Why civilization itself is unsustainable

TFian

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,226
I want to start this off by stating that the opinions I am about to express come from a large base of facts from ecologists, demographers, anthropologists, and other types of intellectuals.

1. Columbus - When Columbus arrived to the Bahams, mistaking them for India, he immediately noticed how welcoming the indigenous peoples were. He noticed that he could exploit them because they were willing to trade gold for beads and random worthless objects. He then began forcing the indigenous peoples to provide him with gold or as a consequence, he and his men would massacre them. He also began enslaving them, but they were too difficult to keep a slaves so for the most part he obliterated them. This continued throughout the European colonization of the western hemisphere. I could write a book about the history of the indigenous, but I will spare you. If you want to know more about that read something from Howard Zinn or Ward Churchill.

2. Industry - Since the dawn of the industrial age, our technology, our population, and thus our expansion has seen rapid increase unlike any other civilization before it. Because the wealthier countries built their wealth on the backs of slaves and the poor, and because they exploited their resources from weaker poor countries, the negative effects of local ecosystems everywhere were slowly compromised.

The destruction that must take place to build the endless amount of products we have today is devastating. You likely see it as a bunch of tiny contaminated areas over a vast planet. In reality, one failed ecosystem will inevitably cause the fall of another over time. There isn't one process in the industrial process that doesn't devastate local ecosystems. With the current technology, there is no green solution that will change this truth.

3. Globalization - To keep it short and sweet, manufacturing is no longer exclusive to wealthy countries, but is rather a game of imperialism and exploitation for wealthy countries (The same as every civilization before us, only now it is global). Now we have world wide imports and exports for agricultural, manufacturing, and trade purposes.

4. Economy - I will keep this one short too. Our economy is also global. What effects one country is going to effect the next because of globalization. Every country relies on the United States for it's high levels of consumption. People often argue that China could at any moment cash in on the debt we own them... Well, that's not how it works. Our country is owned and run by very wealthy people, and a good portion of them are not American. However, if at any moment any country demanded our debt be paid, if we theoretically agreed, we would be bankrupt, and then, so would they because nobody here could afford to buy their products.

5. Summary - So, reason would say that this process of unsustainable, Keynesian economics where we just continue to print more money will go on and on until a crash comes that can't be repaired. This is a key sign of collapse, which has happened to every large civilization before ours.

Our unrepairable collapse will more than likely come when oil is too expensive to make the use of it worth it. Right now we are mining for Bitumen in Canada in a mining field that is the size of Florida, to create synthetic oil. For every two barrels of oil used to produced this oil, we only get one in return. In the 1970's when we reached our peak in oil consumption, the trade off was I believe 1 to 20 (couldn't find the statistic at the moment so don't quote me).

6. You - People are predictable when speaking of the masses. Those with special interests pay a great deal of money to learn how to manipulate the masses. It is the same old story of oppression, exploitation, and enslavement that we've seen in every civilization before ours, and we are going down in just the same way.
 
Kenyesian economics is really an exaggeration at this point, no? I mean, $10 of yesterday isn't the $1 of today yet. Much less a factor of hundreds or thousands or millions.

Around where I live, a can of soda cost me fifty cents about twenty years ago, and I can get them still for on average fifty-five cents.
 
I want to start this off by stating that the opinions I am about to express come from a large base of facts from ecologists, demographers, anthropologists, and other types of intellectuals.
Interesting post, but first off, none of those people are inherently "intellectual" so IMO even if you backed your claim with links and such, it doesn't really validate what you've said much. Second, stating that civilization as it stands/is going today is ultimately unsustainable is a water-is-wet statement...but that doesn't mean civilization itself is unsustainable ie by definition.
 
So, TFian, what I'd like you to explain then is why is it impossible to have a civilization without "oppression, exploitation, and enslavement" and why such a civilization must be very "primitive" technologically (and so subject to constant ravishment by disease)?

Also, I find it interesting that TFian has "racist" views that seem to suggest "white" people are better, when the giant "industrial civilization" he doesn't like was built by "whitey"...
 
Last edited:
For every two barrels of oil used to produced this oil, we only get one in return.

Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands#Bitumen_extraction
According to the National Energy Board, it requires about 1,200 cubic feet (34 m3) of natural gas to produce one barrel of bitumen from in situ projects and about 700 cubic feet (20 m3) for integrated projects. Since a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6,000 cubic feet (170 m3) of gas, this represents a large gain in energy.
 
So, TFian, what I'd like you to explain then is why is it impossible to have a civilization without "oppression, exploitation, and enslavement" and why such a civilization must be very "primitive" technologically (and so subject to constant ravishment by disease)?

Also, I find it interesting that TFian has "racist" views that seem to suggest "white" people are better, when the giant "industrial civilization" he doesn't like was built by "whitey"...
yay the race card! Fit for all occasions and absolutely free! Who cares if it doesn't apply or makes no sense whatsoever to what it references? None of that matters; it's the 21st century baby - just whip it out there, it's all the rage! Don't be left behind! :applause:

:rolleyes:
 
Glad to see you got your facts from "intellectuals", if not I would have had to doubt your opinions.
 
Hey just because Civ5 was a bit of a bust, no reason to trash the entire franchise
Civ 4 Complete with Realism Invictus is a blast. Except from the Memory Allocation Errors, of course, but hey, some things you just have to live with.
 
The OP cites misanthropic, Neo-Malthusian fallacies so beloved of the chattering classes at the mo.

e.g. "The Earth is composed of finite resources". Although this sounds logical, history tells us it isn't. With human population growth comes innovation, and innovation means getting more usuable product out of your resource than you did previously. Resources are not fixed, but determined by our level of development, by civilisation itself. So the OP is in error to say that civilisation is at odds with resources.

History has shown that up until now, resources expand as human populations expand.

Doom and gloom prophecies about population growth leading to the end of the world are as old as the hills. So far, they haven't materialised. Nearly 6 billion and counting.... :rolleyes:

Hurrah for humanity!! :)
 
A nice, sustainable population of hunter-gatherers living in harmony with nature in the more temperate areas of the planet would likely be very nice.
Any idea what to do with the billions of excess human beings?
 
The flaws in Tfian's ideas have been cited and discussed at length in many previous threads he's started on the same topic.

Since Tfian isn't really breaking any new ground in this thread, gumboot may feel there's no percentage in putting a lot of effort into re-doing work already done.
Yes, TFian has been beating this drum for years -- and ignoring all arguments to the contrary. I put him on "Ignore" long time ago.
 

Back
Top Bottom