Experts Fear Collapse of Global Civilisation

[Hissyspit]

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/experts-fear-collapse-of-global-civilisation

Experts Fear Collapse of Global Civilisation

Published on January 11th, 2013
Written by: Stephen Leahy

UXBRIDGE, Canada, Jan 11 2013 (IPS) – Experts on the health of our planet are terrified of the future. They can clearly see the coming collapse of global civilisation from an array of interconnected environmental problems.

“We’re all scared,” said Paul Ehrlich, president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University. “But we must tell the truth about what’s happening and challenge people to do something to prevent it,” Ehrlich told IPS.

Global collapse of human civilisation seems likely, write Ehrlich and his partner Anne Ehrlich in the prestigious science journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society.

This collapse will take the form of a “…gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource shortages cause a disintegration of central control within nations, in concert with disruptions of trade and conflicts over increasingly scarce necessities”, they write.

- snip -

Escalating climate disruption, ocean acidification, oceanic dead zones, depletion of groundwater and extinctions of plants and animals are the main drivers of the coming collapse, they write in their peer-reviewed article “Can a collapse of global civilisation be avoided?” published this week.

- snip -

“We talked to many of the world’s leading experts to reflect what is really happening,” said Ehrlich, who is an eminent biologist and winner of many scientific awards.

- snip -

“To continue with ‘business as usual’ is an act of suicide on a gargantuan scale,” Prince Charles concluded.

MORE[p]

[OldDem2012]

1. Too many people and too few resources...and that gap is increasing rapidly. nt.

[KittyWampus]

216. It's not the amount of resources. It's the distribution.

[AverageJoe90]

223. I partly agree, but.....

I do think there's some resource availability issues in general as well.....like, for example, water resources in the Mideast, or in much of Africa.

[OldDem2012]

241. Yes, it is. It's just basic math...

....the world population in 1960 was 3 billion, it is now over 7 billion and growing. On the other side of the equation, world non-renewable resources are being used at ever-increasing rates, and basic renewable resources are not keeping pace with the growing population.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. This is where we learn, through our actions or inactions, whether the species is worthy of being

on the Earth. And "civilization" in its current form, must die. And be replaced by sustainable communities living in harmony with the Earth, not as parasites upon her.

[DonCoquixote]

28. define sustainable

The caveman days may have been sustainable, but they were not very sustainable for women without birth control,abortion, or for anyone without dentistry or Medicine.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. I'll leave that to those who will either live or die through its initiation or failure.

This is serious. This is neither rhetoric nor sophistry.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

80. Humans have always been parasites upon the planet.

The current problem is due to progress...from the steam engine to modern medicine. Too many people, vying for too few resources with little to no thought to conserving those resources, yet alone replacing them.

[RKP5637]

82. +1, n/t

[DonCoquixote]

138. yes,and

while you may not mean any evil by it, it is also an invitation to genocide and atrocity of the worst order. Many have tried to go back to some vision of a primitive time, like when Pol Pot dragged everyone to the countryside and killed anyone who had glasses. The result was something that did not make for a healthy lifestyle.

It is very easy to listen to a Derrick Jannsen or others preach that "civilization is the problem" and that we could go back to some imagined idea of what the First Peoples lived.

And I do not mean to even talk about computers or electricity..

How many of you are reading this with glasses?
How many have had your wisdom teeth out?
How many of you had, or know someone, who has had a "c"section,
or a cataract removed?
Or a vaccine for Polio?

Furthermore, when you talk of using (actually taking) First nations spirituality, you also have to ask yourself,
aren't we going back to RELIGION?
Do we need to believe in the air being thick with spirits to know that we should not poison our water?
Or to raise our children right?
Do we need what Carl Sagan called "The Demon haunted world?" because sorry to say, even sophisticated spirituality like the First nations world is JUST THAT, despite it being much better than the pig God of Abraham and it's spawn.

My point is this,we do need to imagine a different age,a less greedy age, a more mature age,one that allows for cooperation and heroism. But if we try to go to some simpler time and run from our own intelligence, we will only wind up making a LOT of the mistakes that we have already paid too high a price to learn, and no, we will not be safer, or better fed, or any more at peace.

[NoOneMan]

143. Who cares?

A future of medical hardships and spiritual fairy tales may be preferable to a bitter future of famine and ecological ruin. And hell, you don't have to go to your shitty day job.

Its interesting when people criticize the past (which paleopathology reveals to not be all that miserable) in contrasts to the void of a future we currently face. If thats what it takes, fuck it, sounds good enough to me. My children dying vs my children believing in bullshit to be in harmony with nature. Seems like a no-brainer.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

151. part of the reason those " simpler times" were easier on the planet is because we died younger.

We're a fecund species and without checks on our numbers, we're going ahead and proving what those experiments with rat overpopulation back in the sixties (or was it the seventies? Fifties?) showed us.

[antigone382]

154. It has more to do with resource use in the West than with population explosion in the rest.

I don't mean to deny that overpopulation is a problem--but it is not the one that is going to push us over the brink. The resource consumption and waste production of the very few at the very top is what will accomplish that. I read a statistic recently that something like 2% of the Earth's population has exclusive access to 50% of its resources. It is not a poor African mother with eleven children who is going to be the tipping point. It is a happy American family with two kids, four cars, and a TV in every room. The amount of resources that we use and waste in this relatively population-stable society is ASTOUNDING, DISGUSTING, and ultimately DOOMED.

[NoOneMan]

155. Population is only a concern...

to those who are afraid of billions of others will start living like them and taking their resources.

You could pretty much end climate change by eliminating 1 billion people from the right parts of the world (Europa and North America). You take 1 billion from Africa and global emissions drop 4%.

Yes, we have a consumption problem, not an over population problem.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

157. no sorry if I was a little unclear. didn't mean that it's the fault of subsistence populations

....but as per an ecology class I was involved in, third world survival needs also impact the environment.

But as you say, the main destruction is coming from expanding needs of developed--and developing--nations.

And again, reduction in population here and on all fronts, would allow for a better balance.

Well, our numbers are gonna get reduced, one way or another. Looks like we've allowed it to go the painful way.

[antigone382]

159. Yes, you're right, and I don't mean to dismiss your point.

Desertification and biodiversity loss can certainly where people are just trying to survive. It is just that I often see people on DU and elsewhere reduce the entire problem to overpopulation, a problem which happens to be mostly associated with the relatively powerless, and ignore the incredible environmental destruction wrought by the profligacy of the developed. Birthrates decrease with better access to education, medical care, and a decent standard of living (particularly for women), and those are things that we in the developed world need to prioritize; at the same time, we can't keep living, and more importantly, modeling to the developing world, a lifestyle that is utterly crippling to the planet.

In any case, it seems like I'm preaching to the choir here

I hold out hope that our numbers and our consumption levels will be reduced in the less painful, more enlightened way...although I realize that this is a less and less likely hope.

[NoOneMan]

158. Surplus accumulation leads to exponential growth

Early agriculturalists actually had higher mortality rates than the foragers of the times; it isn't until fairly recently in human history have agriculturalists gained an edge (and a major one at that if you look at 1st world nations only). I would take a quick guess that the difference in the population growth between these two ways of life has more to do with birth rates than death rates (like agriculturalists that have 12 children, fed with surplus grains)

[DonCoquixote]

175. True

But that is nothing that cannot be fixed without some birth control, the sort of thing hunter gathers types do NOT have...If we did not have religion denying those measures, our population would probably drop like a stone through quicksand.

[truebluegreen]

59. I'd define sustainable, for starters,

as something that applies to society, or civilization, as a whole.

But I would require a moral element, in that it would need to be beneficial to all within it, equally.

[Fire Walk With Me]

81. Exactly. First Nations consider water to be life, children to be sacred. These are good ideas

and there is much we need to learn from them, and apply. Now.

[truebluegreen]

112. +100

There is much we could learn, and do better.

[NoOneMan]

74. Nature most certainly culled primitive people

Not as much as you think, as they were better nourished and avoided a plethora of common medical issues.

So we made a tradeoff by culling nature, that as we see, is going to lead to massive famine and complete breakdown. In retrospect, was it worth it for all humans (ALL, not just Americans)?

Not only have we failed to really improve the aggregate human condition of all humans, but we are now facing a calamity. Being sustainable and susceptible to nature doesn't sound so awful in contrasts to where we stand today.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

152. Huge maternal and infant mortality rate without OBs and C-sections.

Still goes on in many parts of the world.
Aseptic technique and good anesthesia were the biggies in the progress of medicine.

[DonCoquixote]

160. Of course

and while I do respect the Medicinal traditions of the First nations (as I sip my Chamomile for a cold), just trashing modern medicine is foolish, and that is exactly what many of the "civilization must go" types want.

[NoOneMan]

163. Lets trash modern diets, stresses and environmental toxins

Any idea how to do that with a stressful, toxic civilization that overfeeds us with staple grains?

[DonCoquixote]

167. stresses?

Stress is when people die young from diseases any b grade surgeon can cures,
or when people cannot see because Glasses have not been invented yet.

Stress is when your wisdom teeth cannot come out because no shaman known how to do oral surgery
or when your arm is broken and cannot be fixed,

But how about you answer how to de stress without adding on the new stress that would come with going back to hunter gathering days?

By the way, if you have glasses, or have had dentistry, or have had surgery, do accept the fact you would not survive in the very society you espouse, and for that matter, even if you accept that, several million have a right to disagree about joining you.

[NoOneMan]

171. Stress is working 40-60 hours/week for a seat in the good house that exploits the rest of the world

Or starving on less than a dollar a day everywhere else.

Sure, while gatherers suffered far less ailments than we do today (according to the cold, hard science), they still died and suffered. I find that a preferable fate to billions starving from climate change. Hell, I find that preferable to 25 thousand starving a day at the apex of agrarian civilization.

But I guess we all have different preferences. The majority prefer climate change and mass famine. You will get your wish.

BTW, you do get that, don't you? All these wonderful things you tout are out of the reach of everyone except the world's elite. Billions in poverty, without access to fresh water, nutritious food, medical care, etc, whose labor is exploited to create surplus that fuels your lifestyle? I reword what I said...the majority probably do not prefer this. The majority of the vampire capitalists who benefit do.

[NoOneMan]

162. Interestingly enough, foraging humans didn't experience high perinatal and infant mortality rates

Yet their agriculturalist counterparts experienced rates as high as 30% during the same periods of time (compare to 0% to 6.5% combined perinatal and infant mortality rates in foragers at the same time periods).

The importance of stature for birth complications was
well recognized by early 20th century obstetricians, who
noted high rates of perinatal mortality in the main urban
centers of 19th century industrialization (Baird, 1949; Illsley, 1966).
Illsley identified strong north-south gradients in
both perinatal mortality, and in maternal height. Within
each geographical region, and within social classes, perinatal mortality
and maternal height remained correlated. A
large proportion of this association (e.g. 1,058 of 1,282 caesarean
sections performed in 1911) could be attributed to
rickets, which involved significant flattening of the pelvis in
response to nutritional deficiencies during early maternal
development (Dick, 1922).


Amongst the forager populations, all have low
frequencies of perinatal and infant skeletons, ranging from 0 to
6.5% of the skeletal assemblage, and combined perinatal
and infant mortality does not exceed 6.5%. In contrast,
perinatal and infant mortality among the three agricultural
groups ranges from 31.3% (Arikara) to 35.5% (Teotihuacan).
High levels of infant mortality amongst agricultural
populations are not unexpected, and may be
related to higher levels of infectious disease. The proportions
of perinatal skeletons in the Teotihuacan (31.3%)
and Dakhleh Oasis (18.2%, minimal estimate, based on
estimates provided in the text of the article) are of particular
interest, in that they might suggest high levels of
obstetric mortality.


With regard to contemporary Homo sapiens, we
suggest that the magnitude of the dilemma is sensitive to
several ecological pressures including the thermal environment,
dietary energy availability and glycemic load,
and infectious disease burden. In turn, we suggest that
these ecological stresses may each have become exacerbated
during the transition to agriculture, acting on both
maternal and fetal phenotype, such that the obstetric dilemma
may have been worse in the last few thousand
years than was the case for Pleistocene Homo.

The obstetric dilemma: An ancient game of Russian roulette, or a variable dilemma sensitive to ecology?, Wells JC, Desilva JM, Stock JT. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2012.

[kardonb]

166. sustainable

I see the " sky is falling " brigade is out in full panic mode again. People, people , people , how many times have we heard the end of the world is near , and exactly nothing happened . There are always problems , and in the end , those get solved . For every scientific theory , there is always an opposite theory . Just do your part to solve problems , and in the words of the old British series " Dad's Army " : don't panic . don't panic .

[NoOneMan]

172. Why is the belief that technology will always save you more rational than that of God saving you?

Science is not a "good" entity with a promise of "salvation" from our problems

[triplepoint]

3. And I Was Just Getting Over the Flu Too!

[HiPointDem]

4. prince fucking charles? he's the 'expert'? please.

[JDPriestly]

11. Yes. He is, and the article is right.

Oceanographic studies confirm that we are in big trouble.

No matter what we do, our current lifestyles will have to change, especially here in the US. In fact, I would say that our current lifestyles will be changed by nature whether we like it or not.

These warnings are based on fact. And Prince Charles has made understanding this a mission.

[HiPointDem]

25. I am sick of the class that uses & directs enormous resources for their own profit posing as

environmentalists.

They're not. In no way, shape or fashion.

Their environmentalism is psyops.

[Hekate]

30. Charles Windsor, if you prefer, is actually well-known as committed to environmental causes

He puts his money (and his farmland) where his mouth is. You could look it up. He's been quite active and is knowledgeable.

[HiPointDem]

32. he makes a profit on his investments, too. funny he would care about such things, what with

the world collapsing and all.

[NickB79]

36. So does every successful renewable energy company

Every successful wind farm, organic farm and solar panel company is successful because IT MAKES A PROFIT.

That's how you keep paying to build and expand the business so that you can try to prevent civilization from collapsing, or at least soften the blow so a few areas can come out the other side reasonably intact.

Or are we supposed to pay for the transition of our economy to renewables and organic foods with handmade bead necklaces and homegrown tomatoes?

[randome]

45. So does Warren Buffet. I'd say he's on 'our' side, though.

[Ilsa]

35. "His" money is for having

the right mommy and daddy. It's not as if he Earned it.

That being said, I still have no problem with him using it this way versus partying.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Do you lump Al Gore in with Sir Charles?

Do you believe that Al Gore, the wealthy privileged environmentalist, is secretly on a psyops mission?

[joshcryer]

131. If you read the "profit from investments" quote, they probably do.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Total right wing garbage.

[AverageJoe90]

121. I don't think HRH Prince Charles is so bad.....

But yes, there is definitely a lot of crazy stuff circulating around.

[JDPriestly]

248. Sorry, but I know someone in the field, and environmentalism is not psyops.

Wait. You will see. The icebergs really are melting. And that water really does have to go somewhere. There really is a cycle of life, an interdependency among living beings and their environment. That means that each creature has its place, and when humans, for example, act irresponsibly and destroy their habitat, destroy the water and air that keeps them alive, they commit suicide. That is what we are doing. We are destroying our own habitat.

Overpopulation is the biggest problem. That will probably lead to brutal wars in the poorest nations as people fight to survive.

Destruction of the seas, of fish, of wildlife, of the forests and water and oceans that keep fish, wildlife of all kinds alive will lead to hunger, an earth that cannot support human life or animal life to the extent that it does today.

Sorry, but environmentalists may make mistakes at times when they try to find solutions to the huge problem we humans are creating, but they are essentially very correct in their pessimism.

We have irresponsibly and cruelly tipped the scale against ourselves.

I have only to look at my own garden to see signs of environmental deterioration.

[joshcryer]

130. If you read the paper Prince Charles is cited only for a quote.

The quote is "an act of suicide on a grand scale." They cite him for that quote. That's it. The rest of the paper is highly substantiative: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

It was just in the intro to use a quote that might be familiar. It'd be like quoting Gore or something.

[joshcryer]

129. Read the fucking article. It's not "Prince Charles."

It doesn't surprise me at all that you're a denialist / minimalist, not in the slightest.

The fucking article mentions "Prince Charles" twice, as a blurb at the end of the article.

The paper is here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

In the paper Prince Charles is cited once, because of the quote, "an act of suicide on a grand scale." That's it. End of fucking story.

God no wonder we're fucked if supposed teachers push this ignorant narrative.

[sibelian]

179. He's been evangelising about environmental issues for decades. nt.

[truebrit71]

202. ^^^ This

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Oh, goody.

Our weekly "W'ere all DOOOOOOOMMMMMEEEED!!!!!" thread. What would DU be without them?

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. I take it you're not too worried about it?

Me? I'm getting old and will likely die before the shit really hits the fan.

I do have a grandson, though.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. More like I can't do anything about it

other than try to be environmentally responsible in my own little speck of the planet. I can't stop it and I'm not going to spend what's left of my life worrying about something over which I have no control.

[randome]

58. You don't have to 'control' something to be helpful, do you?

Help put pressure on the legislators to keep our species alive. We're still a very young species but I think we're worth the effort. We are already seeing the GOP lose their influence. It's a start.

Climate change is one of those things that will accelerate the turning away from Conservatives. When it becomes impossible to ignore, who do you think people will look to for help? Not the GOP.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. I'm an activist.

I'll always be an activist so suggesting I become active is somewhat redundant. My latest focus is GMO labeling and, eventually, it's outright ban.

[randome]

146. Okay. Sorry to have assumed anything, then.

[AgingAmerican]

73. Is it environmentally responsible

to make fun of it as if it's a joke? Will you worry about it when you are stuck in the throes of it?

[CreekDog]

206. It's not just you acting alone but all of us acting collectively

which means that what the government does on behalf of all of us is something that we should all support.

[CreekDog]

210. don't go by them: they have posted that the Clean Air Act doesn't apply to the Bay Area

which is an outright lie, because it does apply.

and no, i'm not kidding, they've posted that on more than one occasion here, blaming the Bay Area for all their pollution problems.

[NoOneMan]

75. "So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Instead of the doom, lets buy more Hummers and rape more of the earth.

[Le Taz Hot]

83. Yes, 'cause that's exactly

what I said.

[NoOneMan]

85. Feel free to elaborate in the next doomer article

Frankly, until we start putting these up on the hour, people will insist on shielding their minds and business as usual. So, it serves a purpose

[CreekDog]

211. you made fun of something you say you take seriously

it wouldn't have started a whole subthread if you hadn't.

[AverageJoe90]

90. Exactly!

The sad truth is, this kind of thing really hasn't been at all helpful, sad to say.

[NoOneMan]

98. In contrast to what?

Last I checked, global emissions are still going up and things are looking pretty bleak. Nothing has been at all helpful. So in the end, what does it matter?

[AverageJoe90]

101. It does matter, thank you very much, because it's part of the reason we're still in this mess,

along with denialism(though denialism is arguably the bigger problem, there is NOBODY who can plausibly outright deny that "doomsday" B.S. has been harmful as well). And there's plenty of examples of wild predictions & fringe craziness being used to tar ANYONE who accepts the reality of global warming, that I've seen over the years(Steve Goddard is particularly notorious for this kind of tomfoolery.). I'd show you a few examples of what I mean, but I'd like some assurance that I won't be taken out of context first.

[NoOneMan]

104. Since nothing is apparently "working", what difference does it make?

Or do you know something that is magically reducing global atmospheric carbon despite what our recording instruments are saying?

Sure, this isn't "working". Nothing is. If we are going to criticize an approach based on what "works", we might as well tell everything to piss off.

[AverageJoe90]

110. You're not getting it. You REALLY aren't.

We wouldn't have had to worry about fringe bullshit being used as ammo against us, if the deniers hadn't been allowed to gain so much influence. Without all that muddying of the waters, we would have made quite a bit more progress.

And, frankly, I'm not the only one who gets it, either.

[NoOneMan]

111. Yeah, you aren't making sense

Its supposed to be part of the problem, and we know the real problem is emissions which perpetually increase (yet this doesn't directly increase emissions).

And, well, the "solutions" is apparently non-existent. You are raging against the rage. I guess we all need something to do.

Frankly, your accusation that an article like this amplifies climate change is foolish woo woo pseudoscience.

[AverageJoe90]

126. Well, I'm sorry if I haven't been able to explain things to your satisfaction.

But guess what? What I've said is the truth, and I'm not the only one who understands it, either.

And, of course, before you say anything else, perhaps I should bring up that old P & S paper again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solving-global-warming-not-easy-but-not-too-hard.html

The question isn't "are there solutions?", but "how many will be implemented and when?".

[NoOneMan]

128. Its a mystic thing, right?

Like, if we focus our positiveness on the cosmic consciousness it will suck up our carbon emissions?

Maybe by "dooming" it up we insult the giant earth god and it shits out more CO2?

[AverageJoe90]

132. Really?

If you were going for humor, it didn't quite work.....

[CreekDog]

213. for someone who claims to believe in the dangers of global climate change, why do you...

spend almost all your time on DU arguing against climate change data, arguing against ways to deal with it, arguing against those who are trying to stop it, arguing against those who are arguing that it's a problem?

i get frustrated because i watched you and another person who is claiming to be a concerned environmentalist derail this thread into arguments about Prince Charles (which isn't really relevant), and you joining in to say that this is all not so bad.

is it really not so bad or is that from your perspective?

what will a world where all the climate zones have shifted grow its food? oh, you have an answer? yes, but where will that world grow it's food when the shift is not all at once, when one year the wheat belt belongs at one latitude, and another year, at another latitude?

where will a world population that hasn't been born yet live when big portions of coastal areas currently home to a big chunk of the world's population are underwater?

doom? does the water have to creep up to your doorstep for the "doomers" as you call them, to be right, or would doom include displacing tens of millions of Bangladeshi's? that seems like a doomsday scenario to me! if not you, then that's your problem.

how bourgeoisie of you.

[AverageJoe90]

222. Enough of the dishonesty already.

spend almost all your time on DU arguing against climate change data,

Even though I haven't actually done this.....

arguing against ways to deal with it,

Even though I've posted solutions a number of times.

arguing against those who are trying to stop it,

Even though I've actually applauded legitimate efforts to do so......

arguing against those who are arguing that it's a problem?

Even though I haven't actually argued against that position, and have actually agreed with it.....

i get frustrated because i watched you and another person who is claiming to be a concerned environmentalist derail this thread into arguments about Prince Charles (which isn't really relevant), and you joining in to say that this is all not so bad.

Where have I said that?

how bourgeoisie of you.

You keep putting words into my mouth.....why? It does you no good.

[RobertEarl]

127. Good old Joe can sure twist it up, eh?

Seems to me what he is saying is that if nobody ever claimed that AWG was gonna cause big problems then we wouldn't have these problems.

IOW, we are in this mess because people messaged we were gonna be in this mess, and maybe, if they had never messaged, there would be no mess.

IOW, the fault lies with the people who didn't lie.

[AverageJoe90]

188. Hey, I'll admit I'm not all that good at explaining myself, compared to some.....

But you still took me WAAAAYYY out of context, bud.

Re-read this statement again:

We wouldn't have had to worry about fringe bullshit being used as ammo against us, if the deniers hadn't been allowed to gain so much influence. Without all that muddying of the waters, we would have made quite a bit more progress.

And, frankly, I'm not the only one who gets it, either.

And try to see if you can figure it out......

[NoOneMan]

192. You said:

"it's part of the reason we're still in this mess"

also read as

"alarmism about climate change part of the reason we have climate change"

Doesn't make sense

[AverageJoe90]

227. Took me out of context again, I see.

Again, what I implied, was, "Doomsday predictions and claims, are indeed part of the problem why not enough progress has been made, mainly due to the fact that it has caused people to stick their heads in the sand, as well as the fact that deniers have tried to use the most extreme claims to try to (falsely!) convince people that climate change is false."

Sorry if I can't do a perfect job of explaining myself. But that's no reason to take advantage of people like that.....

[NoOneMan]

236. Yet you haven't proved it. You wont. You can't.

it has caused people to stick their heads in the sand

Prove it with data. How has alarmism increase denialism. I need statistics. Science. You have baseless claims. Fiction.

When finished, proved that emissions are in any way tied to public belief levels, rather than economic growth. With data. Science. Not fiction.


A huge majority of your posts on DU rests on these baseless premises. Prove them. There is an old saying: Put up or shutup.

[AverageJoe90]

238. .....

it has caused people to stick their heads in the sand

Prove it with data. How has alarmism increase denialism. I need statistics. Science. You have baseless claims. Fiction.

New Note 5

The problem is, I never once actually said, or implied, that doom-mongering(and please, do stop using that term, "alarmist". It's been co-opted by the deniers) increases denialism. What I have said, was that it has hindered people's ability to wake up to the reality of climate change, partly because that deniers have taken some way-out-of-left field and/or inaccurate assumptions, predictions, etc., and have tried to use that to try to back up ridiculous beliefs and spurious claims. In fact, I'll finally show you one of the more notorious people who've engaged in such:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/historical-references/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

Yes, Goddard's an obvious prick but this is what he does. And there's people playing right into these kinds of traps, and that's what has me so concerned.

When finished, proved that emissions are in any way tied to public belief levels, rather than economic growth. With data. Science. Not fiction.

And I never implied(or even intended to imply) any correlation between belief and emissions levels.....seriously......

[NoOneMan]

239. Prove it then!

it has hindered people's ability to wake up to the reality of climate change

Find a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal that illustrates these type of articles produced this reaction in readers. Science.

Otherwise, we will just see your claims as baseless

And I never implied(or even intended to imply) any correlation between belief and emissions levels

Then what difference does it make!?!? Why are you raging against it if it has no impact on emissions & climate change

[NoOneMan]

106. Oh, and since its part of this mess....

Can you objectively show how emissions go up directly from people predicting collapse of civilization (because that is the cause of this mess)?

Sounds more like a crazy theory of yours. It probably harms no more than helps

[AverageJoe90]

189. WTF?

Can you objectively show how emissions go up directly from people predicting collapse of civilization (because that is the cause of this mess)?

You do realize I never actually said or implied this, right? (What you just said doesn't make sense, anyhow.)

[NoOneMan]

190. You said it was part of the problem

It doesn't increase emissions. I don't see this to be the case, unless you are into mysticism. You should focus less on alarmist and more on your magic solutions IMO.

[AverageJoe90]

198. Please, no more semantics. Seriously.

Both of the things I was talking about were part of the problem.....as in, making it harder for people to wake up. Don't you f***ing get that? One was putting out misinformation(the denialist propaganda machine) and the other(the "doomsday" fearmongering) was making people stick their heads in the sand. It wasn't that hard to figure out.

I seriously can't believe that you could possibly be this dense. And the fact you keeping harping on and on about my solutions being "magical", when in I have referred to ACTUAL workable solutions in the past(and you should know this by now), doesn't speak well for you.

[NoOneMan]

199. Oh, are you trying to say alarmism increases denialism or some crap like that?

Even if you can prove that, which you can't, you sill have to prove why it matters.

The amount of alarmists, believers, denialists, etc, may have no bearing on climate change. Did you know that 98% of Canadians believe in Climate Change? Here is where they stand:

I seriously can't believe that you could possibly be this dense

I'm merely pointing out how ludicrous your rage is against "alarmism", when it isn't founded on any credible science. There is no proof that it contributes to our problem in any way. There is no proof that eliminating it will help our problem. There is evidence that shows that we have a problem, despite how many people believe whatever they want to believe. Your insistence to zero in on people who are concerned (overly by your standard) and rail against them is insanely useless as well as suspect.

If there is ANY global warming debate, you are right there to tell people 1) not everyone is going to die and 2) alarmists are the bad guys. Its beyond transparent

[AverageJoe90]

203. Believe what you want.

Even if you can prove that, which you can't, you sill have to prove why it matters.

I actually tried this about once or twice. Let's just say that nobody really listened to what I had to say(it was a while back, but I think it had something to do with "Venus Syndrome&quot .

The amount of alarmists, believers, denialists, etc, may have no bearing on climate change. Did you know that 98% of Canadians believe in Climate Change?
Here is where they stand:

Oh boy, I wish that was true, that this had no bearing on people's awareness of climate issues & progress against climate change. And 98% Canadians believe in Climate Change? Good for them. Truly, I mean that. But it doesn't change much, sadly. It's still a problem, especially where the U.S. media is concerned.

I'm merely pointing out how ludicrous your rage is against "alarmism", when it isn't founded on any credible science.

Here's an example that says otherwise, btw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112731105 (Yeah, it's Nederland's thread and not mine, but whatever. It still counts)

There is no proof that it contributes to our problem in any way. There is no proof that eliminating it will help our problem.

Au contraire, mon frere. Hell, I've offered up my own personal experience from time to time as a good example of why. And James White over at DailyKos had this to say about doom-mongering(emphasis is mine, not his):

we tend to express our concerns in the form of a prophecy of doom. As in: "Based on current trends, we are so screwed."

But a prophecy of doom simply can't be reconciled, practically or theoretically, with any kind of future planning or even our concept of the future, especially at a community level. If the future holds certain doom, what'€™s the point of doing anything in the short term other than eating more burgers and drinking more beer?

This fits into an overall pattern of how people think about these or any other issues. In most cases, people can only internally process a consistent narrative. If you introduce a contradiction or a jarringly different concern, it suddenly becomes a kind of indigestible cognitive lactose.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/11/1173076/-Reclaiming-Growth

Indeed so, and he expressed it a bit better than I usually could.

Your insistence to zero in on people who are concerned (overly by your standard) and rail against them is insanely useless as well as suspect.

Lemme tell you something, bud, there's a goddamn major difference between legitimate concern & nutty doom-mongering. And I go after the latter because somebody has to.

If there is ANY global warming debate, you are right there.....

You wanna know why? It's because in just about every other of the more noticed threads I've seen on this subject, one of you "doomers" always has to make a comment about how we're all gonna die, that civilization's collapse is inevitable, etc. That's how it's usually happened.

1) not everyone is going to die and 2) alarmists are the bad guys. Its beyond transparent

Which, btw, 2. is a false claim. What I've actually said is that the "apocalypse" proponents(I don't use the word "alarmist" for a number of reasons, the primary of which is because it's been co-opted by the deniers.)have been, from time to time, been cynically used by the deniers from time to time(which is, of course, different from saying that they're "bad" themselves!), so the latter group(the deniers, in case it wasn't clear to you) can muddy the waters. Steven Goddard is one denier I've looked at that's been particularly prolific in this regard(no, I won't link to his site, either.).

[NoOneMan]

204. Thanks for trying...

But you have still not objectively proven (with data) that:

1) "Alarmists" literature significantly increases the percentage of climate change "denialists" in a population
2) The composition of climate change belief in a population has significant impact upon emissions (which Canada seems to contradict)

Thats what all my smart-ass replies have essentially been about. Prove those two points, and you will have basis for all your attack-the-doomer posts.

[AverageJoe90]

208. You keep using these idiotic semantics.

I'm done with the bullshit.

1) "Alarmists" literature significantly increases the percentage of climate change "denialists" in a population

Which isn't quite what I've said, or implied. What I DID, was that doom-and-gloom fearmongering has indeed hindered progress in allowing people to see the truth, not the least of which because it provides ammo to people such as Tony Watts(who runs the most infamous denialist site on the whole 'net). Really, it's all about observation, which, to be honest, can't always be backed up with loads of hard data in some cases, like this one. (Like, for an admittedly off-topic, but still valid, example, we know that most children enjoy ice cream even if we have no hard numbers or figures on hand.).

2) The composition of climate change belief in a population has significant impact upon emissions (which Canada seems to contradict)

You're assuming that I said this exact thing. Again, this is not the case. And in fact, I haven't actually disputed your claim about Canada, either.

[CreekDog]

212. The people saying that we're playing with fire and likely to get burned aren't the problem

but feel free to blame the environmentalists for what they are trying to help fix.

as is your wont.

[AverageJoe90]

214. Nope. Sorry, but the reality is......

What I do have an issue with, is the people who're screaming that the tropical storm off the coast of West Africa is inevitably going turn into a 2,000 mile wide superstorm that kills half the population of South Florida. Guys like me, in this little hypothetical scenario, have to juggle with warning the people of what could indeed possibly happen, and telling the doom-mongers to take their fearmongering and go the fuck away.

I get that you don't agree with some things I say. But you are being totally dishonest when you say I'm blaming all environmentalists; that isn't at all true and you know it. And as I've said before, I've actually blamed the deniers for the majority of the problem, when it comes to why people aren't waking up as fast as they should have. But you know what? Some people may be hesitant to not pull any punches, but I understand all too well how important this issue is, to pull any punches towards either extreme doom-mongers or hardcore deniers.

[CreekDog]

215. calling us "extreme doom mongers"

and citing a megastorm that wasn't even mentioned in this thread...

that's your excuse for derailing the thread? (though to be fair, you had help)

[AverageJoe90]

217. Nice try, but no cigar.

[CreekDog]

219. tens of millions of Bangladeshis displaced by minor increases in sea level isn't a bad thing to you?

callous, craven and unhelpful.

yes, you are not convinced it's doom unless it destroys lots of America.

by the time we can prove that here, we won't be stopping it.

but you don't even want us speculating.

[AverageJoe90]

220. I never said that, and you know it.

You are being completely fucking dishonest right now.

[CreekDog]

224. if you think it's a big deal, stop arguing against people who think climate change is a big deal

and if you don't think tens of millions of Bangladeshis being displaced by rising seas is not a doomsday scenario for our world --yes, doom does not have to kill all 7 billion of us to be "doom"...

then stop arguing against people who think that things like this example is part of a "doomsday" scenario and stop arguing that it's so unrealistic.

it would be one thing if you did that just once in a while --but for someone who claims to believe in global warming, almost ALL YOUR POSTS on the topic are devoted to saying a version of:

"it's not that bad" "
it won't be that bad"
"you can't prove it will be that bad"
"everyone saying it's that bad is just a "DOOMER" "

it's why you got blocked from the climate group a SECOND time.

you know, whatever you say you believe, when you spend all your posts arguing against that thing --people get the idea that you don't believe it.

[AverageJoe90]

225. What I've been arguing against.....

is stuff like these "inevitable collapse" scenarios, or the various human extinction posts, and certain other crazy things that have been bandied about from time to time. That's what I have a problem with.

and if you don't think tens of millions of Bangladeshis being displaced by rising seas is not a doomsday scenario for our world

Yeah, well, it's pretty serious(understatement!), but it's not quite on the level of this "inevitable collapse" bullshit. So, frankly, no, it's not a "doomsday" scenario. Even if Key West were lost, as tragic as that, too, would be, it wouldn't necessarily be like that.

almost ALL YOUR POSTS on the topic are devoted to saying a version of:

Not "almost all", CreekDog. Only the ones you pay attention to, maybe.....

it's why you got blocked from the climate group a SECOND time.

I know why it happened....but it sure as hell wasn't what you said.

you know, whatever you say you believe, when you spend all your posts arguing against that thing

Which simply isn't true and you know it.

[CreekDog]

226. the OP does not posit "inevitable collapse" but you are attempting to make a straw man of the OP

which is pretty damned dishonest of you.

and something you do on this topic nearly constantly.

if you are posting to sway the larger audience that is not steeped in climate change science, literature or how that topic is propagandized against, we're going to call that kind of behavior out so that people who aren't experts are not mislead by your dishonest tactic.

[AverageJoe90]

229. I'm not the one who engaged in strawmen here.

and something you do on this topic nearly constantly.

And yet you basically claimed that, I said, or at least that I implied and/or thought, that sea level rises displacing tens of millions in Bangladesh wasn't a bad thing, when I never said a darn thing about Bangladesh in the first place(I didn't even disagree with it being a bad thing, which it certainly would be!).

And yes, here's the comment in question:

219. tens of millions of Bangladeshis displaced by minor increases in sea level isn't a bad thing to you?
Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:41 PM USA/ET -
Edit history (1)
callous, craven and unhelpful.

yes, you are not convinced it's doom unless it destroys lots of America.

by the time we can prove that here, we won't be stopping it.

but you don't even want us speculating.

[CreekDog]

209. for someone who is living what was once an inland sea, you are pretty cavalier

and unaware.

[ErikJ]

6. Will the cyborgs save us?

Ehrlich and other biologists theorize that the true carrying capacity of the earth is only around 1 billion. We are now at 7 billion. Maybe cyborg robots will take over governing someday soon and conclude that the global human population has to be cut by 80% to save the planet and/or civilization and resource use will have to be limited. They will put programs into effect to severely limit human fertility or worse. Hopefully the cyborgs will not conclude to exterminate the human race completely.

[lunatica]

52. Most of humanity could die off without cyborgs

Starvation because of global warming such as prolonged droughts like we had just last year in the midwest can happen. Climate disasters such as Hurricane Sandy happening twice or three times a year for many years will also take their toll. Wildfires and temperatures of 119 degrees such as are happening right now in Australia will definitely help kill of some of humanity.

Just think of the worst weather we're already having and then think of it being the new normal. Massive deaths will happen.

[Frustratedlady]

97. Don't say that to the Republicans...severely limit human fertility?

They want to have more births to fill their rosters for all those wars...which, by the way, it would be a major plus if we outlawed wars. Just look at the pollution the ammunition, car bombs, and fuel cause.

We desperately need to control the birth rate, as well as stop this madness of one war after another. Some day, the poor planet is going to go "Poof!" and deflate. With all the mining, drilling, fracking, etc., I wouldn't blame Mother Earth if she told us all to go to hell.

[AdHocSolver]

7. Corporations such as Monsanto and BP, and the do-nothing Republicans will speed the process.

They represent Genetic Engineering, pollution, and inaction to known issues. Throw in the military-industrial complex, big Pharma, and the right-wing media and the result is the destruction of civilization as we know it.

This is shameful considering all the enormous technological advances made in the past couple of centuries.

(snip)
**********
A key element in meeting this unprecedented challenge is “…to see ourselves as utterly embedded in Nature and not somehow separate from those precious systems that sustain all life”, writes England’s Prince Charles commenting on the Ehrlich’s paper.
**********

Heck, the one-percent don't even see themselves connected to the 99-percent that sustains them, let alone the environment.

[raouldukelives]

39. And of course all the gleeful investors. Willing to kill anything for a dollar.

They couldn't do it without them.

[airplaneman]

168. Your post reminds me of something said to me by a scientist friend of mine.

Because we are only doing what makes a profit instead of doing what is needed for our survival we have in essence assured our extinction.
-Airplane

[DeSwiss]

8. ''The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them.'' – Albert Einstein

- Sow, reap, etc......

[99th_Monkey]

9. It's HIGH time for every Gov't on earth to require their decision makers to

watch these two movies, acknowledge the error of their ways,
and act accordingly; or else be forced to tender their resignation.

Idiocracy

Brazil

[marions ghost]

187. Prophetic

but they won't acknowledge anything...

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Hm. Our food supply is pretty robust, actually.

But we do seem to be determined to shit where we eat. Be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[JDPriestly]

13. Actually, we are ruining our soil with fossil-fuel-based fertilizers. For the moment, we produce

a lot, but our soil is fundamentally unhealthy in many areas of the country.

Soil is so precious. Soil, water and climate are the keys to our food supply. We are ruing our soil, contaminating our water and changing our climate so that it will not be so easy to grow food.

We are fools, and those who feel so smugly sure that as long as we have food today we always will are simply wrong.

[AZ Progressive]

16. This is the end result of Capitalism

The Hard Truth.

[NoOneMan]

69. Its the result of not understanding our impacts on the greater system

China has their own communistic 30 million head famine in the 1950s after their mass attempt to dominate nature to grow their wealth.

I find that it is rather the end result of civilization, which has created both these economic systems to further grow infinitely. We are caught in a self-sustaining game of cultivation and growth.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Not just depeling the soil

but washing it away faster than grasslands and lichen can produce it.

So far we've done well with hybrids and low water consumption wheats and what not, but yeah, it can all go terribly wrong, really fast.

[jwirr]

43. Years ago in NW Iowa the trees grew along the river banks on every farm and along the roads etc.

But they needed MORE farm land so they started cutting these trees out - the result was a huge drop in water levels that caused many of the household wells to go dry and/or be heavily polutted. It also let a lot of topsoil erode when the rivers flooded in the spring. My father refused to follow the practice and today we have ample water and our land does not end up in New Orleans every spring.

When I visited again I noticed that a lot of those farmers are beginning to plant the trees back.

[lunatica]

54. I'm very glad you're seeing a reversal in planting the trees back

It gives me hope.

[CrispyQ]

76. We're sucking the aquifers dry.

I live in a semi-arid area & there are acres & acres of business park lawn that gets watered every summer, often times during the heat of the day.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

153. yeah...stupidity is the one infinite resource.

watering fertilized and pesticided monocultured lawn grass at high noon. Yep, par for the course.

[jwirr]

180. Yes they started that after they drained their wells dry by getting rid of the trees. It is sad to

see because that area was so healthy back then. We do not know what we have lost until it is gone is a very good saying.

[joshcryer]

134. A 5 year drought would destroy our food supply in quick order.

That's all it takes.

[NoOneMan]

140. And a 100 year drought?

http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-commerce-department-drought-report-2013-1

The future doesn't look rosy unless you have a famous last name.

[MindMover]

169. Interesting ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/

[AZ Progressive]

12. Prince Charles stated this:

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/our-view/comment-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-royal-society-report-can-collapse-of-global

"We do, in fact, have all the tools, assets and knowledge to avoid the collapse of which this report warns, but only if we act decisively now. If, though, in our evermore interconnected and complex world, we are to succeed, real leadership and vision is required. It is just possible that we can rise to this challenge, but to do so we will need to adjust our world view in a profound and comprehensive way. We have to see ourselves as utterly embedded in Nature and not somehow separate from those precious systems that sustain all life.

I have said it before, and I will say it again – our grandchildren’s future depends entirely on whether we seize the initiative and prevaricate no further. The alternative hardly bears thinking about. I hold to the fact that it is not in humanity’s nature to fail. But, as I have long tried to point out, to continue with “business as usual” is an act of suicide on a gargantuan scale."

I was searching for news about this event, but I didn't see anything. I guess this means we are doomed.

[hootinholler]

37. " We have to see ourselves as utterly embedded in Nature"

Gosh! Where have I heard that before?

[nikto]

14. In the cosmic scheme of things...

...It is likely that civilizations in our universe are much like sperm cells in hot pursuit of extending their existence,
but with only a tiny few actually "making it", and fully evolving, out of millions who fall by the wayside
and die on the way.

OK, so we're probably one of the wayside ones. Is that so bad?
We get to live our individual lives. Why should humankind survive just to spread our stupidity around the universe?

So we don't make it to the destination? So what?
It's the journey that counts!!

[tavalon]

22. What you said

I say that I'm a Gaian and that the Earth deserves to survive and humans, not so much.

[NoOneMan]

70. Some people think we are why the universe exists

What we are doing now will likely just lead to a new hominid evolution and something will replace us in a few hundred thousand years. If not, so what? Why is cleverness important to the universe?

[AverageJoe90]

103. They're idiots for thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old, however.....

I don't see us evolving much further at all, TBH; looks like we've reached our biological zenith, or are least are about there.

(Of course, it'd be kinda cool to see some equivalents of elves, dwarves, or super-powered mutants a-la Marvel's X-Men pop up in the far future, but I don't think that'd be at all likely. )

[NoOneMan]

107. As long as civilization is preserved, yes, probably not much more will happen biologically

Perhaps an adaptation to environmental toxins like sulphates. If there is a total collapse, there is a chance of further evolution in whatever direction.

[AverageJoe90]

108. And, TBH, any one of us Americans would be more likely to die in an auto accident in any given year,

than for a total global collapse anytime in the short term. That's a one in 7,000 chance, and frankly, that's likely erring quite a bit on the side of pessimism.

[NoOneMan]

109. Depends what you mean by short term

Next year? Sure. Next 3 decades? Maybe not. Its going to all come down to food.

[AverageJoe90]

113. I had 2050 or so in mind.

Not that much of a difference between now and 2050, though, in the scheme of things. And, frankly, I didn't even consider possible advances in technology, including that which could possibly be used to deal with climate problems....so, I probably did indeed err on the side of pessimism.

[NoOneMan]

117. Yeah, maybe your techno-God will save you in 2050

Drought + temperatures that don't support photosynthesis (according to Ortiz, et al) = famine

http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-commerce-department-drought-report-2013-1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/11/graph-of-the-day-were-on-pace-to-heat-the-u-s-by-10f/

If you’re looking for good news in the report, there is a tidbit about how U.S. agriculture is expected to remain “relatively resilient” in the face of unchecked climate change for the next 25 years or so. But after that, crops and livestock don’t fare so well and productivity starts declining thanks to heat and drought. So it’s not exactly great news.

Now its "optimism" like this that isn't helpful to the situation. There is real reason to be alarmed.

[AverageJoe90]

118. No "optimism" here. Just a more realistic outlook, that's all.

Nobody doubts that average temperatures are rising, but average high temperatures of 104*F or more outside of the desert Southwest(and maybe a few parts of Texas) are not that likely(not totally impossible though), even with say, a 4*C rise in global temps by 2100 or so.

In fact, I've seen some research in the past that suggests that a good bit of the warming we may see would actually occur with winter averages, and nights overall(even summers).....though I have nothing on hand right now(I've had to reinstall my OS thanks to a few problems).

[NoOneMan]

120. Your reality is a result of confirmation bias

I just posted two very current links regarding drought and temperatures, but it conflicts with your chosen "reality". Pretending we don't have real serious problems that will translate to multi-billion deaths (according to IPCC based peer reviewed literature I've provided previously) is not "helpful".

We already have almost 1 in 8 humans in famine (with 25K starvation deaths a day) and half of all humans chronically malnourished at our agricultural zenith. I don't understand how any person could think that a hotter, drier world will not be a significant disaster.

[AverageJoe90]

123. What confirmation bias? What conflict?

If anything, it's coming from your faction, not mine.

I just posted two very current links regarding drought and temperatures, but it conflicts with your chosen "reality".

You didn't post that second link until after I posted my reply. And, btw, no, it didn't really conflict with what I was saying. The RCP scenarios don't just look at summer highs, they are forecasting possible scenarios of rises in year-round averages. And if you've got something which contradicts my statement that the most notable average increases may actually be in the wintertime, and nights overall, then I'd like to look at it.

And, btw, the report's title really only refers to what could happen under RCP 8.5 last I checked. It's not impossible, sadly, but if I were to give an estimate based on the big picture, instead of the here and now, I'd wager that we'd fall somewhere in between RCP 4.5 to 6.

[nikto]

177. "Its going to all come down to food."

Yes. But what happens when we run out of rich people to eat?

[CrispyQ]

77. I believe Isaac Asimov pondered that in an article.

He suggested that one of the reasons we might not have discovered other intelligent life is that so few get past the self-destruct phase.

[KittyWampus]

218. Or perhaps we expect other intelligent life to mimic our own. Perhaps other intelligent life

has moved past the limits of three dimensions and it's limitations to time and space.

[AverageJoe90]

221. I suppose so.

It is a pretty darn massive universe after all.....we've only mapped like, a small fraction of it.

[CrispyQ]

244. So many possibilities!

I would love to see first contact before I die. I doubt it will happen, not by a long shot, but it would be sooooo cool. I would love to see how religion deals with that.

[AverageJoe90]

102. I wish I could agree with that.....n/t

[Xithras]

149. In the grander cosmic scheme of things...

...it's all pointless anyway, as the universe will one day either disperse into nothingness or collapse in upon itself. When that happens, the civilizations that "make it" will be just as dead as the ones that fell by the wayside. They'll just get to hang out here a bit longer than the rest of us.

Carl Sagan once said that our only real purpose is to provide a way for the universe to know itself. I tend to agree with that sentiment.

[sendero]

207. +1000 n/t

[nikto]

15. We should consider the possibility...

...That it might be better for the rest of the universe if we DON'T make it (long term) as a species.

[randome]

46. Speak for yourself and not for my daughters, okay?

[moondust]

17. Reminder: Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb" in 1968.

Wikipedia:

It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.

[AZ Progressive]

20. It's not just Ehrlich

"Last March, the world’s scientific community provided the first-ever “state of the planet” assessment at the “Planet Under Pressure” conference in London. More than 3,000 experts concluded humanity is facing a “planetary emergency” and there was no time to lose in making large-scale changes.

In 2010, a coalition of the national scientific bodies and international scientific unions from 141 countries warned that “the continued functioning of the Earth system as we know it is at risk”.

“The situation is absolutely desperate and yet there’s nothing on the front pages or on the agenda of world leaders,” said Pat Mooney, head of the international environmental organisation ETC Group."

from the same article

[AZ Progressive]

23. Planet Under Pressure, State of the Planet Declaration

http://www.icsu.org/rio20/home/pup-state-of-planet-declaration

[moondust]

24. Thanks. n/t

[AntiFascist]

29. I heard about the "Club of Rome" in the early 70's....

there were computer simulations predicting collapse due to the "unlimited and unrestrained growth in material consumption in a world of clearly finite resources"

http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=375

[joshcryer]

136. Around the time Borlaug got hybrids to sustain populations.

Ehrlich couldn't have predicted that.

[Iterate]

253. And that spurred research into population dynamics.

After 40 years if effort, the understanding of the factors is sophisticated enough to be quite accurate. Ehrlich's work was critical and should not be dismissed because it was imperfect out of the gate -unless, of course, it's useful for sowing doubt.

[AverageJoe90]

19. What. you mean, Paul Ehrlich and Prince Charles? That's it?

If that's what passes for "experts" on this subject, I'll pass. Wasn't Ehrlich the guy who predicted we'd be seeing mass starvation across the planet by the '80s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Come on folks, we have REAL issues to worry about when it comes to climate change.....The supposed inevitable short-term collapse of civilization isn't one of them(long-term MAY be a different story, though it isn't going to be anything like Mad Max in all likelihood.).

[truebluegreen]

65. Checked out Australia lately?

Or the (continuing) drought in the US?

You think this is not a REAL issue now?*

* BTW, several years ago the Pentagon picked the upheaval caused by global warming as a substantial threat to U.S. security. That's a real bunch of tree-hugging alarmists over there, you betcha.

[AverageJoe90]

84. Did I say anything about drought? No.

Jeez Louise, are you trying to pick a fight or something?

I never said anything about drought, and in fact, that was actually one of the things to be concerned about, in my book.

[truebluegreen]

122. Drought--massive widespread drought--in one or several of the world's breadbaskets--

can easily lead to a collapse in the social order on a massive scale. We don't get to disregard the message just because we don't like the messengers.

Ehrlich foresaw the dangers in The Population Bomb, but conditions changed, and in the 1960s we had the "Green Revolution" which postponed the payment. Massive commercial farming, new and more productive varieties of grain, chemical fertilizers, etc. None of it is sustainable and all of it has contributed to population growth ("...saved the lives of a billion people!...).

There will be a crash and probably a worse one, from a greater height, than would have occurred in the 60s. And, since in the meantime we've been busy destroying the planet's climatic equilibrium, probably sooner rather than later. Maybe very soon.

If I sounded like I was trying to pick a fight, I apologize. I've been concerned about this for so long and seen so little progress or even awareness that I've developed a hair trigger.

[AverageJoe90]

124. Okay, it does happen sometimes. No biggie. =)

To be fair & honest, even the U.N. has suggested that the population may start to drop off again by 2050 or so, so I'm not questioning that.
But in all likelihood, it's not likely to be a quite a "bomb", at least not globally speaking(though, granted, it may indeed be the case in some places).....more like a steady dropoff as time goes on, overall.

[Viking12]

99. Erlich was right.

The world made big changes that set back the timing of the 'bomb'. But I'm sure you wouldn't bother to actually know what you're talking about before you post.

[AverageJoe90]

135. Was that Wiki article I posted not enough?

And in fact, others have pointed out that he was wrong, too. I may have been a little off on the date, but I still knew what I was talking about.

[joshcryer]

137. He couldn't predict Norman Borlaug's agri-innovations.

And was probably ignorant of the technology at the time. His basic thesis is correct, however, and this article is peer reviewed, and not exactly in the form of a book that is intended to sell.

[tavalon]

21. World War Z

I'm not making fun. I think people's fascination with Zombies speaks to a growing awareness that we are soon to be the walking dead.

[AverageJoe90]

105. LOL....I don't think so.

Okay, I'll admit it. I've heard of WWZ and it sounds pretty cool.....but I doubt there's a growing belief that we're all gonna be "walking dead"....LOL.(Yes, I know you meant that figuratively btw.)

[tavalon]

178. I did mean that

Thanks for getting it.

[Fumesucker]

26. Wait.. what?

So that means the "preppers" are right?

[randome]

47. The 'preppers' can't manufacture ground water out of nothing. Or breathable air.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

27. Too late!

Ship has sailed.

[davidn3600]

31. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out the world is going all to s***

I think many people have the feeling that civilization itself is the next bubble to burst. Practically every simulation with super-computers spell doom with the present trajectory of the planet and civilization. We cannot sustain the status quo much longer.

[AverageJoe90]

125. I don't think so, TBH.

Yes, there's a few people who have spelled doom before. But you know something, though? Not only are they in the minority, but really, doom-and-gloomers have almost never been really right on anything, period.....why should we think that climate change is any different?

(But, yes, you are right on one thing: the status quo cannot continue, indeed.)

[cali]

33. I don't know this "news organization"

but it reads like a comic book.

[Agony]

133. No, Fox News reads like a comic book

ips reads like journalism

http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-mission/
Our mission

Information is an agent of change. Since its inception, back in 1964, IPS has believed in the role of information as a precondition for lifting communities out of poverty and marginalization. This belief is reflected in our historic mission:

“giving a voice to the voiceless” – acting as a communication channel that privileges the voices and the concerns of the poorest and creates a climate of understanding, accountability and participation around development, promoting a new international information order between the South and the North.

The statutes of the IPS International Association provide a formal organisational framework for carrying out our mission.

To fulfil this very important mission, IPS has developed a three-pronged strategy that is reflected in its three main areas of work:

Providing news and content: producing stories and analyses, which explain how events and global processes affect individuals and communities, especially the marginalised and voiceless.
Capacity-building: empowering journalists, media organisations and civil society to be better able to communicate effectively by leveraging IPS’ unique character as a Southern-focused news agency, offering a different kind of training and follow-up.
Dissemination and networking: building an information bridge linking civil society, international institutions, policy-makers, donors and individual readers, to promote an ongoing dialogue about communication and development for a better world.

Because of its mission and conceptual approach, IPS has grown together with and systematically covered civil society, particularly its increasing international impact. Recognising the impact of globalisation on the South is another crucial insight that influences the way we report, build capacity and disseminate our news. This has made IPS a relevant actor within the overall development process and the main international news provider of organised civil society worldwide.


http://www.ips.org/institutional/ips-in-action/news-and-content-provision/the-ips-columnist-service/

Every week the IPS Columnist Service distributes two opinion columns written by renowned international figures. Prominent columnists have included Leonardo Boff, Shirin Ebadi, Eduardo Galeano, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Mikhail Gorbachev, Wangari Maathai, Mary Robinson, Dilma Roussef, Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Jody Williams and many others. Since it was founded, in 1990, the IPS Columnist Service has expanded its list of contributing authors to several hundred, many of whom are leaders or prominent participants in the events or processes they write about. Authors and topics are selected in such a way as to ensure the widest possible expression of different cultural, geographic and ideological backgrounds.

http://www.ips.org/institutional/documents/IPS-Code-of-Ethics.pdf

Thanks for listening

[stultusporcos]

34. The writing has been on the wall for a long time but most CHOOSE to ignore it

The writing has been on the wall for a long time but most CHOOSE to ignore it
I look at things this way; those who have not been taking steps to minimize the impact of the collapse to themselves and family are only going to be victims.

Sad but it is the truth and reality.

Having firsthand knowledge of places in total collapse and basically anarchy ruled I decided a very long time ago that I would be prepared for it just in case. Sure some may call me nuts but I also firmly believe that those same people will also be begging be to save them in the future. I may or may not lend a hand.

I am not a prepper, survivalist or gun nutter, just a regular guy who likes to be prepared.

Sort of like the guy who has all the tools for working on your car or for doing any project around the house. Yeah I have those too but also everything one would need to live if society totally collapsed.

[AZ Progressive]

44. The corporations still control our government

We are going to have to do something about that before we can avert the destruction of humanity and much of life on earth.

[randome]

50. They only control what we allow them to control. That's where the problem lies.

[AZ Progressive]

79. Big Corporations make sure any alternatives to them are inconvenient

So as to make it hard to be able to replace them with simply shopping in competitors stores or buying competitors products. Walmart for instance dominates so many small towns and small cities, and rival Target is usually only in medium to big cities.

[randome]

144. I hear you. But a few well-placed laws forbidding those practices would solve it.

Walmart should never have been allowed the concentration of power it has. Sadly, American 'tradition' is to let corporations run wild.

[airplaneman]

170. I am not a prepper, survivalist or gun nutter, just a regular guy who likes to be prepared.

Me too. I believe in being prepared and in helping my neighbors. TEOTWAWKI was a good book on this subject. I can think of a ton of reasons to be prepared. Being let go from my job and not finding another one might be one of them. Grid going down for a variety of reasons. I think our society is quite tenuous. I also think you will have to network with other humans if you want to have a realistic chance in a full blown collapse. I do not believe having a bunker and a machine gun is the answer.
-Airplane

[JaneyVee]

38. Don't worry, when every tree is cut down & every river is poisoned, we can eat money.

[whatchamacallit]

41. "Everyone

chill the fuck out, I got this!"

[I am B]

42. some of us have been saying this for a while now

wake-up people
We need world leaders to put the corporations that are destroying our planet out of business. We need to reduce population no matter what corporatelike religion thinks.
For God believers:
God didn't give us this planet to exploit and do as we please. It is here and we need to take care of it, protect and conserve it or we will be here no more.
For world leaders:
The time is growing short to effect change and I mean change on a grand scale.
Mr. President what will you do? Mint platinum coins?
too many people
too much pollution
too much growth
put down the weapons and stop the waste and exploitation of our only planet now
We need the wealthy to take a step back from making huge sums of money and spend to save this place now.

[marions ghost]

191. Some of us have even been YELLING it

Excellent post, I am B

Welcome to DU.

[I am B]

243. thanks for the welcome

I heard about this place before the election and found it fascinating to watch the predictions come exactly true on election night. Some really together people here, I will be glad to be apart of it in the future.

[marions ghost]

245. Duers--passionate about the issues, intelligent

--even wise--and opinionated, whether you agree with em or not. Basically these are people who care and participate.

Among other positive things, DU is a great support group for elections.

[GliderGuider]

249. Is your handle taken from Dan Quinn's novel?

If so, I'm quite the fan of his writing, especially "The Story of B".

Welcome to DU. It's a very cool and interesting place. And if you have low blood pressure it will fix that in no time as well!

[I am B]

255. I to am a fan of Ishmael and

The "Story of B" particularly --see end--
I don't want to be a taker

[GliderGuider]

256. I thought so. Good on ya.

Nobody wants to be a Taker.
But we all are...for now.

[AverageJoe90]

197. You had me right up until "too much growth".....

Growth, btw, isn't at all a bad thing by itself.....it's how it's done that's the problem, and not growth itself.....you were spot on with most everything else though. Welcome to DU.

[I am B]

242. thanks for welcome, this place is amazing

growth is unsustainable
growth in population, we just can not feed 9 billion people without destroying the land
growth in use of natural resources, they will run out, they are limited
we need to reduce, conserve, and reuse

[Comrade Grumpy]

49. Wow, there's some surprising willful blindness on this thread.

And kill the messenger stuff. (Or at least ridicule the messenger.)

It's so...all-American.

[cantbeserious]

51. The Corrosive Effect Of Three Decades Of FrightWing Politics

eom

[lunatica]

61. Cynicism has become the new normal it seems

and kill the messenger the new pastime.

[AverageJoe90]

88. I see the opposite.

This kind of stuff really does need be criticized, I'm sorry to say.

C.G., we have enough REAL problems to worry about.....more possible droughts, flooding, heat(and maybe even COLD) waves, and extreme weather in general.....without having to listen to some guy on the fringes with a kooky opinion on how we are supposedly inevitably headed for short-term global collapse or extinction, etc..

[dkf]

53. And that is why you might need a gun.

Things may not always be how it is today with plentiful food and all that. God forbid things get that bad but you never know.

Make fun of people who want guns for this purpose but prop up academics who rightly bring up their fears of global collapse. Funny how that works.

[Comrade Grumpy]

55. You'd probably be better off with a community.

If you wanna do that war of all against all thing, there's always somebody with a bigger gun.

[dkf]

57. Yeah the communities will organize with guns.

Someone needs to be the protection detail.

[Comrade Grumpy]

62. Cool, a new arms race for the end times.

[dkf]

64. Where have you been?

[Comrade Grumpy]

92. Busy living my life, without a gun.

[AverageJoe90]

116. I have to agree.

In any theoretical(though extremely unlikely) situation in which the U.S. totally collapses, you probably would indeed be much better off with other people, for a variety of reasons....mainly, better access to food, water, shelter, etc.

[randome]

60. How are you going to manufacture breathable air?

[lunatica]

63. Needing a gun in order to survive is very different

from having a gun for ego reasons.

Nice try though.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. You have to be fucking kidding me. Are you going to shoot climate change?

What a totally obvious derailment.

[AverageJoe90]

114. Not rightly, WRONGLY. n/t

[Odin2005]

67. This is the same Erlich who though there would be 1st Word mass starvation...

...by 1990. He's an hysterical doomer. Not suprising he is buddy-buddy with Prince Charles.

[AverageJoe90]

89. Exactly!

I'd be tempted to chuck him in with the likes of Guy McPherson and David Wasdell, if only not for the fact that we might indeed see a noticeable population contraction in another few decades or so.

[Viking12]

100. Ehrlich was right.

The world made big changes that set back the timing of the 'bomb'. The Green Revolution in SE Asia, Global fertility rates cut in half, advances in food distribution, all contributed to delay the detonation of the Population Bomb. You might want to actually read the book and the "if/then" scenarios. Bashing Ehrlich is for the non-thinking RW denier machine, not thoughtful liberals.

[NoOneMan]

71. When do we get to quit our day jobs?

Yall realize these calm climate talk bullshit summits are just keeping us chained from freedom while the world dies. Why not live a little in the meantime? If its coming, lets embrace it now and waste no more time

[RKP5637]

78. Big picture ... mankind often does little 'till after a catastrophic event. My take is

mankind will die off 'till homeostases is achieved, the balance between resources and mankind. Greed sadly rules. We can do what we can, each in our own way, hopefully I will be wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

86. Yes, you will be.

Yes, there will be problems, but no, we won't be dying off.

[RKP5637]

91. Thanks!

[AverageJoe90]

93. No offense meant with that last comment, btw.

But if we want to address these problems, and I believe most on here do, then we need to step away from the fringe stuff and try to stick to distributing the actual scientific (peer-reviewed) literature.....

[RKP5637]

94. No, you didn't offend me at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. Well at least all of our nuclear wastes are safely disposed of for tens of thousands of years

It's not like we will need to replace storage cannisters that decay over time, or keep water circulating in fuel rod disposal pools, or anything else that will take constant vigililence for millenium to keep plutonium etc. from escaping into the environment, right? OK, maybe we will have to give up on space travel, but we will at least have dependable government workers around to replace all of the triple triangle signs posted at radioactive storage sites etc. when they wear out, won't we?

[FarCenter]

95. Revisiting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?

WHAT THE LIMITS TO GROWTH ACTUALLY SAID

After reading The Limits to Growth, I was amazed. Nowhere in the book was there any mention about running out of anything by 2000. Instead, the book's concern was entirely focused on what the world might look like 100 years later. There was not one sentence or even a single word written about an oil shortage, or limit to any specific resource, by the year 2000.

...

The group all shared a common concern that mankind faced a future predicament of grave complexity, caused by a series of interrelated problems that traditional institutions and policy would not be able to cope with the issues, let alone come to grips with their full context. A core thesis of their work was that long term exponential growth was easy to overlook. Human nature leads people to innocently presume growth rates are linear. The book then postulated that if a continuation of the exponential growth of the seventies began in the world's population, its industrial output, agricultural and natural resource consumption and the pollution produced by all of the above, would result in severe constraints on all known global resources by 2050 to 2070.

...

While many readers concocted various "imaginary" assumptions, the book's conclusions were quite simple. The first conclusion was a view that if present growth trends continued unchanged, a limit to the growth that our planet has enjoyed would be reached sometime within the next 100 years. This would then result in a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

The second key conclusion was that these growth trends could be altered. Moreover, if proper alterations were made, the world could establish a condition of "ecological stability" that would be sustainable far into the future.

The third conclusion was a view that the world could embark on this second path, but the sooner this effort started, the greater the chance would be of achieving this "ecologically stable" success.

The book, in its entirety, is beautifully written. It takes only a few hours to read. I would highly recommend it to anyone. It is an interesting mixture of simple, tried and true economic laws, combined with a terrific dose of logic. Without a doubt, there are some serious doomsday elements laid out which our world would face if the conclusions of this modeling work were ignored, and key trends continue to rise at exponential vs. linear rates. But, the book essentially lays out an optimistic outlook on how easily these limits to growth can be altered if a real effort to accomplish this is made at an early stage, rather than attempting such changes too late.

...

The world is now 30 years into this 100-year view. It did grow as fast as the book warned. The gap between rich and poor never narrowed. Instead, the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" grew by a significant measure. It is interesting to contemplate how horrified the book's authors would be today, given the population trends that happened post 1972. The current strain on many of our precious resources is already becoming serious. It would have been far worse by 2000, given the rate of expansion which happened to the world's poor population, had these people also begun to significantly improve their standard of living at the same time. An accidental safety valve for many potentially scarce resources turned out to be the widening of the rich/poor gap.

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_of_rome_revisted.html

[PATRICK]

96. The meaning of homo sapiens existence

Its place in the biosphere is uniquely evolved to help the planet survive extraordinary threats, even to manage the biosphere if they could wrap those brains and hands around their real contribution. Consciousness, logic, socialization, hands. If we are just another another temporary grazer and nomad in this system we will go extinct as much as any other species. If we only manage to squeeze some privileged survivors who can outwit Darwin but never realize their potential in service to Earth we may, in consummate pride, be the successful Lucifer to the dying Gaia. Only our evil thus is preserved, a successful revolt for the most selfish and gifted of animals, that on the grand scale makes Dracula look like Clara Barton. If that works it would be a continuing threat to other worlds, if not we would have a shame-filled ludicrous and abominable mausoleum for this world's ultimate failure.

This state of alarm should have been raised decades ago. Now as the real scenarios encroach on feel good greed and groundless optimism the lying words are "surprise" and "too late" to continue the death march of failed humanity toward some mythical refuges for the few.

So much of our progress is a sick joke. Rockets and bombs that might have crudely staved off threats from our rocky region of space were only accidents of war and profit- and hardly even an afterthought is given to the fact that no porpoise could accomplish this. Our environmental effects and interests are largely the same. The more for selfish profit, the more the waste of potential is embarrassingly not even mentioned. This is not nor ever will be our species' personal paradise. We elect to live like the animals, exploit our advantages like animals and we will die like animals. We have sunk to the occasion in despicable, laughable arrogance and pride.
Better to reign in Hell than serve the Earth, but all mortals die. In the big picture our final result may at best resemble that of cockroaches.

But we have been given so much more. It is not tragedy. It is shame.

People have been wandering around in their personal paradise pondering the "great" questions. Why am I here? What is the meaning of life?
While ignoring the obvious. We are part of nature, the community of animals with a natural life to live. Our human evolution has made us the one species that can see and can serve all other life. Most people could get that. Few make it their whole life. Society is run by animal hunger and fear.
We are the evolved gods here. We choose to be rats?

The stages of grudging talking point controlled reaction to the "too late" probably run parallel to the complex natural horrors to come. If don't get a little more in tune than that our powers of reason and technology will be hard pressed for self-serving miracles.

[NYC Liberal]

115. Even if we last several million more years....we will still have been a blip on the radar.

We have been around for a fraction of a second on the cosmic scale of things. And 99% of species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct.

[AverageJoe90]

119. True, but we aren't at all likely to go extinct in at least the next several thousand years or so...

....barring, perhaps, another K/T event or gamma ray burst and we haven't colonized any other planets yet.

And it certainly won't be due to AGW alone, that much we do know for sure.

[limpyhobbler]

139. So, start phasing out oil

see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/101791709

[NoOneMan]

141. Sure, and this will decrease GDP

I'm ok with that, but a lot of people aren't or are still in fantasy land about it.

We need to decrease emissions by over 6% per year to avoid disastrous effects at this point (though I'm skeptical that will even work).

[limpyhobbler]

142. Go stand in front of a bulldozer

[NoOneMan]

145. Itll win

Thats why we basically wont be able to try a new way until collapse comes. THings will go to hell, and only then will we have true hope (who knows what will come from it)

[limpyhobbler]

148. I don't disagree with the idea that the odds are against us.

But still the best I can tell from reading around here, we should act now to cut emissions, and like you said, cut them a lot and quickly.

The window for meaningful action is closing quickly, but it's not yet closed.

If there is a big public demand for change very soon, maybe we can have a somewhat smoother transition.

At the very least we should try to lessen the impact of a collapse.

[AverageJoe90]

161. And it may not be closed for some time, really.

Though, IMO, it may depend on one's definition of meaningful action.

In any case, though we do need to act on climate change, and preferably ASAP, to be perfectly truthful, there just isn't any real chance of global collapse, not in the short term anyhow. And really, we shouldn't be focusing on these fantastic(and that's being polite, TBH) "global collapse" theories anyhow, for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it isn't really constructive dialogue.

The one silver lining I do see, though, is that people really are starting to wake up to the reality of climate change, especially after the (admittedly largely coincidental) back to back heat waves of 2011-12, and the (not so coincidental) droughts in the Plains, and Hurricane Sandy, etc.

[limpyhobbler]

182. Where are you getting your info?

(real question, not snark)

It makes a big difference where people get their info.

My main sources are Bill McKibben, James Hanson, 350.org.

Based on those sources I do think that a global collapse of civilization is possible within the next 100 years, depending on actions we take in the next 20 years.

[AverageJoe90]

183. Yeah, well.....

Limpy, I don't "get" my "information" from anywhere. All I'm doing is thinking rationally and using common sense(which, sadly, seems to be lacking in some), and because of this, I've been able to arrive at the conclusion that a global collapse of civilization is just not feasible because of AGW alone, within the next 100-150 years at the very least. Of course, that's not to say that other things couldn't happen as well, such as an asteroid impact, or Yellowstone erupting.....but other than the involvement of things like that, I can't bet my money on a global collapse.....(a few serious regional problems may not be out of the question, though, especially where the Middle East is involved, as well as China and much of Africa)

BTW, Limpy, as an example, there were plenty of people, scientists included, who genuinely believed the world as we knew it might very well end in 2000 if the Y2K fears came true.....I find this talk of short-term global collapse to be quite similar; based not on fact, but fear. And it's a bit disconcerting to see this stuff paraded around as factual by certain people.

[limpyhobbler]

184. I'm not good at science stuff so I just follow what the scientists are saying.

James Hansen is some famous science person and here is what he had to say about what happens if we burn the tar sands oil

...Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. ...

James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0

Also I assume you've probably read this Bill McKibben thing.
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

These kinds of sources are where I'm getting my information, and it's leading me to believe that civilization could be at risk unless we take serious action at this time.

[AverageJoe90]

185. Hansen is alright, but he's said some pretty way-out stuff before.

You may remember a few of his "Venus Syndrome" comments, if you've seen some of his presentations.....(which, btw, is not possible on our planet for a variety of reasons, and yes, this was an important thing to point out.).....

As for McKibben, he did a good job writing that article.....I'll just leave it at that.

I don't doubt that there's a problem, but again, too much of this, well, "doominess" that's been going on lately, really hasn't been at all constructive.

[NoOneMan]

200. Can you provide examples of what has been "constructive"?

I define constructive as that which actually reduces carbon emisssions and their growth. The only noticeable thing I can recall was a global recession. Any additions to that?


Otherwise, everything else is equally not constructive

[GliderGuider]

201. "I don't "get" my "information" from anywhere."

I thought that might be the issue.

Relying purely on one's own "common sense" leads straight into the traps laid by your own psychology (e.g. magical thinking, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning). A broad reading of science is a great antidote to those pitfalls. But you do need to be prepared to have some of your dreams shattered.

[AverageJoe90]

205. Well, Hello, GG, long time no see.

The problem with your argument is, a decent(though, admittedly, not perfect) understanding of science is exactly what has led me to the conclusions that I have come to over the past 2 years.
And it really does boil down to common sense when it comes to certain things, such as predictions of the "inevitable" short-term collapse of civilization.

[GliderGuider]

228. A failure of education or imagination?

Your inability to admit the possibility of rapid decline tells me you haven't read much about the characteristics of complex systems.

This is as succinct a statement of the issue as I've read so far, from Jim Rickards' book Currency Wars:

The third principle is that complex systems run on exponentially greater amounts of energy. This energy can take many forms, but the point is that when you increase the system scale by a factor of ten, you increase the energy requirements by a factor of a thousand, and so on. The fourth principle is that complex systems are prone to catastrophic collapse. The third and fourth principles are related. When the system reaches a certain scale, the energy inputs dry up because the exponential relationship between scale and inputs exhausts the available resources. In a nutshell, complex systems arise spontaneously, behave unpredictably, exhaust resources and collapse catastrophically.

As much as you'd like to dress it up as a virtue, your aversion to the idea of rapid decline/collapse in large, complex systems is the sign of a psychological blind spot. You need to go much deeper into the science.

[AverageJoe90]

233. It's not so much an aversion to anything as trying to be realistic.

Yes, everyone knows that AGW is a complex problem, that the environment is indeed a complex thing, but again, short-term(at least out to 2100) global civilization collapse just isn't at all likely. It is quite possible that certain regions may suffer some serious issues by the middle of this century, such as the Middle East, or much of Africa for example, but barring a worldwide nuclear conflict(already extremely unlikely now), or Yellowstone erupting.....I just can't see this logically occurring.

What may happen out to say 3000 or so, I can't really say. Perhaps there may indeed be a real possibility of that then. But not in the foreseeable future.

Paul, I hate to say this, but you are reading WAAAAYYY too much into the theoretical stuff.....no offense meant.

[GliderGuider]

240. As my father used to say, "You can lead a horse to water,"

"But you can't make it think."

[kimbutgar]

147. One cosmic instant by John a. Livingston a natural history of human arrogance

I read this book in college in the 1970's he predicted that man would destroy their environment in a quest for it's natural resources. He stated we should be caretakers and utilize our natural resources and conserve them. I re-read this book again in 2002 and he was so spot on. The corporations are raping out planet for it's resources and the planet will fight back. The old adage "it's not nice to fool with mother nature" is succinct today.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

150. overpopulation. overpopulation. overpopulation.

I've been saying that for decades. Used to get me SO flamed on DU2. (I was FizzFuzz).

If I were the Boss of Everything, I'd have set up taxes on having children, percent to increase exponentially with each added child. Tax cuts for the childfree. Tax cuts for every tree planted. .......and an ongoing consulting committee of experts in various fields to advise me.

Dream on.....

[NoOneMan]

174. Mainly in North America

The billion in Africa are about 4% of our total emissions.

But lets continue to push the meme and ignore overconsumption or the world's elite

[stuntcat]

231. but instead of a..

Instead of a nice thumbs-up for not making another consumer, some women who will not make babies are harassed and bullied for it. For years I've known I'd rather die than give my baby this century. But now I feel even stronger that I'd kill myself before giving my daughter the chance to be treated the way I have for not making a baby.
Watching the mass-extinction and earth-rape will be sad. I'm only glad my years are half over and that I did the right thing no matter how intense the pressure.

[tabasco]

156. Humans are too stupid to control our overpopulation.

We will die off like a bunch of rats.

We have used our "intelligence" to kill off other species and destroy our ecosphere. We deserve what we get.

[pediatricmedic]

164. So the preppers and gun nuts are right then?

The authors are biologists, not historians, not sure I would put much faith in their prediction beyond general terms. Civilizations do fall, but another has always risen to take it's place.

I'm not even sure our civilization will even fall, there are a lot more factors at play then in any other civilization before. I would bet on a period of change and transformation more then anything.

[NoOneMan]

173. Not at all

Who would want to go through that much trouble to survive in the future shit world?

[AverageJoe90]

176. Me neither.

I can't quite say anything about the long term(that is, a millenium or two), but certainly, it won't happen in the short term, at least not on a global scale.

I would bet on a period of change and transformation more then anything.

Seems reasonable to me.

[blkmusclmachine]

165. Even if the world's superpowers could do anything about it, we know they wouldn't.

[FarCenter]

181. We'll almost all be dead by 2100

[AverageJoe90]

186. Not even close to likely.....

Barring perhaps some bizarre convergence of an asteroid impact, a Yellowstone eruption, some mega-pandemics, on top of ALL the absolute worst-case climate scenarios.....I can't see this logically occurring. Sorry.

[NoOneMan]

193. More reactionary over optimism from you

Most of us wont live to be over 100

[FarCenter]

194. Just add 87 years to everyone's age; even the majority of newborns won't live to 2100.

[AverageJoe90]

196. Well, okay, but the way you phrased it.....

It sounded like you meant that humanity would almost be extinct by 2100, or something. My apologies if I misunderstood you somehow.

[samsingh]

230. i'm starting to get very worried

the weather is screwed

[AverageJoe90]

234. I'm pretty concerned as well, Sam.

Honestly, there really are many people out there who share our concerns.....but I wouldn't quite go so far as to bet my money on global collapse, as some might. Certainly, though, there will be some long-term challenges we'll have to face, and there may not be much time to have a good chance of avoiding a 2*C rise by 2100.

There may be some hope, though, as some solutions are available:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solving-global-warming-not-easy-but-not-too-hard.html

The Pacala & Sokolow paper discussed here is a little oldish(from '04), but there are some good solutions in there....TBH, it's not a matter of "if", but "when" we can start. And hopefully, sooner, rather than later.

[samsingh]

246. thanks for the post. i'll review it.

[madville]

232. So when everything collapses

Will it be beneficial or not to have a stockpile of guns and ammo

[AverageJoe90]

235. In the extremely unlikely event of a collapse.....

I might want a few guns to keep me safe from bandits and stuff, but, more than anything, I'd try to find a community of like-minded people.....you would be much better off in groups than alone, I would suspect.

[madville]

237. I agree, an armed like-minded group would be ideal

A loner wouldn't last long, safety in numbers, until the cannibalism starts of course lol

[Octafish]

247. Global Collapse is for the Little People.

Is Survival Only for The Rich?

Anne Stanton
Northern Express, Dec. 13, 2007

Tiny Pellston--known as the “ice box of the nation”--is now steeped in a controversy that is heating up the nation.
Pellston is courting a Chicago area company that promises badly needed jobs, but strikes some people as bad news. The young company is called Sovereign Deed and plans to provide emergency supplies and services to wealthy clients who are caught in a major catastrophe, such as a pandemic, an earthquake, or terrorist attack. Clients will pay $50,000 to join, and $15,000 thereafter. It’s a tiered service; those who pay most have the greatest chances of survival.

COMPLEX FINANCES

Barrett Moore, executive chief officer of Sovereign Deed, has intimate ties with Pellston. Since the late 1800s, his family has owned property on nearby Burt Lake, where he spent many happy summers. Now 43 and living in the Chicago area, he continues to bring his own family to the lake’s sandy shores.

Moore, who did not return phone calls for an interview, describes himself as a “visionary,” in an autobiographical background provided to the State of Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

SNIP...

THE COST OF CATASTROPHE

In January, Moore approached Lyn Johnson, the controller of Emmet County, and told him about a plan for his eighth and newest company, Sovereign Deed. After Johnson agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement, Moore laid out his plan. The country, he said, was headed toward more catastrophes, and Katrina proved our federal government wasn’t up to the task. The aim of Sovereign Deed is to give its wealthy clients an edge during a catatrophe. The base package includeds one-on-one training, early notice of a catastrophe to allow escape before roads are clogged, emergency updates, food supplies, a survival kit and a satellite phone, if necessary. At the highest level of service, a member would be personally rescued and evacuated.

He made the case that if wealthy people are entitled to have more luxuries in their lives - nicer homes, cars, yachts and boats - why can’t they also have special services during a disaster. As the company matured, rescue services would be available at lower rates so that even more people could afford survival services.

CONTINUED...

http://www.northernexpress.com/michigan/article-3111-is-survival-only-for-the-rich.html

[GreenStormCloud]

250. There are a large number of things that can bring us crashing down - globally.

Sooner or later, these things will happen.

A highly contagious, highly deadly disease will sweep through humanity. It has happened before, several time. The great flu in 1918 killed about 10% of humanity, the great plague killed about 1/3.

A Carrington Event. That was a super extreme solar flare in 1859. It caused currents in telegraph lines that started fires in some telegraph offices. Such an event today would collapse the entire electric grid and fry lots of home and office electronics. Most cars have electronic ignition and would be dead. All cell phone towers would go out.

Global economic collapse. Modern civilization is increasingly complex and interdependent, like a very complex machine. Eventually something with throw a monkey wrench into the economic gears and the machine stops.

[AverageJoe90]

251. Theoretically, perhaps.....

Maybe Apophis hits somewhere during one of its two scheduled visits.....or Yellowstone blows up and covers most of the northern half of the U.S. in a blanket of ashes. Hell, maybe aliens from the planet Xenon or Alpha Centauri or whatever decide to land in out major cities and try take over the world, a la "War of the Worlds".

But really, none of these things are statistically likely, and even if another Great Depression occurs, or a Carrington event blacks out half of the U.S. or coastal China or something, while both of these would indeed be quite damaging in the short term, neither of them would be enough to quite bring around a total, Mad-Max type collapse in the long run.

[GreenStormCloud]

254. You need to read up on what a Carrington Event would do.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/

I hope you will accept National Geographic a being a scientific site.

Basically, a Carrington Event is strong enough to destroy all power grids of the earth, and all the microelectronics, except for those systems that would be shielded in a Faraday cage or its equivalent.

[reminder2]

252. With the droughts

we've had and the acidification of our oceans, I see a global collapse when it comes to food scarcity. My parents own a farm in New Mexico and had to go to a well some years back. Now, not even the well water is enough. They're now looking at planting crops that are drought resistant. Many farmers and ranchers are being hit hard across the globe because of drought. I don't see the droughts as getting better but many of the ranchers and farmers do see it getting better. It's kind of sad to watch them. I know they're gun toting, religious folks, but they work damn hard. I just wish they would quit drinking the kool aid and start listening to the scientists.