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 12:41:38 PM  

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

Physicists are the only group more likely than computer scientists to think they have perfect understanding of every other discipline. Perhaps it's and ASD thing or perhaps it's just arrogance.

Physics is the study of everything
Chemistry is a small subset of physics
Biology is a small subset of chemistry
Almost every other discipline is a tiny subset of biology

/Not a physicist
//Without physical laws, chemistry can't happen
///Without chemistry life itself is impossible
////Without biology, the other disciplines are irrelevant


imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size


/obligatory
 
2020-08-09 12:42:03 PM  

Skyrmion: durbnpoisn: It pulled me right out of the movie when he explained his reasoning. Because if he could reason that far,

I think he was rationalizing, rather than reasoning. The desire to kill half the universe came first; the Malthusian justification was thought up afterwards.


That actually makes sense.
 
2020-08-09 12:47:39 PM  

Photoshop This: FTFA: "While the extent of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and temperature changes is still a matter of discussion..."

No.
No it's farking not.
Humans are 100% responsible for burning fossil fuels and creating the fastest greenhouse effect in millions of years. As someone pointed out above, elected officials, even the ones who want to help fix the problem, are bound by a contract to make life good for us, but only for four or 8 years at a time. No politician is going to do massively unpopular things like ban the entire fossil fuel industry, for example, when they're facing a reelection in a few years. Someone will make a half-assed attempt at mitigation eventually, but until then, start learning how to live off the grid. Adaptation is how us millennials and Gen Z kids are going to survive.


Lets drop that percentage a bit.... nature did her own burning, a significant amount..  lightning beats a bic for starting forest fires, and volcanoes had a major contribution to the effort.. with lower populations and much denser forests, it really wasn't a problem then.. manageable... then came the industrial age and the population went up, and up, and up... gotta have that energy !  That,s where we lost it..  Nuke energy, handled properly, could have been great, but politics and greed screwed the pooch there, assisted by NIMBY.   There is the ultimate issue, and it won't go away until we do,   Self government was a great experiment, but it has ultimately proven that humans are incapable of doing that.   Companies don't work without the boss running the show, and Nations are big companies.   We lost because of no self discipline and no self respect.  Better luck next time around.
 
2020-08-09 12:50:06 PM  

joker420: g.fro: Muzzleloader: 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.

One one of my favorite facts about humans is that upwards of 50 million people died in World War II, and yet there were more people walking the Earth in 1945 than there were in 1939.

It turns out killing each other is only the thing we're second best at.

50? Lol


Well, the low end of the conservative estimates of combat-related deaths. If I used the higher estimates of ~85 million from all causes, that only makes my point more dramatic.
 
2020-08-09 12:51:35 PM  

Abox: What do ichthyologists think about it

They fight, they bite,
They bite and fight and bite,
Fight fight fight, bite bite bite,
The Ichthyologists Show!

 
2020-08-09 12:56:23 PM  

durbnpoisn: 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?


That's because the movie veered far afield from the original comic.

In the comic, he was literally in love with the personification of death, who was drawn as a female.

The killing was going to be his gift to her to prove his love for her.

There was no reasoning involved, he was batshiat crazy.
 
2020-08-09 12:59:53 PM  

durbnpoisn: 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?


The premise was also so nullified by the idea that you have species that are able to travel the stars. The energy requirements for such star ships would far outstrip the resource requirements for half the population. If resources were really a problem (which seems unlikely in an essentially infinite universe) it would have made far more sense to just prevent everyone from traveling. Surely the stones could have done that too.
 
2020-08-09 1:03:03 PM  

OlderGuy: Lets drop that percentage a bit.... nature did her own burning, a significant amount..  lightning beats a bic for starting forest fires, and volcanoes had a major contribution to the effort..


That is simply not true. Humans outstrip natural causes by far: https://www.climate.gov/news-fea​tures/​climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dio​xide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
 
2020-08-09 1:20:53 PM  

cfreak: durbnpoisn: 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?

The premise was also so nullified by the idea that you have species that are able to travel the stars. The energy requirements for such star ships would far outstrip the resource requirements for half the population. If resources were really a problem (which seems unlikely in an essentially infinite universe) it would have made far more sense to just prevent everyone from traveling. Surely the stones could have done that too.


To be sure...  Nature has actually already allowed for this sort of thing.  When animals in a population become too many, some starve, birth rates go down, things adjust.  When animals population numbers are too low, they have higher birth rates, larger litters, etc...  Hell, some animals will spontaneously change sex in order to restart a dwindling population.

