Is our civilization pwned?

[Biff_Loman]

Let's assume that we are concerned with the longevity of our civilization. Arbitrarily, I'll say that the current version of our civilization began around 1750 with the origins of the industrial revolution/Age of Enlightenment/whatever else.

Have we had a good run, or are we just getting started?

The coming century will have us bumping up against the complimentary perils of global warming and petroleum depletion. Nuclear war also lurks in the background, less prominent than in the 20th century but still very real.

It seems profoundly sad, to me, to think of our civilization crumbling after we've come so far. Do you think we're smart enough to make it?

[garak]

I think we're probably just an early ripple in a long history of civilizations. Only earth-shattering catastrophe (i.e. meteor/asteroid) would totally wipe out man, and I doubt that will happen for a very long time (compared to the timescales that we're used to dealing with). But the prediction game is hard. I just wish I could know what will happen for the next few million years.

[e-Centric]

Let's assume that we are concerned with the longevity of our civilization. Arbitrarily, I'll say that the current version of our civilization began around 1750 with the origins of the industrial revolution/Age of Enlightenment/whatever else.

Have we had a good run, or are we just getting started?

The coming century will have us bumping up against the complimentary perils of global warming and petroleum depletion. Nuclear war also lurks in the background, less prominent than in the 20th century but still very real.

It seems profoundly sad, to me, to think of our civilization crumbling after we've come so far. Do you think we're smart enough to make it?

Sometimes I wonder if 'smart enough' has much to do with how our civilization will fare. This is only an idea with no back-up, but I tend to think that if we are to survive, it will be on the coattails of the greedy mega-rich. In their continued exploitation and focus on gaining more and more wealth, it will be in their best interests to fund technological advances that will enable them to continue on their path.

If that is the case, the "trickle down theory", in as far as technology geared to our drastically changing environment, may well enable our 'civilization' to continue. I wonder what the standard of living will be for those of us less fortunate.

[Ferrus]

China still uses 75% coal, and while they will be affected by global warming, they will have the large land area and population to shake it off. Could be China's time in the sun...

[garak]

China still uses 75% coal, and while they will be affected by global warming, they will have the large land area and population to shake it off. Could be China's time in the sun...

China's making a lot of progress either way. Someone told me that if you look back for the past few thousand years, China has been the biggest world power for all of those years except for the small period that we're apparently at the tail end of right now. But I don't know much history so I'm possibly repeating BS.

[DevNull]

I can't really see the Chinese wanting our role on this planet. They seem to have a great concept of the need to control their population, as evil as it may seem to appear in current practice. They are great at all levels of hard work which if you look at all the troublemaking countries right now, they are chock full of loafers. Eons of written history have given the Chinese some great insight and wisdom.

I, personally, see a new age coming, not a simple takeover of roles.

In this age of rapid comminication, most people on this planet are going to get mighty sick of the whiners and loafers and their opportunistic leaders who do nothing but mooch. Why the hell would China want to get all caught up in that?

If they will lead anything, they will lead by example, not by force.

Just my thoughts.

[e-Centric]

There seems to be a contradiction in your words about the Chinese. On the one hand you state that they are great at all levels of hard work (while "troublemaking" countries are chock full of loafers).

Then you state that you see a new age coming where "most people on this planet are going to get mighty sick of the whiners and loafers and the opportunistic leaders who do nothing but mooch.

Wouldn't it then, by your reasoning, point to the Chinese as wanting the leading role on this planet, since they value hard work at all levels?

"...lead by example, not force."

Tranquil hegemony, perhaps?

[DevNull]

There seems to be a contradiction in your words about the Chinese. On the one hand you state that they are great at all levels of hard work (while "troublemaking" countries are chock full of loafers).

Then you state that you see a new age coming where "most people on this planet are going to get mighty sick of the whiners and loafers and the opportunistic leaders who do nothing but mooch.

Wouldn't it then, by your reasoning, point to the Chinese as wanting the leading role on this planet, since they value hard work at all levels?

"...lead by example, not force."

Tranquil hegemony, perhaps?

One does not need to aspire to control everyone elses behaviour in order to truly value their own merit system. That is more of a liberal American thing.

Tranquil hegemony, yes..... *in time*. The Chinese have been historically far more patient in global matters than any country I know. Ninety-nine year lease on Hong Kong. Twenty year in-the-future deal with Carter for the Panama Canal trade route.

I look forward to their saner takes on global living. I will be dead by then, but except for their penchant for clampdown on information, they are destined to reign as victors in my eyes unless we get off this rock somehow.

[e-Centric]

One does not need to aspire to control everyone elses behaviour in order to truly value their own merit system. That is more of a liberal American thing.

Haven't the Chinese proven, by their own severe birth control laws, and by their violent stifling of the spread of information, that this is not a liberal American thing? On the contrary, Americans have, as a whole, set a new standard of freedom throughout the world (present admin excluded).


Tranquil hegemony, yes..... *in time*. The Chinese have been historically far more patient in global matters than any country I know. Ninety-nine year lease on Hong Kong. Twenty year in-the-future deal with Carter for the Panama Canal trade route.

*in time*... I do agree with you here. They think in centuries, whilst we tend to think in years, or at the most, decades. Score one for the Chinese.


I look forward to their saner takes on global living. I will be dead by then, but except for their penchant for clampdown on information, they are destined to reign as victors in my eyes unless we get off this rock somehow.

But, the penchant for clampdown on information will be their undoing. Just as book burners of the past failed to stop the spread of ideas, so will the Chinese fail in this endeavor. It's gone beyond them already.

They may have the potential to be *the* world power, but their culture, their politics, will in the end keep them from realizing this goal, if it is indeed their goal.

[Ferrus]

China's making a lot of progress either way. Someone told me that if you look back for the past few thousand years, China has been the biggest world power for all of those years except for the small period that we're apparently at the tail end of right now. But I don't know much history so I'm possibly repeating BS.
China were probably the prepotent force in the world from the collapse of the Roman empire till Spain's apogee in the 17th century. China been on a backfoot since the influx of wealth and land from the New World (and to a lesser extent Australia) in the 17th and 18th century and then the process of industrialisation and imperialism set them back further in the 19th. They had the chance to make up for lost time in the 20th but internal division from the beginning of the century till the 70's prevented this. Now the sleeping giant appears to be awakening.

[NoahFence]

Petroleum and fossil fuels will not just *POP* run out one day. It will be a gradual drying up. As this happens, the price will rise, making it suddenly economically desireable and technologically feasible to go way out of your way to get other reserves, like the oil sands in northern Canada. When the process pays off the initial investment the price will gradually come down some. All this, of course, simply staves off the end.

At some point we will have reached the time when it is very difficult (read: expensive) to acquire oil and such. As soon as it becomes less expensive to field a hydrogen/solar/whatever powered economy than to keep sucking up the Texas Tea and sending West Virginians to the bowels of hell for buckets of brimstone, it will happen like wildfire.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

[charred_heart]

Sometimes I wonder if 'smart enough' has much to do with how our civilization will fare. This is only an idea with no back-up, but I tend to think that if we are to survive, it will be on the coattails of the greedy mega-rich. kind of like Rome. Look where that got them?

[SensEye]

I think we are in pretty good shape civilization wise. Widespread nuclear war could knock us down a peg or two. Some super virus killer plague could be trouble as well.

Climate change or an energy crisis could possibly result in a potentially large culling of the herd. The good news is, it should be the poor countries that suffer the most from any food shortage or disasterous climate change. As long as the disaster discriminates based on economic status, civilization should come out alright as such presumes the wealthy, well educated populations will survive.

[ajblaise]

I wouldn't rather be around at any other point in human history.

Most of us have got it made compared to our ancestors, at least materially.

As for oil; countries like Sweden say they are aiming to be oil free in 2009 (I forget where I read this).

We could probably stop using fossil fuels right now if we wanted, but there are some very powerful people that want to squeeze every last penny out of this power source. Oh well, big deal.

[Spirit]

The good news is, it should be the poor countries that suffer the most from any food shortage or disasterous climate change. As long as the disaster discriminates based on economic status, civilization should come out alright as such presumes the wealthy, well educated populations will survive.

That's just a wonderful outcome, isn't it? <_< And a good reminder that our existence isn't based on morality.

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

Do you think we're smart enough to make it?

looking at the track record, probably not. skin of one's teeth

[macr0]

I wonder if the Emperor Honorious watching the Visigoths coming over the seventh hill could truly realize that the Roman Empire was about to fall. This is really just another page of history, isn't it? Will this be the end of our civilization? Turn the page.

-- Jean-Luc Picard


I don't think so. At least, not yet.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Petroleum and fossil fuels will not just *POP* run out one day. It will be a gradual drying up. As this happens, the price will rise, making it suddenly economically desireable and technologically feasible to go way out of your way to get other reserves, like the oil sands in northern Canada. When the process pays off the initial investment the price will gradually come down some. All this, of course, simply staves off the end.Oil sands don't yield energy, they cost energy. Mining oil costs more energy than it delivers, ergo it's worse than pointless. And it can only be profitable while subsidized by another, cheaper energy source.


At some point we will have reached the time when it is very difficult (read: expensive) to acquire oil and such. As soon as it becomes less expensive to field a hydrogen/solar/whatever powered economy than to keep sucking up the Texas Tea and sending West Virginians to the bowels of hell for buckets of brimstone, it will happen like wildfire.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
Hydrogen is not a power source, but a storage medium. Solar still holds promises, but the manufacturing of the devices and the application in liquid fuels are still unsolved problems.


We could probably stop using fossil fuels right now if we wanted, but there are some very powerful people that want to squeeze every last penny out of this power source. Oh well, big deal.Please try. Especially in densely populated area's. Refuse to use anything that is provided to you - directly or indirectly - by using oil for, say, a week. If you are still alive then, report.

[sbw]

As for oil; countries like Sweden say they are aiming to be oil free in 2009 (I forget where I read this).

isnt brazil like self-sufficient or they set that as the goal or something? I can't remember exactly...seems like a good idea

Scott

[Ferrus]

Brazil isn't self sufficient - but their oil use is far less, the use cars where the petrol is a mixture of petroleum and alcohol.

Food would be an issue, we have a superabundance of food at the moment, so we could probably survive without oil and just using techniques we know work well so long as we can ration the food. The real problem would come from transport.

All of which bodes the possibikity of a return to coal - there are enough coal mines left with plenty of it in, though coal is likely to make the global warming situation far worse.

[ApeTheDog]

Nah, I think the future lies in a federation of societies. Just like the human body is a federation of bacteria colonies - each cell being a perfect society in which everything does exactly what it is supposed to, and the end-result is perfectly predictable, so too will our societies become boring, and become a part of a larger organ.

Imagine a federation compromising several civilizations, in which each civilization acts according to parameters from which it never, ever deviates. This makes it so the civilization can basically act as a building block.

Planet A takes in so much coal, and puts out so much iron - always. Planet B takes in this much iron, and puts out this much raw carbon fibre. Planet C takes in the carbon fibre, and puts out clones that are used to populate planet A and B with worker drones... like that. That's the future.

Just like all life started out with bacteria, trying to form colonies - until finally they'd perfected that and managed to move to the level beyond that (using those perfect colonies to form a larger organism that RELIED on these colonies functioning perfectly), so too will all our societies become a boring part of something larger. Anything to instill chaos into order.

[JAVO]

We're going to need something much better than the Robertson screw to save us, pal! :D

We've already been spared from probable global nuclear destruction once during the Cold War. We should count ourselves blessed and fortunate. Now that smaller, less-disciplined countries are gaining the capability to split atoms instead of just rocks, we're screwed. And this time it's with a Robertson screw, not those crappy slotted or Philips which allow less torque! :eek:

[Intension]

We're going to need something much better than the Robertson screw to save us, pal! :D

We've already been spared from probable global nuclear destruction once during the Cold War. We should count ourselves blessed and fortunate. Now that smaller, less-disciplined countries are gaining the capability to split atoms instead of just rocks, we're screwed. And this time it's with a Robertson screw, not those crappy slotted or Philips which allow less torque! :eek:

Just as handguns level the playing field between individuals of different sizes and strengths, nuclear weapons level the playing field between military forces. Proliferation thus makes military interventionism less attractive; if interventionism becomes less attractive the west will become less involved in other nations' quarrels; if the west is less involved in other nations' quarrels we will have fewer enemies; if we have fewer enemies we will have more peace.

I don't want al Qaeda to have nukes (I want them dead), but on the whole, proliferation has an upside. Trying to keep the peace by excluding all but a select few from technology developed in the 1940s is an unworkable strategy in the long run.

[JAVO]

Just as handguns level the playing field between individuals of different sizes and strengths, nuclear weapons level the playing field between military forces. Proliferation thus makes military interventionism less attractive; if interventionism becomes less attractive the west will become less involved in other nations' quarrels; if the west is less involved in other nations' quarrels we will have fewer enemies; if we have fewer enemies we will have more peace.

I don't want al Qaeda to have nukes (I want them dead), but on the whole, proliferation has an upside. Trying to keep the peace by excluding all but a select few from technology developed in the 1940s is an unworkable strategy in the long run.

It's no accident that during the Cold War, this situation was given the acronym MAD, mutually assured destruction. ;)

I disagree. Smaller countries generally will not have the capability to destroy us like the USSR had. They are also more unstable and less disciplined than the USSR.