<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>ClimateChange on emsenn.net</title><link>https://emsenn.net/tags/climatechange/</link><description>Recent content in ClimateChange on emsenn.net</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 19:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://emsenn.net/tags/climatechange/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>2026-03-04, 1948h, On Collapse as a Regime of Constraint</title><link>https://emsenn.net/blog/2026-03-04-1948h/</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2026 19:48:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://emsenn.net/blog/2026-03-04-1948h/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I was reviewing my research today and realized that collapse, itself, is underdeveloped as a concept, given how important collapse is to current living, and my life specifically. There are two ways I use it: the common way of referring to climate collapse, the less common way of referring to a certain part of governance in &lt;a href="../../../sociology/schools/cybernetic-postliberalism/index.md" class="link-internal"&gt;cybernetic postliberalism&lt;/a&gt;, and then, as a specific sort of relational phenomenon. Which begs the question, are those actually one phenomenon in different places? If I think about what is true across all of them, it&amp;rsquo;s something about how constraint determines more than possibilities. Like, collapse is the regime where the constraints on what is possible are the primary driver of outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>