Life after a Global Ecological Collapse

[Tokora]

At this point only the most stubborn are denying that climate change is a problem. Here's the catch, those are the exact same people in power with any hope of preventing disaster at this point being extremely unlikely.

With our own stupidity making the tipping point inevitable, I want to ask what the worst case scenario is short of extinction.

All the world's fossil fuels have been used, the world's forests have been cleared, a mass extinction (that for the sake of the question doesn't involve humanity) has occurred, and all environmental protections have been rolled back causing all the mentioned events and preventing any attempt to mitigate the damage. Assuming that the Earth is just habitable enough for at least a minimum viable population to be supported if strained, what kind of life exists for the survivors of this world?

How high do sea levels reach at the highest? What diet would this future humanity live off of? Do any livestock survive this far into the future? What would the climate of North America and China (as the two biggest reasons for this disaster) look like overall? What kind of technology would be widely used with fossil fuels no longer being an option?

Everytime I try to imagine this nightmare I just see everyone dead so I'm honestly have no idea what a "milder" situation would look like. Any thoughts?

[Pacomia]

There probably won’t be much life to speak of. If we look at the US alone, areas like the Rockies and the Appalachians might be the best bet for survival. I imagine a much more insane version of the Fallout universe.

[Nakena]

Probably like Desert Punk.

[Bear Stearns]

Alaska would be a pretty comfortable place to live.

[Aureumterra]

Climate Change will result in coastal areas going underwater, causing mass refugees to flood the inland. The worst effect of this will be Florida, the entire peninsula of 20 Million will turn into a murky swampland uninhabitable by normal means. However, none of this will lead to the mass extinction that you talked about in the OP, so it’s a little far fetched

[Thepeopl]

https://mymodernmet.com/bjarke-ingels-g ... ting-city/

Tl;dr. We would eat algae, and float.

[Bassoe]

Planetwide stratum highly enriched in heavy metals, especially well preserved in lacustrine and coastal marine sediments, which would also contain large amounts of preserved trash; especially glass, stainless steel and some plastics, would would all still be kicking around after that time. 10ky isn't enough time to form rock, so they would all be as unconsolidated sediments and soils.

Cities would have a highly peculiar geology, consisting of geometrically arranged hummocky hills probably grassed over, with the hills consisting of concrete with the presence of iron-rich minerals and, depending on the building, trace metals like tellurium, neodymium, gold etc. from electronics and so on divided by strips of tar that are buried roads. Fragments of well-built tunnel networks would survive, those that are not caved in would be either crumbling or filled with water and sediment depending on the height of the water table, their construction and the surrounding geology. Around and especially downwind of the cities would see very high amounts of heavy metal and toxic pollutants, provided they haven't been leached out by rain. Nuclear facilities would also be very identifiable thanks to their radioactive pollution slick and concentration, and many containment structures would still survive thanks to being massive edifices. Rubbish dumps would turn into goldmines for artifacts, and many would be very well preserved thanks to the anoxic conditions inside the trash heaps.

Some structures, especially large ones of concrete and stone, would survive. I'm talking about hydro dams, bridge pillars, monuments and the sort of large edifice that would resist erosion. Pure concrete would survive better than reinforced concrete, since steel rebar has a tendency to swell as it rusts and crack the concrete.

Mines would also be very well preserved, with quarries appearing nearly exactly as they were left. Underground networks would also probably be still around, but crumbling supports would render many highly unstable and under the water table some may completely fill with sediment and mineral deposits (given long enough this would lithify and form a perfect underground cast of the tunnel network). This also goes for mountain transport tunnels.

[Rojava Free State]

I think North America in the 22nd century will be a network of small towns and city states that are not under the dominion of a single government and whose technological level may be comparable to medieval europe save for the random guns and other weapons that marauders find. Resource exhaustion and climate change may completely destroy our modern society, but at least this cursed nation of consumerism, youth isolation and ridiculous class, race and gender roles might vanish. Think of it as a silver lining to a very dark cloud

[Valrifell]

I think North America in the 22nd century will be a network of small towns and city states that are not under the dominion of a single government and whose technological level may be comparable to medieval europe save for the random guns and other weapons that marauders find. Resource exhaustion and climate change may completely destroy our modern society, but at least this cursed nation of consumerism, youth isolation and ridiculous class, race and gender roles might vanish. Think of it as a silver lining to a very dark cloud

So like that After the End mod for CK2 or the world of Saint Leibowitz (if you're uncultured and read)

[Cruciland]

By the time we get to the point where climate scientists estimate the global average temperature reaches a catastrophic 6 or so degrees more, we will have already mastered nuclear power, so fossil fuels would already be in the process of phasing out by then (if it hadn't happened already). Being no earlier than the latter half of the 21st century, you could also expect for climate control technology, ranging from HVAC to plant nursuries, to have improved to the point where people could live in bunkers and arcologies with zero problems. The smarter ones would have invested in this technology, and you can expect the wealthy to already have such sanctuaries buried under the hypothetical deserts and floodplains of the old world. Similarly, there are also NGOs which have been doing things such as storing every kind of plant seed they can find (Svalbard Global Seed Vault). These organizations would have surely expanded their roles, and there certainly is a niche market for funding the revival of extinct species. Most likely, in such an extreme scenario, we would be storing genomes of animals in vaults as they face extinction; entire ecosystems could later be revived in the captivity of arcologies, or reestablished back on the surface if there is still a climatologically suitable location available further toward the poles.

What remains on the surface would be a population of survivors living in an array of high-temperature environments, likely favoring the poles for keeping civilization going since the climate would still be temperate there. Paleoclimatological data shows that the Mesozoic Era, one of the hottest points in the history of multicellular life, had a temperature plateau as CO2 and other greenhouse gases reached a critical level. This means that the planet settled on a steamy tropical environment with deserts further inland, only observing a drop to temperate/continental climates at the poles. Assuming we wind up the same, treating cloud cover as an albedo which restricts how hot the Earth can get beyond that, we should have a reliable picture of what our Earth would be in our hypothetical scenario.

TL;DR - Life would go on. We would adapt and later reseed the Earth in lieu of changing its atmospheric composition.

[Nova Cyberia]

[The Rich Port]

ya know everybody always keeps talking about what happens after.

do we have like an actual plan to SURVIVE whatever apocalypse happens beyond "rich people will survive"?

what do we do when a meteor causes this?

and yeah, considering that we keep going straight into that abyss while conservatives ignore Climate Change, i guess fucking not.

[Ordenstaat Burgundy]

(Image)

*Playing of Country Roads intensifies*

[Cekoviu]

Portal, but on a larger scale.
Or The Talos Principle, which is based on a somewhat similar scenario.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

A post-ecological collapse world will likely look a lot like a Children of Men-esque dystopian hellscape.

(Image)

*Playing of Country Roads intensifies*

No

[Saiwania]

Unfortunately, it won't be like the 1995 movie- Waterworld

[Samudera Darussalam]

A post-ecological collapse world will likely look a lot like a Children of Men-esque dystopian hellscape.

*Playing of Country Roads intensifies*

No

"The world has collapsed.....only British soldiers on!"

[Cappuccina]

Unfortunately, it won't be like the 1995 movie- Waterworld

Oh no, why mention that trainwreck of a movie!

[Antityranicals]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

[Antityranicals]

By the time we get to the point where climate scientists estimate the global average temperature reaches a catastrophic 6 or so degrees more, we will have already mastered nuclear power, so fossil fuels would already be in the process of phasing out by then (if it hadn't happened already). Being no earlier than the latter half of the 21st century, you could also expect for climate control technology, ranging from HVAC to plant nursuries, to have improved to the point where people could live in bunkers and arcologies with zero problems. The smarter ones would have invested in this technology, and you can expect the wealthy to already have such sanctuaries buried under the hypothetical deserts and floodplains of the old world. Similarly, there are also NGOs which have been doing things such as storing every kind of plant seed they can find (Svalbard Global Seed Vault). These organizations would have surely expanded their roles, and there certainly is a niche market for funding the revival of extinct species. Most likely, in such an extreme scenario, we would be storing genomes of animals in vaults as they face extinction; entire ecosystems could later be revived in the captivity of arcologies, or reestablished back on the surface if there is still a climatologically suitable location available further toward the poles.

What remains on the surface would be a population of survivors living in an array of high-temperature environments, likely favoring the poles for keeping civilization going since the climate would still be temperate there. Paleoclimatological data shows that the Mesozoic Era, one of the hottest points in the history of multicellular life, had a temperature plateau as CO2 and other greenhouse gases reached a critical level. This means that the planet settled on a steamy tropical environment with deserts further inland, only observing a drop to temperate/continental climates at the poles. Assuming we wind up the same, treating cloud cover as an albedo which restricts how hot the Earth can get beyond that, we should have a reliable picture of what our Earth would be in our hypothetical scenario.

TL;DR - Life would go on. We would adapt and later reseed the Earth in lieu of changing its atmospheric composition.

Even if I'm wrong, this person is right.

[Rojava Free State]

I think North America in the 22nd century will be a network of small towns and city states that are not under the dominion of a single government and whose technological level may be comparable to medieval europe save for the random guns and other weapons that marauders find. Resource exhaustion and climate change may completely destroy our modern society, but at least this cursed nation of consumerism, youth isolation and ridiculous class, race and gender roles might vanish. Think of it as a silver lining to a very dark cloud

So like that After the End mod for CK2 or the world of Saint Leibowitz (if you're uncultured and read)

I was thinking mad max

[Aureumterra]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

No matter the cause, it’s happening, and it’ll result in millions of people being displaced

As another poster mentioned though, the OP is highly speculative and by the point we get to catastrophe temperatures tp the point of the OP, nuclear power will lift dependence on fossil fuels and atmospheric filtering tech would likely be invented

[Torrocca]

What life?

[Rojava Free State]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

Dude when 97% of scientists agree it's happening, it doesn't matter what you think. Climate change denial is literally becoming as ridiculous as anti vax. We could have staved off the disaster if the denialists didn't stone wall at every chance they got.

[Rojava Free State]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

No matter the cause, it’s happening, and it’ll result in millions of people being displaced

As another poster mentioned though, the OP is highly speculative and by the point we get to catastrophe temperatures tp the point of the OP, nuclear power will lift dependence on fossil fuels and atmospheric filtering tech would likely be invented

You're assuming people will start using nuclear power more and won't just keep using oil and natural gas to the point it runs out

People aren't that smart. I predict its gonna be as bad as possible because no one will prepare