Hmm, I find this problematic https://twitter.com/NiranjanAjit/status/1387373159435829249

1/10 The forces driving potential 'collapse' aren’t only climate related, but are independently driven by political economy, energy, water, soils, ecosystems etc.

2/10 There's already plenty of 'collapse' 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 isn’t just an abstract debate about the future

3/10 Climate scientists aren’t best placed to evaluate the prospects of future societal collapse, because it’s largely a question of social science, not climate science.

4/10 Social scientists aren’t 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 ‘collapse’ is a major hurdle

5/10 Our view of collapse is conditioned by histories written by elites who saw them as calamities, but this wasn’t always how ordinary people saw them. It may be hard to be so sanguine now but 'collapse’ and ‘doom’ aren't the same thing.

6/10 Beware scientism. ‘The science’ doesn’t say one single thing, and nor do scientists. The views of ‘non-scientists’ are not irrelevant. ‘Scientific studies’ are not the court that determines the reality of ‘collapse’.

7/10 I'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's better to embrace the ‘collapse' 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 WEREN’T talking about collapse

9/10 “one scientist said it's not a helpful question: we should instead focus on reducing harm by burning fewer FFs”. But these are not either/or options. And ‘helpful’ for whom?

10/10 …but perhaps indeed it’s not a useful duality. Take any plausible collapse scenario & imagine it happens – you can guarantee there'll still be people at that point who dispute a collapse has occurred. Human words & culture are remarkable things. Why we’re in this mess…