Are we doomed?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MG 25 Jun 2019

Is anyone else despondent about the future?  I'm increasingly wondering the if the second part of my life will be very different, in a bad way, to the first half because of several increasingly linked factors

1) Climate change is getting real.  This is dispiriting in itself, for example the loss of biodiversity already occurring.  But also because of the impacts it will have on us - e.g. wars, food and water security problems, sea-level rise, extreme weather etc.

2) Political populism taking hold globally.  So far this has been managed, just about, by existing governance structures but they are creaking.  The US, Russian, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey, and quite possible the UK are all potentially going to have failed political systems and be run by demagogues soon, and many other countries have large cohorts voting for nationalist right-wing populists.

3) As a consequence the above two, there is an increasingly likelihood of a serious war.

All it needs is an ebola type disease that is really communicable and we have a full set of horse-men to deal with.  Did it feel this bad in the cold war, for example?

Post edited at 22:03
6
 balmybaldwin 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I agree to some extent. Certainly the current geopolitical situation doesn't help my state of mind.

I don't have kids (at 40) its a possibility, but what world will they grow up in?

Interesting you mention disease... it is of course the one thing that could almost instantly solve the climate change problem

1
In reply to MG:

Ebola is having fun down in the Congo just now. Sleep well.

T.

OP MG 25 Jun 2019
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Ebola itself kills people too fast, I believe, to really become a pandemic.  Could be wrong of course...

In reply to MG:

I think that's true. The next 'flu virus to pose a major threat is expected to start life (and subsequent deaths) in SE Asia, I believe. Or possibly a rogue lab somewhere in one of the disaffected minorities, of course.

T.

Post edited at 22:08
 Rob Parsons 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Cheer yourself up a bit by reading the follow article from today's paper: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/25/the-new-left-economics-how-a-n...

There are alternatives.

1
 felt 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

You forgot AI and the meteorite.

 stevieb 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Don’t worry. Soil degredation and the widespread collapse of pollinator species will get us first. 

 Stichtplate 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Is anyone else despondent about the future?  I'm increasingly wondering the if the second part of my life will be very different, in a bad way, to the first half because of several increasingly linked factors

Cheer up! If you consider modern humans to have emerged 200,000 years ago, then in the grand scheme of things the last 20 years represent a near paradise. Comparing the travails of today with what 99.999% of our ancestors had to contend with is like comparing burning your toast with burning your house down.

7
OP MG 25 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm talking about the next 50, not the last 20, years. 

1
 jethro kiernan 25 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think the concern is we are actualy burning the house down ;-/

 Timmd 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> I'm talking about the next 50, not the last 20, years. 

There's a lot of things which one might be concerned about, if we don't get our acts together re climate change, the areas most vulnerable to it's effects, are broadly in mountainous regions which are also places that are less stable politically, or potential trouble spots, which happen to have valuable mineral reserves too, which is going to be interesting (you might say) if life becomes harder and more competitive.

The best I can come up with is learning not to think about it too much, and pondering what I might do individually while hoping others are doing the same.  

Post edited at 23:12
 Stichtplate 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> I'm talking about the next 50, not the last 20, years. 

Fair do, danger of typing after a couple of shandys.

The last 200,000 years have seen our species survive two or three ice ages and dozens of plagues as well as the collapse of a great many empires and civilisations. My own generation have survived couple of near misses with nuclear meltdowns and at least two occasions when nuclear war was only avoided by the narrowest of margins. My grandparents survived a world war and my parents another. My great great grandmother fled an actual famine that killed most of her family. Whatever the next 50 years brings, humans have almost certainly survived worse. 

2
 JuneBob 25 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

How you can compare those minor events with the sixth mass extinction which we are no doubt rapidly accelerating, I have no idea.

20
 SenzuBean 25 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Definitely a lot to be upset about IMO.

But you just have to do your best. Do not lose hope, and try to remember how history often has periods where the truth or the right actions took decades to triumph. We’re probably entering one. Keep the things alive that those on the other side will need.

 Tom Valentine 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Good idea. I'll do my bit for the next few years  and hope that Ravenstones isn't covered by f*cking trees in the interim.

 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Ebola itself kills people too fast, I believe, to really become a pandemic.  Could be wrong of course...

And the people who are mainly catching it now aren't frequent air travellers passing through massive airport hubs. So it's spread is contained by their normal travel. It pops crossing neighbouring country borders but doesn't leap continents, unless of course you are an infected nurse who thought they knew better. 

3
 Stichtplate 26 Jun 2019
In reply to JuneBob:

> How you can compare those minor events with the sixth mass extinction which we are no doubt rapidly accelerating, I have no idea.

You count Ice Ages as 'minor events'?

 gravy 26 Jun 2019

Of course we're doomed but it's always been this way and nothing has changed.

1
 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You count Ice Ages as 'minor events'?

They are minir in the sense they develop very slowly. Imagine adding 1% to Scotland's permanent snow cover every year. Species that could move would progressively creep to warmer places. The opposite when glaciers recede life will creep behind them. The climate is potentially warming and changing habitats far faster than species can move. 

1
 Stichtplate 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> They are minir in the sense they develop very slowly. Imagine adding 1% to Scotland's permanent snow cover every year. Species that could move would progressively creep to warmer places. The opposite when glaciers recede life will creep behind them. The climate is potentially warming and changing habitats far faster than species can move. 

Not according to some scientists.

https://www.livescience.com/7981-big-freeze-earth-plunge-sudden-ice-age.htm...

Edit: and anyway, Ice Ages...'minor events'. You know like most of North America and Northern Europe encased in a sheet of ice. How in any sense can that be considered a minor event?

Post edited at 08:21
1
OP MG 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Edit: and anyway, Ice Ages...'minor events'. You know like most of North America and Northern Europe encased in a sheet of ice. How in any sense can that be considered a minor event?

From the perspective of then small human population, predominantly in the mid latitudes, who would have had ample time to adjust, I'd say it was minor in comparison with the looming threats.

