It is a study and not a theory. As such they are not out to prove anything, but draw intelligent and reasonable conclusions, something that you prefer to oppose for some reason.
As I said, intelligent and reasonable conclusions.
No it is a study and it has a conclusion,
Really? And what expertise do you have that prompts this assertion on your part? So far you only referred to flying pigs and that I am afraid is not a very encouraging credential, but by all means, do provide your own conclusions or point out the errors in the study.
Apparently not, as you are still looking for a study to prove something.Are we talking about the same thing?
That is an amazing observation on your part. I do not know if you know this but reliable data from the future is exceptionally hard to obtain and that is why known facts from the past are used as data and the past is history as they say.The entire "study" is based on using history to make assumptions
But conclusions based on verifiable data are intelligent and reasonable, not to mention that you haven't been able to show any errors in methodology or the data used.and assumptions by definition are not "intelligent and responsible conclusions."
Apparently not, as you are still looking for a study to prove something.
That is an amazing observation on your part. I do not know if you know this but reliable data from the future is exceptionally hard to obtain and that is why known facts from the past are used as data and the past is history as they say.
But conclusions based on verifiable data are intelligent and reasonable, not to mention that you haven't been able to show any errors in methodology or the data used.
There is no way "off this rock". The sooner we grasp that fact the better.
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?
Specifically to this study or in general?Not necessarily. Conclusions very often don't match their data.
What do you feel is missing in order for the conclusion to be more robustly supported?I have no qualms with the data they did present, but the data they did present isn't enough to suggest what they are suggesting.
And that doers not even need a study.Yes we know the population is set to grow, and we know we will require more food and energy.
Have you reviewed the study and can competently say that they missed something?Where is their data on whether or not we are meeting this food and energy demand?
That was not the scope of the study as it is clearly stated in there introduction.And while we are on the subject, how do the authors suggest we meet those demands?
A study of this nature can only utilize facts and facts are only part of history. It would take a different study based on projections to draw possible conclusions how any of your proposed variables would impact the future.What are the positions of the authors' on things like GMO's and nuclear energy?
See above.Where is their data that a green revolution can solve the problems they presented?
How could mathematicians guesstimate that? It is not their line of expertise. They could take possible projections made available if those projections were based on reliable sources.What would said green revolution even consist of?
Yet you are unable to point out a single flaw in the data they used or the methodology.You see a study with vague conclusions based on limited data does not constitute "intelligent and reasonable," at least by my expectations.
To you perhaps, but that does not negate the validity of the study or its conclusion.When I see the word study, I expect a body of work that adds something to the conversation. This fails to do that.
Specifically to this study or in general?
What do you feel is missing in order for the conclusion to be more robustly supported?
And that doers not even need a study.
Have you reviewed the study and can competently say that they missed something?
That was not the scope of the study as it is clearly stated in there introduction.
A study of this nature can only utilize facts and facts are only part of history. It would take a different study based on projections to draw possible conclusions how any of your proposed variables would impact the future.
See above.
How could mathematicians guesstimate that? It is not their line of expertise. They could take possible projections made available if those projections were based on reliable sources.
Yet you are unable to point out a single flaw in the data they used or the methodology.
To you perhaps, but that does not negate the validity of the study or its conclusion.
Oops. Hate when that happens. Let them reap what the have sown. Die, if that is all they earn for themselves.
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.
I did, but I see you have not answered any of my questions.Did you even click the link and read the study in question? I'm starting to get the impression you have not.
I never liked that analogy, it really leaves too many questions unanswered. The best approach is to establish how many ml. or oz. of water are in the glass and decide what to do with it.What's going on now and the probable future determined off today's realities is the epitome of the glass half-full/empty analogy.
The NASA mission has now morphed from running the national space shuttle service to conducting income inequality studies? It may be time to defund this bunch of "experts".
Oh boy, another "man is doomed" prediction.
NASA has done us a bunch of good technologically. It's time to kick them out of the social sciences and get them involved in the science of space exploration. Obama changed their mission as one of the first things when he got into office. Democrats claim they are the party of science, primarliy because some social conservatives believe the world is six thousand years old. While I'll give them that one, they aren't the party of science. They are the party of using junk science to force political and social change. I would defund NASA as long as they are social scientists but fully support them if they got back to real science.
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.
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.
Nope, because in that example the colony collapses and they move to a new location with fresh resources.
We only have one Earth.
"It's true! I seen it on the internet!"
I say we plow up the field and kill all the ants. That'll learn 'em.
I did, but I see you have not answered any of my questions.
It's sort of like the constant "the economy is going to implode predictions that will eventually be right"
Really? This sociopathic mentality is truly reprehensible. You obviously realize that you're condemning your fellow man to death because of what - that they're unemployed? You must not give a fuçk that the U.S. has been enduring the worst economic downturn (for the last half decade) since the Great Depression. It is not the average Joe's fault that the U.S. (and world) economy tanked. So instead of rallying against your fellow man who is downtrodden, the logical, moral and ethical thing to rally for is job creation across the board, government innovation and investment and incentives to large U.S. corporations that sell their wares in America but employ the majority (or all) of their workers away from our shores.
Besides, I don't know what you do for a living or if you're even in the workforce, but if you are, it is really quite moronic to condemn people you see as disadvantaged, like the unemployed. Why? There is no such thing as 'job security' anymore. Hell, not even in the U.S. military is there security that a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine will retain their position from week-to-week. So if you're working, consider yourself lucky but realize that that could change in an instant in today's economic scene.