I share the views of some expressed here that science fiction writers expand our thinking about how humanity behaves under certain conditions. Asimov’s vision of a tired and decadent civilisation collapsing on itself has many historical examples but I don’t think we are at that stage in 2013.

I am also optminstic that humanity will survive the growth of robitics and the elimination of many current forms of work because we have already done it. The industrial revolution was a huge change that started us on an unprecedented period of growth and wealth creation that is nowhere near ending. Robotics is just the next stage.

We’ve put too much carbon into the atmosphere along the way but we can fix that too.

“we have different views on what is best for the world and it’s people.” - how about in the medium term, protecting humanity from the horrors that would play out as our system collapses, and in the longer term, ensuring the sustainability of life on Earth? You choose different values?

“You would prefer to spend money now” - money, pfft. Is that your unstated concern? It doesn’t need money to change policy, just political will. And all the studies show it is cheaper to act sooner rather than later, if you really want to look at life, the universe and everything in such crass and narrow terms.

“a perceived threat to the future that … has a fair degree of uncertainty to it” - maybe uncertainty in the actual sequence of events, but not in the catastrophic nature. Don’t you read the science?

“our access to cheap, plentiful energy (like coal) ” - it is only cheap because we do not put a value on what economics classify as “common goods” like the atmosphere. The economic theory that underpins your presumption is one of the main causes of our dilemma.

“research and technological advancement” is dictated by financial incentives. At present, the incentives dictate a continued reliance on fossil fuels. Don’t kid yourself that technology can or will advance without a major change in political will.

“so the next generations will be in the best position possible to make the decisions … (we) will be long gone” - wouldn’t that be comforting? Read previous posts - any of the triggering events could happen tomorrow. (And the idea that none of them would occur in say the next 5 years is absurd.)

I am not trying to shake you up - you are free to be warm and cosy in any belief you choose. I am just trying to suggest to others that your contribution may be exactly that - self-serving belief. Cheers.

As for me, I would prefer to continue to increase the standards of living of humanity (by both developed and developing nations alike). To use our access to cheap, plentiful energy (like coal) to continue our research and technological advancement, so the next generations will be in the best position possible to make the decisions if the threat of an increasingly hotter world becomes more certain. After all, they will be the ones that will be facing the threat rather than us who will be long gone.

Others may gain temporary solace from their lack of concern/knowledge/etc.

What will be, will be.

What hope have we got if Scott is right, and I think he is, that “the reason there is no action on it is that the average person doesn’t believe we are at crisis stage” - and if even those with intelligence can hide in denial?

This is not a technical or technological issue. It is a political issue, and without a concerted effort by those capable of bringing more of the public up to speed, the required political will for effective action will never be achieved.

I’m glad you have added the “(perhaps)” because that pretty much sums it up for me.

No one knows anything about tipping points because the whole concept is pure speculation.

My descendants will be there in the future, like yours. Which ever way the climate goes, they will probably be having a GM wheat beer together in a city bar in the biodome, or talking rubbish over an organic malt in a country pub.

One moment, please.

When an actual tipping point comes, as you so cavalierly note, then the future of the world will be beyond human control. Yes, there will be excitement, as you also happily state, but at the core of it will be realisation that the time for effective action has passed and the (perhaps) collapse of life in acidified oceans will progress to completion, or (perhaps) methane and CO2 from melting tundra will accelerate without hope for correction.

They are the two most fearful potential tipping points that I am aware of, and there is substantial evidence of the approach of both, despite your affirmation to the contrary. Are you blind?

They are possible, even probable, perhaps already emerging.

They will be catastrophic. Of this there is no doubt.

There will be no “middle ground” for you or your descendants to search for “truth”, as whatever remains of industrialised society and civilisation collapse - perhaps into war-fuelled anarchy.

There can be no easy way back from a tipping point. It took 70 million years for life forms equal to dinosaurs to emerge after a previous tipping point. Is that what you favour?

Most of the negative scenarios you mention are nothing compared to what happened in the first half of the 20th century.

Energy technology is rapidly advancing. Solar energy will be ubiquitous. Biofuels will be manufactured like beer, and fusion powered mega machines that suck out the carbon will be here soon enough and along with GM trees and negative carbon biofuels will clean up the excess carbon by the end of this century.

100 years from now the science will just as likely be saying stop decarbonizing below 350ppm lest we cool down too much.

Again the big issue is what are people going to do for work, money and social inclusion if automation is the general state of our economy. 3D printing over the next 20 years will decimate traditional manufacturing systems - with some estimates of up to 1 billion jobs being made redundant. While software automation and voice will put an axe through the Indian and Philippine call centre industries. The near term social implications of these and other like developments are being ignored by governments and think tanks all over the world. Civilization is not facing a crisis of limited supply but rather the opposite.

I agree that we already know what to do.

But all the evidence, and the trends underway, suggest it is already too late to act to mitigate the first few waves of impact from knocking our delicate economic system off its balance.

