Page 24 of 25

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2018, 05:13:59
by Cid_Yama
You are so young. In your 40's, but compared to me. I got to live a full life. I don't envy you. It's hard enough growing old. To have to go through what's coming...

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2018, 05:30:24
by Newfie
Cid,

I’m just a wee bit younger than you but I have similar thoughts. It’s frustrating to not be able to communicate better our future state to my kids. I see them caught in the whole slave wage consummerisim trap. Not unlike I was at their age. If I could communicate better I would urge them to prepare more. I’ll try to leave them something if value, if they can recognize that value.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2018, 08:31:20
by onlooker
And what about Dr James Hanson, already a very accomplished scientist in the 80's warning about CC before Congress, Or even before the prestigious limits to growth study of the 70's. And in the 60's Prof. Erlich warning of out of control population. So we had ample sufficient warning. Those in position to understand the full ramifications and who could have communicated it to the masses and marshaled and led an effective response chose to ignore the warnings. Now our species will be reduced to a shadow of its former self if in fact we can avoid extinction. I have come to accept this, the way, I accept my eventual death

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2018, 17:50:33
by Newfie
I’ve said it before, it all feels like the opening of a bad 1950’s B sci-fi horror flick.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2018, 17:57:08
by onlooker
Newfie wrote:I’ve said it before, it all feels like the opening of a bad 1950’s B sci-fi horror flick.

:lol:

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Jul 2018, 05:41:28
by Cid_Yama
Newfie wrote:Cid,

I’m just a wee bit younger than you but I have similar thoughts. It’s frustrating to not be able to communicate better our future state to my kids. I see them caught in the whole slave wage consummerisim trap. Not unlike I was at their age. If I could communicate better I would urge them to prepare more. I’ll try to leave them something if value, if they can recognize that value.


I wish I could provide a link to Star Trek Next Generation: Inner Light Episode. It shows exactly where I am with this. They deserve to have a full life, but they won't, and it's a hard knowledge to possess.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Jul 2018, 06:31:03
by M_B_S
Hi Cid
this film comes to my mind:

Maybe in future the carussell is running in reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA

Logan's Run
************************
I watched it and was afraid that it will come to reality in the future... but must learn that tiny archipels in the pacific had practised exact an equal ritual.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 05 Jul 2018, 23:26:04
by Cid_Yama
There was some dystopian movie back in the '60's, I can't recall the name, but the US passed a law that at age 60, you became ineligible for medication or medical treatment. It was pretty good, but I can't remember what the name was. It may have been a made for TV movie.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 07 Jul 2018, 04:16:09
by ozcad
Picard flute solo (with invisible piano):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1Zo5Ljws0

Orchestrated version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS98MygfoOE

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 14 Aug 2018, 16:51:03
by onlooker
ma-report-2005.png
ma-report-2005.png (46.45 KiB) Viewed 4525 times

One wonders what life wiil be able to survive by 2100, at the rate we are degrading depleting and destabilizing Ecosystems
From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report (Pre-publication Final Draft approved by MA Board on March 23, 2005)

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 15:10:53
by Outcast_Searcher
Cid_Yama wrote:There was some dystopian movie back in the '60's, I can't recall the name, but the US passed a law that at age 60, you became ineligible for medication or medical treatment.

It was pretty good, but I can't remember what the name was. It may have been a made for TV movie.

A very popular and good book discussing the Vietnam war, but in the context of an interstellar future war, called "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, had the theme of a future where retirees with Medicare no longer received treatment, unless they had some kind of very special political status as a VIP. Expensive to prosecute a war with aliens and all that...

There was a Star Trek TNG episode with that theme, called "Half a Life". (With advancing medical technology, 60 probably WAS roughly half a life). A 60 year old scientist from another race was about to go report and die (even at the cost of his own work, which was help saving his planet) as that's what duty and tradition (and saving face, re his family) called for.

When set against the Klingon attitude of hoping to die in combat while still at a useful age, it was an interesting idea.

...

After watching loved ones dies horribly from the ravages of old age, diseases like cancer, seeing the "care" received in supposedly "among the best" nursing homes, I value quality of life FAR above length of life, at least for my personal decisions.

Each to their own. At least, so far, we have the right to choose as long as some well-meaning (or not) person doesn't get us ruled incompetent.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 15:23:53
by Outcast_Searcher
Oh. And then there's Soylent Green. One aspect almost everyone seems to see as a dystopian horror, I see as BETTER than our current system, and I fervently hope some aspect of that becomes an OPTION.

When someone chooses, they can volunteer to be put down. A pill or injection (I forget which), lie down, watch some nice video, and done.

IMO, if it weren't for the irrationality of religion, we could already have that as a rational option. As long as safeguards are in place to prevent coercion, it would save a TON of money in end of life (and horrendous quality of life, generally) care.

The key word, of course, is option, IMO.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 16:20:32
by Yonnipun
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Oh. And then there's Soylent Green. One aspect almost everyone seems to see as a dystopian horror, I see as BETTER than our current system, and I fervently hope some aspect of that becomes an OPTION.