5
Rigid Raider 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I share the OP's concerns exactly.  However humans are a lot more resilient than we think; I travel to Africa on business, mostly Nigeria where life is pretty miserable for the majority of people especially those trapped in the city life rat race.  There is almost never any public electricity, diesel for the gen is becoming more expensive and scarce by the day, all costs are increasing daily, there's massive pollution and appalling traffic, breakdown of public discipline, corruption at all levels, horrible climate, rampant disease, fake drugs, religious fatalism, just about everything we take for granted doesn't work. Yet people manage, they soldier on because there's no alternative. Admittedly stress-related disease carries off many urban Nigerians at an early age but still they manage. 

So it's going to take a long time before our society collapses even though a trip to London last weekend and unpleasant experiences of traffic and public indiscipline has left me depressed. I reckon the answer is to move further north where it's cooler, cleaner, less crowded and societies are accustomed to dealing with seasonal differences so food and energy shortages are less likely.   

In reply to MG:

I hope so . 

Days like this make me want to do a snap (Thanos style) and be rid of the lot of us.

1
 Jon Read 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

This was a fallacy peddled about a few times to explain the previously small, self-limiting outbreaks prior to 2013. It's clearly incorrect, as was shown by the West African outbreak 2013-2016, especially when you consider that people were infectious even after death. 

 Jon Read 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> And the people who are mainly catching it now aren't frequent air travellers passing through massive airport hubs. So it's spread is contained by their normal travel. It pops crossing neighbouring country borders but doesn't leap continents, unless of course you are an infected nurse who thought they knew better. 

I totally agree with your first point regarding travel behaviour of those at greatest risk of Ebola exposure. However, Pauline Cafferkey was cleared of any misconduct; rather it was a failing of the border screening in the UK. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Cafferkey#Investigations

1
 wercat 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

If we end up with Clown boris Trump as PM I will have lost any connection with the structure of authority in this country remaining from my younger days.   When I get my yellow vest I hope I've found some suitable way to raise a big stink.  If he takes us out of the EU with no deal I feel like doing some real damage

Is it to be the Freikorps, the Communists or the loony bin for me?

Post edited at 09:00
2
In reply to MG:

Don't think we are doomed in an armageddon sense (in that way the 80s felt worse for a while) but I feel we are heading for an ever more miserable existence (austerity has been the warm up act)

 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Not according to some scientists.

> Edit: and anyway, Ice Ages...'minor events'. You know like most of North America and Northern Europe encased in a sheet of ice. How in any sense can that be considered a minor event?

Minor in terms of impact as onset is much slower allowing migration. Rapid onset is purely speculation, plus rapid in geological terms could easily mean over a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands. When you are measuring events that last a relatively long time I think it's harder for us to imagine them.

There is a greater chance northern Europe will becomjng colder due to gulf stream changes, but that's not the same as a global ice age. Plus it's also still speculation. 

4
 Flinticus 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

This to me feels worse than at any other time, though I was only born in 1970 so just caught the tail end of the cold war.

The nuclear thing - that was basically binary, either OK or totally f**ked. This climate change and species extinction is the fable of the frog in a pot of slowly heating water.

AI is also considered a major concern by many bright people involved in tech so I wouldn't dismiss that as a existential threat either.

And we still have the bomb. What will happen over the next 50 years between China and the US? Pakistan and India (water source wars?)

And just when we need global leadership most we get populists, snake oil peddlars with false solutions (or none at all)

1
Rigid Raider 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I've never demonstrated in my life but if Boris Trump Erdogan Maduro gets the job I can easily see myself going along to voice my disgust.

2
 Dave Garnett 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

> The nuclear thing - that was basically binary, either OK or totally f**ked. This climate change and species extinction is the fable of the frog in a pot of slowly heating water.

My feelings exactly.  I used to drive past RAF Molesworth occasionally while the cruise missiles (and demonstrators) were there and the danger felt very immediate and real.  Fortunately, Reagan and Gorbachev thought so too.  Amazingly, now they both seem like intellectual (or, at least, moral) giants compared with our current leaders. 

 David Riley 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

>  Nigeria where life is pretty miserable for the majority of people especially those trapped in the city life rat race.  There is almost never any public electricity, diesel for the gen is becoming more expensive and scarce by the day, all costs are increasing daily, there's massive pollution and appalling traffic, breakdown of public discipline, corruption at all levels, horrible climate, rampant disease, fake drugs, religious fatalism, just about everything we take for granted doesn't work. Yet people manage, they soldier on because there's no alternative. Admittedly stress-related disease carries off many urban Nigerians at an early age but still they manage. 

Doom fear is a constant.  Nigerians would be incredulous at those fearing brexit.

7
 MrsBuggins 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Whatever the next 50 years brings, humans have almost certainly survived worse. 

My worry is that we might not survive Corbynism

24
 skog 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

> The nuclear thing - that was basically binary, either OK or totally f**ked. This climate change and species extinction is the fable of the frog in a pot of slowly heating water.

Well then, the good news is that in the real world, it's actually the case that if you heat the water gradually, the frog will become increasingly uncomfortable then hop out - it does notice, and does take action. The fable is nonsense.

The bad news, however, is that if we're to be the frog in this metaphor, we can't actually hop out of this pot...

Post edited at 10:27
 skog 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I suspect the rising populism is just a part of a transition to something new.

I'm not entirely sure what, but all civilisations, societies and systems come to an end, and technology is making the human world into something very different from what it used to be.

This isn't really optimism, though - I expect humanity will be find a new equilibrium and be fine following both the effects of anthropogenic climate change and the rise of populism, but in both cases the transition from where we are now to where we're going is very likely to be awful. The speed of transition, and how we manage it, will be key.

Post edited at 10:17
 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

It is considered that in ancient times man might have colonised the UK as many as ten times then been pushed by the climate onto mainland Europe (It was technically all mainland Europe then though) because of various ice ages. 

But we made it here after the last ice age, now look at the sheer diversity of species across the UK all since the last ice age.

