Live data from Hacker News

Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

theguardian.com

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has a higher probability (honestly): - getting an increasing majority of the population of people who for the most part of their entire lives are taught/live/believe by certain ideals (i.e. are not doing anything different now), to the benefit of the few, to convince themselves of another way. - convincing the few who benefit now who have the means to try something new (or old) (i.e. who are doing something now)…

I don't understand your choice descriptions. What are you getting at? "Exploration" is the tying concept but other than that it's apples and oranges. Colonizing / terraforming another planet may be theoretically possible but also possibly require more expendable resources than our planet has to offer to the cause. Unlike Earth exploration.

Colonizing / terraforming another planet may be theoretically possible but also possibly require more expendable resources than our planet has to offer to the cause. Unlike Earth exploration.

It's easy to say that looking back, but there were people who believed the earth was flat. Blasphemy! But not then. Might have just as well been like comparing apples to oranges for them…

Colonizing and terraforming are both processes that can exist on a spectrum, and in that spectrum human beings to this point have proved to some degree that we can survive, not enough to make people believe ("but you can't grow your own food on ISS, it must all be for naught!") but enough progress to build upon by people who work within possibilities and not self imposed binary states that "complex" life forms themselves didn't come into existence as under such simplified states.

I think its more feasible that humans as we exist now, augment our bodies to exist in different places; We already do this on earth depending on the physical ailments that may affect people…

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#42
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting thought experiment I like to entertain is the case in which climate change is mitigated by the same kind of factors that cause and exacerbate it. It's not outrageous to imagine 21st century materials technology making it profitable to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or low-power, ubiquitous computing/surveillance/logistics technology that can extract heat energy from the atmosphere and conv…

I hope you understand that converting CO2 to anything else requires energy . CO2 is the "lower energy" state. Either you win the energy by burning something or you have to spend the energy to produce organic matter out of the CO2. The nature did the later during the last hundreds of millions of years. The humanity burned half of the oil so produced in a mere 100 years -- an order of million times faster, and growing.

My optimistic idea of the future (not the only scenario I entertain by any means) assumes that renewable, carbon-neutral energy will be pervasive.

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#43
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From the perspective of humanity, solar resources might as well be infinite. They aren't as soon as you continue to expect to have growth. Which the present systems still assume.

You can also have economic growth through more efficient use of the same resources. Again, there's probably some theoretical limit, but it certainly won't be a practical consideration any time soon (we're very inefficient).

Do you mean just printing more money (easy) or reducing the waste during the energy consumption (physical limits exist)?

What we know about the economy today is still mostly extracting natural resources, spending energy from one natural resources to process other, distribute, sell them and finally dump the results in landfills, air and water. We measure growth mostly by the amount of the matter involved in this process.

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#44

I agree that inequality is a growing problem for our economic and democratic models, but I think we need to keep two things seperate: Inequality of resource usage and inequality of resource ownership. The super rich may be thousands or hundereds of thousands of times as wealthy as the average person, but they do not eat thousands of times as much and they do not personally use thousands of times as much energy as the…

If you don't compare the rich and the poor within countries but on a global scale the situation looks a bit different. I have no source at hand to prove my point but if I remember correctly the first world wastes enough food that we could almost feed every human on earth if we would stop that and redistribute the food instead.

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#45
post #34
post #7

The problem with studies about the future is that they tend to too easily reconfirm the ideological beliefs of the writers. For example, the Romans didn't collapse because of environmental reasons. This makes them a tough jigsaw piece to squeeze into a deep environmentalist collapse puzzle. This is probably why Jared Diamond ignores them and instead focuses on small tribes in the arctic and easter island. The only co…

The Roman's did exhaust their environment though. Soil depleted, habours silted up, and forests disappeared. In North Africa this led to desertification that persists today. Tainter specifically mentions Roman soil depletion in his book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_...

Tainter's explanation for their collapse was the diminishing marginal utility of the "conquer and collect tribute" mechanism that had served them so well in previous centuries. I'm not saying that they did not deforest the land or change the environment but that's like saying the cause of the decline of the new world civilizations in the 15th century was because of their expansive agricultural modifications of the land in the preceding centuries.

Maintaining territory and tribute generated negative marginal returns after a while. It was only the eastern roman empire's deconstruction of their military institutions into the theme based system[1] of distributed farmer's security collectives that let the Eastern Roman Empire (A.K.A Byzantium) last another 1000 years after the western roman empire had collapsed.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#46
post #7

The problem with studies about the future is that they tend to too easily reconfirm the ideological beliefs of the writers. For example, the Romans didn't collapse because of environmental reasons. This makes them a tough jigsaw piece to squeeze into a deep environmentalist collapse puzzle. This is probably why Jared Diamond ignores them and instead focuses on small tribes in the arctic and easter island. The only co…

Jared Diamond explicitly said that environmental issues aren't always a defining factor in the collapse of human societies.

What kind of ideological beliefs are you talking about ?

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#47
post #21
post #16

This is obviously sensationalist bullshit. The Guardian writer, Nafeez Ahmed, has produced a string of highly exaggerated articles in the past[1]. Very surprised that the Guardian publishes this crap but it seems that highly politicized subjects like climate change and income inequality have different standards. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/profile/nafeez-ahmed

While I am not saying this is some universal truth or anything like that, but I have found these kind of articles to be wildly popular amongst cynical students at my college. There is something about the idea of "The world is fucked, and I will be here to watch it burn!" that seems to really click with these people.

Well, it seems to be in human nature to try to extinguish itself. Acid rain, ozone hole, global warming, wars, especially the nuclear arms race, ... seems only a question of time until we succeed by accident.

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#48
WARNING: Doom n' Gloom post :P

I'm not arguing against the need for such studies, however I find it amazing that this is debatable at all.

Expecting that we as a species or society aren't subject to the most fundamental laws of the universe isn't rational. Even in the negligible timescale of our own species we've seen repeated cycles of collapse, the planet is littered with the remains of failed species. The only reason this needs study is because we're so arrogant as to believe there's an exemption clause in the fine print of the immutable laws of the universe, just for us. Scarier still is that we don't even have to be all godded up to believe that, it's how we're born. (Tangent: watch "Through The Wormhole" the episode "Does Belief in God Cause More Self Control?")

A collapse is coming, it's just a question of when. 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? a million?

Personally I'd lean toward the lower end of the scale. Whilst a substantial percentage of the world subscribes philosophies that essentially reinforce our innate belief that the earth "belongs" to man. Her resources perhaps put there for us to consume by some higher being. We're pretty fucked. Ecological responsibility can't be discussed with any creature that ultimately believes that a a higher being provides for them. Heck you can't even begin to discuss the timescales involved rationally with the vast majority of faiths around, and those that you can engage in dialogue are numerically so insignificant as to not matter.

Then there's the question of reproduction. Whilst first world populations are shrinking, the third world is growing, and we in the first world can't even agree that it would be in our own long term interests to pay for the education and food of every last man, woman and child amongst them that needs it. The reasons are purely selfish: it's the only humane way we can have even the slightest chance of avoiding a world with 10 + billion people on it. If the thought of that doesn't terrify you, it should. Assuming we agree that societal patterns observed in the past hold true of the future, then trouble and strife breeds conflict, breeds fascism, breeds violence. Picture a world a few decades from now where the poorest two thirds, armed with today's most horrific weapons use the model set by the past as their compass for the future. I'd wager the odds are heavily stacked in favour of things getting very bloody at some point. Believing that, whilst some may play with cataclysmic weapons, the genie will stay in the bottle for the rest, is naive at best. If you still can't picture what I mean, drop everything and go visit India, Bangladesh, Mexico or almost anywhere in sub-saharan Africa, spend a year or two outside the city, then picture what happens when that thin veneer if government and society is stripped away.

It's a fact that as a species and as individuals we're incredibly bad at forward looking decision making. We evolved geared to favour today and next week over next month or next year. Few plan and act for long term benefit even on a human scale, and collectively that's going to bite us in the ass. I don't imagine this is something that sits well with the entrepreneurial spirit of HN readers, but before you stand up and shout "Hey! I plan! I save! I recycle!" or whatever, remember this is about us in aggregate, each of us individually are quite irrelevant.

Ok, I'm done, I can't begin to address this subject properly.

  “I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all
  that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? 
  Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the 
  world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can 
  explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace.”  - Bill Hicks

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also have economic growth through more efficient use of the same resources. Again, there's probably some theoretical limit, but it certainly won't be a practical consideration any time soon (we're very inefficient).

Do you mean just printing more money (easy) or reducing the waste during the energy consumption (physical limits exist)? What we know about the economy today is still mostly extracting natural resources, spending energy from one natural resources to process other, distribute, sell them and finally dump the results in landfills, air and water. We measure growth mostly by the amount of the matter involved in this proce…

Printing money isn't growth, it's just inflation.

Reducing pure waste, or increasing output for a given input, results in growth. Yes, there are physical limits, but we're nowhere near them for most processes.

Re: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

#50
post #10

"NASA-funded study" implies a lot more relevance than people should find. NASA funds lots of things, including warp drives. That doesn't make it true.

What about "accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics"?

Well... http://retractionwatch.com/2012/04/17/math-paper-retracted-b...
Post reply on HN