We don't do kbin anyway.

kbin.social is gone.

I used to use Sopuli. More downtime than other instances (at least, back then), but otherwise it was fantastic.

Thanks for the hint, updated.

Thanks -- lemmy.ml was our old home before we moved to lemm.ee and now lemmy.zip. The sopuli.xyz one looks useful.

Little known fact, the source of the Kok River is often coffee

I just discovered that there are at least nine Collapse communities including this one. In order of subscribers:

• lemmy.ml
• sopuli.xyz
• slrpnk.net
• lemm.ee/lemmy.zip
• infosec.pub (abandoned)
• lemmy.world (locked, abandoned)
• chat.maiion.com (abandoned)
• kbin.social (semi-abandoned)
• zerobytes.monster (locked, abandoned, moderator banned (!))

They have mostly identical goals, although the infosec.pub one is (was) academically focused.

!collapse@lemmy.zip

The good news just keep coming.

We are hitting the absolute peaks of fossil fuels in possibly as little as a decade from now also. The current arrangements are only possible with a constantly high energy throughput. There's considerable limits right now on how much growth can be achieved. And there are more things than ever competing for energy consumption too - including the rise of AI (which is causing energy consumption to soar again after ~2 decades of being flat in Western countries).

The thing is, it's still a huge increase.

As physicist Tom Murphy points out, we'd eventually need all the energy in the galaxy

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Oops. 350% growth, not 350X growth...lost some decimal places there. Thanks for the correction.

A constant 2% economic growth rate implies that we expect the world economy in 2100 to be 350 times as large as the economy of today.

Check your arithmetic. 100%*ln(2)/(2%/year)=34.66 years to double. 75 years until 2100, so by then the economy would be 2^(75/34.66)=4.48 times as large, not 350.

A constant 2% economic growth rate implies that we expect the world economy in 2100 to be 350 times as large as the economy of today.

That means it roughly doubles every decade remaining in the century.

Insofar as prices or costs can go up, there seems to be no limit to growth.

Insofar as we have real physical resources and production increasing, I have a hard time imagining we can meaningfully double production one time.

For example, I can't imagine a world with twice the built infrastructure we have now. (Houses, roads, power dams, airports, schools, etc). Seems impossible.

If growth has ended or is ending soon, it makes you wonder how long governments will be able to try to print their way out of stagnation before the whole system becomes irrelevant and comical.

Is it okay if I make suggests as to what might make the community more more useful and more successful and basically better?

You don't have to read this community if you consistently dislike content posted here.

A semi-unhinged rant by this rando again.

Sure, fine, heterodox opinion is welcome, but can we not let this community become a dumping ground for this one guy's POV? Thanks.

Thanks!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w

I believe I already posted it a few days ago on the main page

If anyone has the time to find the referenced papers, please post them here.

Abstract Climate change threatens global food systems1, but the extent to which adaptation will reduce losses remains unknown and controversial2. Even within the well-studied context of US agriculture, some analyses argue that adaptation will be widespread and climate damages small3,4, whereas others conclude that adaptation will be limited and losses severe5,6. Scenario-based analyses indicate that adaptation should have notable consequences on global agricultural productivity7,8,9, but there has been no systematic study of how extensively real-world producers actually adapt at the global scale. Here we empirically estimate the impact of global producer adaptations using longitudinal data on six staple crops spanning 12,658 regions, capturing two-thirds of global crop calories. We estimate that global production declines 5.5 × 1014 kcal annually per 1 °C global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise (120 kcal per person per day or 4.4% of recommended consumption per 1 °C; P < 0.001). We project that adaptation and income growth alleviate 23% of global losses in 2050 and 34% at the end of the century (6% and 12%, respectively; moderate-emissions scenario), but substantial residual losses remain for all staples except rice. In contrast to analyses of other outcomes that project the greatest damages to the global poor10,11, we find that global impacts are dominated by losses to modern-day breadbaskets with favourable climates and limited present adaptation, although losses in low-income regions losses are also substantial. These results indicate a scale of innovation, cropland expansion or further adaptation that might be necessary to ensure food security in a changing climate.

Direct link to the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000469

Oil is traded according to supply and demand. The big problem for the industry is that turning off a well reduces output and debt still has to be services making supply stable, but so is demand. That means small changes can have a massive impact. OPEC+ saying the would increase oil prices by 0.4% made oil prices fall by nearly 10%. Obviously lower demand even by a bit can have similar results.