danger/u/
MIT Predicted in 1972 That Society Will Collapse This Century. New Research Shows We’re on Schedule.

| Whatever you want to say about Vice, this is a must read now on climate change.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon


| Reject society return to monke


| Naah, we are fine.. why monke? Evolve to neko!


| >>772902 so we can get neko girls and neko boys? Hell yeah!


| This society will collapse no matter if it manages to fight climate change or not. And it's good and necessary that it collapses in order to create a new and better society.


| >>772950
At least read the article before commenting on its contents...


| >>772977 go bck


| >>772985
I've been here for 4½ years.


| This society... we live in it


| 1. I wonder what to make of a head of an accounting firm saying continuous economic growth leads to societal ruin.

2. Seems we'll have a momentary decline in the near future whatever path we take, considerably our food supply. Chance of widespread famine?


| >>772977 It's funny how it's become an habit here to say "read the article" to anyone who gives a contradictory or different point of view.


| >>773177
I've never seen that happen here. People get told to read the article when they shitpost about topics that are unrelated to its content. If you want to talk about your off-topic opinion then create a new thread. It's tiresome having to hold the hand of the mentally lazy and guide them through a piece of text because they are unable to do it themselves.


| >>773177
If your improvised opinion is already discredited by a scientific study featured in the article then it's perfectly rational to tell you to read before you type. There's nothing funny about that. It's just common sense.

You are of course free to have and share your imprecise opinions but don't expect any special snowflake treatment just because you do. People don't have to listen or even acknowledge it. If your opinion holds any water it will be acknowledged and responded to.


| >>773074
There's no way it won't be widespread.

If the predictions turns out to be true, then yes, we could be seeing the start of famine as soon as 20 years from now like you said. That's when we will produce less food than what we're producing today, and on top of that we'll likely be 1.6 billion more people on earth by then.


| It almost reads like esoteric writings. Easy prediction for future is hyperinflation as countries try to bail their boats with buckets.


| >>773188
Usually rebuttals on the internet sound dumb, but this sounded good

Total number of posts: 16, last modified on: Fri Jan 1 00:00:00 1626868838

This thread is closed.