Suppose it was proven to a 99% certainty that civilization is doomed. What should we do? - Page 2 - 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.
#15199666
Unthinking Majority wrote:
In such a scenario i would supporting doing what we needed to in order to survive while incurring the minimum economic and human suffering needed to do that. If we had to completely stop burning fossil fuels so be it. Off to the forest to hunt deer and rabbit.



I hope you're being ironic because backsliding to primitivism -- a *decline* in the average standard of living -- would *not* be welcome at this point in human / societal development.

The issue is never a *technical* one, as in energy policy or whatever, because there's always *something* people can do for the sake of housing, transportation, etc. -- it's really a *political* problem that prevents existing technologies from being used *appropriately*, for humane living for all. Technology, including energy, is a *commodity* under capitalism, and is subject to private protectionism / hoarding, as through cartels (in each and every industry), like OPEC for oil, especially currently.
#15199670
Godstud wrote: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.

I'm assuming that there is no 'solution'.
Civilization will fail no matter what we do.
Or, it turns out to be a false alarm no matter what we did.
.
#15199671
Unthinking Majority wrote:In such a scenario i would supporting doing what we needed to in order to survive while incurring the minimum economic and human suffering needed to do that. If we had to completely stop burning fossil fuels so be it. Off to the forest to hunt deer and rabbit.

UM, with 7 billion people hunting deer and rabbits, and all other wild animals, they would all be wiped out in under a year or maybe a decade.
Then we are back to no grain being grown and the oceans over fished.

I'm assuming there is no solution Almost all people will die.
.
#15199672
Steve_American wrote:UM, with 7 billion people hunting deer and rabbits, and all other wild animals, they would all be wiped out in under a year or maybe a decade.
Then we are back to no grain being grown and the oceans over fished.

I'm assuming there is no solution Almost all people will die.
.

If our industrial civilisation collapses, there will certainly be a population crash immediately subsequent to that. There are simply too many humans on the planet, exceeding the long-term carrying capacity of the Earth’s ecosystem. This is the basic problem.
#15199673
Steve_American wrote:Civilization will fail no matter what we do.
:roll: WHICH civilization? Assuming they could all fail is absurd. As I said before, we're no the Incas or Aztecs. Our civilizations are not prone to "failing" in that manner.

Steve_American wrote:UM, with 7 billion people hunting deer and rabbits, and all other wild animals, they would all be wiped out in under a year or maybe a decade.
Then we are back to no grain being grown and the oceans over fished. You are making some really ridiculous assumptions.

Deer, rabbits and other animals breed. There are species we do not eat, which we can. We don't farm enough insect proteins, which are readily available and super efficient.

There are options, you ignore. 10 years?

Steve_American wrote:I'm assuming there is no solution Almost all people will die.
That's a ridiculous position to take and I refuse to take such a thing seriously, since it's so absurd. Your assumption is the most silly speculation.
#15199678
Godstud wrote::roll: WHICH civilization? Assuming they could all fail is absurd. As I said before, we're no the Incas or Aztecs. Our civilizations are not prone to "failing" in that manner.

Then we are back to no grain being grown and the oceans over fished. You are making some really ridiculous assumptions.

Deer, rabbits and other animals breed. There are species we do not eat, which we can. We don't farm enough insect proteins, which are readily available and super efficient.

There are options, you ignore. 10 years?

That's a ridiculous position to take and I refuse to take such a thing seriously, since it's so absurd. Your assumption is the most silly speculation.

We disagree. This is a fact.

You think I'm being ridiculous, and I think you have not dug deep enough into the problems we face.

I hope that this thread is ridiculous. I don't know, but you think you do know. There are a lot of experts who think it is possible that grain harvests will fail worldwide, so we will not be able to feed everyone. And civilization is impossible without grain harvests.
.
#15199679
I know there's a lot of problems, but I don't think the many civilizations of mankind are at risk. Humans are far more adaptable now, than they have ever been in the history of mankind.

Steve_American wrote:There are a lot of experts who think it is possible that grain harvests will fail worldwide, so we will not be able to feed everyone. And civilization is impossible without grain harvests.
Please provide a source for this claim. What is "a lot"? :?:

I know a lot of scientists who say that we can feed 10 billion on earth before we'll start to run out of food. As someone already mentioned, the population of the earth may recede with shortages, but disappear? THAT is simply unbelievable.

Steve_American wrote:And civilization is impossible without grain harvests.
Not every civilization relies on this, but it would certainly impact some societies more than others. Saying it is impossible, is unrealistic, to say the least. Humans adapt.

There are food sources, like insects, that do not rely on "grain", like cattle, do. We'd certainly need to alter our diet, accordingly.

Why would ALL the grain harvests fail? That seems just as unlikely as the other claims you are making. Do you have a source to support this claim? I certainly couldn't find anything to support a global grain crop failure.
#15199683
@Godstud,
I am NOT going to be giving details for why I think it is possible.

Because, I don't see any point in making everyone feel bad.

Almost everyone is like you, and to a certain extent me, in that they are in denial.

Grain harvests are already being reduced by heat and droughts. Like in the US corn belt. This is why meat prices are up, corn animal feed prices are up. Other places too.
.
#15199688
Steve_American wrote:I am NOT going to be giving details for why I think it is possible.
OK, so it's a bit "What if" scenario. Cool.

Steve_American wrote:Because, I don't see any point in making everyone feel bad.
That won't happen.

Steve_American wrote:Almost everyone is like you, and to a certain extent me, in that they are in denial.
Right.... :roll: Toss in an ad hominem if no one buys your prediction? You must be in denial of reality. :D ;)

Steve_American wrote:Grain harvests are already being reduced by heat and droughts. Like in the US corn belt. This is why meat prices are up, corn animal feed prices are up. Other places too.
That's true. Still, what you are predicting, is not true. It's a "prediction". I just want to know WHERE you picked up this idea, and if you can back up your prediction with something other than blatantly obvious facts that still do not support what you are saying.

While we know AGW is negatively affecting crops, to say that they will all fail, is an assertion you just can't make.
#15199691
@Godstud - all civilisations fail in the end, just as all species of animals eventually go extinct. Every human civilisation which existed two thousand years ago now no longer exists. They all collapsed eventually. And so will ours. The only questions are: (1) when?; and (2) from what cause?
#15199693
Potemkin wrote:Every human civilisation which existed two thousand years ago now no longer exists.
The world is not the same place it was, even 200 years ago.

We have worldwide travel in mere hours, and instant communication. That hasn't never existed until the 20th century. We've got medical technology and science that they only dreamed of having 100 years ago.(They didn't even have antibiotics a 100 years ago).

No. Civilizations are not as fragile as they once were. You also have to specify as to WHAT civilization you are referring to.
#15199694
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.


I don't think that clarifies @Saeko's question. If we can't do anything about it then we may as well not try.

If we can, there is then the obvious question as to whether it is cheaper to do so or just look for a new planet. No, I'm not trolling, depending on your timeframe we may already be colonizing other planets when that happens.
#15199695
Godstud wrote:The world is not the same place it was, even 200 years ago.

We have worldwide travel in mere hours, and instant communication. That hasn't never existed until the 20th century. We've got medical technology and science that they only dreamed of having 100 years ago.(They didn't even have antibiotics a 100 years ago).

All of these advantages have actually made us the victim of our own success, @Godstud. They have allowed an unprecedented increase in the human population density, which has led to anthropogenic global warming and environmental degradation, as well as a (relatively minor) extinction event for the Earth's entire ecosystem. And the huge population density of our cities is a perfect environment for pandemics to rip through our populations once the antibiotics no longer work.

No. Civilizations are not as fragile as they once were. You also have to specify as to WHAT civilization you are referring to.

Industrial civilisation, which is pretty much every civilisation which currently exists. And its global nature just means that the collapse, when it comes, will not be localised but will be a global event.
#15199698
Potemkin wrote:All of these advantages have actually made us the victim of our own success, @Godstud. They have allowed an unprecedented increase in the human population density, which has led to anthropogenic global warming and environmental degradation, as well as a (relatively minor) extinction event for the Earth's entire ecosystem. And the huge population density of our cities is a perfect environment for pandemics to rip through our populations once the antibiotics no longer work.


Industrial civilisation, which is pretty much every civilisation which currently exists. And its global nature just means that the collapse, when it comes, will not be localised but will be a global event.

You said it, so I don't need to.
.
#15199707
Godstud wrote:OK, so it's a bit "What if" scenario. Cool.

That won't happen.

Right.... :roll: Toss in an ad hominem if no one buys your prediction? You must be in denial of reality. :D ;)

That's true. Still, what you are predicting, is not true. It's a "prediction". I just want to know WHERE you picked up this idea, and if you can back up your prediction with something other than blatantly obvious facts that still do not support what you are saying.

While we know AGW is negatively affecting crops, to say that they will all fail, is an assertion you just can't make.


I take great offence at being called a liar.

Google shows people what they want to see.

So, I see the bad predictions and you see the rosy predictions.

I did not lie. I have seen several people who say something like what I said.
Where I have seen several, there are many more world wide.
.
#15199751
ckaihatsu wrote:I hope you're being ironic because backsliding to primitivism -- a *decline* in the average standard of living -- would *not* be welcome at this point in human / societal development.

The issue is never a *technical* one, as in energy policy or whatever, because there's always *something* people can do for the sake of housing, transportation, etc. -- it's really a *political* problem that prevents existing technologies from being used *appropriately*, for humane living for all. Technology, including energy, is a *commodity* under capitalism, and is subject to private protectionism / hoarding, as through cartels (in each and every industry), like OPEC for oil, especially currently.


But what if, in the OP scenario, scientists came out and said the only way to prevent the extinction of the human population was to stop burning all fossil fuels immediately? We would obviously have to do that.
#15199756
Unthinking Majority wrote:
But what if, in the OP scenario, scientists came out and said the only way to prevent the extinction of the human population was to stop burning all fossil fuels immediately? We would obviously have to do that.



Yeah, sorry -- to clarify, I was speaking generally about technology / energy, and not about hydrocarbons in particular.

Obviously solar is already in use, and also on-the-way, and it got me wondering why there isn't more concentrating of solar energy to create steam, and electricity, etc.

I just came across *this* video recently:


Fuels from sunlight and air

#15199760
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, sorry -- to clarify, I was speaking generally about technology / energy, and not about hydrocarbons in particular.

Obviously solar is already in use, and also on-the-way, and it got me wondering why there isn't more concentrating of solar energy to create steam, and electricity, etc.

I just came across *this* video recently:


Fossil fuels are a concentration of solar energy, unfortunately they aren't renewable and are very dirty and produce GHG. My assumption is they are the cheapest forms of reliable energy which is why they've been most often used, at least over the last 150 years.

I'm sure subsidies do help this cost become even cheaper and is a barrier for renewables to match or surpass the cost efficiency of fossil fuels. I support removing fossil fuel subsidies if this will help the transition to renewables. I'm glad at least renewables are receiving a lot of subsidies as well, like rebates on buying EVs and solar panels systems.

The War Machine and Bankers that arm and profit fr[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]

You mean that hospital that was in fact hit by a r[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]