My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse” • Hacker News Board

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#321

Post by spiralx » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:47 AM UTC

cjohnson318 wrote: post #178

adnmcq999 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know man, the human race makes great technological leaps, or rather leaps in understanding that allow new technology. And nobody can really predict that. It’s almost like your Einsteins, Newtons, Boltzmanns, Maxwells Paulis and Plancks had some kind 2-way channel with divinity. Even though we all stand on the shoulders of giants, sometimes a new giant appears out of the ether. And there’s no doubt we’re done.…

I don't know either. We made giant steps in the 20th C, but I feel like we're seeing diminishing returns now. From 1950 to 1970 cars advanced a lot, but from 2000 to 2020, they're still largely the same. (Sure, there's Teslas with highway autonomy, and some systems can handle an on-ramp, but "Mexico City" autonomy seems really far off.) Unless someone breaks Moore's Law, figures out general quantum computing or gener…

There are massive advances in subjects like materials and biotechnology happening now, they're just not big and flashy despite being at least as game-changing as any other major advance over the last century.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#322

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:47 AM UTC

vecinu wrote: post #264

logicchains wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>COVID-19 is a perfect example of the folly in believing "technology will always save us". From a purely collectivist point of view, unchecked Covid only kills around 1% of the population and the vast majority are retired people, so it's not something society needed saving from as it has pretty much zero effect on humanity's long-term economic/technological progress.

I think the serious issue is more around long COVID and the associated symptoms with something that could perhaps become a chronic issue down the line.

Yeah, COVID is pretty bad. If possible, nobody wants to catch it.

But COVID to human civilisation is like a badly stubbed toe to a human. Painful. To be avoided. Maybe quite a bit of damage. Not really a threat if responded to in a rational way & with some whimpering.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#323

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:53 AM UTC

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #269

anticodon wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was exactly what is stated in the article: shortage of energy. US consumes several times more energy per capita than even Europe. At the same time industrial output of US is small and diminishing with every year. US needs more oil. Hence all the wars. Iraq - oil. Libya - oil. Syria - oil (US occupied all oil deposits in Syria where and extracts it without giving anything back to the people of Syria). Afghanistan -…

In two decades of reading about it I've seen this oil theory many times but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it was the real motivation. The closest strategic explanation was the neocons' PNAC letters which were basically just bravado about America throwing its weight around to maintain their global dominance. Reprehensible stuff.

If it wasn't the real explanation then nothing America does makes any sense. There have been a notable lack of invasions of African, Asian, European or South American countries. The Middle Easterners aren't that different from everywhere else - except they have lots of oil.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#324

Post by boredtofears » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:53 AM UTC

headmelted wrote: post #263

akmarinov wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part is our greed to procreate, take out 3/4 of humanity and climate change is solved

Is it though? Even if there were an event that wiped out 75% of people, it kicks the can down the road at most 30 years due to a baby boom. Refusing to solve the real problem is what got us in to this mess. It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.

> It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.

Individuals aren't really responsible for the mass amounts of pollutants put into the atmosphere the same way corporations are. In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon.

Kicking the can down the road 30 years is by far the best option we have available to us at this point (not that it will happen in my lifetime).

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#325

Post by boredtofears » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #272

akmarinov wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part is our greed to procreate, take out 3/4 of humanity and climate change is solved

That's horrible and would not solve the climate change.

It would not solve climate change, but really, what's horrible about it?

We live in a world of finite resources. If we, as a species, overpopulate to the point where these finite resources run dry, what are the best options?

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#326

Post by IshKebab » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #208

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #196

According the the wiki article, world3 is too general to be realistic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 > But those of us who knew the DYNAMO language in which the simulation was written and those who took the model apart line-by-line quickly realized that we had to deal with an exercise in misinformation and obfustication rather than with a model delivering valuable insights. I was particularly astonished by t…

Yes, world3 is meant as a simulation exercise that is sometimes taken too seriously. But even its critics consider that the conclusions of the model are valid. Here is the continuation of your quote: > He does however consider continuous growth in world GDP a problem: Only the widespread scientific illiteracy and innumeracy—all you need to know in this case is how to execute the equation y=x*e^{rt} prevents most of t…

If "continuous growth is unsustainable" is the only conclusion of the model then it isn't very useful!

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#327

Post by belorn » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

cjohnson318 wrote: post #163

I love that there's a "technology will fix things" model. This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Another implicit assumption is that we'll be able to move forward unilaterally with such a solution, instead of it becoming a political football until it's too late to do anything, like climate change. A lot…

The problem which we already have the technology to fix is food. What people eat is cultural and is effected by cost and availability. There is much we currently discard or do not cultivate because it not what we traditionally see as food and because there is no cost incentive to encourage a change in culture. Changes can however occur given the right triggers, like how large portion of Europe went over to potatoes during the European 19th century population boom. We could see a similar change in food culture towards seaweed if topsoil issues became widespread, and there is plenty of space for technological improvements in aquaculture.

Similar, fresh water is primarily a cost issue. Right now the only economical method to provide water at the lowest cost is to take naturally occurring fresh water. There are alternatives. It does not take a lot of solar, wind or nuclear power plants to supply a large city population with fresh water extracted from the ocean. The construction and operational costs would however be need to be taken from something else, reducing welfare and industrial output.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#328

Post by hughrr » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #299

hughrr wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History shows us that greedy people end up with their heads on sticks. Even when they have armies to protect them. It doesn’t take a lot to regress to that again.

I dont really think history shows that. The "greedy people" can keep power for very long and it takes special circumstances for the overthrow - and overthrow usually means instability with a lot of death, torture and pain for everyone.

Yes it's not pretty

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#329

Post by evgen » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:00 AM UTC

tobr wrote: post #307

jb775 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're taking the already discovered "magic bullets" for granted...and are essentially acting like the next one is impossible even though they happen on a semi-regular basis. Science is simply an on-going collection of realizations where the latest realization is considered the end-all-be-all...until it isn't. The reason they are considered "magic bullets" is because they involve game-changing shifts in technolog…

It’s reasonable to assume there will be various kinds of game-changing new technologies, but it’s not a given that it will provide usable solutions to the specific problems we need to solve.

At the time these studies were being created the idea that PV solar would be cost-effective and that battery tech would progress to the point where it provided a viable path to grid-scale energy storage was deep into 'magic bullet' territory. There are a long list of technologies that have already started to bend the curve on several of those trend lines and the idea that we are simply done creating solutions seems unfathomably short-sighted.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#330

Post by geoffbrown2014 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:07 AM UTC

ghufran_syed wrote: post #301

swman wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think technology will result in a great outcome for humanity as long as our greed is checked somehow. Most of the problems today are caused by our greed. I’m no MIT scholar nor as educated as most of you here, but from a anecdotal ground level I have seen it really seems some people at various positions from a office manager all the way to the highest political offices are driven by greed. Their greed usually resul…

The problem is defining “greed”. It feels like when I want more stuff per unit time/effort, I’m just “trying to support my family and build a better life for my children”. But when other people do the same, it’s “greedy”. Is there any definition of “greedy” we could use for the purposes of this discussion that would apply yo all humans equally?

Rent seeking and corruption are two definitions that spring to mind.