- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,365
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?
A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.
Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common."
Just a 'few' items in this story to stir up discussion
Items to discuss
" high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources"
under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."
how do we humans " reduce economic inequality" and also find a way " to dramatically reduce resource consumption "??
work by KPMG and the UK's Government Office for Science shows that resource exploitation could create a "perfect storm" of civilisational-ending crises by 2030.
Oh boy, another "man is doomed" prediction. Just like the Population bomb theory, just like the rain forest would be gone by now, just like we'd run out of food by now, just like CO2 is heating the earth... another stupid stupid study to rile up the gullibleJust a 'few' items in this story to stir up discussion
Items to discuss
" high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources"
under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."
how do we humans " reduce economic inequality" and also find a way " to dramatically reduce resource consumption "??
work by KPMG and the UK's Government Office for Science shows that resource exploitation could create a "perfect storm" of civilisational-ending crises by 2030.
Oh boy, another "man is doomed" prediction. Just like the Population bomb theory, just like the rain forest would be gone by now, just like we'd run out of food by now, just like CO2 is heating the earth... another stupid stupid study to rile up the gullible
Oh boy, another "man is doomed" prediction. Just like the Population bomb theory, just like the rain forest would be gone by now, just like we'd run out of food by now, just like CO2 is heating the earth... another stupid stupid study to rile up the gullible
Just a 'few' items in this story to stir up discussion
Items to discuss
" high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources"
under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."
how do we humans " reduce economic inequality" and also find a way " to dramatically reduce resource consumption "??
work by KPMG and the UK's Government Office for Science shows that resource exploitation could create a "perfect storm" of civilisational-ending crises by 2030.
Let me guess: if everyone would just listen to the Liberals, everything would be ok.
What was the population bomb? I'm familiar with the rain forest one...and what's the running out of food? I haven't heard these...
Remember the hole in our ozone layer?
The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[3][4] The book has been criticized since its publishing for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[2]
Study an ant colony.
It sends out worker drones to collect resources so the colony can expand.
Eventually, there are no more resources left so the colony must move to a new location with fresh resources.
What if, that colony is a planet with 10 billion people and there are no more resources. No new planet to run to.
Are you folks so anthropocentric to think we are somehow special and immune to the laws nature?
The prediction of 2030 is certainly off, and the dire tales of economic stratification are largely unwarranted (unless the uber-rich begin hoarding all resources), but we need to re-think just how quickly we are using up what precious gifts our planet has given us.
Just a 'few' items in this story to stir up discussion
Items to discuss
" high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources"
under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."
how do we humans " reduce economic inequality" and also find a way " to dramatically reduce resource consumption "??
work by KPMG and the UK's Government Office for Science shows that resource exploitation could create a "perfect storm" of civilisational-ending crises by 2030.
[/B]
Or we need to be finding a way off this rock. BTW, isn't that what NASA is supposed to be studying?
If things are really that bad, then we have a very good reason to cut the strings and let the lazy, useless and non-productive among us ?????. More reasons to end welfare. Let natural selection take them.
There is no way "off this rock". The sooner we grasp that fact the better.
Ending welfare will let "them" what?
Oops. Hate when that happens. Let them reap what the have sown. Die, if that is all they earn for themselves.
If the breadwinner dies, runs off on a bender, gets hit by a bus, crashes their car or is killed in a terrorist attack then their dependents should be expected to support themselves? That is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of many voters but feel free to run on that platform plank.
The ant colony analogy fails.
Ant colonies don't change. Haven't for the centuries we've studied them, and likely not in a million years. Ants don't invent. They simply repeat the same course of action.
Ants have been around a lot longer than human beings. If civilization collapses and we die out, they will still be around. Perhaps the lesson to learn is live within the means of your environment?
This flies in the face of using them as an example of living above the means of our environment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?