Civilization set for 'irreversible collapse'

[UM-Bot]

Two theoretical physicists believe that there is a 90% chance that civilization will collapse within 40 years.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/338486/civilization-on-track-for-irreversible-collapse

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 minutes ago, seanjo said:

a society every person in history would give an arm to live in.

Why hasn't that fact stopped you from complaining about things yet?

[jethrofloyd]

Then a aliens is coming. A bigfoots comes out of the woods. And, the woolly mammoth returns from the dead.

[Doug1029]

It may happen, but don't hold your breath until it does.

 

Since mid-March I have been working on a climate history of Oklahoma going back over 500 years.  I thought earlier that I was seeing an increase in humidity as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index.  Indeed, this seems to be the case going back to 1895 using instrumental data.  But before then, during the first half of the 19th century, Oklahoma was wetter than it is now.  So all I am doing, so far, is proving that climate changes.  Oklahoma climate will be the warmest it has ever been this year or next, but precip has been both lesser and greater during the last 250 years.

I still have a long way to go on this and we are about to enter another covid shutdown, so it will be awhile before I get back.  I'll let you know what I've found out before signing off for the shutdown.

Doug

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

Two theoretical physicists believe that there is a 90% chance that civilization will collapse within 40 years.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/338486/civilization-on-track-for-irreversible-collapse

The climate alarmists need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Doug1029]

19 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The climate alarmists need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

These are two theoretical physicists.  They don't have much to do with climate.  I'd make that pinch about the size of a cattle salt block.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Here is the actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6

Doug

[Duke Wellington]

21 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Here is the actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6

Doug

I`m against limiters.

We must limit the number of people being born, we must limit our carbon output, we must limit our industry to green only, etc.

How about finding some enablers.

We will increase the population and develop this technology to support them, we will remove restrictions or taxations on carbon output and use this technology to remove CO2, we will let our industry make all the things we need and develop these technological solutions to enable it.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[tmcom]

15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I`m against limiters.

We must limit the number of people being born, we must limit our carbon output, we must limit our industry to green only, etc.

How about finding some enablers.

We will increase the population and develop this technology to support them, we will remove restrictions or taxations on carbon output and use this technology to remove CO2, we will let our industry make all the things we need, and develop these technological solutions to enable it.

The Cookie Monster is all wise.

[Doug1029]

15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I`m against limiters.

We must limit the number of people being born, we must limit our carbon output, we must limit our industry to green only, etc.

How about finding some enablers.

We will increase the population and develop this technology to support them, we will remove restrictions or taxations on carbon output and use this technology to remove CO2, we will let our industry make all the things we need, and develop these technological solutions to enable it.

At the current rate, the world will reach ZPG about 2060 at about 9.73 billion people.  We don't need to worry about population:  it will regulate itself.

Coal is on its way out.  We simply don't have enough to last much longer.  That, too, is self-regulating.

Green energy (wind, water and solar) is already the cheapest source of power available, or approaching it.  We'll adopt it because it is more profitable than older systems.

Carbon taxes should be abolished because THEY DO NOT WORK.  There are too many ways to cheat.

Instead of fees on carbon output, charge them on carbon input.  Charge those fees at the mine mouth, well head or port-of-entry.  Pass them along in the prices of coal, gas, oil, etc.  THEN:  distribute those fees on a per capita basis to all residents of the country.  That gives everybody a vested interest in the fee system.  Start the fees small and slowly increase them over time until CO2 content of the air stabilizes.  After that, terraform earth by taking CO2 out of the air.

Industry can thus make anything people will buy.

Doug

[lightly]

Sometimes I worry a little about the vast majority of earth's population having no means of survival in the event of extremely severe Economic collapse.   In every century past...the means of production ,and acquisition, of food and other necessities was Localized .    Now we are Completely dependent on much larger and  widespread systems which are Vulnerable to ....interruption.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I`m against limiters.

People don't like it when other people say they have to do this or have to do that.  So how do we minimize the impact of conversion to clean energy?

Most people do not realize that the US is already producing about 25% of its energy from renewable, green sources, mostly water, wind and a little solar.  Did you notice when the changeover was made?

First, we built the infrastructure, windmills, penstocks, solar collectors.  Then when everything was ready, it was just a matter of throwing the switch.  At most, you would see a flicker on your TV screen as the switch-over happened.  You might notice that your electric bills were a little bit lower.  Not even an inconvenience.

 

Set up a system so that people will do what you want them to without knowing they are doing it.  People generally buy the cheaper of two products.  If there's a hidden fee in the price of the one with the greatest carbon content, the price will be higher and people will tend to buy the cheaper product.  Result:  less carbon in the air and not even the climate-change deniers realize it's happening.  We don't have to tell anybody they do/don't have to buy this or that - they are free to choose whichever product they want.

 

Encourage people to switch to electric heat by offering to cost-share new heating systems.  Forget the long list of regulations.  If you put in this type of furnace, the govt reimburses x percent of the cost.  You're free to put in a different type if you want, but then you get less cost-sharing money.

 

Electric companies will increase the capacity of their trunk lines just because there are more people buying electricity.  Nobody tells them they have to.  But if they want to tap this source of profits, they have to have the system that can handle it.

 

And so on:  most conversion will take place without even being noticed.

Doug

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, seanjo said:

What things?

There are supposedly 500,000+ slaves in Mauritania alone, where is the outrage from the lefty/BLM community?

Trump Derangement Syndrome. You are under attack from left-wing activists.

You are just another remoaner trying to undermine Brexit, guess what, too late, we left.

Etcetera....  So given your noting that everyone in history would give their arm to live in today's society, why is this 'whining' okay?

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

11 minutes ago, seanjo said:

You think pointing out ongoing slavery is a "complaint" - you're the problem, not the answer. I'll stop there clown.

Ha, didn't think you'd apply your same 'reasoning', to use the term very loosely, to yourself.

[Saxman]

In order for the human race to survive the race to exhaust natural resources an unprecedented degree of global government will be required in everything from birth control to limitations on the use of natural resources. Given the present degree of self preservation 40 years is extremely optimistic.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

The machines will take over...

[+DieChecker]

Quote

"Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilization."

Except population is expected to tapper off and actually start decreasing in about 70 years.

And, AFAIK, in the US we have more trees now then 150 years ago. The same should apply to those newly "enlightened" third world nations due to education and economic pressures.

I am calling BS on this one.

I knew a guy back in college (1990), who was very liberal, and well educated, who would regularly tell everyone that all trees were already logged in Oregon, and pot was the future crop of choice, and that the ozone hole had already doomed is all, and that hunting should be banned as there was only a few wild animals left. And that hurricanes were going to get worse and worse every year...

Not everyone who is smart, and educated, is correct in their opinions.

Edited July 30, 2020 by DieChecker

[GlitterRose]

Wow...they think we've got 40 years. 

Optimists.

[pbarosso]

we dont have to worry, wars will take care of everything. wars make innovation happen at the fastest rates. population control=less lives to cut down the forest, blockades spur developments of new energy sources, less mouths=less stress on the land and sea-life. 

 

humans are just the most intelligent animals on earth, but we are STILL animals.

[lightly]

6 hours ago, pbarosso said:

we dont have to worry, wars will take care of everything. wars make innovation happen at the fastest rates. population control=less lives to cut down the forest, blockades spur developments of new energy sources, less mouths=less stress on the land and sea-life. 

 

humans are just the most intelligent animals on earth, but we are STILL animals.

   Right...and disease of course. . Just need to think positive like that.

[Jon the frog]

Reforestation occur in some countries and others are following slowly. I don't think we will see total deforestation beside if the ocean become totaly anoxic from climate change and they release clouds of sulphuric acids and methane to do a total cleansing.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Jon the frog

[fred_mc]

We are an inventive species. We've always come up with solutions to problems so I feel confident that we will do that also this time.

[Myles]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:50 AM, jethrofloyd said:

Then a aliens is coming. A bigfoots comes out of the woods. And, the woolly mammoth returns from the dead.

1 of those 3 could happen.   I think the mammoth is still a solid option for bringing back since they have soft tissue of them.  

 

In America, scientists are working on bringing back the passenger pigeon, a rosy-breasted bullet of a bird that once flocked in the billions; and the heath hen, a stumpy avian wallflower that lived in the scrubby plains of New England.

In the UK, researchers are considering whether or not to bring back the so-called ‘Penguin of the North’, the great auk.

Meanwhile, in South Africa, they’re trying to revive the quagga, a bizarre zebra-like creature with a stripeless behind! In South Korea, Japan and the US, three separate teams are racing to bring back that most iconic of Ice Age beasts, the woolly mammoth.

How do you ‘de-extinct’ something?

 

 

An extinct quagga, a zebralike animal striped only on the head and shoulders © Getty Images

It depends on the species. Some projects use ‘back-breeding’. Quaggas, for example, are related to living zebras. So scientists are choosing the zebras that look most like quaggas and letting them breed. The aim, over successive generations, is to create animals that look like quaggas.

Other projects, however, involve assisted reproduction and some rather elegant genetics.

Some are using cloning; others, stem cell science. For example, Prof George Church at Harvard Medical School aims to create a mammoth by ‘editing’ mammoth genes into elephant cells.

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/de-extinction-can-we-bring-extinct-animals-back-from-the-dead/

[Autochthon1990]

On 7/29/2020 at 7:29 AM, seanjo said:

If this civilization ends it will be because of whiny millennial's protesting against a society every person in history would give an arm to live in.

What, you mean Canada?

[Poncho_Peanatus]

14 hours ago, Myles said:

1 of those 3 could happen.   I think the mammoth is still a solid option for bringing back since they have soft tissue of them.  

 

In America, scientists are working on bringing back the passenger pigeon, a rosy-breasted bullet of a bird that once flocked in the billions; and the heath hen, a stumpy avian wallflower that lived in the scrubby plains of New England.

In the UK, researchers are considering whether or not to bring back the so-called ‘Penguin of the North’, the great auk.

Meanwhile, in South Africa, they’re trying to revive the quagga, a bizarre zebra-like creature with a stripeless behind! In South Korea, Japan and the US, three separate teams are racing to bring back that most iconic of Ice Age beasts, the woolly mammoth.

How do you ‘de-extinct’ something?

 

 

An extinct quagga, a zebralike animal striped only on the head and shoulders © Getty Images

It depends on the species. Some projects use ‘back-breeding’. Quaggas, for example, are related to living zebras. So scientists are choosing the zebras that look most like quaggas and letting them breed. The aim, over successive generations, is to create animals that look like quaggas.

Other projects, however, involve assisted reproduction and some rather elegant genetics.

Some are using cloning; others, stem cell science. For example, Prof George Church at Harvard Medical School aims to create a mammoth by ‘editing’ mammoth genes into elephant cells.

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/de-extinction-can-we-bring-extinct-animals-back-from-the-dead/

I think they should  go botanical first, like trying to bring back a Calamite from the Carboniferous era using the modern day equisetia plants. IMO flora its much easier to work on, dont forget we had botanical cloning for centuries before Dolly.