[Forge36]

I am a firm believer that the world has always being going to shit.

It's called change and accepting that has made life much more bearable.

While change is increasingly happening faster, the changes are (mostly) smaller. We're in one of the longest periods of “peace time“ and threat of war/death continue to decrease (while not evenly distributed that's not a reason to lose hope).

[RhodesianHunter]

I wouldn't call the changes "smaller". Climate change is an existential threat. Possibly the greatest one we've ever faced, certainly the greatest since WWII and so far we're definitely NOT rising to the occasion.

[gruez]

Climate change might be the greatest challenge we've ever faced, but it's hardly an "existential threat" (ie. something that threatens our existence). Even under the worst IPCC forecasts, there won't be enough land lost (eg. by flooding or desertification) to wipe out humanity. Don't get me wrong, billions dying or displaced would be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, but isn't something that threatens our existence.

[jononor]

In workplace health and safety there is a term "life altering". This is used for the high impact but not deadly accidents, that are still very valuable to reduce the risk of. Like having an arm torn off, or going blind. I think we should adopt similar terminology when it comes to risks to humanity as a whole. "Civilization-changing perhaps"? And try to attach some meaningful examples of this. Fixating only on total anhilation of the entire species is not so useful when trying to design policies.

[danny_codes]

There is a risk that plants can't adapt fast enough to climate change and die off, causing a domino effect. Phytoplankton, for example, produce 50% of the earth's oxygen. So if they go, well, we might be along for the ride.

[solarmist]

Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat.

If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.

[soulofmischief]

This take always rubs me the wrong way because it conveniently ignores the fact that letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided given that 1% of humanity is more or less to blame for this mess.

[cercatrova]

If one is going to use a word that means a specific thing then get annoyed because that word didn't conform to what they wanted it to mean, I mean, can we do anything about it? They should have used a different word. Calamitous or monumental are good words for what you're describing.

[thunky]

Nobody said it was ok, they just said it's technically not an existential threat if humanity persists.

[AnimalMuppet]

Letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided, whether or not 1% of humanity is to blame.

[GekkePrutser]

Exactly, it does always irk me when people call it an existential threat to humanity. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem. But it won't wipe us out. Some areas will also become more habitable (eg Siberia)

The mass migration of people across borders as a result of climate change might cause wars that are such a threat though. But still I don't consider climate change itself as such.

[RhodesianHunter]

I said an existential threat, not an existential threat to humanity. For the majority of us, and for our nation, it is indeed an existential threat.

Regardless, the pedantry is unwarranted.

[smitty1e]

To quote the Instapundit: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear.

[chki]

"There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear."

And who is doing the controlling? Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness?

Isn't it much more likely that the many crises we perceive are a product of imperfect human perception and the enormous development of mass media instead of an enormous conspiracy theory?

[vinyl7]

I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting.

Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity!

The other side of it lately has been creating crisis that divide and conquer society. Most of the "crisis" in the past several years have been terribly polarized. Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc.

[chki]

>I think most "crisis" are developed for election marketing and grifting. Horrible situation such'n'such is an existential threat! Vote for me or give me money to save all of humanity!

I think that's much more reasonable. I wouldn't agree with you that it's "most" but sure, that's certainly happening to some amount.

>Keeping people divided stops them from focusing on the real issues that politicians can't/won't tackle, and it prevents them from uniting against politicians/corporations/etc.

This part however, I don't buy. That's a conspiracy theory. Who exactly is carrying out this nefarious plan? And how do they manage to have that much influence to be able to do that in most countries?

[HKH2]

> Wouldn't it be easier to control people if they are happy and content, given that in human history revolutions were almost always a product of suffering and unhappiness?

It's easier to rule happy people. If you want to control them, you can lull them into inaction with vices, then control them with fear. We're all individuals; divide and conquer.

[chki]

Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies. I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralyzed.

The connection between - media producers make money by grabbing attention - grabbing attention is easier if you create threats and crises --> the media tends to overblow things

seems so much more straightforward.

[HKH2]

> Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. 'Rule' is a neutral word. I meant it in the way that a ruler generally tries to do good for their subjects because on some level they have to. 'Control' is negative and implies no concern for subjects because the subjects have no recourse.

> Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies.

If you've been awake in the past 3 years you will have seen obvious government overreach. You can justify it if you want to, but it's clearly gone way beyond public health concerns.

> I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralysed.

I'll assume you're American. What percentage of Americans do you think use psychiatric medication or drugs (including alcohol) on a regular basis?

[thorncorona]

What is that bar for you?

What issues led you to this opinion that they’re overblown?

[smitty1e]

> "What is that bar for you?"

See first sentence of my post. Those demanding sacrifices might start with themselves.

[barbariangrunge]

This period of peace time is, admittedly, because world war 3 will end human life on earth and it’s making leaders slightly more shy than usual

It doesn’t even have to be a world war. It will only take 1 nation to make the choice

We’re one mistake from extinction

[gus_massa]

Note that the "nuclear winter" will not be as initially imagined. It will be bad, very bad, but not extinction level bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...

[singularity2001]

WW3 ending humanity might be a wrong assumption.

God forbid we might be entering the "big proxy war" between all mayor powers. (If India and china start supplying the ukraine front etc)

To contextualize with OP: yes the world is always changing, but the next decade might become extremely uncomfortable.