Any time other species (like humans) have tried to intervene in places where they tried to save one species, they invariably destroy hundreds of others by upsetting the balance that makes the ecosystem work.

For this guy to thing he could simply cut all populations in half, and that wouldn't absolutely destroy EVERY ecosystem in the universe, just makes the whole thing even more absurd.

It was just SO stupid.  They really should have come up with something at least somewhat plausible.  Because that wasn't.  At all.
 
2020-08-09 1:31:57 PM  

TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.


So in other words.... he was wrong.
 
2020-08-09 1:36:27 PM  

rcain: OlderGuy: rcain: shiat-tier repeat of the article from a couple weeks ago

They predict 40 years out or more. Honestly, I think it's going to be much sooner than that. More like 20 years

http://web.sonoma.edu/users/s/swijtink​/teaching/philosophy_200/pentagon_wors​t_case_study.htm

Not a bad guess...  considering the trends in place, and the fact that too many find laws to be 'inconvenient', and thus ignored, America appears to be regressing to the wild west phase, where the gunslinger rules, minus the showdown phase.. shoot first, just because.. government employees, who were hired to help the people, now help themselves  and ignore the people.. not all, but way too many.. most of congress is too busy 'getting theirs', while it is still there to get, and at this rate, it won't be there much longer.  China saw a way to cut down the competition in their quest to rule the world, and it,s working..  Russia is hanging around to get as much of the spoils as they can, and we are destroying the history we used to learn from...
My guess, based on plentiful visible evidence, points to 2035-2040  for the grand finale..  and we are doing it to ourselves..  Whether we go out in a blaze of nuclear glory is debatable, but definitely an option, unless China gains control of them first, or Russia opts for the EMP strategy first.   With our dependence on cell phones and all transportation dependent on electronics, we will be back to the stone age in a flash and a bang... comes from putting all the eggs in one basket...   China and Russia will do fine, as they have one person running the show, and have control of their populace.. We will only accept the leader we want, and nobody controls the populace...  United we stood, but we are not united : therefore, we fall... Yippie Kay Yay, Motherfarkers.

PS... Lootie is waiting in the wings.

Thanks for the month of totalfark


You are welcome..  grew up in history.. Colonial Williamsburg, Va.. studied it bigtime, and watched this CF develop in the 60s..  had profs at W&M  college predict where it was going, and they couldn't have been more right.... Ike was cool, JFK scared the movers and shakers, and Nixon was a few sandwiches short of a picnic.. greed and politics had taken over then, and nobody had, or followed, any form of a 'grand plan'.. still don't.  75 now, active hvac tech, and enjoy life as best I can..  stay safe.
 
2020-08-09 1:41:29 PM  

g.fro: khatores: Catlenfell: The States were colonies once, and might be colonized again.
China "liberates" the west coast.  East coast remains it's own country or asks to join the EU. Northern states join Canada.  South west form an alliance with Mexico.  Deep south form a theocracy.  Middle of the country is a battle ground over farm land.

What does Florida do? Reenact The Purge, but every day of the year?

Sink into the Gulf?


Probably so... Bugs was seen heading that way with a saw.... or just finish becoming a big sinkhole..
 
2020-08-09 1:50:06 PM  

cfreak: OlderGuy: Lets drop that percentage a bit.... nature did her own burning, a significant amount..  lightning beats a bic for starting forest fires, and volcanoes had a major contribution to the effort..

That is simply not true. Humans outstrip natural causes by far: https://www.climate.gov/news-feat​ures/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbo​n-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activitie​s


I should have started "In the beginning", which is what I was referring to...  in today's time, you are correct..
 
2020-08-09 1:50:59 PM  
I checked, the frog I'm sitting next to says the water's fine.
 
2020-08-09 1:53:23 PM  

SoundOfOneHandWanking: I checked, the frog I'm sitting next to says the water's fine.


Are you turning red yet ?
 
2020-08-09 2:06:06 PM  

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.


He could have just snapped fertility rates down to a flat curve and he never would have had to murder anyone.

Of course, like most "dispassionate social conservative" philosophies, his bid was all a thinly-veiled excuse for cruelty.
 
2020-08-09 2:11:01 PM  

Z-clipped: 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.

He could have just snapped fertility rates down to a flat curve and he never would have had to murder anyone.

Of course, like most "dispassionate social conservative" philosophies, his bid was all a thinly-veiled excuse for cruelty.


True. And replacement fertility rate is 2.1.  Most couple would be fine with 2.1 children, and lots of people want 0.0.
 
