Who are you?
We are anonymous. For good reason. The messenger is irrelevant. The message is
not. Ad hominem attacks are easier than engaging with the content. We deny you that comfort.
Isn't this sexist?
Yes, we know. Nobody listens otherwise. Fifty years of IPCC reports,
peer-reviewed papers, and diplomatic summits have achieved precisely nothing. The curves kept
climbing. If exploiting the same attention economy that sells everything from cars to
cryptocurrencies is what it takes to make you look at a graph, then so be it. Your outrage is
the point.
Why naked women?
Because you clicked. Because flesh sells and data doesn't. Because centuries
of art history taught us that the female body commands attention-and we weaponized that reflex.
The same mechanism that sells perfume, cars, and clicks now sells you the climate data you've
been ignoring. You're not here despite the nudity. You're here because of it. Uncomfortable?
Good. Now read the sources.
Why only women? What about men?
Because the male gaze built this economy, and we're using its tools against
it. Because 73% of online pornography consumers are men. Because the attention economy was
designed by men, for men, exploiting women. We didn't create the asymmetry-we're exploiting it.
If you want naked men with climate data, make it yourself. We already stole the means of
production. Now steal them from us.
Why so offensive?
Yes, we know it's offensive. 735 million people are undernourished. 1 million
species face extinction. The oceans are acidifying. But sure, let's discuss whether the imagery
hurts your feelings. The real obscenity is outside your window.
Are you conspiracy theorists?
No. Every single claim is sourced from UN agencies (FAO, UNEP, IPBES,
UN-Water), peer-reviewed journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, The Lancet), and intergovernmental
bodies (IPCC, IEA, IAEA). All 51 URLs work. All 15 DOIs are verified. Three independent AI
models scored the dataset 9.5/10 for scientific accuracy. This is mainstream science. The
conspiracy is pretending it's not happening.
Why should I trust you?
You shouldn't. Trust the sources. Every claim links to UN reports,
peer-reviewed papers, or official statistics. We are anonymous randoms on the internet with an
agenda. The IPCC is not. Nature and Science are not. The FAO is not. Click the links. Verify
everything. Our credibility is irrelevant. The data stands on its own.
Are these images real?
No, they are AI-generated. Deliberately. This entire project was created using
the same energy-devouring generative AI it critiques. We are structurally complicit. We are part
of the damage we reveal. There is no outside from which to judge. Neither for us, nor for you.
OMG, is this AI-generated?!
No shit, Sherlock. Would you prefer to be the model? Then send your
application via Your Limit.
If not, read the links. Read the papers. That's the real evidence. Every source is verifiable.
Every claim is documented. The AI is just the messenger. Kill it if you want. The data remains.
How much energy did this waste?
Glad you asked. Creating this monument to hypocrisy consumed roughly 150-250
kWh of electricity. That's enough to power a 60W lightbulb for 4,000 hours (166 days straight).
Run an average household for 20 days. Ride an e-bike for 15,000 km. Take a train from Berlin to
Moscow and back. Five times. Charge an electric car for 1,200 km. Or keep your laptop running
for 5,000 hours. We generated 123 AI research documents, 72 images, and 37 videos to warn you
about ecological collapse while actively contributing to it. The irony isn't lost on us. It's
the point. Now stop calculating our carbon footprint and go read the sources.
Is this suitable for children?
No. Neither is the world we're leaving them. The explicit content is a
feature, not a bug. It ensures only those who choose to engage will see it. Consider it a
content warning for reality.
Aren't you part of the problem?
Yes. Every page load burns electricity. Every AI inference accelerates the
carbon pulse. We are a symptom of the same metabolic rift we expose. A digital excretion of the
Anthropocene. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. It should.
Where are the solutions?
We don't offer any. There are no "10 things you can do to save the planet."
