Talk:Climate change and civilizational collapse

Moved content about "The Age of Consequences"
I've moved content from climate apocalypse to here in this edit. This is based on the observation by User:InformationToKnowledge on the talk page there: "The Age of Consequences - I finally checked out that report from 2007, and the current section on it is an outright inaccurate summary of what it said - i.e. this sentence "describes both a "severe" and a "catastrophic" scenario in which global warming rise reaches 1.6°C (2.88°F) above pre-industrial levels by 2040 and 5.6°C (10.08°F) by 2100 respectively" misstates that the "severe scenario" was actually 2.6°C, and it misstates both figures as being above preindustrial levels, rather than the 1990 levels (see pages 44-45 of the report.) More to the point, all of those forecasts are far outside the current scientific consensus. I still would like to mention this report in the civilizational collapse article, but I'm unsure on the best procedure. Should I edit it in place here until it gets to a more acceptable stage, then merge it, or merge it first, and then edit it into shape?"

Here is the content:

The Age of Consequences
A report published in November 2007 by various authors including former director of the CIA R. James Woolsey Jr., former national security advisor to Al Gore Leon Fuerth, and former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton John Podesta entitled "The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change" describes both a "severe" and a "catastrophic" scenario in which global warming rise reaches 1.6°C (2.88°F) above pre-industrial levels by 2040 and 5.6°C (10.08°F) by 2100 respectively.

In the "severe" scenario, nonlinear climate change has devastating impacts on society including a possible pandemic; societal instability due to large increases in migration and food and water shortages; threatened identities of global communities as a result of rising sea levels and coastal flooding; likely conflict over resources and possible nuclear war. The authors write that in this scenario climate change causes humanity to undergo a permanent shift in its relationship to nature.

In the "catastrophic" scenario, the authors write that human society would struggle to adapt, and note that this scenario is so extreme that its impacts are difficult to imagine. The authors encourage readers to compare the scenario to the threat of terrorism, emphasising that the solution to both threats relies on a transformation of the world's energy economy. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Better first sentence of the lead?
Can we come up with a shorter, more succinct first sentence for the lead (and also for the short description that is at the very top)? The current sentence is too wordy: Climate change and civilizational collapse refers to a hypothetical risk of the impacts of climate change reducing global socioeconomic complexity to the point complex human society effectively ends around the world, with humanity reduced to a less developed state. Also, I think I read somewhere that the wording "refers to" is frowned upon, actually I found it, see here: WP:ISAWORDFOR. How about this for the first sentence: Climate change and civilizational collapse is a scenario whereby the impacts of climate change have become so intense (or extreme?) that complex human society effectively ends around the world. As a result, humanity would be reduced to a less developed state.. It's really a scenario, not a risk, right? EMsmile (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible citation
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024EaArX...X5G404K Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)