2020-08-09 2:11:09 PM  
It isn't expensive. It just is hard because tradition and culture and identity get in the way. A full transition to an electricity based energy US infrastructure would cost 40 dollars a month for 150 million households over 10 years or ~$5000.00. During that time 100 million electric vehicles could be produced, and charging infrastructure could be installed. Our global economy was 87 Trillion last year. Even during the Pandemic the world economy is still expected to reach 60 Trillion this year. If we were to expend this capacity to a vertically oriented society, with 100 cubic mile vertical farms feeding 40,000 person cities, we'd only need 200000, of these set up, along the structures of I-5, I-55, & 1-95, to consolidate humanity to 45,000 square miles.
No killing, no starvation, no shortages.
We would be able move everyone over the 10 years, easily because prepandemic levels of travel already were moving the entire population of the planet every year. (19 million a day) by air travel alone.
Today we have the capacity to reverse everything mankind has done badly across the entire planet, we just have to  consolidate and get out of the biosphere's way, for 2 or 3 generations ~60 years or so.
Can humanity make this change?

So far Magic 8-ball suggests: not likely.
 
2020-08-09 2:11:12 PM  

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....


Yeah, Peak Oil was totally a hoax, man.

resilience.orgView Full Size


resilience.orgView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 2:11:43 PM  

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


The virus is working as fast as it can. Remember to not wear a mask and go to as many social gatherings as possible. We'll get to 50% by next summer.
 
2020-08-09 2:24:01 PM  
This thread reminds me of the threads about tiny "advances" in the Alcubierre metric.

Physicists: this is fun to think about, but seriously tho, warp drive is never gonna happen.
Wishful Thinkers: human spirit!/ingenuity!/profit motive!
Physicists: is the human spirit made of exotic matter that can't exist? No?  I rest my case.
Wishful Thinkers: it's still real to me dammit!
 
2020-08-09 2:25:19 PM  
Several decades? I think those scientists are being terribly optimistic. I'm thinking several years instead.

/and even that may be terribly optimistic
 
2020-08-09 2:29:40 PM  

DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.

So in other words.... he was wrong.


That's just being so desperate to be right that you're willing to be reductionist enough to oversimplify the subject to the point of making it nonsense.

The thing we should be learning is that Malthus very well could have been right.  He didn't end up being wrong because he made a mistake or failed to account for something that existed at the time.  Someone else saved our asses by getting something very, very right.
 
2020-08-09 2:37:12 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 3:18:01 PM  
HEADLINE: Physicists say there's a 90 percent chance that we're headed for a massive social collapse within several decades.

Oh, subby, you sweet, sweet, summer child...that ship sailed a LONG time ago...
 
2020-08-09 3:38:38 PM  

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.


He's just been continuously off, so far, as we keep finding ways to increase our resources, and population growth has gone negative in many places. The Malthusian error lies in plotting a straight-line graph based on current conditions with the very wrong assumption that nothing is ever going to change. Malthus wasn't "off by a few years", he's been off for centuries and holding.
 
2020-08-09 3:55:16 PM  

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!


AND for politicians everything is about whether they will win the next election. So they too are often forced into short term planning when we often need long term planning.
 
2020-08-09 4:07:48 PM  

johnny_vegas: hoyt clagwell: orbister: neongoats: Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?

Physicists are the only group more likely than computer scientists to think they have perfect understanding of every other discipline. Perhaps it's and ASD thing or perhaps it's just arrogance.

Physics is the study of everything
Chemistry is a small subset of physics
Biology is a small subset of chemistry
Almost every other discipline is a tiny subset of biology

/Not a physicist
//Without physical laws, chemistry can't happen
///Without chemistry life itself is impossible
////Without biology, the other disciplines are irrelevant

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

/obligatory


Cute cartoon.  I actually considered math when I came up with this, and again before posting.  I still think math falls under bio as a consequence of our biology, not as an absolute truth.  The existence of non-Euclidian geometry and irrational numbers push me in that direction.  Your opinion may vary
 
2020-08-09 4:07:53 PM  

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.


Humans are generally trash at predicting and dealing with long term slow arising problems.   Humans will cling on for a while before the total collapse.  100-200 years is probably a good bet.   We have been around for 200-500 thousand years.  We irreversibly wreaked our time eco-system in less than 200 and we will limp along for another couple of hundred years until it ends and the remnants eek out a meager  existence until it gets too hot to survive.  Short of a cheap technological miracle, we are doomed.  But we had a decent run.  The funny part is our modern civilization will leave pollution and trash instead of monuments.  The pyramids will our last us.  all our fancy high rises and such won't last a few hundred years.
 
