likely scenarios, we’re set for warming of 1.5C or much more.
The consequences are dire. If we succeed in limiting warming to 1.5C, we will still have sea level rises of
around half a metre, killer heatwaves and drought in many parts of the world – leading to a decrease in
agricultural productivity. We can expect mass migrations, death and destruction as a result, with many parts
of the world becoming uninhabitable.
So how do you cope with this knowledge? The question is all the more difficult when we confront the
inevitable guilt: we are all complicit with the sclerotic political system that has failed to address the crisis,
and we all contribute to carbon emissions. Few of us can say that we have
From doomism to altruism
Weirdly, the knowledge of decline may help some people to cope with the guilt. If things will get worse no
matter what we do, then why do anything? This “doomism” may be promoted by fossil fuel interests, to
limit real action. Given that what we do today can make a difference to what happens in 2100 or later,
though, we shouldn’t give in to this temptation.
Another source of resignation might be that many people who try to fight climate change have rather selfish
reasons for caring. Some may only care for their own children, or how the problems will affect their own
country. But the climate crisis requires true altruism and real sacrifices. Are we even capable of that?
It is fashionable in some circles to deny that genuine altruism exists. Whether based on the perception that
selfless behaviour is selected against by evolution, or merely cynicism, many thinkers have argued that all
our actions are motivated by self-interest. Perhaps we give to charity because it makes us feel better about
ourselves. Perhaps we recycle for social status.
David Attenborough’s work has been credited
with creating greater awareness about the
climate crisis (BBC)But your question shows the problem with such arguments. Like you, many of us feel desolate about the
inevitable harms the world will face when we are gone – suggesting that we care for future generations for
their sake and not just for our own.
I have no personal stake in the world after my death. I don’t have children and I don’t have hopes of leaving
a legacy. If I’m lucky, I may live out my life in middle-class comfort, relatively untouched by the upheavals
that are guaranteed already to be underway elsewhere. When they hit closer to home, I may already be
dead. So why should I care? But I do, and so do you.
The philosopher Samuel Scheffler has argued that if we were told that humanity would become extinct
immediately after our own deaths – but without affecting the quality or duration of our life – we would be
devastated and our lives would lose meaning.