Apocalypse Soon?

[Futilitist]

This thread is to talk rationally about the upcoming collapse of industrial civilization.

Some background stuff to get the ball rolling

Here is a paper called Energy and Human Evolution by David Price:
http://dieoff.org/page143.htm

Today, many people who are concerned about overpopulation and environmental degradation believe that human actions can avert catastrophe. The prevailing view holds that a stable population that does not tax the environment's "carrying capacity" would be sustainable indefinitely, and that this state of equilibrium can be achieved through a combination of birth control, conservation, and reliance on "renewable" resources. Unfortunately, worldwide implementation of a rigorous program of birth control is politically impossible. Conservation is futile as long as population continues to rise. And no resources are truly renewable. 2

The environment, moreover, is under no obligation to carry a constant population of any species for an indefinite period of time. If all of nature were in perfect balance, every species would have a constant population, sustained indefinitely at carrying capacity. But the history of life involves competition among species, with new species evolving and old ones dying out. In this context, one would expect populations to fluctuate, and for species that have been studied, they generally do (ecology texts such as Odum, 1971 and Ricklefs, 1979 give examples).

The notion of balance in nature is an integral part of traditional western cosmology. But science has found no such balance. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy flows from areas of greater concentration to areas of lesser concentration, and local processes run down. Living organisms may accumulate energy temporarily but in the fullness of time entropy prevails. While the tissue of life that coats the planet Earth has been storing up energy for over three billion years, it cannot do so indefinitely. Sooner or later, energy that accumulates must be released. This is the bioenergetic context in which Homo sapiens evolved, and it accounts for both the wild growth of human population and its imminent collapse.

Here are a couple of versions of Richard Duncan's Olduvai Theory:
http://dieoff.org/page125.htm
http://dieoff.org/page224.htm

The Olduvai theory has been called unthinkable, preposterous, absurd, dangerous, self-fulfilling, and self-defeating. I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica. It is also based on my experience in electrical engineering and energy management systems, my hobbies of anthropology and archaeology, and a lifetime of reading in various fields.

The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030.

World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

Should this occur, any number of factors could be cited as the 'causes' of collapse. I believe, however, that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide. Briefly explained: "When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."

The Olduvai theory, of course, may be proved wrong. But, as of now, it cannot be rejected by the historic world energy production and population data

And here is Requiem by Jay Hanson:
http://dieoff.org/page181.htm

Constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, the availability of life-supporting resources will go into a permanent, steep decline.

In many ways, the next hundred years will be the inverse of the last hundred. As fossil fuels dwindle, supply lines collapse, and societies disintegrate, muscle will gradually replace machinery. "Home grown" will replace "imported". Obviously, large cities will be mostly abandoned.

Well-intended activists from both the Left and Right -- armed with facts and ideologies -- will form political movements, select the best liars for leaders, and take to the streets demanding that government take us back to "the good old days". The worse our problems become, the more they will act instead of think. The less they think, the worse our problems will become. Social order will disintegrate, and Roadside Warriors will go mad, killing, raping, torturing, and burning...

It really will be back to the good old days! Shouts of "BRING ME HIS HEAD" will ring through the land, slaves, scalps, souvenirs and trophies of all sorts, ... exciting possibilities limited only by our ingenuity.

The good news is that recycling will finally become fashionable! We will see feral children mining the dumps for plastic to burn (Pampers) so they can heat the hovels they are forced to live in. The strongest kids will set traps for fresh meat -- rats -- while the weaker kids will eat anything they can cram into their mouths (old shoes, styrofoam peanuts, newspaper soup). Pandemics will sweep the world, punctuated every so often by explosions as abandoned and rotting nuclear facilities blow up. Leaking dumps and tanks will spew PCBs and radioactive hazwaste into the feral food chain spawning surprising new shapes for young mothers to enjoy nursing.[55] Toxic chemical fires, blowing garbage and trash, genetic mutations, filthy water, cannibalism ...

As the Easter Islanders say: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth".[56]

The situation will be especially serious for a short time because the population will keep rising due to the lags inherent in the age structure and social adjustment. Then mercifully, the population will drop sharply as the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services.[57] Trapped in obsolete belief systems, Americans won't even know why their society disintegrated.

A hundred thousand years from now -- once the background radiation levels drop below lethality -- a new Homo mutilus will crawl out of the caves to elect a leader. Although we have no idea what mutilus might look like, evolutionary theory can still tell us who will win the election. He will be the best liar running on a platform to end hunger by controlling nature.

How could it be otherwise?