2020-08-09 4:10:36 PM  

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


No.  Honestly that's what got us into this mess.  The Black Death opened up resources and created the precursor to the middle class.  That started the idea of consumerist driving economies.  It would be a bandaid at best.
 
2020-08-09 4:11:04 PM  

macadamnut: 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.


People are animals.  What is more natural.  So are locusts.
 
2020-08-09 4:46:27 PM  

TheOtherGuy: DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.

So in other words.... he was wrong.

That's just being so desperate to be right that you're willing to be reductionist enough to oversimplify the subject to the point of making it nonsense.

The thing we should be learning is that Malthus very well could have been right.  He didn't end up being wrong because he made a mistake or failed to account for something that existed at the time.  Someone else saved our asses by getting something very, very right.


I'm not sure why you're taking this personally but Malts observed a phenomenon, made a hypothesis about the phenomenon and reality falsified the hypothesis.

That is okay. That is the way it's supposed to work.

Now if you want to say he started the ball rolling on what are now the topics of sustainability, carrying capacity, and consumption we can do that. But his math does not match the science being done in those questions.

Being wrong is good science.
 
2020-08-09 4:55:26 PM  

TheOtherGuy: DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.

So in other words.... he was wrong.

That's just being so desperate to be right that you're willing to be reductionist enough to oversimplify the subject to the point of making it nonsense.

The thing we should be learning is that Malthus very well could have been right.  He didn't end up being wrong because he made a mistake or failed to account for something that existed at the time.  Someone else saved our asses by getting something very, very right.


The re-introduction of reliable birth control basically rendered Malthus meaningless.  Except for churches that traffic in human suffering and try to suppress reproductive freedom.  It's also dumb because now less than one percent of the population produces so much food that 50% goes to waste and there is still more than enough food.

The whole population bomb scare was racist nonsense.  We can grow far more food than we will ever need.  That was never going to be an actual threat to the continuation of the human race.
 
2020-08-09 5:04:04 PM  

DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.

So in other words.... he was wrong.

That's just being so desperate to be right that you're willing to be reductionist enough to oversimplify the subject to the point of making it nonsense.

The thing we should be learning is that Malthus very well could have been right.  He didn't end up being wrong because he made a mistake or failed to account for something that existed at the time.  Someone else saved our asses by getting something very, very right.

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally but Malts observed a phenomenon, made a hypothesis about the phenomenon and reality falsified the hypothesis.

That is okay. That is the way it's supposed to work.

Now if you want to say he started the ball rolling on what are now the topics of sustainability, carrying capacity, and consumption we can do that. But his math does not match the science being done in those questions.

Being wrong is good science.


It's not so much personal as "Malthus was wrong" undercuts the doom we narrowly avoided by a whole bunch of OTHER people doing lots of good science.  Had any of them failed to do that... Malthus would have been right on the money, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.  That's what I want people to realize, not that he turned out to have been incorrect in the end.  The WHY he was incorrect is the most important part.
 
2020-08-09 5:05:30 PM  

webron: TheOtherGuy: DanInKansas: TheOtherGuy: 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.

Malthus failed to account for advances in agriculture & food science that he couldn't possibly have predicted.  Not that it's necessarily a predictor or directly applicable to climate change.  I'm just saying, he was dead on correct for the data he had... but conditions changed in the meantime.

So in other words.... he was wrong.

That's just being so desperate to be right that you're willing to be reductionist enough to oversimplify the subject to the point of making it nonsense.

The thing we should be learning is that Malthus very well could have been right.  He didn't end up being wrong because he made a mistake or failed to account for something that existed at the time.  Someone else saved our asses by getting something very, very right.

The re-introduction of reliable birth control basically rendered Malthus meaningless.  Except for churches that traffic in human suffering and try to suppress reproductive freedom.  It's also dumb because now less than one percent of the population produces so much food that 50% goes to waste and there is still more than enough food.

The whole population bomb scare was racist nonsense.  We can grow far more food than we will ever need.  That was never going to be an actual threat to the continuation of the human race.


Funny you mention birth control, population bomb, and racist nonsense in the same post. The modern (well, early 20th Century) family planning movement was started by white middle-class eugenicists who preyed on the public's fears that those lusty immigrants, Catholics, and Negroes  were going to out-breed the "civilized" people.
 
2020-08-09 5:07:56 PM  

mrinfoguy: towatchoverme: Nothing of value will be lost at this point.

