A scientist has made the shocking claim that there’s a 49% chance the world will end in just 25 years. Jared Diamond, American scientist and historian, predicted civilisation could collapse by 2050. He told Intelligencer: “I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.”

Diamond explained that fisheries and farms across the globe are being “managed unsustainably”, causing resources to be depleted at an alarming rate. He added: "At the rate we’re going now, resources that are essential for complex societies are being managed unsustainably. Fisheries around the world, most fisheries are being managed unsustainably, and they’re getting depleted.

“Farms around the world, most farms are being managed unsustainably. Soil, topsoil around the world. Fresh water around the world is being managed unsustainably.”

The Pulitzer Prize winning author warned that we must come up with more sustainable practices by 2050, “or it’ll be too late”.

    • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 minutes ago

      To be fair though, he’s been writing on this topic for nearly 20 years. His book collapse is still one of the best history books I’ve read.

    • CuffsOffWilly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I was thinking the same thing so I looked him up and he has a BSc in biochemical science (Harvard) and a PhD from Cambridge in biophysics of the gallbladder. Colour me shocked. Still, kind of stepping outside his zone of expertise on this grand statement.

    • Formfiller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      I’d rather the magic 8 ball make our decisions than most politicians. We’d have a higher chance of survival

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Well I already knew I wouldn’t manage to retire…

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Because it’s a simple way of saying “We’re not quite over that most likely outcome line yet, but we’re getting there.”

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Popsci author repeats claim he’s been using for decades to sell books that most anthropologists question”.

    Man, sometimes I think newspapers and traditional media should be banned from reporting on science at all. I am very critical of social media and what Internet does to communication, but I’ll admit that the extremely focused experts that communicate on a narrow field for a living do a much, much better job of parsing published claims than traditional generalist news ever did. I am exhausted of impossible galaxies, stars that “should not exist”, healthy superfood, cures for cancer and world-ending events.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Any good broad-scale critique fro anthropologists that’s worth reading? I’ve only read one of his books, nearly 20 years ago, but most of what I’ve heard him say has seemed more or less on point.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        All I have is what you can get by looking him up, and I am definitely not an expert. I’m saying that this one guy referencing his one model for his one theory of society-as-ecology deserves a more nuanced headline than “the world is ending in 25 years”. If I can speak on anything here it’s on the reporting.

        He isn’t even saying anything that controversial when you dig through to the actual statements, which is a constant of mainstream news reporting on science news. “With all these things, at the rate we’re going now, we can carry on with our present unsustainable use for a few decades, and by around 2050 we won’t be able to continue it any longer” is barely any more severe of a warning than any climate scientist or ecologist has been making about these things for the past four decades.

        Hell, if anything he seems to be less concerned than the average Lemmy denizen:

        He explained: "As for what we can do about it, whether to deal with it by individual action, or at a middle scale by corporate action, or at a top scale by government action - all three of those.

        "Individually we can do things. We can buy different sorts of cars. We can do less driving. We can vote for public transport. That’s one thing.

        “There are also corporate interests…I see that corporations, big corporations, while some of them do horrible things, some of them also are doing wonderful things which don’t make the front page.”

        Post that around these parts, you’ll get people calling you a corporate shill for even entertaining that personal behaviour has an impact in this process or that any corporation is doing anything positive.

        Don’t hear the Express go “dude on the Internet thinks it’s high time we ban cars before we all die”, though.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.

    Emphasis added. That’s a pretty big bit of weasel-wording there, the world “as we know it” has changed drastically in the past 25 years. Things that we thought were indispensable to the proper functioning of the world order - such as, for example, the lack of a pudding-brained pedophillic fascist in the White House - are no longer operative. Yet we’re muddling along well enough, all things considered.

    Things are rapidly changing in so many ways right now. Projecting that far forward with any confidence is a bit of a fool’s errand.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      That’s a pretty big bit of weasel-wording there

      Absolutely, the world today is also not as we knew it in the 25 years ago, and it’s very different compared to the 70’s, where the future looked a bit more rosy.

      • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Yeah, that was another red flag. Margins of error on any kind of calculation like this are going to be big; “roughly half” would be a strong claim. Coming out with an exact percentage about a social sciences issue is crackpot territory.

    • 1D10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Honestly is he a scientist? Does he do science,or just find shit that supports his idea.

      Edit, I did a bit of googling and it does appear he is still publishing papers, but it feels like he has been beating the “we all gonna die” drum for a long time now.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      That model keeps getting tweaked and rerun, as others have mentioned, its from 'The Limits to Growth, otherwise known as the ‘World 3 model’.

      In this one, instesd of measuring ‘pollution’, which was…fairly difficult to get accurate data on… they just used CO2 instead.

      Pretty much same result, we are pretty much at the peak of modern civilization right now.

      IIRC, thats a screen grab from Paul Beckwith, a pretty well renowned climate scientist… he has a youtube channel, he puts out like a 20ish slide powerpoint recapping other recent climate studies every week or so …

      Basically we are fucked, all our climate models from 5 or 10 years ago were actually too optimistic, we already blew through 1.5C, the SMOC, the Anatactic part of the thermohaline cycle, already collapsed a decade ago, and we did not notice untill the last few months.

      We are tracking closer to the ‘8.5C by 2100’ level of climate sensitivity models than anything else.

      Insurance companies are basically already abandoning roughly the lower third of the US, too much climate disaster danger, can’t afford to insure homes and neighborhoods.

      UK Society of Actuaries recently put together their own risk assessment, from the ground up instesd of top down as the World 3 model… they are also predicting massive losses, economic damage, begging governments and insurance companies and banks to adopt mitigation strategies.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That was a pretty good prediction then. “World will end” is obviously a stupid wording, but the point is clear. The entire food supply chain as it is today will collapse, the question is just when it will happen and if we will have completely switched to indoor farming before then.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    49% chance the world will end in just 25 years

    Giant meteor coming to wipe out all of the world’s life?

    predicted civilisation could collapse by 2050

    Oh, so just the collapse of current civilisation. That’s happened many, many times already.

    While not a good thing for those experiencing it, consider this. As we look back on previous civilisations, would we consider ours to generally be the best up to now? I’d say so. Perhaps what comes next will be even better.

    The collapse of a particularly large civilisation is usually a slow affair that is difficult even to spot from the inside as it’s happening (consider the slow crumbling of the USA currently for example).

    So while it is a period of turmoil and not a small amount of suffering, it’s not like everybody is going to die and humanity will go extinct, or anything.

    • homoludens@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Oh, so just the collapse of current civilisation. That’s happened many, many times already.

      Collapse of local civilizations has happened a lot of times. Collapse of the global civilization has not happened yet. And previous collapses happened often improved the living conditions for big parts of the population, because they were farmers who no longer had to support the ruling classes after the collapse. Collapse of food production and distribution when e.g. only 1% of the population are professional farmers (in Germany) will be fundamentally different.