There is no planet or climate emergency only a human one. Life will go on, continue to diversify etc.. we just might not be part of it or could well suffer a lot in the process. 

The best argument for changing how we live isn't the other species, however good they look on a poster, but for our own species sake. 

Post edited at 10:20
8
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Honest question. What is so bad about about Corbyn that is an existential threat? I have mixed feelings about the man but some of the stuff that he and his crew are proposing are spot on.

5
 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jun 2019
In reply to skog:

You sound like you have experimented...

 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Jun 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Doom fear is a constant.  Nigerians would be incredulous at those fearing brexit.

So we should lower our expectations for life to that of those living precariously in the developing world? Interesting take.

1
In reply to skog:

A rapid transition could be very bad for the vast majority of us as it will be terminal!

 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

Well the first existential threat he poses is that he can't win elections. And that's down to his (correctly) perceived lack of integrity, his hypocrisy,. naivete,  lack of leadership and communication skills and general intellectual shallowness.

The second threat is because his 'big ideas' - Brexit, renationalisation of everything, more money for everything funded by fantasy crackdowns on tax avoidance and squeezing the rich - aren't quite as simple as he thinks, however attractive they may appear to those at the bottom of the heap.

2
 David Riley 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I made no comment on our expectations for life.  Only that when one problem goes away, we just obsess about the next,  even if it is comparatively trivial.

 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

What's weird is that we got to this bad place by a number of very close decisions. Trump nearly lost to Clinton (who as we know, WON the popular vote); Corbyn got his armlock on the LP because. of what seemed like an obscure change to party rules made by Milliband, the Brexit vote was only just lost,. remarkably in light of the feebleness of the Remain campaign...

Does this add up to a pattern, or just bad luck?

Whatever; the short term chaos that is surely coming to the UK in the coming months cannot be worse than, say, Japan and Germany faced after WWII; they recovered. Maybe this will be the catalyst for finally replacing fptp.

On the up side: despite any amount of Sabre rattling, very few new wars are kicking off; every day literally thousands worldwide are being lifted out of poverty; values such as concern for the environment and recognition for individual human rights are becoming established worldwide (apart from Saudi, obviously); it may be lip service in many places just now, but these are becoming established norms.

1
 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

> A rapid transition could be very bad for the vast majority of us as it will be terminal!

True. Historically great civilisations don't end or change with peace, love and harmony. 

 MrsBuggins 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

> Honest question. What is so bad about about Corbyn that is an existential threat? I have mixed feelings about the man but some of the stuff that he and his crew are proposing are spot on.


Labour have always been the party of the anti-aspirational. Corbyn has indicated that he will take that to a new level with swingeing taxation on property ownership and inherited wealth along with more government interference and control. In short creeping marxism. Plus McDonnell has already said that this country under Corbyn will be a staunch ally and financial supporter of Cuba. Then there's Corbyn's admiration forthe Venezuelan regime. He's probably got a direct line from Transport House to Kim Jong Un

18
 Trevers 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Is anyone else despondent about the future?  I'm increasingly wondering the if the second part of my life will be very different, in a bad way, to the first half because of several increasingly linked factors.

I can't help but agree with you. We're living through an extremely dangerous moment in human history. Fear of the future and the potential horrors it holds has been contributing in a big way to a growing depression I've experienced over the last year. But I think there are also causes for hope and not to grow too despondent.

> 1) Climate change is getting real.  This is dispiriting in itself, for example the loss of biodiversity already occurring.  But also because of the impacts it will have on us - e.g. wars, food and water security problems, sea-level rise, extreme weather etc.

My hope is that the rate of progress of green energy and technologies will soon make fossil fuel based energy sources commercially nonviable. The future is in the hands of the generation who are currently in their teens, who I believe are more aware and switched on than any generation that's come before them, and who I hope will be ready to face the challenges that our current leaders have failed to deal with.

> 2) Political populism taking hold globally.  So far this has been managed, just about, by existing governance structures but they are creaking.  The US, Russian, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey, and quite possible the UK are all potentially going to have failed political systems and be run by demagogues soon, and many other countries have large cohorts voting for nationalist right-wing populists.

Yet there is resistance everywhere and at all levels. Look at the recent election in Turkey. Look at the fact that the UK is now the most strongly pro-EU nation in Europe, and that the Lib Dems and Greens, parties which were nowhere in the last general election, combined to beat Farage's vote share in the EU elections. Consider that Trump did not win the popular vote in America.

Yes our democracy is f*cked. But to be honest it always was. Brexit has exposed just how f*cked it is. Perhaps it's the necessary misstep we need to eventually realign our society, a new and better democracy born again from the ashes, the Houses of Parliament left to become a museum while a new Parliament opens in Manchester or Leeds. Perhaps in 50 years time a more modern, equal and happier society will look back on us today as we look back on the Victorians.

> 3) As a consequence the above two, there is an increasingly likelihood of a serious war.

Perhaps this is inevitable. But perhaps not. Consider also that within our lifetimes, man may set foot on a planet other than our own; we may find definitive proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life; we will probably be eating lab-grown meat instead of cruelly and wastefully farmed livestock; we may even learn to cope with the internet and break its divisive stranglehold on society.

And if worst comes to worst and humanity deletes itself, the natural world will bounce back. Ecosystems will recover and thrive. A major extinction event will lead to the rise of forms of life as yet incomprehensible to us.

 jkarran 26 Jun 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Doom fear is a constant.  Nigerians would be incredulous at those fearing brexit.

Perhaps those who shared your staggeringly blinkered outlook or those who compared brexit-Britain with present day Nigeria rather than brexit-Britain and pre-brexit Britain.

jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't think his inability to win elections is an existential threat

You make valid points on his, as you say, big ideas but I still think renationalisation of some things and increasing taxes on richer people are fine. But there again I am one of those weirdoes who think that every penny of profit made by utility companies, the railway companies, all the companies to whom government bodies such the NHS awards outsourcing contracts, private housing bodies, private pension companies, private health care providers etc is a form taxation on people because many of these things are necessities. We all need a roof over our head, heating, electricity, water, sewerage, access to healthcare, pensions and food. I am sure you would accept much of this but we may differ on the best way to provide this and I am not trying to insult you or your values.

NB. I recognise that not all those companies to which government bodies award contracts to are profit making.

 jkarran 26 Jun 2019
In reply to skog:

> I suspect the rising populism is just a part of a transition to something new.

I think it's just the death throes of exploitative/extractive capitalism. Amassed wealth and power buying a few more years of pseudo-democratic licence to continue as if nothing has changed. It won't stay on the leash.

jk

 Trevers 26 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I think it's just the death throes of exploitative/extractive capitalism. Amassed wealth and power buying a few more years of pseudo-democratic licence to continue as if nothing has changed. It won't stay on the leash.

I think (and hope) you're right.

pasbury 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> It is considered that in ancient times man might have colonised the UK as many as ten times then been pushed by the climate onto mainland Europe (It was technically all mainland Europe then though) because of various ice ages. 

> But we made it here after the last ice age, now look at the sheer diversity of species across the UK all since the last ice age.

> There is no planet or climate emergency only a human one. Life will go on, continue to diversify etc.. we just might not be part of it or could well suffer a lot in the process. 

> The best argument for changing how we live isn't the other species, however good they look on a poster, but for our own species sake. 

This anthropocentric and amoral point of view is what has got us into this mess in the first place.

1
 jkarran 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> But we made it here after the last ice age, now look at the sheer diversity of species across the UK all since the last ice age.

Ay and look at the sheer diversity of species on Venus!

> There is no planet or climate emergency only a human one. Life will go on, continue to diversify etc.. we just might not be part of it or could well suffer a lot in the process. 

Not without water it won't.

jk

3
In reply to MrsBuggins:

No different to the Tories then! Apart from the fact that Corbyn has been honest about it.

The Tories make the pretence of trying to "free up the market" so that everyone can aspire to what? Social mobility decreasing and we haven't had a true traditional labour style government since the 1970's.

There is clear evidence that the best jobs go to the privately educated i.e. those from rich backgounds. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and the whole system is rigged by the rich who use their wealth as power. They don't need the money for anything else so why not take it away from them (I think the economist Piketty suggested that rather than taxing income taxing wealth might be more effecive). They aren't going to give it up voluntarily. Many of the richest families in Britain are decendants of William the Conqueror's mates.

Many people "aspire" to own their own houses but are priced out by people owning more than one property because they can afford to or those that want a property portfolio to rent out to people needing houses at amounts which prevent people saving money so that they can buy their own home.

Given that one of the of the complaints that lead to the Brexit vote was about how London controlled everything that implies a level of centralisation that Lenin would have been proud of. This has happened since the 1970's. I remember having Local Education Authorities once upon a time.

You mention Corbyn's admiration of some sordid regimes yet seem to think Farage and Johnson (and their political peers) who are sucking up to Donald Trump (and the Israelie, Saudi Arabian regimes etc) is OK.

Yes some people will be successful (which I assume you mean make alot of money) through a combination of hard work, seeing opportunities before other people and a bit of luck but Corbyn won't stop that. Most of us, however, will muddle through.

I aspire to a world where everybody has the same opportunities irrespective of their background, race, sex, gender, sexuality and religious beliefs (sorry if I have left anybody else out). What they do with that opportunity should be up to them and really it shouldn't be about making lots of money.

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

> Labour have always been the party of the anti-aspirational. Corbyn has indicated that he will take that to a new level with swingeing taxation on property ownership and inherited wealth along with more government interference and control. In short creeping marxism. Plus McDonnell has already said that this country under Corbyn will be a staunch ally and financial supporter of Cuba. Then there's Corbyn's admiration forthe Venezuelan regime. He's probably got a direct line from Transport House to Kim Jong Un

What, prey tell, does taxation of inherited wealth have to do with aspiration?

2
 Flinticus 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> It is considered that in ancient times man might have colonised the UK as many as ten times then been pushed by the climate onto mainland Europe (It was technically all mainland Europe then though) because of various ice ages. 

They likely had the living space to move - any such migrations now will be vast, resisted and lead to conflict with modern weaponry, not unimaginably nuclear war.

> But we made it here after the last ice age, now look at the sheer diversity of species across the UK all since the last ice age.

> There is no planet or climate emergency only a human one. Life will go on, continue to diversify etc.. we just might not be part of it or could well suffer a lot in the process. 

Well, that is only partially true. It is a human emergency but also for each species that survives in its niche. So its an elephant emergency etc. etc. for thousands of species...as long as dogs make through, I wouldn't be too upset

> The best argument for changing how we live isn't the other species, however good they look on a poster, but for our own species sake. 

All depends on what motivates you. I'll give you that self-interest seems to win out.

 Phil1919 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Don't fly, sell your car, give up meat. You will be a lot happier being part of the solution whatever happens.

 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Ay and look at the sheer diversity of species on Venus!

Not exactly the same argument is It?

> Not without water it won't.

Why? Where is the water going to?

 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

My point is millions of species evolved without us, if we are wiped out, millions more will evolve after us. It also doesn't matter unless you believe in some grand universal scheme of things if there is any life on earth at all, we as a species just attach value to things and ignore other bits we deem less meaningful. 

3
 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Phil1919:

> Don't fly, sell your car, give up meat. You will be a lot happier being part of the solution whatever happens.

Or follow the other 99%.. fly travel, climb the world, enjoy all foods.. then at least you can look back and be happy you enjoyed it whilst you could. Which despite most people saying it's a climate £ucking emergency most keep on doing. 

Post edited at 14:33
6
 Flinticus 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> My point is millions of species evolved without us, if we are wiped out, millions more will evolve after us.

Yes, but they'll be descended from the cockroach and probably ugly, making rasping sound with mandibles

> It also doesn't matter unless you believe in some grand universal scheme of things if there is any life on earth at all, we as a species just attach value to things and ignore other bits we deem less meaningful. 

