Societal Collapse

[EgonSpengler]

I'll throw a log onto the fire: A "supervolcano" eruption at Yellowstone National Park.

The eruption of Indonesia's Mount Tambora in 1815 and Mount Krakatoa in 1883 were merely "ultra plinian" eruptions, smaller in scale than a supervolcano. Tambora's eruption resulted in "The Year Without Summer" in New England and Western Europe, and Krakatoa's explosion has been described as the loudest sound ever, supposedly heard by people in Perth, 2000 miles away.

The USGS released a report this past Summer: Yellowstone supereruption would send ash across North America. According to them, the worst-case scenario would be an eruption of more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of material, an "umbrella cloud" so powerful it would defy existing air currents and spread across the entire continent (sorry, Canadians, you'd be going to Hell right along with us).

As for the short-term effects of volcanic ash,

"Even small accumulations [of volcanic ash] only millimeters or centimeters (less than an inch to an inch) thick could cause major effects around the country, including reduced traction on roads, shorted-out electrical transformers and respiratory problems, according to previous research cited in the new study. Prior research has also found that multiple inches of ash can damage buildings, block sewer and water lines, and disrupt livestock and crop production."

Power could be disrupted across the entire continent; imagine the 2003 blackout of the Eastern U.S., writ large. Emergency services would be overwhelmed; here again, we have a couple of case-studies in miniature, in Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Unlike those events, no help would be available from other parts of the country. Mid-term, it's not hard to imagine famine across the United States and Canada, with "dominoes" falling everywhere that imports agricultural products from either of those countries. Longer-term, the ash cloud would travel around the world, much as the cloud from Tambora did in 1816.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Edit: speaking of asteroids. We currently cannot see roughly half the Near Earth asteroid, since they're between us and the Sun (which would require daytime observation, which everyone with a telescope knows can't be done). There's a donation-funded organization intending to put up a specialised telescope orbiting the Sun instead of Earth that will be able to see those missing asteroids. The org is called B612. Honestly, check them out. They're this year's top contender for my annual $50 investment into space development

Asteroids are pretty scary because, while the chance of a large one hitting us any time soon is small, there isn't anything we can do to stop it. A large asteroid or comet heading to us from the Kuiper belt or Oort cloud could reach us quite quickly and, as you said, depending on the angle we might not even see it happening until it's VERY close. But even if we do see it happening, we have nothing. No way of dealing with it. Even if we notice it from quite a distance there's little we can do. Contrary to what the movie Armageddon taught people, we can't deal with a situation like that on short notice. Even if an incoming object is a couple of years out it's almost certainly already too late. Some of the strategies people have proposed for dealing with it would require decades of warning. All we can do in this case is hope for the best.

As a SoCal resident the earthquake thing worries me more.

 

[Gucumatz]

I'll throw a log onto the fire: A "supervolcano" eruption at Yellowstone National Park.

The eruption of Indonesia's Mount Tambora in 1815 and Mount Krakatoa in 1883 were merely "ultra plinian" eruptions, smaller in scale than a supervolcano. Tambora's eruption resulted in "The Year Without Summer" in New England and Western Europe, and Krakatoa's explosion has been described as the loudest sound ever, supposedly heard by people in Perth, 2000 miles away.

The USGS released a report this past Summer: Yellowstone supereruption would send ash across North America. According to them, the worst-case scenario would be an eruption of more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of material, an "umbrella cloud" so powerful it would defy existing air currents and spread across the entire continent (sorry, Canadians, you'd be going to Hell right along with us).

As for the short-term effects of volcanic ash,

"Even small accumulations [of volcanic ash] only millimeters or centimeters (less than an inch to an inch) thick could cause major effects around the country, including reduced traction on roads, shorted-out electrical transformers and respiratory problems, according to previous research cited in the new study. Prior research has also found that multiple inches of ash can damage buildings, block sewer and water lines, and disrupt livestock and crop production."