Here are some charts I made recently to try to get an idea of the possible timing of the onset of collapse:

The chart above is the price of the world benchmark Brent crude oil in dollars. Note the massive spike in 2008 and the return to the uptrend after the correction. This is what peak oil looks like.

The chart above is a picture of spaghetti! In February of 2005 I read Richard Duncan's Olduvai theory. I reasoned that there should be some way to keep track of the process of decline and look for early warning signs of impending collapse. I began to look for some kind of pattern amongst the myriad financial data available. Ouch! It turned out not to be so simple to find a pattern. Over the years, I kept returning to the problem, with little success. Then, in the last couple of weeks I finally found the key to unravelling the spaghetti.

The key to finding a useful pattern was interest rates. In the chart above, I focus on 3 basic indicators --- The price of oil (energy), the value of the stock markets (economy), and interest rates (credit). It turns out that interest rates are related to the the other indicators in a very specific way. Interest rates are the main way the government controls the economy, by lowering rates to stimulate the economy and by raising rates to lower oil prices. The charting system here allows various indicators to be displayed relative to one indicator. When the chart is made relative to interest rates, a striking pattern becomes immediately evident.

The other indicators now curiously form a rising line. What we see here is a better indicator of the real cost to the economy of rising oil prices. In the previous chart, the price of oil spiked over 130% in 2008 and has not been that high since. But in the interest rate relative chart above, we can see that the real cost of oil actually rose 150% in 2008, and since then it has reached as high as 180%! Also note the most recent activity at the far right. The current market peak corresponds to the latest lows in interest rates. This is very important since interest rates can now no longer be effectively lowered to stimulate the economy. The Fed is now in the position of "pushing on a string" to regulate the economy. Let's take a closer look.

The chart above shows a spaghetti plate of indicators since December of 2009 when oil prices began to recover from their crash. At the bottom right we can see interest rates at their practical low limit. Let's see what the chart looks like relative to interest rates.

Uh oh, things are not looking good. Oil, metals, the dollar, and the markets are all simultaneously flat lining just as interest rates have hit bottom. In systems dynamics terms, the entire world economic system has just run out of it's normal operating zone. That means we are due for a major state change.

Here is a very interesting and alarming paper on the systems dynamics view of the upcoming situation. For those who have a hard time visualizing how it could all come apart, this should help:

Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse

Overview

This study considers the relationship between a global systemic banking, monetary and solvency crisis and its implications for the real-time flow of goods and services in the globalised economy. It outlines how contagion in the financial system could set off semi-autonomous contagion in supply-chains globally, even where buyers and sellers are linked by solvency, sound money and bank intermediation. The cross-contagion between the financial system and trade/production networks is mutually reinforcing.

It is argued that in order to understand systemic risk in the globalised economy, account must be taken of how growing complexity (interconnectedness, interdependence and the speed of processes), the de-localisation of production and concentration within key pillars of the globalised economy have magnified global vulnerability and opened up the possibility of a rapid and large-scale collapse. ‘Collapse’ in this sense means the irreversible loss of socio-economic complexity which fundamentally transforms the nature of the economy. These crucial issues have not been recognised by policy-makers nor are they reflected in economic thinking or modelling.

As the globalised economy has become more complex and ever faster (for example, Just-in-Time logistics), the ability of the real economy to pick up and globally transmit supply-chain failure, and then contagion, has become greater and potentially more devastating in its impacts. In a more complex and interdependent economy, fewer failures are required to transmit cascading failure through socio-economic systems. In addition, we have normalised massive increases in the complex conditionality that underpins modern societies and our welfare. Thus we have problems seeing, never mind planning for such eventualities, while the risk of them occurring has increased significantly. The most powerful primary cause of such an event would be a large-scale financial shock initially centring on some of the most complex and trade central parts of the globalised economy.

The argument that a large-scale and globalised financial-banking-monetary crisis is likely arises from two sources. Firstly, from the outcome and management of credit over-expansion and global imbalances and the growing stresses in the Eurozone and global banking system. Secondly, from the manifest risk that we are at a peak in global oil production, and that affordable, real-time production will begin to decline in the next few years. In the latter case, the credit backing of fractional reserve banks, monetary systems and financial assets are fundamentally incompatible with energy constraints. It is argued that in the coming years there are multiple routes to a large-scale breakdown in the global financial system, comprising systemic banking collapses, monetary system failure, credit and financial asset vaporization. This breakdown, however and whenever it comes, is likely to be fast and disorderly and could overwhelm society’s ability to respond.

