It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Easter Island Shows Why Humanity Will Be Extinct Within 100 Years

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
DP
edit on 3-3-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: Double post




posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
This guy is right here…
Humankind has refused to use the knowledge and wisdom he has to maintain his own existence so he will likely perish soon.

Human beings have modern technology and science and it has ironically made things worse.

Also, mankind refuses to use science and technology to solve mass starvation and disease rather he goes about using science and technology to build weapons of mass destruction.


Now Trump is abandoning all environmental standards to keep the water safe, the air clean and nothing about global warming.

He wants to be first in nuclear weapons rather than be the first to offer a plan for their reduction…

So yes we are likely doomed



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Land area of Easter Island: 63 square miles.
Land area of Earth: 57 million square miles.
The resources available to the extinct population of Easter Island was very limited.

A similar thing vould happen on the whole of Earth, but inside of 100 years? I don't think so.


Precisely correct, given global warming there are very vast tact's of arable and fertile land in Russia that are ripe for agriculture, they are ripe even now though harsh in winter which with warming may become milder, those area's actually have the potential to feed the entire population of the planet twice over even without modern agriculture and far more advanced technique's, the hurdle is out international boundary's, corporate politic's and fear of our neighbours.

Over the next hundred years we will see vast desertification and mass population die off's in certain area's that will make past famine's look pleasant by comparison but the human race WILL survive and even flourish in spite of this barring a major catastrophic war probably over resource acquisition for financial and NATIONAL security reason's.

Much of Canada also has this potential though the area while still vast is not anywhere near as vast as that available in Russia and Siberia.

The reason why so much of that land in Russia is not currently used is because in the past it HAS been used, civilization's and cultures have come and gone, there demise ranging from environmental to tribal migration and conquest at the hand's of violent nomadic culture's but in the past they flourished and grew, it was there wealth also that attracted the very forces that often destroyed them.
Today much of Russian and Siberia is scantily populated with vast swath's of stepp and forest, much of that forrest used to be farmland as well and in fact much of the story of human history and culture was actually played out in those land's, much more than is currently acknowledged and they may have been just as important if not more so than the fertile crescent and other WELL KNOWN location's.

So that land has in the past been cultivated and very successfully so, it gave rise to culture's and civilization's which mostly fell because of conquest, the Hun then the Mongol's, Tartars and Islamic expansion (much more of Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush used to be cultivated, another area of vast and successful agricultural society's and civilization's that fell to invasion and were then not rebuilt to anywhere near what they had once been by the nomadic conqueror's) so indeed those area's could be tended and made productive again, it just require's peace, co-operation and a common goal to be shared across borders.

edit on 3-3-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
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?



You mean having machines and such doing everything, or are you referring to the Transhumanist agenda? Not real clear what you mean by "full-out automation."



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth

originally posted by: soficrow
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?



You mean having machines and such doing everything, or are you referring to the Transhumanist agenda? Not real clear what you mean by "full-out automation."


Just meant the coming full out automation, and its effects on society.

Transhumanism, well that's another discussion entirely.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Even if the 100 year prediction were true. Hasn't humanity survived multiple ice ages without the aid of technology? Doubtful all 7 billion of us will just go out that easy.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

As far as machines doing everything, it's going to be bad, very bad, for the general populace if that happens. It's going to shrink the job market significantly as well as economies. Obviously, if there's not many people working, there's not many people spending money.
These corporations and such want relatively cost free operations. That has been the goal of many high ranking CEOs for decades. They think that "sounds" good, but wait until it starts cutting into their bottom line because people don't have the money, due to a lack of jobs, to buy the products.
edit on 4-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: soficrow

As far as machines doing everything, it's going to be bad, very bad, for the general populace if that happens. It's going to shrink the job market significantly as well as economies. Obviously, if there's not many people working, there's not many people spending money.
These corporations and such want relatively cost free operations. That has been the goal of many high ranking CEOs for decades. They think that "sounds" good, but wait until it starts cutting into their bottom line because people don't have the money, due to a lack of jobs, to buy the products.



Not "if," when. And I think it will hit much sooner than 2030.

As far as profits, I still think they're raping and pillaging to squeeze the last drops from the general population, then they're good to go for the transition to a smaller, richer market.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Personally, I don't see it working, not long term. It might be ok initially, but anything past the 20 year mark,no, I think such a system will encounter a heap of economic problems.
edit on 4-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Why do you think that? It's worked before, and even now, 90% of the human population barely participates in the mainstream economy.






posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
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.

Disagree. I agree with you that people are often simply tools, and not forward thinking enough to drive this change. However, if we change the system, those same tools will utilize the new, better system in the same thoughtless manner that they did the old. If we can change the systems, the materials, and the chemistry involved, that should be sufficient. The population as a whole doesn't have to care for those changes to be effective.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnTheSmith

Within 100 years our solar system would have entered a more dense section of the Local Fluff which is a million degrees. The more time passes and we get closer to this interstellar cloud the more dramatic our climate will change.



Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

Date:
May 24, 2010
Source:
Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences
Summary:
Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon? A U.S.-Polish team of scientists suggests that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect due to the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

It's possible such an encounter could have devastating effects on Earth. We just have to wait and see what happens.

As it is the interstellar gas that Earth, and the solar system had been travelling through was/is 6,000-7,000 degrees kelvin. But this new region we are approaching is a million degrees, and it's denser. While in space you won't notice much this change, it would wreak havock in planets with an atmosphere, and in our sun itself.

BTW, this is what was thought this cloud would do to Earth. BTW, that article was written before we found out we are much closer to this interstellar cloud. Back then it was still thought it would take thousands of years for us to reach this cloud.


How a Cloud of Space Dust Could Wipe Out Life on Earth
Seemingly innocuous specks could throw off the whole solar system—and we might not see them until it's too late.
By Jeffrey Winters|Tuesday, December 30, 2008
...

No, nothing is going to blot out the sun. But recent observations and numerical simulations suggest that eventually—in a few millennia, maybe—the solar system may plow into a cloud of gas and dust a thousand times denser than the space we travel through now. This interstellar fog could reduce the sun’s sphere of influence until most of the outer planets are sitting naked in space. Dust and gas will penetrate as far as Earths orbit and may begin eating away at the oxygen in our upper atmosphere. The solar wind, now greatly compressed, will no longer provide adequate protection from the high-speed electrons and ions ripping through space. These cosmic rays will tear into the atmosphere, to the detriment of the delicate molecules of life.
...

discovermagazine.com...

So, as you see this virologist could be right and humanity could go extinct in 100 years, but the reason why is where he is wrong.



edit on 16-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add link, excerpt, and comment.

edit on 16-3-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Uh huh. So many factors, so little computing power.







posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Unfortunately we do live in a world which will forever more be affected by the changes in the galactic environment. We have no control over this.

But this is why years ago i started suggesting in this website that in order for mankind to survive, we have to do one of two things. Unless some miracle occurs and the solar system changes direction and avoids this cloud, either the human race leaves the solar system, or we live underground.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The only constant is change. You know that. And life always ends in death.

Living underground? Been done before. No doubt we will do it again. As far as leave the solar system - great idea! But only after the boys learn how to clean up their own godammed messes, and not to make any more! ...Trashing planets is not a noble endeavor.






posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: soficrow

As far as machines doing everything, it's going to be bad, very bad, for the general populace if that happens. It's going to shrink the job market significantly as well as economies. Obviously, if there's not many people working, there's not many people spending money.
These corporations and such want relatively cost free operations. That has been the goal of many high ranking CEOs for decades. They think that "sounds" good, but wait until it starts cutting into their bottom line because people don't have the money, due to a lack of jobs, to buy the products.



originally posted by: soficrow

Not "if," when. And I think it will hit much sooner than 2030.

As far as profits, I still think they're raping and pillaging to squeeze the last drops from the general population, then they're good to go for the transition to a smaller, richer market.


Hell guys, it's happening right now. Robotic taxis...what about Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing apps? Boom. You just replaced all those dispatchers, all the office and support staff of a taxi company with robots. Hell it's not even a robot, just a piece of software, maybe a server or two somewhere. Thanks multinational megacorporations! Of course it's more efficient and convenient, and it ruled the market the day it arrived. The consumers made their choice and they sided firmly with the robots.

Of course the same thing happened with the loom. A lot of weavers went out of business overnight. I think it's a steady process and has been for centuries at least. I agree this mechanization of the world is a scary thought, and it will likely continue to compound to the detriment of society at large, until we figure out how to deal with it or they just kill everybody off or something.

It's not all bad though, doesn't have to be this doom and gloom future. I know of a washing machine plant that's partly automated. The robot does the most dangerous job, basically controlling the sheet metal roll out feed. That job had killed at least a few people, I think it was dozens, before they built a robot to do it. That company eliminated a few jobs doing that, sure, but they were the most fatal jobs at the plant.
edit on 16-3-2017 by TheBadCabbie because: edit



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

So , The Entire Planet is going to Cut Down All the Trees for Canoes without Planting New Ones , then start a war Between the Long Eared Ones and the Short Eared Ones which will Eventually Lead to Cannibalism , and the Destruction Of All Of Humanity ? Nah , Not Happening.....



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: soficrow

So , The Entire Planet is going to Cut Down All the Trees for Canoes without Planting New Ones , then start a war Between the Long Eared Ones and the Short Eared Ones which will Eventually Lead to Cannibalism , and the Destruction Of All Of Humanity ? Nah , Not Happening.....


lol. Already happening.

Or don't you watch the news?








top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join