Power could be disrupted across the entire continent; imagine the 2003 blackout of the Eastern U.S., writ large. Emergency services would be overwhelmed; here again, we have a couple of case-studies in miniature, in Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Unlike those events, no help would be available from other parts of the country. Mid-term, it's not hard to imagine famine across the United States and Canada, with "dominoes" falling everywhere that imports agricultural products from either of those countries. Longer-term, the ash cloud would travel around the world, much as the cloud from Tambora did in 1816.

Yea Yellowstone has to be pretty high up there on theoretically scary things along with asteroids. I think I remember reading years ago that they have found remains of animals who died nearly instantly as far away as Arkansas-California when Yellowstone erupted previously. The west coast of the US would pretty much no longer be a thing and the east coast would be heavily hit from the economic, population, and agricultural catastrophe that would follow and so would the rest of the world.
=======

Another thing in general - water. By 2050 the Colorado River Basin as an example [and its associated aquifers] is expected to have its streamflows and available water decreased by anywhere from 10-50%. A 9% reduction in water from the Colorado Basin is the equivalent of removing half of LA's water supply. Cities across the Southwest will face major shortages and urban flight unless new sources of water are made , similar to what happened in Detroit, may become a major thing in the southwest within the century. [even optimistic projections of additional conservation measures if implemented are not likely to change much]


And the US handles water better than many 2nd world-3rd world nations who are also overusing water. Desalination has its issues, if we can find a way to deal with the transport of water and unwanted products of desalination it may avert the issue though

 

[Borachio]

Anomie.

By definition this is societal collapse. And, in my opinion, without it, society will not collapse.

Which isn't to say that wars, plagues, caldera explosion, asteroid impacts and other natural disaster couldn't have a major impact. Just that they wouldn't, by themselves, result in the collapse of society.

I guess a lot depends on what you mean by "society" and "collapse".

 

[Samson]

As someone who made their living as a car salesman...the differences between cars are 95% advertising. A car is a car, the American manufacturers just got badly out marketed.

I have to ask, you may sell cars but do you drive them? Do you enjoy driving a car around a corner (or even better a roundabout) at a speed that approaches the limit of traction of the tires? Have you driven a 3 series BMW? Have you driven an equivalent sized / engined american car? If you answer yes to these questions and still hold that 95% of the difference is advertising I will be shocked.

For reference, I have spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of an early 90's ford contor, and an early 90's BMW 325. Both have a 2.5l engine, the BMW was cheaper, faster, better handling, used less fuel, better in every way really.

 

[Farm Boy]

Except repair. At least if you're around here. Oh sure, it might break catastrophically 33% less, but it costs 300% more to repair anything that does break and they tend to have a plethora of feature creep to break. Oh, and don't drive like a jerk on public roads. Get a car for the track if you want to be that guy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Asteroids are pretty scary because, while the chance of a large one hitting us any time soon is small, there isn't anything we can do to stop it. A large asteroid or comet heading to us from the Kuiper belt or Oort cloud could reach us quite quickly and, as you said, depending on the angle we might not even see it happening until it's VERY close. But even if we do see it happening, we have nothing. No way of dealing with it. Even if we notice it from quite a distance there's little we can do. Contrary to what the movie Armageddon taught people, we can't deal with a situation like that on short notice. Even if an incoming object is a couple of years out it's almost certainly already too late. Some of the strategies people have proposed for dealing with it would require decades of warning. All we can do in this case is hope for the best.

Yeah, the B612 videos really help highlight this. Time is essential, since it's utterly handlable, but only if you have time. There was a awesomely predicted asteroid a couple years ago that we watched graze us, confident we were in no danger. The same day we got blindsided, 1000 people injured by another asteroid that we had no idea was there. I like the B612 project, it will double our knowledge base, increasing our ability to handle risks by 100%. Plus, it doubles the opportunities for the dreamers, like the asteroid-miners at Planetary Resources. A perfect double whammy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have to ask, you may sell cars but do you drive them? Do you enjoy driving a car around a corner (or even better a roundabout) at a speed that approaches the limit of traction of the tires? Have you driven a 3 series BMW? Have you driven an equivalent sized / engined american car? If you answer yes to these questions and still hold that 95% of the difference is advertising I will be shocked.

For reference, I have spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of an early 90's ford contor, and an early 90's BMW 325. Both have a 2.5l engine, the BMW was cheaper, faster, better handling, used less fuel, better in every way really.

Because I was selling them I drove a lot of them. Probably more different kinds than the average 'motorhead enthusiast' will ever have a chance to (including a Dodge Viper). I often took cars off the lot early in the morning out to my personal bit of known desolation where I could get away with breaking all the laws without endangering anyone.

I loved selling cars to people like you. 'Oh my! Top end is close to 200 mph! <For your daily commute at forty on a highway with a limit of sixty you clearly need to pay for this high end model instead of some 'ordinary' car> Build up the 'excitement', take your money, send you on your way...next!

Notice I do not claim that I did not directly benefit from the advertising.

 

[Borachio]

Owning things is complex though. And motor cars are no exception.

It's not just a matter of what a particular model will "do", but also how it, allegedly and because of public perception actually, does enhance the status and image of its owner.

 

[Samson]

Because I was selling them I drove a lot of them. Probably more different kinds than the average 'motorhead enthusiast' will ever have a chance to (including a Dodge Viper). I often took cars off the lot early in the morning out to my personal bit of known desolation where I could get away with breaking all the laws without endangering anyone.

I loved selling cars to people like you. 'Oh my! Top end is close to 200 mph! <For your daily commute at forty on a highway with a limit of sixty you clearly need to pay for this high end model instead of some 'ordinary' car> Build up the 'excitement', take your money, send you on your way...next!

Notice I do not claim that I did not directly benefit from the advertising.

I am still not sure if you really feel that an "average" german car is really much the same as an "average" american car to someone who enjoys driving. Perhaps I am not clear about my point. It is that "normal" german cars are better than any other countries "normal" cars. By normal I guess I mean 4 door, 5 seat, sales rep price band. By better I mean more fun to drive.

I think you may have me wrong. I do know very much the effect of power to weight ratio, and more importantly driven wheels, weight distribution and some handling features (ie. limited slip differential) have on my enjoyment of my commute. My commute involves 1 180 degree roundabout maneuver, and when the roundabout is clear I can get a smile in a BMW that I cannot get in a front wheel drive rep-mobile.

The other reason you may not like me as a customer is that I tend to buy cars from an auction where car dealers also buy cars from, and try to spend ~300 GBP (~500 USD) tops on any car.

 

[Borachio]

Those are really cheap cars, Samson! I'd expect you have to buy another after a year or two.

And I'd also expect you have to spend that sort of amount on getting one through the MoT. Unless you're really lucky.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not just a matter of what a particular model will "do", but also how it, allegedly and because of public perception actually, does enhance the status and image of its owner.

Which is where advertising comes into play.

@Samson...in the US to buy cars at those auctions you have to be licensed as a dealer. Someone who wastes the tremendous opportunity such a license presents by just using it to buy their own beater to drive to work would be such an anomaly as to be insignificant to the process of making a living as a car salesman. If those auctions were open to the public things would be much different I suppose. For my part I mostly sold new cars throughout my career. Slightly lower commission, but less after sale heat...and every minute wasted handling heat after the deal may be getting in the way of the next deal.

And just for the record, in California you can't buy a car for $500 if you are a junkyard buying them for parts, much less to drive them.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've experienced vastly different fuel economies in the cars I've owned. Those differences ended up being worth a few hundred dollars per year.

 

[Samson]

Those are really cheap cars, Samson! I'd expect you have to buy another after a year or two.

And I'd also expect you have to spend that sort of amount on getting one through the MoT. Unless you're really lucky.

It is not so much as luck, but that you have to accept that not all will last, and most importantly that you do NOT spend more money on fixing the car than you spent on it. This does mean that you have to throw away functioning cars, which when they are nice can be a little heart wrenching, but every time I have broken this rule I have regretted it. Also it means that they sometimes last less than a year or 2, but then sometimes they last a few years, and when you are spending less on them than most people spend on a service then it is economically very reasonable. It has the added advantage (to me) that you have a good reason to change your car more frequently, which increases the fun of driving.

Which is where advertising comes into play.

@Samson...in the US to buy cars at those auctions you have to be licensed as a dealer. Someone who wastes the tremendous opportunity such a license presents by just using it to buy their own beater to drive to work would be such an anomaly as to be insignificant to the process of making a living as a car salesman. If those auctions were open to the public things would be much different I suppose. For my part I mostly sold new cars throughout my career. Slightly lower commission, but less after sale heat...and every minute wasted handling heat after the deal may be getting in the way of the next deal.

And just for the record, in California you can't buy a car for $500 if you are a junkyard buying them for parts, much less to drive them.

Who makes that rule? If that is the government it sounds like they are in the pockets of the car dealers. The one I go to is WOMA, and there is no restriction on who can buy the cars.

Also for the record, in California you CAN buy a car for less than $1000 dollars and drive it. After I write off my brothers early 90's ford contour I bought him a late 80's Mercedes 420 for $800 and that lasted about 18 months. This was somewhere south of the bay area, Santa Clara I think.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who makes that rule? If that is the government it sounds like they are in the pockets of the car dealers. The one I go to is WOMA, and there is no restriction on who can buy the cars.

It falls under 'consumer protection'. If I could go to auctions and buy cars and resell them without having to worry about meeting the product standards that a dealership is required to meet I could make a fortune...but I can't.

Also for the record, in California you CAN buy a car for less than $1000 dollars and drive it. After I write off my brothers early 90's ford contour I bought him a late 80's Mercedes 420 for $800 and that lasted about 18 months. This was somewhere south of the bay area, Santa Clara I think.

Well, 800 > 500.

That aside, there's always an exception out there somewhere. As a car salesman I dealt with 'the car buying public'. An exception like you exists, but in the million and a half new car sales per year California market that exception is not important. Just like the one 800 dollar car is not important.

 

[Farm Boy]

Who makes that rule? If that is the government it sounds like they are in the pockets of the car dealers.

Our Federal and state governments do give the libertarians ammunition, don't they? Which often reinforces the cronyism in effect, but it didn't really need it in the first place. It'd be there with or without them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Don't worry. The Free Market will get us to Peak Oil asap, and then we'll see who has the last laugh. Not the automotive lobbyists!

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't worry. The Free Market will get us to Peak Oil asap, and then we'll see who has the last laugh. Not the automotive lobbyists!

They'll have the capital to switch industries when it's profitable and convenient. The autoworkers will be screwed though. They'll probably just take it raw dog for lack of options.

 

[Samson]

It falls under 'consumer protection'. If I could go to auctions and buy cars and resell them without having to worry about meeting the product standards that a dealership is required to meet I could make a fortune...but I can't.

In the UK that restriction is put at the point of sale, in that if you sell cars for a living then you have the product standards. Putting it at the point of purchase seems to me to be distorting the market. But hey, it is up to you how you structure your car market.

Well, 800 > 500.

That aside, there's always an exception out there somewhere. As a car salesman I dealt with 'the car buying public'. An exception like you exists, but in the million and a half new car sales per year California market that exception is not important. Just like the one 800 dollar car is not important.

I am aware that 800 > 500, but that was the only data point I have. I do also understand that my particular car buying habits are unusual, but I do not understand why. I am not convinced that my example is that exceptional, this was me on holiday trying to replace my brothers car in one day from craigslist and that is what I came up with. Surely it cannot be that much of an outlier? It is worth mentioning that this was some years ago, perhaps 4.

I am still interested in if you really feel that an "average" german car is really much the same as an "average" american car to someone who enjoys driving.

 

[Borachio]

I do also understand that my particular car buying habits are unusual, but I do not understand why.

You're not that unusual. I know of more than one other person who does exactly as you.

I would too. Provided 1) my knowledge of motor cars was up to muster, 2) I could be bothered replacing cars on such a regular basis (I generally keep mine for 10 years or so) and 3) I didn't mind breaking down now and again (which I can't honestly stand).

I stick to low-mileage 5 to 10 year old motors with one careful previous owner.