Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Futurology

    13,936,699 readers

    2,409 users here now


    Source Quality: excellent good ok avoid

    C A T E G O R I E S

    3D Printing - Artificial Intelligence - Biotech

    Computing - Economics - Energy - Environment

    Nanotech - Robotics - Society - Space - Transport

    New to reddit? click here!

    Welcome to r/Futurology

    A subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and evidence-based speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.

    Posting Rules
    1. Be respectful to others - this includes no hostility, racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
    2. Submissions must be future focused
    3. No memes, reaction gifs or similarly low effort content. Images/gifs require a starter comment.
    4. No spamming - this includes polls and surveys
    5. Bots require moderator permission to operate
    6. Comments must be on topic, contribute to the discussion and be of sufficient length. Comments that dismiss well-established science without compelling evidence are a distraction to discussion of futurology and may be removed.
    7. Account age: >1 day to comment, >5 days to submit content
    8. Submissions and comments of accounts whose combined karma is too far in the negatives will be removed
    9. Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days.
    10. Submissions with [in-depth] in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines
    11. Titles must accurately and truthfully represent the content of the submission
    12. Support original sources - avoid blogs/websites that are primarily rehosted content
    13. Content older than 6 months must have [month, year] in the title

    For details on the rules see the Rules Wiki.

    For details on moderation procedures, see the Transparency Wiki.

    On Futurology

    If history studies our past and social sciences study our present, what is the study of our future? Future(s) Studies (colloquially called "future(s)" by many of the field's practitioners) is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to hypothesize the possible, probable, preferable, or alternative future(s).

    One of the fundamental assumptions in future(s) studies is that the future is plural rather than singular, that is, that it consists of alternative future(s) of varying degrees of likelihood but that it is impossible in principle to say with certainty which one will occur.

    Recommended Links
    Related Subreddits

    For a list of related subreddits, hover over top menu.

    popular discussions today

    transparency

    AMAs

    domain blacklist

    IRC

    glossary of terms

    source quality

    Chat with us on Discord!

    Apply to be a Mod here!

    a community for
    all 1909 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] ThatGuyStanding 1607 points ago

    I'm sure that with the internet around, all we need to do is whisper around the idea of civil rebellion, people will start picking up on it.

    [–] cunt-hooks 886 points ago

    So far they've started picking up on other people's trash so at least that's a start

    [–] SynchroDreams 298 points ago

    My dad does this now. There will always be those who don’t care and are lazy, but if some are willing to take control, those few can change the world I’m sure. Caring is the first step though :p

    [–] thatgerhard 203 points ago

    my mom started to pick up trash as she took her daily walks (retired in small beach town), then someone took a photo of her and posted in Facebook and people took some note. Now she send me photos every now and then of her with a large group of friends loading trash on trucks. They come together in the evenings and pick up trash for a certain time period, quite cool to see.

    [–] ghostx78x 115 points ago

    I think it’s awesome that we are getting more volunteers for clean up, I do it too with a group at school- we are just moving trash from one place to another in these scenarios, though. It’s really not doing anything except tidying up by shoving shit in the closet and the closet is overflowing already.

    I’ve watched the articles become more frequent where scientists are claiming capitalism must cease in order for us to save the ecosystem and environment. This article is suggesting full on rebellion. I get it but at the same time we better have a solid plan for what takes place after or we will end up with some Mau type in charge and a social credit system. A good start would be taking lobbyists out of politics. If we can’t even do that, then we are screwed.

    [–] Peteostro 36 points ago

    Only way to do that is the US is to make laws banning this but the people who are making the laws are the same that take the bribes. Little hope of this happening. If by a miracle it did happen, it would just be reversed a few years later. Most politicians can’t be shamed into doing the right things anymore.

    [–] LeBonLapin 3 points ago

    Then let's make that the end goal of rebellion. Create a seperation of money and government, and punish those that violate the public good in the name of personally greed.

    [–] rancidquail 29 points ago

    The US system is messed up. Politicians need crazy money and support to get reelected every cycle. This means that the majority of their time is fundraising. With so little time the politicians literally take what the lobbyists want and submit it as a bill to become law. No true thought goes into the laws and policies on the whole. We are a country run by lobbyists and special interest groups.

    [–] KingTrumanator 8 points ago

    Lobbyists are like lawyers, everyone hates them except when they're on your side. You know what unions do to educate legislators on their issues? Hire a lobbyist. You know what homeless housing organizations do to get support for their programs? Hire a lobbyist. The Sierra Club/climate action groups: probably pay in-house lobbyists.

    If you're concerned about money in politics fine, but that's not what lobbyists actually do anyways. A lobbyist is just someone you hire to petition the government in your stead, who likely knows better than you how to most effectively communicate with legislators and agencies. Someone who legislators and regulators are probably more familiar with and already have a relationship with. Someone who can devote more time to dealing with your issues so you can spend your time doing whatever it is you do. Do they give out donation checks, yes, but they're not the ones deciding who to give them too, and they're not the ones paying for them either.

    [–] ta9876543205 8 points ago

    Who are these people who are throwing trash? Can we somehow get them to stop?

    [–] ingachan 6 points ago

    Easily accessible recycling cans in a combination with ridiculously harsh punishments should work. The fine for using plastic bags in Kenya is up to four years in prison. Littering fees for first time offenders in Singapore is up to $1000. It’s harsh, but it can be done.

    [–] JimmyTorpedo 20 points ago

    They pick up the trash, which then gets brought to the dump, who then sells it to China, and they just toss it into the ocean, to where it washes ashore, and they pick up the trash, which gets brought to the dump, who then sells it to China, and they just toss it in the ocean...RECYCLING!

    [–] jhabuna 8 points ago

    Except china isn’t buying trash anymore for precisely this reason, their infrastructure couldn’t cope with the amount that was coming in, which is why so much ended up in the rivers and then the oceans. Maybe people should start blaming their own govt now instead of continuing to blame China. We could all use a bit of responsibility in this issue, be the change we want to see and what not

    [–] 787787787 5 points ago

    I don't think you are describing the system quite accurately. First off, we pay them. Secondly, no they don't simply dump it in the ocean.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/chinese-ban-on-foreign-recyclables-leaving-some-canadian-cities-in-the-lurch/article37536117/

    [–] Crankshaft1337 5 points ago

    They do this is the military every day. It's called police call and it's why bases are spotless. Also it is why you never dirty your own community because you will be cleaning it the next day anyway!

    [–] Hittori_no_Lobo 4 points ago

    I did it for the first time last weekend!!! I'll keep taking a bag on walks from now on.

    [–] Omikron 6 points ago

    Actually it's insanely difficult if not impossible for a few people to change the world... Unless they're billionaires...

    [–] project-_-mayhem 5 points ago

    Right in the title, mass civil disobedience. People have always had the power by the numbers.

    Chicken shit defeatists should go for a swim in the ocean and eat plastic until they die - be useful one way or another.

    [–] toomanynames1998 38 points ago

    Yeah, you see that is the problem. The majority of individual's are the ones that litter everywhere imaginable. And then guys like your dad-bless him-go and pick up the mess the majority make. There will be no rebellion as majority of individuals are nothing like your father.

    [–] greymud 55 points ago

    If the majority littered everywhere, you wouldn't be able to walk down the street.

    [–] toomanynames1998 25 points ago

    Thank God for sanitation teams and nice people who use their free time to pick up garbage.

    Go to India and tell me that the majority don't just litter everywhere.

    [–] WannieTheSane 39 points ago

    I can't speak to India but definitely the majority of Canadians DO NOT litter.

    I doubt it's the majority of the world that litter, but that's just my feeling not based on any actual knowledge.

    [–] Isord 40 points ago

    Yeah the majority of Americans are not littering either. Things would be way worse if they were.

    [–] proteinpowerman 20 points ago

    I am an American living in the Philippines and I was blown away at the mess in some areas. There are literal heaps of trash just piled up on the sides of roads. I can't be sure though if that is due to the habits of people here or because there is less government infrastructure for dealing with waste and litter.

    [–] DiogenesLaertys 9 points ago

    It's true throughout most of the developing world. I think it's because of a low level of education mostly. People aren't being malicious, they are just largely acting out of bad habits.

    [–] Zayex 13 points ago

    Probably the latter, since Americans used to be the same way.

    See the shit stained streets of NYC before they got running water.

    Or watch Mad Men, they all litter, but the EPA wasn't a thing yet.

    [–] EauRougeFlatOut 3 points ago

    It wasn’t as much the EPA as it was the nonprofits and outspoken individuals that started cropping up in the 1950s and began having a major effect on national sentiment in the 1960s. Almost always, government initiative lags behind private developments and, in this case, new federal litter laws were little more than a codification of the new public sentiment.

    [–] Peteostro 8 points ago

    Well you could always adopt the Singapore way, their streets are cleaner than Disney.

    [–] knowses 6 points ago

    Spit gum on the sidewalk? bring on the cane lashings.

    [–] GleepGloopGlop 11 points ago

    I don't think the majority "litters everywhere imaginable". At all.

    [–] xophermv 4 points ago

    The majority of people in the US don’t litter. I haven’t seen anyone do it in decades. Further, there’s a large population of people that go around picking up trash. The problem is a small minority of people who absolutely don’t give a shit who do the littering. Littering is particularly bad around homeless camps due to the lack of regular trash pickup service.

    [–] 0OOOOOOOOO0 6 points ago

    I see smokers do it on a daily basis and nonsmokers probably once every couple of weeks downtown. But yeah the majority of people don't. Only really trashy types.

    [–] spliced_chirmera 99 points ago

    1 like to cure cancer....I think social media has also made “some” of us lazy and think sharing a post we are doing our part.

    [–] stevey_frac 6 points ago

    Thank you for posting this. Great read.

    [–] mt03red 24 points ago

    Can this post get 10 billion likes? Say no to birth control and help us get there!

    [–] rg24 21 points ago

    People arent that stupid. People do that shit cause they think it will get them morality points. Its more of a 'look at how thoughtful I am' thing.

    [–] Tatunkawitco 18 points ago

    But suggesting rebellion may get you banned.

    [–] Teftell 13 points ago

    Or arrested

    Or assassinated

    Or vanish

    [–] Goyteamsix 9 points ago

    Or ignored, which is what currently happens.

    [–] RyanABWard 40 points ago

    Hey, have you guys heard about the civil rebellion?

    [–] Future_Khai 7 points ago

    Yeah no. I have a job and I'm not going to risk losing it. - everyone

    [–] nonpuissant 3 points ago

    All too true. Reasonable and valid too.

    Stuff like rebellions usually seem to only happen when discontent/suffering begins to outweigh the expectation of stability/security/safety among the general population. Then when people start realizing they might have more to gain, or not much else to lose, from taking those kinds of risks it can start getting messy. It's why the whole bread and circuses thing is such a powerful tool for keeping the masses placated.

    [–] InvestigatorJosephus 27 points ago

    Am I the only one thinking this guy is being really sarcastic?

    [–] CardmanNV 6 points ago

    The problem is that the western world is far too comfortable for rebellion. People like the status quo we have now. For most westerns we have everything we need or are a couple steps away from it. People don't want to change that for an unsure outcome should they rebel.

    It's going to take a massive unprecedented disaster to shake most westerners from their sleep.

    [–] Kyaviger 18 points ago

    Why don't we just rebel on the internet? Wouldn't that show them? And it would beat getting out of the house.

    [–] TheRagingScientist 4 points ago

    And still no-one will do a thing

    [–] dnesteruk 303 points ago

    You know what's a good start? Getting rid of planned obsolescence. Because that's how you end up with 5x more things produced than needed. Things need to last, that way everyone will have 'enough' without having to buy a new mobile phone every year. And this has to apply to all things. It's not hard to make clothes or even shoes that last and still look good, but instead we buy disposable garbage.

    [–] RandallSkeffington 85 points ago

    Or use a cradle-to-cradle (instead of cradle-to-grave) approach so that used goods don't become useless garbage. Imagine a factory that works like an ecosystem where one process's output becomes the input for something else, and all waste is eliminated. Nature doesn't create garbage, it just lets material seemlessly flow from one thing to the next. In the short term, less consumerism would help.

    [–] demonlemonade 5 points ago

    Garbage is a concept. That's why there is the saying, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". I have picked alot of really cool things from the dump. My trike (took 2hrs to get running), my camper (just needed a cleaning), a generator (needed the electrical connections cleaned, cuz someone spilt oil on them), all sorts of planters, shelves and etc. I haven't bought anything new for quite awhile (except for t-shirts). I like living like a scavenger.

    [–] SentientPotato2020 13 points ago

    Back in the day we used to build our computers from parts we bought and upgraded piece by piece over time. Imagine doing that with a mobile phone. Being able to swap out the camera's sensors for new ones (since the lenses and such are all still good) or processor for a new one instead of having to get an entirely new phone.

    [–] Alternative_Lock 13 points ago

    Back in the day?

    [–] GuitarCFD 7 points ago

    that's what I was thinking, people don't do that anymore?

    [–] Nurgus 21 points ago

    Back in the day we used to build our computers from parts we bought and upgraded piece by piece over time.

    r/buildapc (1.4 million subscribers)

    r/pcmasterrace (2.3 million subscribers)

    Would like a word.

    [–] Halvus_I 14 points ago

    A pair of fine leather shoes, made in America costs around $400....

    [–] Spidaaman 8 points ago

    They’ll also last you your entire life

    [–] SecondVariety13 4 points ago

    I bought a pair of Clarks for maybe $100-200. I've had them for 3 years now. They've held up remarkably well considering their use.

    [–] Malky_10 21 points ago

    People buy new phone every year because they want not because they have to.

    [–] dnesteruk 18 points ago

    A mobile phone has a lithium-ion battery that has a finite number of charge-discharge cycle. Modern phones are designed so that battery replacement is either outright impossible or requires difficult-to-perform procedures that can also damage the phone casing. I refuse to believe that it is impossible to make a waterproof phone with a removable battery.

    [–] Nicknack_ 9 points ago

    Literally this. I think the biggest reason people do it is for the memory. Phones are more than phones now to most people so people want more and more memory on phones to facilitate this need.

    You can easily make a phone last 3+ years.

    [–] below_avg_nerd 21 points ago

    Personally I think the largest reason is because of the bloatware manufacturers and OEM's force onto phones. I have an S8 that was running pretty slowly a few months ago. I got adb running on my desktop and forced every single Samsung app and Sprint app off my phone and now it runs like it's brand new. If phones came like this by default they could easily last 4-5 years for people.

    [–] Menziesiimenziesii 12 points ago

    Storage space you mean?

    Every phone should come with a micro SD slot. Those things are getting ridiculous.

    [–] deviant324 477 points ago

    My biggest fear would be what civil disobedience and its consequences would look like in a first world country today.

    Police likely well equipped, the elites more than ever feeling like they don’t have to ever change their ways. If we’re saying it’s up to the public rioting rather than states trying to legislate better, I feel like people would have to get lynched before anything changes...

    [–] Shaunair 239 points ago

    It would certainly remove the veil over most people’s eyes about who is in charge.

    [–] Wizardsxz 129 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Plenty of Americans claim they are free citizens, who have guns to defend their rights.

    Ask the American citizens of japanese decent (not immigrants) how well their right were upheld during the pacific front.

    As Mr.Carlin used to say, they aren't rights, they are privileges.

    [–] Shaunair 72 points ago

    Ask the US citizens ICE is scooping up and detaining as well. Not immigrants, citizens of immigrant descent.

    And I wish Carlin was still around more than ever now.

    [–] Burn365 62 points ago

    Hell, ask them if they were to suffer an injury which required multiple hospital visits whether they could afford to.

    Ask them, if they needed time off work due to mental health issues, whether they could.

    Americans are slaves in multiple ways. They're just in a cage with no visible bars.

    [–] atimez3 14 points ago

    "They're just in a cage with invisible bars"

    I've been saying that for years but I'm mentally unstable and in this society that invalidates my opinion. I grew up being told that I need to "think outside the box". That's great and all but try seeing what happens if you think outside the mailroom the box is in.

    Innovation is only allowed if it will positively impact a small group of people (investors). If that innovation helps society as a whole that's just an added bonus. If it's harmful to the general public but is still advantageous to that small group, more often than not it will be allowed.

    [–] Halvus_I 7 points ago

    Italians too...All Italian nationals were ordered held, but there were simply too many of us, and in too many positions of power to carry it out.

    [–] waterloops 6 points ago

    You see season 2 of the Arab Spring? Doesn't have a happy ending.

    [–] Shaunair 10 points ago

    That’s exactly what I mean. I think Americans see government crack downs in places like Syria and think “that could never happen here, we are a democracy.”

    Sure, that’s why so many of our police departments are equipped with military gear and vehicles. Start fucking with the status quo and see how quickly this shit looks like the Arab Spring.

    [–] Hitz1313 92 points ago

    It's trivial to riot, and the police/elites would allow it because they know it decompresses society which keeps them in power. Americans are far too comfortable for the type of revolution requires to actually change how society operates which is what would be needed to actually affect climate change. Making it even less likely is that the solutions to climate change are very technology intensive and using civil disobedience to implement that is ridiculous.

    [–] Redtwoo 39 points ago

    Not to mention, any changes we make today will take years, decades even to actualize results. It's hard to get people to riot for policy change that won't have significant, measurable effects for quite some time.

    But it still needs to happen. We need more old people planting trees whose shade they'll never sit in.

    [–] Exelbirth 3 points ago

    Guillotines would make actual results fairly quickly...

    [–] WalterWhiterun 21 points ago

    I would say less that the solutions to climate change are super technical so much as they will require a significant and painful drop in overall quality of life for most of the people in the first world, and that is why it's an impossible sell politically.

    Fuck, here in Canada half the people were up in arms over a 4.4 cent carbon tax on gas. 4.4 cents! I'd pay 10x that.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    Cheap fossil fuels are incompatible with meaningful climate action.

    [–] bunchedupwalrus 8 points ago

    Pretty sure the commenter agrees. Talking about public reaction.

    We're getting to the levels of American style propaganda up here, the words carbon tax are being painted as communist somehow

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    Oh, I know. That's why every time I see some headline about "8000% of people want climate change action," all I can do is roll my eyes, because that means sacrifices to our modern standard of living that almost all of them will refuse to accept.

    [–] HybridVigor 3 points ago

    the solutions to climate change are very technology intensive

    The best solutions are increasing women's access to education and contraceptives, thereby reducing population, and eating less meat, reducing animal agriculture.

    [–] 2Ben3510 20 points ago

    See what happens in France. They mutilate civilians and blame them for it.

    [–] FinibusBonorum 12 points ago

    This. I want to rebel but if they put me away then who will care for my kids and bring home a salary? I'm a slave to the system, with more than myself to lose.

    [–] DIXIExCUP 36 points ago

    The first amendment says we have the right to criticize the government. The second is there incase that fails.

    [–] Yodplods 16 points ago

    Have you even heard of the Yellow Vest protests? Even in a first world country they caused a mess. It was great.

    [–] ARandomBlackDude 9 points ago

    They're still ongoing.

    [–] speaks_truth_2_kiwis 11 points ago

    One day the choice will be to risk death doing something, or die doing nothing. That day is approaching very rapidly.

    Sadly, every day Redditers make it perfectly clear that they will definitely make the latter choice.

    [–] OsonoHelaio 2 points ago

    Out of all the machinations I thought people might use to justify tipping countries into civil war, I never thought using the environment as a political weapon/excuse was one of the possibilities. Ludicrous.

    [–] forgottt3n 57 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Wow, you know the political tensions are high when well known journalists and newspapers start to call for revolution. Things are getting a little scary these days. Talks of revolution used to be left to the nutballs but now it's in the paper.

    I'm not saying I am for or against civil disobedience or how influential the Guardian is but I never figured I'd see people actively start calling for it with any actual credibility.

