When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#2
Well, if that is the case, it might have been helpful if some of them had actually talked about it in the terms the problem needs to be talked about in.

It has been extremely rare for many years to hear a climate scientist talk about the climate change as a civilization collapse issue - sure, that's the logical conclusion any sane person would draw after hearing the consequences, but those particular words have rarely been used used.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#3
Well, if that is the case, it might have been helpful if some of them had actually talked about it in the terms the problem needs to be talked about in.

It has been extremely rare for many years to hear a climate scientist talk about the climate change as a civilization collapse issue - sure, that's the logical conclusion any sane person would draw after hearing the consequences, but those particular words have rarely been used used.


Yeah I agree with that.

In the absence of the scientists saying how bad it is, that void has been filled with skeptics and deniers so that our collective assessment of the situation is that "it's not that bad".

See Jeb Bush's recent comments. I think they are a sad representation of what most people think:

"I think its appropriate to recognize that the climate is changing, and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul. But not be alarmist about it, not to say end is near, not de-industrialize the country, not create barriers to higher growth, not just totally obliterate family budgets which some on the left advocate by saying we need to raise the price of energy so high that renewables then become viable.

Ultimately there's going to be a person in a garage somewhere who comes up with a disruptive technology that will solve these problems. And I think markets need to be respected in this regard."


Kind of reminds you of a lot of religious people right? "I'll just to what I want but my God is a merciful God so he will forgive me"
 
Props: ThaG and ThaG

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#4
Admittedly it's a tricky issue if you narrow it down to one topic. You can always be wrong, there are big uncertainties about many of the details, and you don't want to sound too alarmist because you can end up losing credibility.

However, it's not at all an uncertain issue when looked at in its totality -- there is basically zero doubt that civilization will collapse unless we put an end to (and reverse) both economic and population growth. If it's not climate change, it's going to be resource depletion (which itself has myriad components, i.e. we're back to Liebing's law of the minimum), if it's not that, it will be ecosystem collapse that does us. etc. It's numerous converging crises, all with the same root cause and the same solution.

But they focused only on climate change, not on the whole picture. And that has been the big mistake from the beginning. The big picture was actually understood long before global warming became a significant issue...

Ironically, people have become too afraid to call things with their real names when communicating to the public in parallel with exactly the opposite phenomenon becoming a serious problem in technical communication in many disciplines of science. These days it's quite hard to get into Cell/Nature/Science unless you massively overhype your results...
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
Kind of reminds you of a lot of religious people right? "I'll just to what I want but my God is a merciful God so he will forgive me"
I forgot to add the complete eradication of all sorts of religion to the list of necessary things in the previous post...
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#6
How long do you think before the topic of child limits is being discussed in the mainstream media? 1-5 years, 5-10 years, or is this something that pushes so strongly against our intrinsic drive to reproduce that it can never be discussed other than on the fringes?

I was thinking about that over the weekend, what the time frame could be. The reality is that if we don't ever have the conversation, we will most likely grow ourselves into an early death.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#7
How long do you think before the topic of child limits is being discussed in the mainstream media? 1-5 years, 5-10 years, or is this something that pushes so strongly against our intrinsic drive to reproduce that it can never be discussed other than on the fringes?

I was thinking about that over the weekend, what the time frame could be. The reality is that if we don't ever have the conversation, we will most likely grow ourselves into an early death.
How long? Never.

It's never going to be discussed openly. The trend has actually been downwards on this one - the peak of visibility of the issue was in the 1960s and 1970s, and since then denial has been winning more and more convincingly.

It's a useful exercise to check whatever texts have survived from the 5th century in Western Europe and see how people perceived the collapse that was unfolding around them. Not one author whose writings have survived understood what was going on. Which means that either nobody understood it, period, or that those that understood it were such a marginalized minority that none of their writings were preserved.

Also, the 4th and 5th century were the time of maybe the biggest theological controversy in the history of Christianity. Possibly not in terms of the magnitude of divisions from a modern perspective, the depth of diversity in the first three centuries was much greater, with Marcion, various gnosticists, and countless other "heresies", many of which don't look anything like the Christianity we know. But in terms of the bitterness of the disputes and the amount of man and brain power that went into them, that period wasn't matched until the Reformation. That's when the trinity was hammered out, the churches split for the first time, etc. So basically what was happening was that the top minds of the empire were engaged in completely useless arguments over non-issues while the empire was falling apart. And nobody noticed. Sure, you will find many reports from that time lamenting the state of the infrastructure and the loss of security, but everyone thought this was going to be temporary and the greatness of Rome will resume in due order. Well, yes, it was temporary, a 1000 years....

BTW, the same thing happened with the Eastern empire in the 14th and 15th century -- there was a civil war, which coincided with a major theological dispute (over hesychasm), meanwhile whatever was left of the empire was being swallowed piece by piece by the Ottomans. And nobody was paying attention while they were arguing over obscure theological issues...

Expect more of the same this time around -- there will be a lot of increasingly shrill back and forth between economists (market economy is the current religion) on why things aren't working and which ideology should be adopted to bring back the good times, and plenty of insistence the reversal of fortunes is just around the corner. You can in fact already see it. What is highly unlikely is that at any point society will face up to the reality of the situation.