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  
•       •       •

4803 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 09 Aug 2020 at 8:45 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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

 
2020-08-09 8:51:37 AM  
60 votes:
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 8:51:16 AM  
39 votes:
Physics is a Social Science, now?

Damn Socialisms, gettin' everywhere!
 
2020-08-09 8:57:50 AM  
36 votes:
We're in the middle of it now, case you hadn't noticed.....
 
2020-08-09 8:25:54 AM  
31 votes:

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 9:29:28 AM  
19 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 9:02:07 AM  
19 votes:
Seeing how some people freak out at wearing a mask, I think it will happen sooner than we think.
 
2020-08-09 9:14:33 AM  
18 votes:

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 11:34:48 AM  
16 votes:
The issue with social collapse is that it's never just one thing.

The Aztecs could have easily handled 200 Spaniards. But unfortunately they had a long history of pissing off their neighbors by killing hundreds of them on top of pyramids. So you don't hear about Cortez having an army of 8,000 pissed off Indians who thought this guy was their passport to freedom. (Ooops.) And then of course, the small pox thing. So the Aztecs didn't collapse because some pissed off honcho had swords, they also had to deal with their own crap administration and lack of immunity.

The Romans had an extremely robust system of laws, roads, ports, and taxation. If it had JUST been the Antonine plagues, or just the Huns, or just the Goths, or just a rogue military eating up the budget, they might have made it for hundreds of more years. But the system couldn't handle all four of these at once.

I could go on, but you get the drift: the United States might be able to handle climate change, by itself. It might be able to maintain the cost of a world wide empire, if that was the only challenge. But our extreme political dysfunction, plus COVID, plus climate change, plus a military that is cracking under the stress, is creating an overlapping set of challenges that could easily overwhelm the system. It's happened before.
 
2020-08-09 9:02:59 AM  
13 votes:
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 9:19:21 AM  
12 votes:

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 9:13:16 AM  
10 votes:
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 9:02:59 AM  
10 votes:

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 8:51:47 AM  
10 votes:
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 7:13:55 AM  
10 votes:
100-200 years? Seems a little presumptuous. After all, it assumes that we don't go *BOOM*
 
2020-08-09 10:06:31 AM  
9 votes:

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.
 
2020-08-09 9:49:16 AM  
9 votes:

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 8:06:52 AM  
9 votes:
The Bronze Age is holding on line one, Subby.
 
2020-08-09 10:31:56 AM  
8 votes:
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 9:17:48 AM  
8 votes:

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 8:54:11 AM  
8 votes:
Because physicists are you ask about the causes of societal collapse?
 
2020-08-09 9:48:24 AM  
7 votes:

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 9:37:58 AM  
7 votes:

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 9:25:02 AM  
7 votes:

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 9:11:23 AM  
7 votes:

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 9:10:12 AM  
7 votes:

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 9:07:42 AM  
7 votes:

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 12:40:27 PM  
6 votes:

crackizzle: montreal_medic: 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

Well, not important, except the food, and tobacco, and *vomits* slaves. If you ignore those things, America was virtually irrelevant!


I think he was talking about the broad sweep of history. It's entirely possible the USA falls apart this century, in which case our 200+ year run was pretty good from out point of view, but a blip in the story of millennia. And if not just America collapses, but the whole concept of democracy, and human civilization returns to kings and emperors as had been it's norm (after all, it's harder for the Russians to rig your elections if you don't have any), then our time at the top will truly be meaningless. History is full of powers who were the strongest in the world for a few centuries who no one remembers now.

And I don't know what you mean about American slavery being significant to the history of the world. We didn't invent it, weren't the only ones to get rid of it, and during our time as a world power didn't have it. If humanity turns away from democracy, there's no guarantee slavery won't return.

It's possible America, democracy, and freedom might be a couple of pages in the history books between one imperial civilization and the next.
 
2020-08-09 10:23:59 AM  
6 votes:
I don't forsee America lasting the next 10 years to be honest.

If you bring me gifts and praises now I will let you stay on my farm when things get bad but its BYOB and I'm gonna hit on your wife
 
2020-08-09 9:47:04 AM  
6 votes:

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 9:41:48 AM  
6 votes:

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 9:12:34 AM  
6 votes:

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


You first.
 
2020-08-09 10:51:38 AM  
5 votes:

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.
 
2020-08-09 9:14:44 AM  
5 votes:

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 8:58:15 AM  
5 votes:
Add a pandemic to speed things up.  A lot.
 
2020-08-09 2:37:12 PM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-09 10:46:02 AM  
4 votes:
I'd comment about a physicist talking about social issue but I have to call a dentist about fixing my oven.
 
