Mary, thanks for the editing. I've made those corrections. I said that this was likely a mild case - I agree with you. I can think of worse ones that are just as realistic. I invite people to do their own.
Chose to just focus on climate for this one, but may revisit this exercise with all planetary boundaries in mind - but that might be a much bigger project.
Please share and encourage others to imagine for themselves.
Could add re Australia 2050: Chances of 'inland sea developing in Lake Eyre basin in next 50 years =0. Chances of wildfire hell developing = 98%. What was missed? Darwin and other parts of the north become uninhabitable for a big part of the year due to humid heat. Erratic rainfall patterns make agriculture impossible. Southern cities run out of water every few years. Floods. Droughts. No-one can insure their home or business. Ningaloo Reef dead.
Thanks, Matt, for a thoughtful and well-researched article. I was wondering how the shutdown of the AMOC would cushion the impact of heating and even help with food production. Thanks.
Two spelling corrections, two kudos (kudoses?) and a comment. You don't "fair better" you fare better. And nothing can "peek around" a certain date--that would be peak.
Kudos for the comparison of choosing to live in the best house in a dangerous, failing neighborhood over an average house in a thriving one as what US policymakers have been doing. And for doing the whole exercise--we need much more of this, people depicting realistic futures, so it's clear what clinging to modern comforts--from not bothering to bring canvas shopping bags to not bothering to think bout change--will cost our children.
Comment: I think scientists are mostly saying AMOC will not shut down that soon, and I suspect your idea of how North America fares is too rosy--its current governance is disastrously bad and that is probably not happenstance, probably not going to change. Nuclear war is a very real risk that would change--or end--everything.
And it seems to me you analyzed the effects of climate change but not the equally dire crises of biodiversity loss and plastic/PFAS/etc pollution. Biodiversity loss will be exacerbated by all the rest, as desperate, hungry people hunt remaining wildlife and farm remaining land. Insects are declining 1 to 2% a year and are already down at least 50%. In 25 years that's another maybe 40% loss. What effects will that have? Pollination is the most obvious, but insects are critical to surely most food chains. Wild land mammal mass is now 4% for all species, with humans being 30% and our livestock over 60%. With that trend continuing for another 25 years, can we even survive with that many holes in the web of life? Ask an ecologist. Most city people are ignorant of the interdependence of species, including our own.
But I think you implied in one place that things might get a lot better in the somewhat distant future--a couple hundred years--and I think that is realistic. I think most, or all of our problems are caused by a dynamic where the least wise, most sociopathic among us have seized power and figured out how to cement it into their own hands. The coming collapse is the one thing that will break that hold. After a period of chaos, there is at least the potential for localities to create much better governance structures, and to create strong principles in their cultures and religions to guard against a repeat.
I think you've been much too kind to the US, and you've focused on climate change while ignoring others of the six planetary boundaries that we have crossed.
For example, resource depletion. The Permian basin is arguably already in its second decline, so where is the fuel needed for agriculture coming from? Declines in nitrogen alone, which is really just heavily manipulated natural gas, could cut food production in half by 2050.
The US is not going to feed itself! Those "home gardens" you claim will ameliorate things? Where will they get their nutrients? Without aggressive use of humanure, the home gardens will be depleted by 2050.
Conversely, I think many third-world countries may fare better than you predict. They are closer to subsistence than the US has been for several generations. An African whose parents lived off the land will have a much easier time of it than an American whose relative closest to subsistence was a great-grandparent that the adults of 2050 have never met. And conversely, third-world people are closer to freedom from petroleum dependence than Americans are.
Of course, none of us have a perfect crystal ball, but in general, I think those who have suffered from modernity the longest will suffer the most when it goes away.
When polled, 80% of American school kids said food comes from grocery stores. I don't see much hope there.
I also think it is unfair to lump Canada in with North America. The Canadians who live in cities, sure, but Canada has a relatively large population that lives close to the land. Canadians also have much more of a "common good" focus than the "ruggedly individual" Americans, which could bite them in the butt.
As one famous American noted, "We must all hang together, or we will surely all hang separately." — Benjamin Franklin
Starting reading, this found it interesting and plausible until you got to the US
You are completely ignoring the impact this Trump/Thiel/ Christian nationalist dictatorship is going to have on climate change, immigration and the economy- especially the move away from renewable energy
And Europe is turning into a desert not ice age but thanks for the entertainment
Mary, thanks for the editing. I've made those corrections. I said that this was likely a mild case - I agree with you. I can think of worse ones that are just as realistic. I invite people to do their own.
Chose to just focus on climate for this one, but may revisit this exercise with all planetary boundaries in mind - but that might be a much bigger project.
Please share and encourage others to imagine for themselves.
And another 50 years? Here's my very local vision (south-eastern Australia)
https://open.substack.com/pub/towardseudaemonia/p/after-the-gold-rush?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=340lm2
Peter, this is great, thanks for sharing.
Note to others who see this--this link leads to a very good short story, do check it out.
Could add re Australia 2050: Chances of 'inland sea developing in Lake Eyre basin in next 50 years =0. Chances of wildfire hell developing = 98%. What was missed? Darwin and other parts of the north become uninhabitable for a big part of the year due to humid heat. Erratic rainfall patterns make agriculture impossible. Southern cities run out of water every few years. Floods. Droughts. No-one can insure their home or business. Ningaloo Reef dead.
Thanks, Matt, for a thoughtful and well-researched article. I was wondering how the shutdown of the AMOC would cushion the impact of heating and even help with food production. Thanks.
Two spelling corrections, two kudos (kudoses?) and a comment. You don't "fair better" you fare better. And nothing can "peek around" a certain date--that would be peak.
Kudos for the comparison of choosing to live in the best house in a dangerous, failing neighborhood over an average house in a thriving one as what US policymakers have been doing. And for doing the whole exercise--we need much more of this, people depicting realistic futures, so it's clear what clinging to modern comforts--from not bothering to bring canvas shopping bags to not bothering to think bout change--will cost our children.
Comment: I think scientists are mostly saying AMOC will not shut down that soon, and I suspect your idea of how North America fares is too rosy--its current governance is disastrously bad and that is probably not happenstance, probably not going to change. Nuclear war is a very real risk that would change--or end--everything.
And it seems to me you analyzed the effects of climate change but not the equally dire crises of biodiversity loss and plastic/PFAS/etc pollution. Biodiversity loss will be exacerbated by all the rest, as desperate, hungry people hunt remaining wildlife and farm remaining land. Insects are declining 1 to 2% a year and are already down at least 50%. In 25 years that's another maybe 40% loss. What effects will that have? Pollination is the most obvious, but insects are critical to surely most food chains. Wild land mammal mass is now 4% for all species, with humans being 30% and our livestock over 60%. With that trend continuing for another 25 years, can we even survive with that many holes in the web of life? Ask an ecologist. Most city people are ignorant of the interdependence of species, including our own.
But I think you implied in one place that things might get a lot better in the somewhat distant future--a couple hundred years--and I think that is realistic. I think most, or all of our problems are caused by a dynamic where the least wise, most sociopathic among us have seized power and figured out how to cement it into their own hands. The coming collapse is the one thing that will break that hold. After a period of chaos, there is at least the potential for localities to create much better governance structures, and to create strong principles in their cultures and religions to guard against a repeat.
I think you've been much too kind to the US, and you've focused on climate change while ignoring others of the six planetary boundaries that we have crossed.
For example, resource depletion. The Permian basin is arguably already in its second decline, so where is the fuel needed for agriculture coming from? Declines in nitrogen alone, which is really just heavily manipulated natural gas, could cut food production in half by 2050.
The US is not going to feed itself! Those "home gardens" you claim will ameliorate things? Where will they get their nutrients? Without aggressive use of humanure, the home gardens will be depleted by 2050.
Conversely, I think many third-world countries may fare better than you predict. They are closer to subsistence than the US has been for several generations. An African whose parents lived off the land will have a much easier time of it than an American whose relative closest to subsistence was a great-grandparent that the adults of 2050 have never met. And conversely, third-world people are closer to freedom from petroleum dependence than Americans are.
Of course, none of us have a perfect crystal ball, but in general, I think those who have suffered from modernity the longest will suffer the most when it goes away.
When polled, 80% of American school kids said food comes from grocery stores. I don't see much hope there.
I also think it is unfair to lump Canada in with North America. The Canadians who live in cities, sure, but Canada has a relatively large population that lives close to the land. Canadians also have much more of a "common good" focus than the "ruggedly individual" Americans, which could bite them in the butt.
As one famous American noted, "We must all hang together, or we will surely all hang separately." — Benjamin Franklin
Now...
Redo this piece and use exponential change where appropriate.
Starting reading, this found it interesting and plausible until you got to the US
You are completely ignoring the impact this Trump/Thiel/ Christian nationalist dictatorship is going to have on climate change, immigration and the economy- especially the move away from renewable energy
And Europe is turning into a desert not ice age but thanks for the entertainment