• unenlightened
    3.6k
    Call me callous, but I don't really care if this paper depresses you. But you have been warned, and if you want more warning see this review.

    And if you are of the 'give it to me straight, doc' persuasion, look on this work, o ye mighty and despair.

    The gap in the literature that this paper may begin to address is the lack of discussion within management studies and practice of the end of the idea that we can either solve or cope with climate change.

    And I don't really want to get into the argument about publication, either. I think it is scholarly enough to be taken seriously and discussed on its own terms.

    The purpose of this conceptual paper is to provide readers with an opportunity to reassess their work and life in the face of an inevitable near- term social collapse due to climate change.
    The approach of the paper is to analyse recent studies on climate change and its implications for our ecosystems, economies and societies, as provided by academic journals and publications direct from research institutes.
    That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. The paper reviews some of the reasons why collapse-denial may exist, in particular, in the professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.
    — Abstract

    Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations. This situation makes redundant the reformist approach to sustainable development and related fields of corporate sustainability that
    has underpinned the approach of many professionals (Bendell et al, 2017). Instead, a new approach which explores how to reduce harm and not make matters worse is important to develop. In support of that challenging, and ultimately personal process, understanding a deep adaptation agenda may be useful.
    — Conclusion

    There is so much I could quote here, so much of social and psychological interest, and of interest to a student of the foundations of science. But let my give a few bullet points of the 'what', and let you read for yourself or imagine for yourself the 'so what'.

    1. Climate change is unstoppable.
    2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so.
    3. This will involve Flooding caused by sea-level rises displacing huge populations, decline in crop yields leading to starvation even in developed countries, collapse of infra-structure, power, clean water particularly.
    4. There's fuck all to be done to stop it.
    5. So what might we do or think or discuss in the meantime?

    Different people speak of a scenario being possible, probable or inevitable. In my conversations with both professionals in sustainability or climate, and others not directly involved, I have found that people choose a scenario and a probability depending not on what the data and its analysis might suggest, but what they are choosing to live with as a story about this topic. That parallels findings in psychology that none of us are purely logic machines but relate information into stories about how things relate and why (Marshall, 2014). None of us are immune to that process. Currently, I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.
    (my bold)

    Well the anti-natalists will rejoice.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.6k
    I'm definitely going to read this when I get some time.

    An interesting contradition seems inherent in the abstract, which isn't a good omen...

    This agenda does not seek to build on existing scholarship on “climate adaptation” as it is premised on the view that social collapse is now inevitable.

    The author believes this is one of the first papers in the sustainability management field to conclude that climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term and therefore to invite scholars to explore the implications.
  • Judaka
    319

    I've always wanted to play the madman who proclaims that the end is coming, this will give me something to use.

    Seriously though, I think global warming can still be stopped just since people like Elon Musk say it can but it's clearly not going to be stopped because none of the big governments care enough. Oh well, I just hope it's going to be my grandchildren or great-grandchildren who suffer and not me.
  • Bill Hobba
    7
    Please don't make me laugh. I haven't read it but can say a few things up front.

    First when the IPCC released their report they said it plainly - some scientists say we have as little as 12 years. Well a little statistical knowledge of the Central Limit Theorem and The Normal Distribution shows this means the vast majority do not. But what did the climate change alarmists hear - we have only 12 years. It makes you wonder - it really does.

    Secondly there is a tacit assumption - namely if catastrophe does occur we cant do anything about it. There are many engineers working on the problem that disagree - but that is generally not talked about.

    Climate change is real, but a doomsday scenario it is not.

    As a positive huge strides are being made in Fusion power and it is now thought it could be here about 2030. That will be a massive game changer.

    Another thing to notice about the IPCC is the use of so called grey literature which is non peer reviewed literature. Anybody that knows anything about science knows that is a no no that cant be covered up by the public face of the IPCC that when pressed to justify what they say simply resort to - we are not scientists - we only report what they say. As far as I am concerned, while climate change is not a hoax, the way its reported to the public creates a lot of irrational alarmism.

    So stop worrying, learn some basic statistical theory (you will be surprised at the misconceptions just doing that resolves) and spend a bit of time keeping up with the progress being made in fighting the global warming that is actually occurring.

    Thanks
    Bill
  • frank
    2.5k
    The author states: "We do not know for certain how disruptive the effects of climate change will be."

    That is correct.
  • Marchesk
    2.5k
    2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so.unenlightened

    There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that. It's one thing to predict the climate 10 years from now. Seems like we have fairly good models. Society is a whole different animal.

    There's fuck all to be done to stop it.unenlightened

    How can anyone know that without time traveling into the future? There have been proposals for engineering the environment to correct for global warming and removing the C02 form the atmosphere.

    "I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction."unenlightened

    It's not the first doomsday prediction in the history of the human race, nor the first environmental apocalyptic prediction in the past several decades. To date, the doomsday predictions have not come true. I'm a bit skeptical of worst case scenarios. Not that they can't happen, but when they're talked about in inevitable terms. I don't think we can know enough about a system as complex as the environment in conjunction with human civilization to make such claims of certainty.
  • Marchesk
    2.5k
    Also, when did the doom and gloom predictions go from later in this century to a decade from now? The conspiratorial part of me thinks it's a strategy to motivate people to act sooner so as to avoid eventual bad outcomes.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that.Marchesk

    There is a way, You type the words on a lap top and then click "post comment". Science is all about predicting the future. Weather forecasting is not totally accurate, and yet it is done with some success, without the aid of time machines. Perhaps 1 hour has not been long enough for you to read and absorb the paper, and so you resort to criticising my down and dirty headline teasers. But come up with something bit more sensible and less cliche ridden. This is a serious, well researched, thoughtful paper. Ignore it if you like, but your scorn reflects more on you than on anything said here, so maybe ignore it in silence?
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    Just to be clear, this not some way out nut job cherry picking statistics to make a radical fruitcake conspiracy theory. This is an expert in the field.