We consider one scenario to give a practical dimension to understanding supply-chain contagion- a break-up of the Euro and an intertwined systemic banking crisis. Simple argument and modelling will point to the likelihood of a food security crisis within days in the directly affected countries and an initially exponential spread of production failures across the world beginning within a week. This will reinforce and spread financial system contagion. It is also argued that the longer the crisis goes on, the greater the likelihood of its irreversibility. This could be in as little as three weeks.

This study draws upon simple ideas drawn from ecology, systems dynamics, and the study of complex networks to frame the discussion of the globalised economy. Real-life events such as United Kingdom fuel blockades (2000) and the Japanese Tsunami (2011) are used to shed light on modern trade vulnerability.

Read the paper (PDF, 1 MB)

Happy New Year, everyone.

---Futilitist

 

[kwhilborn]

Talking rationally option went out the window with the thread title. I have a one Apocalypse per month limit.

Financial collapse does not equal Apocolypse. A few bankers will throw themselves out of windows and such, but life goes on.

 

[Futilitist]

Yes, financial collapse does lead to Apocalypse.

Talking rationally option went out the window with the thread title. I have a one Apocalypse per month limit.

Financial collapse does not equal Apocolypse. A few bankers will throw themselves out of windows and such, but life goes on.

To see how financial collapse does, in fact, equal Apocalypse, please read the David Korowicz paper.

I'm sorry you don't like the title of the thread.

---Futilitist

 

[kwhilborn]

I clicked on the links you provided. If you want David Korowicz you need to add a link. Economies can recovery from devastation. They have historically before. Every time a country changes hands or is hurt by war there is economic bleakness or a complete replacement of the monetary system and economy.

I think the worse we would see in North America is Martial law, and doubt any social anarchy could beat the systems we have in place for recovery. North America coulod and would be able to function without any monetary system if Martial law was enabled and people were forced to continue working as if money still existed. There would be methods to enable trading. These crisis situations are planned for.
Perhaps there would be some countries that will fall into anarchy, but North America will not fall due to finances. At least not any time soon.

If you are worried however. You can purchase real gold for trading purposes, as is becoming popular in Europe now.

http://www.bullionstreet.com/news/valcambi-to-introduce-combibar-gold-bars-in-india/3643

Finances can be fixed and ignored somewhat in todays market. It is not like anyone will attack the US to collect debts.

 

[Aqueous Id]

"Apocalypse" is an antiquated superstition from the 1st-2nd century, from an unknown author (presumably in the Levant) who was apparently a Hellenized Christian Jew, and who wrote a story that is a nightmare version of C.S. Lewis in the worst of psychotic (possibly drug-induced) episodes imaginable.

How unfortunate that the idea has insinuated itself into a prevailing world view and our sense of a tenuous future. Part of this is genetic programming, part of it is emotional response to facts and data, and a lot of it is worry, exacerbated by all kinds of psychological issues.

Depletion of habitat and resources, and the natural human response, has a parallel mechanism seen in the migration of animals, who can sense the change of climate, perhaps even the angle of sunlight, perhaps even some change of Polaris or some other configuration in the night sky. We would tend to dig in, to stock firewood as the days grew shorter, or save corn in jars as seen in some of the native American sites. Evidently our ancestors had the instinct and/or intuition to move out of Africa and from then on to exploit just about every habitable wilderness on Earth.

The superstitious myth of an Apocalypse allocated most of the primal sense of waning resources, at least for the Holy Roman Empire and the heirs of its culture, and so the idea of handling this rationally is relatively new. It surfaced in the Hippie era through the lens of a secular ethos, in an almost renaissance of the Garden of Eden, without the guilt-trip. One of the songs of that era which conveys the message is John Mayall's Nature's Disappearing. This song has the odd quality of seeming jaded and trite while at the same time deeply serious, and, I would say, scientifically accurate.

Since then, power plant meltdowns, the discovery of the hazards of dioxin on roads, the reaction to lead in gasoline, leading to its ban, the creation of the EPA in the US and equivalent agencies globally, heightened awareness of extinctions, of the effects poaching and trafficking in endangered species, and the rise of awareness (and the reactionary response) to climate change science, are all examples of the primal fear of a doomsday scenario caused by the stress of human civilization, the exploding population, and the tendency toward consumerism, capitalism, and reliance on utilities and global producers to replace self-reliant lifestyles of the past. Meanwhile, Les Miserables continue to live in the same despair they always have, only perhaps more despondent given the staggering wealth and opulence that springs up around them.

