Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
There is an old statistical principle having to do with probability and risk in trying to estimate future conditions and how to prepare for or take action to mitigate them to try to alter the outcome of our past and present bad behavior.
In assessing the two potential errors in judging the outcomes of opposing statistical probabilities, one error is trivial, the other cataclysmic. In one scenario, the predicted future is very likely but rather benign. The other possible future condition seems very unlikely but would be utterly disastrous. What should we do? In the first case, everything will be fine, which is most likely; in the second case, catastrophic disaster is possible but highly unlikely. Which assumption should we base our decisions on when to deal with the unlikely catastrophic outcome will be very expensive, though far from as expensive as the catastrophe itself? And, what if the odds change?
Of course, the prudent prophet would say, “Prepare for the worst; hope for the best.” But that is not what many of us do, much of the time. If the present feels good, or better than the unknowns of major change, we have a tendency to ‘stay the course,’ and keep doing what we have done until now. We may even engage in “confirmation bias,” the tendency to accept facts that are consistent with our prior (preferred) beliefs and ignore or deny facts that contradict those beliefs. And, of course, things are always more complicated than that.
Today, our global situation is very complicated. What once seemed a distant future and maybe an unlikely prospect—societal collapse brought on by climate collapse or even the collapse of the entire Earth System—is now a very real potential catastrophic contingency. However, that is a prospect that is very hard to accept as ‘real.’ Yet, each new wave of data suggests that the likelihood of catastrophic societal collapse is accelerating in all the worst ways.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the various reports produced by scientists from all over the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been full of optimistic assumptions about possible (as yet untested and/or very unlikely to be developed at global scale) technological ‘fixes,’ which are not really fixes at all. Depending on the assumptions s/he makes, a scientist, like anyone else, may be optimistic or pessimistic about the future and our ability to influence it in the interests of our survival.
Human preferences influence our predictions and are not always driven by the facts. That is why a recent Substack posting by Richard Crim disturbed me so. Even though I have increasingly viewed the prospects for transformative climate action as obdurately dim, I have held out hope for the formation of a global social movement to force power elites to act responsibly or ‘get out of the way.’ Crim pointed to the likelihood of a catastrophic collapse of the global human population from around eight billion today to around 2 billion in the next several years because of the likely catastrophic climate chaos in that timeframe. “We are going to have a FAST COLLAPSE.” Crim presented several sets of data to justify his conclusion. That significantly changed my image of the ratio of hope to reality.
Much of the latest data, especially regarding the accelerating emissions of Methane (CH4), suggests that some major tipping points are already ‘tipping.’ On the other hand, tipping points are hard to pin down as to their exact timing at least. What do climate scientists think?
Science, Hope, and Despair
Phoebe Barnard, a highly respected evolutionary ecologist herself, re-posted a note on LinkedIn referring to a recent study of the outlook of a diverse set of climate scientists from around the world, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology. These folks are at the top of their fields; their careers are grounded in facts and trends that are critically important for the future of humanity. They are committed to the core value of science: Realism—shaping an accurate vision of reality based on facts and reason. Yet, in the survey reporting their take on the prospects for collapse via climate chaos vs. effective climate action, opinions vary widely. Some expect that societal collapse is inevitable and others expect that our dire situation is transformable by human agency. How could this be, when science is all about the facts?
Well, as proven time and again, prediction is the most difficult thing for humans to do accurately, and scientists are not an exception, except for the fact that they almost always have the best information available. Yet, a significant degree of uncertainty remains, and there are so many factors to consider. Paramount among them is human behavior. But most scientists are not social psychologists. When it comes to predicting the behavior of politicians, executives, and global decision makers of all sorts, all bets are off.
Sure, we can assume that power elites will behave much like other people, but that is what scares me the most. If I read the climate/ecological and sociological situation anywhere near accurately, “right action” among the power elites of this world—that is, taking actions toward making complex extreme changes in the very fabric of industrial civilization—is an extremely unlikely prospect. To respond effectively to the prospect that extreme catastrophic consequences of ‘global warming’ are happening now, would take extreme transformative action globally, the likes of which most folks cannot even imagine. And all the short-term interests of power elites influence them to hold on to their status-quo power as long as they can. That, of course, will be deadly for the rest of us and for them eventually too.
As the evidence grows that some tipping points are already being passed, such as irreversible acceleration of methane emissions from arctic tundra, the optimistic stance seems ever more unrealistic. So, why do some scientists still hold to the view that transformative human action can rescue us from likely societal as well as Earth System collapse?
The Faint Viability of Hopeful Realism
For over a decade now as optimists and pessimists have battled it out, I have proclaimed myself in various places to be a “Hopeful Realist.” What I mean by that is that as long as some action is possible, hope for some degree of success is also possible. Prediction is no more than an estimate. That does not mean that I am an optimist, not at all. I have often quoted Chris Hedges, who said, “I fight fascism not because I will win; I fight fascism because it is fascism.” I apply that logic to ‘climate change.’ When faced with an existential threat, it seems to me that the only viable course of action is to fight the threat, whatever the odds of success.
After all, we really cannot dismiss the potential for human action to overcome extremely bad odds. Nor can we discount the potential to fail, as human societies and especially empires have done throughout history. In fact, prediction is always fraught with some level of uncertainty.
Even with the apparent certainty that we have passed the tipping point of biological methane emissions, we could be wrong to some unknown extent. The bottom line for me is that we simply cannot afford to capitulate in the face of overwhelming odds, since the alternative is certain collapse and probably even extinction of the human species, as is already happening to so many others.
Robert MacNeil Christie, Author 