Easter Island Shows Why Humanity Will Be Extinct Within 100 Years

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: soficrow

Poignant. I agree on all points altgough I take some issue with the cause of climate change, not so much its occurance but as to our contribution as a species.

The removal of entire ecosystems to monocrop massive tracts of land, inviting predation and inducing excess chemical mitigation, leading ultimately to the utter destruction of our topsoil...is one of our greatest contributions to our own demise.

Carbon wouldn't be an issue at all with the trees requisite to its natural sequestration. Jared Diamond should be required reading, your article is spot on in many regards imo.

Correct, in that a shift in paradigm is required in my opinion, or at least strongly advised.

originally posted by: Restricted
Stop having so damn many children. Problem solved.

Or . . .

Cannibalism. I hear long pork is good.

Incorrect. Such drastic measures are not required. See post below yours.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: soficrow

The difference being we have an abundance of food on the planet more than enough to feed the entire population. We have a distribution problem that is not the same issue that is surmised to have happened on Easter Island.

Correct. We are straining our ecosystem without a doubt, in my opinion. However, we have the ability, properly utilising the resources of this planet, to support many times the present population, without straining or destroying the ecology.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Except for the glaringly obvious, they got there in a boat, they could leave in a boat. To more resource rich lands.

Just like (hey Mr smart scientist a similar analogy!) We are going to leave Earth in 'boats' and find more 'islands'

Sigh

Their problem was they cut all the trees down to construct Maori and didn't have any left to make boats. Or perhaps even have any boat making knowledge any more if they did have the trees.

The religion and caste system that developed on Easter Island ultimately is what doomed them and there is strong parallels to what happened to their culture and what's occurring globally now

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: soficrow

The difference being we have an abundance of food on the planet more than enough to feed the entire population. We have a distribution problem that is not the same issue that is surmised to have happened on Easter Island.

Correct. We are straining our ecosystem without a doubt, in my opinion. However, we have the ability, properly utilising the resources of this planet, to support many times the present population, without straining or destroying the ecology.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anthropogenic. Climate. Change.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: soficrow

Once upon a time I was optimistic about humanity's prospects. However, there comes a time when one must give up childish things which often includes naive optimism.
Over the years, it has become obvious to anyone paying attention that humanity is on a downward spiral. It's practically across the board. Environmentally, socially, economically, politically, et cetera.
Could there be hope? Anything COULD be. However, realistically, I think it would be naive to think that humanity will last beyond 2200. I know, all of us will be long gone by then, so, "meh," right?
Will we be done within 100 years? Who's to say? I certainly don't think the world will be recognizable to someone living in this age a hundred years from now. I really don't.
Of course, all of this is my opinion, but it certainly doesn't look good from the bleachers.

No!

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I think the only way to reverse the the downward spiral is to bomb humanity back to stone age.

No!

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: soficrow

Just a bit earlier this evening I was trying to explain to another ATSer that civilization doesnt stand a chance in the long run...there are simply too many things that can and eventually will go wrong.

He was super upset about politics and after I told him that we are all doomed, he addressed my poor outlook on our future....

Hey buddy, my outlook doesnt matter in the scheme of things. Facts are facts no matter what I think.

Just enjoy the ride!

Original post

No!

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: soficrow

The difference being we have an abundance of food on the planet more than enough to feed the entire population. We have a distribution problem that is not the same issue that is surmised to have happened on Easter Island.

I agree that right now the issue is food distribution, not overpopulation - but I think Fenner's point is that we're rapidly stripping our planet's resources, depleting the aquifers (water) for industrial use and destroying the arable land. Not to mention contaminating the air we breathe. Already, many people do not have access to needed water for themselves, never mind crops. Much farmland is destroyed, fish stocks are being rapidly depleted and won't recover....

[Do not have the heart to go on.]

No!

originally posted by: Lysergic
We should probably just hurry it along, no need to prolong our suffering.

Think of the childrens.

No!
Look guys, I know it looks bad, but we can fix this. This is mostly a problem of misallocation of resources and misapplication of technology. We're just doing it wrong. We can do it right. There are ways of doing it right. You change the paradigm, the way we do things, and see if we don't rehabilitate the planet within a century. It certainly can be done. That doesn't mean that we will do it, but the solution is there should we choose to pursue it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Restricted

What are you trying to say?

This data does not consider the technological singularity encountering humanity-

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I have said it for years on ATS...a local driven economy based on native perma culture with localized trade within 100 miles is the best answer I can come up with.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I have said it for years on ATS...a local driven economy based on native perma culture with localized trade within 100 miles is the best answer I can come up with.

I think locally driven economies and better permaculture can go a long way to remedy our issues.

I think rehabbing our oceans is the best planetary scale operation that we can conduct to truly shift the balance for the planetary ecosystem. That's why I keep pimping my OTEC thread in here. You clean up the oceans, farm most of our fish instead of overfishing them to scarcity, produce clean power that supplants nuclear and fossil fuels, you've eliminated many of the major issues right there.

I think the other thing that needs to change is our paradigm, the way we do things. Packaging, chemistry, material science. Different materials and systems than what we use today don't have to be as toxic to our environment(or us!). This shift is percolating right now within our mass consciousness and I believe it will start to emerge in a more widespread fashion in the next five to ten years. This notion of developing more environmentally symbiotic systems has been around for awhile, of course. I don't think it was taken as seriously by the majority until the last twenty years or so. Green is hip though nowadays, it is sexy, at least as far as the mass consciousness is concerned. That's what I get whenever I check my cultural pulse.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The locally grown citrus supply in Pennsylvania is extremely limited.

Global warming should fix that problem.

a reply to: collietta

I think this is a correct prediction. The ecosytem is just as damaged as our internal biome. There are just too many sick people.

I think they are more than linked animal protein is the major cause of heart disease and cancer in humans and can be reversed with a plant based diet.. Watch the movie forks over knifes if you are interested.

The problem comes to humans because we eat animal protein

Funny the planet has the same issues... Animal agriculture is the main cause of extinction on the planet.

Cows are a main cause of global warming on the planet

We are linked. This is an issue of the heart and how we relate to the world. The world reflects back a mirror..

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: soficrow

Once upon a time I was optimistic about humanity's prospects. However, there comes a time when one must give up childish things which often includes naive optimism.
Over the years, it has become obvious to anyone paying attention that humanity is on a downward spiral. It's practically across the board. Environmentally, socially, economically, politically, et cetera.
Could there be hope? Anything COULD be. However, realistically, I think it would be naive to think that humanity will last beyond 2200. I know, all of us will be long gone by then, so, "meh," right?
Will we be done within 100 years? Who's to say? I certainly don't think the world will be recognizable to someone living in this age a hundred years from now. I really don't.
Of course, all of this is my opinion, but it certainly doesn't look good from the bleachers.

No!

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I think the only way to reverse the the downward spiral is to bomb humanity back to stone age.

No!

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: soficrow

Just a bit earlier this evening I was trying to explain to another ATSer that civilization doesnt stand a chance in the long run...there are simply too many things that can and eventually will go wrong.

He was super upset about politics and after I told him that we are all doomed, he addressed my poor outlook on our future....

Hey buddy, my outlook doesnt matter in the scheme of things. Facts are facts no matter what I think.

Just enjoy the ride!

Original post

No!

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: soficrow

The difference being we have an abundance of food on the planet more than enough to feed the entire population. We have a distribution problem that is not the same issue that is surmised to have happened on Easter Island.

I agree that right now the issue is food distribution, not overpopulation - but I think Fenner's point is that we're rapidly stripping our planet's resources, depleting the aquifers (water) for industrial use and destroying the arable land. Not to mention contaminating the air we breathe. Already, many people do not have access to needed water for themselves, never mind crops. Much farmland is destroyed, fish stocks are being rapidly depleted and won't recover....

[Do not have the heart to go on.]

No!

originally posted by: Lysergic
We should probably just hurry it along, no need to prolong our suffering.

Think of the childrens.

No!
Look guys, I know it looks bad, but we can fix this. This is mostly a problem of misallocation of resources and misapplication of technology. We're just doing it wrong. We can do it right. There are ways of doing it right. You change the paradigm, the way we do things, and see if we don't rehabilitate the planet within a century. It certainly can be done. That doesn't mean that we will do it, but the solution is there should we choose to pursue it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, that's the way. However, good luck in getting the modern man to change their lifestyle to ever foment such a thing. Modern man is "special." As I stated, the average modern person complains if they have to walk a block down the road.
You think you're going to get them to give up their gadgets and trinkets for the sake of some, as they'd perceive it, "distant" future? Doubtful. I used to be one of those calling for a paradigm shift, but in order to have any such thing to occur, you need 60-70 percent of the population's consent. I just don't see it happening.
I don't disagree with you, but I no longer can naively believe that it will ever be. I can tell you what doesn't take any belief or naivete and that is that the current state of affairs isn't sustainable.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

...the current state of affairs isn't sustainable.

True.

Do you think the full-out automation that's coming will help or harm?

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: Restricted

I believe the planet would benefit greatly from our complete absence.

Benefit how? Seems to me the only reason planets exist are to be mediums by which intelligence is able to arise. Humans are by far the most important resource the Earth has ever produced. Without humans the Earth is just a rock with un-important sub-lifeforms roaming around. The Earth is lucky to have humans, we are what makes the Earth semi-relevant in the universe.

semi-relevant to who? do you know something i don't regarding the status of this speck of dust floating around in the vastness of the universe. I need proof that it is semi-relevant to "others" rather than just Homosapiens

Thanks for your time

Well, I'm just going off the assumption that the universe has some sort of purpose for being, god, cosmic consciousness, something. If true, then sentience would be much more useful than non-sentience. Meaning humans would be by far the most important thing on Earth. If there is no purpose to the universe, then who cares about the Earth and it's other sub-life forms? Kill it, destroy it, doesn't really matter, does it? If it doesn't matter, we might at well do what we can to use it to our benefit for as long as we can.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: Restricted

I believe the planet would benefit greatly from our complete absence.

Benefit how? Seems to me the only reason planets exist are to be mediums by which intelligence is able to arise. Humans are by far the most important resource the Earth has ever produced. Without humans the Earth is just a rock with un-important sub-lifeforms roaming around. The Earth is lucky to have humans, we are what makes the Earth semi-relevant in the universe.

semi-relevant to who? do you know something i don't regarding the status of this speck of dust floating around in the vastness of the universe. I need proof that it is semi-relevant to "others" rather than just Homosapiens

Thanks for your time

Well, I'm just going off the assumption that the universe has some sort of purpose for being, god, cosmic consciousness, something. If true, then sentience would be much more useful than non-sentience. Meaning humans would be by far the most important thing on Earth. If there is no purpose to the universe, then who cares about the Earth and it's other sub-life forms? Kill it, destroy it, doesn't really matter, does it? If it doesn't matter, we might at well do what we can to use it to our benefit for as long as we can.

Yipes. That's called seriously ego-centric and anthropocentric! At least.

What makes you think ego-sentience is the endgame? Much evidence suggests otherwise.

Their boats were made out of reeds not trees.

a reply to: soficrow

Too bad its a 100 years and not in 30 days.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
Their boats were made out of reeds not trees.

Yes. I misspoke. Thanks.

...So they destroyed Easter Island's environment to the extent it could no longer support them, and escaped on reed boats to a new home. Does that work for you?

a reply to: soficrow

Agreed it's a bit of doom porn... however, there is a real challenge in changing the feedback loops that predicate the paradigm of capitalism and its 'mutually beneficial' outcomes, as capitalism has yet to incorporate a "full-cost" pricing model that internalizes environmental costs. A change in the pricing (value-added measures incorporating the true cost of environmental services and ecological value) of resources and goods will go a long way in bending the "true cost" curve of natural resources (e.g. potable water) and can be most effectively done with a capitalistic paradigm/model.

I found something that has to be a typo or some really bad math in the article: "Another 9.7 billion will live in water stressed areas, according to researchers at MIT." So, the whole of humanity (9.7 billion is about the projected population of the entire planet, according to demographers, in 2100) will be impacted be stressed water resources? That seems like doom porn hyperbole on steroids, if not a typo/bad math...

Thanks for the thread