[dohboi]

There's not just one tipping point.

[Ibon]

"knowing their origin"

But will they??

Adaptation has been a hallmark of our species. But adaptation until now has been restricted to the way we have adapted to maximize the exploitation of resources from fire to stone tools to agriculture to bronze to fossil fuels. Where adaptation has failed during this entire journey has been in imposing self regulation after having trumped natures natural limits. It is a kind of contradiction for the collective human psyche….. through the ages we did everything to overcome and dominate natures limits only now to have to impose limits on those very measures in order to not exceed carrying capacity.

This really hit me as an insight this morning having my coffee. Every civilization that rose and fell was unable to escape this catch 22…. The very advances reach a point where they become liabilities due to a failure to self regulate.
This explains the deep skepticism among many that humans are incapable of self regulation. This skepticism is well founded because the track record is horrific and the latest chapter of industrial civilization underscores this on steroids.

So Dohboi, your question is most valid.

Part of the answer surely lies in that image from the Planet of the Apes movie where the statue of liberty is partially submerged in the sand. Imagine our descendants almost on a daily basis viewing in their environments the artifacts of our hubris with ruins of vast urban areas flooded on the coasts and inland urban areas that once housed millions laying in waste as our population contracts down to a fraction as a result of these “baked in the cake consequences”

These ruins will act as a constant reminder and these ruins will last centuries. If science and rational thought is preserved through the contraction than we have a chance to self impose cultural self regulating mechanisms regarding resource use. And finally overcome this contradiction, this catch 22 that until today all civilizations that have risen and then fallen have failed to master.

That the very technological innovations that lead to advances and progress in resource extraction reach a point where they then become liabilities when they are not self regulated.

[Newfie]

And we may not ever recognize it. In fact, many here seem to hunk we have crossed at least one tipping point already. I hope not, but I'm afraid they are right.

IIRC some years ago we had some discussions here on what the origional tipping point is or was. Some made the point that the discovery of agriculture is what set us unalterably on this course. Others argued industrialization or fossil fuels, etc

[steam_cannon]

The stark reality of baked-in catastrophes on earth is that large areas on earth are going to be inundated by rising sea level or severely impacted by droughts and heat waves. Mars represents an opportunity to start modern civilization over and do things right this time.

Terraforming Mars is a cool idea. And we probably should just in case Earth gets hit by a big meteor.

However it would still probably be much easier to focus on geoengineering earth by spreading sulfate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. And at worst it would still be easier to stay on earth and build habitable shelters for people as necessary if that's what it came down to. Even if every tree outside of human shelter died and people needed oxygen concentrators or machines to generate oxygen for people to breath, the earth still has a nice magnetic field and a workable atmospheric pressure. The worst parts of Earth will probably always still be more habitable then Mars or the moon.

That said, great article!

[C8]

everybody writing and reading this thread is going to die anyway- including me

sometimes I think people use social catastrophe as a way to divert themselves from the "stark reality" of their own coming personal catastrophe- nonexistence

Doesn't the opposite also apply, i.e., consumer spending and space age fantasies for the same reason?

There might be other points to consider, such as the level of suffering (the effects of extreme weather conditions, lack of medicine, lack of food, and so forth) that may take place as the effects of multiple crises set in, what will happen to loved ones such as children and grandchildren, etc.

Yes, these are all great ways to deal with the subject of "things ending" while avoiding thinking about ourselves ending. In reality, everyone will suffer, everyone will die- there is no avoiding this no matter what path we choose individually or socially. There is no "gain" by any choices- only the illusion of gain. We simply re-arrange suffering.

[dohboi]

How about we start by slowing down the UN-terraforming/denaturing of this, the only 'Terra' we really have.

We've been basing our decisions on ScFi fantasies for to long.

[Ibon]

How about we start by slowing down the UN-terraforming/denaturing of this, the only 'Terra' we really have.

We've been basing our decisions on ScFi fantasies for to long.

Mechanisms please. What triggers change in this direction? For 40 years I have been hearing statements of what we should be doing but they sound hollow and superficial after all this time.

What actually triggers a change in relationship to our biosphere?

[Newfie]

Death!

I see nothing short of the death of our culture and vast numbers of our species as necessary to change our attitude. Humanity needs to go cold turkey. That will likely take some generations.

Cheerfully yours,
Newfie

[dohboi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udpe2zXyNSc

[dohboi]

"Mechanisms please. What triggers change in this direction? For 40 years I have been hearing statements of what we should be doing but they sound hollow and superficial after all this time.

What actually triggers a change in relationship to our biosphere?"

Look, anything I come up with, you will say it seems unlikely to impossible, and I'd probably agree with you.

But then again, just a few months ago most, including myself, would have said that it is unlikely to impossible for a self proclaimed socialist to have a fighting chance to make it to the White House...

We are facing a very hot summer in the US, and (unfortunately, for what it says about US citizens to maintain coherent though beyond their immediate experience, but fortunate perhaps for the timing) warm/hot weather has in the past corresponded to increased concern about GW.

If Bernie can stay in the race that long and keep bringing up the issue, it's going to suddenly resonate with a lot more people in a lot more basic way. So...who knows.

Likely? No?

Impossible?

Perhaps, but strange days are upon us, one way or the other.

[ralfy]

Yes, these are all great ways to deal with the subject of "things ending" while avoiding thinking about ourselves ending. In reality, everyone will suffer, everyone will die- there is no avoiding this no matter what path we choose individually or socially. There is no "gain" by any choices- only the illusion of gain. We simply re-arrange suffering.

