There’s a big gap between “the empire I’ve known forever is going away” and “this world might not be habitable in a century”. You’re being incredibly disingenuous to draw a comparison between the two.
This type of fear-mongering hyperbole does true harm in the fight to combat climate change. The world will not become uninhabitable. It will change in dramatic, unexpected ways, but it's not like it will become radioactive rubble. Feeding FUD about it just enables the deniers.
I don’t think there was as much of a difference to the person living in Rome at that time, what with disease and starvation and lack of geographic mobility and hostile invaders.
And I might be wrong, but the worst predictions I’ve seen seem to be things that would lower the population of the world by billions, but wouldn’t make it utterly uninhabitable for those who remain (other than something like all out nuclear war).
I don’t think the comparison is disingenuous at all.
I think that if sea level rises and forests turn to deserts and oceans acidify and the population of the world declines by 90%, we’ll hope that the people who are left still try to thrive. And hopefully do better the next time around.
Are you sure from the viewpoint of a prosperous citizen of the empire that there was actually a big gap between these two comparisons? My readings have always suggested the two viewpoints would be thought synonymous.
the big gap you claimed was between “the empire I’ve known forever is going away” and “this world might not be habitable in a century”. My statement was meant to indicate that I am not sure that a citizen of Rome would have the same understanding of those two concepts that an American today might have, although there might be other correspondences between the two, the understanding of a world outside their empire being meaningful enough that its destruction would be significantly worse than the destruction of Rome.