rational and clear discussion of collapse issues to be compromised by language-mangling from the liberal left.

The term "fascism" has already been systematically devalued by some on the left who are very happy to dismiss all sorts of ideas they don't like with a strawman version of fascism. They are now doing the same with the term "eco-fascism", especially when confronted with anybody who suggests our planet is overpopulated or opposes immigration on national self-sufficiency (national overpopulation) grounds. Such things are not, in themselves, even necessarily authoritarian. Theoretically even a democratically elected government could implement policies of this sort. In reality it is hard to see how a democratic government could do this, so it is reasonable to associate these ideas with eco-authoritarianism. But eco-authoritarianism and eco-fascism are not the same thing, and should not be confused.

"Fascism" is a bit of a vague concept, but it centres on some key ideas.

(1) One of them is the suppression of opposition - that is the authoritarian bit.

(2) Another is the glorification of the nation state - fascists want their population to see their nation state as their tribe. They want people to identify as Germans, Americans, Brits...as opposed to anything else that might take the place of a tribe (such as a religion, or any trans-national political-ideological movement). This should not be confused with the pragmatic acknowledgement that nation states do indeed hold sovereign power. That's just a fact about reality. It is a plain fact that the only people I can vote for who hold any real power are members of parliament, and that the only borders they can defend are the borders of the UK. This is not a glorification of the UK - it has nothing to do with my notion of identity.

(3) A strong focus on power itself - on militarisation.

(4) Top-down control of things like the economy and other aspects of society.

(5) Demonisation of "the other" - the outgroup - those who don't belong to the tribe/nation, unless they are an ally or subordinate tribe/nation. This really follows from the others, but worth mentioning in its own right.

Fascism does not imply anything ecological. However, as shown by the history of Nazi Germany, it is natural for the two things to go together. Fascism is about strength and resilience - it is no use defending your border from "the other" if your own territory is ecologically collapsing. So fascists are naturally attracted to ecology and environmentalism, at least at the national level. Also, because their way of doing things is authoritarian already, they are naturally much better placed to actually implement all those unpopular policies that are needed to save the world. If fascists actually controlled the world, we might have a hope of stopping climate change. That is not supposed to be a defence of fascism - it is a simple statement of the truth.

So eco-fascism is a real thing. The Nazi Party of Germany was a real-life eco-fascist party, at least until it became clear that Germany was going to lose the war and Hitler decided to expel all the eco-fascists because they were opposing desperate ecologically-damaging policies that Hitler wanted to implement in order keep fighting a war that they knew was lost.

Eco-fascism is fascism + ecology.

Authoritarianism is the violent suppression of political opposition.

Fascism is necessarily authoritarian, but authoritarianism isn't necessarily fascist and in fact comes in many different flavours. Stalin wasn't a fascist. Neither are the Taliban. And the vast majority of modern eco-authoritarians aren't fascists either - they have no interest in glorifying the nation state, investing in the military, trying to control aspects of society that have nothing to do with ecology, or demonising foreigners.

Please do not allow leftist language-manglers to strangle open debate about these things. If somebody drops the term "eco-fascist" into a discussion when it is very obvious that they mean something else, don't let them get away with it. Educate them.

Since this sub is becoming to look more like /r/Futurology with marxist flavour, I'd like to spark some debate about the "communist utopia" that a lot of people here envision as a solution to the collapse.

So, let's toss political issues aside and assume that tomorrow the global revolution occured. Koch brothers, Rotshilds and Morgans are shot, Bill Gate's throat is slit, the means of production are nationalized, capitalist intelligence agencies and armies are demolished, comrade Bernie is elected as a General Secretary of the Worlds Communist government(yeah, I know he's a soc-dem, nevermind).

Now you are facing the need to constantly feed 8 billion people, an approaching climate catastrophe, an unsustainable industrial economic system, a continued population growth, an increasing scarcity of resources, continued topsoil erosion and approaching peak resources.

Question #1:

The common leftist talking point about demographics is that "overpopulation is not the issue, resource distribution is". Marxist like to point out the fact that as soon as you rise living standards, women start having less and less children. The logical solution is to raise billions from poverty!Great. But what does the phrase "raise living standards" mean? It means providing every African and Asian family with the same amount of luxuries and neccesities as the average westerner have. Everybody wants an airconditioning system, a couple of cars, a TV set, an ability to learn in the university, an ability to buy meat&fish, an ability to have a vacation in Seychelles or Hawaii, a wardrobe full of clothes, a PC, etc.Providing every person with those luxuries would require gigantic increase in resource extraction and more importantly, in energy use per person.

In 2019, global energy consumption amounted to 158,839 TWh**.** More than 80% of that number **came from the fossil fuels.**Let's say the above increase in living standards will raise energy consumption to 300 000 TWh(very conservative estimate).

How are you going to sustain such economy?Remember: the EROEI of the existing oil fields is already falling, the renewables are no way near replacing any significant fraction of energy consumption, the fusion is always 20 years from now, the battery capacity is not even a hundredth of the one required to power our cities, the increase in the industrial production means an increase in CO2 emissions.

Question #2:

How are you going to enforce your decisions?

Let me remind you how it ended up in Soviet Union: to preserve the achievments of the revolution and to resist any counter-revolution, a strong bureaucratic and military apparatus was created. As the time went through, the said apparatus accumulated more and more power.

One day, the higher-ups decided that they would be better of by adopting capitalism(the existing system did not allow them to accumulate capital and the social security nets were to burdensome for them.) So they slowly dissolved the SU and became capitalists themselves.

So maybe the solution is decentralized democratic socialism? But in that case, what is stopping some country to build up military and conquer their neighbors? To protect the socialism you need a strong army and power structure. But ironically, the said powerstucture becomes an oppresor itself.

Question #3:

How are you going to solve rivalries other that "capital vs labor"?

The world is divided not only by class, but by religion, ethnicities, nationalities, etc. Right now there is a war going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is not a rich region at all. The main problem stems from ahundred years old ethnic conflict between Armenians and Azeris.There is a conflict between Shia's and Sunnis in the Middle East, and it is not going anywhere.There is a conflict in Ukraine where russian minorities are oppressed and want to succede/russians occupy a sovereign part of Ukraine.There is an ongoing oppression of uighurs/separatist movement in Xinjiang.

Each of those conflicts is not going anywhere. If you are going to solve them by force, I will again ask question #2.

These are the problems that appear rightaway, I do not even dive into deeper issues as the absense of class conciousness, a geographical inequality, a falling rates of scientific returns, etc. My intention is to spark some discussion, so I'm looking forward for your replies.

Seriously, this is an emergency. Stop having children. If you and your partner are trying to make a baby cancer ape, I would encourage you to stop immediately. There are currently 7.6 billion cancer apes on this planet. You may think that your little baby ape isn't anyone else's business, but the truth is that your little ape is contributing to:

1. CO2 release by existing in a 1st world country

2. Resource depletion, your little cancer ape is going to require tons of carbon, pesticides, fertilizer, steel, etc over its lifetime - there are a finite number of resources on this planet, your little ape is not helping the situation.

3. Species extinction - to provide food for your little cancer ape, habitat must be cleared and native species killed and displaced so it can eat steak with the rest of your family.

4. Financial burden on society: your little cancer ape contributes to the tax burden of the residents in your city for the services it needs to survive - it needs police, fire fighters, and schools - all of which have carbon and resource costs.

5. The future is grim, your little baby cancer ape will not likely live to reproductive age, or if it does you'll get to watch your little cancer ape make its own little apes and then watch the whole lot of them starve to death - do you really want to watch an ape (s) starve to death in your living room?

In conclusion, cancer apes have already done enough damage to this planet - at this point there's going to be, at minimum, extreme financial hardship and resource wars in the near future. At worst, we're heading for a full-scale collapse of every biome on the planet within the next 30 years (probably sooner).

Capitalists want people living in pods, eating synthetic gruel, and not owning anything. Free people are antithetical to the plans the capitalists have to enslave the world. A capitalist views the world, and everything in it as something to be exploited and dominated.

This is where population deniers come in. Population deniers carry water for the capitalists. I bet a lot of them are paid shills, or bots.

Population deniers confuse and muddle the issue through lies and slander. They paint themselves as morally superior and accuse their opponents of being "fascist". This is projection and deflection. They are the fascists.

It's people who want humans to live in overpopulated holding cells like penned animals that are the fascists. They tell you that the earth should have 12 billion people living in pods, not owning anything, and not doing anything that brings pleasure because it's "bad" for the environment. Or they sell you some fantasy of 12 billion living in mud and grass huts larping as druids.

Population deniers serve the goals of their fascist capitalist masters who see people as an exploitable resource like livestock, and they want their livestock in easily managed high density pens.

The world would be much better if population was 1/5 th of present levels. That's probably the limit for a sustainable society based on renewables. Global renewable energy production is between 25-30%.

Of course resource consumption will have to be reduced. It is indisputable.

The issue at hand is this - Given the choice, do you share a pizza with 8 people, or 50 people? When you share it with 8 people everybody gets a slice. They get to enjoy their slice and form a bond with others, because they aren't starved out of their fucking minds.

When you share a 8 slice pizza with 50, everybody gets 0.16 of a slice assuming equal distribution. But we know equality doesn't exist. So just imagine what people are actually getting - diddly fucking squat.

Now you have 42 angry, hungry people, and 8 assholes who ate the pizza. Equal distribution wouldn't have solved the fucking problem either and you would just have 50 angry, hungry people in that scenario.

Population deniers are ecofascists who want people to live in squalor, and suffer. Population denial should bannable.

Population deniers please identify yourselves in this thread, for research purposes. Thank you

Since this sub exploded in popularity, I have noticed a tendency for people here to talk about the possibility of right-wing, fascistic, or theocratic take-over (particularly in the US and Europe) as if it were analogous to Collapse (with a capital C).

I find this very frustrating, because I think it belies a lack of understanding of what Collapse really is. If you read the side-bar, collapse is defined as:

a significant decrease in human population and/or political/economic/social complexity over a considerable area, for an extended time.

The absolutely key word in that definition is complexity. Collapse requires a decrease in the complexity of a civilization and (by extension) a decrease in the metabolism of resources, energy flux, and industrial production.

This is not the same thing as, say, the take-over of the United States and it's conversion into Gilead from the Handmaids Tale. That would be bad, certainly, but it doesn't necessarily equate to a collapse in any way. It's easy to look around the world and find examples of deeply authoritarian, unjust, and flat-out immoral States that maintain high levels of economic and industrial complexity. In fact, I would hazard that true collapse is probably inimical to the maintenance of a centralized, authoritarian, dystopia, since maintain oppressive State control requires a high degree of systemic integration and resources.

We can even look at history and find examples where fascist take-over was associated with a shift away from a collapsed or disintegrated socio-technical system. Hitler's rearming of Germany and the associated stabilizing of the economy is an instance where authoritarian take-over actually increased the integration and technical complexity of production compared to the pre-fascist era.

There are many, many reasons to be vehemently opposed to the idea of the Right gaining even an inch of ground anywhere in the world. I certainly don't want to sound like I'm doing conservative apologia, so let me be clear: the reactionary, regressive, conservationism that increasingly dominates global politics is evil. Flat out. So are old incarnations like Reganomics. These are terrible systems, full of terrible people, who should never be allowed to have power over so much as a grocery store checkout line.

However, things can be bad in different ways, and it is deeply silly for people to lump all bad things into the same bucket and fail to make meaningful distinctions to them.

Becoming Gilead would suck (it does suck, since it's happening all around us, esp. if your LGBTQ). But that's not the same thing as collapse.

NB - one possible way that right wing take-over could lead to collapse would be through civil conflict exploding into all-out, Syria-style civil war. But that could happen with guerilla leftists as well.