    Dr Jem Bendell is a Professor of Sustainability Leadership and Founder of the Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) at the University of Cumbria (UK).

    He focuses on leadership and communications for social change, as well as approaches that may help humanity face climate-induced disruption.

    A graduate of the University of Cambridge, he had twenty years of experience in sustainable business and finance, as a researcher, educator, facilitator, advisor, & entrepreneur, having lived & worked in six countries. Clients for his strategy development included international corporations, UN agencies and international NGOs. The World Economic Forum (WEF) recognised Professor Bendell as a Young Global Leader for his work on sustainable business alliances. With over 100 publications, including four books and five UN reports, he regularly appeared in international media on topics of sustainable business and finance, as well as currency innovation. His TEDx talk is the most watched online speech on complementary currencies. In 2012 Professor Bendell co-authored the WEF report on the Sharing Economy. Previously he helped create innovative alliances, including the Marine Stewardship Council, to endorse sustainable fisheries and The Finance Innovation Lab, to promote sustainable finance. In 2007 he wrote a report for WWF on the responsibility of luxury brands, which appeared in over 50 newspapers and magazines worldwide, and inspired a number of entrepreneurs to create businesses in the luxury sector.
  • frank
    2.5k
    fruitcake conspiracy theoryunenlightened

    The part about global social collapse and extinction is idiotic.
  • Echarmion
    322
    The author states: "We do not know for certain how disruptive the effects of climate change will be."

    That is correct.
    frank

    But if there is a significant chance for massive disruptions, avoiding or alleviating such disruptions ought to be a major concern.

    There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that. It's one thing to predict the climate 10 years from now. Seems like we have fairly good models. Society is a whole different animal.Marchesk

    We still ought to consider reasoned predictions. Just that the knowledge is not certain does not mean it isn't a relevant prediction.
  • frank
    2.5k
    But if there is a significant chance for massive disruptions, avoiding or alleviating such disruptions ought to be a major concern.Echarmion

    Massive disruption, yes, sooner or later. But that would be true even if there was no anthropogenic global warming.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    I'd like to see your qualifications for calling this guy an idiot. Otherwise I'll just treat your remark as idiotic.
  • Echarmion
    322
    Massive disruption, yes, sooner or later. But that would be true even if there was no anthropogenic global warming.frank

    That's neatly sidestepping the issue. We are talking about a specific prediction about near-term societal collapse due to anthropogenic climate change. As @unenlightened said, you are free to ignore it, but not to call it "silly" without argument.
  • frank
    2.5k
    I didn't say he was an idiot. Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. There is no reason to believe the entire 100,000 years of global warming we have ahead of us will cause either of those things.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    I understand. You have no qualifications whatsoever, you just like to pontificate on what you think is idiotic.
  • frank
    2.5k
    @Echarmion
    I think the global social collapse and extinction bit was unenlightened, not the guy from the two-bit college.
  • frank
    2.5k
    understand. You have no qualifications whatsoever, you just like to pontificate on what you think is idiotic.unenlightened

    I have the same qualifications you do for prophecy.
  • Echarmion
    322
    I think the global social collapse and extinction bit was unenlightened, not the guy from the two-bit college.frank

    No, I think it's the paper making these predictions. Though when it says "extinction event", it doesn't mean extinction of humans.
  • frank
    2.5k
    So unenlightened meant frog extinction? Interesting factoid: frogs have survived many mass extinction events, but might not survive human-produced pollution.

    :groan:
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    I think it's fairly clear what is a quote and what are my own words in my posts. But in case it isn't, I have not myself used the phrase "mass extinction" in any post in this thread.
  • frank
    2.5k
    No one suggested you did. You were just talking about human extinction (for some odd reason).
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    ↪unenlightened No one suggested you did. You were just talking about human extinction (for some odd reason).frank

    I want you to point out exactly where I talked about human extinction or withdraw the claim, because I think you are making shit up about me.
  • frank
    2.5k
    @unenlightened

    "I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction."
    — unenlightened
    Marchesk

    Did you not see that Marchesk quoted you? But I'm glad to hear you're backing down on that.

    Now on to global social collapse. The paper does not explain how China, which has unparalleled experience with famine, is going to manage to go into collapse in the next 10 years. Care to enlighten us?
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    Did you not see that Marchesk quoted you? But I'm glad to hear you're backing down on that.frank

    Do you not see that in my post that is a quote of the article? So it is not my words. Will you now withdraw your false claim about me?
  • frank
    2.5k
    Do you not see that in my post that is a quote of the article? So it is not my words. Will you now withdraw your false claim about me?unenlightened

    OK. You're not the idiot. The author of that paper is.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    Thank you.
    And now let's go back to your qualifications for calling Dr Jem Bendell, a Professor of Sustainability Leadership and Founder of the Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) at the University of Cumbria (UK), an idiot.
  • frank
    2.5k
    Look, if you want to believe that human extinction is on the horizon, feel free.

    But to the stray five or six people who read this thread: please refer to the works of reputable scientists before seriously considering the ravings mentioned in the OP.

    That's all I wanted to say. :)
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    As I thought, you're the idiot. You have made zero contribution to understanding anything, provided zero new information or perspective, and wasted a deal of time with baseless ad homs and insults. Thanks.
  • frank
    2.5k
    If you like.

    Remember folks, refer to reputable scientists before seriously considering the lunacy mentioned in the OP.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    Remember folks, refer to reputable scientists before seriously considering the lunacy mentioned in the OP.frank

    Remember folks, this idiot has no qualification in the field, and likes to make up random accusations that he cannot begin to justify.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment