NASA funded study says we are headed to civilization collapse

reply to post by benrl


NASA funded study.

Looking at the paper, NASA has virtually nothing to do with it, in fact the paper is right up ATS's alley.

I see the MSM is reporting this now too..

www.perthnow.com.au...

They too have mistakenly called it a NASA study.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Do you actually think Noah was real never mind living for 950 years ?

reply to post by Cinrad

This is just a repost from the other thread . "I find the just of what NASA is saying either foolish or hypocritical .First the mathematicians and there models ,unless better then the climate models they used that have failed big time to have any predictability value to them .If there is one institute that has needed technology to exist ,it's NASA . You would think that getting the climate models at least better then throwing bones might be a priority for them .

There are things we can do as individuals .One of the first things is to not be distracted and believe what these Government agencies tell us .They get their political marching orders just like the politicians .Start thinking local and shop local instead of where the TV tells us to ....peace "

Regardless the questionability of the article itself, it does make some valid points. The earths population has skyrocketed out of control in a relativity short amount of time. There's only so much food/land for people and it's quickly filling up.
Just think about this for a second. We've been developing medicines to curb diseases, disease that use to be deadly, so those people that would have normally died from said disease will continue to live...and procreate...and multiply the population. It's simple natural selection that's being ignored here.
I think we need to implement a "one-child policy" much like China (a bit more modified though) to ease the population, things could eventually even out/slow down growth. It'd take a while, but there's a statistic out there saying that for 30 years while the policy was implemented in China, they curbed nearly 200 million births LINK. That's roughly 6 million births a year....for one country.
Just too many people being born without enough people dying. Natural selection is becoming a thing of the past.

In 2012, the United State's population increased by 90%...in China, only 48%...
Link

reply to post by Jktrout010


There are vast amounts of land for more people .Designing them like we have been is not a good plan but we could do much better .Growing crops for food and not for the oil companies would feed lots of people .Can you imagine how much fuel the world could save if we stopped making war machines ? Can you imagine how much fuel could be saved on giant container ships filled with do-hickeys packed in plastics headed for Wal Mart and then to a garbage bag only to be trucked to a land fill .? Population is not the problem .It's the people that try and manage and control them that is .

reply to post by Jktrout010

I think we need to implement a "one-child policy" much like China

With all due respect, I don't like the road that is heading down...because the end result of that seems to be a country with more males than females, and it will be so for the foreseeable. Such control leads to selective birthing based on gender preference and condemning the excess of that gender to a lifetime of never being able to marry or have a family.

The biggest and best change that individuals can make is to go back to the old ways of growing our own food, and refuse to rely on corporations to dole out food to the peons they see us as - and they can keep their GMO foods too. This empowers everyone, and we have collectively given away our own power for too long. The world should NOT be placed into the hands of but a few corporations, deciding everything for us, the fact that they own Governments pretty much, ought to have been a deal-breaker. The crafts and trades of years gone by are being lost to mass production. There used to be pride in such things, and the knowledge was passed down from generation to generation.

Technology is a double edged sword - for all it has given us, it has taken much away...

-->Families rarely "see" each other these days, even when in the same room, each is engaged in their own separate video game/text/facebook.

-->Television/movies take away hours from interacting with the world, our families, creating, and time that can be much better spent. In other words we reward the "actors" for living, while we watch them live instead of doing it ourselves.

-->Has taken away many a bookstore and library - should the power ever go out altogether, much old knowledge will be lost.

-->Has led to detailed government surveillance - with drones soon to be polluting the skies.

-->Guns that have their use for sustenance and protection, have evolved into bombs that may mean our very end.

Now while I am far from a Luddite, our sense of balance is being lost. While there is no doubt that there are aspects of technology that improve our way of life, at some point we have to ask ourselves, at what cost?

Something that is supposed to make our lives easier is in fact killing the spirit of the family, limiting human social interaction, and preventing the LIVING of LIFE outside of a screen. We are wasting the world's resources on ever-changing technology, simply for the sake of change! There is simply NO NEED for a new cell phone to come out, that has but ONE change from the prior version - for example. Excess and greed are also our downfalls...

We are eerily close to being the makers of our own destruction. If ever there was an Atlantis, that is what I suspect happened to them too.

reply to post by Agartha

I think our major problem is denial......most people are in denial and they don't want to wake up, as long as they can eat, watch some reality tv and have a beer then they are happy and they don't see what's coming.

Whether it is environmental collapse or economical collapse, the richest will always have a better chance of survival......and I am not one of them.

In denial and driven to distraction...it's no wonder the phrase "sheeple" came about. I loathe that word, but it is an apt descriptor for what's happening around us.

The rich may survive, but bear in mind that they will then have to actually DO the work - and all the diamonds in the world aren't going to change their coping skills or lack thereof.

The wealthy have always had a better chance at survival.

It's common sense.

Whether it is wealth in terms of food or shelter, money or land, those that have had more have always stood a better chance at survival than those with little food, shelter, land, money.

Why is "now" any different than any other time in history?

I initially ignored this report as more divisiveness and simply an attempt at stirring the pot.

But the more I think about it, it is an important indicator that people should be getting off the government dole. Start learning self-reliance now.

Start depending on yourself and not others or the government, now.

The more self-reliant you are, the better chance you have of surviving.
The more that you depend on government, the more that you enslave yourself to their whims, the poorer you'll become. Thus, the poorer chance of your survival.

th3dudeabides
duplicate.

edit on 16-3-2014 by th3dudeabides because: 2x post.

I utterly agree .... never a truer statement written ...

Might be a clever way to find new funding.

Nasa: "Earth is doomed!!!"
Govt: "omg, what do we do"
Nasa:"Quick..lets colonize mars"
Govt: -writes big fat checks to Nasa


I approve this method for Nasa...we need to stretch our wings anyhow

We will not ever change our methods, so we need to then expand out and invent our way out of the mess.
Also digging into the earth is a good idea. make chambers upon chambers under farms for growing more stuff. mass conversions over to solar, wind, and hydro power, etc.
Nasa is right. how earth is now has a very limited shelf life for the people...but we can change..not revert, but progress.

The part that really make me shake my head was this:

the data shows that we are doomed within a few decades unless we take a drastic turn in a better direction

We haven't changed in 2000 years (if not we've gotten worst in our greed). What makes them think that human nature is going to change in few decades?

A quick look by NASA at the defense budget and a look at their budget should have told them this without the need for a study. In fact the entire reason we were able to make it into space was because of the funding of the V2 program by the Germans in WW2 and ICBM programs after the war. We weren't trying to expand our knowledge but rather build new ways to kill ourselves when we built the technologies that allowed us to go to space. That should tell you everything you need to know about our mentality or at least the mentality of those who are in power.

Agartha

benrl
Really, I didn't even need a Nasa study to figure that one out.

I second the above ^^

We are decimating forests and seas and polluting it all, if we don't change our ways drastically our children will suffer because of our mistakes. But, we won't die all at once or together because the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, and those with more money will survive longer than those that are already poorer.....in some countries people are still dying of hunger in the year 2014!

I think our major problem is denial......most people are in denial and they don't want to wake up, as long as they can eat, watch some reality tv and have a beer then they are happy and they don't see what's coming.

Whether it is environmental collapse or economical collapse, the richest will always have a better chance of survival......and I am not one of them.

Dont get me wrong. I compleatly agree with you. But the bottom line is people have a choice. And they choose not to have to worrie about the poor or suffering cause they are happy. And they know worrying about something they have no control over as a individual is pointless and emotionally draining. Its like this, why should I sacrifice my happyness for someone else I either dont know or has no appreciation of happyness. As for Nasa, they are right, the collapse of society is inevitable. What I dont get is why did it have its funding slashed ? If we can build billion dollar sky scrapers and alternative propulsion systems then there is no reason why we cant build a space craft big enough to house 500 people in it. Or a space station for that matter. Its almost such that the space program has been suppressed from moving forward since the 1990s. Its now 2014. Were are the hova boards? Were is the free energy? Were are the holiday trips to the resort on the moon ? Were are the flying cars and 1 hour trips from your location to any other city in the world? Its almost as if we never really left the late 80s. We just repackaged our technology with new casing.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Did you actually consider I might have posted the article for it's relevance to the topic instead of a lame reference to ''Noah''?

Did you even read my post at all?

Do you not think that you should be calling out whoever wrote the ''Noah'' blurb instead of making presumptions about me based on nothing instead?

Do you not think ATS has enough idiots using board space for their annoyingly stupid posts?

reply to post by Telos


It's like Lord of the Flies only the kid's got nukes, never trust humanity, men are just boys with bigger toys, grinding grudges and having a 'size' competition on an international scale.

Cinrad
NASA? Why NASA?

Anyway, since we know it is the powers that be that want a highly stratified society with all the wealth concentrated with them at the top, and that NASA is just an agency for said PTB, why publish this article?

A NASA-funded study says that the combination of population growth, wealth inequality and resource demand puts our current civilization at risk for collapse.

“There are widespread concerns that current trends in population and resource-use are unsustainable, but the possibilities of an overshoot and collapse remain unclear and contro- versial. Collapses have occurred frequently in the past five thousand years, and are often followed by centuries of economic, intellectual, and population decline. Many different nat- ural and social phenomena have been invoked to explain specific collapses, but a general explanation remains elusive. Two important features seem to appear across societies that have collapsed: (1) Ecological Strain and (2) Economic Stratification.

More in depth and good report on how they conducted the study:
northdenvernews.com...

You know it's funny, but I was reading the other thread that you posted the link to this thread (your thread in) and was asking myself the same question. Why would NASA be involved in this style of study or exercise in predicting the future based on what they perceive as societal ills? Odd.

Civilization as we knoe it might end, but humans shall go on. I personally believe that society will morph into something better, but not before we go through some growing pains. We may go through revolution between the elite and the regular folks. I believe we are going to reach the Michio Kaku civilization type1. We are destine to colonize space. I believe the Mars One Project project is a step in the right direction. I personally wish I could go.

I sincerely hope that humanity fails within the next 10 to 20 years. We rely way too much in technology and we actually tend to ignore our species as equals. It's also noticeable that most people have no respect for other species and are destroying our beautiful planet.

This is an ancient and common method used for many thousands of years. It consists of two steps:

1. Project absolute doom and gloom.

2. Recommend wealth redistribution (instead of merit) as a solution.

Unfortunately people fall for it over and over again.

Humanity will become extinct. Either we will become something more than human or something less than human. Time marches on. If we were going to be all human and only human forever, we couldn't have happened in the first place.

Civilization means specialization of labor, mostly. Also accumulation of wealth throughout society. Civilizations have many people who eat without making their own food.

Education will determine what happens-- not resources.

"put a monkey in a cage and it becomes a pig" Chinese Proverb