• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?[W:76]

StringBean said:
Nope, because in that example the colony collapses and they move to a new location with fresh resources.

We only have one Earth.
Click to expand...

Back to my original refutation. Ants don't invent. Ants do exactly the same thing, exactly the same way, every time.

In less than 100 years, we went from starvation being a real concern to having an abundance of food. At least in the US. Because we DONT do exactly the same thing, the same way, over and over.
 
This is what happens when government finances research for its gain and not it's citizens.


Somerville said:
Just a 'few' items in this story to stir up discussion



Items to discuss

" high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources"

under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."

how do we humans " reduce economic inequality" and also find a way " to dramatically reduce resource consumption "??

work by KPMG and the UK's Government Office for Science shows that resource exploitation could create a "perfect storm" of civilisational-ending crises by 2030.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
When liberals tell you that resources are finite and overconsumption is not a good long-term strategy, yes, you should listen to liberals.

If a liberal says that resources are infinite and we shouldn't ever worry about the rate of consumption, you should not listen to that liberal.
Click to expand...

See? The Libbos havw all the answers.

We need to let the government take everything over, too?
 
KevinKohler said:
Back to my original refutation. Ants don't invent. Ants do exactly the same thing, exactly the same way, every time.

In less than 100 years, we went from starvation being a real concern to having an abundance of food. At least in the US. Because we DONT do exactly the same thing, the same way, over and over.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure how our resource-dependent growth differs from their resource-dependent growth. I'm sure the ant colony looks like Wall Street in the 20s, right before the crumbs run dry.

We are different, provided we can freely create resources. Even if we had free energy, our civilization is dependent on petroleum, oxygen, and sunlight, among other things. We don't yet have the capability to manufacture these things on a global scale.
 
apdst said:
See? The Libbos havw all the answers.

We need to let the government take everything over, too?
Click to expand...

Which part of those two options do you take issue with?
 
StringBean said:
(unless the uber-rich begin hoarding all resources)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be terrible to live in a world where the rich own and control virtually everything, including resources. Oh, wait...
 
Deuce said:
When liberals tell you that resources are finite and overconsumption is not a good long-term strategy, yes, you should listen to liberals.

If a liberal says that resources are infinite and we shouldn't ever worry about the rate of consumption, you should not listen to that liberal.
Click to expand...

We could be taking resources from space in the near future if the ignoramuses don't completely shut down our space program.
 
DVSentinel said:
The only thing that is truly impossible to accomplish is that which we believe to be impossible.
Click to expand...

This is not belief it is science.

There is no way off this rock.

Maybe in a thousand or few hundred years but not now
 
StringBean said:
Ants have been around a lot longer than human beings. If civilization collapses and we die out, they will still be around. Perhaps the lesson to learn is live within the means of your environment?
Click to expand...

Been done.

Primitive peoples lived within the means of their environment and lived in misery.
 
tacomancer said:
why is nasa making this study and not an
anthropological group?

also, i hope they are wrong and its at least 60 years away so that my kids will have had times to live their lives completely.
Click to expand...

Because in 2008, their priorities were changed. From a once world renowned agency to a propaganda machine for Obama and his corrupt ideology.

Look no further than who's running that agency.

Its sad really.
 
StringBean said:
Study an ant colony.

It sends out worker drones to collect resources so the colony can expand.

Eventually, there are no more resources left so the colony must move to a new location with fresh resources.

What if, that colony is a planet with 10 billion people and there are no more resources. No new planet to run to.

Are you folks so anthropocentric to think we are somehow special and immune to the laws nature?

The prediction of 2030 is certainly off, and the dire tales of economic stratification are largely unwarranted (unless the uber-rich begin hoarding all resources), but we need to re-think just how quickly we are using up what precious gifts our planet has given us.
Click to expand...

We are. It's the defining characteristic of being human. Having another human being is more than just another mouth to feed and body to clothe--it's another mind capable of expanding our access to resources and improving our quality of life. The Earth has a mass of six trillion trillion kilograms and we've only scratched the surface (literally) of its bounty. How did we avoid peak oil? Peak Copper? Peak Tungsten? Peak Nickel? Peak Tin? By innovating new methods for reaching deeper and more inaccessible fields and by creating new tools for increasing efficiency from existing ones. It is a process we will continue to repeat for other resources because the raw materials are there in abundant quantities. Where there is a need a way will be found as it always has.

The same types of innovations that lifted us above our problems in the 20th Century will form the blueprint for the 21st. The rise of cheap desalination, innovations in biotechnology and GMO's, more sophisticated extraction methods for rare earths and other minerals, new deposits of oil and gas, revolutions in battery technology, perhaps even developments in renewables like Solar (not at present), and so much more. We live in a century of fantastic possibility. Our only realistic hope is that our genius measures up to the task. Planning for massive global legislation and controls for carbon, water management, or whatever the issue of the day may be is not only unrealistic but counter-productive as it retards growth which breeds the dynamism that allows that aforementioned genius to rise to the surface.

We're already in the infancy of a commercial space program with a solar system of resources at our disposal--people are too quick to err on the side of pessimism given our repeated history of success.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
This is not belief it is science.

There is no way off this rock.

Maybe in a thousand or few hundred years but not now
Click to expand...

There certainly is a way off this rock, there are people orbiting above it as we speak. The issue is a reliable, cheap, and ideally reusable lifter to get us to orbit and beyond. Fortunately we're undergoing a veritable renaissance in space development driven largely (but not exclusively) by the emergence of the commercial space sector. There are multiple competing plans for a reusable space vehicle and no small hope that one of them may succeed. Hundreds of years? I really don't think so.

Plus if we really, really needed to there are ways to throw a ton of mass into orbit (and beyond) that we could opt to.
 
StringBean said:
Ants have been around a lot longer than human beings. If civilization collapses and we die out, they will still be around. Perhaps the lesson to learn is live within the means of your environment?
Click to expand...

Which results in a horrible standard of living and is a completely artificial limitation. We have advanced by steadily increasing the resources drawn from our environment. The field which at first glance offers only berries and nuts can be plowed and seeded. The river which seems only to offer the occasional fish can be dammed for power and hatcheries created. Human beings are resource multipliers, everything we do is unnatural and manipulative of our environment. We create resources, we expand upon them, and we build civilization atop this mastery.
 
for those wondering, the headline from the Guardian does appear to be a bit off, the study may have received some funding from NASA but the organisation behind the study is another group - The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)

The paper may be found here
 
Soupnazi630 said:
This is not belief it is science.

There is no way off this rock.

Maybe in a thousand or few hundred years but not now
Click to expand...

Really? So we don't have an International Space Station? NASA has not in the past launched maned space flights? We didn't travel to the moon? For there being no way off this rock, we seem to have had quite a few who left it for a short time.
 
DVSentinel said:
Really? So we don't have an International Space Station? NASA has not in the past launched maned space flights? We didn't travel to the moon? For there being no way off this rock, we seem to have had quite a few who left it for a short time.
Click to expand...

It would seem obvious to me that he's speaking on a more permanent basis.

A self-sustaining method of living in space is a long, long way off. The ISS is an incredibly inefficient expenditure of resources in terms of sustaining life - we have to ship those resources up to the station and burn tons of rocket fuel in the process. They can't grow food and the thing is basically made out of tissue paper.

But it's obviously an important step in our figuring out how to accomplish all that, so don't take this to mean that I'm suggesting the ISS is a waste.
 
Deuce said:
It would seem obvious to me that he's speaking on a more permanent basis.

A self-sustaining method of living in space is a long, long way off. The ISS is an incredibly inefficient expenditure of resources in terms of sustaining life - we have to ship those resources up to the station and burn tons of rocket fuel in the process. They can't grow food and the thing is basically made out of tissue paper.

But it's obviously an important step in our figuring out how to accomplish all that, so don't take this to mean that I'm suggesting the ISS is a waste.
Click to expand...

It would be possible fairly quickly if we put our money into it. Welfare is a zero return resource hog. Space is the advancement and the future of mankind. Not to mention that given the right motivation, we would quickly find that most of welfare are willful abuses, not something necessary for the betterment of our society or mankind as a whole.

Find and exploit new resources, quit wasting them on the lazy willfully useless that are welfare.
 
Deuce said:
You think overconsumption is a good long-term plan?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but I also believe that over-consumption is just another excuse for the Left Wing agenda.
 
Their suggestion that reducing population growth is the key is actually a bit misguided. One of the biggest demographic threats to the continued viability of Western civilizations is not enough young people and too many old people. I don't envision any return to the Dark Ages for any country or region, but I can definitely see Japan and the EU plummeting into an economic abyss and losing their developed status within a decade or two. The U.S. will likely weather such a demographic crisis due to booming minority populations.
 
DVSentinel said:
we would quickly find that most of welfare are willful abuses, not something necessary for the betterment of our society or mankind as a whole.
Click to expand...

:roll:

The majority of people on TANF or SNAP have a job.
 
Demon of Light said:
Their suggestion that reducing population growth is the key is actually a bit misguided. One of the biggest demographic threats to the continued viability of Western civilizations is not enough young people and too many old people. I don't envision any return to the Dark Ages for any country or region, but I can definitely see Japan and the EU plummeting into an economic abyss and losing their developed status within a decade or two. The U.S. will likely weather such a demographic crisis due to booming minority populations.
Click to expand...

That's not a threat, it's a necessity. Maintaining the same young:eek:ld ratio requires continued rapid population growth which isn't happening. (and isn't desirable in the long run) People in developed nations have fewer children. Undergoing that readjustment can't be helped.

And the minority population growth, or growth in not-yet-developed nations, must also slow. It has to happen, the question is really just when.

Any non-zero growth rate eventually puts humanity in a situation in which it must expand its resource sphere faster than the speed of light to sustain itself. For the moment, we have reason to believe that's impossible. :)
 
Ah, so that was what they were talking about on Star Trek.

Well, if it leads to replicators, let's go straight ahead!;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom