Many now argue that we should think about the previously unthinkable risks of climate change, including societal collapses and human extinction. Calamitous images of the future are not pathological or counterproductive: it is both necessary and valuable to imagine the worst-case scenarios of climate change. Critics of climate catastrophe often group together all visions of disastrous futures under labels like doomism or pessimism. This is unhelpful and greater nuance is required. We need to distinguish between climate doomists (who see catastrophe as imminent and unavoidable) and climate risk realists (who see catastrophe as one potential future that should be avoided). We also need to split apart the different ways of envisioning climate catastrophe to understand their distinct strengths and weaknesses. We outline and compare three alternative modes of viewing the worst-case scenarios of climate change: foresight, agitation, and fiction. The first centers on modeling catastrophic climate scenarios, the second on the use of images of climate catastrophe for political action, and the third on fictional visions of future climate disasters. These different approaches are complementary and should be better integrated to create more comprehensive models of the future. All of them would benefit from viewing the future as uncertain, reflecting on the social position of the author, and guarding against the authoritarian “stomp reflex” that can be induced by discussions of crisis and emergency.

中文翻译：

---

气候灾难：设想气候变化最坏情况的价值

许多人现在认为，我们应该考虑以前无法想象的气候变化风险，包括社会崩溃和人类灭绝。对未来的灾难性想象并不是病态的，也不是适得其反的：想象气候变化的最坏情况既是必要的，也是有价值的。气候灾难的批评者经常将所有灾难性未来的愿景归结为末日论或悲观主义等标签。这是没有帮助的，需要更多的细微差别。我们需要区分气候末日主义者（他们认为灾难迫在眉睫且不可避免）和气候风险现实主义者（他们认为灾难是应该避免的潜在未来）。我们还需要区分设想气候灾难的不同方式，以了解它们独特的优点和缺点。我们概述并比较了看待气候变化最坏情况的三种替代模式：远见、煽动和虚构。第一个中心是对灾难性气候情景进行建模，第二个中心是利用气候灾难图像进行政治行动，第三个中心是对未来气候灾难的虚构愿景。这些不同的方法是互补的，应该更好地整合以创建更全面的未来模型。他们所有人都将受益于将未来视为不确定，反思作者的社会地位，并防范因危机和紧急情况的讨论而引发的独裁“跺脚反射”。