vtsnowedin wrote:ralfy wrote:
I think the increase in life expectancy involved more than vaccinations, the global population was much smaller then, the level of ecological damage much greater now (not to mention global warming), and the level of armaments production and availability unprecedented.
I've read somewhere that the largest factor in increased life expectancy has been the introduction safe drinking water and proper sewage disposal in our urban areas. The running hot water we have in even our poorest housing makes our lives so much healthier then the world standard right up to Victorian times.
vtsnowedin wrote: I've read somewhere that the largest factor in increased life expectancy has been the introduction safe drinking water and proper sewage disposal in our urban areas. The running hot water we have in even our poorest housing makes our lives so much healthier then the world standard right up to Victorian times.
Subjectivist wrote:No human civilization is eternal. Your statement implies the current civilization will shrug off peak oil and go along its merry way. You also imply the glut will last for a long time and that lithium mining will solve energy problems despite the still growing world population. That is far less than assured, to put it mildly.
Subjectivist wrote:asg70 wrote:Tanada wrote:In a world where energy is very expensive
Which is a huge hypothetical.
How do we go from our current glut condition to a world where energy is so expensive that manufacturing starts to break down and the world effectively de-industrializes?
I could envision that maybe 10+ years ago but given current trends towards a lithium economy and waves of automation, the day of reckoning seems quite far in the future, far enough that it would be more reasonable to be concerned about looming climate impacts than energy security.
No human civilization is eternal.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Why is it so difficult to have a reasonable conversation about ideas around here without someone going off the rails and making completely false and unsupportable claims about what someone with a differing viewpoint/idea just said?
asg70 wrote:Subjectivist wrote:No human civilization is eternal. Your statement implies the current civilization will shrug off peak oil and go along its merry way. You also imply the glut will last for a long time and that lithium mining will solve energy problems despite the still growing world population. That is far less than assured, to put it mildly.
I am NOT implying that civilization will simply "go on its merry way". What part of the end of my statement where I emphasize AGW impacts did you overlook?
I really think sometimes doomers just selectively skip or don't process the statements of moderates because if it doesn't fit their narrative EXACTLY then we just HAVE to represent corny positions. I'm really tired of having to constantly prove my doomer cred by restating where I think we're FUBAR.
All I'm implying is that the fast-crash peak-oil Mad Max narrative is probably a long-shot at this point. Not an impossibility, but an improbability. But again, peak-oil is not the only existential threat to humanity. Feeling as though we've maybe bought a couple decades of (relative) normalcy is not cornucopianism. Amory Lovins and Kurzweil represent cornucopianism. I'm not sure anyone here is really that optimistic.
Would you care to share what evidence brings you to this conclusion?Subjectivist wrote: I believe the human imact of global warming is grossly overstated. .
vtsnowedin wrote:Would you care to share what evidence brings you to this conclusion?Subjectivist wrote: I believe the human imact of global warming is grossly overstated. .
Subjectivist wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Would you care to share what evidence brings you to this conclusion?Subjectivist wrote: I believe the human imact of global warming is grossly overstated. .
I base it on previous mainstream media predictions that were wildly off the mark when the actual impact of near any event has been much mentioned by media. For example, 1988 drought was going to wipe out farming across the midwest. 1986 Chernobyl would wipe out migratory birds that use the Pripyat river and the exclusion zone would be deadly for a thousand years. Heck recently the Hurricane in Houston was going to cripple the oil industry and take 25% of refineries out of service for months, possibly even a year.
The media sells stories based on whatever the scariest scenario they can thjnk up is, not the most likely scientifically supported projection.
asg70 wrote:The guardian article is correct. The specific details of how this plays out are unknown but a positive future for mankind are slim to none at this point. Note how this is being expressed in recent pop culture.
.
"Stand on Zanzibar" is set in the year 2010 in the U.S., under the administration of President Obomi. Written in bits and fragments of the characters' lives in real time — public service announcements, obituaries, advertisements—amidst a chaotic and dystopian society: terrorist threats and attacks are an everyday occurrence, and violence in schools is old news. Detroit, in his world, is akin to a ghost town.
GHung wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if some of you ever read much.
vtsnowedin wrote:GHung wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if some of you ever read much.
Oh back in the days of old I read brave new world and 1984 as well as A. Toffler's "future shock" and "On the Beach". Lately I've read Guns germs and steel".
People predict all sorts of futures and some of them turn out to be correct but at the time of publication no one could pick out which ones will be the winners.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests