Suppose it was proven to a 99% certainty that civilization is doomed. What should we do? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15199426
I'm not saying that this is so, but some "experts" do say this.

Just as a thought experiment, suppose this is true. Then what should humanity do? What is moral? What is politically possible?

If you can't grant this assumption then please do not reply. If you must reply, please just politely say that you can't assume that, and please don't get mean.

Some would say we should do one or more of these things. You can add others.
1] Still go down fighting, even if it means reducing the standard of living of the mass of people in advanced nations, but not effecting the rich there or the poor nations much at all. I include the rich because late says we can't fight them so we must surrender to their power.

2] Carry on as we are now, doing nothing more or less. [This what we have been doing for the last 30 - 50 years.]

3] Change what we are doing in the advanced nations by giving a large UBI to everyone so they can live a happier life, for the several to many years we have left. Don't worry about inflation and the long term because there will be no long term. Don't worry, either, about the extra damage to the bio-sphere this will do because, who cares, we are *all* going to die an early death in any and all cases.

4] Be nicer to the other people around you, because we are *all* going to die an early death in any and all cases.


5] Be nicer to the 3rd world, because we don't need to take wealth from them anymore because the end is very near.

Remember, here I'm assuming that there is a 99% chance that civilization is doomed. That if any humans survive into 2200 they will be hunter-gathers, or herders, or maybe slash and burn gardeners. And the world will not cool off for at least 100K years.

6] What should we do about climate refugees? IMHO, if we let them into our advanced nations, they will be more likely to react to the climate disasters with violence, than the native born citizens.
OTOH, it is the Christian thing to do and is required by treaties and UN rules.
#15199444
Saeko wrote:Point of clarification:

Is there a 99% chance of extinction regardless of what we do, or is there a 99% chance of extinction if we do nothing?

I can understand your confusion.

"We are all going to die", doesn't mean every single human on Earth. The most likely survivors are what we used to call native savages. This is because they already know how to survive without getting food from a store. A small number of civilized people are assumed to survive. But, of people from each advanced nation somewhat less than 1% are *here for the sake of the question* assumed to survive, reproduce, and have their descendance survive until 2200.
. . . You see, surviving requires you live through every problem, every day for decades. Failure to survive any day, means you didn't survive.

These are just assumptions, to set the stage for our thinking.

I think that humans may survive even if civilization is doomed to fail.

One thing the consider is --- how sure are we that no more nuclear power plants will melt down if civilization fails. Like, will we store all the fuel safely just before TSHTF? If not, I'm sure that many will melt down. This would likely cause human extinction.
#15199446
Yep. 99% chance of human extinction in the next 1 million years. Worry!


The sky is falling!!

Civilizations come and go, but the earth is not the same as what it was 2,000 years ago. We aren't as isolated as the Incas, Aztecs, etc.

Christianity is accepting the end of the world. They are the LAST people you should consider. :knife:
#15199546
Steve_American wrote:I can understand your confusion.

"We are all going to die", doesn't mean every single human on Earth. The most likely survivors are what we used to call native savages. This is because they already know how to survive without getting food from a store. A small number of civilized people are assumed to survive. But, of people from each advanced nation somewhat less than 1% are *here for the sake of the question* assumed to survive, reproduce, and have their descendance survive until 2200.
. . . You see, surviving requires you live through every problem, every day for decades. Failure to survive any day, means you didn't survive.

These are just assumptions, to set the stage for our thinking.

I think that humans may survive even if civilization is doomed to fail.

One thing the consider is --- how sure are we that no more nuclear power plants will melt down if civilization fails. Like, will we store all the fuel safely just before TSHTF? If not, I'm sure that many will melt down. This would likely cause human extinction.

Just how many nuclear power stations do you think there are? :eh:

No, even if every power station on Earth melted down simultaneously, it wouldn’t cause human extinction. Even the most powerful thermonuclear bomb is just a pinprick as far as the Earth is concerned. We are an endemic species, one of the most endemic and adaptable vertebrate species which has ever existed. It would take a lot to wipe us out, probably something on the scale of the K-T extinction event which whacked the non-avian dinosaurs. And that’s way beyond our capability of inflicting on ourselves.

And even if only 1% of us survive the collapse of human civilisation, that’s still almost 100 million people. Give us a couple of centuries, and we’d number in the billions again. No, I think we’re good for another few million years yet.
#15199553
Potemkin wrote:Just how many nuclear power stations do you think there are? :eh:

No, even if every power station on Earth melted down simultaneously, it wouldn’t cause human extinction. Even the most powerful thermonuclear bomb is just a pinprick as far as the Earth is concerned. We are an endemic species, one of the most endemic and adaptable vertebrate species which has ever existed. It would take a lot to wipe us out, probably something on the scale of the K-T extinction event which whacked the non-avian dinosaurs. And that’s way beyond our capability of inflicting on ourselves.

