this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
317 points (94.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

36359 readers
973 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: We survived an ice age and we're very highly adaptable. Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Democracy and capitalism won't survive. 100 years from now we will all be north Korea. 1000 years from now we will all live in medieval feudalism.

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Worse than medieval feudalism. Lords were expected to look after their vassals.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

this but unironically. democracy can only function in a society with good education, otherwise you end up with populists.

and education gets to the people because it pays off for the people economically. you give 12 years of your lifetime, you receive a well-paying job afterwards. if economic growth slows down, people won't be engineers anymore and people will receive less education, thus weakening democracy.

[–] omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

The plan has always been to let the poor people die

One half of us die, the other half will be happy with the results. To bad it won't be those who denied and brought the problem about

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

as a species, maybe, as a civilization, no.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My biggest issue used to be that in the global industrial base collapses, we won't have surface coal/oil available to restart it. I've been informed that we might be able to restart just from turpentine. (Wind and solar both need advanced manufacturing techniques so can't be bootstrap electrical sources.)

That said, I don't think I'm very interested in hanging around after the global Internet collapses. My interests are too niche to be satisfied within a regional power grid.

Water is the only renewable energy source that isn't that much more complicated than coal.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

Richard Feynman

So, if, during the apocalypse, you have access to a means of passing on a message to the poor bastards who have to live in the New World, it should be this:

"Everything is made of atoms"

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Atomism existed for millenia before we investigated this possibilty to such a degree that we were able leverage that concept to change the world. Its goes back to the 8th century BCE in India and the 5th century BCE in Greece. In both cases, people engaged in it imaginatively and thinking was applied. But its reach was small and only effected a small group who weren't able to make a large societal impact.

Even in the 17th century, when there was a revival of interest in epicurean atomism, it was actively competing with corpulism. Hell, Mendelev, creator of the periodic table, didn't believe in atoms. That's sort of crazy to me!

Dalton, whose atomic weight was leveraged by Mendeleev and the rest rejected, posited what later became the basis of modern atomic theory. Einstein further developed this with Brownian motion describing how atoms effected the seemingly random movements of pollen. Perrin later verifies this experimentally in 1908.

So more than just the idea, it's the culture of inquiry, debate, skepticism, investigation, and, eventually, experimentation that is important. Not just the idea. I guess, if I were to preserve anything, it would be that culture. No sentence can do that. But people's radiance can.

* Disclaimer: this is a quick gloss of a long timeframe. A lot of details were omitted.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

nah, the idea that everything is made from atoms is not very useful for most practical applications. you can even build fully-functional wind turbines, lightning bulbs and probably even telegraph networks without ever understanding anything about atoms.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Fuck Ted Faro.

Periods mfer! Can you use one‽

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

My bet for climate change is a massive migrational crisis and wars over resources.

Humankind won't disappear, not even civilization. But life would probably be shit, and many many people will die.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Life isn't shit now? Life wasn't shit in the "good times"?

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

It may as well still get a bigger shit

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago

I think a lot will depend on whether nuclear wars break out but yeah, even in the worst case scenarios I don't see civilization dissappearing entirely. And honestly it all kinda makes sense to me. Nature has to regulate itself somehow. If one species becomes too dominant things get tipped out of balance. If you have an infection because an organism that is usually present in small numbers on your body has turned predatory and is growing beyond sustainable levels you develop a fever until things are back to normal. It's the alternative to dying. (Matrix Elrond had it right)

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 59 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

“The planet will be fine. We’re fucked.”

— St. Carlin

[–] Nay@feddit.nl 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

St. Carlin

100% . I love to see it!

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Him and Buddy Christ

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 64 points 3 days ago (6 children)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Its the nazi version of the shower

[–] baconmonsta@piefed.social 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Let the shower wash away your tears...

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I want a refund on this "no tears" baby shampoo. Didn't do a damn thing for my depression.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago

Misleading headline. I would wager that 100% of humans alive today will not survive, if we don't act quickly to resolve senescence.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The majority of humans won't survive the next 100 years, because almost nobody lives to be 100.

Do you mean that the majority of people currently alive will die due to climate change?
Do you mean that humanity's population will drop by over 50% and will not recover?
Do you mean that in the future, the majority of deaths will be due to climate change, even in 200 years from now when the new (much hotter) equilibrium will be all anyone has ever known?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think there will be a large decline in population numbers, but it should be through low birth rates and not through wars/famines. also, it will take probably a century or longer, and not happen within a few years.

we're facing extreme economic pressure in the next 5 years to successfully implement economic reforms (tax the rich, universal basic income) to be able to survive. but, as many people have pointed out already, UBI is ultimately only a bandaid solution, because it relies on political goodwill from activists fighting for the good cause, and that makes it questionable whether it can stay implemented un-interruptedly for very long times. so, population decline would make the society more resilient because people could demand higher wages, because there's lower supply of human labor, and that would be a long-term solution.

But would that really constitute "the vast majority of humans won't [survive]?"

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't understand what OP means by that claim.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.

FYI, http://collapseos.org/ is planning for this eventuality.