Then it is only a matter of waiting for the next shock, which may not have been fatal without climate effects, to compound into immediate collapse. It may be a spike in food prices, from drought to bad biofuels policy, a series of storms, a banking crisis, a bubble bursting in Chinese real estate, a conflict somewhere, an oil trade embargo, … a million possibilities …

To presume both that 1) climate impacts can not and will not knock the world economy off its precarious perch, and 2) that none of these other triggers will occur, is surely fantasy. No?

To presume that a collapse in the global economic system, and so the trade in energy and food in particular, will not necessarily lead to collapse of political and social systems is just as fanciful. There is so much evidence in history.

The “social transformation” you imagine requires a stable continuation of the old system as its foundation, but that old system is increasingly unsustainable.

Nothing is certain of course, and this rather bleak view could be overstating the risks, but it is needed to counter the overly optimistic or ignorant presumptions that seem to permeate the debate.

I said it was the social transformation being driven by a new economic system based on large scale automation - both hardware and software - and the end of human labour being central to our social contract that was the most critical issue we face.

It will take a major effort by future society to manage that change. And compared to climate change it will be a much bigger and more difficult issue to navigate our way through.

Climate Change is not an overly difficult problem for human technology to deal with. Chances are the same types of people who say the Y2K issue was a fraud will say the same about climate change - 50 years from now - if we make the changes needed to avoid the problem becoming overly serious.

But that very technology will radically change our current economic systems and those issues are being ignored by virtually every government and think tank on the planet.

However, I do actually agree with Scott that we will deal with it and the 22nd century will be an amazing time to be alive. Getting there though will be quite rough for a good section of humanity.

Most science fiction is actually quite dark in its ideas about future history. Only a small section is pop science for the Jetsons.

Sadly though, the orgy of fantasy fiction that came out of Dungeons and Dragons has suffocated the classics of the 1950s and 1960s that did a fine job at describing the world of today and the near term future.

And, If you allow yourself to ignore how vulnerable and short-sighted our economic system really is, and if you under-estimate the cumulative impact of climate change induced crises, such sci-fi fantasy futures seem possible.

On the other hand, we may be struggling to maintain an electricity grid, in the midst of social and political chaos, let alone build armies of robot workers.

Fantasy is great fun, sure. But let’s not get lost in it …

Throughout most of Asimov’s robot books the confrontation between human and robot is a central theme, a concept that is central to much of science fiction such as ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ (aka Bladerunner) and the various short stories that eventually inspired James Cameron to write the original screenplay for Terminator - and which is now being played out in real life in the UAV/Drone Wars of Afghanistan etc etc.

It would be good idea if all our elected leaders were quizzed on their reading of science fiction.

I think we’ll be fine as well - but it’s going to be a very rough ride getting there.

The value of work is central to our concept of self worth and it’s what glues our society together. But the need for human workers is eroding quickly and will speed up dramatically by mid century.

Managing that transition is going to be the biggest issue facing humanity this century - not climate change.

People will do what they always do. Trade. Find a job. If they can’t find a job, they get educated. Change careers, Start their own businesses. Create new jobs. Move to new areas. Move to new countries. Things humanity has been doing for thousands of years.

As long as there is not too much of an incentive for them to do nothing (i.e pensions/unemployment benefits), the human can be extremely resourceful in its desire for a better life.

I think we’ll be fine.

I hope this is more than people filling recycled jars with homemade organic jam for sale at the local produce markets to legions of tourists from the cities driving their imported SUVs.

Without any details on wages and hours worked these types of sector descriptions are worth less than a tin of leftover baked beans from New Zealand - even if it’s still half full and only opened yesterday.

What these numbers actually reveal is that the age of Peak Human is approaching faster anyone ever expected. And no one in government has a clue what people are going to do beyond changing the nappies of old people in nursing homes.

The end of the social contract as we have known it for centuries if not millenia - will make dealing with climate change a minor issue.

Don’t forget that this year we have 230,000 people requested affordable housing. 44% of them were homeless (that’s over 100,000 people), many of these homeless people are victims of domestic violence, not all of them are mentally illed which the Greens often use to answer when people question about housing availability for asylum seekers but it’s best to leave that topic for another time.

The rest of the 56% were under stressed, when losing their jobs and could not afford private housing rental. Here is where I think negative gearing has contributed to the problem, unlike those who argued that it made rent cheaper I think that it pushed prices up, and it needs to be reformed.

One other problem is public housing run by the states are very inefficient and costly. They outsource auditors to audit the conditions of the properties, these people try to put in many things to be fixed and they can for whoever they are gaining profit from, hence many unecessary quotes and cost of fixing. Another issue is they often use cheap materials, and the tenants often have to call up to get things fixed. It’ll be best if half of the workloads are assigned to their own tradies and the other half outsourced, so you can measure competitive productivity and gage durability of the materials used.

The politicians need to stop being complacent and spare some thoughts for the homeless this Christmas.