For centuries, humanity has clung to systems that provide certainty—a sense that the future can be predicted, planned for, and controlled. Financial modeling, from crop forecasting to futures markets, was created to ensure stability in an unpredictable world. It feeds a deeply human desire for predictability, translating the randomness of nature into a set of numbers and trends that we can rely on. But the accelerating chaos of climate change has shattered this illusion.

As the planet careens toward tipping points, financial systems remain locked in patterns of inertia, rooted in assumptions that the next year will look much like the last. Subsidies for fossil fuels flow steadily, futures markets hum along, and investment portfolios churn as if the world isn’t on the brink of an ecological and economic upheaval. The inertia of these systems is not just dangerous—it’s rational within their own framework. But this rationality is pulling us deeper into crisis.

We are living in a moment of profound divergence. On one path are those who live within the realm of certainty: institutional investors, market forecasters, and policymakers anchored to financial models that prioritize stability. On the other path are those who confront the unsettling reality of a destabilizing climate: scientists, activists, and increasingly, communities on the frontlines of climate disasters. These forking realities, rooted in fundamentally incompatible understandings of the future, are fracturing our ability to act.

The Human Craving for Certainty

Financial systems are deeply psychological. At their core, they cater to humanity's intrinsic desire to reduce uncertainty. From a psychological perspective, predictability provides a sense of safety and control. Futures markets, for example, are designed to smooth volatility by locking in prices for crops, oil, or other commodities. This helps farmers, corporations, and nations plan their economies with confidence, ensuring that a bad harvest or geopolitical disruption doesn’t spiral into economic chaos.

But climate change flips this logic on its head. The systems built to insulate us from uncertainty are now perpetuating it. Fossil fuel subsidies, for instance, provide stability to industries reliant on a carbon-based economy, but they also lock us into a path of escalating emissions and climate disruption. Similarly, financial models assume steady economic growth, ignoring the increasingly erratic disruptions caused by droughts, floods, and heatwaves.

By clinging to these frameworks, we’ve created an inertia that resists the very randomness we now face. The more the climate destabilizes, the more our financial systems double down on outdated models, reinforcing the illusion of control while the world burns.

Systems Inertia: Rationality in the Face of Collapse

The paradox of financial inertia is that it feels rational. If futures markets dictate that oil will still be a valuable commodity in ten years, why divest today? If crop forecasting predicts strong yields next year, why shift to regenerative agriculture? Financial systems, designed to optimize short-term stability, resist the kind of rapid, “random” decarbonization necessary to confront climate change.

Yet this inertia is itself irrational when viewed through the lens of climate science. Every year of delay deepens the crisis, making the eventual disruptions to global markets far more catastrophic. Rising sea levels threaten trillions in coastal real estate. Heatwaves and droughts are undermining agricultural productivity. Wildfires and hurricanes are exacting mounting economic tolls. The true irrationality lies in failing to adapt to the new reality—but within the frameworks of financial modeling, the status quo feels like the only option.

Forking Realities: Certainty vs. Chaos

This tension creates a stark divide between those who live in the world of predictive certainty and those confronting climate chaos. Financial modelers, investors, and policymakers rely on stability to do their work. Their world is built on the assumption that the future will follow the patterns of the past. In contrast, climate scientists, activists, and those living in disaster-prone areas experience the randomness of climate change firsthand. Their world is one of unpredictability, tipping points, and irreversible change.

Bridging this gap is not simply a technical challenge but a philosophical one. It requires us to question our assumptions about stability, progress, and control. How can we integrate the randomness of climate reality into systems designed to resist it? How can we reimagine financial modeling to account for uncertainty rather than ignore it?

Financial modeling is not inherently the enemy. It has helped mitigate risks and foster stability in uncertain times. But it must be reworked to align with our current reality. Instead of clinging to outdated assumptions, financial systems must embrace uncertainty. This could mean developing models that incorporate climate risk as a central factor or incentivizing investments in renewable energy and adaptive infrastructure. It might mean abandoning certain forms of growth entirely in favor of resilience and sustainability.

The challenge is immense, but so is the opportunity. By bridging the divide between certainty and chaos, we can create systems that not only reflect the reality of climate change but also empower us to navigate it. The alternative—staying the course—is a luxury we can no longer afford.