Why the demise of civilization may be inevitable!

Wouldn't it be E◊A ? (=There exists a path in which A will hold) After all, inevitability doesn't imply that A has to hold forever (as □ would denote).

Well A wouldn't have to hold forever for it to be necessary, it would just have to hold in every possible world? It might get sticky though if we determine that we have to put temporal indexes into the definitions... but one plausible reading of inevitable would be "no matter what, it would have happened", which seems to be to be roughly the same as modal necessity. Of course it may not a very natural way to think of Mise's statement, but I was just being silly about it anyways. :p
 
All future speculation is based on... speculation. Facts only exist in the present and past, anyone who claims they exist in the future is trying to sell you something. ;)

Just like these kind of people are trying to sell their doomsday theories?
 
This thread has been pretty boring so far. I'm dissapointed. :(

So to stimulate things I'll post some discussion from another version of this thread (on another forum).


Guy A from other forum said:
Article said:
To keep growing, societies must keep solving problems as they arise. Yet each problem solved means more complexity. Success generates a larger population, more kinds of specialists, more resources to manage, more information to juggle - and, ultimately, less bang for your buck.

Eventually, says Tainter, the point is reached when all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain its existing level of complexity.
Im crying BS on this one. Industrialization means we didnt hit the brick wall that previous civilizations ran into in terms of ever increasingly complex systems. The computer age just extended that limit pretty much as far as we have the imagination to take it.

Theres a million and one ways we can **** up human civilization, but this certainly isnt going to be how.

To which I replied

Narz to Guy A said:
That's an interesting point (about computers taking over some of our workload). However that runs into another concern, one that has been extremely popular in the popular media & before that in sci-fi literature, the idea that we are giving "the machines" too much power. Even if you don't believe in a "rise of the machines scenario" (which I certainly don't, btw) there still are inherent risks involved in giving more and more to machines to do our thinking for us. Like all our technology, dependence on computers gives us exponentially greater power than without them (Steve Jobs or some computer big shot used the analogy of it being PC's being bicycles for our minds) but they also creates weaknesses (the ease of sabotage comes to mind and other security issues). I'm personally a huge fan of computers (specifically in the way they allow us to communicate - the Internet) and think the existence of the Internet (and the fact that it's still, for the most part, free & uncensored) is one of the brightest beacons of hope we have.

Another problem with computers, I might have added is that they are massively resource intensive. Another plus with computers, is that they can become smaller & smaller each year as technology improves. Nevertheless, there is still a massive infrastructure needed and countless highly skilled experts to keep the computer "grid" (Internet) up & running. In any kind of major socitial disaster it's doubtful they'd be enough manpower to keep things running smoothly. And then the Internet will become just another thing we've forgetten how to do without that we must.

Guy B responding the Guy A said:
That's organization of production. But you need more energy. The great shifts that made Western Civilization into something different the world has never seen, took new forms of energy and resources.

The Renaissance would have just been an interesting flowering of intellectual and artistic achievement, one of your regular highs and lows. Except that while it was happening Europe found a vast new source of energy. Colonialism and slavery of people and land who for all intents and purposes did not exist in the world system: the Americans. Vast wealth and natural resources were dumped into Europe's economy, as were millions of new laborers and producers in a rapid series of conquests that dwarfed Alexander's run of things.

In turn, industrialism got a move on using older forms of power, and would have increased economic output. But utlimately, it succeeded in transforming humanity because it tapped a vast new source of energy in coal. The second wave of mechanization, petroleum and internal combustion engines, also had profound effects, in large part by tapping petroleum.

The problem now is that we are acutely energy aware, there are legions of scientists searching out new energies, but we know that there isn't much there. Solar, even vast solar farms in orbit, will help but only so much. Fission can help more due to the bang for the buck, but that fuel is limited long term, and there are a lot of high costs that have delayed its development.

Maybe someone will get all sci-fi and start pulling energy out of Dimension X, (leading to conflict with the Barbarians from Beyond the 8th Dimension), but the only "realistic" shot at producing enough energy to sustain the technological society designed in the late 20th century is fusion. And fusion is always X years away, with X never changing decade after decade.

I thought that was a very good post. :)

People tend to assume human progress springs randomly out of thin air but there is always a catalyst and a new energy source.
 
Just like these kind of people are trying to sell their doomsday theories?
Now. Unlike economists, historians & social sceintists don't claim to be able to predict the future. Hence the use of the phrase (or single word, depending on your spacing) : "may be".
 
NARZ YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS (President of Shell on our energy future. He isn't a random person on an internet forum though, so you might consider him biased). I think he presents a surprisingly sensible view though. He acknowledges the importance of the environment without going into some insane doomsday scenario.
 
Lolz, president of Shell as an unbiased observer. But ok, I'll watch it. Unlike certain folks I'm not afraid to watch videos from all perspectives. I admit I have some preconceived skepticism though.

I'd trust A NASA scientist* above a oil goon/tycoon about the future of the Earth (you should read my article if you care about the issue, I'll watch your video). Kind of like I'd trust a cancer researcher above a tobacco rep in regards to the health of my lungs.



*
Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.

"We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," according to James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.

Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.

The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.

"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained. "What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.

"You need a new Kyoto protocol with all the major emitters committed to it. Then you are cooking with gas."
 
I'd trust A NASA scientist above a oil goon/tycoon about the future of the Earth (you should read my article if you care about the issue, I'll watch your video). Kind of like I'd trust a cancer researcher above a tobacco rep in regards to the health of my lungs.

The Shell dude agrees with a lot of what that guy is saying (for example, phasing out of old-style coal plants, caps on carbon emissions, etc.). Like I said, the Shell guy isn't arguing that there is no energy crisis, he is just arguing that doomsday isn't on the way. Remember, according to you things will be so bad within just a few years (8 years IIRC) that currency won't even exist.
 
The Shell dude agrees with a lot of what that guy is saying (for example, phasing out of old-style coal plants, caps on carbon emissions, etc.). Like I said, the Shell guy isn't arguing that there is no energy crisis, he is just arguing that doomsday isn't on the way. Remember, according to you things will be so bad within just a few years (8 years IIRC) that currency won't even exist.
Currency will always exist in some form (even if it's just apples and goat's milk). I made allusions to that theory (of complete rapid collapse, "hard crasher" scenario all of once and I don't really believe in it (for a fun thread on this, see here). I don't even think that a hyper-inflationary spiral into Zimbabwean territory is likely (for the US anyway) within the next decade or so (though certain we might see a lower-key version of that). It would kind of be funny to see amadeus's reaction to this though. :D
 
Excellent. All according to plan...

CASCADIA! CASCADIA! How awesome thou art now!
 
The Shell dude agrees with a lot of what that guy is saying (for example, phasing out of old-style coal plants, caps on carbon emissions, etc.). Like I said, the Shell guy isn't arguing that there is no energy crisis, he is just arguing that doomsday isn't on the way.
I watched almost the whole video. It was a bit interesting but I think he's a bit blandly over-optimistic. Oil shale is not conventional oil and acting as if we can switch over to Canadian or Colorado oil shale without a hitch he's nutty. If we could do that, we would have done it already, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

At least he admits that even with a massive full-on effort we could at most get 10-20% of our power (electricity, not vehicle fuel) from renewables within 20 years.

I'm also skeptical that there is tons of oil left to be drilled as he suggests ("environmentalists are stalling us!").

I agree that there will be civil unrest and riots in urban areas if we can't ramp up oil production. I just don't see us able to do that.

I can't tell whether he honestly believes everything he's saying or whether he's just doing PR for Shell.

He started getting boring around 35:00 so I cut it off.
 
Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.
I have my own 3 volume, 900 page report, where I call for everybody sending flowers to their mommy, nursing back to health little birdies that fall out of their nests, and politely saying 'gesundheit' whenever somebody sneezes.

I love these people who are always 'calling' for things. We cant even agree on a global ban on something as inane as whaling. Who's going to force every country in the world to shut down its coal plants?

I call on people to stop calling for things. Who are they calling anyway? Is it that broad? Im always hearing about countries getting money from a broad.

[/cricketsoundeffect]
 
But it makes them look good without actually having to do anything.

The Dalia Lama can "call for peace on Earth", GWB can proclaim "America is addicted to oil", everyone thinks they're wise & brave (well, that wears off quick with ol' George but you get the gist).

People don't really want to change. And, I'll be the first to admit, it's not just the big corporations fault, they're just playing into our hopes & fears, giving us what we want to placate and pacify us (Thunderfall has been specifically recruited to channel my great mind into frivolous discussions about the nature of reality with another key agent by the harmless sounding name of Bozo Erectus and start crazy threads about the state of the world while no actually doing a goddamned thing about it).

As Dick Cheney says "The American way of life is non-negotiable". In other words, there's gonna have to pry it out of our cold, dead hands.

Actually, I'm being somewhat cynical (perhaps for the sake of bonding). I don't really believe that people "don't want to change". I believe they do. They just don't know how. They're afraid of looking crazy, they've been led to believe that it's best not to rock the boat, that "experts" know best and that they're too small & weak to stand up to the forces that run the world. Perhaps, in some ways, they're right. But look at all the people who have managed to make a dent, despite humble origins. Gandhi springs to mind, even his Civilization (I & II anyway) opposite Genghis Khan barely made it thru children alive and went on to carve a great empire.

With every crisis comes opportunity, for every.... you get the idea. Now go watch Network or Fight Club or something and then go out and do something constructive. :)
 
Civilization will never collapse. Collapse is meaningless. Instead, it'll simply change. The only way civilization can "collapse" is with human extinction.

So you're saying that humans will never go extinct? :huh:
 
The argument presented in the OP depends on IFs and ANDs, as noted in the article itself. That's called speculation.

The Coming Age of Scarcity? Sounds like Thomas Malthus. He was so, right. Not. And, nicely, enough, Bartlett, whom you quote, accepts the label of being a modern day Malthus
"Not." Ah, the good old late-80's, early 90's. :D

All future arguments depend on IFs and ANDs. And what's wrong with speculation? As an economist speculation is your job.

Thomas Malthus didn't predict what a lift fossil fuels would give us. I suspect population will max out and begin to decline at around 7.5 billion or so.

So you're saying that humans will never go extinct? :huh:
If the free market decides it's sick of itself we'll die off, otherwise no. ;)
 
Maxing out at 7.5 billion isn't exactly catastrophic though is it. And tbh I reckon we'll max out far sooner than that, if we have more years like this year... (food shortages n all)
 
Maxing out at 7.5 billion isn't exactly catastrophic though is it. And tbh I reckon we'll max out far sooner than that, if we have more years like this year... (food shortages n all)
Maybe sooner. I don't think even 6 billion is sustainable long term. Ideal would be around 2-3 billion, IMO.

The point is that just because Malthus got the time table long doesn't mean we should party like it's 1999. Reading our current world situation as a vindication of the idea of infinite growth forever is... well, I don't want to flame.
 
Human Civilization will never collapse.

Now get off your soap box with the "The End of the World is Coming" sign :rolleyes:.
 
Back
Top Bottom