The utter collapse of human civilization will be ‘difficult to avoid,’ NASA funded study says

reply to post by smithjustinb

smithjustinb
We're not in danger. In the very near future, we will be putting humans on Mars and will possibly begin terraforming the moon or Mars. When that happens, we'll be thriving better than ever. And when we are able to go even farther, which I believe we will, resources will be unlimited. That means conflict over resources will die down too. Good days ahead.

The government doesn't allow for "unlimited resources" on Earth, so what makes you think they'll do so on mars?

The control or resources is the only way to get people to depend on you.

ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This whole thing supposes that in 750 to 1000 years we wont have a different way to produce energy, or ROBOTS to do the work that men do now.....

You cant tell me that in that amount of time most things will not be automated by machine.......

This "study" basis its logic on today's standards, not where we will be technologically 1000 years from now.....

That alone should raise eyebrows on just how forward thinking these people really are to even begin to make their assumptions...

Seems to me someones just pushing an agenda and not thinking ahead logically........really really weak logic here...

This is the way of nearly all doom-saying about our future.

They all rely on placing today's technology at a standstill in terms of growth, tracking forward all the other numbers.

The irony is that the technology curve is the one that shows experiential growth and that this outstrips any negative effects today's technology may create for tomorrow.

Which is why the doom porn ignores it and get's away with it by saying"if nothing changes".... Of course things will change...

In other-words.... this along with all other reports of it's nature are floored.

Peace,

Korg.

Ermmm why is NASA doing this study?

Shouldnt they be you know? FOCUSING ON FREAKING SPACE!

You got a space program thats barely that now as you had to decomission the POS over expensive death trap called the shuttle and now rely on a hostile country to shuttle you in to space and said hostile country planning the next space race, but instead its focusing on doom porn?

Ok makes sense

ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This whole thing supposes that in 750 to 1000 years we wont have a different way to produce energy, or ROBOTS to do the work that men do now.....

You cant tell me that in that amount of time most things will not be automated by machine.......

This "study" basis its logic on todays standards, not where we will be technologically 1000 years from now.....

That alone should raise eyebrows on just how forward thinking these people really are to even begin to make their assumptions...

Seems to me someones just pushing an agenda and not thinking ahead logically........really really weak logic here...

I think you're reading it out of context; they are saying that the model runs for X amount of years, then the collapse comes, not that we have 1000 years before the collapse, lol. It is also based on some historical evidence, i.e. the collapse of other once flourishing civilizations. It would be the epitome of naivety to believe that contemporary civilization is immune to collapse.

It's not to say that we'd die off as a species, only that we'd go through another "dark age."

crazyewok
its focusing on doom porn?

Ok makes sense

Maybe it does make sense. What better way to get people thinking about exploiting Mars than convincing them that we're going to run out of room and resources on Earth?

NASA Says Human Race Needs Three Planets to Sustain Itself
Another ploy to get people thinking about other planets? Though both may actually be true and not just ploys, the timing is subject to debate.

smithjustinb
We're not in danger. In the very near future, we will be putting humans on Mars and will possibly begin terraforming the moon or Mars. When that happens, we'll be thriving better than ever. And when we are able to go even farther, which I believe we will, resources will be unlimited. That means conflict over resources will die down too. Good days ahead.

I don't think this is feasible. We can't even properly control our own earth yet, how do you suppose we breath life into a dead planet like Mars? Terraforming mars, granted it's even possible, would be a venture that would require a rather large time investment and a ton of resources.

I don't think terraforming the moon is a possibility either.

Our species is not in danger, but our current way of life is. We've built a society based on codependency. Nearly every asset of our society relies on another asset to help it function; such is the ecosystem of modern civilization. We need silicon for motherboards, microchips, etc, and thus a genocide is born in the Congo on our behalf. We need clothes, hence Chinese and Indian sweatshops. Take one cog out of the machine and the whole thing crumbles. Basically we'd see widespread poverty in much of the first world, coinciding with a major drop in the quality of life. This would of course spread to lesser developed areas as well which depend on our business.

How do you disseminate food throughout a nation like ours without gas?

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


No system built on eugenics will survive. There are two reasons for this. First amongst them, is that to enact any policy even loosely based on such a thing, will create division between those who are, and those who are not optimal. Because of this, no matter how benevolent the beginning of such a society, it will become malevolent. To counter act the justifiable anger that such policies will cause, the society will become more militaristic, and therefore more prone to battle than our current society is.

Eugenics is doom. Whether it comes about through a flawed or incomplete understanding of genetics, or a flawed or incomplete understanding of human beings and the way they will react to a given circumstance or stimulus, matters not one whit. The results will be the same.

It is also the easiest answer. Weeding out the weak for the benefit of the strong may be a logically sound answer, but not an ethically sound one. Put another way, if eugenics is the only answer to this conundrum, then mankind SHOULD die off. It is a thousand times better to die in the flesh, than to become corrupt in the soul, and that would be the result of a new era under such schemes as have been thought up before, and any new scheme which borrows or pays respect to any of those.

Arbitrageur

crazyewok
its focusing on doom porn?

Ok makes sense

Maybe it does make sense. What better way to get people thinking about exploiting Mars than convincing them that we're going to run out of room and resources on Earth?

NASA Says Human Race Needs Three Planets to Sustain Itself
Another ploy to get people thinking about other planets? Though both may actually be true and not just ploys, though the timing is subject to debate.

edit on 15-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I agree with Arbitrageur here, I believe that this is working up to some immediate emergency funding to help save our race and home planet by putting populations off world.

It is plainly obvious to anyone who knows some human and natural history that our civilization is headed for disaster - it didn't take a group of rocket scientists to tell us that one! Next you know the brain surgeons will be telling us we need to go into space.

I think you're reading it out of context; they are saying that the model runs for X amount of years, then the collapse comes, not that we have 1000 years before the collapse, lol. It is also based on some historical evidence, i.e. the collapse of other once flourishing civilizations. It would be the epitome of naivety to believe that contemporary civilization is immune to collapse.

It's not to say that we'd die off as a species, only that we'd go through another "dark age."

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Well obviously thats how long the model ran for am I not wrong on that? And in that amount of time technologies change.

Im not saying that that ours WONT collapse, im just not buying into the doom porn these guys are spewing....

Its all great and well that you base your research of old societies , however, old societies didnt have our level of technology to handle the very REASONS they say our society will collapse in their model, in the first place!

Thats my point, granted history repeats itself......and eventually yes, will again......

My point is this whole thing reads more like a playbook to push an agenda then actual scientific thought....

Again, they are using data from old civilzations, on NEW world problems, with what will be outdated technology by the time they say this will come to pass, and calling it accurate?

I think I require a bit more solid footing then that to buy into this notion

reply to post by TrueBrit

...Weeding out the weak for the benefit of the strong may be a logically sound answer, but not an ethically sound one.

Problem is, it's not logical either - just misinformed. Turns out those who appear "strong" are simply the "not-yet-exposed." Once exposed to whatever contaminants abound outside their protected environments, they too will become "weak" and likely, much more quickly so than others whose previous exposures have acclimated them. Epigenetics 101.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


How 'bout those 85 individuals who have as much money as 1/2 the world's population? Talk about unequal.

85 richest people on earth have as much money as half the world’s population

....The tiny elite of multibillionaires, who could fit into a single train carriage, have accumulated fortunes (a total of $1.7-trillion) equal to the wealth of the world’s poorest 3.5-billion people.

PS. F&S&

DestroyDestroyDestroy
"After running the numbers on a set of four equations representing human society, a team of NASA-funded mathematicians has come to the grim conclusion that the utter collapse of human civilization will be “difficult to avoid."

Hari Seldon -- was that you running those equations?

I have a question that I feel is pretty valid. Why would NASA a space agency be doing a study in sociology? Who is National News and are they a reputable news agency?

reply to post by soficrow


But that's just too bad. It's their money and they are certainly not under any kind of obligation to "share" it with you or anyone else. Redistribution of wealth is a moronic idea. Why should soneone be forced to give away their money ? If it was you would you just say oh hey that's not fair I'm rich and you're poor. Let me give you some of my money. Yeah not gonna happen.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


Money belongs to and is created by the STATE and the STATE legitimizes business!

Individuals have just borrowed a certain limited amount of stuff from the state for the duration of their lifetimes!

We the PEOPLE are THE STATE!

smithjustinb
We're not in danger. In the very near future, we will be putting humans on Mars and will possibly begin terraforming the moon or Mars. When that happens, we'll be thriving better than ever. And when we are able to go even farther, which I believe we will, resources will be unlimited. That means conflict over resources will die down too. Good days ahead.

Neither the Moon or Mars can be 'terraformed' domed cities, yes, but anyone born on those two 'worlds' cannot leave them and visit earth, the gravity of earth would kill them.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


There are a great many parallels between contemporary western civilization and the beginning of the collapse of Rome. Perhaps your familiar with the term "bread and circuses" and its application during the fall of Rome.

As long as the people are fed and entertained, they will remain placid; blind to what is really happening in the world around them. You see it now, only instead of going to the Colosseum to watch Christians be fed to lions, we go to the couch and watch reality TV.

Civilizations come and go; wringing our hands about the prospect of ours ending soon is something I find to be broadly egotistical, mildly amusing and a sure sign of our collective ignorance as a species. Do we still build pyramids? Do we wear togas and worship dozens of gods? Does our capital city involve buildings with thatched roofs and plastered with dung?

No, because those past civilizations ended. And I am very thankful for that.

Civilizations end but new and better ones always eventually spring up in their places, and I believe if we ever do wish to progress into our futurized concepts of science fiction such as Star Trek it will have to be accomplished by a different civilization - because this one surely will never achieve it.

Wanting our current civilization to never end I think is simply being fearful of progress, and just like the Luddites who destroyed the machinery which was driving the very progress we now appreciate today, these "NASA-funded" articles are so short-sighted in their views that they seem to ignore the very essence which has kept us alive for these tens of thousands of years: our ability to adapt; our ability to improve; our ability to progress.

reply to post by DietJoke


Bull#e my money is mine. What the he'll is this communist Russia ? You don't know what you're talking about.

DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

There are a great many parallels between contemporary western civilization and the beginning of the collapse of Rome. Perhaps your familiar with the term "bread and circuses" and its application during the fall of Rome.

As long as the people are fed and entertained, they will remain placid; blind to what is really happening in the world around them. You see it now, only instead of going to the Colosseum to watch Christians be fed to lions, we go to the couch and watch reality TV.

absolutely agree with that ...and of course our society draws direct parallel with Rome, however this isnt what they addressed

for sake of the thread this isnt what they are talking about, my point was their reasoning behind the collapse with the time frame do not take into account many variables that would happen within that context....

it just seems more of an agenda point then an actual study with all factors involved.....IMHO that is