Isn't there a closer connection between personal extinction and catastrophes than there is between the same and space age fantasies?

[Ibon]

"Mechanisms please. What triggers change in this direction? For 40 years I have been hearing statements of what we should be doing but they sound hollow and superficial after all this time.

What actually triggers a change in relationship to our biosphere?"

Look, anything I come up with, you will say it seems unlikely to impossible, and I'd probably agree with you.

But then again, just a few months ago most, including myself, would have said that it is unlikely to impossible for a self proclaimed socialist to have a fighting chance to make it to the White House...

We are facing a very hot summer in the US, and (unfortunately, for what it says about US citizens to maintain coherent though beyond their immediate experience, but fortunate perhaps for the timing) warm/hot weather has in the past corresponded to increased concern about GW.

If Bernie can stay in the race that long and keep bringing up the issue, it's going to suddenly resonate with a lot more people in a lot more basic way. So...who knows.

Likely? No?

Impossible?

Perhaps, but strange days are upon us, one way or the other.

Hope for hopes sake is foolhardy. But your assessment is not foolhardy. There is a good possibility that folks will begin to embrace the truth before the most draconian of consequences actually occur. Which will not spare the baked in consequences from happening but a population knowing and embracing them will surely increase their chances of weathering them, pun intended.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

Isn't the point of the thread "baked in consequences" that those "draconian of consequences" are inevitable?

Let me ask it a different way, what do you feel are the minimum consequences we will see given where we stand today?

So this doesn't come across as a set up I'll go first. From my perspective the "baked in consequence" is an approximate 90% reduction in population over the 200ish years due to the combined stress load of 7.5 billion people on the environment. That sounds pretty "draconian" to me.

It's so hard to converse about these things because so many assumptions ar built in. I'm just trying to be clear.

[dohboi]

I know that the question was addressed to Ibon, but I'll butt in anyway and point out that, however 'draconian' the already-baked-in consequences may be at this point, we can always create even worse consequences that are not at this point already baked in.

WAIS is probably toast, so we have multi-meter sea level rise already 'baked in.' Recent work suggests that GIS is the same, but I'd like to see more confirmatory studies on that before going full doom yet on that (that's me, always the panglossian pollyanna in the crowd! ).

Many other baked in consequences you can read about in the first two or three chapter of Lynas's Six Degrees.

[Subjectivist]

Ibon,

Isn't the point of the thread "baked in consequences" that those "draconian of consequences" are inevitable?

Let me ask it a different way, what do you feel are the minimum consequences we will see given where we stand today?

So this doesn't come across as a set up I'll go first. From my perspective the "baked in consequence" is an approximate 90% reduction in population over the 200ish years due to the combined stress load of 7.5 billion people on the environment. That sounds pretty "draconian" to me.

It's so hard to converse about these things because so many assumptions ar built in. I'm just trying to be clear.

If global food trade collapses or climate effects cause crop failures in the exporting countries I think the famine and population cash will be much sooner than 200 years. When the dust bowl destroyed agriculture in the American Midwest the average family had a year or more of food stored in their home. Other than the fringe prepper types Americans no longer have that buffer, we depend on just in time grocery deliveries to our local market.

[dohboi]

Bbbbut, my freezer is full of goodies! Won't that save me???

By the way, Draco wasn't all that bad of reformer (especially compared to what preceded). We need a new adjective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_%28lawgiver%29

As a cabbage grower, I'm particularly fond of his statute that cabbage thieves be put to death!

And he was reputedly so popular that it literally killed him: "In a traditional ancient Greek show of approval, his supporters 'threw so many hats and shirts and cloaks on his head that he suffocated, and was buried in that same theatre."

[Ibon]

Ibon,

Isn't the point of the thread "baked in consequences" that those "draconian of consequences" are inevitable?

Let me ask it a different way, what do you feel are the minimum consequences we will see given where we stand today?

So this doesn't come across as a set up I'll go first. From my perspective the "baked in consequence" is an approximate 90% reduction in population over the 200ish years due to the combined stress load of 7.5 billion people on the environment. That sounds pretty "draconian" to me.

It's so hard to converse about these things because so many assumptions ar built in. I'm just trying to be clear.

It is hard and It is so complicated to predict this as to be meaningless. The wiggle room to adapt to baked in catastrophes if we were only one billion means we could relocate from flooded coastal areas, we can open up new croplands, we can adjust with our energy consumption. When you have however 7.5 billion many living in coastal urban areas the wiggle room gets very constrained when external stresses increase. Our culture is not immune to these stresses and so yes, pull any number between extinction and 8 billion and you could be right. Even half the current population down to 3-4 billion would be a major shift. The interesting question really is the impact on our culture and values because this is what will determine how much human suffering results just as much as the impact of the physical events.

The interplay between culture and physical consequences is the biggest question mark.

[Newfie]

Well it's difficult to discuss if we can't agree on what is baked in. For me it's a 1 billion population. That will kill our culture.

Unless we can agree to time scale and scope, even in some general way, it is very hard to discuss.

[Subjectivist]

Well it's difficult to discuss if we can't agree on what is baked in. For me it's a 1 billion population. That will kill our culture.

Unless we can agree to time scale and scope, even in some general way, it is very hard to discuss.

Can you lay out your time s ale and scope so we can compare ideas?