Eventually the sun will expand to planet Jupiter and none of this will matter anyway.
The Long-Term Future of Humanity: Your Viewpoint
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
i'm not talking about 28 Days Later scenario, i'm talking about crap like coral reefs dying and polar ice caps melting due to the temp changes...regardless of whether it's caused by MancilG's hummer or a naturally occurring phenomenon, you can't deny that real changes are taking place, and at a pretty quick rate. china's got some real environmental problems to deal w/ now, not to mention 10-20 years down the road.syadasti said:
You're joking right?syadasti said:
We have the power to turn the planet into a smoking pile of glass.
I think that it's a matter of time, when not if - either mankind itself or nature will eventually take us out. I'm leaning more towards nature. (viruses, disasters, etc.)
Not every species will get wiped out, this planet is in a nice spot in the universe to support life. We suck though, it was a nice run but we are too dangerous for the earth to let us go on too much longer.
Have you heard about the wildlife around Chernobyl, it's radioactive as hell but lives just as long as its non-radioactive cousins elsewhere. It seems that DNA is very adaptable indeed.LordOpie said:
easy to say when yr down in NZ (aside from that nasty ozone hole you have to deal w/ ).Changleen said:
Look, we probably arn't all going to be wiped out. There may be some nasty wars and a few bad diseases, but I'm pretty sure humanity will still be around in a few thousand years.
The question is, what do you want for future generations? And how do we get there? Do you really want your future decendants to live the same way, in the same society that you live in now? What do you want to change?
Do you think unhindered capitalism will get us there? I personally think that whilst capitalism is a great driving force, it needs to be kept in check in some ways for the good of the bulk of the population. You may or may not have heard of social capitalism, which essentially means that your bottom line isn't only about $$$, but also about societal and quality of life and environment benefits. Some corporations already practice this in the UK and Europe, I don't know about in the US.
I also think areas of science that some people consider unethical for whatever reason are probably some of the most important for us to get a handle on, and religious and other groups who hinder this can fvck off.
The question is, what do you want for future generations? And how do we get there? Do you really want your future decendants to live the same way, in the same society that you live in now? What do you want to change?
Do you think unhindered capitalism will get us there? I personally think that whilst capitalism is a great driving force, it needs to be kept in check in some ways for the good of the bulk of the population. You may or may not have heard of social capitalism, which essentially means that your bottom line isn't only about $$$, but also about societal and quality of life and environment benefits. Some corporations already practice this in the UK and Europe, I don't know about in the US.
I also think areas of science that some people consider unethical for whatever reason are probably some of the most important for us to get a handle on, and religious and other groups who hinder this can fvck off.
The problem with people that push social capitalism is that they don't understand prosperity under capitalism or how prices regulate the consumption of resources. People see the positive effects of these things all around them and demonize the processes that created them ignorant of the causal relationships between the two.Changleen said:
As far as social capitalism is concerned, it isn't nessecarily any different than capitalism, it is the people telling the coprorations what they expect from them. People reach a certain level of affluence where they no longer spend all their time concerned with the basic nessecities and they take a more active interest in the world around them. Their enviroment and overall health become more important.
The increase in convenience and liesure brought about through the bounties of capitalism have created a rennesaince of enviromental
and social awareness. The mere fact that people have enough disposable income now to demand from producers higher quality goods and more eco friendly production tecniques (increasing the cost of said goods) says volumes about the flexibility of the system. Just think, you never see a bum planting a tree on Arbor day, it's always someone who is well to do and can afford to allocate the time resources and effort while a poorer person would likely choose to stay at work.
As far as population bombs and resource depletion. The resources aren't all being depleted unless we are shooting them off into space. They are just being moved around and becoming less centralized.
I imagine at some point it may become economically plausible to start mining landfills for metals and plastics. Hmmmmm
As resources become scarce in a capitalist system, the prices rise. When the price reaches a point where it is no longer profitable to use said material, something else will be substituted. As technology marches on things become smaller and more complex, doing far more with far less. Reducing further the burden on suppliers of raw goods. Yes I know that population is always growing, or is it? In maturing societies as people become more affluent they tend to have fewer children, eventually you end up with a situation like that seen in many western countries where the native population is actually shrinking or holding steady, any growth comes primarily from incoming immigrant populations (like the US) if there is any growth at all.
I imagine at some point it may become economically plausible to start mining landfills for metals and plastics. Hmmmmm
As resources become scarce in a capitalist system, the prices rise. When the price reaches a point where it is no longer profitable to use said material, something else will be substituted. As technology marches on things become smaller and more complex, doing far more with far less. Reducing further the burden on suppliers of raw goods. Yes I know that population is always growing, or is it? In maturing societies as people become more affluent they tend to have fewer children, eventually you end up with a situation like that seen in many western countries where the native population is actually shrinking or holding steady, any growth comes primarily from incoming immigrant populations (like the US) if there is any growth at all.
If that's what you think you are severely ignorant about social capitalism and the motivations of people. You sound like you're talking about 10 year old communists. In reality, many very large and successful corporations are embracing social capitalist ideals, and I think they probably better understand their environment than you.noname said:
I agree that a lot of this change has come about due to consumer pressure.
Once again though here you seem to imply that only the rich care about their environment. Even a couple of seconds of rational thought makes it obvious that this absolute rubbish.
You have such a narrow view of the world. Your immediate society isn't the only way people think or behave in the world. Maybe when you one day come to recognise that you won't make such ignorant statements.
Once again, complete tosh.
Most of your post had nothing to do with social capitalism, or showed your complete lack of a broad, or even quasi-realistic world view. Well done.
Changleen said:
He's always lookin for a fight. I can't really say he's looking for a debate, cause he doesn't really debate, just calls you names and says you're stupid. It's like arguing with a 13 year old.LordOpie said:
Wrong. They are undergoing Entropy to a point where they require more energy to reform than they produce int he system. Often far further.
Do you understand the concept of entropy? Apparantly not. Although there is a long way to go, and many other sources of energy and raw materials to be exploited before we actually run out, we will reach a point, even with a plateau or decrease in population where we have used up all the useful resources on the planet.
This is laregly correct, although it doesn't have much to do with social capitalism, which operates under basically the same rules. If you think however, as you seem to be implying, that capitalism and technology will save us from ever having to need to leave the planet, I think you are somewhat delusional.
He said that poor people would rather stay at work that go and plant trees, because they're poor and need the cash. This isn't true. His general attitude to the poor, that they are unfit to play with those who 'understand capitalism' is how I interpretted his point.LordOpie said:
And yes, of course I'm looking for an e-fight. You have met me before right?
They don't have a choice, unless someone finds a way around the theory of relativity or we start sending out colony ships.Changleen said:
As far as a system of capitalism where the government tries to intervene and control to some extent the allocation of resources, that is horribly inefficient. More is wasted when the government steps in in any area, not less.
People are always asking for the government to do more, then they complain about what the government has done. No one is ever really happy with the government, yet they keep going back to them for answers when a percieved problem arises.
Pre-industrial societies are cleaner than any industrial society, and America, the most affluent country in the world is also the biggest polluter. Advanced countries that are the cleanest, such as northern European communities, have a far stronger socialist influence in their government and without fail practice a more socialist form of capitalism than say, the UK, the US or Japan.noname said:
That's what this thread is about, except we don't have to take such an extreme step at first. Mining asteroids on a limited scale would solve a great many of our resource problems without sending half of humanity off on some Battlestar Galactica type mission.noname said:
Again, you are only looking at your system of government. Many European and Asian governments manage to regulate far more 'harshly' without harming economic growth, and giving their citizens a better average quality of life.
That's not quite right - Often people ask for the government to do less. And social capitalism is about corporations doing more for the greater good, not the government.noname said:
They are a regulatory body. Actually in some places most people do have a positive view of their governments. Things change though and that's what democracy is all about. The most successful governments adapt and don't hang on to irrational policy based on religion or the needs of special interest groups.
right, and that's going to be a problem for countries like Germany and France, as they face stagnating populations and the resulting stagnating economies. the alternative is to increase worker productivity on a unit basis. how much can be made up in this manner?noname said:
First, I don't think you need to have a growing population to ensure a growing economy. For sure it can help, but an average increase in per-transaction value is equally important. Technology obviously helps this, so R+D and science is increasingly important.narlus said:
Second, I think France's problems mostly boil down to their overly-socialist pollicies. I mean you can take this stuff too far. The French work less hours than pretty much anyone, and the welfare state is unsustainably generous. It'd be a great place to live while it holds up though!
Germany is getting it together now I think, and most of their problems were caused by changes in the markets they were traditionally strongest in. The country has had to evolve and I think they are doing what needs to be done.
those countries have three major differences than the US that makes it like comparing apples to oranges.Changleen said:
First off, by populated land mass, the US is huge, and people are spread out everywhere. Our infrastructure gets continuously upgraded but it is still too cost prohibitive to replace it. late in 01 there was a blackout in the mid atlantic/northeast. It all started with something very small getting tripped up and it shut down power to millions. Surely you can imagine how costly it would be to try and change a system like that. The affected area was huge.
Also, americans have a really bad case of NIMBY, amoungst other things, they actually push the government to keep power producers from upgrading their production means to something more efficient.
On top off that, we haven't fought a war on our own soil since god knows when, so while everyone else was recovering from one war or another we were getting a huge headstart on everyone else.
Also, look at the actual levels of pollution in the US in a time lapsed scale. The eco friendly thing started to really get a foothold on American pop culture in the 70's, and since then the numbers have been steadily falling ever since.
Of course I would expect countries that are much smaller to pollute less, I would also expect countries that aren't fully/thoughly developed to pollute less, in certain respectsin other regards they pollute more. At the same time I would posit that the current US energy situation is a perfect example of both what can go right(providing a binding forum for citizens to hold corporations accountable) and what can go wrong (allowing politicians to set policy and standards on fields they are completely ignorant of basing their desicions almost soley on emotion and superstition).
A stagnating population would actually lead to inflation, all things being equal.Changleen said:
France, Because hard work never killed anyone, but in some places it's illegal.
Most EU countries were struggling through the past few years due partly to too much socialism, that's why some countries have voted in slightly more conservative leaders. Although that is still relative if you try to compare it to US politics.
Since this thread was originally started about the long term future of humanity, I have one question. Does anyone else think that people may eventually develop into two distinctly different types?
I'm thinking there will be those that still are fully physically proficient and able to travel outside regularly, then there will be ones like my roommate who live in a virtual world with fully integrated computer systems implanted in their bodies and they live off a diet of sugar water and high carb pizza like dishes. Hmmmmm
I'm thinking there will be those that still are fully physically proficient and able to travel outside regularly, then there will be ones like my roommate who live in a virtual world with fully integrated computer systems implanted in their bodies and they live off a diet of sugar water and high carb pizza like dishes. Hmmmmm
Yes. Apparantly around 25% of all pollution in the US is down to power companies. However on the other hand Europe is now largely one market, with an equivalent geographical size to the US and the pollution is far lower per head.noname said:
Yes and no - Your largest industry is indeed polluting less now, something like a 7% drop since 1990 if I remember rightly, but pollution by smaller companies and idividuals is still going up, at least last time I looked.
Yes, I try to look at it as a per capita thing to be fair to everyone. 2% of the world's population making 25% of the pollution is not a good look IMO, and the big challenges now are to get that figure down, and help developing countries, especially China and India from having to go through the same ultra-high polluting stages of development most of the west has done.
I hope you hold your corporations accountable as well as you can, and I hope you get some politicians who arn't entirely self serving after Bush.
I am not saying we shouldn't do anything to protect civilization and the planet but its wrong to think mankind is anything more than a bee sting on the Earth's ass in the scheme of things.LordOpie said:
Earth's forces and space (asteroids) can easily dwarf our weapons:
-Average nuclear weapon today = 1 megaton
-Biggest bomb ever detonated by mankind = 50 megatons
-Biggest bomb ever made by mankind = 100 megatons
-Peak of total worldwide stockpile size approx. 16000 megatons (2/3 the energy of the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption. Today we only have a fraction of the energy with about 20000 active warheads on earth right now)
-Biggest event on Earth = 190,000,000 megatons Chicxulub Crater Event (ended the rein of dinosaurs on Earth)
It would take about 2 MILLION 100 Megaton Tsar Bombs to equal the asteroid that didn't wipe out life on earth in its past.
We've only ever had less than 1/10000th the energy of an major asteroid at our peak historical stockpile levels.
Mankind can't touch mother nature when it comes to destruction. The Earth will be alive long after our species has become extinct.
* The first nuclear bomb tested at the Alamagordo test site released 18.6 kilotons of TNT (Rhodes, page 677), or approximately 78 terajoules.
* The Little Boy weapon dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 13 kilotons of TNT (54 TJ). Thus, a megaton of TNT is equivalent to roughly 77 Hiroshima bombs. The Nagasaki bomb, Fat Man, released 20 kilotons of TNT = 84 TJ.
* The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba, which had a yield of 50 megatons of TNT (210 PJ). The most powerful nuclear weapon ever produced was a version of the Tsar Bomb that would have yielded some 100 megatons of TNT.
* Typical H-bombs today have a yield of around 1 megaton of TNT.
* The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens was reportedly equivalent to 27,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs - which translates roughly to 350 megatons.
* The 1912 eruption of Novarupta in Alaska was ten times the size of Mount St. Helens. That is about 3500 megatons.
* The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa was about 50% larger than Novarupta. That is about 5250 megatons.
* The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora was about seven times larger than Novarupta. That is about 24500 megatons.
* The 1650 BC eruption of Santorini was much larger than Mount Tambora.
* The Lake Toba eruption 73,000 years ago was larger even than Santorini, and is likely to have caused a mass global die-off. See Toba catastrophe theory.
* The Yellowstone Caldera was formed by a massive volcanic explosion some 640,000 years ago that was 2500 times the size of Mount St. Helens. That is about 875000 Megatons. This would have caused a mass global die-off as well
*Of the roughly 135,000 warheads ever built by the two superpowers, about 3% had yields over 4.5 megatons.
*The U.S. has now retired all of its multimegaton weapons. Disassembly of the last type removed from service, the B53, may be completed in 2006. Russia probably maintains a small number ICBMs in high-yield single warhead versions. The People's Republic of China has one type of ICBM armed with high-yield warheads.
A gigaton of TNT is more commonly used as a measure of energy equal to that released by 1 billion metric tons of TNT, or 4.184 × 1018 joules = 4.184 exajoules (EJ). A gigaton is equal to 1,000 megatons, and is from the same family of terms. However, while megatons are commonly used as a measure of explosive devices, the most powerful explosive device ever detonated - the Tsar Bomba - had a yield of only 57 megatons (October 30, 1961 - U.S.S.R.).
The term gigaton is therefore used mostly in seismology. An earthquake measuring an 8.0 on the Richter scale releases the equivalent of approximately 1.01 gigatons of TNT; the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is estimated to have released the equivalent of 100 gigatons of TNT. Even in this context however, the term gigaton is not often used. It is perhaps more appropriately used in planetary science, where impact events can release thousands or even millions of gigatons of energy; the body that caused the Chicxulub crater in Mexico is estimated to have released the equivalent of as much as 190,000 gigatons of TNT.
on the upswing, I do look foward to the future of medical nanotech. I'd like to see just how far we can go with it in my life time.Changleen said:Sounds like it's already happening...
I think I will see the use of a nuclear weapon with the aim to kill people in my lifetime.
Changleen said:
I think capitalism will drive technology, and while we will struggle and bitch and moan with various moral implications things will slowly progress and the world(s?) will become a nicer place to live in, although new problems / social abberations such as the sensitive-to-light computer junkies will surface.narlus said:
I went there once; you don't need 20 years, 1 evening is enough.H8R said:Try living in Oakland for 20 years, you'd want the whole planet destroyed too.