When someone chooses, they can volunteer to be put down. A pill or injection (I forget which), lie down, watch some nice video, and done.

IMO, if it weren't for the irrationality of religion, we could already have that as a rational option. As long as safeguards are in place to prevent coercion, it would save a TON of money in end of life (and horrendous quality of life, generally) care.

The key word, of course, is option, IMO.


http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option ... 47&lang=en

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 21:41:29
by ROCKMAN
Interesting thought game. But consider this: how did folks view the year 2000 in 1918? The world just witnessed the slaughter of WWI especially from huge tech advances in weapons. And remember it wasn’t called WWI back then. It was “the war to end all wars”. Autos and airplanes were the new big exciting techs. One general speculated countries wouldn’t go to war since their civilians could be killed by enemy aircraft. A funny speculation now for survivors at Hiroshima. And then the tens of millions killed by the Spanish flue pandemic. A tad more serious then Ebola, eh?

Now jump back to 1818 and think about what they might have anticipated for the year 1900. Just finished a new war confirming the existence of a new upstart country called the United States of America. The same “united” states that saw 600,000 of their citizens slaughtered trying to remain united less then 50 years later. Slaughtered by their own citizens no less.

If one has a good knowledge of history they could play this game for hours. Given how no one has ever come up with anything close to correctly speculating what the next 80 to 100 years would bring should we expect any better accuracy doing so today? Especially if one considers the rate of change of societies and tech. Granted it’s somewhat subjective but IMHO that delta has been increasing at least over the last 200 to 300 years.

But no harm in anyone here giving it a try today: you won’t be alive in the next 80+ years to face the ridicule of folks at that time. LOL.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 21:58:03
by Cid_Yama
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Oh. And then there's Soylent Green. One aspect almost everyone seems to see as a dystopian horror, I see as BETTER than our current system, and I fervently hope some aspect of that becomes an OPTION.

When someone chooses, they can volunteer to be put down. A pill or injection (I forget which), lie down, watch some nice video, and done.

IMO, if it weren't for the irrationality of religion, we could already have that as a rational option. As long as safeguards are in place to prevent coercion, it would save a TON of money in end of life (and horrendous quality of life, generally) care.

The key word, of course, is option, IMO.


It was an allusion to Socrates drinking the poison cup. As far as Euthanasia goes, it was very kind and respectful. The music was from The Four Seasons, Vivaldi. A fine choice.

The apparently socially engineered concept of 'Going Home' was essential. That way people were merely retiring from life, returning to the place from whence one came.

Today, anyone with access to prescription drugs has that option, in the comfort of their own home, in the manner of their own choosing. No need for the government to get involved, and I imagine it happens in just that manner in far greater numbers that officials will admit, or can even know.

People aren't stupid. When they want to go they will.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 22:04:28
by Outcast_Searcher
Cid_Yama wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Oh. And then there's Soylent Green.

...

When someone chooses, they can volunteer to be put down. A pill or injection (I forget which), lie down, watch some nice video, and done.


It was an allusion to Socrates drinking the poison cup. As far as Euthanasia goes, it was very kind and respectful. The music was from The Four Seasons, Vivaldi. A fine choice.

The apparently socially engineered concept of 'Going Home' was essential. That way people were merely retiring from life, returning to the place from whence one came.

Agreed on everything as far as the euthanasia.

How do we know it was an allusion to Socrates and the poison cup? Not disagreeing, just trying to understand as a fan of Socrates via Plato's writing.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 22:29:46
by rockdoc123
Interesting thought game. But consider this: how did folks view the year 2000 in 1918? The world just witnessed the slaughter of WWI especially from huge tech advances in weapons. And remember it wasn’t called WWI back then. It was “the war to end all wars”. Autos and airplanes were the new big exciting techs. One general speculated countries wouldn’t go to war since their civilians could be killed by enemy aircraft. A funny speculation now for survivors at Hiroshima. And then the tens of millions killed by the Spanish flue pandemic. A tad more serious then Ebola, eh?


well I wasn't born yet but as my parents tell it they partied like there was no tomorrow, until the dirty thirties when everything got taken away from many people. But they made their way through that and went to war again (at least Brits and Canadians did, the US sat on the sidelines for far too long) and after that, the elation and the drive that many of the folks coming through those bad times had built a bit of an economy. And building that economy and the security they did for their offspring built the foundation for the tech revolution and on and on to where we are now.

I think the answer is the folks in 1918 didn't give a stuff about what the world would be like 80 years later, they were focussed on the next few years of their lives and they fought the war because for them it was the right thing to do.