2020-08-09 9:55:13 AM  
4 votes:
It feels like this could make the foundation of a really excellent book.
 
2020-08-09 9:54:38 AM  
4 votes:

waxbeans: 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?


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.
 
2020-08-09 9:43:59 AM  
4 votes:

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 9:14:25 AM  
4 votes:
Decades seems very optimistic.
I say we all, humanity, eats itself alive in the next nine years.
 
2020-08-09 9:03:11 AM  
4 votes:
What do ichthyologists think about it
 
2020-08-09 1:31:57 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:56:23 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:41:38 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:05:58 AM  
3 votes:

Photoshop This: 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.


I can think of a few who are violating their contract big time. One orange one in particular.
 
2020-08-09 11:01:20 AM  
3 votes:
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.
 
2020-08-09 10:42:32 AM  
3 votes:

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?
 
2020-08-09 10:03:24 AM  
3 votes:

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.


Every time Malthus appears to be right, some idiot changes the parameters and puts off the inevitable.
 
2020-08-09 10:01:22 AM  
3 votes:

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.


Or you could just move out of America.
 
2020-08-09 9:39:24 AM  
3 votes:

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 9:21:46 AM  
3 votes:

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 6:38:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 5:15:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 5:12:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 3:18:01 PM  
2 votes:
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 2:06:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:50:59 PM  
2 votes:
I checked, the frog I'm sitting next to says the water's fine.
 
2020-08-09 12:08:35 PM  
2 votes:
Sounds like someone needs to set up a Foundation. Or two.
 
2020-08-09 11:28:51 AM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-08-09 11:25:16 AM  
2 votes:

macadamnut: Not much is natural about human society.


Everything about human society, from iPads to Chinese concentration camps, is entirely and wholly natural. What else could it be?
 
2020-08-09 11:12:50 AM  
2 votes:
th.bing.comView Full Size

Not my problem.
 
2020-08-09 10:22:20 AM  
2 votes:
Malthusianism- talking about this doom and gloom since 1798.
 
2020-08-09 9:52:21 AM  
2 votes:
For the last couple of years I've been saying gloomy things like "It's not like I'll ever have to pay for any of it, the whole thing's going to collapse soon."  whenever I use a credit card.   Not because I'm psychic, but because I'm severely and chronically depressed.   

But damned if I don't look like a psychic now!  I wonder if any of those cashiers are thinking "Okay, that was creepy."

Wait, I get that all the time regardless of what I actually say.
 
2020-08-09 9:45:15 AM  
2 votes:
Nothing of value will be lost at this point.
 
2020-08-09 9:13:52 AM  
2 votes:
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size


Soon........
 
2020-08-09 8:56:57 PM  
1 vote:
 
2020-08-09 5:05:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 5:04:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:55:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:46:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:07:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:38:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 2:29:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 2:25:19 PM  
1 vote:
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 2:11:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:20:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:03:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:51:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:45:59 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-08-09 11:22:12 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-08-09 11:20:38 AM  
1 vote:

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?


It's not a popular opinion but Keven Feige is farking terrible.
 
2020-08-09 11:12:35 AM  
1 vote:
I swear to Christ, if I'm 70 years old and the entire world is collapsing around me, I'm going to score an ounce of coke or H and go out on my own terms.
 
2020-08-09 11:02:01 AM  
1 vote:

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?


Submerges.
 
2020-08-09 10:51:36 AM  
1 vote:

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
 
2020-08-09 10:51:00 AM  
1 vote:
Are these scientists proposing the formation of a foundation to go to a remote location and preserve human knowledge?
 
2020-08-09 10:32:33 AM  
1 vote:

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?
 
2020-08-09 10:27:54 AM  
1 vote:
Coincidentally, Socialists say there's a 90% chance we're headed for a massive physical collapse within several decades.

Which team is right? Place your bets, and tune in live each night for play-by-play coverage of the EARTHBOWL (sponsored by Berkshire Hathaway)
 
2020-08-09 10:27:34 AM  
1 vote:

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..
 
2020-08-09 10:21:45 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
2020-08-09 9:50:25 AM  
1 vote:
"Physicists say . . . "

Well, they're physicists.  How can they can be wrong?
 
2020-08-09 9:28:10 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:26:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:26:06 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:25:57 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:21:09 AM  
1 vote:

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


Nice try, Thanos.
 
2020-08-09 9:13:29 AM  
1 vote:
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 9:05:23 AM  
1 vote:
Gloom, despair, and agony on me.
 
2020-08-09 9:04:52 AM  
1 vote:
Though there's only a 10% chance that.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 98 of 98 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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.