Climate change would be a big one.

Also, there have been plenty of awful things caused by technological progress. Tons of death and poverty was created by the transition to factories and mechanization 150 years ago.

Did we come out the other end with higher living standards? Yes, but that doesn't make the decades of brutal transition period any less awful for those affected.

▲

abletonlive 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Climate change would be a big one.

That's generous. Climate scientists were right, climate doomers were definitely wrong.

Society is mostly unchanged due to climate change. That's not to say climate has no effect, but it is certainly still not some doomer scenario that's played out. New York and Florida are most certainly not underwater as predicted by the famous "Inconvenient Truth". People still live in deserts just as they always have. Human lifespan is still increasing. We have less hunger worldwide than ever before, etc.

Climate change doomers conveniently leave out the part where climate has ALWAYS affected society and is one of the main inputs to our existence, therefore we are extremely adaptable to it.

Before "climate change" ever entered the general consciousness, climate wiped out civilizations MORE FREQUENTLY than it does now. All signs point to doomers being wrong and yet they all hold onto it stubbornly.

Doomers were never impressive because they got anything right, they are impressive because they have the unique skill of moving the goalpost when they are wrong. Any time you think the goalpost can't be moved further out, they prove it's possible.

▲

podgietaru 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The effects of climate change are just starting to happen. Ecosystems are dying. Very few "climate doomers" thought the world would be like the Day after Tomorrow.

The earth is becoming more hostile to it's inhabitants. There are famines caused by climate change. We will undoubtedly within the next 20 years see mass migration from the areas hardest hit.

Climate scientists, and climate reporting, often UNDERSTATED the worst of these effects.

I think it'd be worth stating what your definition of doomerism is. For me, seeing the increases in forest fires, seeing the sky reddened and the air quality diminish and floods and hurricanes increase... I don't think being able to buy a big mac doesn't make that any less pessimistic.

	▲	abletonlive 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The earth is becoming more hostile to it's inhabitants. There are famines caused by climate change. We will undoubtedly within the next 20 years see mass migration from the areas hardest hit. If this is true then how are there more people than ever, fewer famines than ever? Migrations due to climate has been a part of human history since the beginning of all of human, and animal history. It's almost as if that's the default state of being. Are people migrating more than ever? Yes, but not just because of climate change, because it's so god damn easy to do so in modern times. We aren't walking across a sheet of ice to try to survive a drought. We are on boats with motors and a life vest at our worst, in first class getting wine and dined at our most hedonistic. Again, you're a doomer that has failed to predict the impact of what you're observing, and it mostly comes down to the fact that you underestimate human creativeness and ingenuity, and human drive for progress. You frame every scenario as if humans will just stare at impending doom like deer in headlights and let it wash over them, while at the same time arguing that mass amounts of people are so adaptable that they would be willing to traverse the entire globe to find a better life. Your model of reality contradicts itself from the very start.

▲

metobehonest 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The CO2 concentration continues to climb year after year, at an accelerating rate. The world hasn't ended yet because it's still 2026 but it doesn't mean it won't.

We're on a hothouse earth trajectory. All signs point to you not being aware of serious climate research and hanging on to a naive Steven Pinker "everything is always improving" outlook.

▲

abletonlive 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The world hasn't ended yet because it's still 2026 but it doesn't mean it won't.

All signs point to you being a doomer that is excellent at moving the goal post. "If it doesn't happen tomorrow surely it will happen the next day."

You can do this until the end of time. A waste of brain cycles for anybody with a real job. This is the exact same pattern for every single kind of doomer and they are all wrong in the exact same way over and over. You still can't name a single doomer point of view that has played out to some kind of catastrophic society collapsing event accurately.

It's always "it's coming" eventually.

Running out of oil, overpopulation, financial system collapse that sends us back to the dark ages, climate change that causes everybody to move migrate to Colorado, a coronavirus that permanently makes us board up indoors. None of it ever plays out the way you doomers fantasize about it playing out.

When some kind of catastrophic society collapsing event happens it's most likely going to be because of something that is not in the mainstream consciousness.

If doomers were good at predicting these events and how it will play out they'd all be rich as hell, but no, they are for the most part a bunch of broke whiners. (Except for those doomers that have made their wealth off of scaring people)

▲

einr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> All signs point to you being a doomer that is excellent at moving the goal post.

All signs point to it being really easy for you to dismiss "doomers" as wrong and "scientists" as right retroactively. If someone was wrong about the direction of the climate crisis 20 years ago they were a doomer. If they were right they were a scientist. Easy!

You can apply this to anything that went to shit with the world in the past, not just the climate. If someone predicted the financial crisis of 2008, they were not a doomer, they were a particularly savvy financial analyst. All the others who keep predicting crises are wrong, until they're right, and then they're not a doomer, so your point always stands no matter what. Super convenient!

	▲	abletonlive an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> If someone predicted the financial crisis of 2008, they were not a doomer, they were a particularly savvy financial analyst. Zoom out buddy, the 2008 financial crisis is a blip. The world's financial system is almost exactly the same as it was pre-2008. Hardly the collapse that made the world stop spinning that doomers have a fetish for. That's not a good example to support your argument. You fundamentally cannot grasp the concept of doomerism. Doomerism isn't simply observing some first order effect "The oceans will increase by 2 degrees". Doomerism is observing that first order effect and trying to assert that we should change behavior at a societal level because they above everybody else, can predict what the secondary or tertiary+ effects are for society. And they are wrong about it every - single - time. Do you need examples? Society has a long history of ignoring doomers, and the impact? Society is right and Doomers are consistently wrong. Society keeps going. We have all of history up until the current moment, but from that we understand so far, Doomers have never been right about how disruptive their observations are for society at large. If you want to provide a contradiction to this statement please do so. Nuclear power doomers -> completely wrong. Fukashima was the latest that proved this Covid doomers -> wrong. in 50 years covid will be as forgotten as the spanish flu was. Climate doomers -> wrong. famines are down across the globe and population still growing, still no clear example of the disruption to society or world in a way that is new. For any disruption we can find historical disruptions of the same category with more impact to humans and the world. Floods? More people killed in historical floods and more societies extinguished from them >100 years ago. Fires? More people killed in fires and more cities completely burned down from them >100 years ago. Overpopulation doomers -> wrong, population still growing, but leveling off and not collapsing AI doomers -> wrong on both sides so far. no bubble pop, humans are also still relevant Peak oil doomers -> completely wrong, more oil being discovered, didn't account for technology, didn't account for other forms of energy

▲

metobehonest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>If doomers were good at predicting these events and how it will play out they'd all be rich as hell, but no, they are for the most part a bunch of broke whiners.

Oh, the classic "if you're so smart then why aren't you rich" non argument. I'm sure Carl Sagan was a just whiny loser because he didn't figure out how to become a billionaire from knowing how physics works. His prediction that the planet would warm several degrees by the mid to late 21st century failed to reward him what he was owed. By the way we haven't even gotten halfway there yet, so your "shifting goalposts" thesis is null.

People who push dangerous neoliberal propaganda like carbon capture or "infinite growth on a finite planet is possible" on the other hand do get very rich, and they don't even need to make good predictions. Such is the planet governed by pedophiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI

	▲	abletonlive an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> People who push dangerous neoliberal propaganda like carbon capture or "infinite growth on a finite planet is possible" Good thing we are not confined to a closed system in any practical sense. You act like we haven't already used space for economic growth. It's also a good thing that the concept of "growth" in this context is not limited by physical constraints. You're talking about growth of value, not growth in a physical sense. Did you think the valuation of every company was based on something physical 1:1? Do you live somewhere whose financial system is based on a gold standard or something? There are multiple levels where your idea falls apart. Crazy to so confidently assert an idea which is conceptually flawed on a surface level. You actually think the economy has reached the point of maximum growth due to the laws of thermodynamics? Please tell me you didn't formulate your entire worldview on this idea because it's unlikely that you can function in this society in a way that makes your life better or those around you better with this flawed model of reality. Doomers are always hurting themselves first and foremost and then dragging everybody else around them down with them.