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”

#451

Post by giantg2 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #428

giantg2 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way." I actually can't envision what you mean by "Chicago won't let them do anything about it". Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change?

I just picked some random state that has a farming economy (very sensitive to slight environmental changes) at one end and a city economy (not so directly tied to the environment as long as energy is cheap and it isn't flooded) at the other that runs the show so forgive me if the example isn't bulletproof. >Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change? Right up until you have to take some ot…

Ah, I see.

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

#452

Post by WanderPanda » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #380

WanderPanda wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like greed is what drives technological progress and that you can not have the one without the other

I was talking to a friend yesterday and he put forth the idea that the only reason humans even have civilization is because of sociopaths. We're apparently wired to function in a community of 30-50 where everyone depends on everyone else for survival so, he reasons, larger groups of people require perverse systems control. Sociopaths, having no empathy and seeking to use people for their own gain, seized power and co…

This might not be directly related but the decline of birthrates tells me that there is something horribly unnatural going on.

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

#453

Post by iammisc » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #216

iammisc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like how peak wheat has not been truly debunked because we now have GMO wheat and novel agricultural practices.

Your answer makes no sense. There is no peak wheat, it's not a non-renewable resource. The difference between peak oil and shale oil is the EROI which is very bad (between 1 and 2) compared to conventional (20 to 50). This would make it absolutely useless as an energy source, except we also get free Nat. gas out of it. Once the EROI on all our fossil energy sources gets below 1 we won't be able to use any, despite so…

Except it makes total sense. There is a clear transition happening to non oil energy sources. Oil is a fungible good with alternate energies for many applications. It makes no sense to talk about peak oil if oil demand will soon greatly lessen.

As technology increases with oil extraction and alternate energy sources come into play, the peak oil scenario will likely not be realized.

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

#454

Post by kiliantics » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

Isamu wrote: post #102

Each of these predict food production will decline starting soon, although the optimistic ones forecast a recovery in production. Any idea why the imminent decline in food production in all cases? It’s as though they are expecting global food producers to be caught off guard, as if they haven’t been planning against disaster since… forever. [edit] Food production seems to be a function that is negatively affected by…

Massive drought and flooding on scales that overwhelm any level of prior preparedness can mess up your food supplies pretty quick I reckon. We are starting to see these become more common with recent shifts in weather patterns.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JimBair62221006/status/1354175511...

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

#455

Post by slackfan » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #384

belorn wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

The Netherlands is a net exporter of food and it does this by producing what people want to eat. See https://aboutthenetherlands.com/why-does-the-netherlands-exp... Why should we have to change what we eat? Surely taking that choice away takes away part of what we are, reduces our autonomy. Why switch to seaweed when we can already produce what we already know we want?

Apropos of nothing, the Soviet Union was also a net-exporter of wheat during the Holodomor. There's a lot of ways to be a net exporter.

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

#456

Post by nine_k » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #441

nine_k wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's alter the start conditions a bit: the same Long Island with the same people, but the Hudson river dries up. And everything around dries up, too. How about a desalination plant now? Even nuclear?

A combination of aqueducts, reservoirs, and tunnels supply fresh water to New York City. With three major water systems (Croton, Catskill, and Delaware) stretching up to 125 miles (201 km) away from the city, its water supply system is one of the most extensive municipal water systems in the world. The water system has a storage capacity of 550 billion US gallons (2.1×109 m3) and provides over 1.2 billion US gallons…

I know. Catskill and Croton are both on Hudson river. Imagine that the upstream has dried up, and the Delaware sources gone totally insufficient.

My idea is that a real need makes people reconsider their opinions which they held dear as long as they did not have a skin in the game.

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

#457

Post by hoseja » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #327

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 d…

Food scarcity IS fixed/ is literally impossible to fix. Human population grew like five times in the living memory and people ignorant of this (willfully or not) are still trying to fix "food scarcity".

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

#458

Post by cjohnson318 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

tarsinge wrote: post #419

belorn wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

To add to that there is the obvious low hanging fruit of meat as the main source of proteins. Feeding animals perfectly good proteins and using the majority of agricultural land (more than 70% if I remember correctly) and a lot water to finally to eat them after so much waste makes no sense as a main source of feeding a population, it’s not political or philosophical question just a practical one (I’m not vegetarian…

Normalize pork! It's delicious, it requires much less land, and produces less CO2 per pound than cows.

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

#459

Post by cjohnson318 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #428

giantg2 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine how climate change might F-over downstate Illinois (because farms) but Chicago won't let them do anything about it because they hold all the cards and they make their money a different way." I actually can't envision what you mean by "Chicago won't let them do anything about it". Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change?

I just picked some random state that has a farming economy (very sensitive to slight environmental changes) at one end and a city economy (not so directly tied to the environment as long as energy is cheap and it isn't flooded) at the other that runs the show so forgive me if the example isn't bulletproof. >Isn't Chicago the more liberal area that wants to fight climate change? Right up until you have to take some ot…

> the beta and the v1 versions of the chemical also killed some sort of visible wildlife

It sounds like you're referring to herbicides and pesticides that kill bees and other pollinators. People have an obvious problem with pesticides that kill bees. It's not an acceptable level of collateral damage for dirt cheap corn and soybeans.

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

#460

Post by cjohnson318 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

tanbog4 wrote: post #185

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…

It's not that silly to model as historically that has also happened. To use the "peak oil" example this work also influenced, the technology of fossil oil reserves was a response in part to "peak whale" (not a joke). The main source much commercial 'oil' for things like Street lamps in the 1800s was whale blubber. As whales got overfished fossilised oil reserves were developed and not only took over those markets but…

It's worth noting that by the time "peak oil" became a talking point on cable networks, operators had figured out that the time of barn-burner "easy oil" was over, and were starting to optimize their fracking operations, which targets mud rock instead of traditional reservoirs.

Now industry leaders are talking about "peak oil demand", the idea that demand for petrochemicals will crash over the next decade or so.