The end of human civilization

[Wanted Bob]

Inb4pandora.

I just got back from seeing Avatar and now I see the source of all these "humans suck, nature is good" threads.

Thats what I had thought too

 

[Maestro]

Malthusian pressures while oil production starts to plummet. Real threat there.

*Reads through the fancy terms*

Peak Oil, the famous catchphrase of the survivalist crowd. Believe me, I used to be one.

That one's tricky, while I fully expect there to be a sufficient alternative energy network in place prior to coal and oil reserves running out (~40 years) I remain highly uncertain as to whether we'll find a replacement for carbon-fuel-based fertilizers that keep our soil usable.

It could go either way, but death by famine is a most unpleasant and slow process. In this particular case a good year of crops isn't going to save us.

What about people who only care for their short term personal enjoyment without any regard to the consequences of their actions?

Causing a total and complete collapse of modern society? Fat chance.

 

[Maestro]

EDIT: Shit, double post.

 

[jverne]

*Reads through the fancy terms*

Peak Oil, the famous catchphrase of the survivalist crowd. Believe me, I used to be one.

That one's tricky, while I fully expect there to be a sufficient alternative energy network in place prior to coal and oil reserves running out (~40 years) I remain highly uncertain as to whether we'll find a replacement for carbon-fuel-based fertilizers that keep our soil usable.

It could go either way, but death by famine is a most unpleasant and slow process. In this particular case a good year of crops isn't going to save us.


Causing a total and complete collapse of modern society? Fat chance.

Actually making fertilizers is possible trough other means, except they would probably more expensive.

But i agree, shit will hit the fan if people couldn't get the basic (or not so basic) supplies they used to have.

 

[Calhoun]

The extinction of the human race would be the worst event conceivable. If this happened, the universe would be utterly unappreciated and become useless, having lost very likely the only sentient species she had.

EDIT: That is until an extremely unlikely mutation or course of evolution, whatever you wish to call it, would occur in another species and stick, and remember it's extremely unlikely as in 98.875% not going to happen.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Hahaha, good one

 

[Maestro]

Actually making fertilizers is possible trough other means, except they would probably more expensive.

But i agree, shit will hit the fan if people couldn't get the basic (or not so basic) supplies they used to have.

The question is whether policymakers will pull their heads out their asses long enough to assess the situation. Most are interested in what gets them elected, and fertilizers based on oil aren't a hot topic. Legislation for infrastructure only happens when a bridge collapses.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

The extinction of the human race would be the worst event conceivable. If this happened, the universe would be utterly unappreciated and become useless, having lost very likely the only sentient species she had.

EDIT: That is until an extremely unlikely mutation or course of evolution, whatever you wish to call it, would occur in another species and stick, and remember it's extremely unlikely as in 98.875% not going to happen.

What is the basis behind that number? I doubt it counts for the whole ****ing universe. And whatever it does count for, it's bullshit anyways.

 

[Solaris]

Of course I don't want to see the end of Human Civilisation!

If you do Jverne, by all means lead from the front.

 

[Calhoun]

What is the basis behind that number? I doubt it counts for the whole ****ing universe. And whatever it does count for, it's bullshit anyways.

The number was one I had chose to use of my own accord, as I didn't feel like retrieving something official, though mine was likely much more generous than the official stance if I recall correctly.

The number of factors necessary to the development of such a species is difficult: proper solar system, proper star for a proper planet to orbit in the proper type of orbit, with proper tilt, and so on, and the species must have the chance to gain sentience through evolution which would likely mean they must first become complex, and then the mutation must survive long enough so it may be spread through reproduction, and no major disaster can be allowed otherwise it may well wipe out the mutation or members of the species with the trait.

I won't shoot it down entirely because we're here, which is fascinating. It's possible but highly unlikely, although the universe doesn't necessarily work with regards to mathematics/probability all the time and a species could begin at any time without our knowledge in the most unexpected place. Assuming the worst will always leave room for some positive surprise to be revealed later.

