Should We Save the World in These Dark Times?
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
Kyoto Protocol
12 min read
The article directly references Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 as a pivotal moment. Understanding the protocol's mechanisms, its distinction between developed and developing nations, and why it ultimately fell short provides essential context for the author's journey from optimism to the current 'dark times'.
-
Demographic transition
13 min read
The article repeatedly discusses collapsing birth rates and their implications for human civilization. The demographic transition model explains why industrialized societies see declining fertility, providing scientific context for the author's concern about population decline and their speculation about which communities might thrive.
-
Nihilism
16 min read
The author explicitly frames the central problem as 'nihilism' and 'lack of a coherent moral framework.' Understanding nihilism's philosophical roots—from Nietzsche's critique to existential responses—illuminates why the author sees sustainability as potentially filling a moral void in contemporary culture.
I have been active in the climate and energy transition space for over two decades. I remember celebrating President Vladimir Putin’s announcement that Russia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, bringing the agreement into legal effect. The vegan banana cake was good. It was a different world.
Back in those days, I was motivated by the idea that human civilization was thriving but risking its future nirvana by ignoring sustainability. Led by China, the world was leaving extreme poverty behind. Democracy and human rights were doing well, despite setbacks such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the misguided Iraq war. Birth rates were still high enough that nobody was talking about voluntary human extinction. The future was bright.
Looking back in 2025, all this seems a little naïve. Our progress against extreme poverty is halting. Wealthy countries are reducing their support for development. Democracy and human rights are retreating under a relentless wave of global populism. Ukraine and the Middle East show that systematic violence continues. Birth rates are collapsing, leaving the future of human civilization uncertain. Social media is ruining mental health, fueling bigotry and culture/gender wars.
Nobody seems to even have any good ideas for saving human civilization.
Against this terrifying backdrop, the question must be asked: does it still make sense to save the world? If human civilization is now in decline, does it matter how livable the future planet is? Or is it time to accept that the game is over?
In the end, my philosophical inquiries lead to the conclusion that the world is still very much worth saving. The motivation for action is no longer as simple as it was back two decades ago, but the case can still be made.
1. The decline of human civilization may not be permanent
Human beings are too good at pattern recognition. When we see signs of decay, we extrapolate the pattern to the future and conclude that all hope is lost.
But this need not be the case. Our current culture is dysfunctional, but that’s why there is an opening for alternatives to gain ground. Perhaps our current obsession with material status and the lack of a coherent moral framework will be a case study in future history books.
Consider the case of alt-right populism. Even if populist leaders, from Trump to Erdogan and Orban, continue to win elections in the short run, at some ...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.