If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   NASA study: We're screwed   (theguardian.com) divider line 256
    More: Scary, NASA, resource extraction, technological change  
•       •       •

24864 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 10:42 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-16 05:48:57 PM  
The end of the world has been coming since it formed.
 
2014-03-16 06:11:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This is the product of the current line of environmental science propaganda being taught to the last few generations of college students. It's the end, wave your arms.
Be afraid. Panic. Send money.

Feh.


Is it still propaganda if ocean acidification is actually happening?
 
2014-03-16 06:16:14 PM  
This is my shocked face: -_-

We happen to live in an age where there are 7+ billion of us on earth. It hasn't always been this way. In fact, for almost all of earth's history this hasn't been the case. Anyone who thinks it's some sort of permanent status quo just isn't paying attention.
 
2014-03-16 06:19:05 PM  

Gawdzila: Precisely why we can't let The Free Market decide when we need to do things like switch away from fossil fuels.
I don't care how efficient it is, The Free Market has no idea what we should do, or what we need to do. It responds only to money.
The Free Market will happily drive us off the edge of a cliff simply because it is the most efficient way to get to the bottom of the mountain.


For better or worse, the government is its co-pilot... A government run by politicians not as interested in the best solutions as they are with getting re-elected, we're not much better off.

I don't think wind/solar are practical. (Go nuclear.) But it doesn't matter what I think; it depends on where our politicians take us. At the end of the day, when all is said and done... It's our fault, collectively. Those that are wise, didn't try hard enough. Those that are unwise, were convinced they knew better. Plenty of blame. And it won't matter at all. I hate ending on a downer, so here's a glint of hope: Or, maybe we'll get lucky like we did with the Green Revolution and technology will come to the rescue.
 
2014-03-16 06:44:13 PM  
Destructor

Nuclear has been subsidized by so many sources it's hard to tell whether it is inexpensive or not.

For example, since 1993, 10% of our total power and 50% of our nuclear power has come from Russia, in the form of enriched nuclear material.
We bought, this power at around 850million dollars/year for the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads worth of materals over that 20 year period

Putin called off the deal in December and the last shipment arrived in January.
So this arrangement survived the Georgian incident, but apparently had to be stopped prior to this Crimean situation.

Anyway, if we were to increase nuclear power to 100% of energy, the rebuild and future constrution would take 25 to 35 years and under today's dollars would be close to 3 Trillion in cost, not inclusive of the fact that we would have to mine, refine, ship etc from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan/Pakistan as Canada and Australia would be running out in less than 25 years at 100% US demand or 50 years with full reprocessing.

A full Wind/Solar/Superconductive double back up solution would cost around 550 Billion, or to put that into perspecive, the entire advertised 2011 impact to the US economy of the Natural Gas/Petroleum and Coal companies combined.

Centralized power systems just don't fit efficient distribution compared to distributive network grid with diffuse but efficient technology available to us today.
 
2014-03-16 06:45:18 PM  
Cuchulane: Snip...
Unfortunately, our current capitalist economy is being largely sustained by a very large socialist endeavor - our military, which is after all a government program. snip...

I've been watching a backdoor stealth socialist economy grow and sap the strength out of the capital capitalism needs to function. You can't run a business while counterfeiters are tapping the till at eight percent a year for very long.

We didn't even get fifty years after going off of the gold standard and allowing socialism to flourish. It is so out of hand that it feels it needs to jump in a rescue businesses that had functioned through all of time.

The sad/funny thing is so many think the failure is Capitalism while they worship their stealth socialism, blind to the repercussions...

blind to the socialism itself.
 
2014-03-16 06:45:44 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: The end of the world has been coming since it formed.


The world isn't at stake. Just humanity living in any comfort.
 
2014-03-16 06:58:30 PM  

Acravius: Nuclear has been subsidized by so many sources it's hard to tell whether it is inexpensive or not.


Long story short, you can find good arguments for and against. What follows is simply MHO: If we insist on growing our population and are worried about unknowns, we have to consider arable land removed from food production, and the consequences of removing energy out of the environment (wind/solar) will have on weather. (We add 0.0001% CO2 and the climate is doomed... But extracting gigawatts of power from wind and ground heating? What possible ill effect can that have...? Interesting that that gets ZERO interest from government/media. Politics? unpossible....)

