The demise of civilisation may be inevitable

(Not sure we discussed this. It is an article in NewScientist April2, 2008 issue)

"DOOMSDAY. The end of civilisation. Literature and film abound with tales of plague, famine and wars which ravage the planet, leaving a few survivors scratching out a primitive existence amid the ruins. Every civilisation in history has collapsed, after all. Why should ours be any different?

Doomsday scenarios typically feature a knockout blow: a massive asteroid, all-out nuclear war or a catastrophic pandemic. Yet there is another chilling possibility: what if the very nature of civilisation means that ours, like all the others, is destined to collapse sooner or later?

A few researchers have been making such claims for years. Disturbingly, recent insights from fields such as complexity theory suggest that they are right. It appears that once a society develops beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile. Eventually, it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor disturbance can bring everything crashing down.

Some say we have already reached this point, and that it is time to start thinking about how we might manage collapse. Others insist it is not yet too late, and that we can - we must - act now to keep disaster at bay."

Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC agrees. He has long argued that governments must pay more attention to vital environmental resources. "It's not about saving the planet. It's about saving civilisation," he says.

A copy of the full article can be found at: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.romanian/msg/11b639b166be4fd7

Discuss your views here

We all need fears like Apocalypse to keep us in line...

It goes like this, if you steal a cookie from a cookie jar on the top shelf, your mommy will spank you, and daddy will spank you, and than grandma will spank you, and than you will have to work with the chikens on the farm and clean all their poop, and the next day the same thing...FEAR for the little youngster

I really don't worry about doomsday because I am alive now and try to live each day to its fullest. Worrying about total devastation isn't what I ever do for living is much more difficult and enough worries are with that . ;)

Here is some discussions on the subject including MI5 warning on anarchy and food shortage.

http://www.planforpandemic.com/viewtopic.php?p=92597

Every civilisation in history has collapsed, after all. Why should ours be any different?That's a little disingenous. He's muddling between "a civilization," such as Egypt, Rome or Inca, and "civilization," which is the entire worldwide scope of the technology of city-building. Individual civilized states have fallen, but in most cases it's an exaggeration to say they "collapsed."

They were usually overrun by other civilizations. Sometimes just a more arrogant one, such as the Muslims taking over Egypt, other times one which was both more arrogant and more technologically advanced, such as the Christians taking over Inca and Aztec. Cities themselves were not totally destroyed in the case of Egypt, and in the case of the New World the activity could be seen as "urban renewal," tearing down Bronze Age cities and building up newer, larger, more advanced Iron Age cities in their place.

We occasionally find ruins like Zimbabwe, where a civilization existed and then vanished, but these are both small and exceptional.

Roman civilization did not even "collapse" when the Germanic tribes invaded. They soon became Romans and the last time I was in Italy Roman civilization was doing fine with no visible trauma from the brief discontinuity

He's also wrong about "every civilization." China has never collapsed, and arguably never even come close to falling. The Mongols, the Manchus and the Communists conquered China and ruled it, but it was too big for all of them and it ended up absorbing them with a polite burp. I'll let Sam tell us whether Indians feel that India has ever "collapsed."Yet there is another chilling possibility: what if the very nature of civilisation means that ours, like all the others, is destined to collapse sooner or later?"Ours" and "all the others" are the same civilization. It's a continuum. This is the rhetoric I'm talking about when I accuse this writer of disingenuity.

Human civilization was once six discrete entities: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, Olmec/Maya/Aztec and Inca. They arose separately and it took a while before their people discovered each other. But once they did, they began to merge. Today that merger is largely complete. Mesopotamian (Greco-Roman and Arab/Islamic) is obviously the dominant motif that has given (or pushed) more than it's taken from the others, but there is no boundary you can point to where, for example, Chinese civilization leaves off and Indian begins. Or where Euro-America ands and the Orient begins, since Japan is arguably more Euro-American than Oriental now. Today civilization is not only a continuum in time, but in geography as well. There's only one and it's everywhere.

I see no "chilling" evidence that civilization is destined to collapse. On the contrary, I see "heartwarming" evidence that civilization continues to advance. In my lifetime I've seen war drop from a major cause of death to somewhere down on the list below motor vehicle accidents. I see my own government about to topple--a peaceful, orderly, democratic toppling under the rule of law with no actual collapse of buildings--because we cannot condone its killing of a rather small number of people (by historical standards) clear over on the other side of the planet whom we don't even like very much. What can you call this except an advance in civilization?A few researchers have been making such claims for years. Disturbingly, recent insights from fields such as complexity theory suggest that they are right. It appears that once a society develops beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile. Eventually, it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor disturbance can bring everything crashing down.And who is going to put their faith in these researchers? Did they come out of the same universities that were yelling at us about the threat of "global cooling" thirty years ago? If there's anything we've learned from these scholars, it's that building a predictive model of something that's never happened before (the fate of a global civilization rather than a pocket of civilization like Greece or Persia) is nothing more than an interesting exercise.

Of course we could be hit by an asteroid, but that's hardly going to be blamed on civilization itself. And of course many of us advocate establishing self-supporting colonies on other planets ASAP, and one of the reasons is so the destruction of earth's ecosystem won't be the end of us.

I really don't worry about doomsday because I am alive now and try to live each day to its fullest. Worrying about total devastation isn't what I ever do for living is much more difficult and enough worries are with that . ;)

I worry about it all the time. I even have a game plan. Its a fairly worthless plan, I know, but I have it. Jericho was a stupid show because they were doing it all wrong. :rolleyes:

FR’s reply (post 5) is on the mark, as usually, but the current one civilization does have a weak foundation – cheap, but finite, liquid fuel from petroleum.

True, coal can be converted to liquids but not cheaply. More importantly, perhaps not in the volume that may be required in the time available for construction of a “coal based” liquid fuel plants to sustain suburban / private cars / infrastructures as the US has and India / China aspire to.

The elimination of varieties in most foods food crops is also a valid concern – look what is happening to the price of food with just a slight diversion compared to what some global spread of a virulent wheat rust or “rice fungus” etc. could do.

There is a lot to be said for the diversity of six isolated civilizations, at least until the modern single one is known to be as stable as they were.

. . . .but the current one civilization does have a weak foundation – cheap, but finite, liquid fuel from petroleum.We're going to have to resume building nuclear power plants. It's a question of how long it takes the Reds--whoops I mean the Greens I keep forgetting that they changed color--to face that reality. And while the clock is ticking on our accumulation of nuclear waste we'll have time to build the solar energy infrastructure that is the only practical, long-range solution to our energy problem. Then we figure out what to do with the nuclear waste.

Fossil fuels may run out in this century or the next one or the one after that, depending on whose prediction you believe, so it's time to get started on those nuclear plants. Not to mention a reasonable plan for dealing with nuclear waste, both short- and long-term.True, coal can be converted to liquids but not cheaply. More importantly, perhaps not in the volume that may be required in the time available for construction of a “coal based” liquid fuel plants to sustain suburban / private cars / infrastructures as the US has. . . .We're going to have to accept electrically powered cars. They don't require a new infrastructure since they just plug in, so we can keep using coal-fired power plants for the short run. They're just going to require an attitude adjustment to smaller, slower vehicles. No more buying frelling trucks disguised as station wagons for Klingons and using them to go grocery shopping instead of towing freight. America is also going to have to rediscover (and refurbish) its railway network and stop wasting fuel on semi-trailers.. . . .and India / China aspire to.They do seem determined to repeat all of the West's mistakes, particularly the balance of public vs. private transportation. This is part of the reality that the Greens refuse to face.

However, the Information Age will make commuting less necessary as more people acquire the ability to work at home. Once private auto transport starts to take up as much of a family's budget as housing, the dinosaur managers of my generation will be forced to learn how to manage people they can't watch. Either that or step out of the way and make room for a generation that has grown up with cellphones, chat rooms and MOMRPGs, and can't imagine why people have to be in the same physical location in order to do something together.The elimination of varieties in most foods food crops is also a valid concern – look what is happening to the price of food with just a slight diversion compared to what some global spread of a virulent wheat rust or “rice fungus” etc. could do. There is a lot to be said for the diversity of six isolated civilizations, at least until the modern single one is known to be as stable as they were.The biggest problem with our civilization is that it doesn't have a lot of excess capacity. If a disaster strikes a major geographical area without killing its people, it's not clear that the rest of the world could pitch in and keep them alive while they rebuild. And of course this is the result of the population explosion. But that's expected to reverse in less than a hundred years. If we can make it through another 150-200 years, to when the population might be back down to only three billion, without one of these disasters striking, we'll probably be okay. Of course by then we'll have identified some new problems.

To Fraggle R mainly:

We agree on most things (of the last two posts anyway) except I think battery cars are too expensive to compete and much too polluting when their lifecycle is considered (lot of heavy metals in several, and hard to keep out of the dumps etc. Producing most batteries often ends up contaminating ground water etc. I often drive by a "Brazilian EPA" closed battery plant that even after years of trying could not stop lead dust from making the produce of a large, nearby, farm too toxic to legally sell (or afford to buy the farm from the owners and close the farm instead.)

In contrast converting to alcohol powered cars actually will make a net removal of existing CO2 from the air - the only economically feasible way to do this that I know of; (with possible exception of spreading iron, I think it is, on the tropical oceans but that requires someone willing to fund the spreading operations.)

Thus, I strongly prefer the well proven, no-new-technology, alcohol as fuel for car. - Per mile traveled, it is cheaper than gasoline even though it creates many more jobs. Many of these jobs are in tropical cane fields - that is much better, and cheaper than "foreign aid," especially when that aid is restricted to "buy from US etc." as that hurts local industrial development.

I have long been a strong supporter of nuclear power, so long as it is not done by the US approach. The French do it correctly - standardized reactors and nationwide uniformly design control rooms. In US each is unique - designed mainly by business men so they look nice thru the glass windows to visiting large share holders etc. - The experts brought in to help with the Three mile Island US event initially were confused by the control system, thought there was a dangerous "Hydrogen bubble" keeping cooling water off part of the core etc. - it took two days before they understood that unique control room's instruments were telling.

It had nothing to do with the accident, but also that plant came on line on 31December (I forget the year) so that it would be included in the PSC's allowed "rate base" the next year, even though several of the backup safety pumps were not installed.etc. In the US system, with businessmen placing the order for the plant, it is profits and then safety with unique designs. In the French system, it is standardized government plants designed first for safety and then for profits, if possible.

As far as the radioactive waste is concerned that has an easy solution I posted here years ago. Basically, store a decade or so until only the longer life isotopes are still around, then "glassify the waste" in disks about 20 inches in diameter and three inches thick. (With outer few MM only PURE glass -to stop the escape of the alpha particles. The high surface to volume ratio keeps them cooler - exact size will depend on the activity.) Then disks are automatically loaded onto ship (gammas will make automation best) and other remotely controlled on ship handling automation hurl the disks off the stern while it is steaming over a deep ocean trench. For an hour or less they will sink to the ocean floor, not roll together, and in about a year or two be covered with sediment to start their billion or so year journey into the Earth’s core.

I think battery cars are too expensive to compete. . . .At today's prices, but the price of petroleum products will continue to rise. Electric cars can run off the power from nuclear plants.. . . .and much too polluting when their lifecycle is considered (lot of heavy metals in several, and hard to keep out of the dumps etc. Producing most batteries often ends up contaminating ground water etc.Yes, pollution is a problem. If we can't solve it then I guess batteries are not the answer. But we already know that the Chinese don't give a damn about pollution so they'll be happy to use electric cars.In contrast converting to alcohol powered cars actually will make a net removal of existing CO2 from the air. . . .Everything I read says that if we allocate enough farmland to ethanol production to be able to replace petroleum, it will seriously encroach on the amount of acreage available to grow food. It doesn't seem to be a viable long-term option.

I keep coming back to nuclear power being the medium-term solution, with solar energy in the long term.I have long been a strong supporter of nuclear power, so long as it is not done by the US approach. . . . In the US system, with businessmen placing the order for the plant, it is profits and then safety with unique designs. In the French system, it is standardized government plants designed first for safety and then for profits, if possible.We already know that things that work for one culture don't necessarily work for another. Our government has been cramming authoritarian socialism down our throats since FDR took office in 1933, and we continue to rebel against it. I suggest that the only reason Bush was elected for a second term, despite all his drawbacks, is that he's a knee-jerk capitalist and Kerry is quite the opposite.The experts brought in to help with the Three mile Island US event initially were confused by the control system, thought there was a dangerous "Hydrogen bubble" keeping cooling water off part of the core etc. - it took two days before they understood that unique control room's instruments were telling.Americans have actually gotten Windows to work halfway decently. If we can do that, our wacky nuclear plant configurations will be easy to master. Those experts were probably undertrained because nobody expected them to be called for duty. The next time you can be sure they will be checked out on every type of control system.As far as the radioactive waste is concerned that has an easy solution I posted here years ago. Basically, store a decade or so until only the longer life isotopes are still around, then "glassify the waste" in disks about 20 inches in diameter and three inches thick. (With outer few MM only PURE glass -to stop the escape of the alpha particles. The high surface to volume ratio keeps them cooler - exact size will depend on the activity.) Then disks are automatically loaded onto ship (gammas will make automation best) and other remotely controlled on ship handling automation hurl the disks off the stern while it is steaming over a deep ocean trench. For an hour or less they will sink to the ocean floor, not roll together, and in about a year or two be covered with sediment to start their billion or so year journey into the Earth’s core.That's an interesting idea. I don't know enough about either the physics or the geology so I'll take your word for it. How come I've never seen it anywhere before? The biggest objection to nuclear power--by thoughtful people anyway--is the waste problem. Putting up signs that people will still be able to read 50,000 years from now, even if World War III bombs everybody back into the Stone Age and nobody can read anymore. The only solution I've read about is loading it onto rockets and shooting it into the sun. Apparently nobody has enough confidence in our rocket scientists to be sure that one of those payloads will never crash-land back on earth.

I'm sure the Greenpeace people stopped reading as soon as they got to the sentence about dumping trash in the ocean. But hey, wouldn't the Chinese just let us pay them to store it aboveground in their country? They'll all be dying from smog anyway once they get a billion automobiles.

Maybe we need to accelerate the solar energy program. Forty years ago they worked out the engineering details of building giant solar collectors in distant orbit so they could collect far more energy than we get from the sun, without blocking out the sky, then converting it to microwave energy and beaming it to receivers on the surface.

At today's prices, but the price of petroleum products will continue to rise. Electric cars can run off the power from nuclear plants....I was not saying battery powered cars are too expensive to compete with petroleum. I agree they can when oil is more expensive and it will climb rapidly in price on the "downside" of the peak oil curve.

I was saying electric battery cars are more expensive than even current gasoline powered cars and that they (gas cars) cannot compete with alcohol powered cars. (About 95% of cars now produced in Brazil are capable of using pure alcohol.) That is the only type car economically competitive here. The flex-fuel car did cost a about a $100 more initially, but now I do not think even one of the major car makers is producing the much lower sales volume of gas powered cars, except for their most expensive cars, if any. If they were to try to produce gas powered cars for the 5% of the market the gas cars would cost more as the costs per unit decline rapidly with volume sold. Thus, not only does it cost less to drive on 100% alcohol it cost less to buy the car that uses alcohol too. There is no way a battery powered car can compete with the alcohol one. - That is not "theory" - That is established fact, which is highly unlikely to be overturned by some gigantic breakthrough in cost of some yet to exist battery chemistry or design, etc. It is the life cycle cost where alcohol "creams" the gas powered car. Alcohol by volumen has 70% of the enegry but currenly cost less than half as much.

Both are equally taxed on their energy content, and the economic distortion by government actions favors gasoline, not alcohol. This is because the government owns most of and controls PetroBras, the main supplier of gasoline, but not the several hundred local producers of alcohol. Gas prices had not been allow to rise for a for several years. - they will some in 2009, after the next election, but still domestic price will be less than profit if exported. (I own some share in PetroBras - so I am not happy with this policy of Brazilian government, especially as I never buy gasoline, only alcohol for my car.)

As far as whether or not there is enough land for total global conversion to alcohol for car fuel that is not clear. I think it is possible, but as you note, the cars need to be smaller and lighter, more public transport by electric power (bring back the trolleys etc. or my favorite is the supper-flywheel bus as it does not get stopped by a stalled car and can go anywhere a regular bus can with recharge while loading passengers at regular stops from a "power pole" at the stop as unlike batteries, very little heat is produced even during very rapid recharge.)

I have posts at another forum that argue for the possibility for total global conversion to alcohol cars. I gave links in the thread about origin of "beef" "pig" etc. Why there? Well part of the adaption mankind must make to have both food and alcohol powered cars is to eat less meat. Meat is mainly a means of destroying many food calories to make a denser product of more value and about 1/6 of the calories it destroyed. I suggested simply making it illegal to print the words "beef," "pork" etc. on restaurant menues and require the meat type to be clearly disclosed in every disk contining meat (as "cow" or "pig") would reduce meat consumption vey cost effectively and probably in a few years significantly. Fish meat would also be "tuna fish salid" not just "tuna salid" by law, as the oceans are over fished.

Needless to tell you, I am sure, but effective birth control is also an adaption mankind must make or Malthus is correct. I have offer ideas on how that should be achieved at the EliteTrader forums also (I am BillDick there.)