Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

[Tyrannical]

Historically, major disasters come from war, famine, or epidemic disease. Currently wars are getting smaller and less destructive. Famine has shrunk. Epidemic diseases tend to be controllable. Over the past 100 odd years, the death toll as a percentage of the whole population from any of these three has dropped, and dropped dramatically.

Frankly, Crumple, I think your predilection to predict disaster reflects a twist in your own personality - not anything happening in the real world.

I suspect quite a few civilizations were destroyed by natural long term changes in climate patterns. There are quite a few ancient ruins that were continuously inhabited for thousands of years that are now located in deserts. Of course it was fertile land when it was inhabited. Mayan civilization was virtually destroyed long before the Spanish by a long period of no rain, causing famines and societal collapse. I don't know if the population readjusted to a lower carrying capacity, or if good weather returned, but their civilization was never the same.

[Blind groper]

That may be correct, Tyrannical, but this thread is about a planetary collapse, which is quite a different thing.

[Azathoth]

I'm always very wary of this kind of study. There are far too many variables for accurate modelling of the whole planet and it's ecosystem. Conformation bias tends to creep in when oversimplistic models spell doom

[Tyrannical]

That may be correct, Tyrannical, but this thread is about a planetary collapse, which is quite a different thing.

Well, there may be no such thing as planetary collapse because a series of localized events merely gets mistaken for one of planetary scale.

[Blind groper]

The psychology of this is kind of interesting. Predictions of catastrophe appear to be a part of the human psyche. In days of yore, they tended to be religious. Like the Second Coming and Armageddon. Throughout most of history such predictions have been made, with Harold Camping being the latest such nutter.

Predictions of catastrophe via warfare are also common throughout history. For example, in the middle of the Renaissance - the time where the Dark Ages were kicked in the butt and the new enlightened period ushered in - the Ottoman Empire was strong, and there were widespread fears that it would overrun the 'civilised' west.

Today those predictions continue to be made. However, in the science fiction age, it is appropriate that disaster predictions should encompass a wider arena of imagined causes. Overpopulation. Widespread starvation. Nuclear war. Eco-disaster. Resource depletion disaster. Climate change. Desertification. and so on and so on.

All the predictions continue to have the one thing in common. History proves them all to be wrong.

The thing everyone forgets is human ingenuity and human progress. Certainly there are problems. Humanity has struggled against a wide raft of problems throughout history. But we are too damn smart for any single, or few problems to overcome us. When the Hittites were running out of copper and tin, they learned to work iron. When, in the mid 20th Century, humanity was struggling to feed the growing population, on came the Green Revolution.

Today, the same old predictions of disaster get made, using the same tired old logic. And once more, the disaster-mongers ignore human progress. Ho hum

[Atheist-Lite]

The psychology of this is kind of interesting. Predictions of catastrophe appear to be a part of the human psyche. In days of yore, they tended to be religious. Like the Second Coming and Armageddon. Throughout most of history such predictions have been made, with Harold Camping being the latest such nutter.

Predictions of catastrophe via warfare are also common throughout history. For example, in the middle of the Renaissance - the time where the Dark Ages were kicked in the butt and the new enlightened period ushered in - the Ottoman Empire was strong, and there were widespread fears that it would overrun the 'civilised' west.

Today those predictions continue to be made. However, in the science fiction age, it is appropriate that disaster predictions should encompass a wider arena of imagined causes. Overpopulation. Widespread starvation. Nuclear war. Eco-disaster. Resource depletion disaster. Climate change. Desertification. and so on and so on.

All the predictions continue to have the one thing in common. History proves them all to be wrong.

The thing everyone forgets is human ingenuity and human progress. Certainly there are problems. Humanity has struggled against a wide raft of problems throughout history. But we are too damn smart for any single, or few problems to overcome us. When the Hittites were running out of copper and tin, they learned to work iron. When, in the mid 20th Century, humanity was struggling to feed the growing population, on came the Green Revolution.

Today, the same old predictions of disaster get made, using the same tired old logic. And once more, the disaster-mongers ignore human progress. Ho hum

This ship, industrial civilization, will sink and will do so soon. This isn't based on folklore but the gaping hole in the hull which has been well enough explained by now. Some are naive I hope rather than wicked in assuming a business as usual scenario. This civilization is fragile, power is concentrated and so adaptive change is impossible. Mankind has been ingenious but 'being smart' requires more than luck and accurate memetic replication. Everytime mankind builds a civilization there comes a point where hubris and the drive for power spills over into the delusion of invincible imortality and critical mistakes are then made bringing the structure down, and causing mass tragedy. It is happening again on a larger scale, that is all. I cannot know if the coming Dark Age will last a thousand years or be the end although with climate change it may be the collapse will bring about human extinction. I am not a optimist. The world and history is full of fools proclaiming a new golden age just before it all turns to shit. That is religion. Hope where it should not be. Then apathy and tragic downfall. The priests taking advantage of the wreck and terror of the people. The loss of population and advanced knowledge. Savages returned to primitivism and superstitous ignorance living amongst the ruins. That is what happens, the archeology shows what decomposition is in these regards.

[Blind groper]

Some are naive I hope rather than wicked in assuming a business as usual scenario.

Here is a glaring flaw in your 'logic'.

There is not, and never has been, a "business as usual" situation. The nature of Homo sapiens is quite the opposite of "business as usual".

