Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Topaz

Will man destroy himself?

Recommended Posts

A study of 5000 years of history has brought out the view that within 350 or 1000 years from now, man could destroy itself, like the Rome Empire . Greed is the center of the possibility and I found the following link very interesting reading of how and why this will happen, although I see the younger generations not so much into going to war, more concerns for the environment and maybe not as greedy, as the elites are now. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/nasa-backed-study-says-human-civilization-headed-irreversible-225235031.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A study of 5000 years of history has brought out the view that within 350 or 1000 years from now, man could destroy itself, like the Rome Empire.

Empires come and go. Humans live on. You need to separate the political structures from the species.

Greed is the center of the possibility...

Preachers claim that man was doomed because get he a sinner and the only hope for salvation is Jesus. Your argument is exactly the same. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the human race will destroy itself but its destroying civilization as we know it is a distinct possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our species will destroy a lot of other species in the process.

Notwithstanding an asteroid or all out nuclear combat we'll probably be taken out by some new species of bacteria, that we'll have had a hand in creating ironically enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on actions to date, I would say that the odds of us wiping ourselves out is pretty good and the odds of us doing something that will cause civilization to collapse are much better than 50-50. We've shown a huge propensity for taking actions when we don't understand the consequences. It's blind luck that we haven't had much worse things happen yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the odds of us wiping ourselves out is pretty good

I would say given the nature of humans to desire to believe that the time they live in is special I place odds of an end of the world prediction at 100%. When these predictions fail to materialize the odds of a new prediction of the end of the world based on the cultural obsessions at that future time to also be 100%.

Barring a cataclysm like an asteroid or a super volcano I put the odds of a continued human civilization at 100%. The odds of the current social/political structures being in place 100 years from now is very small.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've shown a huge propensity for taking actions when we don't understand the consequences.

Unfortunately, the "precautionary principle" is surely the least efficient way to advancement of knowledge and progress. It's important to be analytical in trying to measure the outcomes of actions, and I think we are progressively improving on this front. But it's simply irresponsible to impede progress at the expense of human potential and minimization of suffering because we can't disprove a potential negative outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put the pedal to the metal and drive it till it breaks? Okay, if you say so.

Edited to add: Yeeeehaw!

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put the pedal to the metal and drive it till it breaks? Okay, if you say so.

That's not even in the realm of what I said, and you know it.

edit to add: your contempt for rational discussion states your position perfectly.

Edited by Spiderfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this story the other day just after watching doc outlining how we deal with our toxic sewage sludge. Basically we dump it on fields, pastures, crops, etc. Anyway I was glad to see the collapse study was picked up by some mainstream news outlets. It seems that “ecological strain” and “economic stratification” consistently plague collapsing societies. Maybe one day we'll be responsible enough to place ecological and social well being ahead of GDP growth and corporate bottom lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not even in the realm of what I said, and you know it.

Nonetheless it is precisely what is happening, and there is no excuse for not knowing it.

edit to add: your contempt for rational discussion states your position perfectly.

It's more sardonic than contemptuous..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you typing on right now? If you despise it so much, why not just give it up?

What does your fishing boat run on? There are a lot of benefits we can gain with the advancement of technology. We currently have the technology and ability to drastically reduce or even eliminate malnutrition in the world through GM foods, and the benefit of chlorine in drinking water has prevented the deaths of countless people due to cholera and other water-borne diseases. Yet there are many who call for the ban on GM foods, and refer to chlorine as "the devil's element".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology is just a thing and it's what we use it for that counts. Right now we're using it to mostly fuel an economic engine that has a broken governor and there's a loose nut behind the wheel. That's what I despise.

What fishing boat? The last one I had is in Alaska, catching British Columbia Ottawa's fish. I't ran on diesel. Whoever is behind her wheel has my old job, because our government is broken.

We have the technology and ability to greatly reduce the sort of corruption and mismanagement that's resulted in the above scenario any many like it unfolding throughout our economy. Yet there are many who say we would kill the economy and wreck our democracy if we did.

In the meantime...yeehaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiping out to extinction? Probably not... It may come about that not so many humans can live here and billions will be wiped out, but not to extinction.

And, while the environment in which it happens may be due to human pollution, the mechanism of the population reduction will be entirely natural... disease... starvation...

barring nuclear holocaust of course... then all bets are off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the "precautionary principle" is surely the least efficient way to advancement of knowledge and progress. It's important to be analytical in trying to measure the outcomes of actions, and I think we are progressively improving on this front. But it's simply irresponsible to impede progress at the expense of human potential and minimization of suffering because we can't disprove a potential negative outcome.

Actually, expending huge amounts of technical talent on designing derivatives that nobody can understand and smart phone apps that do nothing but waste people's time are the least efficient ways of advancing knowledge and progress. Billions of hours of brilliant minds are being wasted. We don't need to take stupid risks to advance knowledge and progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a documentary (Star Trek themed) that was talking about the likelihood of humans going to another star or intelligent life finding us.

There was a theory that there's a fine line between a species obtaining the ability to create enough power to approach the speed of light and the chance they destroy themselves.

I do think, post WW2 humans have shown that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been a great disincentive to having another global conflict that could end humanity.

I guess the bigger threat is Global Climate Change. But even if the worst theories about Climate Change prove to be right, I doubt it would bring about humanity's extinction.

Now Zombies on the other hand. . .

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I guess the bigger thread is Global Climate Change. But even if the worst theories about Climate Change prove to be right, I doubt it would bring about humanity's extinction. "

In the 70s there were numerous popular books about how population increases would inevitably lead to our extinction within a few days or years.

Doom And Gloom is a good business. Cyclcial and notional, but always profitable.

Look how Christianity has propered selling it for a couple thousand years!

Well, actually the money is in the promise of salvation, but there has to be a bogeyman.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fears of Climate Change and Nuclear War are secular versions of the Rapture? I suppose.

Based in reality.... so not even close to the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based in reality.... so not even close to the same.

Yeah but lots of trees killed to make media hyping of the fear of such an event (warranted or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fears of Climate Change and Nuclear War are secular versions of the Rapture? I suppose.

As a species with the intelligence to notice the signs that we are exceeding the carrying capacity of this planet, isn't it appropriate to fear and initiate change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a species with the intelligence to notice the signs that we are exceeding the carrying capacity of this planet, isn't it appropriate to fear and initiate change?

It is not appropriate because the "carrying capacity of this planet" is not a fixed quantity

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/four-surprising-facts-about-population

It is sometimes suggested that there are hard biological limits to how much food the Earth can produce, but ever since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago humans have been consistently increasing yields through the use of new technologies. Indeed, it has been increasing yields that have allowed the human population to grow to its current population of seven billion. In this sense, the Earth’s carrying capacity is not bound by a finite set of planetary boundaries, but rather is a function of human technology.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The invention of Nitrogen Fertilizer has allowed the population to triple in less than a century.

And? Other species give us constant reminders that conditions which allow their rapid growth in population eventually reach a tipping point and mass die offs follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...