And even if only 1% of us survive the collapse of human civilisation, that’s still almost 100 million people. Give us a couple of centuries, and we’d number in the billions again. No, I think we’re good for another few million years yet.

AFAIK, IIRC, there are 440 nuclear powerplants.

If they melt down, then they will release radioactive isotopes into the air and water. And, this will poison humans. This how human maybe caused by nuclear powerplants melting down.

Without electric power they can't be cooled. And, I assert that the climate will be too hot for civilization to grow grain for 100,000 years, more or less. So, we will not return to billions for 100,000 or more years.
. . . During all of those 100K years, the 440 powerplants will be at large risk of not being cooled. I assert that every single one will melt down.

People, in this thread I'm assuming a worst case scenario.

Some of you have replied that you think this scenario is not possible. They did not grant me my assumption. I actually expect that 99.99% of all people can't being themselves to grant that assumption.

[When we invaded Iraq Bush said the worst case was XXXX, so we must invade. So, we invaded.
. . . Here, the worst case is 10K times worse, and yet we do nothing to avoid it.]

Maybe we need to figure out just how likely it is that civilization will fail because of ACC aka AGW.
#15199568
Steve_American wrote:AFAIK, IIRC, there are 440 nuclear powerplants.

If they melt down, then they will release radioactive isotopes into the air and water. And, this will poison humans. This how human maybe caused by nuclear powerplants melting down.

Without electric power they can't be cooled. And, I assert that the climate will be too hot for civilization to grow grain for 100,000 years, more or less. So, we will not return to billions for 100,000 or more years.
. . . During all of those 100K years, the 440 powerplants will be at large risk of not being cooled. I assert that every single one will melt down.

Even if they do, that will not make our species extinct.

People, in this thread I'm assuming a worst case scenario.

Some of you have replied that you think this scenario is not possible. They did not grant me my assumption. I actually expect that 99.99% of all people can't being themselves to grant that assumption.

If I think the assumption is fanciful, then I will say so. As, indeed, I just did.

[When we invaded Iraq Bush said the worst case was XXXX, so we must invade. So, we invaded.
. . . Here, the worst case is 10K times worse, and yet we do nothing to avoid it.]

Invading Iraq was a dumbass move. And you want to repeat it, on a bigger scale? :eh:

The public hysteria which enabled Bush to invade Iraq on a false pretext - on a lie - is being repeated again, but on a bigger scale. The human race is not facing extinction - we are facing not being able to live in the Middle East, not being able to use the internal combustion engine any more, and not being able to use disposable plastic for consumer items. I regard none if these things as a great loss. AGW is indeed a real thing, and must be addressed, but lies about our species facing extinction because of AGW are not helpful.

Maybe we need to figure out just how likely it is that civilization will fail because of ACC aka AGW.

Even if civilisation collapses (which is entirely possible), this will not drive our species into extinction. We existed for more than a quarter of a million years without anything resembling a civilisation, and we can do so again.
#15199574
@Potemkin,
Did you read my reply to Saeko?
If not, read it and reply again.
If you did then you have no excuse. There I said that I was not assuming human extinction. I'm only assuming that civilization will fail everywhere on Earth for 100,000 years.
Last edited by Steve_American on 24 Nov 2021 13:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15199575
Steve_American wrote:@Potemkin,
Did you read my reply t0 Saeko?
If not, read it and reply again.
If you did then you have no excuse. There I said that I was not assuming human extinction. I'm only assuming that civilization will fail everywhere on Earth for 100,000 years.

Fair enough. What should we do in that case? Try again, but try to get it right next time. :)
#15199594
ckaihatsu wrote:
Also, Y2K.



Actually, y2K was a real problem.

As so often happens, businesses waited to the last moment, and then there was a frenzy to straighten the mess up. And then after that, none of them wanted to talk about how close they came to screwing themselves sideways.

It's funny, with so many stories overblown or complete fiction, this one just went poof, and it was quite real.
#15199597
late wrote:
Actually, y2K was a real problem.

As so often happens, businesses waited to the last moment, and then there was a frenzy to straighten the mess up. And then after that, none of them wanted to talk about how close they came to screwing themselves sideways.

It's funny, with so many stories overblown or complete fiction, this one just went poof, and it was quite real.



True.
#15199656
Do about what? You propose some existential threat to mankind?

Can you be specific? It's impossible to have a course of action, or a solution, when you can't identify the problem. It sounds like a 1,000 problems, each with a variety of solutions.

Also, the idea that indigenous societies were alwa[…]

Which freedom is more important?

Flawed questioned, both are important. Freedom to[…]

Boris Johnson is done

his appeal was not through Trump His appeal wasn[…]

I know people who have been denied entry at Heathr[…]