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”.

  • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I think you’re being, not only pedantic, but also just wrong. “The world will end” is a perfectly apt description to just about anyone about what is going on. The world will be uninhabitable for A MAJORITY of life that currently exists.

    Permian extinction: last time shit like this happened, temps rose 10°C over 10,000’s of years. Still killed 90% of ALL LIFE. To be so arrogant as to presume that the USA collapsing would not have any knock on effects on the rest of the world. To presume that what kills of humans would do nothing to any other life. To presume that that scientist is a moron who just LOVES AMERICA so very much, because why else would he say things that make me feel bad?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I think you’re being, not only pedantic, but also just wrong.

      What part of what I quoted can’t you read? It’s not being pedantic, it’s a matter of facts. Calling it the end of the world is extremely poor semantics, and poor semantics lead to poor understanding.

      The world will be uninhabitable

      That’s not the end of the world either. I described that VERY clearly.

      Permian extinction:

      Exactly, and that was not the end of the earth either, even the end of all life on earth is not the end of the earth. You may call it merely semantics, I call it facts. Poor semantics result in poor understanding.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Your argument is not wrong in the clinical sense. Just in the sense that it is so obtuse and irrelevant that your insistence that it is the only correct way to view things makes me not take you seriously.