Consider going down that path and write more about the future than current affairs. Half of the post was a just a critique of human behaviour today backed with numbers, data and projections. This leads the narrative open to questions such a instead of limiting consumption now, why would the AI wait 50 years to do something so drastic about it?
I'm well read in the area of apocalyptic and post apocalyptic fiction. Generally these works of art speak more of the event or aftermath than the cause which is just a minor detail left for the reader to think about.
Yes, i actively used current data to give it a feel of cold hard facts, it was written in the perspective of an AI being asked to justify mass extinction.
The AI did not do this. In this fictional world i created the ai was still completely being controlled by humans. the ai was simply being asked to write the letter that those behind the mass extinction were too weak to write themselves. I saw this as both a nod and knock to future humans, still fully controlling computers, but yet hiding behind them to justify horrific actions.
This was my creative choice at how to present this story, im really not concerned with how generally apocalyptic works of art are presented. This was how i presented it.
I thought the idea of an AI writing a dear john letter to humanity was hilariously dark. I wanted it to read as real as possible, i looked up stats about rates of consumption of water, forests, minerals, i looked up pollution stats, i was seeking to fill the letter with clinical so called ‘facts’ so it felt like a heartless AI regurgitating math to justify murder.
I didnt have access to the 2075 stats yet. 😜