 

[Ennui]

Calhoun, what the hell are you talking about? Most scientists these day agree that it's extremely likely that there are not only other sentient life forms in the galaxy, but that there are probably huge numbers of them. There's just a whole goddamn lot of space separating all of us and sentient species apparently tend to die out long before becoming a Star Wars-level spacefaring civilization. Life is extremely improbable and sentient life even more so, but the universe is, to put it lightly, F*CKING BIG. Over the past ten years this consensus has increased because we keep finding out more and more that suggests that life is relatively common (emphasis on relatively) in the universe.

 

[Calhoun]

Calhoun, what the hell are you talking about? Most scientists these day agree that it's extremely likely that there are not only other sentient life forms in the galaxy, but that there are probably huge numbers of them. There's just a whole goddamn lot of space separating all of us and sentient species apparently tend to die out long before becoming a Star Wars-level spacefaring civilization. Life is extremely improbable and sentient life even more so, but the universe is, to put it lightly, F*CKING BIG. Over the past ten years this consensus has increased because we keep finding out more and more that suggests that life is relatively common (emphasis on relatively) in the universe.

I don't feel like getting into this argument, but people used to believe the world was flat and it didn't make it true.

Mars used to be looked at as a world that may have life like our own because of its appearance solely, until we could send a probe that would first hand determine what the world was actually like.

In short, there's more to support why sentient life wouldn't exist and shouldn't exist or would be destroyed, than there is to support why it should exist or would exist and this was all I intended to say.

I'm curious now though and would like to know where sentient life was actually discovered rather than concluded to be possible by observation of the appearance of a world from here. I'll admit that I've neglected to follow the news regularly until recently and may have missed any such development and don't take you for a liar, but it's just something I would like to see, especially because it would be fascinating.

 

[Danimal]

Everyone knows Hitler is in the centre of Mars, plotting out the fourth reich.

 

[Eejit]

Most are interested in what gets them elected, and fertilizers based on oil aren't a hot topic.

Eh? Fertilizer uses natural gas as the hydrogen source but really it isn't just methane that works. Simple electrolysis of water will do the trick, methane is just cheaper atm than the electricity required.

It's not lack of fertilizer that would screw food production it's problems of transport and fuel for farm machinery.

 

[flamingdts]

I don't feel like getting into this argument, but people used to believe the world was flat and it didn't make it true.

Mars used to be looked at as a world that may have life like our own because of its appearance solely, until we could send a probe that would first hand determine what the world was actually like.

In short, there's more to support why sentient life wouldn't exist and shouldn't exist or would be destroyed, than there is to support why it should exist or would exist and this was all I intended to say.

I'm curious now though and would like to know where sentient life was actually discovered rather than concluded to be possible by observation of the appearance of a world from here. I'll admit that I've neglected to follow the news regularly until recently and may have missed any such development and don't take you for a liar, but it's just something I would like to see, especially because it would be fascinating.

The universe is massive. I mean MASSIVE.

Assuming Earth is the only planet with sentient life in the Milky Way, that's 1 out of at least 200 billion stars with sentient life. If we look at the bigger picture, there are at least 100 billion galaxies which we can currently observe from Earth.

Earth is a very rare case, but it's not really that surprising if you look at the size of the universe. As long as there is water, life could exist. There are already traces of water in neighboring planets, so there are obviously billions more water filled planets.

Don't forget that Alien species could be of an entirely different biological make up. They could be species relying on different types of substances to survive.

 

[unozero]

There's something wrong with you Jverne

 

[jverne]

There's something wrong with you Jverne

Like?

 

[Insano]

Don't forget that Alien species could be of an entirely different biological make up.

They could indeed be nitrogen or sulfur based instead of carbon.

 

[jondy]

There's something wrong with you Jverne

Oh, not something. Almost everything

 

[Dan]

I am sorry, but anybody who uses the size of the universe as a basis for the existence of sentient life is a retard. There is absolutely no data about the probability of spontaneous life arising. We have not actually made it happen or seen it happen anywhere. People using the Drake equation as evidence of anything are simply making up probability numbers that give them the result they want. Throw a probability factor of 10E-9999 for life spontaneously arising in there and suddenly the odds aren't too good. An infinitely large universe is easily countered by an infinitely small probability of life arising in that universe. We know that the probability of life is already extremely small just by the fact that our local system is not teeming with it. How small is just a guess.

Our own existence is not a basis for any extrapolation, because it is necessitated that we exist. It's simple Bayesian statistics. The probability of you existing giving that you must exist to ask the question is by definition 1. The absolute probability is still unknown. There is nothing that would negate Earth being the only planet in the universe that supports life.

 

[Maestro]

Eh? Fertilizer uses natural gas as the hydrogen source but really it isn't just methane that works. Simple electrolysis of water will do the trick, methane is just cheaper atm than the electricity required.

It's not lack of fertilizer that would screw food production it's problems of transport and fuel for farm machinery.

Sorry, haven't looked at it in a while. The question with that hydrogen issue is whether we can get enough of it fast enough. I remain dubious.

 

[jverne]

It's no secret that if things would go awry people would start to die off. Just turn off your electricity and you'll realize how quickly we can go to the middle ages from here.

 

[Maestro]

The middle ages? Hardly. Look around at all the materials that are there for cannibalizing. Maybe we'd see a regression to late 19th century, but no earlier. You underestimate human drive.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Middle Ages In Being A Complex Social And Historical Descriptor, Not Just A Technology Level Like You Were Playing A Civilisation Game Shocker

 

[jverne]

^
this

 

[jverne]

Seriously now, i'd love to see how our lands looked 2000 years ago. No roads, large untouched fields

warning, big pics

Spoiler

In the middle of ****ing Europe...note, these are not from europe but random places.
I can't even find a panoramic view without houses or electric lines.

Ok it would suck the minute you'd have to walk them, but let's forget about details now

 

[Eejit]

Large untouched fields? Do you mean prairies because instead of the 'fields' it'd generally be woodland.
Not to mention if there were large areas of cleared land in Europe 2000 years ago they'd have been used for farming anyway.

They also had roads, certainly in areas under Roman influence.

 

[jverne]

Large untouched fields? Do you mean prairies because instead of the 'fields' it'd generally be woodland.
Not to mention if there were large areas of cleared land in Europe 2000 years ago they'd have been used for farming anyway.

They also had roads, certainly in areas under Roman influence.

Sure but now in europe you can't move 30km without crossing a road or some other man made object. Ok i guessed the number but still it's pretty small.

Now if we'd presume every single person on this world would have a living standard like a well-off suburban family in Switzerland, UK or USA for instance. How much land would have to be taken.
I'm not saying this is wrong or that it will happen. However it's a scary thought.
If i again play the devils advocate...it's almost better that third world countries remain uncultivated, for eko tourism that is. I repeat this is not my position on it, just an possible argument from someone who might support this idea.

 

[Eejit]

Do you ever do anything other than play devil's advocate?

 

[jverne]

Do you ever do anything other than play devil's advocate?

It depends.

Let me put it this way...the selfish side of me would love that idea, the rational is against it. Who makes the last decision? I don't really know because i'm constantly struggling to find a middle way.
You probably don't believe me, but it's true. For certain issues i just can't come to a consensus.
But you can easily respond and i'll try to oppose it. However that doesn't mean it's my true position.

 

[Maestro]

Dude, you live in Europe.

Come on over here to the American continent, Canada, Mexico, and the US all have enormous areas where you won't see a single sign of humans.

 

[Maestro]

^
this

^
Feudalism would have been more descriptive.

 

[jverne]

Dude, you live in Europe.

Come on over here to the American continent, Canada, Mexico, and the US all have enormous areas where you won't see a single sign of humans.

Yeah but that's not really what i want. Well i'd love to visit those places, but not live there.


I used to live my first half of life in a rural area surrounded by woods. Services were a bitch since the nearest shop was 30 minute drive away. Every day i used to drive 30 minutes one way by car and 40 minutes back by bus from school. Sure it can't compare to anything like the vast regions of Canada, USA,... but i kinda got a taste how it might feel to drive 200km just to get anywhere.
Then we moved to the suburbs where where it's really great from a comfort perspective. It sort of a compromise.
Now i'm living for 5 years in the middle of a city, due to going to university.

I kinda got a taste of all three environments.

To be honest each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. I do however cope with any situation. The city really makes you unorganized as in, "oh shit i forgot to buy bread, lemme just hop on my bike and in two minutes i can buy fresh bread". In the suburbs you are heavily reliant on your car.
Out on the farm you generally have more things stockpiled.
School...well the nearer i am to it the more i arrive late.
For friends: in the city everybody is just around the corner. The suburbs, without a car you're ****ed. The farm, well you ain't got much friends except those in the local villages.

But i generally dislike cities because it's just too cramped. However pussy is much more abundant there.

One possible solution to keeping nature relatively intact but retaining high service availability is to concentrate people in cities. However there should be less people as to make the city less stuffed so that everybody could afford to have their own garden and grow stuff if they wanted. This way i might adjust to live in a city permanently. In the city i can't basically go to sleep if my window isn't covered (due to light pollution).
In the morning when i go to school/work i have to smell the exhausts from cars, because i go by bicycle (even if it is sun, snow, rain, cold,...).

Point being...i don't like cities like they are now.
I kinda like the idea of living in a city but having a lot outside it where you can do stuff that you cant otherwise do in a city. Since you'd only visit it every now and then i would be kinda "green". Now if you live in the suburbs you have to basically use your car daily.
Also...if there were some miracle way to regularly go out with friends and have accessible pussy i'd easily live in Antarctica. Health services...yeah, ok but i usually need them like 2 times a year. As for food and stuff...i'd manage.

 

[kupocake]

Come on over here to the American continent, Canada, Mexico, and the US all have enormous areas where you won't see a single sign of humans.

If I've studied my sitcoms correctly, I believe the required zinger is 'New Jersey'.

 

[Danimal]

Seriously now, i'd love to see how our lands looked 2000 years ago. No roads, large untouched fields

In the middle of ****ing Europe...note, these are not from europe but random places.
I can't even find a panoramic view without houses or electric lines.

Ok it would suck the minute you'd have to walk them, but let's forget about details now

Want to know the funny thing? My local suburbia has that sort of amount of trees amongst it anyway.

You're, like, striving for those kind of landscapes yet you said you cbf walking them.

 

[jverne]

Want to know the funny thing? My local suburbia has that sort of amount of trees amongst it anyway.

You're, like, striving for those kind of landscapes yet you said you cbf walking them.

Yeah


Well i'd love to walk them, but i wouldn't want to walk 10km each day to fetch water from the nearest river.

 

[Remus]

In other words you like the look of the countryside, but you're not willing to deal with the shortcomings of living there.

I on the other had was born and raised in a relatively small town. The whole thing has about 4 square km, and you can pretty much find everything you need within 1 km (super markets, electronics stores, church, school, banks etc.).

The thing is I'm exactly the opposite of you, I like the look of the big city. A highlight of my road trip to Paris was going to the top of the "Montparnasse" tower, first actual skyscraper I've ever been in.
However like you I'm not willing to deal with the problems related to living in such an environment. In my case long distances and way too many people.

 

[Gargantou]

Inspired by dog's thread.

How many would like to see the destruction of human post industrial civilization?



DISCLAIMER (edited at...the hour that says bellow 9pm or something): SEEMS PEOPLE DON'T READ POSTS, BEFORE THROWING OUT PRECONCEIVED FALSE STATEMENTS, GOD DAMN ****ING READ!!!

I voted yes, not sure if I'd like to see the complete end, but I'd like to see a mankind that treats nature with far more respect than we currently do.

A human civilization where profits aren't given priority over everything else.

 

[99.vikram]

Not really. I've always preferred technological vistas, and am reeaaally looking forward to seeing the construction of the first starship before I die.