Why civilization itself is unsustainable

Bikewer said:
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?
Click to expand...

I know, I know: Let them eat cake!!!!!!:D:):):):):)
 
Anyway, civilisation is part of the evolutionary stage which so far only one species has ever attained on Earth. And i have to echo the posts which denounce the BS that malthusianism is. Anyway, i feel that once we have mass spaceflight capability, Humanity will find limitless resources at its disposal (Not just on the Moon and Mars, but also in the Asteroid belt, with minerals there being priceless.)
 
tyr_13 said:
Not to detract from very real issues like nuclear weapon proliferation, any society that has that level of technology very likely has a way of monitoring for that type of dangerous device. And that day is likely far in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah but... doesn't that mean that future civilization will need police states to survive its own advances? (and from that perspective it will actually degenerate instead of improve?)

tyr_13 said:
No, no those guns aren't. Not even close. You'd need a sizable force even using modern guns such as those used in school shootings to deal with a large group armed with spears. Check out some of the problems the British had in Africa. A monstrous advantage? Yes. Easily deal with entire armies? No.
Click to expand...

Ok, point taken. (But I bet a couple of tanks could easily deal with entire armies... but course that is way over teens... for now :p)

tyr_13 said:
I'm sure someone will think of something. Probably the same guy who thought of the anti-matter weapon.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe... or maybe not... so we haver far more attack than defense technology (no way to shield ourselves from an atomic explosion... and protecting ourselves from antimatter bombs or grey goo its going to be quite a challenge, specially after it becomes easy to build any of them)

tyr_13 said:
Yes, easily. The most obvious outcome of such an event would be increased international policing and military intervention, possibly even some type of global governance. Of course this assumes that drug deals are even a violent threat in thirty years.
Click to expand...

Unless we wipeout ourselves on our first mistake :(

tyr_13 said:
Doomsaying is both easy and silly. It's best to keep a realistic assessment of threats, risks, and costs than go chicken little on every problem.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I hope you are right :)
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
Anyway, civilisation is part of the evolutionary stage which so far only one species has ever attained on Earth. And i have to echo the posts which denounce the BS that malthusianism is. Anyway, i feel that once we have mass spaceflight capability, Humanity will find limitless resources at its disposal (Not just on the Moon and Mars, but also in the Asteroid belt, with minerals there being priceless.)
Click to expand...

I believe that is key for our survival... I think we will easily reach a point where destroying earth environment will become too easy... IMO our only hope is space travel
 
bikerdruid said:
:cool:
perfect...after we have ********** up our own planet, and made it unliveable, we will expand to the stars and **** up other worlds.....:mad:
Click to expand...

Why should humans restrict themselves to Earth? Does the premise of our descendants living on distant worlds not sound promising?

Like it or not, if we are to survive this century, then we are going to have to expand to other worlds. No way around it. That can only be facilitated by abandoning Fossil Fuels for renewable and nuclear energy. We can mine Jupiter for Helium 3 deposits and mine asteroid fields for minerals and water.

Replicator technology will also be necessary, but won't be like what is seen on hollywood.
 
TFian said:
Well a population of 9 billion people is simply not sustainable, so they'll probably mostly die off, from a combination of famine, plagues, collapse of public health agencies and infrastructure, lack of proper medical care, war, and cannibalism.
Click to expand...
People have been saying this since.... well, since at least as far back as 200AD, when Tertullian, 2nd century Christian philospher, wrote: "We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… already nature does not sustain us."

When Tertullian wrote this, there were 180 million human beings on the entire planet.
 
Puppycow said:
Really? Your main recommended sources of information are a 9/11 Truther and a man who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns"? And you expect to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything necessarily damning in the link you provided with Zinn. He doesn't seem to say "9/11 was an inside job", I don't know if he believed as such, but I've never read anything that seems to suggest so. I've enjoyed his works in the past, and thought that he was a pretty good heterodox historian. However, I'm not so sure what he has to do with "civilization is unsustainable", I don't recall him ever endorsing primitivism, or even ludditism, and he was a historian, not a scientist trained in the natural sciences, so TFian using him as a source on this subject is well...not appropriate to say the least.

I agree with you on Ward Churchill though, the guys nothing more than a inflammatory jackass who should just be ignored. He too, is not a scientist trained in the natural sciences, and shouldn't be considered an authority on this subject (or any...)
 
bikerdruid said:
:cool:
perfect...after we have ********** up our own planet, and made it unliveable, we will expand to the stars and **** up other worlds.....:mad:
Click to expand...

Your emotional empathy for inanimate objects is touching.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Animus said:
Why not stop producing the tons of crap we don't need or already have and instead focus our technology and science on setting up worldwide systems of sustainable housing, food, water, and energy? Then if people want 150 different brands of soap we can discuss it.
Click to expand...

What's to discuss? Making soap is a voluntary activity. Anybody who can afford the necessary resources may make a different brand of soap if they want to. Anybody who can afford to buy a different brand of soap may buy one if they want to.

The way I figure, there's only about four ways to stop 150 different brands of soap:
  • A natural shortage of resources, such that nobody can afford to make a different kind of soap.
  • An artificial shortage of resources, enforced by the State, to the same effect.
  • A lack of wanting to make a different brand of soap.
  • A lack of wanting to buy a different brand of soap.

So, where would you like to begin the discussion?
 
bigred said:
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:
Click to expand...

Huh? It was an aside, and TFian has stated things to which it most certainly does apply -- just not here. I just thought I'd toss it in to see if TFian could provide a response.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your emotional empathy for inanimate objects is touching.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

I don't take it quite so literally, I tend to think that he means screwing up the life on our planet. Though that doesn't seem to work with the other planets bit, at least not in this solar system: they all look pretty dead so far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lionking said:
Why? The real population problem is when the world's population starts reducing in about 30 years.
Click to expand...

Why is that? It'd only be bad if it did not eventually stop with a stable non-zero level of population, preferably one above just a few tens of millions.
 
lionking said:
Why? The real population problem is when the world's population starts reducing in about 30 years.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that population is the sole reason for space colonisation. But there's also resources (Earth's running out of them faster than it can recycle them) and the need for more than one planet (Asteroids and other Outside Context Problems)
 
Again, the problem will be mitigated by applied science and reason. Again, the pseudoscientists are mind******* the populace, terrorizing and guilt tripping the vulnerable. Hippie boys and girls are bursting into tears all over the planet at this moment after reading hypervigilant screeds about environmental terrorism against Gaia. They also weep when natural disasters strike because it is clearly her releasing the karma we have deposited in her crusts. I would continue but this line of reasoning is starting to make me feel a tad ill, save to say that evidence and reasoning exists that would allay these fears. However, apocalypses are just so bloody exciting!
 
dtugg said:
He believes the entire universe is sentient.
Click to expand...

If the universe is sentient and it chose to give a species of carnivorous primates opposable thumbs and advanced cerebral cortices, then whatever consequences the universe suffers experiences must logically be interpreted as what the universe intended to happen.

Short version: Whatever we are doing, Ma Nature wanted it.
 
bikerdruid said:
perfect...after we have ********** up our own planet, and made it unliveable, we will expand to the stars and **** up other worlds.....:mad:
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it won't happen. No, we will simply **** up our own planet and then DIE!

NWO Sentryman said:
You're assuming that population is the sole reason for space colonisation. But there's also resources (Earth's running out of them faster than it can recycle them)
Click to expand...
Neither reason makes any sense. We don't need to colonize space because we already have a perfectly livable planet right here. Recycling is far far easier and more viable than trying to 'mine asteroid fields for minerals and water'.

It's nice to dream, but 'Expanding to the Stars' is just pure fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom