LibriumArcana.Games

I found this article rather interesting; what are your thoughts?

Link


[quote]Long before “sustainableâ€

This is essentially what I have been saying for years. There has never, ever, ever in the history of mankind, been a point wherein there were not legions of intellectuals who proved with the most subtle of arguments, and damning of evidences, that the world had reached the end of days, and that eternal darkness was all we had to look forward to.

The history of civilization is marked by an endless succession of end times prophets, where every year is the last, every advance is the final one, every year of plenty is the tipping point after which there is naught but doom. This is true of the West, of China, of India, of the Muslim world, and of all other societies that I am familiar with. We are always, if you listen to the doomsayers, about to reach the collapse of human civilization.

I'll see you guys in the future, because frankly, the smart money says it'll be awesome.

General Havoc wrote:I'll see you guys in the future, because frankly, the smart money says it'll be awesome.

Amen to that, man. Amen to that.

The End of the World as We Know It has happened before, on multiple occasions. The Indus valley was invaded by Aryans, the Sea Peoples came, the Temple of Jerusalem was burned, the Roman Empire collapsed, the Jihad exploded out of the desert, the Mongols invaded, the Mongols invaded again, the Mayan cities were eaten by the jungle, the Sunda Ithmus became the Sunda Straight, Easter Island ran out of resources, the Black Plague ravaged Eurasia, the Norsemen in Greenland starved and froze to death, the Europeans rampaged across the Americas, etc, etc, etc.

The thing is that the planet is damned big, so the End of the World someplace is just a "sucks to be them" elsewhere (except the 6th century). For that matter, the End of the World is rarely the actual end of everything even in the affected locality. It is just an extended period of mass death and general hardship. Obviously there are no grounds for claiming that the End of Everything is Nigh, but it's hardly hysterical to say that that we should watch out for Doom lurking in our future. It has happened before, and the world has not changed so much that it cannot happen again. Indeed, if anything we're are now in the unprecedented position of being able to fuck up the whole planet all at once. Under the circumstances I doubt that pretending that everything will be great forever is at all wise.

Let's look at it this way-for those who always expect the worst there's no such thing as a nasty surprise

Hadrianvs wrote:Under the circumstances I doubt that pretending that everything will be great forever is at all wise.

No more foolish than declaring eternal gloom and damnation unto the world for every single thing that could potentially go wrong. To claim that the future will be black night and the world is doomed (as those with axes to grind often do) is to take the agency out of humanity as a whole. If the world is going to end and we're all fucked, then there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

All of the things you cited were not the end of the world as we knew it, though some of the people involved thought they were, because their myopic view of things was (understandably) limited. The Roman Empire collapsed, and the Middle Ages arose in their place. The Jihad exploded out of the desert, and produced the Islamic Golden Age. The plagues and wars and famines and Mongol invasions all happened, and the world went on. Shit got bad for a lot of people for a long time. Shit is still bad for a lot of them right now.

This is not the world ending. It wasn't the world ending then.

Doomsayers have existed as an absolute constant since the beginning of time. They will prove to you the end of the world today, tomorrow, and every day until it truly does end. As history emphasizes the negative, so do they.

General Havoc wrote:All of the things you cited were not the end of the world as we knew it, though some of the people involved thought they were, because their myopic view of things was (understandably) limited. The Roman Empire collapsed, and the Middle Ages arose in their place. The Jihad exploded out of the desert, and produced the Islamic Golden Age. The plagues and wars and famines and Mongol invasions all happened, and the world went on. Shit got bad for a lot of people for a long time. Shit is still bad for a lot of them right now.

We appear to have different definitions of what "The World as We Know It" means. I am well aware that the things got better after they got bad, that doesn't mean that they didn't get bad enough for a lot of people that it did not qualify as the end of their world. If there was a nuclear war tomorrow I might survive, I might even live to see the long march of progress renew itself, but May 20th of 2010 would have still been the end of my world.

This is not the world ending. It wasn't the world ending then.

Again, End of the World As We Know It.

Doomsayers have existed as an absolute constant since the beginning of time. They will prove to you the end of the world today, tomorrow, and every day until it truly does end. As history emphasizes the negative, so do they.

As for the world literally ending, such that there is nothing left and the rest is silence. It's unlikely that if such a future was imminent there would be anything that could be done about it. So certainly "The End is Nigh!" is an exercise in utterly pointless pessimism. That doesn't mean, however, that it can't happen, or that no planning should be made for such an eventuality. If a big enough rock smacks into our planet we would be simply and irrevocably gone. That's something worth thinking about when considering the importance of space exploration, for example.

I am also worried that legitimate concerns about things that could make life miserable for some time (Peak Oil, Global Warming, Soil Depletion, Fresh Water Shortage, etc) will be tarred with the same brush as "the End is Nigh!" hysteria. Clearly even if all of those things hit all at once with the strength of the very worst case scenarios humanity can be reasonably expected to come out ahead, but it's hardly reasonable to use that as grounds to ignore these issues.

I am also worried that legitimate concerns about things that could make life miserable for some time (Peak Oil, Global Warming, Soil Depletion, Fresh Water Shortage, etc) will be tarred with the same brush as "the End is Nigh!" hysteria. Clearly even if all of those things hit all at once with the strength of the very worst case scenarios humanity can be reasonably expected to come out ahead, but it's hardly reasonable to use that as grounds to ignore these issues.

Agreed. We have a looming population problem. Prior to the 1970s, the amount of people we could support on existing (and sustainable) agricultural methods was 4 billion. The green revolution pushed this number to 9. That boost was temporary because the techniques necessary deplete and degrade topsoil, as well as the aquifers and rivers necessary to support said agriculture. Our ability to keep using these techniques is limited by the biological, chemical, and hydrologic processes which support them. These processes cannot keep up with the demand we place on them.

What does this mean? It means that at some point in time, the number of people we can support via agriculture will drop below the population that exists at that time. This wont be the end of the world, but it will suck for a lot of people(and by suck I mean lead to the starving death), and this does not take into account the effects of climate change on rainfall, or peak oil on transport and infrastructure.

We may be able to fix this if we invest a lot of public funds and apply a lot of ingenuity. However I dont think that is likely. I am a cynic though.

Even without this, we will have demographic problems. Our population is reaching is current carrying capacity (highest plausible estimate of 9 billion we will reach that by 2050, may be lower. I will get to that in a second). This is the point where resource constraints should cause the equaling out of births and deaths. This has an assumption though. This assumption is that population demographics respond instantly to changes in resource availability. We are currently seeing a world wide drop in population growth. !Huzzad! Right? Not so much.

Like in deer populations depleting their forage and crashing, the resources we require may have enough "banked" so to speak, to keep supporting continued growth for several generations after their maximum sustainable limit for harvesting is exceeded. In the deer example, there is enough browse, even though the consumption has exceeded production, to sustain populations for a while. If this is the case and our carrying capacity is actually lower than 9 billion (which it could be. See the temporary boost the green revolution gave us) we are headed for a population collapse and the drops we see in birth rates reflect this. In western countries, this means a drop in birth rates. In the third world this will mean a simultaneous increase in birth rates and mortality rates. This is because life expectancy will become short, infant mortality goes up. This means that moms have more kids (in case some die, a few get through and reproduce) and has kids earlier.

There may also be an age structure issue. Humans have long life spans. Longer than a single generation time. This means that populations will not actually start to drop through a demographic shift until three generations or so after birth rates drop below replacement. Models used by governments to project population growth do not take into account the age structure of the population, because they assume it is constant. It makes the math easier, but it leads to inaccurate results in their models. Nature can of course bite us in the ass. Why? Because mortality rates can skyrocket to compensate.

Again, not the end of the world... but a lot of people are going to starve to death, and in order to avoid this we will rape the environment trying to increase food production which will temporarily stave off the problem... for a few decades.

We live in an era:

1) where the population is rising

2) our civilization and especially our agriculture is heavily petroleum dependent

3) Climatic shift and resource depletion is degrading the world's ability to feed itself

4) Oil production is in decline

5) Most governments solution to these problems is either half measures or pretending they don't exist

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's going to suck for a lot of people a few decades down the line.

Hadri, if your worry is that serious problems will be tarred as nothing more than "THE END IS NIGH" hysteria, then it might be advantageous if such arguments were not constantly infected with "THE END IS NIGH" hysteria.

Take another look at the two arguments that CT and Cyncat have been so kind as to present to us (I am not, of course, claiming that these two fine denizens are doomsayers, merely that the arguments they have made are those of doomsayers. We all dabble in doomsaying from time to time): They state, for a multitude of reasons, that it is categorical fact that the world is going to collapse within a number of decades due to peak oil and food production and environmental collapse and climactic shift, and (my personal favorite) the old standby of "People other than me are ignorant".

My immediate reaction is to laugh at them. Not because my information and facts are superior to theirs. Not because I have reams of science data to back up my counter-assertions, but because I am presented with two options. I can accept that the world is at an end, or I can laugh at them. Resolving the issue is not even a consideration.

You see, for all the detail that Doomsayers provide us with, there is not one hint of how things could be fixed. There was not even a hint of how things could have been different in the first place. This is pre-destination. It is like a man standing up in the middle of a movie and proclaiming that he knows absolutely what the end of the movie is going to be, and presenting his arguments. Whether he is right or wrong, the movie exists in a whole form already, and there is but a single outcome to it, which he is declaring that he knows. The possibility that the ending of the movie could change is impossible, and thus not even considered.

The man may well be correct. Many movies are formulaic after all, and can be predicted through ineffable logic, but in treating the future like a pre-destined movie, the problem of reason asserts itself. If the future is to be black darkness, and you are aware of it, and there is no resolution to the problem, then what is the use in even discussing it? I ask this because it is discussed, at length, constantly. It was discussed yesterday. It will be discussed tomorrow. It was discussed on November 13th, 1973. It is discussed at endless length, predictions of a future that is portrayed as not merely absolute but pre-destined.

If the future is set, dark or light, and nothing can be done to change it, then why do we spend so much time trying to convince everyone else that we are right about the horrid end that we are to come to?

Moral superiority.

In one respect or another, every single doomsaying claim comes down to a claim not of predictive capacity, but of moral superiority on the part of the speaker to the part of the audience by veiled allegory through "perpetrators". It is the same message as that of the Papal Encyclicals from the 12th century. I, being enlightened, can see dark disaster awaiting us, which I shall illuminate to you, as you are not enlightened. But the key focus is not on enlightenment, it is on the chain of logic that leads inexorably from the present to the dark disaster of the future. Whether buttressed by nothing more than righteous indignation, or by legions of statistics and data, the purpose is the same not to educate, not to preserve or effect change, but merely to assert superiority. "You have already doomed the world by your moral failings which I, being superior and enlightened, do not share, and am therefore not culpable in. I now demand you acknowledge this."

'But wait,' you cry, 'what nonsense is this? Do not most doomsayers seek only to wake the world up to the terrible threats that loom on the horizon, so that they may be avoided and appropriate measures taken in time?' In a word? No. Refer once more to the pre-destination mentality here. To speak of the doom of the world is to deny the very possibility that there can be any outcome besides the one set. This is not a mere point of sophist doctrinaire. In order to espouse the world-view of a doomsayer, it is intrinsically necessary that there be no hope of redemption, no escape clause, no change possible. The movie of history cannot have multiple endings. Even if there was, at some point, the possibility of change, then it is necessary for the intellectual purposes of illustrating one's moral superiority that that point be located in the distant (and thus fixed) past, and long past the point of no return. The message is always that the world will end because of some sins committed at some point, for which the world in general and the listeners by implication (but never the speaker, who is enlightened) are to blame. The entire point of the exercise is to "prove" this moral culpability, and implicitly expiate that of the speaker, not to proffer solution.

This is the reason that so many doomsaying arguments rely upon refuting, in minute and systematic detail, every counter-suggestion that indicates an alternate outcome. Every hint of hope must be squashed, must be refuted, must be trampled into nothing by as many facts and statistics as possible, because to permit it to exist refutes the entire point of the exercise. The new technology WILL fail. The governments ARE too stupid or inert. The corporations ARE pure evil. The public IS apathetic and sheeplike. The problem IS too vast. God WILL smite the world. The solutions ARE inadequate, etc etc... This is not education or a wake-up call to the world. This is scientific Calvinism.

I've railed against this very issue before, in denouncing environmentalists who resort to Doomsaying and moral superiority when they should be arguing full-throatedly in favor of solutions. These people become doomsayers when the desire to be seen as virtuous, morally superior, and above all right exceeds the desire to see the problems fixed. This is why the entire purpose of describing in demanding detail the dark disaster that we drive definitively in the direction of (yes, I suck), is always and exclusively that of moral superiority. Do not bother me with false claims of "Oh well, I had a hand in this too, as another denizen of the world" or "Well I am only hoping I am wrong". Both of these claims are bullshit. To claim that you, as a sinner/modern person/polluter also had a hand in the end of the world is to set yourself merely on the same level as the rest of humanity, from which position you instantly claim superiority once more by implying that you alone have become enlightened and see the true reason for our collective damnation. We're all going to hell, but you at least know why, and that makes you better than me. As to "hoping I'm wrong", the very virulence with which doomsayers destroy all possibility of hope rather belies this claim. To doomsay is to negate not merely hope, but the very possibility of hope. Thus, what you are saying amounts to "I wish that I were not endowed with godlike prescience and awesome intellect, but alas, I am. Woe is me." You take on the role of Cassandra, and will violently reject any possibility that you are not so, because to be wrong, is to you worse than to be saved through the efforts of others.

I am, of course, being grossly unfair whenever I rail against environmentalist doomsayers. Not all environmentalists are doomsayers. Most environmentalists, in fact, are not doomsayers. To be an environmentalist is to believe in the possibility of positive change in the state of the world, and to work towards it. Doomsaying has been around since the dawn of time, after all, and moreover, we all, yours truly of course included, engage in doomsaying from time to time. Sometimes we even are trying to be proven wrong, in the hopes that someone will convince us that things are not as bad as they seem. But the sad fact is that because environmentalism deals in issues of global import and with dramatic, indeed biblical consequences (ice ages, plagues, famines, tumults of the Earth and biosphere), it lends itself well to doomsayers who will employ the most abject of hyperbole (however well researched), to be shown morally superior. And because their claims are, by necessity, more extreme than those of rational environmentalists (even ones who also believe that the end is likely), they are the ones who become the face of the movement. And thus you get the endless succession of predictions concerning the depopulation of Britain by Y2K, the death of the American biosphere by 1980, the yearly (and now repetitive) prediction that Peak Oil (with all the disaster it entails) is coming next year, and so on and so forth. As a result, actual warnings of impending disaster, and urgently-needed action are buried under a host of Calvinist pre-destined apocalyptic rantings, buttressed by so-called "solutions" that are intentionally designed to be absurd, so that their suggesters can then turn around and claim that they alone saw the key. Nobody legitimately suggests the abnegation of democracy on a global scale, culling 50% of the population, or an immediate and mandatory return to a pre-industrial state with any hope of these things being implemented. They suggest these things knowing (on some level) that they are absurd, so that they can then claim confident superiority in having proposed "solutions", and been rejected.

As you said Hadri, there exist real threats to some or even all of the people who live in the world, some of which are indeed existential (a rock the size of Mars smashing into the planet, for instance). There are also actions and solutions that can be taken, at least in theory, to mitigate some or all of these things. But doomsaying is about the vocal minority who claim that the Mars-sized rock is not merely a threat, but already here, about to strike the planet. It is about the fact that there is nothing whatsoever that can be done about it (a fact to which they will go to any lengths to prove), and most importantly of all, the fact that it is here in the first place is due to your moral failings. You took money away from the space program. You used resources that could have been diverted to an Anti-asteroid laser. You sinned and caused God to be angry with the world. You have doomed us all, and therefore, I am better than you.

And until the legitimate environmentalists purge this tendency from their ranks, or at least mitigate the tendency for such people to become the spokesmen of the movement, their legitimate concerns, solutions, suggestions, and warnings will be buried beneath this sort of crap, laughed at, and promptly ignored.

And that's bad for all concerned.

Nice strawman there Havoc. I never said the world is going to collapse. I said the current trends indicate that its going to suck for a lot of people. Please address the argument I actually made.

Second, the fact that I didn't present a solution in no way invalidates my points.

We're the lucky ones. The world isn't going to end, but it is going to get harder for a lot of people. We live in the richest, most powerful countries in the world, ones which will make it their business to shield their citizens and their interests from the worst of what is to come.

As for your amazingly telepathic abilities to discern our motives for doomsaying, go look in the mirror. The outcome isn't inevitable or magic or unsupported by facts. I don't see you refuting the fact that desertification is increasing in China or that the major Saudi oil wells have sunsetted or that modern agriculture is oil dependent.

