So, here and there some individuals and communities survive -- probably more because they were lucky than because they pivoted, adapted, and adjusted continually. The title is too optimistic. It should be "How we might POSSIBLY survive in a post-collapse world, but don't bet on it".

I think the survivors would likely be those who happen to be in a favourable micro climate, like a high valley in the Himalaya. Or a mountainous Island away from the tropics.

Deals are made to be broken. — unenlightened

That's why I said enforcable.

I don't think governements will do it out of their own volition, or can't because of the wrong incentives. Take Europe for example. We were doing some of the mitigation (not enough), but now the US is asking to raise military spending to 5% of GDP while putting tariffs on our exports which will possibly lead to a recession. And our economy was already hurting because of higher energy prices... It think in this context it will be very difficult for politicians to sell more spending for mitigation to the public. This isn't about morality.

The real danger long term is biodiversity-loss and ecological collapse. This could potentially mean that nobody can survive.

. This isn't about morality. — ChatteringMonkey

It is exactly about morality, because the only escape from the prisoners' dilemma is for the prisoners to be moral; if they are logically expedient, they lose. If governments do not do the right thing for the world because it is the right thing for the world, the world is fucked. Your explaining the logic to me doesn't change the logic, it just shows how we are fucked. because we have no morality.

But we already know that governments are not really moral actors don't we? When in history have they acted in the interest of the world as a whole predominantly and consistently? Almost never I would say. Post both world wars attempts have been made to agree some things on a supra-national level because the potential consequences of not doing it were so dire. Those attemps weren't always a succes, but in some cases it has worked to some extend, like for proliferation of nuclear weapons for instance.

The way to escape the prisoners' dilemma in geo-politics is negotiation and coming to some kind of supra-national agreement.... you create incentives so the prisoners don't choose the default bad option.

Climate change is going to create increasing immigration pressure to habitable zones that have resource access. There will be a race between genetic engineering and deployment of change robust crops and the destruction of farmable land through instabilities and warming, the deployment of climate stable crops from the research centre to its periphery creates a new vector for financial colonisation. Water processing technology will be similarly distributed, the old dams burst in freak floods.

The elderly will die in droves during the summer months from heat related illness - this already began a few years ago. The demographic timebomb from plummeting global birthrates in the political north - the research centre of climate robust technology - will increasingly centralise and ultimately undermine the levers of power for climate adaptation, leading to broad popular unrest in response to starvation and growing fascist sentiment. Stymieing hopes for further adaptation.

This leaves the former rich slumped dead in their air conditioned gated communities, their corpses watched over by autonomous drones. The drones' targeting systems misfire on the piles of sunburnt bodies strewn at the gate, mistaking every leathered rictus-grin for anger.

Finally, under the sun, we rot together in absolute biological equality.

When in history have they acted in the interest of the world as a whole predominantly and consistently? — ChatteringMonkey

I would be happy if governments acted in the interests of their own populations, predominantly and consistently, never mind the whole world. This concern is highlighted by Trump's current predations.

A bright and cheerful future! I can't wait.

Climate migration is going to increase. Even communities imbued with charitable generosity in destination zones will be able to absorb only so many people. Then what? Enter the autonomous drones?

Dear Moliere,

I do not see how this is a philosophical topic. If you would like a scientific answer then this would be something for a science forum right? What are the philosophical questions you are after here?

Enter the autonomous drones? — BC

Yeah I think they'll be rolled out as automated border police, initially, then the communities will shrink. North and South Korea already have this tech, it's also already around some military restricted zones in the USA.

The question of whether there is climate change is a purely scientific one, but I think the way we deal with it is a political question and so a question of values ultimately.

For example, how much do you value future generation compared to living generations? Or how much do you value nature, only instrumentally or is there something more inherently valuable?

Seeing this purely as a scientific question, as if we can just ask scientist what to do about it, has been one of the problems it seems to me.

For example, how much do you value future generation compared to living generations? Or how much do you value nature, only instrumentally or is there something more inherently valuable?

Seeing this purely as a scientific question, as if we can just ask scientist what to do about it, has been one of the problems it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

Ohh, yes, I agree with you. There are philosophical questions related to climate change certainly. It needs a rephrasing of the question, or at least, a question more focused. 'Rights' of future generations is a philosophical question, the designation of this era as 'the anthropocene' is a philosophical question, intrinsic value of nature is a philosophical question. Indeed, the framing of the question as a scientific queestion, is a philosophical question. To me, the way the question was phrased, was unclear. What philosophical question are you (OP) after? It was phrased in scientific terms.

If our continued existence isn't a philosophical issue, what is?

