[onlooker]

Here in my list (in order)
1. Climate change
2. Overpopulation
3. Potable water scarcity
4. Peak oil
5. Undermining of critical Ecosystems

[Ibon]

Ibon,

I understand your argument about charities well enough. At this point I see them as part of the problem because we have enough real big issues, any energy diverted to second or third tier issues is energy wasted.

This thought has been nagging at me and wont go away for the past couple of days. Abundant energy allowed this diffuse wide spectrum of interests and causes to expand and we lost any sense of what is really moving things at the core.

Contraction now also means focus, pulling away from this expansion of individual dispersed interests to a narrowing and pulling inward toward the core issues that are raising their ugly heads at the moment.

Separating wheat from the chaff.

The 2nd half of the 20th Century is the age of the individual fueled by abundant energy.

The pendulum swings in the 21st century. The age of consensus "fueled" by contraction of energy and a focusing on the core.

All those externalities we conveniently ignored as we went on our merry individual way will now rise as dominant issues during the contraction and reverse this individualism.

This is a big theme... keep it in the back of your mind as a factor as we watch events in the coming years.

[Tanada]

Seems how we are doing top five,
1) Peak Oil
2) Climate Change
3) Ecosystem Collapse
4) Financial Collapse
5) Solar EMP (CME)

Any of the above can cause a general civilization collapse and kill me, I rank them in the order I consider most likely to do that. They are not equally likely, I rank Peak Oil as being 50% probable to cause a collapse because we have done nothing to prepare for it as a civilization. A Solar Coronal Mass Ejection/Electromagnetic Pulse is a rare event, we don't know for sure how rare but the last one that hit the Earth massively was 140 or so years ago. It might take another day or a thousand years before the next one hits us like that, no real way to predict it with current science.

[Newfie]

What we are talking about can be viewed as either a common risk analysis, with likelihood on one axis and severity of effect on the other OR a simple triage plan.

Really basic and simple concepts in common use.

So why don't we apply it to our larger world?

[Newfie]

Greg craven wrote a simple excellent book on risk analysis. He applied it to climate change, but it applies to all of life. All.

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Worst-That- ... 0399535012


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Craven_(teacher)


Craven grew up in Silverton, Oregon and graduated from the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington.[1] In 2007, when he was a science teacher at Central High School in Independence, Oregon, Craven posted the nine and one-half minute The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[2] on YouTube. The video presented a simplified version of risk management using a 2x2 grid to sketch out possible scenarios based on: a) whether we choose to take action or not, and b) whether global warming turns out to be a threat or not. Using the grid, Craven concluded that taking action to combat climate change was the better choice, given the relative risks.

In the first six months online it garnered four million hits, and prompted Craven to spend six weeks creating 44 follow up videos totaling over seven hours detailing specifics of risk management applied to climate change.[3] Craven's conclusion was that "the risk of not acting far outweighs the risk of acting."[4] Craven was the focus of some media attention,[5] was named "Featured Teacher" by WIRED Science,[6] and received criticism by climate change denialists. In 2009, Craven published the book What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate.[7]

[DesuMaiden]

We are already in a severe state of overshoot. The world is already overpopulated. And it is highly unlikely the population will grow to 15 billion because when peak oil strikes, the population will be quickly reduced from 7 billion to under 1 billion. It is very likely that by the end of this century, the population of the world might be reduced down to 1 to 2 billion people, caused by the oil and food shortages.

Oil and food shortages go hand and hand because modern agriculture is the process of using land to covert petroleum into food. Without sufficient oil, we will not be able to produce enough food to feed the current population, so the population will naturally decline as a result of insufficient oil supplies. I believe it will decline to under 2 billion people. Some argue it will decline to under 500 million people. This e-book says "under 500 million people in a post-oil world" (see the following link)...

http://www.unicamp.br/fea/ortega/eco/tr ... DieOff.pdf

[Newfie]

Another group studying the topic. I think these guys are wacked.

http://cser.org



An existential risk is one that threatens the existence of our entire species. The Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) — a joint initiative between a philosopher, a scientist, and a software entrepreneur — was founded on the conviction that these risks require a great deal more scientific investigation than they presently receive. CSER is a multidisciplinary research centre dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to human extinction.

Our goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge’s great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future.

CSER is now hosted within Cambridge’s Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), under the management of Dr. Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh. We are currently funded by a seed donation from founder Jaan Tallinn, and are seeking sources of funding for a number of planned research projects. We welcome enquiries and offers of support — please see our News & Contact page for contact details and a sign-up link for our new mailing list, CSER News.

[Lore]

Our goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge’s great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future

How can you have a long term future when there is only 40 years, at present population growth, to expend the little phosphorus we have left?

[Newfie]

Lore,

Agreed, for that reason and more.

The quote you have is from their web site stating who they are. If you look at the top of my post you will see where I say I think they are "wacked."

None-the-less they are a prestigious group supposedly researching near term existentential threats. I guess this was more in support of my previous observation that acedemics have lost touch with the natural world, and Ibon's comment that their causes are supported by their wealth, not need.

In total I know of these two groups studying the matter. The WEF, IMHO, is better than CSER, but neither one is grounded in reality. Or, perhaps in the WEF case, they are being VERY careful on how they phrase things.

[DesuMaiden]

Maybe if we harness nuclear fusion, we might be able to support 15 billion people, but at the present situation we are in, I doubt we can support our current population--let alone twice the population--without the use of petrochemicals.

[Lore]

Maybe if we harness nuclear fusion, we might be able to support 15 billion people, but at the present situation we are in, I doubt we can support our current population--let alone twice the population--without the use of petrochemicals.

You forgot about peak uranium. Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource. Unless we hurry up that is, in what will already be a financially troubled energy market, to develop breeder reactor technology.

[DesuMaiden]

Maybe if we harness nuclear fusion, we might be able to support 15 billion people, but at the present situation we are in, I doubt we can support our current population--let alone twice the population--without the use of petrochemicals.

You forgot about peak uranium. Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource. Unless we hurry up that is, in what will already be a financially troubled energy market, to develop breeder reactor technology.

Nuclear fusion doesn't use uranium, unlike nuclear fission. Nuclear fission uses uranium. Nuclear fusion uses deuterium, which is found in water, to produce energy. Theoretically, you can produce an endless supply of energy from nuclear fusion because there is an ample amount of water on Earth. Nuclear fusion uses water, which is renewable, meaning nuclear fusion is a renewable source of energy which can last forever. Of course, we haven't harnessed it yet. And it is possible we might never harness it. But if we do harness it, it will provide great benefits for mankind, assuming we use it responsibly and wisely.

[Lore]

Sorry my mistake, but I can't see us having a feasible breakthrough with fusion in time for this to be anything other then wishful thinking. The clock is just not going to favor a lot of innovation on an energy starved planet. Like GW, we'd need to put all ou effort behind it, today, to make a difference.

[Newfie]

They have been talking about a breakthrough in fusion for my entire adult life. That and peace in the Mid East.
Equally likely.

[careinke]

Nuclear fusion has only been 30 years away for the last 60 years of my life.

[onlooker]

From what I have heard again only as layperson, the resources and technical knowhow is considerable to have a chance of developing this technology and we may not have the time left now to do so.