I'm not saying anything's inevitable, but the damage has been done, continues to be done, and the solutions continue to be half measures. Oil doesn't come out of the ground through prayer and magic. We're consuming it at a far greater rate than we're finding new sources. Chemical methods of synthesizing new oil are based on coal conversion, which is quite inefficient and we're already using to fuel our power grids.

You want a solution? Nukes, as many as possible as fast as possible. It's not a magic bullet, but nuclear power is sure as hell as step in the right direction.

And as usual, rather than reading what I actually said, Cyncat reads four lines, harps on strawmen and hypocrisy, and ignores whatever point I was making, blissfully ignorant of the three or four points where I stated outright that I was speaking of doomsayers in general, and that I did not believe he was one, merely that his argument was one.

This is a conversation about the phenomenon of doom predictions, which I have addressed. I suggest that if you find the subject under discussion inconvenient, you seek discussion elsewhere.

Take another look at the two arguments that CT and Cyncat have been so kind as to present to us (I am not, of course, claiming that these two fine denizens are doomsayers, merely that the arguments they have made are those of doomsayers. We all dabble in doomsaying from time to time):

Used, but not understood by Doomsayers. However because you are using my arguments to go on a massive strawmanning ad-homimemizing (is that even a verb? It is now) tirade for which I am more than within my rights to use the mod hammer, I will response as if that claim is exactly what you made.

They state, for a multitude of reasons, that it is categorical fact that the world is going to collapse within a number of decades due to peak oil and food production and environmental collapse and climactic shift, and (my personal favorite) the old standby of "People other than me are ignorant".

Well, first off, most people other than me are ignorant of population demographics. I also specifically stated that the world will not end, only that a lot of brown people are going to starve to death and that economic problems will result.

I can accept that the world is at an end, or I can laugh at them. Resolving the issue is not even a consideration.

Oh, there is a solution. Draconian population control and a top-down reform of agricultural practices: Removal of genetic modification of food from extortionists like Monsanto, wholesale replacement of current crops with GM crops, widespread use of hydroponics and greenhouses to lengthen growing seasons combined with desalinization of seawater, massive reduction in meat consumption, and a shift to foodstuffs that can be grown in massive industrial vats like Quorn and Algae.

The question is, will these things happen sufficiently prior to a food production collapse, or as a response to one?

There was not even a hint of how things could have been different in the first place.

You did not read then. I should not have had to explicitly state that. Our predicament is a consequence of the Green Revolution and the agricultural practices that sprang from it. It could have been different if Norman Borlaug had choked on a pretzel when he was six. This already would have happened to a lesser extent before the the green revolution. However, as Norman said himself, he gave us a reprieve. Even if the solutions from the green revolution would not spring back on themselves we would still be faced with the same food supply problem at a later date... just with a bigger population. This is a problem that happens with every single organism on the planet that finds itself in a degraded habitat. Now, it is us. No different from deer or some species of lizard.

If the future is set, dark or light, and nothing can be done to change it, then why do we spend so much time trying to convince everyone else that we are right about the horrid end that we are to come to?

Moral superiority.

You have to convince someone that something bad is going to occur before they will accept what is necessary in terms of solutions. I have put forth solutions. Solutions that will be expensive and frankly, will trample on people's perceived right to reproduce at whim, and interfere with the property rights of certain large corporations. Do you think any of this will be palatable to people unless they are convinced that a lot of brown people will starve to death and that their quality of life will be drastically curtailed?

No.

More than likely these things will occur after a population crunch has already started.

Whether buttressed by nothing more than righteous indignation, or by legions of statistics and data, the purpose is the same not to educate, not to preserve or effect change, but merely to assert superiority.

Oh give it a rest. You are not a telepath, you do not get to make claims as to my motives.

On the time scales we have to operate on, if we act now, we may be able to stave off the worst of what is to come. Everything I have seen however tells me that short term economic and political interests will outweigh long term interests because that is how our system is set up. As a result, I do not foresee the necessary changes taking place at a rate fast enough to matter.

The solutions ARE inadequate, etc etc... This is not education or a wake-up call to the world. This is scientific Calvinism.

Then offer a solution. I have. The problem is, people wont do it until it is too late. It is not predestination in any form. It is a realistic appraisal of how people behave. How exactly will you convince people that there needs to be a cap and trade on children that is well below replacement and that it needs to happen yesterday? How will you take control of agriculture away from agribusiness when they own or at least rent the politicians and regulators who oversee them? Same thing with Oil.

I've railed against this very issue before, in denouncing environmentalists who resort to Doomsaying and moral superiority when they should be arguing full-throatedly in favor of solutions.

We do. It just does us no good. Where is that progress in getting mandatory gas mileage increased in cars? We have been trying that for a while. It is taking an oil spill that makes the Exxon-Valdez disaster look like a vial of spilled ink to get meaningful regulation of the oil industry and who knows how long that will last (I do. The next republican administration and/or republican control of congress). Hell, we cannot even get regulation of what pesticides are allowed to be used in watersheds, to the point that chemicals which cause birth defects in humans and lead to the mass transgenderification of frogs are allowed in our drinking water at levels 30 times higher than what it takes to do just that. Why? Because Agribusiness owns the EPA.

Learn about what you speak.

from which position you instantly claim superiority once more by implying that you alone have become enlightened and see the true reason for our collective damnation.

Not just me. Most ecologists actually. You know, the people who are in a position to have a god damn clue what we are doing to this planet and its ability to sustain us.

But the sad fact is that because environmentalism deals in issues of global import and with dramatic, indeed biblical consequences (ice ages, plagues, famines, tumults of the Earth and biosphere), it lends itself well to doomsayers who will employ the most abject of hyperbole (however well researched), to be shown morally superior.

If they are factually correct, it does not matter if they feel morally superior about it or not. Their affect has no bearing on the truth value of a claim.

prediction that Peak Oil (with all the disaster it entails) is coming next year

The claim I will admit is too specific. Peak oil is a mathematical inevitability (unless you believe oil produces itself by magic). When it occurs is another matter and we may not notice for a while when it comes.

, buttressed by so-called "solutions" that are intentionally designed to be absurd, so that their suggesters can then turn around and claim that they alone saw the key

Or that the solution is in fact extreme because the problem is extreme. Can you suggest something other than draconian population control to mitigate what will be a rather nasty population collapse?

Nobody legitimately suggests the abnegation of democracy on a global scale, culling 50% of the population

Frankly, different types of government work well for different things. Democracies work well (and by democracy I of course mean republics or parliamentary systems) well the day to day running of a country-provided you can keep the legislators honest. It does not work so well for solving problems that the average 'murrican cannot foresee and will reject being extant for ideological reasons.

Also: You dont have to cull 50% of the population. You just have to keep new people from being born.

There are also actions and solutions that can be taken, at least in theory, to mitigate some or all of these things.

You are committing one massive logical fallacy. An appeal to motive, which is a subset of ad hominem. If you do not stop and make valid arguments I will be forced to use my Mod Hammer.

Not anything we could to with a sufficiently large asteroid actually.

You took money away from the space program. You used resources that could have been diverted to an Anti-asteroid laser

In the case of a giant asteroid... no. Nothing could be done at any point in time. If we discover something the size of Japan coming out of the kuiper belt or something heading on our direction the only thing we can do is put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.

General Havoc wrote:And as usual, rather than reading what I actually said, Cyncat reads four lines, harps on strawmen and hypocrisy, and ignores whatever point I was making, blissfully ignorant of the three or four points where I stated outright that I was speaking of doomsayers in general, and that I did not believe he was one, merely that his argument was one.

This is a conversation about the phenomenon of doom predictions, which I have addressed. I suggest that if you find the subject under discussion inconvenient, you seek discussion elsewhere.

I read what you said. You reject the argument not based on science or facts or evidence, but because you dislike doomsaying in general. You certainly present nothing other to support your position other than a dislike of smug assholes, which some doomsayers are. Everyone dislikes smug assholes and there are many different kinds of smug assholes (Including myself, on occasion). Your argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion.

As for the article that started this little bruhaha, it addresses none of the major environmental and resource related problems of the future and simply states "progress will save us" like a mantra.

I see that I have made my argument with insufficient care, in that everyone has gotten the impression that I believe them to be smug assholes motivated solely out of moral superiority. That was not the claim I was attempting to make, though it appears to be the one which everyone has taken. This is my own fault for being insufficiently clear.

I was not claiming that either CT or Cyncat believes as they do because they are smug assholes who wish to claim moral superiority. I was claiming that those who insist upon the doom of the world regardless of all possibilities, be they monks from the 12th century or yuppies from the 20th, are in fact smug assholes who wish to claim moral superiority. I was further claiming that the arguments that CT and Cyncat made resembled such, in that they were collections of stated declarations in contextual vacuum, that contained no purpose given. To state that "things are bad" or "things are going to be bad" without context, is to say nothing, and those who do so tend to have the motivation of moralization and smugness (I am open to other interpretations).

But it was not my intention to claim either that any of the specific points as made concerning environmental problems were factually untrue, nor is it my claim that the implications and descriptions CT has made are factually untrue. My claim was that presentation of "bad things" as context-free facts removes all point to their discussion, and that those who present such things intentionally, and stamp out all possibility of change or doubt, tend to have ulterior motives. And the reason I brought that up is that the modern discussion of environmental issues is absolutely infested with such behavior, which in turn causes reasonable warnings, arguments, and impassioned advocacy of change to be ignored, as it is lost within a sea of "Reap your just reward, ecological sinners!"

Both CT and Cyncat have now contextualized their statements. Solutions are not what is required, all that is required is a point, a conclusion, a goal to drive towards and frame the argument of. Without such contextualization, it is all just empty air.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:In the case of a giant asteroid... no. Nothing could be done at any point in time. If we discover something the size of Japan coming out of the kuiper belt or something heading on our direction the only thing we can do is put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.

It was me who brought up the big rock thing, and the point was exactly that if we see the rock coming it's already too late. But we can imagine that the it will come, and take precautions before it does. It would be grand if we had self-sustaining industrial and agricultural capability based in the asteroid belt and even the moons of Jupiter. If it's enough to keep alive a population of a few thousand people, then the only way to get us all would be to fry a good chunk of the Solar System.

Though I do point out that it could have been possible for self-sustaining space colonies to exist in our present. Chemical rockets are good enough to get into the upper atmosphere, and atomic pulse rockets could have gotten us the rest of the way. But since it didn't happen, the only thing that can be done at this point in time is to try and keep our shit together and hope nothing comes tumbling out of the darkness. In a few decades we can reach for the stars again.

Hadrianvs wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:In the case of a giant asteroid... no. Nothing could be done at any point in time. If we discover something the size of Japan coming out of the kuiper belt or something heading on our direction the only thing we can do is put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.

It was me who brought up the big rock thing, and the point was exactly that if we see the rock coming it's already too late. But we can imagine that the it will come, and take precautions before it does. It would be grand if we had self-sustaining industrial and agricultural capability based in the asteroid belt and even the moons of Jupiter. If it's enough to keep alive a population of a few thousand people, then the only way to get us all would be to fry a good chunk of the Solar System.

Though I do point out that it could have been possible for self-sustaining space colonies to exist in our present. Chemical rockets are good enough to get into the upper atmosphere, and atomic pulse rockets could have gotten us the rest of the way. But since it didn't happen, the only thing that can be done at this point in time is to try and keep our shit together and hope nothing comes tumbling out of the darkness. In a few decades we can reach for the stars again.

Well, there are things that can fry our solar system. A gamma ray burst. In fact as I recall we can see a star that, some time ago, was about to die and send one in our general direction. Whether that has happened or not and we are just waiting for the light to arrive and cook us is another matter entirely.

Well yes, having permanent settlements across the solar system is hardly a guarantee of survival. However sufficiently energetic events to fry our corner of space are considerably rarer than mass extinction events on Earth. So in terms of statistical chances of survival, it's far more important for humanity to spread beyond Earth than it is for humanity to spread beyond the Solar System.

If there's a gamma ray burst on the way, I don't think moving to nearby stars is going to be enough to save our skins anyway. We'd have to burrow deep into some planet, moon or asteroid to build a self-sufficient colony there.


On the main topic:
The main problem I have with many Doomsayers (apart from the issues raised by General Havoc) is that sometimes they appear anti-progressive, or at least their suggestions can lead to policies that are anti-progressive in practice.

If we assume that the worst will result from our given social, economic or technological models and turn away from one or more of them because of it, we are eliminating the benefits those models can bring. This action is itself a potential disaster, especially if the doom and gloom predictions are exaggerated. Over-estimation of risk can be just as bad as under-estimation.

The Minx wrote:
On the main topic:
The main problem I have with many Doomsayers (apart from the issues raised by General Havoc) is that sometimes they appear anti-progressive, or at least their suggestions can lead to policies that are anti-progressive in practice.