Human actions are more like the balancing of a vertical yard stick on the palm of the hand. The balance is active. By rapidly responding to changes in the position of the yard stick by counter moves of your hand, you keep it vertical and balanced. The prediction of disaster made by Crumple as a result of "business as usual" is like assuming that you attempt to keep the balance without moving your hand. Of course, the yard stick will fall.

That is not how we operate. Humanity responds with changes in the way we do things to problems as they arise. When CFC's were identified as causing ozone depletion, we stopped using CFC's in aerosol sprays and in refrigerators. When rivers ran black with pollution, governments passed various clean water legislation, forcing industry to clean up its act. When insecticides were causing environmental problems, we developed new ones that were biodegradable and low in toxicity to non insects.

"Business as usual" does not happen. The human economic system and human technology is constantly changing to compensate for any possible lean in the economic yard stick, and keep it where it should be. We have a dynamic economic system, which makes all those predictions of catastrophe fail.

[Atheist-Lite]

Some are naive I hope rather than wicked in assuming a business as usual scenario.

Here is a glaring flaw in your 'logic'.

There is not, and never has been, a "business as usual" situation. The nature of Homo sapiens is quite the opposite of "business as usual".

Human actions are more like the balancing of a vertical yard stick on the palm of the hand. The balance is active. By rapidly responding to changes in the position of the yard stick by counter moves of your hand, you keep it vertical and balanced. The prediction of disaster made by Crumple as a result of "business as usual" is like assuming that you attempt to keep the balance without moving your hand. Of course, the yard stick will fall.

That is not how we operate. Humanity responds with changes in the way we do things to problems as they arise. When CFC's were identified as causing ozone depletion, we stopped using CFC's in aerosol sprays and in refrigerators. When rivers ran black with pollution, governments passed various clean water legislation, forcing industry to clean up its act. When insecticides were causing environmental problems, we developed new ones that were biodegradable and low in toxicity to non insects.

"Business as usual" does not happen. The human economic system and human technology is constantly changing to compensate for any possible lean in the economic yard stick, and keep it where it should be. We have a dynamic economic system, which makes all those predictions of catastrophe fail.

All those ruins of countless civlizations in the past are when the balancing act failed but you had have me believe it is somehow different this time around? Humanity has learned from it's mistakes? I'm not saying there won't be attempts to maintain a sustainable alternative, something you might enjoy involving yourself in, just that they will fail as ignorance replaces knowledge over a number of generations. It is clear from the ruins of various Roman cities here that attempts were made at shoring up old buildings and water systems for many decades after the Roman presence had vanished. All doomed to failure because the return to primitivism is multi-generational and not easily visible when compared to the illusion of hope these old ruins would give...like cargo cult mutterings so talk of 'dynamic economic systems' bringing back the good old days will persist long after any semblance of hope is gone.

[Blind groper]

Again, Crumple, I point out that the thread is about a planetary collapse.
Even the fall of the Roman Empire was local - not planetary.

[Atheist-Lite]

Again, Crumple, I point out that the thread is about a planetary collapse.
Even the fall of the Roman Empire was local - not planetary.

Same game larger playing field.

[Audley Strange]

The Roman Empire never fucking fell. It REBRANDED and added HOLY. It consolidated it's base in Europe and sent out aggressive franchise operations. It still exists.

Also. Despite all the naysayers always being wrong, it only ever takes one of them to be right. In saying that a collapse of a social political model is not extinction, it's transition to another.

However, I don't have much faith in human nature. I could see some crazies easily cooking up something nasty in a lab and wiping us out with it.

[Clinton Huxley]

The Roman Empire never fucking fell. It REBRANDED and added HOLY. It consolidated it's base in Europe and sent out aggressive franchise operations. It still exists.

Aye.

Rome was the first Rome
Constantinople was the second Rome
Moscow was the third Rome
Paris was the fourth Rome, for a bit
Berlin was the fifth Rome, for a bit
Brussels was the sixth Rome
Berlin is Rome again....

Something like that, may have missed a few Romes out.

[Atheist-Lite]

The Romans are long gone. You can pretend they're still here but it don't change the fact Elvis left the building here. Romans never came back from where they marched off too. Does someone want me to say it in Latin?

[Blind groper]

I understand both views. I suspect that most of us are a bit jaundiced in our view because we are British centric. When Rome left Britain, Britain fell. It was over-run with Saxons who were 'barbarians' by the old Roman standards. But much of Europe remained 'civilised', with the main change being towards a new religion - Catholicism. It was the influence of this religion that created the Dark Ages.

It would be a difficult debate to work out whether the years following the fall of Rome actually meant an increase in true barbarism, except locally.

[Clinton Huxley]

I understand both views. I suspect that most of us are a bit jaundiced in our view because we are British centric. When Rome left Britain, Britain fell. It was over-run with Saxons who were 'barbarians' by the old Roman standards. But much of Europe remained 'civilised', with the main change being towards a new religion - Catholicism. It was the influence of this religion that created the Dark Ages.

It would be a difficult debate to work out whether the years following the fall of Rome actually meant an increase in true barbarism, except locally.

I think the term "Dark Ages" is an exaggeration, it was more just a little dimmer.

The West had been tottering for ages long before the final "roman" legions left Blighty anyway.