Read on Twitter
Hmm, I find this problematic 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ§”" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread"> https://twitter.com/NiranjanAjit/status/1387373159435829249">https://twitter.com/NiranjanA...
1/10 The forces driving potential & #39;collapse& #39; arenât only climate related, but are independently driven by political economy, energy, water, soils, ecosystems etc.
2/10 There& #39;s already plenty of & #39;collapse& #39; in modern society: nutrition, employment, health, social welfare, social linkage, violence. Social structures are failing many, many people & climate change is making it worse. So this isnât just an abstract debate about the future
3/10 Climate scientists arenât best placed to evaluate the prospects of future societal collapse, because itâs largely a question of social science, not climate science.
4/10 Social scientists arenât best placed to evaluate societal collapse, because modelling future societal outcomes is so outrageously complex and results to date so poor that few self-respecting social scientists go there. Even agreeing how to define âcollapseâ is a major hurdle
5/10 Our view of collapse is conditioned by histories written by elites who saw them as calamities, but this wasnât always how ordinary people saw them. It may be hard to be so sanguine now but & #39;collapseâ and âdoomâ aren& #39;t the same thing.
6/10 Beware scientism. âThe scienceâ doesnât say one single thing, and nor do scientists. The views of ânon-scientistsâ are not irrelevant. âScientific studiesâ are not the court that determines the reality of âcollapseâ.
7/10 I& #39;m unconvinced that collapse-talk frightens people into apathy. Honest discussion & information about uncertainties & potential scenarios is lacking in our political culture. Govts manage societal risks badly. Many have little leeway for action. All this needs airing
8/10 Maybe it& #39;s better to embrace the âcollapse& #39; debate & learn from it than dismissing its terms. That it exists is an important social fact. And with current emissions, FF use & habitat loss, it would surely be surprising if people WERENâT talking about collapse
9/10 âone scientist said it& #39;s not a helpful question: we should instead focus on reducing harm by burning fewer FFsâ. But these are not either/or options. And âhelpfulâ for whom?
10/10 âŠbut perhaps indeed itâs not a useful duality. Take any plausible collapse scenario & imagine it happens â you can guarantee there& #39;ll still be people at that point who dispute a collapse has occurred. Human words & culture are remarkable things. Why weâre in this messâŠ
