Another doom and gloom thread

[BJB]

Theres a brilliant website called exit mundi. It consists of a collection of articles on end of the world scenraios. Facstinating stuff.

Got me thinking. How are we all gonna be wiped out once and for all? You must have thought about it at some point.

This isen't really for discussing when apocalypse comes. More how.

Heres the exit mundi site.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

[hencole]

Within 100 years gloabal inequality will be so bad that only 1% of the western population will live to a standard that is the same or better than that now. The world will be less technologically advanced than it is today and the global population will have gone down by 20-30%. Some countires will hold onto a certain degree of civillisation akin to perhaps 150-200 years ago in terms of standard of living. These countries will be run in a socialist/communistic way.

The reasons for this are ultimately resource driven. A failure to move from conventional fuels to renewable/new technologies in time. The fossil fuels of the day were used up before they could be put to use devloping advanced world saving technologies. A desperate bid to move to nuclear failed not only in safety terms and sustained attacks from terrorism, but uranmium fuel reserves were never enough to stop huge prices and the conflict that comes with it. Not only that, but other building materials were used up.
Water availability will be below 50% the levels it currently is now.
The world econmy will crash in 20 years time and will never recover.

Humans will still walk the earth in 500 years time, but they will never ever again live in a technological/communications age.





Either that or [banned troll] will bore us all death.

[Neville Chamberlain]

I reckon we're all going to be bored to death by environmentalists.

[SetToStun]

Within 100 years gloabal inequality will be so bad that only 1% of the western population will live to a standard that is the same or better than that now. The world will be less technologically advanced than it is today and the global population will have gone down by 20-30%. Some countires will hold onto a certain degree of civillisation akin to perhaps 150-200 years ago in terms of standard of living. These countries will be run in a socialist/communistic way.

The reasons for this are ultimately resource driven. A failure to move from conventional fuels to renewable/new technologies in time. The fossil fuels of the day were used up before they could be put to use devloping advanced world saving technologies. A desperate bid to move to nuclear failed not only in safety terms and sustained attacks from terrorism, but uranmium fuel reserves were never enough to stop huge prices and the conflict that comes with it. Not only that, but other building materials were used up.
Water availability will be below 50% the levels it currently is now.
The world econmy will crash in 20 years time and will never recover.

Humans will still walk the earth in 500 years time, but they will never ever again live in a technological/communications age.

Your are the Reverend Thomas Malthus and I claim my population crash.

The trouble with doom-and-glooming on that riff is you don't know what's around the corner. You might have a good idea what's being worked on that might be viable in five years, but 10 or 15 or 20? the idea that we are unavoidably going to melt down is just doom-mongering, really. If we can point out smugly why Malthus was wrong, why can't we allow for the possibility future generations will do the same to us? And saying "well, he lived ages ago - what did he know?" doesn't cut it because the chances that we were born into the actual generation that represents the absolute pinnacle of human knowledge are somewhat slim.

Actually, I have to say that I secretly agree with you - to an extent - but I'm doing my level best to stay optimistic.

[thugler]

Within 100 years gloabal inequality will be so bad that only 1% of the western population will live to a standard that is the same or better than that now. The world will be less technologically advanced than it is today and the global population will have gone down by 20-30%. Some countires will hold onto a certain degree of civillisation akin to perhaps 150-200 years ago in terms of standard of living. These countries will be run in a socialist/communistic way.

The reasons for this are ultimately resource driven. A failure to move from conventional fuels to renewable/new technologies in time. The fossil fuels of the day were used up before they could be put to use devloping advanced world saving technologies. A desperate bid to move to nuclear failed not only in safety terms and sustained attacks from terrorism, but uranmium fuel reserves were never enough to stop huge prices and the conflict that comes with it. Not only that, but other building materials were used up.
Water availability will be below 50% the levels it currently is now.
The world econmy will crash in 20 years time and will never recover.

Humans will still walk the earth in 500 years time, but they will never ever again live in a technological/communications age.

This is nonsense. Particularly the part about nuclear power.

[Jemble Fred]

It's incredibly tempting to comfort yourself with the reflection that mankind's been confidently predicting imminent destruction for the whole of civilisation for as long as civilisation has existed.

I don't think it's a terribly watertight source of security, but it 'does'.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If we continue letting Africa kick itself to bits, we'll probably be fine. It depends what US foreign policy is going to be (IE- will the next 3 or 4 Secretary of Defense's defend or attack?) and how badly Islamic fundamentalism spreads. At the moment the US are royally fucking up their reputations everywhere, we're in the last stage of one of the worst administrations in history. While that's happening, they're pissing off countries that really should be handled in a more subtle manner, namely Iran and Russia. All this macho hawkish bullshit is doing is stirring up popular support for nationalist regimes in those countries and anti-US sentiment. Predictably.

Re- Plague/Pestilence/Famine/Drought etc, I naively predict we'll be fine. Africa is fucked.

Capitalisms best chance is to fully back environmentalism at all costs, because I think hencoles right in saying that as our resources decrease, the state will have to rein in individual freedoms to ration and control them properly so we don't all starve.

Have a nice day!

[Mr Colossal]

Isn't cold fusion close to being perfected? I dont really know, they're building another coal-fired power station in Uskmouth down here and there's been quite a bit of debate about because they're shelling out £400million on dated 'mid-efficiency'  technology when for a little bit more, they could use super-critical boilers and other efficiency-improving technologie which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity, and up the efficiency by about 30-40%.

The environmentalists DO seem to be making more sense in this instance, as if the technology exists and its not that out of reach of the current budget, i dont see why they aren't using it. The only thing that seems to be coming back the other way is 'But think of the jobs!' from fiercely nationalistic types throwing their rage at those pesky environmentalists sticking their oar in and jeopardizing plans which would 'put wales on the map', rather that see that they're trying to better the plans for all involved, and not prevent them.

I then heard them mention something about cold fusion on the radio, perhaps something about a new system being trialed in somewhere like switzerland, but i've just looked on wikipedia and it says 'Still, current knowledge of the effect, if it exists, is insufficient to expect commercial applications soon. The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods.'

[Still Not George]

Bastard bastard bastard, I've just lost a whole afternoon to that site. Bastard.

[Brigadier Pompous]

Isn't cold fusion close to being perfected?

No, it's a crock.  Proper fusion should be possible though, although it has been 'almost there' for a long time now...

[Mr Colossal]

That's probably what it was reffering to then, I heard the word 'fusion' and just assumed they were talking about 'cold fusion'. I'm blaming the film adaptation of The Saint.

I think the discussion must have been something to do with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

DEMO (DEMOnstration Power Plant) is a proposed nuclear fusion power plant that is intended to build upon the expected success of the ITER (originally an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) nuclear fusion power plant. Whereas ITER's goal is to produce 500 million watts of fusion power for at least 500 seconds, the goal of DEMO will be to produce at least four times that much fusion power on a continual basis. Moreover, while ITER's goal is to produce 10 times as much power as is required for ignition, DEMO's goal is to produce 25 times as much power. DEMO's 2 gigawatts of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power plant.

more stuff here:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/fu/fu_rt/fu_rt_pp/article_1236_en.htm

[hencole]

Your are the Reverend Thomas Malthus and I claim my population crash.

The trouble with doom-and-glooming on that riff is you don't know what's around the corner. You might have a good idea what's being worked on that might be viable in five years, but 10 or 15 or 20? the idea that we are unavoidably going to melt down is just doom-mongering, really. If we can point out smugly why Malthus was wrong, why can't we allow for the possibility future generations will do the same to us? And saying "well, he lived ages ago - what did he know?" doesn't cut it because the chances that we were born into the actual generation that represents the absolute pinnacle of human knowledge are somewhat slim.

Actually, I have to say that I secretly agree with you - to an extent - but I'm doing my level best to stay optimistic.

I don't know who Thmoas Malthus is, but never mind.

We have always had the luxury of being able to expand. Our whole economic system is based on the false idea that we can expand for ever. There are not unlimited  new markets and there are not unlimited potential resources. It is only in the last 100 years that we have reached a point of rapid growth where limits are within reaching distance.

The earth is finite in size, and whilst in the past this was sometimes irrelevent as our wants in for example food needs, were never overly demanding on what could sustainablly be provided. Where resources became limited development stagnated. A lack of metal in the days before mining limited how readily those materials could be used. Returning to the present day those resources are becoming inreasingly depleted due to near exponential growth. Compare the resources consumed in the last 200 years to the resources consumed in the previous 200,000 years and it seems to me that problems are very much more imediate than some would like to think.

Of course technology has always helped. The onset of agriculture in our distant past allowed us to reduce at least 5 fold the amount of land needed to feed each human being. This in turn allowed for further previously unrealised growth. With further developments in technology and techniques farming became ever more efficient. It is what led us to civillisation and to having more spare time to pursue other interests outside of pure survival, as did the moving from being herbivores to meat eaters when we mere ancestors of homo sapiens.

Technology can only save you if there are enough raw materials to make use of it. Whilst fossil fuels dominate the debate on depleted resources there are many other building materials that have a very short life. LCD technology will be dead in about 20 years as the materials used to make it will no longer exist in large enough amounts. Sure we will may be using something else that is more readily available, but the point still stands.

The holly grail of nuclear fusion is something I hope will be a success, if it is we can continue exponential growth for some time as we will no longer be burdened with a constant struggle for power and can concentrate our time on other technology and means of production. But it is far away from being a success, perhaps over 50 years at best, if it's possible at all. The amount of money and power required to keep these kind of projects ticking away requries the kind of stability and cooperation between nations that we have now. If that falls away so does the dream of moving to another point in the age of man, one of unlimited power,  a development as imortant as tool making, written language, agriculture and steam.

I know very few people of my generation, and who have a decent grounding in the sciences, that look to the future and say' hey, we will be alright'. Foresight allowed homo sapiens to plan for the future. They could keep food for later when times were harder rather than consume it there and then. They learned to look after the land that they farmed so that they could use the same plots offr generations without haveing to move on. That foresite, however revolutionary, is insufficient at a time when we need to be looking beyond the next meal, or year and instead we're talking decades even centurys.

We need to further get rid of our instinct for immediate gratification, whilst deliberately slowing our development, otherwise I fear we will stagnate to the point where the next step will be just out of reach.

doesn't cut it because the chances that we were born into the actual generation that represents the absolute pinnacle of human knowledge are somewhat slim.

The chance that we are hear at all is somwhat slim so I can live with that idea.

Actually, I have to say that I secretly agree with you - to an extent - but I'm doing my level best to stay optimistic.

The optimist in me says maybe they'll make a pill that will cure obesity and all illnesses, then I don't have to worry about destroying my body with fatty food, drugs and alcohol.

Thugler said:

This is nonsense. Particularly the part about nuclear power.

Care to explain why?

[Mr Colossal]

Reminds me of the iron heel quote:

"The weakness in their position lies in that they are merely business men. They are not philosophers. They are not biologists nor sociologists. If they were, of course all would be well. A business man who was also a biologist and a sociologist would know, approximately, the right thing to do for humanity. But, outside the realm of business, these men are stupid. They know only business. They do not know mankind nor society, and yet they set themselves up as arbiters of the fates of the hungry millions and all the other millions thrown in. History, some day, will have an excruciating laugh at their expense.