The solutions have been known for decades. They require dismantling the economic logic that
makes infinite growth on a finite planet seem rational. That's not a lifestyle choice. It's a
civilizational transformation that nobody in power wants. We're just showing you the bill.
Seriously, no solutions? That's nihilistic.
The solutions exist. They've existed for fifty years. Renewable energy.
Degrowth. Wealth redistribution. Democratic control of production. Carbon taxes. Meat reduction.
Public transport. Regenerative agriculture. The problem was never knowledge. It was power. The
fossil fuel industry knew about climate change in 1977 and spent $400 million on disinformation.
ExxonMobil's own scientists predicted 2024 temperatures with remarkable accuracy-in 1982. The
solutions are blocked by those who profit from the problems. We're not nihilists. We're realists
about where the obstacles lie.
Is this art?
Yes. And yes, it's ugly. It's supposed to be. Beauty has failed. Aesthetics
have failed. When the prettiest nature documentaries end with donation links and nothing
changes, perhaps the grotesque is the only honest register left. We're not here to be admired.
We're here to be impossible to ignore.
Will you apologize?
No. Not for the nudity. Not for the provocation. Not for making you
uncomfortable. Apologize to the future generations who will inherit a 2.7°C world because we
were too polite to scream.
What do you want?
Nothing. No funding, no money, no publicity. We are not an NGO begging for
donations. No greenwashing either-we are not a state pretending to act. We are Anonymous. We
want nothing from you except that you looked. And now you can't unsee it.
Can I share this?
Yes. There is no copyright. No trademark. No lawyers. No attribution required.
Screenshot it, repost it, print it, project it onto government buildings-we don't care. The data
belongs to everyone. The crisis belongs to everyone. We already stole these bodies from the
latent space of a billion scraped images. Steal from us. Spread it like the wildfire seasons it
documents.
Is this legal?
Yes. AI-generated images of non-existent people violate no one's likeness
rights. The scientific data is public domain. The references are properly cited. We operate from
a jurisdiction that tolerates adult content. If you're asking whether it's legal for you to
view: that depends on where you live and how old you are. We assume you're an adult who can make
your own choices. If you're not, close the tab and go read the IPCC summary for policymakers
instead. Same data, less nudity.
Who funded this?
Nobody. No grants, no sponsors, no dark money, no billionaire patrons, no NGO
backing. Just anonymous individuals with credit cards, insomnia, and the nagging suspicion that
polite advocacy has failed. Our total budget was less than a weekend at Davos. The World
Economic Forum spends more on catering than we spent on this entire project. That's the real
obscenity.
Is this complete?
WTF, no. And it never will be. The crises multiply faster than we can document
them. Biodiversity collapse, antibiotic resistance, soil degradation, ocean deoxygenation,
nuclear proliferation-the list is endless. This is a sample, not a summary. Want more despair?
Send us Your Limit for a
comprehensive scientific breakdown. We just made it impossible to look away.
Will you publish the manuscript in a journal?
We did publish it. Here. Right fucking now. We've written enough papers, paid
enough fees, jumped through enough hoops, and watched people pay hundreds of dollars to not read
and not understand our work. We're done playing that game. The academic publishing industry is a
parasitic racket that monetizes publicly funded research while scientists work for free as
authors, reviewers, and editors. Else*ier made $3.3 billion in profit last year. From knowledge.
That should be free. So here it is. Free. No paywall. No embargo. No institutional login. No
$39.95 for a PDF. You want peer review? Three AI models scored it. You want prestige? Fuck
prestige. Read the data.
Can I cite your work?
You want to cite a porn site? Good luck getting that past your ethics board.
But sure, go ahead-we're flattered that academic desperation has reached this level. Suggested
citation: "Anonymous degenerates. (2026). Beyond the Limits of Taste: An AI-Engendered
Requiem for Planetary Boundaries. Retrieved from the abyss of the Anthropocene." If
your institution asks, tell them it's "digital humanities research." That usually shuts them up.
