Earth 2100 - discussion

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Just watched this tonight. What did you think?

I thought it was pretty good. They didn't have a misanthropic angle, and they say there is hope.

I think we will avert the future they depict.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Is it a movie, history channel event? A link would be nice, sounds interesting, is it something Michio Kaku would like?

Edit to add; nevermind, it's one of those who puts a thread up then logs off and never returns....ugh, too many of those.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Republican08]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


It was a special on ABC about global warming. I didnt watch it but I knew about it.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I watched the last segment when it came on (mom was already watching it). For the most part it seemed like an accurate description of how the human race would react in such a situation (however irrationally).

here's a link to the official w. site:
linkaroo



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


It was ok i suppose but they didnt mention nuclear power as a solution to energy demands. All the focus was on solar and wind, which aren't bad ideas but are ideas which have a snowballs chance in hell of satisfying demand. I live in Florida which is not a windy state, so unless we have a hurricane rolling through every day wind power wont work for us. There's lots of sun in Florida, but it rains a lot here too, and last i checked the sun doesnt shine at night. Also solar arrays are very expensive to build and maintain, and its just not that efficient. There are other ideas that can be used too, Australias got a great one called a solar tower, my personal favorite. They've got desert, we've got desert, so we can use it too, here's a link (www.wired.com...).Or you know those big water towers? point a bunch of large mirrors to reflect the suns light to beam directly against the water tank, like a magnifying glass on ants, and you've got steam power. I'll hear people say "but 3mile island and chernobyl are reasons we cant allow nuclear power!". A lot has changed in nuclear tech over the last few decades, and is now safer than swimming in a tank full of stingrays (rip steve erwin), and its highly regulated. And there's zero emissions! Not many good things can be said about the French, but they do derive 80% of their power from nuclear. Who knows why Obama is playing politics about storing the waste deep under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert where it'll be safe. Heres a link to a 2page Newsweek article about it www.newsweek.com... Another thing the program mentioned is if the tundra in siberia melts, tons of methane gas from decayed vegetation/animals trapped below the ice from the last ice age will be spewed into the atmosphere. If they know about it, why don't they tap it and use that for power. Its more accessible than the frozen methane they've found deep in the ocean. Not a bad show though, hopefully it got some people thinking.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Hello all, new user here, found this board by googling 'Earth 2100 discussion'.

Personally, I thought they underdeveloped the psychological factor of their planned map of events. Any or all of the events in the earliest parts of their version of the 21st century would lead to massive hopelessness and depression.

Another problem I had with it was that I felt the negotiators in the 2015 meeting didn't do an effective job of explaining the dire nature of the issue to the dissenters on the treaty. Granted, modern diplomacy is a highly scrutinized art of convention and protocol, but at some point, someone representing the West will have had the notion to just say something along the lines of 'Look, I understand your concerns, but unless this happens, your own cities may be next'.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
Is it a movie, history channel event? A link would be nice, sounds interesting, is it something Michio Kaku would like?

Edit to add; nevermind, it's one of those who puts a thread up then logs off and never returns....ugh, too many of those.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Republican08]


It was on ABC last night.

Sorry



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
My husband and I were casually discussing the fact that his next auto should not be a gashog. Me against, him for. Right after, I went in and this show was on. I watched.

I just wish I had a psychological background so that I could name what my intuition was trying to tell me. Since I don't, my critique probably won't make too much sense. Here goes anyway.

The storyline was a combination of futuristic sci-fi, children's book, political ideology and human psychology all rolled into one. The first 105 minutes were fairy tale supposition intermixed with scientific theory. The last 15 minutes were a political ploy for "green" technology.

Pulling on our heartstrings and playing on fearmongering, the entire subject was biased and leaned heavily on swaying public opinion toward the green movement. Clever and devious. I feel manipulated rather than informed. Earth 2100



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
there were some threads on it last night. Propaganda anyone? That show was full of BS. This whole global warming/climate change thing is a scam. If anything we're heading towards a little ice age. The earth goes through cycles, it changes - that is all. Earth 2100 was a giant commercial for government control and carbon taxes, if you can't see that I'm sorry.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Interesting show certainly aimed at pulling heartstrings but there is nothing wrong with getting the world more involved with green methods. There was a brief mention on the new nuclear tech is it cold fusion? I read something the other day about a new facility being unveiled in California sounds promising.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
there were some threads on it last night. Propaganda anyone? That show was full of BS. This whole global warming/climate change thing is a scam. If anything we're heading towards a little ice age. The earth goes through cycles, it changes - that is all. Earth 2100 was a giant commercial for government control and carbon taxes, if you can't see that I'm sorry.


What evidence is there of an Ice Age? I know people said that back in the 70s but even then more people thought the world was warming.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 

Great post.....pretty much sums up my thoughts on the whole thing. They make it sound like it is a forgone conclusion that all this will happen.

People need to realize that climates and habitats do change, regardless of what we as humans do.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Global warming can lead to an ice age.


Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...
by Thom Hartmann

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

www.commondreams.org...


Courtesy:celestiamotherlodenet

'Chilling' prospect right?



[edit on 6/3/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Actually, geologically speaking, we are still exiting the last Ice Age, with the Holocene climatic optimum occuring 5 to 9 Thousand years ago. Tempwise, that means we have already hit the peak between Ice Ages and should be eventually heading towards another Ice Age, there will still be peaks and lows before that though, temperture wise.


en.wikipedia.org...

Better link with the "Ice Age temperature changes" the one I was trying to link.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by pavil]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Global warming can lead to an ice age.


Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...
by Thom Hartmann

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

www.commondreams.org...



[edit on 6/3/2009 by jkrog08]


This is only localized though, to Europe and eastern North America. The rest of the planet would still warm.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Yes, the show did focus on climate change but to write it off as political manipulation I think is disingenuous. It focused a great deal on dwindling traditional energy sources and the effects of that trend. Climate change is undeniable. Debate all you want about the causes and what can or cannot be done but the consequences are coming nonetheless.

Massive populations ARE going to be foprced to relocate. This diaspora is already beginning and will only worsen over time. The social, resource and political pressures this will cause will result in disease, war and famine. It's unavoidable. It has been happening for some time now but those of us here have the luxury to simply ignore it. But make no mistake it IS real and it IS happening now.

From what I've read, my complaint would be that the show 'sugar-coated' the problem. I find it unlikely that we have as much time as the show supposed. If anything, with all the projected political pressures, social upheaval and resource shortages, how was the world able to avoid a major war during the period depicted? I find that unlikely.

Sure, it's television theater. But much of what they present is all too real. Spend some time researching papers by peer-reviewed scientists in these fields. Many are far more hysterical than what that program depicted. Frankly, if we make 2100 in any semblence of what they showed I'd be quite surprised.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by jtma508]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
As I said elsewhere, it's a failure of truth.

Any time they do these "Ceteris Paribus" simulations, they are doomed to fail. How on Earth, if I so ask, would any virus be able to spread in the 2070s? We're on schedule to cure cancer in the next decade and create microbe robots that can heal us in the following decade after that.

Ceteris Paribus simulations always fail because they fail to take into the fact that humans advance in technology exponentially. Every single thing in star trek that was expected to take centuries to invent has been invented in roughly a few decades.

This thing was simply inaccurate. How would water levels rise while other places become droughts? Are the creators really blind to the obvious contradiction there? Are we suppose to just stand around and do nothing when it would be so easy to simply run sea water through a filter and feed the entire united states, thus lowering the sea level as well as solving the food problems?

Are the creators really so blind to see that fact that we could just bio engineer bacteria that would eat our pollution and produce from it oil products, as well as plastic products?

Are the creators really so blind as to forget the fact that China and the US are probably going to begin competing for moon and space constructions within the next decade? And were they even blinder to the fact that helium nuclear power would end any fossil fuel needs?


This series in all honesty was a fear mongering mess with a failure of truth and honesty, as well as a ridiculously lack of realism for how the world would react. In WW2, Russia and the US were allies, where as no more than a few decades before they were hated communism vs capitalism foes in the 1920s. Of course, it returned to that afterward, but that's my point. When a little man with a square beard threatened their money and power, they both put aside their hate and united. Am I suppose to believe that we couldn't do the same for disaster?

Not only that, but they act as if our pollution, if halted, will some how fix all problems. The undersea rivers that fuel the warming of the US coast is, by the very laws of nature, temporary. By the act of water moving, that underwater river is slowly eroding away. It WILL end, and the US WILL freeze over again. And you know what? We'll probably just build up a new wall under the sea.


Every single point in this series was made to sound like it's all our fault and if we don't bow down to the government's will, lead under environmentalists, then the whole world would fail.

It is one sided, faulty at best, and a complete lie. Ceteris Paribus simulations, by their very nature, are never accurate nor true.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
See I'm torn, because I'm very pro-green/environmentalist, but the damn NWO is using it as an excuse to control and possibly kill off people.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I think they had kind of an "all or nothing" viewpoint about the whole situation. Either survive or die. But it probably not going to be like that at all. Once basic systems start to collapse, there will be fallbacks and readjustments. If we run out of fresh water, it won't all be at the same time, so those without water might die, and others will survive. If we get hit by a pandemic, it probably won't kill us all. It'll concentrate itself on places with poor hygiene standards, and may reduce the overall population enough that our fresh water and energy needs will be met.

So, sure, some of the people in the world might experience some really hard times, but that's always been the case. The numbers will just be bigger, because there are so many of us.

The heart of the "problem" is still too many people. We eventually have to realize we have to reduce the number of people to a point where we can meet current needs, and then use our technology to find out the optimum carrying capacity of the planet (optimum, not maximum) and then limit births to keep it at that number. That's the solution, and the biggest challenge, since so many people still see curing all disease and having however many babies they want to be "good" things.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Population is already stabilizing. Once India and China are completely modernized, our population will be stable or declining. It won't get any higher than a few billion more people than there are now in 2009.



new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join