Sent from my TI-84+

[–] fdnomad@programming.dev 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When we experience and maybe survive the next mass extinction, its going to be vastly more difficult to reindustrialize / redigitalize even if knowledge persists because we've already extracted the most easily accessible materials from the earth and extracting resources is becoming increasingly difficult.

If you know how to build a battery but you cant build the machines to get the lithium, you just cant build a battery. But I suppose over time we'd find better ways to recycle.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (8 children)

No species lasts forever—and the faster their environment changes, the sooner their expiration date.

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

When faced with a changing environment, a species has 3 choices: Adapt, Migrate, or Die.

Humans have apparently decided to vault past the first two and just yank that third lever.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I mean, why do you say that? I don't know if any other species that lives in a greater variety of environments. There are humans living on every continent, including Antarctica. There are humans living with support in space and under the sea.

We have migrated, to everywhere. And we can adapt, to almost anything.

And to clarify, I don't think we'll all survive, but I highly doubt we'd all die.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] YknsNMo000@thelemmy.club 9 points 2 days ago

I don't care if I don't survive but I'm taking a couple of polluters with me lmao

[–] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Plus, we will hold on to some percentage of technical knowledge that will help us adapt faster.

You're running off the assumption that the survivors know useful information and that theyre also able to utilize that useful information plus be able to source needed materials since they wont have travel

Example: I know I need an antibiotic for my infection but I dont know how to create that antibiotic or how to guide someone on how to make it. If I did know id also have to get lucky that the region I live in has all the materials needed to make it. We source all around the world for our stuff.

Likely humanity will survive but probably wont advance as fast as you think.

[–] spizzat2@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

The available worlds looked pretty grim. They had little to offer him because he had little to offer them. He had been extremely chastened to realize that although he originally came from a world which had cars and computers and ballet and Armagnac, he didn't, by himself, know how any of it worked. He couldn't do it. Left to his own devices he couldn't build a toaster. He could just about make a sandwich and that was it.

-Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Arthur Dent realizes that he, as an individual, is pretty useless for improving a society, but he can make a damn fine sammie.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm pretty proud of myself as i believe i could at least build a water turbine to produce electricity and light bulbs, at least i know the building plans for them, but i lack the mechanical skills to actually weld together things. but a goldsmith could weld them for me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You're running off the assumption that the survivors know useful information and that theyre also able to utilize that useful information plus be able to source needed materials since they wont have travel

I think we're assuming books will continue to exist.

I think one of the real marvels of civilization is the redundancy of information. For every college course you've taken there's a text book, and there may have been dozens of physical copies of that book used in your class, but also for many other classes at other schools that taught that same subject. There may have been 10,000 copies of that book in circulation across the globe, in many different countries.

It's not impossible to lose information forever, but we've put in some really strong defenses against that really happening. There are a lot of libraries in coastal areas which could flood, or big cities that could burn after wars or riots. But there are also plenty of libraries in small towns, and at high elevations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Aspen has a public library for instance, and so do some of the small towns nearby that you don't know the name of.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Climate change is an ongoing process that takes decades to centuries. That's very fast as far as evolution and natural climactic shifts are concerned, but on a human scale long term. Given that it's not stopping within the lifespan of one person, and contributes to virtually every health problem in subtle ways, it'd seem a bit difficult to say if a given person has "survived it" or not, even if they live to an old age.

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 days ago (8 children)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding health and lifespan, but I think looking forward from 2025, things are quickly going to go off the rails. We've already been seeing severe problems resulting from climate change for years now, and I think that it's going to rapidly get worse within the next 5-10 years. I'm not talking about sea level rise (except in very vulnerable places that are already partially underwater, like Florida), but about intensifying weather disasters, droughts, and shocks to the global food supply. As a result of this, I think we will see more and more unrest as well as authoritarianism used to deal with that unrest. How quickly all this is going to decimate the population is anyone's guess.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Humanity will likely survive climate change.

I like your optimism, but I don't share it. We honestly don't know, one way or the other. What we do know is that human extinction in on the table and growing in probability. When I look at human actions as our cumulative knowlegde of these risks grew, well, I'm not exactly confident our species will make it.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

Some humans will survive but, with the state of the world today, I think we're already pretty close to losing our humanity.

[–] scott@lemmy.org 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Climate change is just the tip of the big white iceberg

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Yep. It doesn't count any of the other huge problems we're creating.

  • Our farming techniques deplete the land and turn it to desert
  • Over-fishing/hunting have led multiple animal populations on the brink of collapse. Even a small change could end it.
  • We're very close to depleting aquifers all over the globe. Once those are gone we don't have anything to drink or to water our crops.
  • We're poisoning the skies and waterways with toxic chemicals, plastics, and forever chemicals.
  • We're breeding antibiotic resistant germs and modern travel allows viruses to spread worldwide in hours/days

We're rushing towards our destruction in multiple ways. Any of those alone would result in massive deaths. And as resources get tighter, disputes and wars will break out over what's left.

All of these together will nearly certainly lead to our destruction. And this is going to start hitting hard within 5-10 years.

[–] scott@lemmy.org 5 points 2 days ago

I said the same thing 5 years ago and guess what? It's already hitting hard. Look at America right now, just black bagging people off the street.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›