I assume you are referring to climate change here. (maybe you have set omething else in mind?)

While climate change is super-important, and we absolutely need to do whatever we can to negate it, it is not a threat to global civilization.

Even if the effects of climate change are orders of magnitude worse than we expect, the planet most suitable for human life will remain Earth. Because, um, we can breathe the air, drink the water and the temperature is within the ranges we easily tolerate. (not to even get into issues of magnetic fields etc)

Will the earth of the future support 7 billion people? Probably yes, possibly no, but whatever number it does support will forever dwarf the people living in venus or mars.

Will our "civilisation" look different 50 years from now? Undoubtedly yes. But it's radically changed in the last 50,100 and 150. Certainly those times counted as civilised did they not?

There will be civilisations on earth for a long long time (baring nuclear anialation) - our adaptability (think Sahara /Siberia) is, if anything, a little too aggressive.

Climate change is not a threat to local civilization, but is a very definite threat to global civilization. 30-50 years may be radically over-optimistic.

Worldwide, governments are responding to the crisis in almost perfectly maladaptive ways. As hundreds of millions of refugees are barely beginning take flight, fascist governments are arising to keep them out of temperate zones, tending ultimately toward global war. Certainly, pockets will survive, but global civilization, as such, is much less secure.

> I think the fact that we may only have 30-50 years' worth of human civilization left on Earth is a competitive advantage for both other planets.

We're centuries away from self-sustaining colonies on either Venus or Mars, so if your timeline was right, that's be a reason not to bother with either.

Why do we only have 30-50 years of civilization left on Earth? I haven't heard of anything that would make the planet uninhabitable on such a short timescale.

This isn't crazy talk:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-ci...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steffen

From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593... :

> This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970–2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century. The data do not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular importance of understanding and controlling global pollution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/30/environm...

And even if you agree with that Venus and Mars are like literal hellscapes in comparison to what the earth would be like in that situation.

It’s not crazy talk, but it’s understandably hard to believe or follow. You being downvoted so hard is disheartening. Still, as we speak, civilization is undergoing a massive shift towards renewable energy and sustainable policies. Our capitalist world order is so stable some people (who were admittedly wrong) called it “the end of history”. Topics like cutting working hours are more common I think. And the birth rate is halving itself. Just some thoughts. The strong, dire language of these articles makes it sound like a done deal anyway.

Hearing statements like this make a lot of people deny Climate Change is happening at all.

Is this in reference to a new apocalypse religion?

Yes