Skip to content
 
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.

(EcoWatch)   Physicists say there's a 90 percent chance that we're headed for a massive social collapse within several decades. GO AWAY I'M BATIN'   (ecowatch.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Air pollution, World population, National Rifle Association, Black people, Deforestation, Black communities, study shows, plastic industry  
•       •       •

4802 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 09 Aug 2020 at 8:45 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-09 7:13:55 AM  
100-200 years? Seems a little presumptuous. After all, it assumes that we don't go *BOOM*
 
2020-08-09 8:06:52 AM  
The Bronze Age is holding on line one, Subby.
 
2020-08-09 8:25:54 AM  

iheartscotch: 100-200 years? Seems a little presumptuous. After all, it assumes that we don't go *BOOM*


I think the collapse is coming faster than that.
 
2020-08-09 8:51:16 AM  
Physics is a Social Science, now?

Damn Socialisms, gettin' everywhere!
 
2020-08-09 8:51:37 AM  
Like I pointed out in the Ice Sheet thread yesterday...  No one in any position to do anything about this will do anything at all.  Because it is happening too slowly.

Everything is about the bottom line of the spreadsheet for this quarter.  Preventative measures are costly right now - in THIS quarter.  They can't abide that...  And neither will the stockholders.  The cost of mitigating disasters as they arise, is a variable expense that can be accounted for and addressed on the fly.  And it might be years between each of those episodes.

So from a purely business and competitive standpoint, there is no incentive for them to take action.

Yay capitalism!
 
2020-08-09 8:51:47 AM  
Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.
 
2020-08-09 8:54:11 AM  
Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?
 
2020-08-09 8:57:50 AM  
We're in the middle of it now, case you hadn't noticed.....
 
2020-08-09 8:58:15 AM  
Add a pandemic to speed things up.  A lot.
 
2020-08-09 9:02:07 AM  
Seeing how some people freak out at wearing a mask, I think it will happen sooner than we think.
 
2020-08-09 9:02:59 AM  

durbnpoisn: Like I pointed out in the Ice Sheet thread yesterday...  No one in any position to do anything about this will do anything at all.  Because it is happening too slowly.

Everything is about the bottom line of the spreadsheet for this quarter.  Preventative measures are costly right now - in THIS quarter.  They can't abide that...  And neither will the stockholders.  The cost of mitigating disasters as they arise, is a variable expense that can be accounted for and addressed on the fly.  And it might be years between each of those episodes.

So from a purely business and competitive standpoint, there is no incentive for them to take action.

Yay capitalism!


This is somewhat of a tangent but what you're getting at is what has pissed me off so much about Elon Musk's response to this epidemic. He of all people should know about thinking long-term and problems that will take decades or even centuries to fully develop. Hello, asteroid impacts? Overpopulation? Sustainable energy? And what does he do when a pandemic come along? He first says everyone is overreacting and then when it becomes far worse than he anticipate, he goes the Idiocracy route and starts spreading conspiracy theories about how most people who test positive don't have the virus and kids are basically immune.
 
2020-08-09 9:02:59 AM  
I keep telling the wife we need to get some land, preferably with a little bit of water on it. Grow what we can, can what we grow, and avoid people. Have enough solar/wind to be off grid if need be.
 
2020-08-09 9:03:11 AM  
What do ichthyologists think about it
 
2020-08-09 9:04:52 AM  
Though there's only a 10% chance that.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 9:05:23 AM  
Gloom, despair, and agony on me.
 
2020-08-09 9:07:42 AM  

AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.


Psst!  Your Malthus is showing.
 
2020-08-09 9:09:07 AM  
If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.
 
2020-08-09 9:10:12 AM  

AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.


Not much is natural about human society. Maybe it was already time to slow the "economy" way way down anyway before it "consumes" everything.
 
2020-08-09 9:11:23 AM  

kyleaugustus: AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.

Psst!  Your Malthus is showing.


Malthus was dead-on right. He was just off by a few years due to the industrial revolution.
 
2020-08-09 9:12:34 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


You first.
 
2020-08-09 9:13:16 AM  
I just want to point out that the end of America and Capitalism in not necessarily Armageddon.

Certainly the collapse of America ( who uses 24% of the world's resources) will buy more time for the remaining countries. Add in the 2 billion or so that will die in the coming years due to the decreased food production from America, the plague and ongoing wars and you'll add more time still.

Get rid of the bottom-line profit driven capitalism that has raped the planet for the last 75 years and we might be fine for a while.
 
2020-08-09 9:13:29 AM  
I can't wait.

After 20 years in IT I can't wait to re-emerge as Salmon the Conquerer, harem et al.
 
2020-08-09 9:13:52 AM  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size


Soon........
 
