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”.

    • CuffsOffWilly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 minutes ago

      I was thinking the same thing so I looked him up and he has a BSc in biochemical science (Harvard) and a PhD from Cambridge in biophysics of the gallbladder. Colour me shocked. Still, kind of stepping outside his zone of expertise on this grand statement.

    • Formfiller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      53 minutes ago

      I’d rather the magic 8 ball make our decisions than most politicians. We’d have a higher chance of survival

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Well I already knew I wouldn’t manage to retire…

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Because it’s a simple way of saying “We’re not quite over that most likely outcome line yet, but we’re getting there.”

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.

    Emphasis added. That’s a pretty big bit of weasel-wording there, the world “as we know it” has changed drastically in the past 25 years. Things that we thought were indispensable to the proper functioning of the world order - such as, for example, the lack of a pudding-brained pedophillic fascist in the White House - are no longer operative. Yet we’re muddling along well enough, all things considered.

    Things are rapidly changing in so many ways right now. Projecting that far forward with any confidence is a bit of a fool’s errand.

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

      That’s a pretty big bit of weasel-wording there

      Absolutely, the world today is also not as we knew it in the 25 years ago, and it’s very different compared to the 70’s, where the future looked a bit more rosy.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    “Popsci author repeats claim he’s been using for decades to sell books that most anthropologists question”.

    Man, sometimes I think newspapers and traditional media should be banned from reporting on science at all. I am very critical of social media and what Internet does to communication, but I’ll admit that the extremely focused experts that communicate on a narrow field for a living do a much, much better job of parsing published claims than traditional generalist news ever did. I am exhausted of impossible galaxies, stars that “should not exist”, healthy superfood, cures for cancer and world-ending events.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Any good broad-scale critique fro anthropologists that’s worth reading? I’ve only read one of his books, nearly 20 years ago, but most of what I’ve heard him say has seemed more or less on point.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        All I have is what you can get by looking him up, and I am definitely not an expert. I’m saying that this one guy referencing his one model for his one theory of society-as-ecology deserves a more nuanced headline than “the world is ending in 25 years”. If I can speak on anything here it’s on the reporting.

        He isn’t even saying anything that controversial when you dig through to the actual statements, which is a constant of mainstream news reporting on science news. “With all these things, at the rate we’re going now, we can carry on with our present unsustainable use for a few decades, and by around 2050 we won’t be able to continue it any longer” is barely any more severe of a warning than any climate scientist or ecologist has been making about these things for the past four decades.

        Hell, if anything he seems to be less concerned than the average Lemmy denizen:

        He explained: "As for what we can do about it, whether to deal with it by individual action, or at a middle scale by corporate action, or at a top scale by government action - all three of those.

        "Individually we can do things. We can buy different sorts of cars. We can do less driving. We can vote for public transport. That’s one thing.

        “There are also corporate interests…I see that corporations, big corporations, while some of them do horrible things, some of them also are doing wonderful things which don’t make the front page.”

        Post that around these parts, you’ll get people calling you a corporate shill for even entertaining that personal behaviour has an impact in this process or that any corporation is doing anything positive.

        Don’t hear the Express go “dude on the Internet thinks it’s high time we ban cars before we all die”, though.

      • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Yeah, that was another red flag. Margins of error on any kind of calculation like this are going to be big; “roughly half” would be a strong claim. Coming out with an exact percentage about a social sciences issue is crackpot territory.

    • 1D10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Honestly is he a scientist? Does he do science,or just find shit that supports his idea.

      Edit, I did a bit of googling and it does appear he is still publishing papers, but it feels like he has been beating the “we all gonna die” drum for a long time now.