I think survival is more a practical question. We won't - can't - all survive.
What ought we to do collectively?
That's kind of philosophical, but also practical . We pretty much all know what should be done, needs to be done, by governments and global organizations. We also know that many of the former won't and that the latter will try despite of the governments.
What ought individual citizens do? That's also an ethical question. And we all pretty much know the answer and also that most people are more frightened of their governments than they are of climate change and won't be desperate enough until it's too late (if it isn't already).
So, we know that the climate has changed and will continue to change for the worse.
All that remains is the practical consideration of escape, self-protection and local mitigation. The very rich can escape, for a short time. Many people in prosperous nations can devise some degree of self-protection. Some communities and a few fortunate nations can enact mitigating measures - at least until they are overrun by climate refugees or involved in the ensuing climate wars.
I believe we are nearing the end of philosophy as well as professional baseball, psychiatry and haute cuisine.

But won’t there come a point where it will become cost effective to send out swarms of drones to take out the hordes. Some evil genius will come up with the idea that it’s better to just get it over with quickly and without too much fuss. That to reduce the global population to a million or two workers is the way to mitigate.

There is the philosophical issue of whether humanity has it in itself to survive. We do in theory, but will we act on that and be successful. Or do we just turn on each other and collapse civilisation again like we have done many times in the past.

Are we capable of securing our long term survival and what would that involve.

There is the philosophical issue of whether humanity has it in itself to survive. — Punshhh

That is a factual question, not a philosophical one. It is just as factual as whether water boils at 100.C.

Or do we just turn on each other and collapse civilisation again like we have done many times in the past. — Punshhh

The question of what the ties that bind us are, may be philosophical, yes. The question of how we can reinforce them is more sociological or a matter of political science. Whether this might involve the widespread use of technoregulation for instance, that might be an ethical question. There are many philosophical questions relating to climate change, but that an issue is important does not make it inherently philosophical. I do not want to derail the thread to the question 'what is philosophy'. I would just like to know what philosophical issues relating to climate change would the OP like to discuss? As it is, the questio: 'how should we deal with the common disruption?' is philosophical perhaps but rather broad.

That is a factual question, not a philosophical one. It is just as factual as whether water boils at 100.C.

And the answer is?

I do not know the answer. No one does. Not knowing the answer also does not make a question philosophical.

Perhaps philosophy can provide an answer. It will only be factual when a humanoid population is found which has secured its long term survival, beyond the limitations of finite resources and self destruction. Like a black swan event.

One thing that is not often discussed are the psychological effects of climate change on people and societies.

The ecological view on climate change and ecological collapse more general, is often that civilization and growth itself has been the problem that got us to where we are. While this may be true, it does get us into this logic of degrowth or civilizational collapse as the only possible ways 'forward'.

Problem is that this account 1) almost has to lead to a re-interpretation of most of our civilizational tradition as bad or misguided because of where it ended up and 2) it gives us and next generations very little to work towards or aspire to.

It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism.

What are the philosophical questions you are after here? — Tobias

My intended role is to allow others to bring up the philosophical questions that ought be explored while maintaining a thread which basically respects the scientific consensus -- so less a contributor on where the conversation goes and more a contributor of where it cannot go (a moderator). We already have threads where the scientific consensus can be questioned, so this is a thread for philosophical questions under the assumption that the science is more or less right.

One thing that is not often discussed are the psychological effects of climate change on people and societies. — ChatteringMonkey

It is discussed, and psychological community help is available too.
see here for example: https://www.deepadaptation.info/the-deep-adaptation-forum-daf/

But it is not 'let's pretend it's not really so bad' sort of help.

More generally, people may not be aware that eco-philosophy, deep ecology, have been being studied and discussed for a long time now.

In Europe, the first announcement of the Deep Ecology Movement (DEM) was made in Bucharest (Romania) in 1973 by the Norwegian Arne Naess, who participated in the world conference on the future of research [16], from which time he was considered the first promoter of the concept of ecosophy or “ecological wisdom” [17], a concept to which the author added the letter T, becoming Ecosophy T, where the letter added to the concept is an association with the name of his hut in the mountains in Norway, called “Tvergastein” [18]. Naess supports the idea of protecting the environment if it is subjected to the type of transformation that Leopold was talking about. His ideas refer to the fact that we are part of the whole biosphere, which is why we must be in harmony with nature: “thinking for nature must be loyal to nature” [18]. His concept of “Deep Ecology” includes another concept called the “ecological self”, which is an initiative for developing environmental philosophy and activism in the world. Naess stated that the natural world cannot be manipulated or controlled for our own gain and “to live well means to live as an equal with all the elements of our environment”, continuing to refer to eco-philosophy, “which is not a philosophy in any proper academic sense, nor is it institutionalized as a religion or ideology” [19] and which it assimilates within an ecological movement.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4291

And here are the barebones principles that Naess proposed.