2020-08-09 9:14:25 AM  
Decades seems very optimistic.
I say we all, humanity, eats itself alive in the next nine years.
 
2020-08-09 9:14:33 AM  

Hector_Lemans: durbnpoisn: Like I pointed out in the Ice Sheet thread yesterday...  No one in any position to do anything about this will do anything at all.  Because it is happening too slowly.

Everything is about the bottom line of the spreadsheet for this quarter.  Preventative measures are costly right now - in THIS quarter.  They can't abide that...  And neither will the stockholders.  The cost of mitigating disasters as they arise, is a variable expense that can be accounted for and addressed on the fly.  And it might be years between each of those episodes.

So from a purely business and competitive standpoint, there is no incentive for them to take action.

Yay capitalism!

This is somewhat of a tangent but what you're getting at is what has pissed me off so much about Elon Musk's response to this epidemic. He of all people should know about thinking long-term and problems that will take decades or even centuries to fully develop. Hello, asteroid impacts? Overpopulation? Sustainable energy? And what does he do when a pandemic come along? He first says everyone is overreacting and then when it becomes far worse than he anticipate, he goes the Idiocracy route and starts spreading conspiracy theories about how most people who test positive don't have the virus and kids are basically immune.


This is why I have such mixed feelings about Elon Musk.  I don't think I can recall a better example of a person that stands completely on the opposite sides of a chasm simultaneously.

On one hand, he has spearheaded the invention, production, and rollout of some of the most incredible technology we've ever seen.  His company is leading the space race right now.  His Tesla, though troubled, is one of the greatest achievements ever in the entire automotive industry.
His work is going to go down in history.

On the other hand, he is an insanely erratic, selfish douchenozzle who has no problem taking credit for other people's work. He also clearly has a very loose grip on reality. 
I somehow suspect that the truth about him is that he has a LOT of money, mostly because he got very lucky.  And with that money he hired people to actually create some of his crazier ideas.  And had SO much money that he was able to pull it off.  And take credit for it.

He did not create SpaceX by himself.  He did not design and build the Tesla in his back yard.
 
2020-08-09 9:14:44 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


America leaving would only be 5% of the population but would save 24% of the resources. So you only need 30% total to achieve your goals.
 
2020-08-09 9:17:48 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


So take the population all the way back to 1990?
 
2020-08-09 9:19:21 AM  

aagrajag: kyleaugustus: AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.

Psst!  Your Malthus is showing.

Malthus was dead-on right. He was just off by a few years due to the industrial revolution.


For a guy who was dead on right, he sure has a long track record of not being right yet.
 
2020-08-09 9:21:09 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


Nice try, Thanos.
 
2020-08-09 9:21:13 AM  

AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.


I think resource management has a play here, but oil companies arn't corrupt or overly greedy, or irresponsible.  Neither are banks, or corporate farms..... say what resources arn't already destined for the aristocrats?
 
2020-08-09 9:21:46 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: I keep telling the wife we need to get some land, preferably with a little bit of water on it. Grow what we can, can what we grow, and avoid people. Have enough solar/wind to be off grid if need be.


Don't worry, when the ice sheets finish melting, most land will have some water on it.
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 9:25:02 AM  

sithon: iheartscotch: 100-200 years? Seems a little presumptuous. After all, it assumes that we don't go *BOOM*

I think the collapse is coming faster than that.


Haven't there been several studies that indicate most empires collapse around the 500 year mark? They consider the various eras of the big old civilizations to be separate empires with collapses and rises, so Rome had the republic, the empire, and the eastern empire and Egypt had a couple of dynasties/kingdoms separated by decades of turmoil and chaos

Seems western civilization is about due for another one soon.

Counterpoint - the previous era of empires ended at the start-middle of the 20th century, with two world wars, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Russian kingdom. The last 75 years have been a historical anomaly and count as the inter-empire period. The next empires are due to rise (China, maybe? The EU?) and we all assume the Americans are relevant despite them being irrelevant (historically) for most of their history, until their recent boom of being the only power not destroyed by war on their soil
 
2020-08-09 9:25:57 AM  

mr-b: joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.

America leaving would only be 5% of the population but would save 24% of the resources. So you only need 30% total to achieve your goals.


Lol, stay in school.
 
2020-08-09 9:26:06 AM  

AsparagusFTW: Populations can only grow as there are resources for the survival of that specie. If there is an overabundance of resources, they thrive and over populate. When there is too few resources, they die off or stop baby makin'. There is a natiral equilibrium that humans have vastly been over on, the pendelum has to swing in the other direction for awhile.


Maybe that's what COViD is for.
 
2020-08-09 9:26:58 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: I keep telling the wife we need to get some land, preferably with a little bit of water on it. Grow what we can, can what we grow, and avoid people. Have enough solar/wind to be off grid if need be.