It leaves me wondering what's at stake here. Will I be burning less hydrocarbons in the future? Probably not, unless I go to great lengths to unplug myself from modern conveniences and then to live in a sub-primitive way, that is, without burning anything at all. However, it does occur to me that this is entirely a personal decision, one that every individual owns, whether they like it or not. We each own the damage we are personally doing, regardless of how deeply aware of it we are. Governments can curb some of the destructive effect of the human footprint, but to-date these appear to be stopgap measures, slow to come to fruition, often costly to implement, unpopular, inconvenient and/or impractical, and against the political will of the Right Wingers who oppose anything not related to corporatism, regardless of its basis in science.

On a positive note, there is hope. Every person should become steeped in math in science from an early age (at no cost to a well-rounded program in the arts and humanities). Armed with more facts, and less superstition, our children and our children's children will be able to avoid falling victim to the propaganda that tries to minimize the grim results of inaction. Armed with this, a sense of urgency and the tools to act, there wells up a tremendous sense of hope. The rest is fatalism, nothing more than a deadlock.

My vision of a rosy future is this. First, people throw off the veil of superstition completely. Every person learns to estimate the number of Joules of energy needed to commute, to run their homes, to feed themselves and their families, and so on. Every person also is given the skills to either build for themselves, or at least to hire someone else to do it, the type of structure that supersedes the conventional home, which is as close to zero-impact as each person may personally choose to live, and without incurring such high expense and inconvenience that it fails as a cultural paradigm shift. A low impact vehicle replaces any conventional type on the road today. Renewable energy becomes dirt cheap compared to the alternatives.

Education, knowledge, skills and tools are the first line of defense against fatalism. They bring hope. Low impact human habitats, designed around increasingly self-reliant lifestyles, coupled with a personal ethos that ripples through the world population -- this is one of several scenarios that may play out.

But who knows what the future may bring? One thing is for sure: for every 10 or 100 people running around like chickens with their heads cut off--kicking and screaming, whining and preaching--there is one person studying how to solve the problems. Fatalism may put certain ideologies into deadlock, but it's the Petri dish that science grows in--just as long as the Right Wing leaves science alone and allows it to thrive.

Ultimately, this entire concern all boils down to political will, which boils down to individual will, the sense of responsibility, and a love of Nature and its laws.

 

[Futilitist]

"Apocalypse" is an antiquated superstition from the 1st-2nd century, from an unknown author (presumably in the Levant) who was apparently a Hellenized Christian Jew, and who wrote a story that is a nightmare version of C.S. Lewis in the worst of psychotic (possibly drug-induced) episodes imaginable.

How unfortunate that the idea has insinuated itself into a prevailing world view and our sense of a tenuous future. Part of this is genetic programming, part of it is emotional response to facts and data, and a lot of it is worry, exacerbated by all kinds of psychological issues.

I chose the title quite carefully.

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

An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apocálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω meaning 'un-covering'), translated literally from Greek, is a disclosure of knowledge, hidden from humanity in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation, although this sense did not enter English until the 14th century. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden In the Revelation of John (Greek Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apocalypsis Ioannou), the last book of the New Testament, the revelation which John receives is that of the ultimate victory of good over evil and the end of the present age, and that is the primary meaning of the term, one that dates to 1175. Today, it is commonly used in reference to any prophetic revelation or so-called End Time scenario, or to the end of the world in general.

We live in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.

A lifting of the veil---How things really work is only really seen and understood when things begin to break down. You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Victory of good over evil---We are all equal in an Apocalypse.

I like to use terms like Apocalypse, social collapse, collapse of industrial civilization, collapse of electromagnetic civilization, and the end of the world as we know it, somewhat interchangeably depending on the particular context. Apocalypse is the most evocative and all encompassing.

On a positive note, there is hope. Every person should become steeped in math in science from an early age (at no cost to a well-rounded program in the arts and humanities). Armed with more facts, and less superstition, our children and our children's children will be able to avoid falling victim to the propaganda that tries to minimize the grim results of inaction. Armed with this, a sense of urgency and the tools to act, there wells up a tremendous sense of hope. The rest is fatalism, nothing more than a deadlock.

What good is hope in an Apocalypse?

Every person should become steeped in wilderness living skills. Our children's children will be hunter gatherers.

My vision of a rosy future is this. First, people throw off the veil of superstition completely. Every person learns to estimate the number of Joules of energy needed to commute, to run their homes, to feed themselves and their families, and so on. Every person also is given the skills to either build for themselves, or at least to hire someone else to do it, the type of structure that supersedes the conventional home, which is as close to zero-impact as each person may personally choose to live, and without incurring such high expense and inconvenience that it fails as a cultural paradigm shift. A low impact vehicle replaces any conventional type on the road today. Renewable energy becomes dirt cheap compared to the alternatives.

I don't see many rosy visions ahead. But I don't wear rose colored glasses.

Education, knowledge, skills and tools are the first line of defense against fatalism. They bring hope. Low impact human habitats, designed around increasingly self-reliant lifestyles, coupled with a personal ethos that ripples through the world population -- this is one of several scenarios that may play out.

But who knows what the future may bring? One thing is for sure: for every 10 or 100 people running around like chickens with their heads cut off--kicking and screaming, whining and preaching--there is one person studying how to solve the problems. Fatalism may put certain ideologies into deadlock, but it's the Petri dish that science grows in--just as long as the Right Wing leaves science alone and allows it to thrive.

Ultimately, this entire concern all boils down to political will, which boils down to individual will, the sense of responsibility, and a love of Nature and its laws.

It boils down to nature. There is no solution. Science will not save us. The laws of physics trump political will. Run for the hills.

Why is talk of Apocalypse taboo?

---Futilitist

 

[Aqueous Id]

We live in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.

How so? In what era was truth more accessible than today?

A lifting of the veil---How things really work is only really seen and understood when things begin to break down. You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Joni Mitchell, also a song about the human footprint.

Victory of good over evil---We are all equal in an Apocalypse.

Or, all people are created equal, in the here and now, and all of us share the burden of protecting equality. Science is a tool to achieve that.

I like to use terms like Apocalypse, social collapse, collapse of industrial civilization, collapse of electromagnetic civilization, and the end of the world as we know it, somewhat interchangeably depending on the particular context. Apocalypse is the most evocative and all encompassing.

This is what I meant by saying that in the past people relegated these kinds of thoughts to a religious superstitious belief in a Christian Biblical Apocalypse. I believe we are programmed to sense impending doom, and now that the churches are absorbing less of the inclination, that you are expressing a kind overflow.

What good is hope in an Apocalypse?

Impoverished people already live in the kind of fatal situation you describe, and have, since the dawn of history. They would probably scoff at the idea that people with some kind of security would be worrying about doom. Hope is the means by which people find the courage to struggle for their survival. The march precludes the despair and sense of doom. The course of events is changed. We live on. Even thrive.

Every person should become steeped in wilderness living skills. Our children's children will be hunter gatherers.

Adventurous, innovative, educated, and/or skilled people who want to break out of the mold can go live off the grid, and I suppose this will be trend in the future. Most likely it will trend towards communal living or a return to small towns, with renewable energy sources and personal gardens. There's no going back in terms of knowledge. Science will always propel us forward in that regard.

I don't see many rosy visions ahead. But I don't wear rose colored glasses.

Maybe you can grow them. One way is by looking for the positives. There's still plenty of oxygen on Earth. Plenty of water. Plenty of sunshine. So far, so good.

It boils down to nature. There is no solution. Science will not save us.

Sartre said that all evil eventually boils down to Nature. It was an almost prescient view that all bad people are the product of trauma of some kind, which ultimately is rooted in catastrophe, disease, and death from natural causes. However, Science has given us storm, earthquake and tsunami warning systems, the better architecture to avoiding structural failure, every kind of safety system imaginable, excellent medical technology and hospitals, and so on.

The laws of physics trump political will. Run for the hills.

People change. New generations trend differently. Pressures change. These things evolve and so will the political will. I do believe that there will be a flight out of the cities, but only after self-sufficiency re-emerges as a viable lifestyle which pleases the folks who adopt it.

Why is talk of Apocalypse taboo?

You're in a science forum. Science is by default optimistic. We know where we are, we know where we've been and we know where we're headed. The sky is not falling, and the sun will come up tomorrow--literally. That doesn't make fatalism taboo, just arguably unrealistic.

 

[Rhaedas]

Our biggest problem as a population is ignoring the signs that something is wrong and needs to be changed. That change is difficult, as people don't want to change their way of life unless that way of life becomes uncomfortable. That's just human nature.

Running for the hills won't help anyone. If only a few run, then the rest will continue on, and things will not change. And those who ran for the hills will still be affected. If everyone runs for the hills...that's be a messy hillside.

Realistically, we have to change. Embracing the worse case scenario as inevitable doesn't help anyone. It's really no different than pretending there isn't a problem.

As the saying goes, be part of the solution. Not part of the problem. Easy, no, but if enough people begin it's a start.

 

[Jeeves]

The inevitable breakdown of industrialism has been obvious since 1972, when The Limits to Growth was published. That it will be apocalyptic should be equally obvious - between climate change and bad management, between overpopulation and energy-dependency, the breakdowns will be massive, global and devastating. This isn't about bankers or production; it's about dustbowls inland, water up the wazoo on the seaboards, starvation, migration, pandemic and strife on a scale that makes WWII look like a soccer match. Ironically, the last of the fossil fuel will be wasted on wars over the last of the fossil fuel.

It's already too late. I knew it was too late in the mid-70's - not because of any single even that took place, but because, in the face of clearly visible signs and responsible scientific studies, governments, churches and advocacy groups of every stripe were still arguing over the morality (!!) of birth control; the transporting of raw materials and manufactured goods from one continent to another kept increasing; the most powerful nations (they know who they are) were obstructing instead of helping UN efforts to relieve the worst human hellholes; oil companies began drilling under the ocean.
For me, all hope was lost with the advent of imported bottled water. In plastic bottles. That's just frickin nuts!

In the '70's, it was reversible. In the '90's, it was haltable. Now, it might be possible, with drastic action, to mitigate the worst disasters. Nothing rational was done then. Nothing rational was done in Kyoto, nor after the scientists' warning http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/warning.html. Nothing rational will be done now - or ever.

 

[Jeeves]

I need moderator approval? Why?

 

[elte]

Apocalypse Soon?



This thread is to talk rationally about the upcoming collapse of industrial civilization...


---Futilitist

Alas, it was only within the past several years that I became aware of and thought about overpopulation. Society has a tendency to miss very important things.

 

[Futilitist]

Optimism bias?

How so? In what era was truth more accessible than today?

Extremely naive statement. Every generation believes this. Every generation is always proven wrong. That is what you call progress. Have we now reached the end of progress? Your statement ironically contradicts itself.

Joni Mitchell, also a song about the human footprint.

I know. That is why I mentioned it.

Or, all people are created equal, in the here and now, and all of us share the burden of protecting equality. Science is a tool to achieve that.

People may be created equal as you say, but they do not get to live that way in the real world. Science does not protect or create equality.

This is what I meant by saying that in the past people relegated these kinds of thoughts to a religious superstitious belief in a Christian Biblical Apocalypse. I believe we are programmed to sense impending doom, and now that the churches are absorbing less of the inclination, that you are expressing a kind overflow.

I am an atheist. The word Apocalypse comes from ancient Greece. I am not talking about a general sense of impending doom, I am talking about a very specific dilemma faced by our species.

Impoverished people already live in the kind of fatal situation you describe, and have, since the dawn of history. They would probably scoff at the idea that people with some kind of security would be worrying about doom. Hope is the means by which people find the courage to struggle for their survival. The march precludes the despair and sense of doom. The course of events is changed. We live on. Even thrive.

Impoverishment is not an Apocalypse. By a long shot. I agree that hope is sometimes the means by which people find the courage to struggle for their survival. But you jump to "We live on. Even thrive" without any justification. If we overshoot our resource base, we will die off just like any other species on this planet. How could it be otherwise?

Adventurous, innovative, educated, and/or skilled people who want to break out of the mold can go live off the grid, and I suppose this will be trend in the future. Most likely it will trend towards communal living or a return to small towns, with renewable energy sources and personal gardens. There's no going back in terms of knowledge. Science will always propel us forward in that regard.

You are describing a situation that changes slowly enough that we can adapt, as we always have done. An Apocalypse is a rapid change that is too fast and too severe to adapt to. After the die off, whoever is left will have to adapt to the conditions that then exist. Science has propelled us straight into a brick wall. Our descendants will not have time for science since they will be too busy doing more basic stuff like finding food.

Maybe you can grow them. One way is by looking for the positives.

Why on Earth would I want to lie to myself? There are plenty of people already doing that.

There's still plenty of oxygen on Earth. Plenty of water. Plenty of sunshine. So far, so good.

We are running short of fresh water, the atmosphere has too much greenhouse gasses, topsoil is depleting, the power grids are under stress, the economy is failing, the Green Revolution has run it's course, the population is now over 7 billion, and we have now reached peak oil. So far, not so good at all.

Sartre said that all evil eventually boils down to Nature. It was an almost prescient view that all bad people are the product of trauma of some kind, which ultimately is rooted in catastrophe, disease, and death from natural causes. However, Science has given us storm, earthquake and tsunami warning systems, the better architecture to avoiding structural failure, every kind of safety system imaginable, excellent medical technology and hospitals, and so on.

So? All those improvements have allowed the population to continue to expand, thus creating more severe problems to solve. We are clearly falling behind.

People change. New generations trend differently. Pressures change. These things evolve and so will the political will. I do believe that there will be a flight out of the cities, but only after self-sufficiency re-emerges as a viable lifestyle which pleases the folks who adopt it.

You are incorrectly perceiving the timeline. Collapse will be very rapid. Did you read the Korowicz paper?

You're in a science forum. Science is by default optimistic. We know where we are, we know where we've been and we know where we're headed. The sky is not falling, and the sun will come up tomorrow--literally. That doesn't make fatalism taboo, just arguably unrealistic.

Science is not supposed to be optimistic by default. It is supposed to be objective. It is designed to minimize the effects of the optimism bias that is so ever present in every other aspect of human life. If science itself is too optimistic to clearly see what lies ahead, then we have a major catch 22 situation here.

We most certainly do not know where we are, where we have been, or where we are headed. We just like to think we know. We have no more control over our evolution and destiny as a species than yeast in a vat of sugar. The great human die off is the price we must pay for our amazing success up till now. Do you really believe that we are so different than every other life form that has ever evolved? Talk about hubris.

Fatalism is taboo. That makes sense. But this thread is not about general fatalism. It is about a very specific Apocalypse. So far, you haven't even mentioned any of the specifics contained in my first post. You have only listed unsupportable general excuses for not looking any deeper.

Take off the rose colored glasses.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Embrace reality

Our biggest problem as a population is ignoring the signs that something is wrong and needs to be changed. That change is difficult, as people don't want to change their way of life unless that way of life becomes uncomfortable. That's just human nature.

Running for the hills won't help anyone. If only a few run, then the rest will continue on, and things will not change. And those who ran for the hills will still be affected. If everyone runs for the hills...that's be a messy hillside.

Realistically, we have to change. Embracing the worse case scenario as inevitable doesn't help anyone. It's really no different than pretending there isn't a problem.

As the saying goes, be part of the solution. Not part of the problem. Easy, no, but if enough people begin it's a start.

If the worst case scenario happens to be the actual reality, we will have no choice but to face it. Facing it realistically may be a better option than deceiving ourselves. It may seem counterintuitive at first, but embracing the worse case scenario as inevitable may actually be helpful in this case.

There is no solution, we are all part of the "problem". That is why what we face is a dilemma, not a problem.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Awareness

Alas, it was only within the past several years that I became aware of and thought about overpopulation. Society has a tendency to miss very important things.

Yes. Society is too busy making progress to notice that we are no longer making progress.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Too quiet

Well, I guess this Apocalypse thing just isn't an interesting enough topic to generate a discussion on this science forum. Perhaps I need to add some more material for folks to not read. Here we go.

Here is a speech given by Admiral Hyman Rickover called "Energy Resources and Our Future". This speech is hot off the press from 1957! It seems like that might be a little out of date, but smart people have been thinking about our fast approaching energy cliff for a very long time. Rickover was *WAY* smart, and his "ancient" perspective shows that our most basic problems have never been "solved". We have only managed to kick the can down the road.

"Energy resources and our future" - remarks by Admiral Hyman Rickover delivered in 1957 | Energy Bulletin

From the speech:

The earth is finite. Fossil fuels are not renewable. In this respect our energy base differs from that of all earlier civilizations. They could have maintained their energy supply by careful cultivation. We cannot. Fuel that has been burned is gone forever. Fuel is even more evanescent than metals. Metals, too, are non-renewable resources threatened with ultimate extinction, but something can be salvaged from scrap. Fuel leaves no scrap and there is nothing man can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel reserves. They were created by solar energy 500 million years ago and took eons to grow to their present volume.

In the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect: the longer they last, the more time do we have, to invent ways of living off renewable or substitute energy sources and to adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift.

Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare.

Engineers whose work familiarizes them with energy statistics; far-seeing industrialists who know that energy is the principal factor which must enter into all planning for the future; responsible governments who realize that the well-being of their citizens and the political power of their countries depend on adequate energy supplies - all these have begun to be concerned about energy resources. In this country, especially, many studies have been made in the last few years, seeking to discover accurate information on fossil-fuel reserves and foreseeable fuel needs.

Statistics involving the human factor are, of course, never exact. The size of usable reserves depends on the ability of engineers to improve the efficiency of fuel extraction and use. It also depends on discovery of new methods to obtain energy from inferior resources at costs which can be borne without unduly depressing the standard of living. Estimates of future needs, in turn, rely heavily on population figures which must always allow for a large element of uncertainty, particularly as man reaches a point where he is more and more able to control his own way of life.

Current estimates of fossil fuel reserves vary to an astonishing degree. In part this is because the results differ greatly if cost of extraction is disregarded or if in calculating how long reserves will last, population growth is not taken into consideration; or, equally important, not enough weight is given to increased fuel consumption required to process inferior or substitute metals. We are rapidly approaching the time when exhaustion of better grade metals will force us to turn to poorer grades requiring in most cases greater expenditure of energy per unit of metal.

But the most significant distinction between optimistic and pessimistic fuel reserve statistics is that the optimists generally speak of the immediate future - the next twenty-five years or so - while the pessimists think in terms of a century from now. A century or even two is a short span in the history of a great people. It seems sensible to me to take a long view, even if this involves facing unpleasant facts.

For it is an unpleasant fact that according to our best estimates, total fossil fuel reserves recoverable at not over twice today's unit cost, are likely to run out at some time between the years 2000 and 2050, if present standards of living and population growth rates are taken into account. Oil and natural gas will disappear first, coal last. There will be coal left in the earth, of course. But it will be so difficult to mine that energy costs would rise to economically intolerable heights, so that it would then become necessary either to discover new energy sources or to lower standards of living drastically.

For more than one hundred years we have stoked ever growing numbers of machines with coal; for fifty years we have pumped gas and oil into our factories, cars, trucks, tractors, ships, planes, and homes without giving a thought to the future. Occasionally the voice of a Cassandra has been raised only to be quickly silenced when a lucky discovery revised estimates of our oil reserves upward, or a new coalfield was found in some remote spot. Fewer such lucky discoveries can be expected in the future, especially in industrialized countries where extensive mapping of resources has been done. Yet the popularizers of scientific news would have us believe that there is no cause for anxiety, that reserves will last thousands of years, and that before they run out science will have produced miracles. Our past history and security have given us the sentimental belief that the things we fear will never really happen - that everything turns out right in the end. But, prudent men will reject these tranquilizers and prefer to face the facts so that they can plan intelligently for the needs of their posterity.

Looking into the future, from the mid-20th Century, we cannot feel overly confident that present high standards of living will of a certainty continue through the next century and beyond. Fossil fuel costs will soon definitely begin to rise as the best and most accessible reserves are exhausted, and more effort will be required to obtain the same energy from remaining reserves. It is likely also that liquid fuel synthesized from coal will be more expensive. Can we feel certain that when economically recoverable fossil fuels are gone science will have learned how to maintain a high standard of living on renewable energy sources?

Our energy issues are not new. Smart people have been paying close attention to this for a very long time.

What do people think of this blast from the past?

---Futilitist

 

[R1D2]

Our energy issues are not new. Smart people have been paying close attention to this for a very long time.

What do people think of this blast from the past?

Not much seems to change...

 

[Rhaedas]

Interesting that he did not mention pollution, health hazards, and the destruction of the environment from exploitation. I guess we didn't yet see what we had been already long doing to ourselves and the planet.

I doubt anyone will argue against his point here.

possibly the reason why no one has bit yet on the topic is that it is too broad. You cover a lot of material in your first post. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I'm not sure where you wanted to go with it all.

 

[Futilitist]

The more things change...

Not much seems to change...

Does that mean that the problems aren't real, but that people just like to be party poopers and complain that things aren't getting solved?

Or does it mean that the problems are real, and that we just keep ignoring them at our own peril?

How much longer can we keep ignoring them?

Maybe things are about to change...for the worse.

---Futilitist

 

[Rhaedas]

As the Declaration of Independence says, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. I think this applies not just to government rule, as was the topic, but in things generally. We are a procrastinating species, and if we can rationalize not changing our own little world around us, we tend not to act.

So I guess the point to your question is, how well we fare collectively will depend on how obvious the problems rear their head and how much time it gives us to react. If it's quick and unrecoverable, then you may be right. But with some time and a threat in our own back yard, people could change. We can complain about the governments and the corporations all we want, but they won't change if individuals don't. Why should they? They don't think long term.

 

[R1D2]

Does that mean that the problems aren't real, but that people just like to be party poopers and complain that things aren't getting solved?

Or does it mean that the problems are real, and that we just keep ignoring them at our own peril?

How much longer can we keep ignoring them?

Maybe things are about to change...for the worse.

---Futilitist

We do keep ignoring at our own perils.... And how long you ask will we ignore. Some do it better than others. And we been going the way we do for so many years. And many don't wish to see the worst till its to late. Or there is those that see but do not know how to unite. To make all the changes we need. We the people have created a pickle. We doom our selves. Or if we don't. Nature bits us in the ass eventually.