Collapse of civilisation
Discussion
I thought I’d post a cheery topic for Saturday evening!
This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks f
ked, to be honest.
No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the st truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.
This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks f
ked, to be honest. No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the s
t truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.The answer to this Ponzi scheme involves shrinking humanity from the current 7.7 billion people to a more sustainable 2 or 3 billion. An Inconvenient Apocalypse doesn’t describe how exactly this decline in population will occur, nor reckon with the enormous trauma that the elimination of the majority of humanity will inflict on humans and our societies
Interesting.
Interesting.
If anyone would like to read about it without giving the Gurniad any clicks, it is here on Amazon -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inconvenient-Apocalypse-E...
Wes Jackson seems to have made a career in ecology, based around improved agriculture, and books. The other one is a professor of journalism.
It looks to be pushing rationing - reduced human numbers, less energy, transcending capitalism.
And yours for £89.76, which sounds rather capitalist.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inconvenient-Apocalypse-E...
Wes Jackson seems to have made a career in ecology, based around improved agriculture, and books. The other one is a professor of journalism.
It looks to be pushing rationing - reduced human numbers, less energy, transcending capitalism.
And yours for £89.76, which sounds rather capitalist.
vixen1700 said:
The answer to this Ponzi scheme involves shrinking humanity from the current 7.7 billion people to a more sustainable 2 or 3 billion. An Inconvenient Apocalypse doesn’t describe how exactly this decline in population will occur, nor reckon with the enormous trauma that the elimination of the majority of humanity will inflict on humans and our societies
Interesting.
Never forget.Interesting.
All great civilisations rise and eventually fall. All the way back to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and probably several before that.
The Western world - mainly Europe but latterly N. America as well - have been in the driving seat for about 400 years now
since the renaissance, so we are well over due to royally screw things up.
The Western world - mainly Europe but latterly N. America as well - have been in the driving seat for about 400 years now
since the renaissance, so we are well over due to royally screw things up.
Skeptisk said:
I thought I’d post a cheery topic for Saturday evening!
This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks fked, to be honest.
No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the st truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.
I thought just a few weeks ago everyone was flapping about population collapse causing the end of civilisation. This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks f
ked, to be honest. No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the s
t truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.Skeptisk said:
I thought I’d post a cheery topic for Saturday evening!
This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks fked, to be honest.
No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the st truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.
From what I recall of the 70s we were also promised civilisation would collapse. Energy would run out, 'the last oil well runs dry in 30 years' ETC, not to mention mass famine. I think human ingenuity has done pretty well.This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks f
ked, to be honest. No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the s
t truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.The countenance to this book would be 'Factfulness' by Hans Rosling -
The book OP has referred to says that Energy Use rises with population increase.
Factfulness thinks that Energy Use rises with increased wealth/ social standing BUT this negatively affects birth rates.
Factfulness thinks the global population will peak around 2040, when the 'Third World' (India/ China/ Brazil) lifestyle increase begins to send them into negative birth rates.
Look at the most developed countries - most of them have static or decreasing birth rates. Forget Energy usage, theres plenty of Energy out there (Despite what the lefties would have you believe) - Quality of life and birth rates/ population increase is the key metrics to watch
The book OP has referred to says that Energy Use rises with population increase.
Factfulness thinks that Energy Use rises with increased wealth/ social standing BUT this negatively affects birth rates.
Factfulness thinks the global population will peak around 2040, when the 'Third World' (India/ China/ Brazil) lifestyle increase begins to send them into negative birth rates.
Look at the most developed countries - most of them have static or decreasing birth rates. Forget Energy usage, theres plenty of Energy out there (Despite what the lefties would have you believe) - Quality of life and birth rates/ population increase is the key metrics to watch
It's obvious humanity will never live sustainably in a capitalist/consumerist society. We're all too selfish to make sacrifices for the greater good, yet we are basically a parasite on Earth, plundering it's resources like there's no tomorrow. As well as removing capitalism, survival would also probably require single governance rather than individual countries.
KAgantua said:
The countenance to this book would be 'Factfulness' by Hans Rosling -
The book OP has referred to says that Energy Use rises with population increase.
Factfulness thinks that Energy Use rises with increased wealth/ social standing BUT this negatively affects birth rates.
Factfulness thinks the global population will peak around 2040, when the 'Third World' (India/ China/ Brazil) lifestyle increase begins to send them into negative birth rates.
Look at the most developed countries - most of them have static or decreasing birth rates. Forget Energy usage, theres plenty of Energy out there (Despite what the lefties would have you believe) - Quality of life and birth rates/ population increase is the key metrics to watch
Nigeria is forecast to grow from I think 200 million to 800 million. Similar for lots of other African countries. That doesn’t sound like static of decreasing to me. The book OP has referred to says that Energy Use rises with population increase.
Factfulness thinks that Energy Use rises with increased wealth/ social standing BUT this negatively affects birth rates.
Factfulness thinks the global population will peak around 2040, when the 'Third World' (India/ China/ Brazil) lifestyle increase begins to send them into negative birth rates.
Look at the most developed countries - most of them have static or decreasing birth rates. Forget Energy usage, theres plenty of Energy out there (Despite what the lefties would have you believe) - Quality of life and birth rates/ population increase is the key metrics to watch
Hub said:
It's obvious humanity will never live sustainably in a capitalist/consumerist society. We're all too selfish to make sacrifices for the greater good, yet we are basically a parasite on Earth, plundering it's resources like there's no tomorrow. As well as removing capitalism, survival would also probably require single governance rather than individual countries.
I've seen variations of this leftie misanthropic rant time and time again and it still makes no sense.People are perfectly capable of making sacrifices, we are just a bit suspicious of those who insist we must sacrifice our own interests for some 'greater good' which only they are apparently capable of defining.
Earth isn't a living organism, so how can we be parasites on it?
'Plundering it's resources'? Plundering from whom? Is the Earth the owner? What would earth do with Uranium if we didn't use it?
Are non capitalist societies any more efficient? Or is this down to socialism/communism never having been properly tried?
Dr Jekyll said:
Skeptisk said:
I thought I’d post a cheery topic for Saturday evening!
This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks fked, to be honest.
No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the st truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.
From what I recall of the 70s we were also promised civilisation would collapse. Energy would run out, 'the last oil well runs dry in 30 years' ETC, not to mention mass famine. I think human ingenuity has done pretty well.This book was published this week, forecasting the collapse of civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-i...
Hardly the first and no doubt on that basis alone some people will dismiss it yet the logic seems incontrovertible. Not just the current wealth experienced by many but more importantly the ability to feed 8 billion people is dependent upon energy. Global energy use is growing almost every year (there was a dip during Covid) and although renewable energy is growing it isn’t keeping pace with global energy use so our consumption of coal oil and gas keep growing too. They are limited resources and within 50 to 100 years will mainly be used up at current growth rates. Assuming cheap fusion remains a pipe dream the human race looks f
ked, to be honest. No doubt some techno optimists will say that we will find a way out of the problem with technology. Having been promised all sorts of stuff in the 70s eg living on the moon, not having to work etc (none of which has come true) I am sorry if I don’t take such Panglossian views seriously.
Not such a problem for me because when the s
t truly hits the fan I will be dead. I worry about my daughter though.Skeptisk said:
Don’t tell me. You don’t believe in climate change either because there was an article in a newspaper in 1970 about global freezing.
Of course I believe in it, but I also believe the apocalyptic predictions are exaggerated.Incidentally there was rather more than one article in the 1970s about a coming ice age.
Dr Jekyll said:
Hub said:
It's obvious humanity will never live sustainably in a capitalist/consumerist society. We're all too selfish to make sacrifices for the greater good, yet we are basically a parasite on Earth, plundering it's resources like there's no tomorrow. As well as removing capitalism, survival would also probably require single governance rather than individual countries.
I've seen variations of this leftie misanthropic rant time and time again and it still makes no sense.People are perfectly capable of making sacrifices, we are just a bit suspicious of those who insist we must sacrifice our own interests for some 'greater good' which only they are apparently capable of defining.
Earth isn't a living organism, so how can we be parasites on it?
'Plundering it's resources'? Plundering from whom? Is the Earth the owner? What would earth do with Uranium if we didn't use it?
Are non capitalist societies any more efficient? Or is this down to socialism/communism never having been properly tried?
These people are too short-sighted to realise that the only way to preserve all life on Earth is to reach beyond Earth. It is advancing technology, engineering, progress and lifting ourselves from the cradle that will save life, not retreating to some kind of stone age.
As for the overpopulation myth - they don't believe either the premise that there are too many people or that civilisation will not survive. That they are A. Still here and B. Trying to sell a book for £89 is all that you truly need to know about their proposal.
As for the overpopulation myth - they don't believe either the premise that there are too many people or that civilisation will not survive. That they are A. Still here and B. Trying to sell a book for £89 is all that you truly need to know about their proposal.
Hub said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Hub said:
It's obvious humanity will never live sustainably in a capitalist/consumerist society. We're all too selfish to make sacrifices for the greater good, yet we are basically a parasite on Earth, plundering it's resources like there's no tomorrow. As well as removing capitalism, survival would also probably require single governance rather than individual countries.
I've seen variations of this leftie misanthropic rant time and time again and it still makes no sense.People are perfectly capable of making sacrifices, we are just a bit suspicious of those who insist we must sacrifice our own interests for some 'greater good' which only they are apparently capable of defining.
Earth isn't a living organism, so how can we be parasites on it?
'Plundering it's resources'? Plundering from whom? Is the Earth the owner? What would earth do with Uranium if we didn't use it?
Are non capitalist societies any more efficient? Or is this down to socialism/communism never having been properly tried?
Skeptisk said:
Don’t tell me. You don’t believe in climate change either because there was an article in a newspaper in 1970 about global freezing.
Do people who post guardian links get to point out how hackneyed they think anyone elses arguement is?I suspect the ironings lost on you
...... said:
These people are too short-sighted to realise that the only way to preserve all life on Earth is to reach beyond Earth. It is advancing technology, engineering, progress and lifting ourselves from the cradle that will save life, not retreating to some kind of stone age.
As for the overpopulation myth - they don't believe either the premise that there are too many people or that civilisation will not survive. That they are A. Still here and B. Trying to sell a book for £89 is all that you truly need to know about their proposal.
You know you are going to die like everyone else. Possibly of some horrid disease like cancer or other delights of old age. But presumably you don’t want to top yourself now and still go about your life as normal trying to enjoy it. So why wouldn’t the authors of the book?As for the overpopulation myth - they don't believe either the premise that there are too many people or that civilisation will not survive. That they are A. Still here and B. Trying to sell a book for £89 is all that you truly need to know about their proposal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff