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 62
    More: Scary, NASA, resource extraction, technological change  
•       •       •

24842 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 10:42 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-16 11:01:38 AM
7 votes:
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.
2014-03-16 11:06:26 AM
6 votes:

Nightjars: What's the mother of invention?  I can't remember..


You can't drive a truck off a cliff and expect to invent a hang glider on the way down.
2014-03-16 10:57:15 AM
6 votes:
As I've said repeatedly, whether you believe or not in climate change, or wealth inequity, or social justice, just doesn't matter - the window of opportunity in which we could've slowed or stopped the upcoming events passed some time ago. It's simply too late. The only question is "how long will it take?" I'm looking at about 30-50 years, for my WAG, with the current decline speeding up in about 10 years or so. Rising water levels, decreasing resources, increasing wealth inequity, means that, sooner or later, the have nots are going to die to keep the haves in kibble and curtains. 

Nightjars: What's the mother of invention?  I can't remember..


Must've missed the part in the article where NASA reminds folks that "technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

In other words, this isn't a problem out of which you can simply invent your way. Oddly enough, less, not more, is the solution here, but no one wants to hear that, not in a culture that values materialism and conspicuous consumption as its cornerstone.
2014-03-16 11:32:03 AM
5 votes:
We are 1000 times inefficient throughout the whole process of modern life, because we value money and control over all else.

we use 1 Billion short tons of coal a year to produce 37% of the electricity in modern US society, when we could use 1 million tons of coal to form 15,000 miles of conduit to house a superconductive loop that would allow us to immediately remove 20% of our electrical needs due to savings in heat.

66,000 7.5 MW/hour turbines could power the US every hour on the hour.
150 square miles of Gallium Arsinide solar cells could power the US for 16 hours a day.
900 square miles of conventional solar cells could power the US for 16 hours a day

E. Coli developed in South Korea in 2010 could directly produce diesel, and in 2013, could directly produce gasoline

In Europe there is a car engine and frame that can go 261 miles per imperial gallon
BMW's I8 high performance sport's car gets 94 miles per standard US gallon and goes from 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds

We could take a million long distance tractor trailers off the roads a year if we could remove the need to send 12,000 train cars worth of coal to be burned every day, and another 4,000 oil tanker cars off the rails everyday.

We could do a thousand things in 10 years from upgrading buildings and building more efficient infrastructure to food production that would solve all of this and allow us to get a grip, on the 8-9 Billion people we will peak out at at 2065, but we have to stop thinking about political power and money as the things humanity seems to value over all else.

It seems so paradoxical that people are inventing things to solve problems and then no one in power wants to implement them. Why has the US private and public invested 400 Billion dollars over the past 30 years alone, not including Europe and Asia's, 500 Billion combined, and then we just let it sit on the shelf unused and unimplemented. There isn't even a plan to seriously study the possible and achievable solutions today.
2014-03-16 11:08:07 AM
4 votes:

Gunther: FTA:  "... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels...the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society  "

Dang, there's gonna be a lot of WHARGARBL on Fox when they hear about this study.



I think Republicans who want to cut food stamps, etc... are break dancing on a razor's edge. "Entitlements" are the only thing holding this country together, and the minute cuts to entitlements hit the breaking point, a lot of innocent people are going to flip their shiat and start rioting with a lot of collateral damage.

The only solution is to make the people that benefit from these entitlements (Wal-Mart, etc), to start paying in their fair share.  Wal-Mart doesn't wanna pay a living wage? They have to pay the government back for every employee that they have who is eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, etc.  Wal-Mart is not going anywhere. They aren't gonna walk away from BILLIONS in profits because they have to start paying the true cost of operating a business. So make them pay the true cost of operating their business. If it is cheaper for them to just give their workers a raise or give them health care, they will do it; it might be cheaper for them to just pay the government to do it. Give them a choice, but make them pay for it either way.

I am SICK of subsidizing big corporations, and I am SICK of having my tax dollars paying to keep Wal-Mart (and all of those other horrible places) open. Those are the real welfare queens sucking on the government teet.

Occupy Arkansas.
2014-03-16 11:07:11 AM
3 votes:
I wonder how many great civilizations were warned decades in advance of their impending doom, and the wealthy elites laughed it off and kept on drinking and partying and irrevocably farking things up.

All of them, I suspect.
2014-03-16 11:06:46 AM
3 votes:

Click Click D'oh: FormlessOne: *sticks fingers in years, shouts "LALALALALALALA" to drown out scary things...*

Where did I say such things shouldn't be studied?  I didn't, so go light your strawman on fire.

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.


ever consider that living and working in space might...just might...have economic and sociology implications and in order to properly model them ya kindda need a reference model?
2014-03-16 10:54:48 AM
3 votes:
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.
2014-03-16 09:46:23 AM
3 votes:
Wait 'til they find out what happens when the Earth is no longer in the habitable zone in a billion years.
2014-03-17 12:16:06 AM
2 votes:
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).
2014-03-16 02:10:59 PM
2 votes:
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
2014-03-16 01:04:47 PM
2 votes:
@bobthemagnificent

NASA is trying to point out that if change doesn't occur, then we won't have a very livable planet, and in the next 40 years, we won't be in a position to get off this one to go somewhere else. That is what makes this NASA's purvue. We won't be ready to explore space if Earth is a climactic, political warring wasteland over resources, money, and political power. It is just one more source of information telling humanity collectively that we should try to get our world in order, so that we can continue to grow and survive as a species, perhaps somewhere other than this one blue ball.
2014-03-16 12:09:09 PM
2 votes:
Question the source...isn't that what we are told by Fark when a study reports findings that are not aligned with the prediposed and immutable opinions of Farkites?

SESYNC has an agenda all its own.  Admittedly one that a lot of people are pleased to hang their hat on, but an agenda nonetheless.

Explain how a "green-funded" study outlining a scenario for gloom and doom, is different than an "oil-funded" study explaining how anthropomorphic "climate change" (or the current catch-phrase consistent with weather events) is bunk?
2014-03-16 11:42:27 AM
2 votes:
Humans are a two-second scene in the evolutionary slide show.

/NASA isn't busy enough with human space flight anymore, so they sit around producing this alarmist crap?
2014-03-16 11:40:40 AM
2 votes:

Acravius: We are 1000 times inefficient throughout the whole process of modern life, because we value money and control over all else.

we use 1 Billion short tons of coal a year to produce 37% of the electricity in modern US society, when we could use 1 million tons of coal to form 15,000 miles of conduit to house a superconductive loop that would allow us to immediately remove 20% of our electrical needs due to savings in heat.

66,000 7.5 MW/hour turbines could power the US every hour on the hour.
150 square miles of Gallium Arsinide solar cells could power the US for 16 hours a day.
900 square miles of conventional solar cells could power the US for 16 hours a day

E. Coli developed in South Korea in 2010 could directly produce diesel, and in 2013, could directly produce gasoline

In Europe there is a car engine and frame that can go 261 miles per imperial gallon
BMW's I8 high performance sport's car gets 94 miles per standard US gallon and goes from 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds

We could take a million long distance tractor trailers off the roads a year if we could remove the need to send 12,000 train cars worth of coal to be burned every day, and another 4,000 oil tanker cars off the rails everyday.

We could do a thousand things in 10 years from upgrading buildings and building more efficient infrastructure to food production that would solve all of this and allow us to get a grip, on the 8-9 Billion people we will peak out at at 2065, but we have to stop thinking about political power and money as the things humanity seems to value over all else.

It seems so paradoxical that people are inventing things to solve problems and then no one in power wants to implement them. Why has the US private and public invested 400 Billion dollars over the past 30 years alone, not including Europe and Asia's, 500 Billion combined, and then we just let it sit on the shelf unused and unimplemented. There isn't even a plan to seriously study the possible and achievable solutions today.


Money talks, and science walks. There's a reason that the United States, the country that brought you the Internet, can't seem to get our speeds above what the average North Korean enjoys - there's no financial incentive to do so, not with the laws in place guaranteeing the business and the lack of competition and the captive market forced to use whatever is put in front of them. There's a reason that state governments, seeing gas tax income drop like a stunned sparrow when hybrids & electrics came out, started taxing the hell out of hybrids & electrics (especially given that the taxes were meant as a direct offset to the federal subsidies provided for those vehicle purchases.) There's a reason that we're still fighting to prevent massive oil & gas pipelines across the country, and massive coal shipyards here in Washington.

Money is all that matters now. Our well-being, our very survival, bizarrely takes a back seat to greed. In the last three decades or so, we've gone insane. My fear is that it's going to take a true catastrophe - something that affects the entire country - before we manage to shake off that insanity.
2014-03-16 11:12:50 AM
2 votes:

mr lawson: Loucifer: Come on Earth, just hold your shiat together for another 40 years!

buddy...in 40 years the shiat will be hitting the fan so hard everybody will be covered.
/actually expecting it to start in 35yrs


And 35+ years ago, people were saying the same thing - except it was during the Cold War era which was also supersrsbsns that people thought couldn't be avoided. For decades now, we've supposedly been on the brink of some catastrophe or another caused by  something.

World's still turning and civilization's still intact.

Doomsaying has never done anything except profit the doomsayers - either tangibly with money or otherwise with attention to projects  they want done. In some cases, this can be a good thing (see: emphasis and money put into renewable and cleaner energy sources,) but in others it can be the foundation of a scam (see: 'carbon credits.')

In regards to global climate change, one thing that is going to determine a lot of the future is how currently industrializing countries regulate themselves. If they have the same sort of regulation as the Industrial Revolution had (i.e. none,) we might be in for a rough time. It's really not a matter of 'are things changing?' It's more a matter of 'where is the breaking point?' The reality seems to be that the people studying it don't really know. They can make some good, educated guesses as well as predict what will happen as a result of hitting that breaking point, but right now, all they can say is 'the breaking point exists and hitting it will be bad.' That is pretty much the summary of TFA. How the up-and-coming countries handle themselves and what they pump into the environment will definitely determine whether we see that point sooner or later.
2014-03-16 10:55:00 AM
2 votes:
Why is NASA studying economics and social psychology?

And spell civilization like a real 'murican or your argument is invalid.
2014-03-16 10:54:24 AM
2 votes:
FTFA:  "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."

Time to defund NASA.  Seems they've completely forgotten what their mission is supposed to be.
2014-03-16 10:52:03 AM
2 votes:
Come on Earth, just hold your shiat together for another 40 years!
2014-03-16 10:47:42 AM
2 votes:
Needs Obvious tag.
2014-03-16 08:38:53 AM
2 votes:
Too bad the "wealthy elite"/Republican response will be TL;DR, or write this off as Obammaunist commissioned class warfare tripe.

The word Romanovs comes to mind.
2014-03-16 06:58:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:19:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:42 PM
1 votes:
Elite wealth monopolies mean that they are buffered from the most "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners", allowing them to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe."

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.
2014-03-16 02:50:13 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-03-16 02:14:11 PM
1 votes:
Almost all finite resources we currently use have current or near future renewable replacements, except for a very few like helium. Almost everything we do can be done for the next 100 million years. Over-population is the only reasonable mechanism that might cause problems, but we can solve that One Child per Family style.

The sky is not falling.
2014-03-16 02:09:14 PM
1 votes:

Click Click D'oh: FormlessOne: *sticks fingers in years, shouts "LALALALALALALA" to drown out scary things...*

Where did I say such things shouldn't be studied?  I didn't, so go light your strawman on fire.

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.


When NASA detects a high potential of extreme weather emergencies caused by climate change--which, thanks to their research on other planets, they  have experience studying--they are entirely within their jurisdiction to find the root cause and propose solutions. That was the entire point of the article--we're going to kill ourselves via climate change because of how our society is set up, with a list of potential catastrophes. TFA just dramatized the stuff about the root cause.
2014-03-16 02:08:06 PM
1 votes:

FormlessOne: In other words, this isn't a problem out of which you can simply invent your way. Oddly enough, less, not more, is the solution here, but no one wants to hear that, not in a culture that values materialism and conspicuous consumption as its cornerstone.


It's not just a set of popular cultural values that drives this, it's the very nature of a capitalist economy - the increasing profit that drives growth requires expanding markets, increased resource exploitation, and improved efficiency. Shockingly, this is not sustainable.
2014-03-16 02:08:05 PM
1 votes:

Hickory-smoked: Nightjars: What's the mother of invention?  I can't remember..

You can't drive a truck off a cliff and expect to invent a hang glider on the way down.


This gets the rare "smart" and "funny" double-vote.
2014-03-16 02:03:29 PM
1 votes:

Acravius: Superconductive grid can store energy up to baud transmission capacities


Er... what? The superconductors we have right now require liquid-nitrogen-ish temperatures and have limited current-carrying capacities. Building even a mile-long transmission line and keeping it at 138K (highest claimed critical temp as of a tiny net search, roughly -211 F) would be insanely expensive. And there are hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines in just the USA. (And what did you mean by that last bit? "Level transitions per second transmission capacities" doesn't make much sense.)

Reduce the sprawl of the cities into small 1, 2 or 3 square mile 500, 2000, and 9000 respectively vertical 30 to 50 story buildings

Telling everybody that they have to move into a small apartment in an arcology will go over really well. The only way that people would do this willingly would be if living in this hypothetical mega-apartment was a lot better than living in a 3-bedroom house in a suburb. This is possible--it'd just be difficult to do.

Vertical farming, more solar plants, and more wind turbines sound like good ideas though.
2014-03-16 01:47:27 PM
1 votes:

cantsleep: Still no reason to scoff, IMO. One of mankinds base urges is to protect yourself and your family. I see these people as doing what they feel they can to do just that.
/ not a prepper


Fair enough. But what separates mankind from other large animals that also want to protect themselves and their family? Here is the answer, and it is not just my opinion, it is our human capacity to "know thyself" hence our species name Homo sapiens.

The deniers who want you to ignore very obvious paths that would avoid collapse may be very bad people. There, I said it.
2014-03-16 01:41:57 PM
1 votes:
If we could work together for as long each year that we spend trying to kill each other on Call of Duty, most of these issues would already be fixed.

Between 2010 and 2013, humanity spent a collective 213 million years playing Call of Duty in it's many variations. I am not singling out COD, I am sure that millions of years of collective time was spent commuting to and from work, talking on the internet, and playing other video games during those three years.

I'm not saying that the time wasn't time well spent, because real people weren't being hurt, it's just that we seem to have a lot of human resources that aren't being valued very well if it was more utilitarian to shoot at avatars for all that time, than go out and do the very small (in comparison) steps it would take to stop hurting our world's ecosystem.
2014-03-16 01:27:12 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-03-16 01:08:53 PM
1 votes:
Any decent psychohistorian could tell that we are approaching a Seldon Crisis.
2014-03-16 12:55:43 PM
1 votes:

cantsleep: Just curious, how many people here who are behind the results of this study laugh and scoff at "preppers"?


I do. The reason I skoff at preppers is something called "The Sixth Extinction." There is a book by Richard Leaky and a newer one with the same title by Elizabeth Kolbert that explains the situation. The damage humans are causing is not something like the collapse of the Easter Islanders, Greenland Norse etc. We are taking out whole genera of worms, amphibians, plants, corals and fish. Stocking up on ammo from Walmart is not really the answer.
2014-03-16 12:55:08 PM
1 votes:
@cantsleep
The study shows what could happen if "large scale" change doesn't occur on a "world wide" basis.
The numbers I present to mitigate all of the doom and gloom are not "large" nor even are needed to be "world wide".

"Preppers" who think that their year's supply of food, in a basement/cave and their collection of guns and "insert large number" of rounds of ammo are going to get them through a society destroying event are simply self-medicating their fears. It isn't laughable, it is just a sad reflection of the fear that is being propogated by all media sources at some level on a constant basis.
2014-03-16 12:32:07 PM
1 votes:
Solving the WORLD's electrical energy needs:

Solution 1: ~150,000 7.5 MW wind turbines
Solution 2: ~1,000 square miles of Gallium Arsinide 42% efficient solar panels
Solution 3: ~15,000 square miles of 17% conventional solar panels

Solving the WORLD's Chemical energy needs:

5000 Thermal depolymerization plants
5000 biofuel/waste treatment facilities
5000 fuel refineries

Solving the WORLD's global consumption of seafood in all forms

21.7 miles of Deep Blue fishing technology to produce the 90,000,000 tons of fish and
coastal farming of the 30,000,000 tons of sea plant life we take from the ocean every year.

Solving the WORLD's global consumption of land based agriculture.

50,000 10 acre 10 story Vertical Farming facilities
(1 facility in Singapore currently is getting 10 times efficiency per unit of normal agriculture and the cost of the electricity to run it is ~3 Singapore dollars a month or around $2.20 US)

Solving the WORLD's water consumption issues

All of the above could help mitigate around 30% of the water consumption currently taking place.
Add 5000 water recycling facilities to the 5000 facilities for chemical energy production and you can take the efficiency up to 90%

Solving electrical energy storage  issues

Superconductive grid can store energy up to baud transmission capacities
Using electrolysis of water to create stores of hydrogen and oxygen then burn in steam turbines could also be used for storage purposes at 61% efficiency.

Realizing vertical efficiency for city scapes

Reduce the sprawl of the cities into small 1, 2 or 3 square mile 500, 2000, and 9000 respectively vertical 30 to 50 story buildings and you could reduce signal transmission costs, electrical grid costs, Internet accessability costs, water pipe infrastructure, sewage system infrastructure, roads, mass transit infrastructure and individual transportation, vehicle time and travel costs by 70%.

These are all available with today's technology. We don't have to go down the dismal spiral projected before us.
2014-03-16 12:28:31 PM
1 votes:

FormlessOne: jaybeezey: Just an interesting point of fact.

If you release a study that says, don't worry guys it's cool, you don't get paid to do follow up studies on ways to fix anything.

...because, clearly, the motive here is for these folks to obtain more funding. Sheesh.


Pay doesn't just come in dollars. Do-gooders get a sense of self satisfaction from collecting Making A Difference points. MaD dollars are what fixed the hole in the ozone layer and saved the whales
2014-03-16 12:07:06 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: Too bad the "wealthy elite"/Republican response will be TL;DR, or write this off as Obammaunist commissioned class warfare tripe.

The word Romanovs comes to mind.


Too bad the Democrat response will be to create a new tax and waste the money in their slush fund.
2014-03-16 12:01:08 PM
1 votes:

jaybeezey: Just an interesting point of fact.

If you release a study that says, don't worry guys it's cool, you don't get paid to do follow up studies on ways to fix anything.


Yes and if the conclusion is more shocking, it draws more attention.

The biggest problems are in India and China. Half the world's population is in those two places, and they are adopting our consumer culture, and they resent any attempts to impose our values. When you figure out that problem, there may be a chance to fix the bigger problem.
2014-03-16 11:58:57 AM
1 votes:

Rozotorical: Currently industrializing societies rely 100% on post industrial society. If you some how think that saying Africa, the continent that has huge range of technology from post industrial to tribal, is not heavenly influenced by post industrial societies, western and Asian then you just being silly.

  If you think acts of resource waste and incredibly dangerous pollutions are not rampant in any industrial society then you are being even sillier.


I have a feeling we are actually on the same side here. I might be wrong as I have not slept for over 36 hours, but if you think that the way we are living is a bad thing for earth and for any hopes of any where close to a "normal" life style, then we agree.
2014-03-16 11:54:23 AM
1 votes:

Rozotorical: Gone In 26 Minutes: Rozotorical: mr lawson: Gone In 26 Minutes: And 35+ years ago, people were saying the same thing - except it was during the Cold War era which was also supersrsbsns that people thought couldn't be avoided. For decades now, we've supposedly been on the brink of some catastrophe or another caused by  something.

oh i get that. Trust me. I get it. Even as I type this and everyday I wake up, I critically wonder to myself, "'Am I right? Did I miss something in the data? The world has been spinning for thousands of years and just by miracle it is going to fall apart when I am alive? Occam's razor."
And yet it seems to be the case.

The world does not equal industrialized civilization. If you think industrial and post industrial life styles are sustainable then your sir, are a grade a moron.

How do you figure? Industrialization is a very new thing in our species' history so it's hard to say either way. If we rely on a finite resource, then no, it isn't sustainable - but that's been the case throughout history for every animal. What industrialization has done is make the process faster and more efficient. The idea is taking what we've learned and applying it to the same sort of rapid renewal and/or rapid reproduction of the things we need. See also: modern agriculture. It's really amazing what kind of shiat you can do with a few hundred years worth of technology that just keeps growing more sophisticated.

So, your idea is that we will create a wonder to fix the already existing disasters that are currently largely ignored?


Why not? We've been creating wonders for a while now. You just take them for granted while simultaneously trying to play the role of a Luddite... on the internet. Also, your list has only three examples of environmental hazards created by humans in the western world. The rest are Soviet-era projects that had no oversight and no regulation, the result of war or were caused by natural disasters without human input. I already established industrialization without regulation is hazardous - Soviet-era Russia being a prime example of that. Perhaps India and China in the current age reflect this as well.
2014-03-16 11:42:54 AM
1 votes:

mr lawson: Rozotorical: The world does not equal industrialized civilization. If you think industrial and post industrial life styles are sustainable then your sir, are a grade a moron.

please expand on your thesis. examples would be great.


Explain that industrialized society or the post industrialized society we mostly live in the west is not the planet earth?

fark where do I begin.
2014-03-16 11:41:39 AM
1 votes:
Amazingly a SFW oglaf that sums up the whole situation, including the text over.

http://oglaf.com/illusionist/

text box: "Money's an illusion."

Other content on oglaf is generally not safe for work, but this one page cartoon is free of nudity or sexual innuendo.
2014-03-16 11:39:15 AM
1 votes:

Felgraf: Gone In 26 Minutes: And 35+ years ago, people were saying the same thing - except it was during the Cold War era which was also supersrsbsns that people thought couldn't be avoided. For decades now, we've supposedly been on the brink of some catastrophe or another caused by something.

Um, you realize we wer really, REALLY close to basically nuking most human life off the earth *SEVERAL* times in the cold war, right?

And there were a few instances where it seems like *sheer chance* (Guy that was not supposed to be there that day making the call not to launch, etc) kept the world from being radically altered by nuclear warfare?


I'm well aware. That's part of my point. Somehow, even when it seemed impossible, something prevented us from killing ourselves with our own stupidity and hubris. I think people need less faith in Jesus and more faith in each other specifically because of those lucky events. Human beings make the best miracles; whose to say our future will be any different?
2014-03-16 11:35:18 AM
1 votes:
While I do love my Apocalypse porn, studies like this, and the zombie/asteroid/alien/event zeitgeist in general, just serve to perpetuate the MYTH that actually fixing the problems we have (addressing inequality, food/water security, pollution) would be (or in this case, require) the END OF THE WORLD.

OTOH If society does collapse and it *isn't* a zombie apocalypse, a good reading of the Zombie Survival Guide will still stand you in good stead. It's basically a survivalism + thinly veiled xenophobic guerrilla warfare manual anyway.
2014-03-16 11:33:09 AM
1 votes:
immortalmusic.net
2014-03-16 11:32:51 AM
1 votes:

Gone In 26 Minutes: And 35+ years ago, people were saying the same thing - except it was during the Cold War era which was also supersrsbsns that people thought couldn't be avoided. For decades now, we've supposedly been on the brink of some catastrophe or another caused by something.


Um, you realize we wer really, REALLY close to basically nuking most human life off the earth *SEVERAL* times in the cold war, right?

And there were a few instances where it seems like *sheer chance* (Guy that was not supposed to be there that day making the call not to launch, etc) kept the world from being radically altered by nuclear warfare?
2014-03-16 11:25:28 AM
1 votes:
2014-03-16 11:24:27 AM
1 votes:

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.


Big Macs are part of the problem. "60% of the world's agricultural land is used for beef production, yet beef accounts for less than 2% of the calories that are consumed throughout the world." FAO UN
2014-03-16 11:22:50 AM
1 votes:

mr lawson: 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.


Way to not comprehend the article at all.  It clearly says that they consume/hoard too much relative to the people doing the actual production.  Not that they simply use too much.
2014-03-16 11:16:29 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-03-16 11:15:43 AM
1 votes:

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.


Ya, but it all breaks down when the unpredictable psychic shows up.
2014-03-16 11:11:51 AM
1 votes:

Gunther: FTA:  "... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels...the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society  "

Dang, there's gonna be a lot of WHARGARBL on Fox when they hear about this study.


Probably not. They will just ignore it.

Scholars have known the pattern of typical collapse described in the NASA study for years. "The end of nations or empires need not be due to dramatic events, to invading hordes or conquering armies." Example is the Hittites. A search for serious strains in Hittite society is easy to find in their written history. Disunity, excessive control of wealth by the top stratum of Hittite society, political disintegration and famine suffered by common workers. (It's well known how to match archeological findings with famine.) The battle for control of copper mines with Assyria just finished off a weakened nation. (Collapse of the Bronze Age, Robbins)

As Jared Diamond puts it, during collapses the elites starve last.
2014-03-16 11:11:49 AM
1 votes:
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.

/but if everyone gets a handy, I'm ok with it.
2014-03-16 11:07:43 AM
1 votes:
Exxon's scientists will soon de-bunk this.
2014-03-16 11:01:59 AM
1 votes:
The Sun will come up tomorrow,
2014-03-16 10:59:12 AM
1 votes:

Click Click D'oh: FTFA:  "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."

Time to defund NASA.  Seems they've completely forgotten what their mission is supposed to be.


*sticks fingers in years, shouts "LALALALALALALA" to drown out scary things...*
2014-03-16 10:50:14 AM
1 votes:
FTA:  "... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels...the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society  "

Dang, there's gonna be a lot of WHARGARBL on Fox when they hear about this study.
2014-03-16 10:49:31 AM
1 votes:
community.us.playstation.com
2014-03-16 10:43:42 AM
1 votes:
Go home NASA, you're drunk
 
Displayed 62 of 62 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report