Nuclear has a much smaller footprint, and used in conjunction with reprocessing, efficient from a material point of view and is a zero carbon emitter. Cost is due in large part to NIMBY, legal, and regulatory considerations--which could be reduced/eliminated with political will. While its true, nuclear has been subsidized (partial compensation for factors mentioned), solar and wind are even more hilariously over-subsidized.
 
2014-03-16 07:17:27 PM  
Destructor

The total ground coverage of 42% efficient Gallium Arsinide solar cells is only ~150 square miles. If spread across the US in the ways that I described it would with the Superconductive loop, the width of the panelling parallel to the highways would be approximately 10 and 15ft wide, and would power the US for 16 hours a day.

The total ground coverage for the 66,000 7.5 MW turbines, while being spread in lots of 100, 660 times throughout the windiest areas in the Central United states would take up a total of around 660 square miles.

I am not against nuclear, and if it were to remain supplying base level 20% of our power today, I don't see it being a hinderance, in fact it would cut the cost of the other projects by 100-150 Billion total, down to just 400-450 Billion.
 I am just pointing out full nuclear at this point is very much less desirable in terms of implementation under today's available technology.

I also don't think that Geothermal has that much of catching on, as people in Iceland have seen blowout after blowout and minor earthquakes after seveal ambitious large scale geothermal projects have been attempted over the past 5 years.

Plus wouldn't you like to have your local energy provider be able to serve up your chemical and electrical energy as well as your clean water, and your local vertical farm's fertiliser all from a relatively small facility located within 10 miles of your town/city/metropolitan area?

These diffuse systems allow more independence from national grids, even though the grid is designed to deliver nationally, as you can start storing power locally in backup systems, which the current grid system doesn't efficiently allow for.
 
2014-03-16 07:23:09 PM  

CruJones: Why is NASA studying economics and social psychology?

And spell civilization like a real 'murican or your argument is invalid.


Isn't that the NOAA's job? Maybe the IRS, but certainly not NASA.

Mission creep is a terrible thing.
 
2014-03-16 07:37:12 PM  

incrdbil: For a Nasa study, it sounds like some freshmen college paper after their first intro to politics class, mixed with a little green eco-nut brainwashing: the solution to everything is communism, and living in the dirt in caves with primitive agricultural methods, after eliminating 'excess' population because wealth is evil.


The amount of sensationalism in the article and the actual published study:  http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/handy-paper-for-submission-2.p d f

would make Stalin's PR department jealous.  What's hilarious is that the fark libtard brigade eats this shiat up like candy.

1.  The study had absolutely nothing to do with NASA.  NASA issues grants to foster research.  One of the groups they issued a grant to is SESYNC (University of Maryland organization).
2. Just from visiting SESYNC's website you can tell they're pretty eco extremist.  They argue dams are killing everything (which may or may not be true).
3.  The main author of the study has published zero things prior to this study.  He's a no-name.
4. The paper's introduction is 3 pages long and arrives at its hypothesis as a conclusion before doing any real analysis.
5.  The study uses a basic predator/prey model and asserts human civilization between rich and poor classes would follow a same sine-wave predator/prey model.
6. The study's biggest flaw is that he uses no historical data to generate the model.  He essentially generates equations for how he thinks society should work with a handful of diffEQs with the variables and constraints he wants and calls it a day.  He doesn't run the model with data from the French Revolution or Roman Empire collapse or etc.

In short, it's amateur hour.
 
2014-03-16 07:44:00 PM  

Acravius: The budget for the superconductive loop project would be about $50 Billion, or ~$3.1 million per mile, but it would save ~$65 billion in coal costs per year


This is all in theory. I would like to see a pilot-plant project; something like "the University of Michigan built a superconducting loop connecting 50 university buildings and saved $BLAH in electrical generation costs" before committing to spending $LOTS on something that's pretty pie-in-the-sky.

At each of the 300 cities, you would have a 1/7 of an Olympic Size Swimming pool for electrolysis

Electrolysing water to generate hydrogen? WHAT? That only makes sense if you have a huge fark-ton of spare electricity from somewhere--which you never said anything about. It's far more efficient to do the water-gas reaction (H2O + CH4 -> CO + 3H2) if you need hydrogen. If you just need electricity, why are you involving hydrogen at all? H2 is a pain to store since it leaks through ordinary metal tanks, palladium-hydride storage is too expensive, and so forth. Keep the energy in pumped storage or batteries or hydrocarbons or something that isn't hydrogen; it'll work better that way.

I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to go from their 1200 square foot loft to a 10K square foot loft for a $300,000 price tag, get their own floor, and have only the ceiling and floor to worry about in terms of noise.

A 10,000 ft^2 apartment would have a really huge utility bill to go with it. Bias: I live in Tempe, AZ, where for 6 months/year, you need AC to keep the interior temperature at a human-tolerable level. I spent most of the rest of my life in MI, where for 6 months/year, you need a serious gas/oil/electric heater to keep the interior temperatures at a human-tolerable level.

If we made city living less low rise, and all high rise, and removed most of the sprawl, a lot less crime would take place

Citation needed. I am not a criminologist, but I'd guess that most crime happens because the criminals think they can get away with it, not because of population density. ICBW.

Chatanooga, Tennessee, already has 1 Gigabit internet, and it doesn't quite know what to do with it.

Pr0n? :-) People can find all kinds of uses for bandwidth, it's just that not all of them fit the definition of "productive". People hosting their own images or text content on their own servers would probably be a win though.
 
2014-03-16 07:48:56 PM  

Click Click D'oh: NASAs mandate is to shoot people and things into space in the name of science and conduct kick arse atmospheric research, not sociology and economics. We've got other people for that.  If NASA doesn't want to do it's job, it's time to defund them.


The government has already defunded them.  We've don't have a space program anymore, remember?  So they're taking what little money they have left, along with their scientists and computers, and finding other productive things to do with them.  Like, oh I dunno, study global impacts disaster evens, such as asteroid collisions, freak weather changes, and now - new to the list - myopic economic policies.
 
2014-03-16 08:06:34 PM  

Acravius: Destructor

The total ground coverage of 42% efficient Gallium Arsinide solar cells is only ~150 square miles. If spread across the US in the ways that I described it would with the Superconductive loop, the width of the panelling parallel to the highways would be approximately 10 and 15ft wide, and would power the US for 16 hours a day.

The total ground coverage for the 66,000 7.5 MW turbines, while being spread in lots of 100, 660 times throughout the windiest areas in the Central United states would take up a total of around 660 square miles.


I know what nuclear is. But I don't know what wind and solar are. I am very skeptical especially about cost. So much of the cost of these things is calculated in terms of credits and tax incentives (which in terms of societal cost, are illusionary). Consider, land use, inevitable cost of Ga As cost increases, cleanup (in the Western world) of pollution from mining/refining. Cleanup of Rare earths necessary for turbines. Durability/replacement of both in severe weather, unforeseen environmental factors (mentioned earlier). Peaker/deficit issues... Plus, your introducing extra unknowns like the Superconductive loop (can it cost effectively handle the current load? Would it quench if there was a large CME? And that's just off the top of my head). Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Top Men have thought about this sort of thing. But that is much different from being proven in the field. Nuclear is a known. The other stuff? To some extent, sure. But not with a trial by fire.
 
2014-03-16 08:07:52 PM  

RedVentrue: CruJones: Why is NASA studying economics and social psychology?

And spell civilization like a real 'murican or your argument is invalid.

Isn't that the NOAA's job? Maybe the IRS, but certainly not NASA.

Mission creep is a terrible thing.


It was posited up-thread that it's not actually NASA's study, but something that some other group extrapolated from NASA's actual work.

Article says NASA funded it, which could have been a relatively small amount.

FTA:
A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center...
[...]
The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists.


Basically, it's a bunch of fuzzy "sciences" using their benefactor to sound more legitimate.  It is kind of amazing what you can convince people to spend money for you to "research".

I don't mean to make it sound like bullshiat, but it is, in a way.  I mean, it's more than somewhat obvious, as many posters have mentioned.  Didn't really need much of a study or research.

patagoniantoothfish: But don't worry - NASA have also recorded a series of cryptic messages that we can open at various stages of the collapse to help guide us through various crises and thus shorten the period of darkness and chaos.


The foundation books were a decent read, if ludicrous in principle.
 
2014-03-16 08:33:19 PM  

nickerj1: 2. Just from visiting SESYNC's website you can tell they're pretty eco extremist.  They argue dams are killing everything (which may or may not be true).


Wait a sec... all accusation of amateurism aside, you're saying that their criticism of dam systems "may or may not be true," but allows you to dismiss them as extremists in either case. How does that work?
 
2014-03-16 08:36:18 PM  
Not that we shouldn't be doing more to combat inequality and climate change, but mathematical models that take sociological, economic, and planetary environmental changes into account are, individually, very difficult to do or produce even remotely accurate predictions.  All of these together AND forecasting forward half a century...I'll just take this with a Hope Diamond sized grain of salt.
 
2014-03-16 08:42:07 PM  

Cuchulane: StokeyBob: Cuchulane: StokeyBob: I'm not sure if it would help stop an industrial collapse but I'm pretty sure stopping the fake money presses would help reel in government agency's and corral them back in to their jurisdictions...

bring jobs back.

All money is inherently fake, even when it's based on useless lumps of yellow metal. It's as real as we universally agree it is.It's not a problem unless you get a bunch of uneducated idiots elected to government that don't understand world economies and do everything they can to undermine our countries good credit. All because they think world governments run like personal checking accounts.
Unfortunately, one of the core functions of capitalism is to destroy jobs and lower purchasing power in it's eternal motive to reduce costs. It's inherently self destructive.

Capitalism shouldn't be sold out to socialism by those that have no money, borrowing from those that have none, and transferring the debt over to an unsuspecting public through inflation and bonded servitude.

It's a mistake to think that it can only be one it the other. History shows the inevitable circle of unchecked capitalism destroying the very customer base that supports it, leading to rampant income inequality, followed by revolution and imposed over reaching socialism that destroys new growth, that leads to unchecked capitalism, and so on, and so on...
Long term sustainability has always been the result of a marriage of the two in check and balance. When capitalism destroys one segment through innovation, cost cutting, or manipulation, socialism kicks in to hold things together until capitalism can create a replacement segment. At some point the balance leaves some segments solely to the purview of socialism where there is no recognition of the types of short term profits that capitalism thrives on, but also cannot be sustained in the long term without.
Unfortunately, our current capitalist economy is being largely sustained by a very large socialist ...


www.political-humor.org
 
2014-03-16 08:45:27 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.


http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png
 
2014-03-16 08:55:24 PM  
Coming from NASA's Goddard means about as much these days as the Nobel Peace Prize has bearing on peace.
 
2014-03-16 09:15:30 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png


Feel free to spend your days fretting the sh*t out of yourself while waiting for the End of the World then, putz. I've been around long enough to see the same old song & dance from these Chicken Littles, most of whom have an agenda to make money or fame from their bullsh*t.
 
2014-03-16 09:31:56 PM  

Acravius: A full Wind/Solar/Superconductive double back up solution would cost around 550 Billion, or to put that into perspecive, the entire advertised 2011 impact to the US economy of the Natural Gas/Petroleum and Coal companies combined.


Also known as 13% of the cost of the Iraq war....
 
2014-03-16 09:35:34 PM  

Chronomorte: NASA used to be about space.  If it's going to turn in to (or has already become) yet another PC entity doing uninteresting stuff that others could do, then how about closing it down.  I'll miss it, but seeing it wither away into a global political mission is nauseating.


Right, because this one study (did you even bother to look into why Goddard helped fund it?) and providing scientific information about the global climate that's actually part of its core mission are clear indications that NASA is a "PC entity doing uninteresting stuff that others could do."

Your intellect is remarkable.
 
2014-03-16 10:35:22 PM  
mr lawson: wealthy do not consume too much. They consume too little as a percentage of income and wealth.

Which is why they're dying out.  Won't someone help the wealthy?
 
2014-03-16 10:37:35 PM  

TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png

Feel free to spend your days fretting the sh*t out of yourself while waiting for the End of the World then, putz. I've been around long enough to see the same old song & dance from these Chicken Littles, most of whom have an agenda to make money or fame from their bullsh*t.


Yeah, I'm sure lower-level NASA scientists do it for the fame.

We'll see if you're a Vinnie-style tough guy when society crumbles.  People said they didn't see the World Wars coming either, but even those events didn't threaten to turn civilization back to subsistence farming.
 
2014-03-16 10:38:41 PM  

big pig peaches: NASA funded? Um, no. Some idiots doing a study based on a NASA model.
Society didn't collapse after the fall of Rome; it just changed. And it will again.


And it keeps getting funnier and FUNNIER every time you say that.
 
2014-03-16 10:39:47 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png


I hope to never eat a 1001 day old turkey.
 
2014-03-16 10:43:28 PM  

StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.


Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.
 
2014-03-16 10:51:34 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: If we could only cook up a nice pandemic.  Take out about 75% of the population on the planet.  Things wouldn't be so bad then.

Somebody get George Orr on the phone and let him take a nap.  Whisper sweet nothings in his ear....

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/Lathe Of Heaven


Bless you and Oliver Plunkett!  I've been trying to remember the name of that book-and particularly the film-for months.  Perhaps now I'll get a decent nights sleep.
 
2014-03-16 10:56:25 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png

Feel free to spend your days fretting the sh*t out of yourself while waiting for the End of the World then, putz. I've been around long enough to see the same old song & dance from these Chicken Littles, most of whom have an agenda to make money or fame from their bullsh*t.

Yeah, I'm sure lower-level NASA scientists do it for the fame.

We'll see if you're a Vinnie-style tough guy when society crumbles.  People said they didn't see the World Wars coming either, but even those events didn't threaten to turn civilization back to subsistence farming.


I think it's going to be far more likely we'll both be in our 90's and crapping our Depends, while I smirk at you from across the bingo hall.
 
2014-03-16 11:08:22 PM  

mr lawson: Gunther: Elites eventually consume too much

see...that right there is one of the arguments i have against this study. Wealthy do not consume too much. They consume too little as a percentage of income and wealth.


Yes, there are reasons why other societies have collapsed, and there are reasons why various societies today might collapse, but this is not one of them.

the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society.

We're not in a "Type-L" collapse because we don't have a true global economy. It's possible that America could suffer as a result of other nations collapsing; but overall within our own borders, we don't have a Type-L structure yet.
 
2014-03-16 11:11:05 PM  

upload.wikimedia.org
The man who pretty much single-handedly made the destruction of civilization inevitable?


He certainly affected the entire atmosphere of the planet (for the worse) more than any organism ever to exist on said planet.

 
2014-03-16 11:14:18 PM  
Destructor

The 7.5 MW turbines cost 13 million Euros each, no tax credits, no waivers, no nothing.
They do not use rare-earth magnets, they simply use induction coils.
There is no gearing or oil crank boxes like the GE 1.5S to burn out or catch on fire.
They weigh 13,500 tons, and can continue to generate electricity up to 100 miles per hour, and can survive EF 4 and EF5 tornadic and Category 4 Hurricane sustained winds without damage. They have been recorded to overproduce up to 9 MW without damage to the coils.

These exist today, and 15 have been installed since 2010, and orders of another 135 have been made, for Australia and Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon_E-126
http://www.enercon.de/en-en/66.htm


Here is the most recent information on Ga Arsenide thin films

http://www.gizmag.com/stacked-solar-cell-gallium-arsenide-film/29006 /

danceswithwolves

There really is no need for studies, since we know that 20+% of energy is lost due to heat in long distance transmission lines today, and it is significantly higher in high heat settings, so in the summer heat loss could be as high as 40%, but let's keep it simple at 22.5%
http://electricalnotes.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/total-losses-in-powe r- distribution-transmission-lines-part-1/

Yes the entire plan described is a double capacity system that does 100% wind and 150% solar connected to the superconductive grid.

If hydrogen is too hard to handle, then perhaps localized loops at each distribution node could hold excess capacity in case the local grid section goes down for whatever reason.

Today's internal heating and cooling systems, plus insulation with Aerogel or similar products and electro based tinting/light diffusion/window shading and the fact that there is no roof to heat/cool on the 29-49 floors depending on height can really help maintain temperature. In addition conduit piping going all the way from the basement to the top floor can help to radiate 60 degree air up through the building passively to keep the building much cooler/warmer than the ambient temperature of the outside air, essentially everything starts at 60 degrees, and can be cooled/heated from that point. Think of an indoor swimming pool building, which at most locations are roughly 30,000 cubic feet. However heating the building to 77 degrees with a good H-Vac system and Huge Ass Fans TM, can keep that enviroment very stable with heat run times as low as 5 minutes per hour.
In UAE they built a 50 story South Facing continuous stone facade that reflects heat, and cuts energy usage by 70% compared to other buildings, so yes there is a great deal of good building insulation and design that can keep the building from being a heat trap/icebox.
Finally what could be described as the ugliest building ever, but also the greenest building in the world as of 2012, which tried to be everything self-sufficient including a bio-fuel reactor in the basement, and full water recycling in the same facilty is Pixel
http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-building-case-studies/pixel/

I don't want every building to be as efficient, because it doesn't really have to be, but if 20% of all building concepts are incorporated into the rebuild of work and living space, and the other infrastructure's mentioned in my other posts, were to be implemented, cities would be fantastically low emission points and people would get a great deal more enjoyment out of their work and living spaces in the high rise environment.

Most crimes are of convenience or situational. If all living quarters began on the third floor, and there were only one way in, and two ways out with secured and monitored entrance/exit ways convenience would be decreased, and if most of the areas depressed were now removed and everyone was accommodated with good separated housing, with ground level and second level foot traffic monitored and security personnel within a block or 2 at the farthest, situational conditions would also be greatly reduced.
So literally crime would be reduced to very targeted activity in very personal situations. i.e Singapore in 2012 - 29 murders in a city of 5.2 Million. 4 of them by the state, 2 drug traffickers and 2 Murderers

http://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector/drivers-of-crime/publicati on s-and-background-information/documents/spb-theories-on-the-causes-of-c rime

As to Chatanooga, it's the city that installed it as part of a grant project from the TARP money in 2008, and so that is question they are asking, and they are trying to attract businesses that use data transmission to set up shop. The problem is that the infrastructure outside of Chatanooga is 1/100th the speed so anything going out runs into that limitation. So Los Alamos and Chatanooga are tied for the fastest Internet in the US.
 
2014-03-16 11:20:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png

Feel free to spend your days fretting the sh*t out of yourself while waiting for the End of the World then, putz. I've been around long enough to see the same old song & dance from these Chicken Littles, most of whom have an agenda to make money or fame from their bullsh*t.

Yeah, I'm sure lower-level NASA scientists do it for the fame.

We'll see if you're a Vinnie-style tough guy when society crumbles.  People said they didn't see the World Wars coming either, but even those events didn't threaten to turn civilization back to subsistence farming.

I think it's going to be far more likely we'll both be in our 90's and crapping our Depends, while I smirk at you from across the bingo hall.


People always underestimate the speed with which crises expand. I'm a bore about this but Pakistan has nukes and has been one of the countries already hard hit by climate change. They also have a large, organized Islamist opposition. The general line about climate change is to look at the weather it will produce or the sea level changes. Yes, bad, but terrible sea level change is a couple of hundred years away (unless you're Bangladesh.) What we need to to worry about are the political stresses: climate change breeds mass migrations.
 
2014-03-16 11:21:42 PM  

COMALite J: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x343]
The man who pretty much single-handedly made the destruction of civilization inevitable?


That isn't Thomas Newcomen.
 
2014-03-16 11:35:04 PM  

yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.

Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.


I Googled up a list of 10 for you.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium


The only one that really concerns me at the moment is the United States of America.

The central bank we have has slowly, like a frog in a pot of boiling water, shifted all of our capitalist enterprise and other government agencies over to a socialist system.

Banking is broken in both directions. Not only does it not pay enough to keep up with inflation trying to save in one, if you had a lot of real hard earned money you couldn't compete with the central banks and their loaning what they don't have. You would lose your real assets. They, if the made a bad loan, would bail themselves out and stiff you and your friends with the bill for it all.

Student loans have been taken over.

Home loans taken over.

Heath-care. I think we all know where that is going.

The military may not be the defensive military we all seem to pride ourselves of having. It seems to have been co-opted by the central banks to install new central banks networked to the global system. I heard once that there were only seven countries without a central bank tied in with the global network. The list had Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya on it then. Now I think it is down to Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba.

The auto industry was big at one time. It too needed help under all of the pressure of the back door stealth socialism.

Then while we are on your list, how many of the countries on it have been given loans from our central bank, behind our back, shifting more inflation our way and sucking the capital out of the capital, capitalism needs to operate?
 
2014-03-16 11:55:15 PM  
No mater what, you can always eat people.
 
2014-03-17 12:16:06 AM  
1) technology growth and population growth are incompatible, at least in a capitalist system.  As the efficiency of technology grows, the number of workers required decreases.  Thus there becomes less demand for workers over time.  If population continues growing at a comparable rate to technology, the diminished demand coupled with increased supply of potential workers will result in lower wages, less employment, and overall discontent amongst the perpetually growing lower class.  Eventually the poor will make up for in numbers and emotion what the wealthy have in materials/fiat currency and the system will be toppled and need to start over.  An optimist might consider it 2 steps forward and 1 step back where we eventually learn from our mistakes.

2) resources are finite. For a given average quality of life, there is a set amount of physical resources required.  This changes as a function of the technology set of a given civilization.  For instance the technology at the time of the ancient Greeks would never be able to support the present modern world population of 7+ billion.  Regardless of technology, however, at some point we are limited by sheer raw material availability and energy flux from the sun.  Supposing 100% efficiency, there would still be some upper bound on the human population for a given quality of life (and supposing some minimal ethical quality of life).
 
2014-03-17 01:47:00 AM  

SheltemDragon: These types of studies are simultaneous important and hard to take seriously.

People have been screaming about the impending collapse of civilization forever, and western model civilization since at least Mathus. Yes, current resource exploitation and wealth distribution has some serious problems, but its the most efficient model we have come up with. Hell, Globalization is actually retarding any collapse by wounding the top end economies to bleed manufacturing of all things into poorer, marginal economies and raising their standards of living. As a long term "civilization" protection strategy it was an amazing feat of social engineering to sell it to those who would be hurt by it in the short term.

This isn't to say that we don't have some *serious* points of weakness. "Just in Time" manufacturing is really "Just wanting for a large enough disaster to take us out". Our capacity to rebuild critical infrastructure in the event of a wide spread global scale disaster is fairly non-existent. Companies and nations just don't keep large stockpiles of parts and materials on hand anymore. Wealth stratification is also kicking us in the pants, but that something that can be reversed easily any number of ways if the will / fear can be gathered in the elites to provide more then bread and circuses. In any case, half our problem (in the western world) is that we are approaching a efficiency level that simply cannot employ everyone . Enough goods are produced, food grown, and resourced gotten with a minimal amount of labor that the "Everyone needs and should work to survive" model is starting to crack.


Hence why its about time we had a Utopia.  Why when a few of us can make cool machines should EVERYONE HAVE to work to survive?  Maybe its time we perfected the system - allow all people to work for a living wage, but make that work only 25 hours a week.  The rest of the time we could be leisure time - the original "good life."  Continuing with an unsustainable system is silly, why wait until it breaks when instead we can remodel it along more egalitarian/utopian lines?
 
2014-03-17 02:35:07 AM  
I've been stockpiling bottlecaps and ammo, so screw you guys.
 
2014-03-17 02:51:14 AM  

Nemo's Brother: What I don't understand is why any of you greenies are using a computer for recration purposes? You are being beyond wasteful and selfish and should cease doing so immediately. GTFO


I gotta wonder what is the opposite of greenies (even though I know you are being sarcastic/trollie) - is it suicidies, or maybe blowupies.  How can anyone be anti-green?  We live on this beautiful Earth/Gaia/Tosev3, how could anyone be stupid enough not to respect HER?!
 
2014-03-17 06:37:59 AM  

CruJones: Why is NASA studying economics and social psychology?

And spell civilization like a real 'murican or your argument is invalid.


That's what I want to know also. NASA has no more business studying economics than the CDC does studying gun violence.
 
2014-03-17 08:48:12 AM  

StokeyBob: yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.

Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.

I Googled up a list of 10 for you.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium


The only one that really concerns me at the moment is the United States of America


And so you're worried about socialism? Because when I think of Finland, Sweden, and Denmark ,.. I  sure imagine the frightened hordes of Finns, Swedes, and Danes yearning  to breathe free. Yup.
 
2014-03-17 10:44:26 AM  
b.thumbs.redditmedia.com
 
2014-03-17 10:46:04 AM  

yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.

Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.


In terms of land area? Or in terms of "most socialist"?
 
2014-03-17 11:07:12 AM  

Ricardo Klement: yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.

Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.

In terms of land area? Or in terms of "most socialist"?


I was thinking ... nothing really. Just expecting Sweden to pop up. And -- ta da -- all the Scandinavians showed. Rain on the desert.
 
2014-03-17 11:13:59 AM  

yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: yakmans_dad: StokeyBob: blind to the socialism itself.

Just for grins, name the 5 largest socialist countries.

I Googled up a list of 10 for you.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium


The only one that really concerns me at the moment is the United States of America

And so you're worried about socialism? Because when I think of Finland, Sweden, and Denmark ,.. I  sure imagine the frightened hordes of Finns, Swedes, and Danes yearning  to breathe free. Yup.


Their breathing is just fine, they have good healthcare.
USA, not so much.
 
2014-03-17 11:17:14 AM  

yakmans_dad: TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: BolshyGreatYarblocks: TV's Vinnie: I've been hearing this doom & gloom since the early 70's, and yet we're still here, and there's still plenty of Big Macs to go around.

http://nassimtaleb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/turkey.png

Feel free to spend your days fretting the sh*t out of yourself while waiting for the End of the World then, putz. I've been around long enough to see the same old song & dance from these Chicken Littles, most of whom have an agenda to make money or fame from their bullsh*t.

Yeah, I'm sure lower-level NASA scientists do it for the fame.

We'll see if you're a Vinnie-style tough guy when society crumbles.  People said they didn't see the World Wars coming either, but even those events didn't threaten to turn civilization back to subsistence farming.

I think it's going to be far more likely we'll both be in our 90's and crapping our Depends, while I smirk at you from across the bingo hall.

People always underestimate the speed with which crises expand. I'm a bore about this but Pakistan has nukes and has been one of the countries already hard hit by climate change. They also have a large, organized Islamist opposition. The general line about climate change is to look at the weather it will produce or the sea level changes. Yes, bad, but terrible sea level change is a couple of hundred years away (unless you're Bangladesh.) What we need to to worry about are the political stresses: climate change breeds mass migrations.


I am willing to bet the "nukes" do not work all that well.
Maintenance is a miserable biatch and horribly expensive.
 
2014-03-17 11:33:20 AM  

Cuchulane: StokeyBob: Cuchulane: StokeyBob: I'm not sure if it would help stop an industrial collapse but I'm pretty sure stopping the fake money presses would help reel in government agency's and corral them back in to their jurisdictions...

bring jobs back.

All money is inherently fake, even when it's based on useless lumps of yellow metal. It's as real as we universally agree it is.It's not a problem unless you get a bunch of uneducated idiots elected to government that don't understand world economies and do everything they can to undermine our countries good credit. All because they think world governments run like personal checking accounts.
Unfortunately, one of the core functions of capitalism is to destroy jobs and lower purchasing power in it's eternal motive to reduce costs. It's inherently self destructive.

Capitalism shouldn't be sold out to socialism by those that have no money, borrowing from those that have none, and transferring the debt over to an unsuspecting public through inflation and bonded servitude.

It's a mistake to think that it can only be one it the other. History shows the inevitable circle of unchecked capitalism destroying the very customer base that supports it, leading to rampant income inequality, followed by revolution and imposed over reaching socialism that destroys new growth, that leads to unchecked capitalism, and so on, and so on...
Long term sustainability has always been the result of a marriage of the two in check and balance. When capitalism destroys one segment through innovation, cost cutting, or manipulation, socialism kicks in to hold things together until capitalism can create a replacement segment. At some point the balance leaves some segments solely to the purview of socialism where there is no recognition of the types of short term profits that capitalism thrives on, but also cannot be sustained in the long term without.
Unfortunately, our current capitalist economy is being largely sustained by a very large socialist endeavor - our military, which is after all a government program. Because left to its own, the last thing a good capitalist wants to do is create jobs. Jobs cut into profits.


History shows that unchecked communism collapses in mere decades once they run out of rich people to shoot and intellectuals to work to death in gulags, and the proles decide "this better way" isn't as good as having shoes that fit.
 
2014-03-17 11:41:31 AM  

Gyrfalcon: We're not in a "Type-L" collapse because we don't have a true global economy. It's possible that America could suffer as a result of other nations collapsing; but overall within our own borders, we don't have a Type-L structure yet.


Maybe not, but we're going to L.

/get it?
//Yes, I should have used the obvious tag.
///subby
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report