If we assume that the worst will result from our given social, economic or technological models and turn away from one or more of them because of it, we are eliminating the benefits those models can bring. This action is itself a potential disaster, especially if the doom and gloom predictions are exaggerated. Over-estimation of risk can be just as bad as under-estimation.

This isn't an issue with doomsaying, this is an issue with the underlying ideology of ideologically orientated doomsayers. Armaggedonists proclaiming X is the result of God's displeasure or environmentalists thinking nuclear is bad and solar and wind will magically power our entire industrial society. It's just as stupid as ignoring mounting evidence of environmental damage and the serious implications that said damage has because the people who are talking about it are "dirty hippies."

Cynical Cat wrote:This isn't an issue with doomsaying, this is an issue with the underlying ideology of ideologically orientated doomsayers. Armaggedonists proclaiming X is the result of God's displeasure or environmentalists thinking nuclear is bad and solar and wind will magically power our entire industrial society.

Yup, hence the qualifier "many", not "all". It all depends on how and why you do it.

Cynical Cat wrote:It's just as stupid as ignoring mounting evidence of environmental damage and the serious implications that said damage has because the people who are talking about it are "dirty hippies."

As I said, over-estimation of risk can be just as bad as under-estimation, obviously that works both ways.

You're right about people often being dismissive of predictions simply due to who is making them. Unfortunately, these kinds of debates often become politically polarized and doctrinaire, with automatic dismissal on one side and cynical fatalism on the other, when often the evidence for the prediction and the implications of both action and inaction are more nuanced.

Both are bad, the former because obviously ignoring real problems is unwise, the latter for reasons I already mentioned and because people may become jaded to predictions of real threat.

This isn't an issue with doomsaying, this is an issue with the underlying ideology of ideologically orientated doomsayers. Armaggedonists proclaiming X is the result of God's displeasure or environmentalists thinking nuclear is bad and solar and wind will magically power our entire industrial society. It's just as stupid as ignoring mounting evidence of environmental damage and the serious implications that said damage has because the people who are talking about it are "dirty hippies."

Exactly. We are confronted with a large problem with our dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is good, but a temporary solution. We only have enough easily extractable uranium for half a century or so if we use it to power everything. What we need is a hybrid approach. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal, Wave, Tidal. Wave power is really cool actually. You know those flashlights that charge a battery via shaking? Yeah, it is like that, but huge.

We can recycle (in principle anyway) a lot of the nutrients that runoff into watersheds from farms by catching the runoff in artificial wetlands and using those to intercrop (produce rice and a meat crop like tilapia, crayfish, or duck all at the same time. If duck or tilapia is used they even work as natural pest-killers). What we dont use from the rice (the stalks) can then be composted and used to replenish topsoil.

It is a bit more expensive, but it is doable. If you dont want to use pesticides, provide habitat for organisms that eat agricultural pests. If not for the pesticides, a corn field with accompanying nutrient-runoff ponds with rice and ducks actually serves as damn good habitat for frogs. It is the pesticides we use that rape them sideways with a chainsaw. They along with metric shit tons of wolf spiders are fairly effective insect control. Yes, spiders are up to the task. If you dont kill them with pesticides wolf spiders exist in density of epic proportions. If you must use pesticides, use ones that are target specific. BT is a good one, as are GE crops that produce the insect hormone ecdysone. These do not act as endocrine disruptors in vertebrates.

It's really only 50 years of extractable uranium remaining? I had heard far higher estimates.

Also, what about thorium?

The Minx wrote:It's really only 50 years of extractable uranium remaining? I had heard far higher estimates.

Also, what about thorium?

Not sure on Thorium, but higher estimates use what exists on earth, not what we can extract.

There are also breeder reactors. Normal reactors only use about 1% of the uranium that starts the cycle, but since breeders convert the U-238 into plutonium-239, they are many, many times more fuel efficient than regular ones. Perhaps the statistic I heard was for them. Too bad that there are proliferation issues with breeders. :/


Apparently there is about four to five times as much Thorium-232 as there is Uranium, counting all isotopes of Uranium together, and though it is not fissile, it is fertile (i.e., it can be converted into fissile material). Wiki Link. The wiki also claims that the methods used in thorium enrichment are much more proliferation resistant which is a plus. Presumably then, there's actually enough nuclear fuel to last a long time if we go about it properly, and assuming we can iron out the challenges facing Thorium use (Link).