RSS
“We believe that the damage done to the ocean in the last 20 years is somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent, which is a frightening figure. And this damage carries on at very high speed — to the Indian Ocean, to the Red Sea, to the Mediterranean, to the Atlantic. … Everywhere around the world the coral reefs are disappearing at a very great rate, to such an extent we are not sure we will see anything like what we know now.”
Jacques Cousteau wrote these words in 1971, for an New York Times op-ed titled “Our Oceans Are Dying.”
No one listened.
No one cared.
No one did anything. So now, as Cousteau warned us would happen, our oceans are finished.
More than 90% of coral reefs on Earth will be dead in the next 25 years. What if we did … something? No. Reef extinction is irreversible, even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases right this second.
Ninety-six percent of all ocean life, fish big and small and everything that swims, will be gone as well. There’s nothing we can do to save them.
The cause is obvious and well known: rapid and extreme global warming caused by humans, pollution and overhunting. We don’t have to look far to see that the ocean is boiling: at this writing, water temperatures off the Florida Keys have reached 97 F. Caribbean waters are normally 82 F all year round. The surprise isn’t that 96% of the ocean life is doomed; it’s that 4% may not be.
It will be soon.
Ironically, all this heat is about to start a new Ice Age. A new study concludes that there is a 95% chance that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a system of ocean currents including the Gulf Stream that carry warm water from the tropics into the North Atlantic will collapse between 2025 and 2095 because it is being blocked by cold water dumped into the northern part of the ocean from melting glaciers and ice caps. Without the AMOC, as soon as two years from now and no later than 70, Europe will be buried under sheets of ice, like in the disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Bummer. I liked Europe.
Several years ago, flying west from Istanbul to New York, my plane’s pilot announced that he and his colleagues could see that the Gulf Stream was breaking down — and had been for some time. As a result, we’d arrive earlier than scheduled. He explained why this was scary. He urged us to write our congressmen. I wonder if anyone on board did. I didn’t. What would have been the point? Congress doesn’t care or help or act.
In a natural-disaster movie like “2012” or “Armageddon,” the world’s political and business leaders gather in a blue-lit situation room chock full of computer screens displaying cool infographics, some in business attire, others in exotic garb, all wearing somber holy-crap expressions as the camera pans around. Someone, either the United Nations Secretary General or the U.S. president (these are American movies), calls on nations to drop everything, set aside their differences and dedicate all their resources and attention to the existential crisis of climate change, the worst threat — by far — that humanity has ever faced.
Because this is a film, where politicians are sometimes evil but never total idiots, everyone nods in agreement, rolls up their sleeves and gets to work to save humanity.
(In the European version of this film, we all die in the end after waging a valiant and noble struggle.)
Actual politics, however, are not as logical or commonsensical as movies. Young people like the activist Greta Thunberg are, quite reasonably, appalled at the mess they’ve inherited thanks to decades of dithering: “Pretty much nothing has been done since the global emissions of CO2 has not reduced,” Thunberg told a 2020 climate conference. “(I)f you see it from that aspect, what has concretely been done, if you see it from a bigger perspective, basically nothing.”
I ask my smart friends why we’re so stupid. “It’s all about money,” they usually say, more or less. “Business and rich individuals profit from the current system.” But that doesn’t make sense. There’ll be no economy if we’re all dead. You can’t enjoy your wealth if you’re dead. Being dead, all of us as a result of environmental catastrophe, is a distinct possibility — for our grandchildren, our children, even for precious Us.
And yet — my smart friends are right. Capitalist idiots are so moronically capitalist that they’d rather be rich and dead than middle class and alive. The rest of us, the non- and anti-capitalist people who neither benefit from ecocide nor approve of it, are letting the greedy lunatics take us with them. We are, precisely because we believed Jacques Cousteau and did nothing to act or to react or to resist, even dumber than they are.
Darwin wins again.
Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I’m glad you’re admitting that it’s too late to “save the planet”. Hopefully now you can just shut up about it instead of whining about a foregone conclusion. What did you do, Ted, to help avert planetary disaster? Did you give up on dreams of consumerism and home ownership? Did you drive and fly less or not at all? Did you only eat local foods? Did you eschew electricity? Did you bisect your vas deferens? Or did you merely bitch about how much political and economic power you needed to set things right?
According to scientists, the oceans are rising about 3 mm per year – almost 4 inches since 1992. Climate change has been a constant for the last 4 billion years on Earth, the climate has never been static, so the worst you can accuse humanity of is changing the climate faster than normal.
What are the consequences of anthropogenic climate change? The worst consequence would be humanity losing its current way of life. Don’t tell me to cry about all the innocent plants and animals, when every previous mass extinction has led to a new aeon of evolutionary development and diversity. If humanity does kill itself and cause a mass extinction, the planet Earth is just going to have a party. Life is the product of mutation and memory, plain and simple. The idea that we can or should live in a world without change is foolish. The prophets of climate change have been asking us to give up our way of life anyway. It’s a classic lose lose situation.
Although TBH our modern way of life is deeply nasty. We waste, pollute, destroy, steal, and kill for profit. Our trajectory is unsustainable. But who exactly is asking us to yield our political and economic power in the name of saving the Earth? It is our government itself, the party most guilty for water and pollution in the first place. It is our Zionist government, which has had an ulterior motive for world domination since the publication of the Jewish Bible in 250 BC. It is the Jews and their Christian and secular allies, all in some way claiming that a violent, hateful, and inauthentic prophecy is somehow beyond reproach. “Tikkun Olam”, they say. But the Jews only want to “repair the world” because their demented and impotent “G-d” promised to destroy it for them first.
In fact, a close reading of Isaiah suggests that the wrath of YHWH on judgment day will render the Earth practically lifeless. Nature must come to an end before the reign of Zion can be fulfilled. How can the lion lie down with the lamb, unless the world as we know it is utterly ruined? We can observe the Zionist lust for prophecy. Whose to say that these people have not deliberately corrupted the Earth only in order to offer themselves as a final solution?
I do believe that many things in life are unstoppable. Zionism is not one of them.
bummer, i liked europe….that explains everything. let’s look at the bright side ted, a mountain of ice, scraping manhattan clean into the atlantic ocean, what’s not to like about that? hell ted, it’s the ice age that made whitey so much smarter than everyone else, here’s a chance to get back to the roots of our culture. in addition this will solve the rising levels of the oceans, no more waterworld (where the hell did kevin costner buy his jet skis anyway?).
The problem is the rich old coots have a short time frame. They are all dead in 20 years anyway. That is the same logic supporting all outsourcing of US jobs in manufacturing. The folks that made money in the 80s and 90s are all enjoying their leisure in the 00s and 10s and 20s. I don’t care about the market in 20 years, I care about the profit today. Democracy always fails because the time frame is the next election. Dynastic monarchy is the best political system for two reasons: (1) it is always aligned with the people (or the king loses his head) and (2) it is always thinking one or even two generations ahead.
clown world
If you want to completely control people with propaganda, you can’t actually inspire them, you must demoralize them. Demoralization is the new state religion. Adherents will believe that they are hopeful and optimistic and progressive. But all their beliefs will be rooted in paranoia and fear and guilt. Wait, I have just described Judeo Christianity as well! Anthropogenic global warming is an outgrowth of original sin.
You need to read more dystopian SF. Humans are like cockroaches. We will survive.
If the planet gets too hot, we will build and move into domed cities or underground cities where we can better control the environment. Or we will build space stations and move to them. Or will move to new homes on the Moon or Mars or in the Asteroid belt. Or travel to other stars for a new start, even if it takes hundreds or thousands of years of travel time on huge generation ships, perhaps built out of asteroids.
Query ChatGPT for reading recommendations.
Won’t the coral reefs just move north? And south? Along with humanity? Look on the bright side, the tundra in Russia and Canada will become fertile, viable farm land. The CO2 will cause plant life to flourish.
Water, evaporating from the oceans, condensing as clouds, falling as rain, has a far greater effect on climate than CO2. Think how much energy is absorbed and given off in the phase shifts of vast quantities of oceanic water as it transitions from liquid to vapor and back again. That’s the main event.
Forgive me if I file your Gore-like predictions in the shithole where yours (and his) belong.
The coral reefs are not dying, the polar bears are not dying, the ….
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
by Dr. Patrick Moore (Author)
Educate yourself, moron.
If one believes that CO2 is an issue. Then addressing the #1 emitter is the obvious starting point. What nation is building new coal plants and increasing consumption?
Yep. China. Another large population nation, India, is also ramping up CO2 emissions. America can achieve diddly squat by crippling our economy to achieve reductions that are less than increases elsewhere.
Wind and solar are largely a scam. It is about transferring wealth from workers to the elites. It is not about cutting emissions. If the need was real, the push would have been for clean, safe, & inexpensive nuclear power (e.g. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Factors [LFTR]).
PEACE 😇
Iit is understandable why the elites in America will keep on voting for the Establishment until the temperature in California hits 150 degrees F. during the daytime – yes the elites would rather depopulate the Earth rather than have to live as middle-class (they have a form of idiocy all of their own).
But what about America’s remaining middle-class and working poor lower-class – why don’t they think about Socialism – voting for a sensible, sharing society would make so much more sense than to continue voting for the Rule by the Rich.
China has shown the way – 1.4 Billion Chinese cannot be wrong. 100,000 greedy, Jews running America are damned-sure wrong.
LOL dude, the tem most polluting rivers in the world are in Asia. So blame Whitey?
Human-caused global warming? Are you suddenly brain-dead?
The Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support.
https://iowaclimate.org/2021/07/23/what-climate-disaster-the-great-barrier-reef-has-more-coral-growing-on-it-than-ever-recorded/
Clearly, the best political system is the one where I’m in charge.
The day I hear climate alarmists advocating for us to ditch our cell phones, computers, TVs, etc. in an effort to reduce energy consumption (and reduce the need for mining components to build them — also requiring large amounts of energy expenditure), is the day I will believe that climate change is a real emergency.
I fell for Gore’s alarmism hook, line, and sinker back in the day. Then I had the audacity to notice that he wasn’t actually working to bring about change that would fix the problem. His solution was a ponzi scheme called carbon trading. It did jack squat to fix the problem but it certainly was a good hustle for those chicken littles who had the chutzpah to tell us the sky was falling.
We allowed corporations to offshore manufacturing to avoid the environmental regulations we put in place. Good luck finding stuff to buy that was locally produced. Instead, we ship raw materials, wage slaves create the goods and pollute the world in the process, and then we ship them back over here. We lost jobs and killed the environment in the process, but the Dems were MIA in fighting to keep jobs and control over the environmental impact of manufacturing. Clinton supported NAFTA after all. Perot was right about that giant sucking sound.
The answer isn’t to make all the plebs live like it’s 1599 while the rich continue to jet set. Even the climate alarmists fly in on private jets to meet about the problem instead of having a more eco-friendly zoom meeting. The average climate alarmist wouldn’t even give up their iPhone to save the planet (or even demand that those slaves in the factory making their phones get better working conditions), so they really shouldn’t act like they are morally superior.
Tweeting about it while being major consumers of every latest fad isn’t the same thing as actually working to correct the problem. Until I see them making sacrifices and reducing consumption, I won’t be lectured about it.
Q. The early 21st century wars that shattered Iraq and Libya and Syria etc. were caused by:
a. Anthropogenic global warming?
b. The international community’s rightful impatience to provide democracy for all?
c. Jewish lightning?
p.s. Nations rise and fall, white elephants and white bears come and go. But the central banks and masters of media are, like the sun and moon, eternal. Or so they will have you believe.
Fifth element; mud; said Napoleon
With Usura has no man a good house
made of stone, no paradise on his church wall
With usura the stone cutter is kept from his stone…
Usury rusts the man and his chisel
It destroys the craftsman, destroying craft…
Usury kills the child in its womb
And breaks short the young man’s courting
Usury brings age into youth; it lies between the bride
and the bridegroom
Usury is against nature’s increase…
sang Geryone; I am the help of the aged;
I pay men to talk peace;
Mistress of many tongues; merchant of chalcedony
I am [Dante’s] Geryon twin with usura
– Ezra Pound, Canto LI (parts)
Yes, there is overhunting and gross abuse of marine life and there is horrible pollution in the oceans caused by humanoids. But explain please, what you do mean by “climate change”?
Has it been defined or is something like the “rules based international order”, concocted as we go?
If not, then please explain how the “little ice age” came about? This was a period of cold weather between roughly 1350 AD and 1860 AD. Granted, this period of time is small fraction of the time span of recorded history, itself an infinitesimal fraction of time in the fleeting moment of human inhabitation of the planet.
During the “little ice age”, the world experienced extremely cold winters and that could also be called “climate change” (or?).
And man had nothing to contribute to those cold winters, some of them so cold that rabbits froze to death in their warrens.
Yes, there is a phenomenon of climate change observed within our short life spans. What has not been established is if man had any thing to do with it.
Now pollution is something else. There is the pollution of plastics, of nuclear radiation caused by man’s nuclear experiments, there is pollution of gases issued by factories and vehicles including ships and airplanes, and that pollution is highly obnoxious and detrimental to life on earth. But there is no evidence that human fouling up of the planet causes the global temperature to increase.
Ah, yes, the fraudulently self-righteous global boiling rhetorico-bullshit.
I read about the global cooling bullshit thanks to CO2, 45 years ago now, more or less. You people never understood either basic biochemistry or terrestrial thermodynamic systems. You never let that stand in the way of screaming that the sky was falling.
After that it was the global warming and ozone depletion BS. Let’s add false color to a map that is portraying a 3% annual difference in the ozone layer, over the pole where no one lives, and is smaller than the normal ~5% extreme variation every decade BEFORE this, so that it looks black and there’s “a total hole in the ozone layer that will destroy us all”. That wasn’t a fucking mistake, you c***s lied about that shit on purpose. Same for the global warming and intentionally fraudulent data collections, cherry picking, simulation fixing, and of course only quoting the few, the proud, the sociopathic, grant hungry, Malthusian, eco liars even after we KNOW they’re been outed as fraudsters.
“Oh no your waste plastic will last 1000 years and choke all the turtles and fishes to death!” Meanwhile in reality, one year of UV exposure vs plastic > “polycarbons delenda est!”
Oh no oil spills! (Sucks to be local, but the wider planet doesn’t care at all, as seen in the fact that it DID THIS TO ITSELF with natural wells and/or volcanics before we ever came along).
Oh no deforestation! (In third world countries to make room for farm land, meanwhile logging companies had been replanting in order to re-harvest later for decades already in developed countries). Forest fires are a myth! No fo ever burned down before even though the pre-European Americans recorded nearly continent-wide forest fires on multiple occasions.
Oh no water pollution! (The closest to a real problem… sometimes. Until the scammers caught wind of it and diluted the actual periodic and local problems with their bullshit supernova.)
Oh no save the umpteenth species of spotted tailfeather river owl even though it’s the exact same species as the millions of others, I’ll pretend it’s different by looking at tiny cosmetics!
Now it’s climate change, because the climate naturally changes all the time and we effectively don’t know jack, so it’s impossible to disprove other than by looking at the history OF YOU FREAKING PARANOID OR PATHOLOGICALLY LYING C***S WITH A NEW “Oh noes we’re destroying the planet, so give us all the grants, and our political benefactors all the power, so we can fix it by shutting down and/or ass-r***-taxing the contributing companies to our political rivals, and still threaten our own contributors so that they have to keep donating!”
The reality is you shitters care LESS about the problem than the average person you call a climate denialist. That poor “denialist” actually has a shred of doubt in his mind due to you incessantly gaslighting fucks. You on the other hand do not. You don’t give a damn and could not POSSIBLY care less even if what you were saying were true. The only utility of truth to you evil freaks is if it contributes to seizing all power, killing all humans, and padding your own pockets, pick your poison cocktail of personal drives.
I refuse to permit that you might be mistaken, deluded, paranoid, or confused. Your sort persist far too long to retain any of those merciful initial assumptions. You f***ing aren’t, you’re just malicious f***ing liars preying upon the naïve. Burning at the stake was exactly the appropriate historical cure for your sort, and probably overly merciful.
Holy hell the reproduceability crisis in modern “scientific research”. They think it’s bad what they’ve already uncovered now, they haven’t scratched the iceberg on top of the real iceberg yet, that goes over two centuries deep.
Friendly reminder that “Astrology” is the logical first-choice name for what we now call “Astronomy”. Why? BECAUSE OF FREAKISH LYING F***WADS JUST LIKE YOU WHO TOOK IT OVER. The name had to be abandoned by anyone with a thread of scruples left. So will go much of the rest of modern “Scientia”, if not the word entire.
I’m done. The answer is NO AND GO FUCK YOURSELF, and if you won’t shut the f*** up, you will be shut up by external factors, and you have no right to complain about how brutally or cruelly that is accomplished.
If we go on as we are, doing nothing, what’s going to happen? Is our country going to turn into a barren, dessicated lunar landscape? Really? Do you think so? Have you ever flown to Las Vegas, and looked out the window, and seen what lies below? It looks to me like it’s already happened to million of acres (whether human-caused or not), but do we give a damn? Hell no! Or else we’d do something about it, wouldn’t we? You’ve heard the saying “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” Well, a lot of us – those born in this country during the Truman administration, let’s say – are in this sense refugees from a foreign land. We grew up and formed our opinions when this was a “can-do” nation, when we had vision and ambition to undertake massive projects to benefit ourselves and all our foreseeable posterity. Now we’re the great global, historic paradigm of “can’t do.” There’s no grand project to improve the human (and animal) habitability of the Earth that wouldn’t be tied up by decades of obstructionist environmentalist wrangling. The foreign land that we’re occupying in our declining years is almost unrecognizable in many ways, this being one of them.
An example of what I’m talking about is the notion entertained during the 1950’s of building a giant pipeline to raise Great Lakes water over the continental divide and discharge it into the headwaters of the Colorado. All those millions of gallons of fresh water flowing down the St. Lawrence river, to be blended with salt water, are going to waste, are they not? Will a massive new outflow from the Lakes depress the water level? I hope so. You’ve heard the saying “real estate is always a good investment – after all, they don’t make it any more.” Well, we can. Millions of acres of land, representing a new frontier, could be created. It would be at the expense of corresponding acres of surface water, but – if you see water extending to the horizon, and travel to the horizon, and see it still extending to the horizon, and do that a few times, isn’t there a point where all that water seems redundant? Meanwhile, while we dither, the water table in the Southwest drops lower and lower, until inevitably there must come a day when all wells start to draw dust.
There are a lot of similar examples I could adduce – for example, there was “Operation Plowshare” to use nuclear bombs to blow a few key peaks off mountains in the Cascade Range to bring more rain to eastern Washington. I’m not saying these are all good ideas. That could be determined only by engineering analysis and a national discussion of priorities. But as it stands, if there be a nation on Earth with the vision to undertake grand projects, it must be China, and if it be true that “Without vision, a people perishes,” we look like a bunch of perishers destined to disappear from the world stage of significant actors (and perhaps pretty soon).
During Oscar Wilde’s American tour in 1882, do you know how he responded to a reporter’s request for his impression of Niagara Falls? “The wonder would be if it didn’t fall.” Well, the same reply pertains to climate change: the wonder would be if it didn’t warm. You’ve heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, right? The fourth-power formula allowing a calculation of the equilibrium air and surface temperatures, given knowledge of solar output and the thermal absorption profile of the earth’s blanket of atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
This is the fundamental law underlying all predictions of climate change resulting from changes of atmospheric composition. It’s been known since the late 1880’s and is not in dispute. And if I mock the global warming hysteria (as I do) I’m sure to be called a “climate change denier,” and just what is it that I deny? It sure isn’t the credibility of Max Planck or Herman Boltzmann, two great physicists of unimpeachable authority. What I do say is that, since the 1890’s, when Lord Rayleigh published estimates of the infrared absorption characteristics of CO2, water and other common greenhouse gases, it has been virtually a trivial task to generate a first-order approximation of future global temperature as a function of atmospheric concentration, using nothing more than a pocket calculator, slide rule, or table of logarithms. By “first order” is meant everything else, like cloud coverage and reflectivity, etc. are assumed to remain unchanged. And the accuracy of the results, compared against reality could be called “not too bad.” It might miss the increase the increase of high-altitude cloud reflectivity, and consequent suppression of surface temperature rise resulting from coal usage in the mid-20th century (If I have this right. I’m not an authority), but those simple calculations would have prompted action if considered alarming. But the numbers didn’t prompt a sense or urgency, if they were noticed at all. So if there hasn’t been any news in all that time (and there hasn’t) then why are we running around in a mood of mounting crisis and hysteria now, but not earlier? Well, I’ve got an answer that I’ll sketch very tersely.
You’ve seen those big fancy buildings scattered all over the earth with crosses, crescents etc. atop them? Churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc.? The religious impulse has been a primary driver of civilization for quite a few millennia now, and it still exists, and in forms that are essentially stable. There’s still a notion of innate depravity. Before, coming from Eve’s disobedience in the Garden, but now, the subject of two computing doctrines: the original sin of racism, and the original sin of environmental despoliation. At this moment, the EPA is working to merge and reconcile them within the concept of “environmental justice.” Likewise, there still are theories of penance and atonement and justification, and the word “sanctimonious” has a freshly invigorated significance. I’m sure the driver of an electric vehicle draws great satisfaction from knowledge that his exhaust don’t stink.
Anyhow, what I’m saying is that environmentalism involves some of the most important scientific issues of our time, but the science is not that of meteorology or physics or anything that’s usually assumed. It’s theology, or comparative religion, or ethnology, or psychology of mass movements, or something along those lines. The issues need to be resolved by whatever means are appropriate to religious disagreements, not by wasteful, cultish and technologically semi-literate engineering fixes.
There’s no “climate crisis”, and repeatedly claiming there is, only serves to devalue real environmental problems like pollution of rivers and soil degradation. Ironically, the same people who’d have us worry about the climate, still want to flood our countries with immigrants to keep the house prices going up, so they can extract more financial rent. Fuck em.
Quoting the always cheerful Lydia Lunch: “It’s time to stop complaining, quit your crying, and embrace the coming horror.”
Outlaw government by force, if a political arena exists let it be voluntary.
ChatGPT?
I avoid it, after briefly playing because
a, it’s blinkered and
b, it’s a ‘you are the product situation’. Use it, and though humans with vile opinions will filter the parts allowed to train it, you become part of the training set.
Also your reference to ‘dystopian’ is incorrect.
Most works on the themes you describe are pure fantasy.
Arthur C. Clarke tried in his novel The Songs of Distant Earth to write a realistic novel including light-year space flight.
It relies on three points that are far from solution.
a. The quantum drive, proposed by Seike Shinichi in 1969, it seems a realistic idea, but there has been no progress on it since.
b. Long-term suspended animation. Some small progress on this point, but only in relation to surgery, and only very short-term.
c. The damage incurred by cosmonauts or astronauts or taikonauts in 0-g conditions, even in LEO, makes any form of b impossible in such (0-g) conditions. Countering the damage requires hours of physical activity, not possible in the state of b.
Parts of the great Japanese comic 2001 Nights are similar, and since it only relies on robotic help to establish the people (as does Clarke in the pre-Earth contact part of his novel), seems plausible.
Most SF is pure fantasy. I used to read much, in both Japanese and English, the latter more varied.
There was a style in SF in English language that became popular, not so much dystopian as anti-human. Some funny, most interesting but unpleasant. Many stories of tearing the Earth apart to make space colonies, or people altered to live in heavily polluted environments.
Another trend was ‘mundane SF’, stories written with the aim of staying in the bounds of current reality except on points b and c that I mention above. Many good tales.
I stopped reading and buying after third-rate fantasy with a queer gender agenda became totally dominant, at least where I was able to buy publications in Tokyo. Shot in own foot on the part of the publishers. I would be sure that they lost many more on their home ground in the same way.
I still love to read, but got tired of reading third-rate queer takes on LoTR.
I can see nobody I may vote for and have no right to vote there, so it is funny.
I don’t know about what is available in Tokyo but there are a virtually unlimited amount of SF books available through Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble, etc. plus libraries.
I’ve probably read over 1000 SF books in my life. Everyone’s taste is different. These days, I prefer complex galaxy wide space operas in the far future with plenty of aliens but will read other SF variations.
For example, here’s a sophisticated dystopian SF novel I recently completed that you might enjoy as it doesn’t tick any of the boxes you say you don’t like. Bonus, it’s by a former Nobel prize winning author and the writing is wonderful. While the Amazon blurb says the book is about a possible AI future, I believe it is much deeper than that and AI is just a vehicle for the underlying message the author wants to communicate.
Something else I recently came across that looks interesting is this book. It is on my list to read now: