The utter collapse of human civilization will be ‘difficult to avoid,’ NASA funded study says

the Nasanians must be reading the Bible

reply to post by AutumnWitch657

...Redistribution of wealth is a moronic idea.

Often - especially like in 2008 when all the gold, real estate and other physical property got grabbed by the richest 85 people in the world. True, they left a bit of useless cash on the street. Big deal. So yeah, moronic.

Bring on the end....



No, not really. Just feeling goofy and needs more coffee. Been a slow morning. I'm not up to DOOM steam yet today.

I can't even muster the effort to post something sarcastic!

So. How much is it going to cost me?

What freedoms do I get to sacrifice?

I can only go back to an analogy I wrote a while back about villagers on an island. The volcano on the island erupts, the village elders state that by giving all items of value to them, this will appease the volcano gods.

*yawn*

originally posted by: arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

The government doesn't allow for "unlimited resources" on Earth, so what makes you think they'll do so on mars?

When something is rare, it costs more. When something is abundant, it costs less. The government may still control it, and you may still have to work for it, but in a free market society, things will become twice as cheap after we establish a colony and a practical interplanetary travel network on Mars. So it will be much better. That's just economic common sense.

originally posted by: poloblack
Seriously, there's plenty of land for the population. I live around and have traveled to places with VAST amounts of land and vegetation. Who the fv@# believes ANYTHING NASA says? I can't believe with all the documentation of NASA's shenanagins that people here at ATS are buying into this. The Leeches That Be want it all to themselves. Hey, I'm going to coin that acronym, TLTB. Heard it here first, folks. Let's call them that. WE'RE the REAL powers that be.

So simple, yes? Except it's not..

Our current population of ~7.5 billion humans is about 7 times higher than human populations that existed anytime before the industrial revolution. A combination of machines and petroleum has ARTIFICIALLY allowed for the dramatic inflation of the sustainable human population over the last ~140 years.

Sustainable that is, until it isn't..

The machines of agriculture, the pesticides, the chemical fertilizers and the machines of logistics, all required to make it possible to feed so many, all require petroleum to be made and to function.

When we reach the "end" of petroleum, be it tomorrow or in 500 years, our current paradigm will cease to function and the number of humans which can be sustained will drop precipitously. Plastics, modern rubbers, and a wide array of man made chemicals, all of which are so incredibly ubiquitous in our modern societies will no longer be possible.

To weigh the value of this report one need only ask, "Is oil infinite and if not, will we find a sustainable alternative in time?"

If we don't just kill each other off in the mean time, this issue WILL make the end of society as we now know it a certainty in the foreseeable future. We have yet to even contemplate what will follow as a species, yet. That's the real elephant in the room and the "Hidden in Plain Sight" force driving many of today's tensions globally.

originally posted by: DestroyDestroyDestroy


I don't think this is feasible. We can't even properly control our own earth yet, how do you suppose we breath life into a dead planet like Mars? Terraforming mars, granted it's even possible, would be a venture that would require a rather large time investment and a ton of resources.

I don't think terraforming the moon is a possibility either.

Its definitely possible. At the time, maybe not practical. However, if you consider that, for our survival, it might be necessary, it becomes practical regardless of how difficult it is.

We've been to the moon man. Why would we stop there? Do you think humans would just go to the moon for the hell of it? I don't. I think we went to the moon because our future is in space. All this scientific exploration that we do, and all these technological achievements are progressing and progressing and space is going to be the only thing left to conquer after a while. So were going to reach a point, in this endless progression of technological capability and knowledge, where space travel and space mining is going to be practical. And NASA has already shown that they are committing to this endeavor.

And lets dont forget to mention the rise of the commercial space industry. A mining operation is going to require a lot of people going to space. The commercial space industry is going to be what gets them there. Its profitable, so its economically logical. This thing is already at the beginning stages of something that is going to progress into us winding up living on Mars. You're watching it happen now. These space travel industries are going to start being employed by corporations as interplanetary "truck drivers". People are going to willingly go to Mars to work. It will pay good. Then, after a tour of duty, living temporarily in an ISS type ground facility, they will return.

Deuterium, used in fusion reactors, priced at $10000/kg, is 5 times more abundant on Mars than Earth. Palladium, osmium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, iron, tin, chromium, titanium, gold, chromium, vanadium, and platinum are all believed to be relatively common on Mars as well. So as far as resources go, the case can be made for the practicality of a mining mission on Mars.

a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

our species isnt doomed we have survived a long time and many a disaster on this earth and we will survive many more...what is doomed is this unsustainable greed ridden excuse for a society that currently reigns the power

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: arpgme
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

The government doesn't allow for "unlimited resources" on Earth, so what makes you think they'll do so on mars?

When something is rare, it costs more. When something is abundant, it costs less. The government may still control it, and you may still have to work for it, but in a free market society, things will become twice as cheap after we establish a colony and a practical interplanetary travel network on Mars. So it will be much better. That's just economic common sense.

Or when the economy because (partly) of climate change gets worse (flooding, less food etc.) they have less and less money for space missions (they already cutted funding).
And we only seeing the beginning when things suddenly go very fast where lots of methane gets released the climate will change much more quickly with great economical disaster where Nasa and other space programs will be a thing of the past?

And yes the moon mission was basicly a military undergoing/powerplay to be the first to raise a flag and to show their people and the world they are the greatest nation.

More on topic here a piece on 'human extinction'':
robinwestenra.blogspot.nl...





robinwestenra.blogspot.nl...

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This whole thing supposes that in 750 to 1000 years we wont have a different way to produce energy, or ROBOTS to do the work that men do now.....

You cant tell me that in that amount of time most things will not be automated by machine.......

This "study" basis its logic on todays standards, not where we will be technologically 1000 years from now.....

That alone should raise eyebrows on just how forward thinking these people really are to even begin to make their assumptions...

Seems to me someones just pushing an agenda and not thinking ahead logically........really really weak logic here...

Great post.

This is why I said in another thread if there is an antichrist, he will be a global warming fanatic.

There's nothing wrong with talking about problems that may arise but these things are often used with language that has the intent to control behavior to the point where killing people would be accepted in the name of saving the planet.

These drastic measures never take into account how technology can help change and avert some of these things. In 75-100 years.

I suspect by then we will be better prepared to start colonizing space stations and looking into terra forming other planets. We will have cities on our oceans and have a better understanding of weather. Think how many cities we can fit on our oceans.

Here's a video about Japan looking into floating cities and skyscraper cities.



I think technology will help solve some of these problems and all of the gloom and doom is just an excuse to control behavior and limit population growth.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This whole thing supposes that in 750 to 1000 years we wont have a different way to produce energy, or ROBOTS to do the work that men do now.....

You cant tell me that in that amount of time most things will not be automated by machine.......

This "study" basis its logic on todays standards, not where we will be technologically 1000 years from now.....

That alone should raise eyebrows on just how forward thinking these people really are to even begin to make their assumptions...

Seems to me someones just pushing an agenda and not thinking ahead logically........really really weak logic here...

Our technologically is much more advanced than we were 750 to 1000 years ago, but it is that very same technology advancement that is causing our problems today.

Our technology has allowed us to stretch (and at times, break) the limits of sustainability due to huge increases in population and huge demands on resources by that population.

I'm not sure why you think that technology (which has been a major contributor to our problems to begin with) will suddenly become our savior. It is just as possible that greater advances in technology will result in greater demands for resources from a much larger population -- a population who, per capita, requires greater resources and produces more waste than the per capita population does today, which is greater than the per capita population used and produced in the past.

Advances in technology has also meant a greater demand for resources and a greater production of waste. I'm don't quite understand why you think future technologies would be different in that respect.

Maybe technology in the future will not stretch the limits of sustainability as it always has -- but you seem to be claiming that technology will necessarily be the panacea for all of our ills, and that it will lead us to some Utopian future. However, if history is a clue, then that may not necessarily be the case. Our future may not be the utopian society featured in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where there are no individual or societal needs that go unfilled, and society is made magically self-sustainable by the almighty "Technology".

I would like to think it would be Utopian, and I would want it to be the leisure society that some sci-fi seems to love to present to us, where we are all free to do what we want, and technology keeps everyone safe and warm and fed -- but what I "like" and "want" may not be relevant.