Why civilization itself is unsustainable

lionking said:
No, it's immoral by any reasonable understanding. Thank goodness your views are shared by a vanishingly small minority.
Click to expand...

It may be immoral in your moral system, and even the moral system of your society, but unless you are arguing for an absolute morality, or that bikerdruid's moral system is internally inconsistent, I don't see how you can argue that it's immoral "by any reasonable understanding".
 
I think I'm gonna get back into apocalypse and conspiracy theories, existence is just so much more thrilling that way! I mean currently, most of that energy is spent thanking my predecessors for working so hard to make this a stable and safe country to live in, plus trying to live up to that legacy by doing the boring but noble work of hashing out the science and the issues. **** it would be nice to just throw away that responsibility and build a religion to support my most primal emotions!
 
bikerdruid said:
correct.
i view homo sapiens as no more valuable than any other species.
viewing that as immoral is mere anthropocentricity, over-active human ego.
Click to expand...

Of course it's anthropocentric. Given that we're the only sentient species on the planet, it's immoral to NOT be anthropocentric. The human race has infinitely more value to me than some particular frog species, and not only because I'm human (though that is also a good reason).

The universe will not care for a species which does not prioritize its own welfare.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course it's anthropocentric. Given that we're the only sentient species on the planet, it's immoral to NOT be anthropocentric. The human race has infinitely more value to me than some particular frog species, and not only because I'm human (though that is also a good reason).

The universe will not care for a species which does not prioritize its own welfare.
Click to expand...

Quote for truth.

I'm all for saving the environment and using renewable resources, but that's from a purely anthropocentric point-of-view. The well-being of human beings will always come before the well-being of other organisms. And that's why I support population control (nothing totalitarian, of course.)
 
I suppose, given the long term consequences of entropy, it's literally true that civilization is probably unsustainable, although so is everything else.
 
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...

Soylent Green! Its what's for dinner. :p
 
23_Tauri said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nature may be groaning under the weight of 6 billion, potentially 9 billion humans, there are people out there working on ways to give nature a hand. While in infancy, one or two may come to workable fruition.
 
mike3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The other planets look dead. So do the South & North Poles if you don't know where to look or if the life isn't at home at the moment. We've turned up some wild extremophiles over the past few years, plus the birds and mammals living on the poles.

One or two little rovers and some flying craft are not going to uncover extreme critters hiding where we aren't looking on Mars, much less anywhere else in the solar system. That's one of the reasons Europa's driving us bats.
 
BootOnFace said:
Quote for truth.

I'm all for saving the environment and using renewable resources, but that's from a purely anthropocentric point-of-view. The well-being of human beings will always come before the well-being of other organisms. And that's why I support population control (nothing totalitarian, of course.)
Click to expand...

Japan had been doing population control with out realizing it (before its earthquake). Children just got very scarce.
 
Nosi said:
Japan had been doing population control with out realizing it (before its earthquake). Children just got very scarce.
Click to expand...

Have a look at Japan's demographics in 40 years time. 130 million people now, 90 million then, 5 million of whom will be over 90. Dire straits indeed.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Vaclav-Smil/2411

By 2100 the population will be around 60 million. It will be very likely a third world country by then, if not invaded by Korea or China.
 
lionking said:
By 2100 the population will be around 60 million. It will be very likely a third world country by then, if not invaded by Korea or China.
Click to expand...

That just does not follow. Japan's population will be fewer than now, therefore: total economic collapse and invasion by neighboring countries.

I think Japan will be able to take care of their old people just fine. Especially if they let in some immigrant labor.
 
BootOnFace said:
That just does not follow. Japan's population will be fewer than now, therefore: total economic collapse and invasion by neighboring countries.

I think Japan will be able to take care of their old people just fine. Especially if they let in some immigrant labor.
Click to expand...

Any party to allow this would be decimated next election.

Really, that's the only practical solution for Japan, and I hope it happens. I just can't see it.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Don't worry, it won't happen. No, we will simply **** up our own planet and then DIE!

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.
Click to expand...

why should we restrict ourselves to Earth and be forgotten in the Galaxy's history as a mere backwater when we can and MUST expand into space to survive?

As well as that, Earth's resources (Oil etc.) are running out, and recycling is only roughly 20% efficient IIRC. Thus, restricting ourselves to Earth isn't viable.

It's like an ancient tribe who refuse to expand beyond an island for millennia because they were either too scared or didn't see the point, and got conquered or suffered a natural disaster and all died.

Humanity, like it or not, HAS to expand into space if it wants to see the 22nd century. Such foolish notions as "we don't need to go into space" wil only guarantee our extinction
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
why should we restrict ourselves to Earth and be forgotten in the Galaxy's history as a mere backwater when we can and MUST expand into space to survive?

As well as that, Earth's resources (Oil etc.) are running out, and recycling is only roughly 20% efficient IIRC. Thus, restricting ourselves to Earth isn't viable.

It's like an ancient tribe who refuse to expand beyond an island for millennia because they were either too scared or didn't see the point, and got conquered or suffered a natural disaster and all died.

Humanity, like it or not, HAS to expand into space if it wants to see the 22nd century. Such foolish notions as "we don't need to go into space" wil only guarantee our extinction
Click to expand...


You make an error in your assumption that the oil, etc. in the ground is all that will ever be, as well as all that will suffice for energy. Or raw material for platics, etc.

Both assumptions are wrong. Energy is the key here. With enough energy, we can make our own oil. Purify ocean water hand-over-fist. Even create our own long-chain hydrocarbons. And even if we don't, there are substitutions for those.

We are just not near the price point yet to haul these technologies into industrial scales. So we don't. But as long as there's no rationing by governments, we'll be ok. History shows it over and over again.


This guy made public bets with people claiming this or that resource was running out -- we're already 20 years past some of the "panic points" touted by them. This guy won those bets, over and over again. His theory thus receives confirmation over and over again, while the "we're running out" crowd's theory is disproven over and over and over again.

Learn from that. Observation. Theory. Prediction. Results. Stuff skeptics love.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom