A scientist has made the shocking claim that there’s a 49% chance the world will end in just 25 years. Jared Diamond, American scientist and historian, predicted civilisation could collapse by 2050. He told Intelligencer: “I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.”
Diamond explained that fisheries and farms across the globe are being “managed unsustainably”, causing resources to be depleted at an alarming rate. He added: "At the rate we’re going now, resources that are essential for complex societies are being managed unsustainably. Fisheries around the world, most fisheries are being managed unsustainably, and they’re getting depleted.
“Farms around the world, most farms are being managed unsustainably. Soil, topsoil around the world. Fresh water around the world is being managed unsustainably.”
The Pulitzer Prize winning author warned that we must come up with more sustainable practices by 2050, “or it’ll be too late”.
He didn’t. It would have taken you five seconds to read the excerpt OP posted and notice that the actual quote is “I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.”
He didn’t say the world will end. He didn’t even say that civilisation will end. He said that the social order we enjoy today could collapse. But rather than take five seconds to notice that, you decided to yell about nothing because it was more important to voice your opinion than it was to check your facts.
Dunno if everyone is enjoying that social order. But it’s certainly true that there’s less order than there was 20 years ago.
EXACTLY, so no scientist would make the previous stupid claim, just as I described, meaning it’s probably poor journalism editorializing what the scientist really claimed.
Do you really think I should have made my post LONGER? Further describing how and why it’s stupid, can you really not see it from the part I described?
No but you could’ve made it much shorter by cutting out the commentary based only on the headline and didn’t read the article.
My comment was NOT based on the headline, read again…
I made a quote from the selected parts OP used!
And disregarding the bullshit I receive for it, my comment is actually factual and correct, contrary to the article and the criticism of my comment.
I quote a part that is CLEARLY in error, as I stated NO serious scientist would write such bullshit.