In his “eight-point platform,” formulated together with George Sessions in 1984 while the two were camping in Death Valley, California, Arne Naess offers a convenient overview of deep-ecological principles. It runs as follows:

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

https://www.deepecology.org.au/blog/2022/04/22/the-ecosophy-platform/
Lots more interesting stuff on this site too.

It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism. — ChatteringMonkey

People in psychological distress regularly show up at the climate change subreddit. There was a message directed at them pinned at the top, basically trying to undo misinformation that had been provided in clickbaits.

But it is not 'let's pretend it's not really so bad' sort of help. — unenlightened

I've been down the limits-to-growth rabbithole. It's doesn't pretend it's not so bad, that's right, but it does put itself diametrically opposed to (our) civilization. There is no way we achieve the values you quoted there and keep our current civilization going.

That basically means you are either in permanent opposition to the current order, probably without much prospect of changing it because typically not enough people will be on board which such drastic changes, or you just give up on society alltogether and you go live somewhere of the land or in a small community isolated from the rest of society.

And it seems to me you still have the basic problem of 8 billion people relying on a technologically advanced but ecologically destructive system for their survival. I don't see how you go from where we are now to living in harmony with nature without a lot of people dying.

I don't see how you go from where we are now to living in harmony with nature without a lot of people dying. — ChatteringMonkey

A lot of people are going to die. I can appreciate that that is not what people want to hear; in the seventies it might have been done gently, now it's too late.

I appreciate truthfulness.

My intended role is to allow others to bring up the philosophical questions that ought be explored while maintaining a thread which basically respects the scientific consensus -- so less a contributor on where the conversation goes and more a contributor of where it cannot go (a moderator). We already have threads where the scientific consensus can be questioned, so this is a thread for philosophical questions under the assumption that the science is more or less right. — Moliere

Ok, fair enough. Then I will also assume that for the sake of argument at least you also accept the images of a hothouse world, the disasters, droughts, changing weather patterns etc. that accompany this narrative. (I do not use 'narrative' pejoratively, as if it were 'just a narrative'; I mean it in the sense of a coherent set of storylines that present to us a problem, its origin, the solution, and its key protagonist.) There is little more we can do in terms of truth claims. We are philosophers and not natural scientists, so basically any prediction of what will happen in detail transcends the limits of our abilities. Questions of ontology and epistemology are then mostly sidelined and the issue becomes one of ethics.

Ethical questions I can think of are questions related to whether our moral imperatives still hold under the threat of imminent catastrophe. For instance, is begetting children the right thing to do towards future generations? We know they will inherit a world of imminent catastrophe. Is such a life worth living, or are they better off not being born? Second to what extent is deontological ethics affected by imminent catastrophe? Kantian doctrine of imperfect duty holds that one should not violate imperfect duties because it will make the world unlivable, but if it already is, or becomes, are we still bound? Thirdly, to what extent may we suspend ordinary freedoms and civil rights to avert catastrophe? Does imminent catastrophe, which renders civil rights moot, present a state of exception under which civil rights should be conditional anyway?

In all of these questions, a time dimension comes in. The threat is imminent but has not realized itself yet and we do not know if there may be solutions in the future. What is the measure of certainty we need to have before fundamentally altering our legal and moral order?

Ok, fair enough. Then I will also assume that for the sake of argument at least you also accept the images of a hothouse world, the disasters, droughts, changing weather patterns etc. that accompany this narrative. (I do not use 'narrative' pejoratively, as if it were 'just a narrative'; I mean it in the sense of a coherent set of storylines that present to us a problem, its origin, the solution, and its key protagonist.) There is little more we can do in terms of truth claims. We are philosophers and not natural scientists, so basically any prediction of what will happen in detail transcends the limits of our abilities. Questions of ontology and epistemology are then mostly sidelined and the issue becomes one of ethics. — Tobias

Yup -- though scientific papers and the like would be of interest, of course, the epistemology and ontology are largely decided and wrestling with the consequences is more what we can ask as philosophers in this thread.

In that vein we don't know the future, exactly, but we do know that none of the possible futures, given that the narrative is true, are good. I don't believe extinction is on the other end, but untold misery is in the cards -- at a minimum we're already seeing island nations being destroyed by rising sea levels. As things progress mass migration will become an issue, and that's concerning in a world with nations that are picky about who gets to cross the border, and who have large militaries to protect their various claims on resources that, given the scenario, will be dwindling.

I say "at a minimum" because these things are happening now, and if the narrative is true, will only get worse.

Yes, but also these are not philosophical questions. Sure we can speculate about the consequences, but those remain idle conjecture because we probably make less good guesses than geo-political strategists. Given these consequences, we may ask what the right thing to do it, or why we believe these will be the consequences and not others, or what kind of leadership may be necessary to navigate the crisis. What I keep cautioning against is idle conjecture on our part.