Yeah, I’m not a big fan of the “don’t build data centers here, build them there” conclusion of the report. I see no reason why we should be allowing these monstrosities to be built in the first place, they’re a total waste of essential resources.

I don’t see the AI bubble burst affecting people to the same degree; I think it’ll wipe out a lot of investment portfolios, but non tech-sector jobs should be safe. I think it’s useful to have some essentials on hand, but I wouldn’t go on a buying spree if that means draining my savings; I’d rather have the flexibility of money. If it comes down to survival and you don’t have savings, you could preemptively apply for lines of credit, use those to cover living expenses, and declare bankruptcy once they’re wrung out. Not financial advice, but it’s an effective stopgap.

You’re catching downvotes, but according to Google Trends, searches for “gold price” and “ai bubble” are positively correlated, and there’s plenty of historic precedent for people flocking to “safe haven” assets when the markets nosedive. Gold went up by 30% from Jan-Sep 2020 (COVID), and nearly doubled in value between 2007 and 2009 (housing crisis), although it did take a dip before rebounding during the dotcom bubble (2000-2003).

That said, I would recommend keeping a significant portion of your money in an HYSA as precious metals are subject to large fluctuations in price and markets don’t always behave rationally.

This is all great stuff to have on hand, but not relevant for OP’s question. They’re wondering how to prepare for the equivalent of the dotcom burst or the 2008 recession, not a grid-down scenario.

If you’d bought silver (or silver ETFs) a few months ago you would have made a whole bunch of money, and society hasn’t ended yet.

Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere

Yes, that’s a good thing.

(another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).

Race doesn’t enter into it. If we accept that we crossed into overshoot over 50 years ago, then any birth rate above replacement is ultimately unsustainable.

Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.

Energy consumption is the measure. It’s a direct reflection of the degree to which our lifestyles impact our environment. People seem to have this idea that the only real issue with industrial civilization is that it runs primarily on a fuel that destabilizes our atmosphere, and that if we could simply transition away from this fuel (to solar/wind/nuclear/fusion) we’d be on our way to utopia.

But let’s consider what we direct all that energy towards: first, we use it to harvest massive amounts of natural resources, degrading and destroying the environment in the process. (Mining, logging, farming, fishing, etc.) We then transform those natural resources into towns and cities, which pave over and fragment the natural environment in which they’re built. We transform them into consumer goods (cars, electronics, plastics, clothing, etc.), the vast majority of which end up as waste in less than a decade. We transform them into all manner of industrial chemicals, many of which end up becoming individual ecological disasters of their own.

Transitioning to a “clean” form of energy does nothing to address what we do with it. Living sustainably requires drastically downscaling our total ecological footprint.

But the famous director gets hundreds of thousands every year to make shitty movies nobody sees, because that one time 20 years ago he did something good.

To be fair, this is also how it works in Hollywood.

We are not over capacity at all

We’re in a state of ecological overshoot, defined as a population consuming more resources than its environment can replenish. At its simplest, overshoot is a function of individual consumption x total population.

The Global Footprint Network calculates that we crossed this line in 1971, when both our global population (3.8B) and individual energy consumption (15.8kWh) were far lower than they are today (8.2B and 21.7kWh, respectively). Consider also that population is both a cause and effect of energy consumption.

the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.

You’re referring to CO2 emissions here (and it’s actually closer to 60%), but there are many other symptoms of overshoot. Habitat loss, species extinctions, overharvesting of resources, and other forms of pollution (industrial, particulate, trash) are huge problems in less wealthy nations. In South America, for example, we’ve seen a 95% loss of wildlife species over the past 50 years. The planetary boundaries framework is helpful for looking at overshoot more holistically, instead of focusing solely on emissions (although that’s important too).

In wealthy nations, populations are declining but consumption is unsustainable. In poorer nations, individual consumption is low but population growth is unsustainable. Only by reducing both do we have a hope of living equitably on this planet.

If people think it’s a bubble, then it’s a bubble! (Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Google Trends is a decent gauge of public sentiment. That said, the fundamentals are pretty flawed too.

True, but consider that a huge amount of retail investors’ portfolios are tied to the S&P 500/NASDAQ. Think retirement savings, IRAs, 401(k)s, pensions, etc. Then consider that the entire market is effectively propped up by AI right now (see: The entire stock market is being carried by these four AI stocks). If the market gets a 60% correction, it’s going to be the middle class losing their shirts all over again.

She’s on the roof!

Seems like you’d just lift up the mattress like they did for this picture.

There’s no such thing as a “Republican state,” nearly every state is split somewhere between 51/49 and 60/40. There are “Republican-run states,” but inside every Republican-run state is a “Democrat-run city” which has been a convenient narrative for Republicans of late. Houston’s mayor is a Democrat, and Harris county has more registered Democrats than Republicans; in 2024 metro Houston voted for Kamala over Trump.

Whether Abbot or Whitmire is more to blame for Houston’s violence is just a political distraction. Both bear some responsibility and I’m tired of both sides running finger-pointing narratives rather than trying to find constructive solutions.

I got banned from r/Sustainability for saying I was in favor of lowering birthrates. (Cue the accusations of eco-fascism and eugenics, rather than any meaningful discussion.)

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe governments should have the power to dictate our ability to give birth, that’s immediately dystopian. But we need to acknowledge that overshoot is a function of population x per-capita consumption, and we can’t just look at one side of that equation.

Carbon Brief published a great article on this subject: Q&A: What does deep-sea mining mean for climate change and biodiversity loss? Some takeaways on its impacts:

• A 2020 study stated that “scientific misconceptions are likely leading to miscalculations of the environmental impacts of deep-seabed mining”. It added that the disturbance from a single mining operation “could easily be” up to four times larger than its direct mining footprint, affecting up to 32,000 square kilometres over 20 years.
• The potential cost of restoring damage to deep-sea ecosystems could be “astronomical”, according to a report by Planet Tracker, a not-for-profit thinktank.
• A 2022 UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEPFI) briefing paper saw “no foreseeable way” in which the financing of deep-sea mining could be consistent with a sustainable blue economy. It called on investors to instead “focus efforts” on reducing “the environmental footprint of terrestrial mining” and “support the transition toward a circular economy” to make current mineral demand “obsolete”.
• A 2023 study found that deep-sea mining “is unlikely to resolve the sustainability challenges in the conventional mining sector” and any environmental impacts avoided on land “would be at the expense of economic benefits in mining-reliant” developing countries.

Deep-sea mining can also harm marine organisms that are crucial for climate regulation – those that store carbon in the seabed or produce oxygen in the deep ocean.

• A 2024 study found that polymetallic nodules may be responsible for producing oxygen at the seafloor in the CCZ. The authors said that this oxygen production could be critical for sustaining life at the seafloor.
• A 2025 Nature study provided a rare insight into some of the lasting impacts that mining can cause. It focused on a 1979 mining experiment in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. During the 1979 test, a mining machine drove grooves into the seafloor. These furrows, which were almost one metre deep and up to three metres wide, looked much the same after 44 years. These impacts are consistent with findings in other surveys of mined test sites.

Seafloor mining vehicles emit toxic plumes of sediments that can impact marine life in the midwaters, from reducing their ability to communicate and causing physiological stress, to forcing species to migrate. Species that could be impacted include sharks, dolphins, whales, squid, fish, shrimp, copepods and jellyfish.

We all have different roles to play. I’m here for the fight, but I have a few friends who are fleeing to Europe right now. I can understand both choices.