A smarty pants scientist makes an easy anaology about our planet - And now I am scared.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I've been thinking about this half my life, buddy. The scenarios are thinning out as we progress through time.

Please, though.. do tell me exactly what alternatives you envision as being, "plausible".

I already mentioned we could have mined the moon for h3. The Chinese are planning this for sometime next decade. I don't think it'll happen.

That helps with the energy problem, but oh are there so many others coming to fruition around the same time. Also seems to help out with the climate problem, except unlike a previous rosy eyed posting in this thread, I realize that the damage we've done stays mostly in place for decades. Not only that! we've started dozens of self-reinforcing, positive feedback mechanisms related to climate change. How does that fit into your models?

Look, if you follow the timeline for climate models, you'll see the predictions and scenarios become more dire as they are reported chronologically. Each year the reports are worse, yet we do so little. It's moronic to think we're going to politically come to actually deal with this mess before we're far too gone.

That's only climate! which of course interacts with carrying capacity. What are you going to tell me, that a rapidly evolving climate, with extreme weather events happening perhaps two orders of magnitude greater than the "norm" will somehow be sustainable?

That the previous overfishing, continuous onslaught, interacting with ocean acidification, and a warming trend is somehow a good thing? We've lost roughly 40% of the phytoplankton already, and that's half our source of oxygen!

Is this what comes from a psychologically disturbed person? Truth? So be it.

reply to post by Astrocyte


The planet can't handle an unlimited number of human beings. We control populations of animals because of the destruction they would do if they overwhelm so we see the need for balance there -yet are not applying this to ourselves.

I do believe nature will balance it all out in time (forced), because we are intelligent inhabitants and therefore fight against nature quite successfully. What other model shows us that we can grow exponentially as we have been for the past couple of centuries and all will be fine?

I didn't see his math - I only watched the video and it is in agreement with what I've read on the subject and what makes sense. I started learning about this stuff in the 80's and no...it hasn't happened yet but again - it is because we aren't passive in our life here - we know how to invent to accommodate. If we eventually balance out - great. If we don't - it seems like a plague to other species (we push them out as any species does to another when it's out of proportion).

If Japan does not do something fast about the radiation they are leaking into the Oceans, notice I said Oceans, it's in the Pacific now.
These moron's in Japan say they can not stop it till maybe 2020, I say bulls #, it must be contained at all cost now!

The rich are ready to move underground, that's why I say the Morlock's come, the baby eater's are already here.

This is no joke these fool's are building a bigger war machine as ( ROME ) The World, Burns.

This is the End time , you don't have to worry about the population, it's already started this is the mass kill off, the rich will have pure water food everyone else will be glowing in the dark, till they die.

I'm ready to go to Japan or some thing, what is Fulford saying about this?

One more thing - and the misanthropists in this thread need not reply - a larger population actually facilitates technological and scientific discoveries. That's certainly a "plus" for the powers of exponential growth, no?

So, if you depopulate the planet, you essentially bring to an end the era that we are in.

My hope - as a sane thinking optimist - is that we can all work together to tackle the problems ahead of us. That we not act like David Suzuki, and treat human beings as maggots, essentially unimportant, and insignificant.

Only when we believe in each others goodness, trust each others ability - to act as Ghandi said: to be the change we want to see - will we see real, substantial and sustainable changes.

reply to post by webedoomed

I've been thinking about this half my life, buddy. The scenarios are thinning out as we progress through time.

Yeah, what you're dealing with is called myopia. You're stuck in one world view, and it's turned you into a rather unpleasant and cynical, misanthropist.

If the planets going to die, I'm going to at least live my life thinking that life is worth living, that there is a meaning to this world. There is so much good in this world. Unless you - as an individual - and myself, and everyone, continues to believe in it, to stay mindfully aware of it - to fight for it - we will really make life an unhappy and miserable place for everyone.

Astrocyte
One more thing - and the misanthropists in this thread need not reply - a larger population actually facilitates technological and scientific discoveries. That's certainly a "plus" for the powers of exponential growth, no?

I'm not misanthropic, I considered myself a humanist until recently, and now believe that transhumanism is our only hope, though I think we won't reach that point. Gotta have hope, even if webedoomed.

It's certainly something that has allowed this mess to continue on, but at what cost? Each major technological breakthrough in energy/agriculture is both an answer and a curse. It solves a current problem, but at the expense of sowing the seeds for greater future destruction.

So, if you depopulate the planet, you essentially bring to an end the era that we are in.

My hope - as a sane thinking optimist - is that we can all work together to tackle the problems ahead of us. That we not act like David Suzuki, and treat human beings as maggots, essentially unimportant, and insignificant.

That's not what he did. He treated human beings as living beings with the same universal requirements to sustain theirselves. I'm all for "sustainability", but it's a myth. No point in chasing unicorns.

Only when we believe in each others goodness, trust each others ability - to act as Ghandi said: to be the change we want to see - will we see real, substantial and sustainable changes.

Well your heart is in the right place. Culture rises with energy expenditure. The less energy to utilize, the more base we regress into being. In the event that there is a near "free" energy technology released, and we somehow manage to keep civilization afloat through the coming chaos, buy enough time to perhaps discover a new earth, and develop the tech to get us off this rock and to earth 2.0, perhaps we can try to kumbayah at that point.

Cheers for remaining in good spirits

reply to post by Astrocyte


I hope that your sentiments are exactly what we see happen. I fully believe the intelligence we possess can be used to assure balance is sustained. I don't think humans are horrible - I think most of us are caring. What he says in the video is negative and my guess is this is due to what history has shown us (wasteful, no personal responsibility, greed outweighing ethics, etc).

I even admit to being wasteful (what will my little bit matter). Even when I try to do my part I feel I'm powerless alone to change much and get discouraged. It will take a concerted effort to change things enough to have all get on the page in order to use science and technology in a responsible and life sustaining way. Every Country will have to agree on balance. Every person within those Countries will need to make it a way of life. Just because humans can't seem to get that down does not make them horrible (we're human). It does make them a threat to other species and the balance though.

reply to post by Astrocyte


well. in head-case's defense, i do perceive that he is trying to help in some way, despite the negativity.

it is always so difficult for everyone to agree on the specific way to apply that 'help'.

but a really great starting point is to not lie, as was done by smarty-pants.


PS check your inbox please.

reply to post by Dianec


If you've followed my posts, that was the very first thing I said. I'm not disagreeing that a time will come where we will mindfully have to put a lid on how many children we can have.

-yet are not applying this to ourselves.

Because its a painful thing to address. There is tremendous meaning and value in having children. That, for me anyways, is more significant than all the technological wonders that we can bring in the world.

I do believe nature will balance it all out in time (forced), because we are intelligent inhabitants and therefore fight against nature quite successfully. What other model shows us that we can grow exponentially as we have been for the past couple of centuries and all will be fine?

Well, not all models forecast so far out into the future. Right now, we have nothing to fear; the environment is not going to implode like the propagandist Suzuki is menacingly implying. But yes, there are problems in the next 50 - 150 years. We have to really work hard, and TOGETHER, and not lose compassionate awareness for one another, if were ever going to figure this out.

As you said, we are intelligent creatures. We are also good, I believe, at heart. We want to change things; with increased understanding and education, future people will be better equipped to handle the questions that await them.

If we don't - it seems like a plague to other species (we push them out as any species does to another when it's out of proportion).

As I said, the problem really is a psycho-bio-social one. You can't correct the social issue - the profound pluralistic ignorance and apathy - without addressing the neurobiological one.

For example, to be worried about the environment is a "right brain" concern. It is a holistic awareness; a future oriented awareness. When we educate children to be more mindful - as opposed to what we do today: READING, WRITING, ARITHMETIC - NOT GO OUT IN THE WORLD! - we equip them with the social awareness that environmental awareness essentially requires.

So, when we fix our education systems - and this is happening already on the west coast, in LA, San franscisco, parts of BC - so that they emphasize mindfulness - we can actually provide a stronger impetus towards sustainable change in our physical world.

Astrocyte
reply to post by webedoomed

 

I've been thinking about this half my life, buddy. The scenarios are thinning out as we progress through time.

Yeah, what you're dealing with is called myopia. You're stuck in one world view, and it's turned you into a rather unpleasant and cynical, misanthropist.

I'm not misanthropic, and certainly don't hold other species over human beings. I consider many views, and choose to spit out the one that makes the most sense based on all the information gathered to date. That seems sane. You may have a different take.

If the planets going to die, I'm going to at least live my life thinking that life is worth living, that there is a meaning to this world. There is so much good in this world. Unless you - as an individual - and myself, and everyone, continues to believe in it, to stay mindfully aware of it - to fight for it - we will really make life an unhappy and miserable place for everyone.

The planet will not "die" for billions of years, though life will have ceased to exist long prior to that point. This isn't about the planet dying, it's about opening up pandoras box, and having no way out for homo sapiens.

I agree with your assessment. It has been up to us for a long time to be stewards of this earth, and we seem to have had a catastrophic imbalance between know-how and know-why. The whole knowledge vs understanding. I see "good" in the world every day, though realize ultimately it can be rooted back to strategies for individual and/or group survival. I'm aware, but my fight is no longer trying to insanely stop the inevitable, rather to accept it and make my peace with it as it unfolds.

reply to post by webedoomed

transhumanism

ironically, i self-identify as transhumanist. in fact, i am currently working on a masters degree in it. more properly, its nanobiotech. i am not such a bad guy. i do think that we will get there... but only in the nik of time, probably.

and yes, i do have a personality disorder. you should really be more careful about throwing out remarks like that. i happen to think that my PD is a benefit to me.

reply to post by tgidkp


Dude, I caught you in a lie and you choose to not address it and instead redirect attention towards your straw-man. You are so not even close to being an honest individual. Either you don't realize just how ridiculous your reasoning is, or you're a hardcore liar. There are so many fallacies in your post. I couldn't bare to call them all out. It hurt to view.

reply to post by tgidkp


I'm sure you do.

reply to post by webedoomed


yeah. we are going to have to not talk about it. you're mean.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I read your posts and they are thoughtful and well put. I believe mindfulness is key and yes - teach it "today" and not as a future event. I see none of that happening in the schools where I'm at but am glad to hear my home State (Ca) is a forerunner on yet another needed humanist endeavor. If everyone walked through life a bit more consciously we would also see some exponential growth with bettering how things are. I hope it takes hold - nothing would make me feel better about my children's future.

With all due respect this alarmist shrill is nothing new. I only made it through 3 pages of replies so I apologize if my view has already been expressed. Newsflash-the population explosion has been pushing the producing envelope for some time. Our technological advancements have outpaced our destructive tendencies for over 200 years. The continual apocalyptic cry has been answered by increased yield and lowered cost of production time and again. We have been at the 59:59 hour since the dawn of the industrial revolution. With free thinking entrepreneurialism we will continue to do more with less. If unchecked by warped minds this expansion will result in a society in which everyone will have anything they want. Expansion and increased production/productivity will only result in elevating everyone. Contrary to popular belief we do have unlimited resources, water, air, land, food. If the sea dies (which it will not and is extremely arrogant to suppose) we will find a way.....as long as free thinkers are able to ask what if?

reply to post by Dianec


Thank you!

My life has been a very interesting experience. Full of suffering. Full of lessons to be learned.

Right now I am completing my masters in psychology, and am currently working/volunteering at an organization thats seeking to implement mindfulness practices into Ontario school systems.

Environmentalism/global warming is another crucial reason for why we NEED to do this, if we care about improving our lives, improving happiness and well being for a greater number of people.

And with mindfulness, will come a more "conscious capitalism". We wont be greedy consumers bent on profit - like some current businesses are.

Aye. All I can say is, I'm grateful for the experiences I've had. That's what life is about - learning, growing, and feeling more a part of the human community, and ultimately, with our planet.

I can agree that over population would be something that should be taken into consideration.

But I wouldn't say that that is the thing that could doom us. I believe it is something worse. Something that has been happening long before we humans had our industrial revolution which ended up leading to a huge population increase.

I'd have to say greed and the pursuit of profit would be. That's the main reason why we're told that there needs to be growth in the first place. Companies make lots of money, so they want to expand so they can make even more money. And usually they always end up taking advantage of other people, and the planet as well. There's pretty much always been a ruling class of people exploiting the rest. And it's even worse now since there are more people around, and the fact that we now have advanced technologies to make our exploitations even more powerful.

Some people devote their lives collecting as many pieces of paper they can that are given artificial values. And there is no satisfaction. There always has to be more. It's almost like some kind of sickly hoarding disorder.

Things such as famine, and poverty, and homelessness shouldn't even be a concern. We are more connected than we ever have been. We surely have the man power and transportation to take care of those things, and anything else that is of a concern for that matter. But that is of no interest in this world. There's no money to be made, so why even bother?

Mamatus
reply to post by watchitburn

 

How many test tubes do you think we have? Humanity has been severely reduced in population several times though out history. At one time we were down to 5000 humans world wide. This IMO will be the correction. A severe reduction in population. The seas provide well over 60% of all the worlds food. Once the fish are gone the world will go to war over food. I am gonna have to go with David Suzuki and the other scientists he speaks of. 59 minutes and counting


I find your figure interesting, could I have some more please? such as wheat tonnage, rice tonnage, potato tonnage, fish tonnage? I eat fish once a week, meat products four time a week, the other two days, other products, such as navy beans, for a hot meal.

It was Suzuki himself that said "one cannot expect infinite growth in a finite world."

He was at an open forum down under a few months ago and he can be bit alarmist at times but he speaks the truth.

One of the scariest doom porn scenarios is soil loss. as more land is cleared the nutrients drop and the salinity rises, and once the soil is gone there is no bringing it back. Everyone likes to think that we'll go out in a bang but the apocalypse is happening right beneath our feet and we barely notice.

In a book I read about the subject one scientist said "we are only four inches away from extinction" and that scares me more than any asteroid ever could.

reply to post by Mamatus

If civilisation is 6000 years old and we are in the 59th minute. We have 6000 years left.

David Suzuki, owned by his own analogy.