I've been shopping land too but not so much because of this as the related ruination of camping by all the new non campers. I just want to at least be able to pretend I'm alone sometimes
 
2020-08-09 9:27:04 AM  

durbnpoisn: Like I pointed out in the Ice Sheet thread yesterday...  No one in any position to do anything about this will do anything at all.  Because it is happening too slowly.

Everything is about the bottom line of the spreadsheet for this quarter.  Preventative measures are costly right now - in THIS quarter.  They can't abide that...  And neither will the stockholders.  The cost of mitigating disasters as they arise, is a variable expense that can be accounted for and addressed on the fly.  And it might be years between each of those episodes.

So from a purely business and competitive standpoint, there is no incentive for them to take action.

Yay capitalism!


One of the best examples I heard years ago is the issue of the Venice lagoon.  There have been remedies for the flooding available for years...but no one administration wants to get stuck with the costs.
 
2020-08-09 9:28:10 AM  

Durboloid: Add a pandemic to speed things up.  A lot.


Nah, the pandemic will slow things down. Kill off 10% of the worlds population and slow population growth  because we lose the antibodies 6 months after we develop them so it will be an ongoing threat. Enforced partial lockdown for so long that it becomes the norm.  That means less resource use and less pollution.
 
2020-08-09 9:29:28 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 9:37:58 AM  

Iowa1984: joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.

Nice try, Thanos.


Thanos was a moron. Even if his plan worked like he thought it would, he would just have to do it again in thirty years.
 
2020-08-09 9:39:24 AM  

waxbeans: Decades seems very optimistic.
I say we all, humanity, eats itself alive in the next nine years.


The coming resource wars shouldn't be a problem as we're all itching to kill each other well before then.
 
2020-08-09 9:41:48 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


Not really. The human population has tripled in the last 60 years or so.

50% reduction would take us back to around 1980 levels.

He was making a joke, but bill burr was closer to the mark when he said 80 to 90 % have to die, if you are gonna fix issues with population reduction.

And even then, you would have to implement some kind of child number limit ala chinas one baby per couple rule and make it stick somehow.

Good luck with that.
 
2020-08-09 9:42:36 AM  
Yes, but will we still be able to get Klondike Bars?
Societal collapse is much worse without Klondike Bars. I've seen it.
 
2020-08-09 9:43:59 AM  

waxbeans: Decades seems very optimistic.
I say we all, humanity, eats itself alive in the next nine years.


Of course! Just like how we all ran out of oil in 70's, just as The Experts*tm predicted.

/oh wait....
 
2020-08-09 9:44:47 AM  

g.fro: Thanos was a moron. Even if his plan worked like he thought it would, he would just have to do it again in thirty years.


Actually. Killing that many people in a snap would make humanity collapse. First financially. Then war and brain drain. So, it's alllllllll stupid. Top down. Don't know why people even take it seriously.
Saw is more compelling.
 
2020-08-09 9:45:15 AM  
Nothing of value will be lost at this point.
 
2020-08-09 9:46:48 AM  

ObscureNameHere: waxbeans: Decades seems very optimistic.
I say we all, humanity, eats itself alive in the next nine years.

Of course! Just like how we all ran out of oil in 70's, just as The Experts*tm predicted.

/oh wait....


Shall drilling helped. But, dries up as soon as oil prices drop. So, maybe running out of old isn't as important as will we be able to afford it?
 
2020-08-09 9:47:04 AM  

joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.


Half will die. The problem is that it will be the wrong half to make a difference.
 
2020-08-09 9:48:24 AM  

g.fro: Iowa1984: joker420: If we could find a way to reduce the population by 50% we would be ok.

Nice try, Thanos.

Thanos was a moron. Even if his plan worked like he thought it would, he would just have to do it again in thirty years.


For all the greatness that movie had, the one problem I had immediately is that the primary reason for the antagonist's actions were SO completely nonsensical, that I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to get behind it.

It pulled me right out of the movie when he explained his reasoning.  Because if he could reason that far, he should have been able to reason the obvious flaw in his plan.  So that's just some shiatty writing.
Also - it could have been fixed.  If he could use the stones to wipe out half the population, he could have used the stones to permanently fix the population at whatever number it is RIGHT now.  Every time someone is born, someone else dies.  Somewhere.

Is that so ridiculous compared to what actually happened?
 
2020-08-09 9:49:16 AM  

neongoats: Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?


Nobody asked, they just barged in with their opinion.

/works with particle physicists
//self-appointed experts on everything
///almost as bad as retired engineers
 
2020-08-09 9:50:25 AM  
"Physicists say . . . "

Well, they're physicists.  How can they can be wrong?
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.