We (and I'm guessing I'm saying boomers) are probably the first generation that has the luxury of contemplating what the future will bring. My guess is whatever we will imagine will be far from what it will be for two reasons....bad shit happens and we always underestimate technological advancements. To the first issue who knew Mount St Helens was going to blow? Certainly not any of my close friends who were igneous volcanologists. To the second issue back 15 years ago who would have predicted the ability to do the large fracs that are now commonplace? So we can sit here and opine on what will happen based on our present experience and it will almost certainly be wrong. The earth might be hit by a large meteorite or someone might be able to crack the concept of cold fusion (hey, I don't believe it is possible but I have an open mind). The best thing to do is admit we haven't a clue.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 16 Aug 2018, 22:36:45
by Cid_Yama
Actually it is from the writing of Xenophon.

"At one time Socrates was a member of the Council [boule], he had taken the senatorial oath, and sworn 'as a member of that house to act in conformity with the laws.' It was thus he chanced to be President of the Popular Assembly [ekklesia], when that body was seized with a desire to put the nine generals, Thrasyllus, Erasinides, and the rest, to death by a single inclusive vote. Whereupon, in spite of the bitter resentment of the people, and the menaces of several influential citizens, he refused to put the question, esteeming it of greater importance faithfully to abide by the oath which he had taken, than to gratify the people wrongfully, or to screen himself from the menaces of the mighty. The fact being, that with regard to the care bestowed by the gods upon men, his belief differed widely from that of the multitude. Whereas most people seem to imagine that the gods know in part, and are ignorant in part, Socrates believed firmly that the gods know all things -- both the things that are said and the things that are done, and the things that are counselled in the silent chambers of the heart. Moreover, they are present everywhere, and bestow signs upon man concerning all the things of man."


This is why Socrates was condemned to death. His refusal to accept the apperances which most men believed, as promoted by those in power, and corrupted others from that belief.

Saul, a member of the Library Council, discovered the truth, and both acted against the established order, by having him body followed to prove what he suspected, and believed that upon 'Going Home' he would get the answers he sought, from God himself.

That is why they used the poison chalice upon his death bed.

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Aug 2018, 14:25:54
by dohboi
RD, good points, but in 1918, no one would have predicted that the Arctic Sea in 2000 would be well along in the process of becoming ice free.

Now fairly straight forward physics can tell us something of what is and is not going to happen in the coming decades and centuries (the globe is gonna get hotter, unless we figure out some way to suck lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it securely), and physics can also pretty reliably rule some things out (it's not going to get cooler globally, short of a nuclear winter or something).

Along those lines, we keep getting more and more accurate at pinning down what the intermediate range temperature increase will be with a doubling of CO2...3.5C or higher:

Dessler & Forster (2018) demonstrate rather convincingly that the likely range for ECS in the period from 2000 to 2017 was 2.4 to 4.6C as opposed to AR5's cited likely range of 1.5 to 4.5C. Furthermore, it is important to remember that ECS is not a fixed value but rather is projected to increase with continued global warming, this century:

A. E. Dessler and P.M. Forster (07 August 2018), "An estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity from interannual variability', Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028481

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... tedarticle

Abstract
Estimating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS; the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of CO2) from observations is one of the big problems in climate science. Using observations of interannual climate variations covering the period 2000 to 2017 and a model‐derived relationship between interannual variations and forced climate change, we estimate ECS is likely 2.4‐4.6 K (17‐83% confidence interval), with a mode and median value of 2.9 and 3.3 K, respectively. This analysis provides no support for low values of ECS (below 2 K) suggested by other analyses. The main uncertainty in our estimate is not observational uncertainty, but rather uncertainty in converting observations of short‐term, mainly unforced climate variability to an estimate of the response of the climate system to long‐term forced warming.

Plain language summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the amount of warming resulting from doubling carbon dioxide. It is one of the important metrics in climate science because it is a primary determinant of how much warming we will experience in the future. Despite decades of work, this quantity remains uncertain: the last IPCC report stated a range for ECS of 1.5‐4.5 deg. Celsius. Using observations of interannual climate variations covering the period 2000 to 2017, we estimate ECS is likely 2.4‐4.6 K. Thus, our analysis provides no support for the bottom of the IPCC's range."

You can obtain a copy of the paper here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nt4YEM ... Kj1G-/view


this work combined with Brown & Caldeira 2017 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672 and Caldwell 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.117 ... -17-0631.1 are definitive and should firmly place ECS at 3.5 or greater.


(Thanks to jd and aslr at asif for these links and text)

Re: THE Earth in 2100 Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Aug 2018, 14:36:53
by rockdoc123
Now fairly straight forward physics can tell us something of what is and is not going to happen in the coming decades and centuries (the globe is gonna get hotter, unless we figure out some way to suck lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it securely), and physics can also pretty reliably rule some things out (it's not going to get cooler globally, short of a nuclear winter or something).


there are no guarantees on any of this. There is still much uncertainty about what drives climate, and almost certainly variables at play that are either not considered important at the moment or poorly constrained. A sudden increase in plate subduction rate followed by increased explosive vulcanism all along the ring of fire could result in a substantial period of cooling. As I mentioned one super volcano could result in regional cooling for a considerable time. Increased vulcanism in Antarctica or Greenland could result in loss of a substantial part of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet with an attendant rise in sea level. There are many events that could happen but may not, all of which could completely alter the future.