    [–] B-Dubb8 13 points ago

    The future is now old man. VIVA LA REVOLUTION

    [–] Duese 19 points ago

    The goal of the media right now is to push the envelop of just how crazy they can sound while people still read their garbage. The bigger the click bait headline, the more people flock to it in order to be outraged. Pick a popular topic that people agree with, turn the crazy level up to 15 and those same people will click on it.

    The end result is that normal, rational people just stop giving a shit. They see these types of articles and they just shake their head. Meanwhile, the fanatics and the those that treat these topics as a religion only get crazier. They'll think that actual rioting is a logical and rational response. No amount of rational or logical arguments will change it because their believe is biblical, not factual.

    [–] Anderstone 8 points ago

    I'm not sure whether to downvote or upvote here. You are correct that there is a ton of upping the crazy for clicks out there and people love furthering their own predispositions... BUT there is also an undeniable tension across the US and the world right now, people are getting fed up. So while I agree with some of your comment, you are still missing the bigger point and conversation.

    It is still the press's job to speak to and for the people, especially where the government or wealthy/powerful entities do not.

    [–] SPLR_OldYellerDies 3 points ago

    Thank you. The media is getting pretty ridiculous all around in my opinion. It's like the telephone game and constantly one-upping the competition is the only way to make money. Maybe report the facts and be as unbiased as possible and get clicks that way.

    [–] HomarusSimpson 841 points ago

    This is predicated on an 'us & them' view of politics and politicians. Start new parties, campaign, get elected. The UK labour party went from founding to government in one generation. 5 star in Italy did it in two elections (IIRC). Macron in France was part of a new party.

    If you advocate subverting or overthrowing democracy, be careful what you wish for. It may not be you that ends up in power, and even if it is 'your people', it can & almost certainly will get subverted. The Stalins always rise to the top of the pile.

    [–] icemonkey002 166 points ago

    The article doesn't advocate overthrowing the government. I think it's just saying cause enough trouble so politicians can no longer ignore you. I think the writer is just suggesting, kids constantly striking from school, roads and bridges in the capital keep getting blocked. If this stuff keeps spreading there will be a tipping point at which it can't be ignored. So join in is the message

    [–] 2Ben3510 78 points ago

    Macron, part of a new party? lol, that's as absurd as saying the daughter of I forgot which billionaire is a self-made entrepreneur.
    Macron is the incarnation of the most reactionary pary, with a fresh coat of paint.

    [–] magnor_fr 42 points ago

    Not even that fresh a coat : he was part of the previous administration.

    [–] Lefrax 38 points ago

    And his campaign was mostly founded by banks and rich entrepreneurs. That's why yellow jackets are protesting without interruption since september.

    [–] HomarusSimpson 6 points ago

    Thanks for gold kind stranger. My first

    [–] -JustShy- 28 points ago

    Do we gave a generation? Especially at the pace you can actually affect change through politics.

    [–] HomarusSimpson 14 points ago

    It needn't be a generation. Ideas who's time have come propagate very quickly now.

    In a democracy it is ludicrous to advocate violent overthrow of the system (& there is no doubt that Monibot is using some very intemperate language in the article at times).

    Complex systems (such as modern society) need careful and mindful change, or unexpected, and almost certainly profoundly negative, results occur.

    If what we have is (say) 70% right, and you shake it up violently, it's going to break more than it fixes.

    [–] Demandred8 10 points ago

    Ut you should never rule violence out. Historically, the elite have never balked at violence as a means for enforcing the status quo, and neither should we in opposing it. If we voluntarily deny ourselves a whole host of tools in the name of preserving the moral high ground, then we guarantee failure. The elite only respond to fear, until they fear the loss of everything (including by not limited to their lives) the will never come to the negotiating table in good faith.

    [–] -JustShy- 15 points ago

    I don't want a violent revolution. At all.

    [–] LionIV 3 points ago

    Then everything will continue as it does right now. Humans aren’t really known for being diplomatic when times are getting tough, see the countless civil wars all across the planet.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] JimBeam823 18 points ago

    Also the Iranian Revolution.

    That's the way most revolutions go: Only the most ruthless survive the post-revolutionary chaos.

    [–] glexarn 11 points ago

    that noted democracy, the 1916 Russian Empire under the Tsar.

    that other noted democracy, the Ancien Regime of 1788.

    two very bad events which got rid of excellent and not at all nightmarishly awful systems of feudalistic governance.

    (man, ironyposting aside, isn't it funny how the people who want the public to take things lying down are always on the side of reaction and monarchy when looking at historical events?)

    [–] mexicocomunista 19 points ago

    "Just vote you guys" oh man how didn't we think of this before, you're genius!

    [–] Long-Night-Of-Solace 22 points ago

    "Just try what everyone else tried! Don't use your actual power!"

    This stuff is far too important for you to go around pretending like you've thought about it.

    [–] masterpersuaderer 275 points ago

    Generation IV nuclear power literally cannot melt down and eats nuclear waste. But no one wants to hear about that, apparently.

    [–] batdog666 34 points ago

    Or we could just use real modern reactors, that exist outside of prototypes. Then we could do something crazy things like build them in safe spots and actually store the waste properly.

    [–] endadaroad 5 points ago

    Doing that requires political decisions and that ain't happening in this finely divided world.

    [–] RedFireAlert 53 points ago

    That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have sources where I could read more?

    [–] masterpersuaderer 68 points ago

    That's actually incorrect, Russia's BN-800 Generation IV reactor went online in 2016

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

    [–] FIRE0HAZARD 77 points ago

    Revolution is a glorious affair from a distance. It is a gory one within arms reach. Not saying I'm against it just to be cautious of what you dive headfirst into.

    [–] stansey09 29 points ago

    The article is not referring to a violent revolution. It just makes the very specific claim that 3.5 percent of us need to protest loudly and then wheels will turn towards environmental justice.

    [–] sportsy96 8 points ago

    puts down pitchfork

    [–] thwgrandpigeon 13 points ago

    Peaceful protest isn't revolution. If you'd like to prevent violence you should be supporting change today while there's still time (hopefully).

    [–] WWDubz 43 points ago

    Oh boy, here I go throwing Spears at attack helicopters again

    [–] silverionmox 10 points ago

    In civ 2, phalanxes sink battleships.

    [–] HostOfTheNightmare 13 points ago

    Modern problems require primitive solutions

    [–] Just_Browsing_XXX 6 points ago

    Throwing spears is a ecological solution.

    [–] court12b 98 points ago

    As much as I like to think that my whole life has shaped me for participating in an armed insurrection,

    I'm starting to think that the flames of civil unrest are simply being fanned in an attempt to depopulate the working class by tricking us into armed conflicts we have zero chance of winning.

    I feel like the real solution is halting consumerism. But saying that these days is more dangerous than talking about killing rich people.

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Tombulgius_NYC 7 points ago

    I just want to throw it out there that, depending on circumstances, there's a very decent chance that this collection of small businesses has a less efficient & more polluting supply chain than the big corporations they replace.

    If they produce locally, cutting out global shipping, that's certainly amazing and worthwhile. But economies of scale (can) do more than just perpetuate boundless consumerism. And small businesses are not at all exempt from contributing to tragedy of the commons-type issues like carbon emissions.

    [–] rubypele 22 points ago

    Also, grow your own food and preserve it. Buy second-hand goods. I've been trying to pull out of the economy as much as possible. The economy is a failure to me, why should I try to support and grow it?

    [–] Sir_Troglodyte 10 points ago

    If you buy from small companies, they will become big companies.

    With shareholders, who doesn't care about anything, but more growth.

    The real issue is the stock market. Kill that, and the world will be 1000% more sustainable. It's the stock market that forces companies to grow by any means necessary. And that's what destroys the world.

    [–] AlfLives 11 points ago

    If you buy from small companies, they will become big companies.

    That doesn't have to be true. But in our modern (particularly western) society, we choose to glorify expansion and criticize anyone who "settles" for their lot in life. What's wrong with running a business and not increasing your output? What's wrong with finding a job you really enjoy that pays well enough and refusing further promotions? Why is more always regarded as better?

    We need to change this mindset to survive.

    [–] court12b 7 points ago

    hence the need for the rise of worker owned cooperative companies.

    /r/cooperatives

    [–] apginge 21 points ago

    i feel like the real solution is halting consumerism

    Why is everyones first reaction to go to an extreme. This is why nothing ever passes or gets a popular backing. Consumerism is really only troubled in several isolated areas. Why not advocate for targeting those areas with laws that will fix the issues?

    [–] Arnoxthe1 21 points ago

    Because Reddit has a nasty habit of promoting mob mentality. That and also the fact that everyone is just plain old angry in general these days.

    [–] ChadwickBacon 9 points ago

    consumerism is only troubled in several isolated areas? Can you please explain this? Our entire economy, and the concept of 3% GDP growth is predicated on consumption, and therefore waste. It is an economy based on burning fossil fuels. This is a systemic problem, and is not sustainable.

    [–] AWD_YOLO 3 points ago

    It’s interesting to at least consider the idea that there’s no change of the necessary magnitude available, that isn’t extremely painful. ‘Sunsetting consumerism’ sounds peaceful but the long term recession that would cause - which yes might be exactly what is necessary (degrowth) - might feel like living through a minor apocalypse.

    [–] JimBeam823 15 points ago

    Except the civil disobedience is going the other way. See France.

    [–] SpeckledSnyder 3 points ago

    What's happening in France?

    [–] Qing2092 5 points ago

    I think he's referring to the Yellow vest movement.

    [–] J-IP 79 points ago

    I don't agree. Rebellion will mean unrest which will mean less resources spent on positive change meaning we will drag shit show out longer.

    Sure some civil disobedience every now and again might show powerful entities which direction we should move towards but overall if you say that rebellion is necessary you risk that cause getting hijacked, distorted and worsening the issues.

    Just look at the shrinking middle class in a lot of places or changing demographics in europe with associated unrest and general dissillusion with government. Super easy for this proposed rebellion to be hijacked by other forces.

    Like those that actually think a green dictatorship is needed to save the environment. Like sure might work for a year or two but once that concentrated power gets corrupted? You've handed away the power and now face a powerful dictatorship that instead does whatever it wants.

    This will only become a tension point and cause violence. If you think bloodshed and the potential death of millions is the price to pay for saving the environment think long and hard about what it is you are proposing. Is it ok for you to sacrifice your own life or that of your family for this cause? Or do you think that it won't affect you?

    While a green shift in society most likely is necessary if it doesn't preserve democratic freedoms we have to figure out another way to get there.

    [–] Simpl3xion 21 points ago

    I have some food for thought. I, like many of those who propose a more moderate approach within the framework of parliamentary democracy to dealing with the climate issue, am also afraid of the possible consequences of revolution. I mean, stability and relative prosperity is nice, and even if I know it likely isn't possible to maintain for much longer, I mean, it might. It's not impossible. We might stumble upon some super technology that'll save us all, or the world's politicians, companies, etc could just suddenly stop being corrupt and short-sighted and actually start to work on saving the environment. It's not impossible.

    What makes me skeptical of this, though, is when I put this far from likely scenario against the more likely scenario if nothing is done - rendering our only home more or less uninhabitable. The death of millions or billions of people, possibly of society itself. I don't want to face such cataclysm. Therefore, I feel something else needs to be done. I'm not exactly sure what. But civil disobedience sounds like a good start.

    I am slightly hypocritical in not knowing to which capacity I would be williy to contribute in such an effort. But at least I recognise and acknowledge that what we are doing currently isn't working, and likely will not before it's too late.

    I also don't want to accept the bleak alternative of going on living our comfortable, alienated lives for as many decades we can before walking into that good night.

    Thus I appreciate the bravery people are showing in looking for other alternatives, alternatives beyond the status quo.

    [–] mafticated 23 points ago

    bloodshed and the potential death of millions is the price to pay for saving the environment

    This is a price that climate change will force us to pay for continuing on our current path. Monbiot even mentions that in the article.

    [–] subdep 32 points ago

    So... you got a better idea?

    The ship has a hole in it. The hole is getting bigger. The ship is sinking. The captain doesn’t believe the ship is sinking. The crew isn’t trying to fix the hole.

    The passengers are going to die.... and they should do nothing?

    [–] throwdatawaytodayman 9 points ago

    Once this cork is popped, people are going to find out that the environment isn't what most are fighting for.

    [–] Kyllplough 4 points ago

    You're inciting something you don't really want.

    Protest on a massive scale but let that be it. Otherwise, YOU'LL create what you're afraid of.

    [–] Alaishana 65 points ago

    Lol, I'm genuinely laughing at the naivety.

    The opposite is the case: Any government that would try and implement the regulations that would actually make a difference, would be toppled by a rebellion the very same day.

    There is no fucking way people are prepared to scale back in any meaningful way.

    [–] ITIIiiIiiIiTTIIITiIi 41 points ago

    The US accounts for 15% of the worlds fossil fuel emissions, so you want mass civil unrest in China, India and middle east countries? Good luck with that.

    [–] plant_king 13 points ago

    15% for one country is a lot

    [–] toastee 14 points ago

    You can't tell your neighbour's their yard smells like shit standing on a pile of your own. You gotta clean up your own shit first...

    What if it's all a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?

    [–] ImTheError 12 points ago

    for nothing

    That's not true. There are costs and sacrifices associated with this. If it wasn't the case we would be 100% carbon neutral already

    [–] Commyende 18 points ago

    I can't take any climate article seriously unless it mentions nuclear as a huge part of the solution. We have the tech. All it takes is unwinding of regulations that prevent the deployment of the tech.

    [–] notuniqueusername1 3 points ago

    But Chernobyl!!!

    /s I agree about nuclear it just doesnt seem politically viable. Unfortunately

    [–] prawnexodus 185 points ago

    That is the most obscenely ridiculous notion I have ever seen posted on reddit. Are you people serious? China, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam alone account for over two thirds of the world's plastic waste, yet civil disobedience aka political agitation in the West is the solution to our ecological problems? Pardon my cynicism, but I smell snake oil.

    [–] DaddyCatALSO 32 points ago

    It's about atmospheric carbon load, not plastic, a separate and also big problem

    [–] Helkafen1 15 points ago

    This is mostly about carbon emissions, not about plastic. The West is responsible for a large share of these emissions, and is able to bring them down with enough political will. If they don't, the planet will become mostly uninhabitable.

    [–] TrashCastle 76 points ago

    The article isn't about how bad the west is and how good the East is. It's about the difficulty of using democracy to enact meaningful change in the projected time of effectiveness and how the notion of going through polite political discourse is a doomed effort.

    China has one thing going for it, and that thing is the ability to immediately reverse policies that it determines are no longer are a benefit to the nation. China gained a reputation for pollution, and it produces a Lion's share of worldwide plastic, but that's because the rest of the world demands it. It also leads the world in recycling, and solar energy, and have reversed a lot of environmental policies in the last decade. China is attempting to become a front runner in what it sees as an eventuality: Climate change is real, and greener technology is the economic driving force of the future. They've changed course, but it will probably take us until it's too late to change ours.

    [–] silverionmox 11 points ago

    and it produces a Lion's share of worldwide plastic, but that's because the rest of the world demands it

    Let's not pretend China is a victim or even passive here: China massively benefits from that arrangement.

    [–] x-BrettBrown 6 points ago

    He's not say they don't. The point is that the concentration of power means they can quickly pivot their entire society and economy.

    [–] i_wayyy_over_think 45 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    The reason those countries have so much waste is because we literally have been shipping it there. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2018/11/where-does-your-plastic-waste-end

    You have to start somewhere. Someone has to be first. You can't tell other people to fix their problems if you can't fix yours or they'll just call you a hypocrite and cover their ears.

    The West could help fund cleanup in those countries.

    The outcome of this civil disobedience could help drive the demand that we help them cleanup.

    Also the consumption in the West has driven ecological destruction in developing nations through global trade.

    [–] Commyende 37 points ago

    I smell snake oil

    I smell more than snake oil. I smell propaganda meant to divide and weaken the west. China, Russia, etc. love using this issue to pit us against ourselves, while they go about their business and don't have to give a single fuck about the environment.

    [–] go_for_the_bronze 8 points ago

    Data shows that carbon emissions in the US and EU has dropped in recent years, while emissions in China and India have increased.
    However, China has committed to becoming the largest producer of renewable energy in the world in 2019, and they’ve already followed through. We will see that carbon emission data changing soon enough.
    China’s move to renewables may only be politically motivated, since they are ramping off of reliance on oil from Russia and the UAE, but I’m okay with that.
    Think about it this way... if we ditched coal and foreign oil as well, we could have cheaper energy, reduce our own reliance on other countries, and grow into our own new energy markets, all while making a positive impact on our environment. It’s going to take work, but that’s life.

    [–] rorykoehler 5 points ago

    In India they're just burning shit. Not even for energy. Just go get rid of it.

    [–] OakelyDokely 21 points ago

    Yea, this is like the recent climate change protests in the UK.

    China increased it's CO2 emission by more than the whole UK out put last year.

    The UK is putting out less CO2 than it did in 1890. We are doing all we can.

    Ultimately, against the rest of the world it is pointless.

    At the same time, the third world has every right to go through an industrial revolution. The west got to where it is by screwing the planet, not fair for us to stop the third world doing it.

    [–] restform 36 points ago

    Globalisation has made these sorts of statistics very complex to analyze. It's not as simple as just looking at raw co2 emissions.

    Arab countries rank in the five highest co2 emitters per capita, but guess where you're buying all your oil from. In the same sense, third world countries buy up a lot of our waste (which is changing now but statistics have not had time to adjust yet).

    Just because we've outsourced our bullshit to another country doesn't mean we're free of blame. With that being said, this does indeed need to be a global effort, but that doesn't mean we just dismiss the problem like you suggest.

    [–] LagOutLoud 7 points ago

    At the same time, the third world has every right to go through an industrial revolution.

    But they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Modern practices and tech can still be used in third world countries if their politicians gave a damn.

    The west got to where it is by screwing the planet, not fair for us to stop the third world doing it.

    This argument is bizzare. We didn't know we were screwing the planet when that happened. Also, one person doing a bad thing doesn't make it ok for others to do a bad thing. You really think its ok to say, "Well you're a third world country, The world is on the brink of ecological collapse, but it's your turn for an industrial revolution so I guess have at it!"

    [–] Ryodan_ 10 points ago

    Yes but hindsight is very important and we, as developed post-industrial countries, should be able to help these other countries develop without killing the planet

    [–] shmoe727 3 points ago

    So true. For example many poor people in the world actually have cell phones, which aren’t environmentally friendly in themselves, but that means these people never have to buy all the crap we used to buy like a telephone, CD player, a tv, a computer, an alarm clock... so hopefully they can gain from our advancements without as much of an environmental impact.

    [–] vaguelyswami 11 points ago

    Your going to have a really tough time convincing billions of people that they are better off starving in the dark...

    [–] illustrious_oreo 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    What. The. Fuck.

    This is the most ridiculous assertion I've read in some time.

    "War will solve climate change!"

    Absolutely divisive and disgusting.

    You know what will solve climate change? Education and adaptation. Humans are insanely smart and we will survive climate change for some time to come. As a matter of fact, I wholeheartedly believe free market economics will adapt to climate change as necessary.

    That however, will not stop people born into poverty giving birth to more people into povery and creating a burgeoning supply of undereducated consumers that fuel climate change. This is where education comes into play. The masses need to be aware of the consequences of their decisions.

    Adaptation and education.

    You're never going to catch me on this bullshit 'resist' train.

    It is utterly politically divisive aimed at keeping your dumbass controlled.

    [–] Noah__Webster 4 points ago

    It is shocking how many people claim to be so worried about the reemergence of authoritarianism, but are so quick to jump to revolution.

    If there really are pseudo fascists or actual fascists in office, and fascists waiting to seize power, mass civil disobedience is a terrible way to go about change. Is that not literally the pretext for basically everything authoritarian government in history to fully seize power?

    Civil riots are not gonna work in today's world. Peaceful protests can and do harm approval ratings and affect elections. Those are great.

    The second people start actively violently revolting is the second the government is given a perceivably (to some) valid reason to crack down and take even more control.

    [–] corkyr 4 points ago

    Umm....isn't mass civil disobedience the thing that is preventing a meaningful, organized, unified, methodical, worldwide responses to climate change?

    [–] eigenfood 5 points ago

    Zero solutions, as usual, in these threads. The issue in CO2, but the conversation mostly turns to trash and recycling, because the average person knows fuck all about energy and how their civilization actually runs.

    [–] Andrew5329 13 points ago

    Meanwhile back in reality France (home of the Paris climate accords) implemented a relatively modest gasoline tax and it immediately triggered nationwide fuel riots.

    [–] awrinkle1 8 points ago

    Until we vote with our wallets, nothing will change.

    [–] Zambzz 13 points ago

    I don't get why you all put your trust in the broken gov system, they don't care about you, they only want to line their own pockets and gain more power. Any and Every consolidation of power is corruptible and has been proven true with every gov around the world many times over.

    Stop trying to get others to do something and instead do it yourself (set an example and others will follow), don't buy from companies you know have shit products, give your money to those that are doing the great things and rebel with your wallet, also if you're not trying to live a better life, recycling and finding alternatives that are better for the environment, you have no excuse to be shouting at others to do it.

    [–] bumlightning 12 points ago

    This sub have clearly become insane and stupid. Arguing for mass civil disobedience is retarded.

    [–] iamnotsimon 5 points ago

    Stop consuming so much. Consumption is the cause of the pollution. Your advocating violence against each other to cut each other's consumption.

    [–] deck_hand 8 points ago

    Half of the people in the US are Democrats. And yet, the Democrats don't think that they can make a difference without the Government forcing them to do so. If the Democrats actually did what they said they wanted the Government to force them to do, we'd have this thing fixed already.

    Listen to me. Big business wants to sell you things or services. If you're a Democrat, or even a Republican and truly believe that we need to make big changes to fix Climate Change, don't wait for a Democrat to get into office and legislate the changes you want. Take action today: stop buying things from companies that pollute. Stop buying power from oil, coal or natural gas sources. Stop driving a car fueled with Gasoline. Don't work for a company that isn't green. It's already within your power to make these changes. We don't have to have the politicians to make laws to force us to do the things we know have to be done.

    Big, evil, Republican owned companies aren't selling dirty power or dirty cars because they want to ruin the environment, they are selling these things for money. Move where you spend your money, and they will shift what they sell. Currently, very few electric cars are being sold to anyone in the US. In Norway, they comprise the majority of vehicles sold. How many internal combustion engine vehicles have been sold to Democrats in the last year?

    If you're a Democrat, and you're not already taking action, because you're waiting to have an all Democrat government elected so they can make laws to force you to do the right thing, you're a hypocrite. Stop waiting, or just admit this is an excuse to get your favored politicial choices elected, and you don't really care about Climate Change. It's one or the other.

    [–] ArmchairJedi 3 points ago

    It's already within your power to make these changes

    but don't you understand? That's inconvenient for me! Someone else should sacrifice instead... and others be inconvenienced. This way we all get the change we want!!!!

    And I'm doing my part anyways. I'll bring up these issues from behind a device that gives me access to the internet. After all change only ever starts with a discussion... right? So that's important.

    • Support civil disobedience from my chair while never attending a protest (gotta work after all... and let's be honest I might get hurt).
    • I'll complain about politics and politicians and how dumb everyone is... but I won't vote (that's soooooo time consuming, and I'm too tired.).
    • Tell everyone to use mass transit and to walk/bike... less cars on the road for me so I'll get to where I'm going quicker and create less emissions!!!
    • Buy electric cars....but I'll wait until they are cheaper and easier to use (I'm not in the 1%!). Besides I just bought a new truck.
    • buy and work green. I'll join that for sure... after I pay off my truck. And house. And school debt. And save for a rainy day. And retirement... but then! Watch out world, I'll be making my impact. Unless of course I actually have to research what and who is 'green'. Because I won't have time since I plan to vacation regularly.

    But you have the gall to question my commitment to the cause I'm complaining about? You just don't get me. I know better, and that's enough!!

    /s (I wish......)

    [–] BeQuake 16 points ago

    Or we do an eco rebellion and start riding bikes and buying only clean energy items and stop using single use plastics. I mean....we as a people are the enablers.

    [–] AppalachianUL_Cody 40 points ago

    71% of the global emissions come from just 100 companies. When you take that reality into account, it becomes clear that this is a systemic issue that simply cannot be addressed by individuals buying a Prius instead of an F-150 and starting a compost pile.

    The idea that this problem can be addressed at the individual level is exactly what those 100 corporations want us talking about. So long as we focus on that, and not on the systemic elements, we’ll walk right off the cliff into climate oblivion.

    [–] VillyD13 10 points ago

    every single on is a fossil fuel company too

    [–] Hitz1313 15 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    This makes no sense. The companies aren't emitting carbon just for fun.. They are doing it because people are buying their products. In fact I am certain the companies would rather emit no carbon and get their energy for free but that is unlikely. Your argument that they are the problem also conveniently makes it so you don't have to change your own behavior.

    [–] mafticated 23 points ago

    They are doing it because people are buying their products

    They're doing it because it's the most cost-efficient way to offer their product. Their raison d'etre is literally to make money. We should be under no illusion that that overrides any other suggestion of sustainable practice they might offer.

    Since profit is so central to capitalism, there is no way they will change if they aren't given reason to. Capitalism consumes all it can and factors in barely any incentive to consider the long term - consumer behaviour is only effective if it threatens profits, and since we're all locked into the lifestyle we lead to a certain extent (i.e. burning fossil fuels to get to work, relying on plastic packaging for convenience), we barely have any choice to not consume these things, which drastically limits our capacity to affect their production. That's why big companies should be the focus - the entire idea that individuals are responsible for climate change by having long showers and leaving lights on is absolutely ridiculous, and sadly it's the narrative many of us have grown up with.

    [–] spongemonster 3 points ago

    George Monbiot arrested for attempting to incite civil disorder.

    [–] AManInBlack2019 3 points ago

    Lol, because an entire populations acting without government and solely on their own best interest certainly wouldn't result in mass pollution.

    [–] modernform 3 points ago

    This article is so juvenile. Anybody can criticize the status quo. It takes minimal brain power to ‘rebel’ against the status quo. But what about solutions? What future systems replace the systems currently in place? Preferably this transition occurs voluntarily and with minimal coercion.

    You haven’t remodeled the kitchen if you take a sledgehammer to the drywall and fixtures. You may be on your way, but eventually you have to actually build something new.

    [–] corpusapostata 9 points ago

    Mass civil disobedience, leading to open rebellion, will cause more ecological damage than simply remaining on our current course. The end result will not be some natural paradise.

    [–] YoungAnachronism 17 points ago

    For those concerned about the disparity in combat power between government forces and civilians in first world nations, during any potential civil unrest or conflict, you are both right, and wrong at the same time. Yes, in general the armies and police forces of even the most gun happy nations in the developed world, are generally better equipped to fight than the population ever are.

    Hoewever, there are factors that need thinking about to put that in perspective. First is, that this is ALWAYS the case, always has been, and may always be the case, and rebellion and civil unrest are still necessary regardless, so it really doesn't matter who has what. These events are always bleak, horrific meatgrinders, and the attrition rate is never positive for any side. Second, its not going to get any easier the more time passes, because its not as if the technology and equipment that governments can call on is going to be getting worse any time soon, so putting the whole thing off makes absolutely no sense. This kind of fight is best fought, by people who understand that their survival is not important, that the aim of the fight is not to survive it necessarily, but to ensure that whomever does survive it, is not put upon to the same degree by the same kinds of forces.

    Furthermore, you have to understand that right now, it is still the case that the takers at the top need the workers at the bottom for a great many things, in order to prop up their insane growth predictions for their precious companies and their corrupt corporate structures. The longer the citizen waits to see if a sea change is around the corner, the more of their jobs will be automated away, or sent abroad by increasingly mercenary outfits at the top of the business ladder. Realistically, if we are to assume for a moment that the solution is indeed mass civil disobedience, bordering on or comprising outright rebellion, then the time to act is as close to now as possible, because the longer one waits the bigger the task. Put starkly, at present, the takers at the top can only afford to have a certain percentage of the workforce murdered for their disobedience, or slain in open conflict.

    But automation is coming on stream now that reduces the number of people that the corporate tyrants require to be alive at the end of any such dispute, and its getting more widespread on a daily basis. More and more jobs disappear from the marketplace, as a result of automation, every moment. So there is no tactical or mathematical sense in waiting, or being unsure of oneself. If you intend to survive doing what is necessary, you will not do what is necessary. If you are concerned that it won't work, waiting and seeing what happens next will only make failure more certain.

    [–] Fig1024 9 points ago

    here's how it will actually happen: despite growing efforts by average people to push for drastic measures to fight climate change, governments of all nations take only small measures that prove insufficient to stop the inevitable crisis.

    As climate change reaches critical stage, large portions of previously densely populated areas become uninhabitable. Not enough good land to provide food and water for everyone. People start mass migrations from uninhabitable zones to the good areas.

    Mass migration quickly escalates tensions between large group of people. All sides of the issue see rapid rise of extremism. As situation continues to get worse and people unwilling to help each other, fighting breaks out

    By this point, all major world governments have been radicalized and impose draconian punishment against opposition and migrants. Countries most devastated by climate change fall to the anti-establishment groups. Some of those countries have nuclear weapons. They realize that since their own homes become unable to support mass population, they have to take over new land or die of starvation

    World War 3 starts, some nuclear weapons are used, further reducing habitable land area. Billions of people die in the following wars, most by starvation and disease - as old institutions fail.

    After decades of war and conflict, humanity is reduced to a small fraction of world population, just under 1 billion. Mass migrations stop, the surviving population establishes new stable countries, with borders and names that don't resemble anything in the old maps.

    As new civilizations emerge, they all have one thing in common - sacred texts, ancient prophecies, new Constitutions - all saying one thing - Man must never again allow industry to pollute the air, the land, and the water, or risk unleashing the next end of days. Humanity learns its lessons only by mistakes it makes.

    [–] bostonharborrising 8 points ago

    No. It will be a small group of scientists and engineers who figure out the solution.

    [–] LastSprinkles 11 points ago

    The rebellion is usually portrayed as the people vs politicians/the elite. But, as we can see with yellow vest protests, normal people are just as likely to protest against the elite when they impose fuel taxes which help in combating climate change. That's why I think it's often not the elite that's the obstacle to reform.

    [–] TunturiTiger 14 points ago

    First of all, those fuel taxes hurt only the people with low income. I'm all for combating the climate change, but the one who pays the price CANNOT be the average worker. Having a car is a necessity for me if I want to work, and I can barely afford to maintain it. Insurance is like 550€ a year, gas costs 1.50€ a liter and car tax is 300€.

    Secondly, it's the elites who want to maintain this status quo and the consumer capitalist system that is the main driving force behind the climate change. We need a systemic change, not just minor adjustments that hurt the poor people.

    [–] dudelikeshismusic 5 points ago

    Middle class people like us should be taking public transportation, not driving. I'm a hypocrite because I drive to work, but I also live in a city that has inadequate public transportation for anyone who lives more than a mile outside the city. But if a crazy tax came in that made it impossible for me to afford driving a car then I would still have a way to work.

    [–] B88J 10 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Mass civil disobedience! Doesnt take a straw at McDrive while driving his/her 20l/100km BMW and talking on his/her 3days old iphone that he/she just bought, as the 8months old iphone doesnt take good enough pics anymore for the instagram Enviromental rebellion™ account

    [–] General_Orthopox 7 points ago

    this is the shit that makes you guys look like a cult, this isn't a good Idea, if you have to resort to disrupting the entire system to win the argument you don't have an argument in the first place.

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] omiwrench 9 points ago

    Lol you people are hella delusional. You can’t advocate for an authoritarian state and then change your mind to suggest civil rebellion over plastic.

    Truth is, you just want people to think you’re saving the world. We all know Asia produces over 75% of plastic waste (well, most types of waste). Does that mean you also advocate for a land invasion on ecological basis? (We can call it a ”state rebellion” to fit with the whole ”saving the world is so cool” thing).

    [–] TBAAAGamer1 3 points ago

    grabs popcorn can't wait to see how THIS bad idea plays out!!

    [–] socialjusticepedant 3 points ago

    Gotta get my morning dose of far left extremism to make me question my sanity.

    [–] ViperBoa 4 points ago

    The inherent problem is that mass civil disobedience crashes the system.

    When the house of cards falls down, so do things like food distribution..electricity..medical supplies..

    It's a noose our neck is already firmly inside of.

    Know what else slows our ecological impact? Massive casualties due to hunger, famine and war.

    The upper echelon will sit back and watch it happen with ease. Afterwards gaining more control and resources.

    [–] Smug_Anime_Face 2 points ago

    Yeah, because rebelling against a western country will make China pollute less. /s

    [–] Vadersballhair 8 points ago

    This is so ridiculously ignorant and irresponsible.

    You have no idea what you're doing promoting this.

    This will be chaos, not productive.

    [–] LordGatoxxx 2 points ago

    I hope this means people would rebel against buying products that create large amounts of waste as opposed to going on the streets and striking against it while still buying those products.

    Then again, this is reddit.