Are you eyeing that bath tub, a bottle of vodka and a razor?

Good ideas need a pioneer..


I learn best from mentors.
 
2020-08-09 5:09:27 PM  

Sin'sHero: Physics is a Social Science, now?

Damn Socialisms, gettin' everywhere!


I hear leading sociologists are predicting the heat death of the universe, too.
 
2020-08-09 5:10:52 PM  

webron: The re-introduction of reliable birth control basically rendered Malthus meaningless.  Except for churches that traffic in human suffering and try to suppress reproductive freedom.  It's also dumb because now less than one percent of the population produces so much food that 50% goes to waste and there is still more than enough food.

The whole population bomb scare was racist nonsense.  We can grow far more food than we will ever need.  That was never going to be an actual threat to the continuation of the human race.


No and no.  Birth control still doesn't have a meaningful or big enough impact in many parts of the world to impact population growth the way we would like it do, religious and cultural bigotry aside.  Even in "enlightened" western countries (since in the U.S. only the most inferior and failure-prone forms of birth control are affordable and none of it is ever provided by employers, insurance, or the state if anyone can help it), economics are more of a driving force for population stability than it is, simply because kids become unaffordable to raise once you are anything but destitute (and when you're destitute, they're an asset to help you with housekeeping or income or both).

The whole "1% of the population produces enough to feed the remaining 99%" simply wasn't true in the fastest-growing parts of the world in Malthus' time.  It became so after his predictions because agronomists created crops that grew in those areas well enough to keep up with that population growth.

At the time, he was dead right.  Later, circumstances thankfully changed thanks to human science and engineering.  Ignoring the climate crisis is tantamount to ignoring Malthus and hoping some scientist "miracles" it away again before billions die.
 
2020-08-09 5:11:13 PM  

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


Found Thanos' Fark handle
 
2020-08-09 5:12:22 PM  

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.


Green revolution. The industrial revolution just made our decline faster in the end.
 
2020-08-09 5:15:55 PM  

mr-b: 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.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 5:19:32 PM  

ObscureNameHere: The point is (also related to the Malthus discussion above) that most of the self-appointed prophets on these matters are continually tripped up by technological innovation. They cry to the skies and shout "What will we do?" Then humans do what they do: invent, adapt, survive.


You don't understand how biology works, do you?
 
2020-08-09 5:42:10 PM  

cryinoutloud: mr-b: 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.

[Fark user image 608x180]


That's amazing.. could I have the source please?
 
2020-08-09 6:09:10 PM  

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.


Know how I know you've not studied sociology or demographics?

/google Malthus was wrong and you'll get all the details.
//you're welcome
 
2020-08-09 6:14:12 PM  

g.fro: 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.


Yea, it's crazy how many people still get on their knees for Mathus without knowing anything about Ester Boserup (not even that she existed!)
 
2020-08-09 6:38:31 PM  

johnny_vegas: hoyt clagwell: orbister: neongoats: Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?

Physicists are the only group more likely than computer scientists to think they have perfect understanding of every other discipline. Perhaps it's and ASD thing or perhaps it's just arrogance.

Physics is the study of everything
Chemistry is a small subset of physics
Biology is a small subset of chemistry
Almost every other discipline is a tiny subset of biology

/Not a physicist
//Without physical laws, chemistry can't happen
///Without chemistry life itself is impossible
////Without biology, the other disciplines are irrelevant

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

/obligatory


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 6:40:10 PM  

Social Justice Warlock: johnny_vegas: hoyt clagwell: orbister: neongoats: Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?

Physicists are the only group more likely than computer scientists to think they have perfect understanding of every other discipline. Perhaps it's and ASD thing or perhaps it's just arrogance.

Physics is the study of everything
Chemistry is a small subset of physics
Biology is a small subset of chemistry
Almost every other discipline is a tiny subset of biology

/Not a physicist
//Without physical laws, chemistry can't happen
///Without chemistry life itself is impossible
////Without biology, the other disciplines are irrelevant

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

/obligatory

[Fark user image image 425x214]


lol
 
2020-08-09 6:49:03 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Sounds like someone needs to set up a Foundation. Or two.


Came here to say this.

I fear we're not wise enough. At best, it'll end up like "A Canticle for Liebowitz".

/would also settle for "Planet of the Apes"
//or "After Man"
 
2020-08-09 8:56:57 PM  
 
2020-08-09 10:18:11 PM  

g.fro: 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?


1970 or so, but yeah.
 
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.