That's something we cannot avoid doing and is better than not valuing anything at all. If we didn't value things, we may as well let the robot vampires take over the show (they may do so anyway)

 Ramblin dave 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> Or follow the other 99%.. fly travel, climb the world, enjoy all foods.. then at least you can look back and be happy you enjoyed it whilst you could. Which despite most people saying it's a climate £ucking emergency most keep on doing. 

Or campaign for government-level policies that will change the behaviour of the 99%, and support other people who are campaigning for such things regardless of whether you and they have taken every conceivable action to minimize your personal carbon footprint:
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-gr...

 Ramblin dave 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

In general, yes, it's all increasingly depressing. Humanity as a species may have survived the Great War and the Black Death, but neither of these are things that would put a spring in your step to know that they were coming up on the horizon and going to affect you and your friends and family. Particularly if, as a society, we knew they were coming but were largely failing to do anything about them because they weren't as high a priority as the need to be more obnoxious towards foreigners and people who look different or to make sure we can sell our houses for more than we bought them for.

Also, it's a bit weird to see climbers who'll run to the barricades because someone put a belay bolt at an obscure crag that they've never been to suddenly become philosophical about most species that we're currently aware of, possibly including humanity, being wiped out and the landscape being changed beyond recognition because hey, some sort of life will probably find a way.

Post edited at 15:04
 jkarran 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> Not exactly the same argument is It?

Similar enough! Venus suffered runaway climate change having once, briefly been earth-like. You're saying everything will be fine (if you're an amoeba or a fern maybe) because species adapted to the last major climate changes but you're assuming the system is stable when heated this fast, that the earth's feedback mechanisms will over geological time settle it back down into a habitable stable condition. We simply don't know if that is the case.

> Why? Where is the water going to?

Where did Mars' water go?

Climate change isn't just wet summers and weird early springs. If the carbon locked into our forests, soils the arctic tundra and ocean floor hydrates escapes multi-cellular life is in for a tough time, not just low-lying cities and paradise islands.

jk

Post edited at 16:19
3
 summo 26 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

So the earth gets fried in a 1000 years time? Does it matter? 

Philosophical question of course. 

4
OP MG 26 Jun 2019
In reply to Phil1919:

> Don't fly, sell your car, give up meat. You will be a lot happier being part of the solution whatever happens.

a) Are you sure?  I get a lot of pleasure from those things, directly and indirectly (e.g. climbing).  Isn't this part of the problem?  Living as those 50, 100 or 1000 years ago did isn't much fun on an individual level.

b) How would this avoid right-wing populism and war?

1
 Phil1919 26 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

So I've got to sit in traffic jams, ride in crowded aeroplanes, queue up, eat rich foods and get fat, , fight to keep up with the Jones's etc to enjoy myself. Mmmm.....its going to be worse than I thought.

Post edited at 17:13
 Pbob 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

If you link the rise in populism (at least in part) to the perceived rise in refugees you can also link it to the Arab Spring and subsequent civil wars. The events which precipitated the Arab Spring was a rise in living expenses and food prices caused by drought, influenced by climate change. Whilst it's a bit of a push to say that Nigel Farage is caused by climate change, we can certainly expect to see more of his ilk as the changing climate forces mass migration in the future.

So, all good then

 Lord_ash2000 26 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I'm a bit more optimistic about the future, let's say the next 100 years. 

Yeah, there will become more climate change effects and problems will be caused but I don't foresee anything we can't handle really. We'll need to adabt a bit and I'm not saying we'll never have another war (every other generation has had one) But we're already starting to change that in some ways, less plastic usage is becoming a thing, flying is frowned upon, electric cars will be normal in maybe 20 years. More nuclear plants and renewable sources for our power (including charging all those new electric cars) and at some point we'll get fusion power online and with that pretty much all our problems are solved. 

Mean just compare what we could 100 years ago to what we can do now, and then imagine what we'll be capable of in 100 years from now. True AI, Geoengineering, large scale carbon capture, computing power beyond what we could imagine and practically unlimited energy from fusion. Might take another 100 years or so for us to clean up the mess left over from the industrial revolution but by then we'll probably be terraforming Mars or something. The fact we once pumped a bit to much gas into the atmosphere and it got a bit warm for a while will be looked back on as some minor silly mistake humanity made a while ago but is now an easy fix. 

1
 wintertree 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The last 200,000 years have seen our species survive two or three ice ages and dozens of plagues as well as the collapse of a great many empires and civilisations.

Sure, the species survived - but a lot of people had a very horrible time before they died.  Lately many people have been having quite a nice time before they die.  It looks like that was the exception and soon we’ll all be having a horrible time again before dying.

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You are dismissing the possibility of mass death due to loss of human habitat as ‘a need to adjust’.

This type of argument is callous and immoral. The mass death, if you live in Bangladesh or other vulnerable states will happen to your own children.

Post edited at 00:13
 Timmd 27 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> Or follow the other 99%.. fly travel, climb the world, enjoy all foods.. then at least you can look back and be happy you enjoyed it whilst you could. Which despite most people saying it's a climate £ucking emergency most keep on doing. 

Climate change is thought to be 'the next motive' for terrorism, I read somewhere that already in Africa it's being used a reason to be angry against the west. With some justification to be fair, justification to be angry.

Post edited at 02:16
 Yanis Nayu 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Our political structures are lagging behind the technological advances. 

Jimbo W 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Yup. We're in a bad way. I've been sleeping poorly on the climate change issue for many years now. Not flown for 5yrs. Reading the science switched me on quite some time ago. We all need to act on it and make all decisions in reference to it to have a chance, because as it stands we're tracking the End Permian extinction, except we're achieving in about 200yrs what took about 40,000yrs back then. I'm a doctor and I have no problem saying that climate change is the biggest global determinant of human health going forward, so much so that as a pathologist I am giving serious consideration to moving into farming, because it is becoming more important for human health and mitigating climate change and represents an area where huge change is required. The work of farmers will be seriously important to how well we survive. I fwel guilty knowing I largely help older generations live yet a bit more, which is great, but it jarrs when millions are already dying from food and water shortages and my and all our children won't be afforded a right to life. Ultimately what scares me isn't my own death. Its seeing my kids suffer. Across the EU there was a 20% crop yield drop across last year was an insight of where this goes. 60% drop in olive yield. 8% drop in grain yields. And seeing the Rhine at a crazy low level was a shocker. Rainfall patterns are changing fast implicating water supplies and Governments aren't doing any mitigation yet in Europe. Ultimately it isn't money that makes the world go round and if you don't have food and water it won't be king before the money becomes worthless and social order becomes at risk. Deglaciation threatens water supplies globally to at least 1billion people. The thing is that what the scientists have told us is true, but where uncertainty exists it is materialising as things being worse than predicted. The current heateaves around the world are being driven by quasi resonant Rossby wave 7 pattern which means high pressures are getting stuck over continents and hot air is being drawn up from equatorial regions. This is radically breaching record highs across the Northern hemisphere and has serious implications for permafrosts and greenland and arctic ice. As I understand it, this appears to be driven by falling temp differentials due to arctic warming. I came on here a few months ago vis a vis the Etive hydro. I was surprised by the antipathy. Not because it isn't controversial, because it is, but because I felt it betrayed a lack of insight into our predicament, when I was hopeful this community would be on the alert. All I can say is what Michael Mann says, which is the more we act, the less bad it will be. But boy do we need to act yesterday.

 ThunderCat 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

If I think about things too much I do get very despondent about the future and I'm ashamed to say that I quite often find a teensy weensy bit of solace in the fact that I'm probably in the latter third of my lifespan, that I'll die before it gets too 'fire and brimstone'(*) and it will be someone else's problem.  I appreciate that this is a horrible, selfish attitude to have but some of the problems seem so intractable and the solutions to them seem so Herculean, that it's the best I can do.  

An economy that is entirely based on growth and exploitation of energy and resources, a population that always needs to grow so that there are enough young people to support the old people from the previous generation, the fact that unless a huge percentage of the world's population radically change their lifestyle and give up all those nice creature comforts that we've come to love and enjoy, rather than make token gestures like reusing carrier bags and changing to paper straws, then those individual changes are really only a drop in the ocean.

I know.  Utter pessimism

Meh.

Christ, I started today feeling quite positive.  Now I feel like having a quick bath with the toaster

(*) from a climate change / rising sea level / point of view at least.  Hopefully if the other possibilities (asteroid strike, Yellowstone eruption, nuclear armaggedon etc) happen sooner, they will be a lot quicker

Post edited at 08:24
 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

I'm reading Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now. You should give it a go, just to boost your optimism. To sum it up, he provides data that shows that things have been improving for a long time and this doesn't show any sign of going into reverse. In terms of politics, we are currently in a blip where the populists are gaining ground, but this always swings back and forth, and in the long term things get better. Climate change is huge, but it's not insoluble. We've left it too late and we need to throw everything at it, but it can be done.

Interestingly, it appears that too much talk of the climate catastrophe can be counterproductive. People decide that we're doomed, so they might as well live it up and not make any effort to change. 

 Stichtplate 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Climate change is thought to be 'the next motive' for terrorism, I read somewhere that already in Africa it's being used a reason to be angry against the west. With some justification to be fair, justification to be angry.

You think it's justified to be angry with the West? Not the leadership, political system, economic system or even individual countries, but an entire hemisphere? Any other areas where you think indiscriminate anger is justified?

1
Jimbo W 27 Jun 2019
In reply to ThunderCat:

Growth is a big issue. There has been recent work done by prof Steve keen that shows the energy intensity of growth is pretty much a huge constant. Ie if you want growth then you are expecting a massive increase in energy into the system. Clearly that is now unfeasible because almost all that energy is coming from fossil fuels and food for workers. Either growth has to be decoupled from energy or the energy has to be renewable, aligned with the only genuine input into the system, solar or the things that solar drives (wind etc). We don't know if these things are even possible, but the idea we can carry on with conventional economic growth is absurd.

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> I'm reading Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now. You should give it a go, just to boost your optimism. To sum it up, he provides data that shows that things have been improving for a long time and this doesn't show any sign of going into reverse. In terms of politics, we are currently in a blip where the populists are gaining ground, but this always swings back and forth, and in the long term things get better. Climate change is huge, but it's not insoluble. We've left it too late and we need to throw everything at it, but it can be done.

To use a phrase du jour, Pinker's work is a fine example of policy based evidence.

> Interestingly, it appears that too much talk of the climate catastrophe can be counterproductive. People decide that we're doomed, so they might as well live it up and not make any effort to change. 

However the central contradiction to this is that, assuming you mean consuming more to live it up, all this consumption is making us sadder and unhealthier.

Post edited at 09:13
 jkarran 27 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> So the earth gets fried in a 1000 years time? Does it matter? 

Knock a nought off, take a look at your kids then ask yourself that question.

> Philosophical question of course. 

Philosophical question. Real, solvable existential crisis you're making excuses for ignoring.

jk

1
 dh73 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

There are too many people in the world. a good run of rampant diseases and murderous wars are just what is needed to restore balance.

of course, I will not suffer disease or war personally, but if a good number of plebs die somewhere else, then things will be easier for me. So the outlook is good!

 1234None 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Cheer up! If you consider modern humans to have emerged 200,000 years ago, then in the grand scheme of things the last 20 years represent a near paradise. Comparing the travails of today with what 99.999% of our ancestors had to contend with is like comparing burning your toast with burning your house down.

But are we happier and more content, really?  We live longer for sure and we have more possessions, and are also certainly more comfortable (in terms of protection from cold and disease etc) but are our lives better?  If there was a measure of general contentment would we all score higher than those living a thousand years ago or more...?  Doubtless, you'll choose an example to show how terrible things were at certain times, in certain places to suit your argument, but I'm fairly sure there were some quite content tribes of hunter gatherers wandering the forests picking mushrooms and killing beasts at some time in history.  Of course, it wasn't always a bed of roses, but to state that what we have now is some sort of paradise in comparison with prior times doesn't seem to cut it for me.  Even if you assume we ARE more content...happier now, in all cases...then how much do we care about other species?  Is it OK for us to be more content and happy at the expense of many other living things, some of which exhibit consciousness similar to our own, and sometimes astounding levels of intelligence?

Post edited at 12:36
 Timmd 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You think it's justified to be angry with the West? Not the leadership, political system, economic system or even individual countries, but an entire hemisphere? Any other areas where you think indiscriminate anger is justified?

It was the first 3 on your list I broadly had in mind, but my post was brief because I was going to bed.

 AllanMac 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

The disconnect and gulf of understanding between generations seems now to be deep enough for the current ideology to be desperate and greedy enough to maintain the status quo at all costs, including significantly impairing the well being of subsequent generations and the planet supporting them.

Wisdom no longer seems to be synonymous with age and experience.

Selective denial of science from those who govern, and the utilisation of media sources in order to persuade and 'opinion-form' are, in my opinion, implicated in perpetuating this madness. And the two are inextricably linked. Fact has now grown to be the enemy of such ideology, and for those who do not subscribe to the notion of unbridled economic growth on a finite planet, despondency is invariably the result.

For me at least, there's also an issue of profound disempowerment, and the feeling that my vote counts for absolutely bugger all in an electoral system that is as far removed from supporting a 'representative democracy' as it is possible to get.

All this is driving a kind of enforced parochialism and insularity, as I feel myself switching off from all the tragedies, madness and falsehoods of the reported wider world, and instead concern myself more with what is happening here and now, within my own reach and my own sight. What I see and feel about it, is as real as it can get.

I no longer look at any social media because it is awash with falsehoods, marketing, trivia and anger. And, rightly or wrongly, I only look at certain news media if it is likely to act as an antidote to occasional bouts of grinding despondency. It is blatant 'echo-chambering' I know, but acts as a means to what I consider to be a better end, at least for now. 

 Timmd 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> In general, yes, it's all increasingly depressing. Humanity as a species may have survived the Great War and the Black Death, but neither of these are things that would put a spring in your step to know that they were coming up on the horizon and going to affect you and your friends and family. Particularly if, as a society, we knew they were coming but were largely failing to do anything about them because they weren't as high a priority as the need to be more obnoxious towards foreigners and people who look different or to make sure we can sell our houses for more than we bought them for.

> Also, it's a bit weird to see climbers who'll run to the barricades because someone put a belay bolt at an obscure crag that they've never been to suddenly become philosophical about most species that we're currently aware of, possibly including humanity, being wiped out and the landscape being changed beyond recognition because hey, some sort of life will probably find a way.

I think this needs posting again. 

 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

The doom-mongers like John Gray like to denigrate Pinker, but the data is real and despite their best efforts they can't manage to interpret it in a way that makes him look wrong.

 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> But are we happier and more content, really?  

Yes we are, at least most of us are, by any measurable criterion. A thousand years ago life was brutal, hard and short. Anyone who thinks it was better than the life we have now clearly has no idea of how hard it was.

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

The problem with all his data is that it stops in 2017. I'd agree with him that average human wellbeing has increased on almost all measures for centuries but that doesn't logically mean that it will continue to do so when other factors become increasingly limiting or costly to mitigate.

 Pefa 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

What is happening now with regard to far right populism is this-

Capitalists using capitalism which due to its contradictions destroys itself, 2008 capitalist collapse use socialism (peoples taxes) to bail themselves and their system out. When this happens peoples attention through economic drpravation is focused on capitalism its problems and the capitalists themselves and crucially the solution (socialism). 

As always when capitalists see rapidly growing socialist movements exposing their crimes the Capitalists mobilise to stop this rise of socialism by building and supporting far right movements, mouthpieces and spreading propaganda; deflect attention by attacking socialism more intensely, demonise immigrants, the poor, divide people more etc) 

This is made easier this time due to neo-liberal globalisation which has seen capital move investments away from their traditional bases in the search ever greater profits, another capitalist contradiction.

When Reagan got into power in 1980 the cold War was ramped up as he was a crypto-fascist like all neo-cons ( his admin was responsible for the greatest rise in fascism in Latin America since Condor and his admin is responsible for the massacres of over 300,000 people there) Everyone in former socialist countries thought he was going to nuke them.

Nuclear bunkers to hold thousands of people were specifically built into new housing estates in socialist countries East of the FRG after that murdering lunatic was brought to power and people there were genuinely frightened of his mob with their hands on the nuclear button.

As for global warming v ice ages, is global warming reversible in the same way ice ages are? I don't know, I'm asking. 

Post edited at 14:06
1
 summo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Knock a nought off, take a look at your kids then ask yourself that question.

> Philosophical question. Real, solvable existential crisis you're making excuses for ignoring.

Never said I'm ignoring it at all and I'm not some climate change denier, I'm currently taking in dry loose hay, something that we've never done before in June, it's always been a July job, seasons are certainly more turbulent if not shifting a little. We are pretty green to say the least, in how we live, consume and holiday etc.. But it doesn't mean I can't ponder the bigger questions. 

Post edited at 14:01
1
 Stichtplate 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

There’s actually a fair bit I agree with in here but you continually see things in terms of the horrible old capitalists versus the righteous communist/socialists. It just isn’t so black and white, there’s no clear division. Vietnam and China are communist states but in many respects capitalism is less restricted than in many Wedstern countries.

 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

Well the book was written in 2018, so you can't really blame him for not having more recent data.

Of course we can't know for sure that today isn't a peak for progress and it's all going to be downhill from here. Just bear in mind that it's been said many times before by the likes of Malthus that we've reached the end, and they've been wrong every time so far.

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Well the book was written in 2018, so you can't really blame him for not having more recent data.

Yes my remark was a bit tongue in cheek.

> Of course we can't know for sure that today isn't a peak for progress and it's all going to be downhill from here. Just bear in mind that it's been said many times before by the likes of Malthus that we've reached the end, and they've been wrong every time so far.

What can't be denied is that the earth's total resources and resilience are finite so unless we reverse the growth in resource extraction and our own expansion into the biosphere we will reach a peak sometime unless we follow Mr Musk to Mars in our billions.

Jimbo W 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Just bear in mind that it's been said many times before by the likes of Malthus that we've reached the end, and they've been wrong every time so far.

The energy intensity of growth is pretty much a constant. Given the spectrum of where that energy comes from, when you plug it into the climate models, growth always results in a global collapse of the systems we rely on. The result of that insight means that:

1 - we must uncouple growth from energy intensity.

Or

2- we must stop growing.

OP MG 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

3) uncouple energy from co2

 1234None 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Yes we are, at least most of us are, by any measurable criterion.

You sound quite sure of yourself.  Which is, in itself, strange, as we can't reliably measure the happiness of the people alive today, let alone those who were around thousands of years ago.

> A thousand years ago life was brutal,

I don't doubt that it was for many, but it probably was not for all people in all places, for all of the time.  We could be about to embark on a period where (unless our "leaders" change their ways) we wipe many out other species, food and land suitable to grow food are in very short supply and war becomes as rife as it has ever been.  I hope this is not the way things are going to develop but it is possible.  What do you make of the sort of statistics that are published frequently about depression rates.  If we are so happy and content, why do many feel a sense of loss and a lack of belonging, along with the other symptoms frequently associated with depression?  Do you think people worried about these things or felt low to the same degree, so often in the past?

>  hard and short. 

Many have hard lives now.  They are better off in terms of possessions and protection from the elements, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are happier, or that life is easier.  It is just different - hard in different ways and easy in different ways, I suspect.  And a short life full of doing things one loves (wandering round in the woods, hunting beasts, collecting mushrooms and not chasing the next promotion of flashy car, perhaps) may be considered by some to be better than a long life working for others, doing things one doesn't want to do...which is the position of 80% or more of the population in the developed world these days, if one takes a look at the statistics and surveys.  We crave more...want to consume more and have been encouraged to think that the more one accumulates, the happier one becomes...if one never feels cold, pain, sad, sick or way too hot, then life is just fine and dandy.

> Anyone who thinks it was better than the life we have now clearly has no idea of how hard it was.

I don't have any idea of how it was really, and hence my post was mostly in the form of questions.  You, in contrast, seem to be quite sure about how life was thousands of years ago and how happy people were.  Do you have first hand experience perhaps   More seriously though, I suspect we just have a different way of looking at things, which is fine.  I'd love to be able to know what the conscious experience of hunter gatherer ancestors was truly like and how satisfied with life they were.  I suspect that maybe a short life didn't bother them much, as they hadn't perhaps yet been sucked into the idea that their life should be any longer than it actually was.  Do you think they were unhappy with illness, hunger, or - for example - as obsessed as we are with wandering round in our boxer shorts in mid winter with the heating on full blast   Was in-fighting and an early death just the norm back then, perhaps and did people just accept it more, as they weren't perhaps as aware of the many wonders modern technology and healthcare could work in increasing their general satisfaction with their lot?   Maybe people back in hunter gatherer days sometimes didn't care if the neighbouring tribe had a better standard of living, as they were far away and interacted little with them...  I can imagine that this factor alone allowed them to live for the now a little more than we do, instead of the constant desire to have more, to be better than the next man (or woman).  I don't know any of this for sure, but it seems a reasonable reflection and certainly a lot more reasonable that claiming that I know for certain that people in the past were more miserable than we were.

Post edited at 18:57
2
 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

Of course, we can't keep expanding in the same way we have been indefinitely. The earth is finite after all. But that doesn't mean that the only options available are to carry on as we are until it collapses, start culling people, or revert to a stone age society.

Population growth in the most developed countries is already slowing right down and could be approaching a peak. If we can get the whole world to the same state then we could stabilise the population. With clean energy it should be possible for this development to take place without the environmental consequences of the original industrial revolution.

Of course our capitalist society is based on growth, which is obviously unsustainable indefinitely. Or is it? We can't keep extracting from the earth and making stuff indefinitely, but lots of the income growth that we see nowadays is not based on making stuff. The income comes from information. Many of us now make a living in the virtual world, producing nothing physical. Growth of this kind can be unlimited. 

 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to 1234None:

Obviously I have no experience of ancient lives, which is why I qualified my statement with "measurable criteria". We can't measure actual happiness, but by any measure that we can make life is better nowadays. Here's a couple - for hunter gatherers life expectancy would be about 35. So if I lived in that society I'd most likely be dead. Most people would agree that being alive is better than being dead. Most of my children would have died before they reached a year old. Most people agree that seeing your children die makes you unhappy. I could continue...

> Many have hard lives now.  They are better off in terms of possessions and protection from the elements, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are happier

I disagree. Ask anyone who's destitute and exposed to the elements and I bet they'd say these things make them happier. Their lives are hard, but would be even harder without the benefits they do get from modern society.

Edit: And one more thing, food. This is the first time in human history when poor people are fat. They might be miserable because they're fat, but you ask anyone who's ever known real hunger and I bet they'd give up all their wandering through the woods for food security. This point alone is enough to convince me that most people are happier now then they would be only 100 years ago.

Post edited at 19:11
pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Of course, we can't keep expanding in the same way we have been indefinitely. The earth is finite after all. But that doesn't mean that the only options available are to carry on as we are until it collapses, start culling people, or revert to a stone age society.

Those are straw men, there are plenty of alternative theories and experimental approaches to out current system, it would be better if we could think about them rather than rush up a dead end and have much harder choices foist upon us.

> Population growth in the most developed countries is already slowing right down and could be approaching a peak. If we can get the whole world to the same state then we could stabilise the population. With clean energy it should be possible for this development to take place without the environmental consequences of the original industrial revolution.

Yes and the most direct route to population stabilisation is education and the emancipation of women. I believe though that bringing all 7? Billion humans to an average western lifestyle would require a planet with considerably larger surface area than the one we inhabit. And as for bringing everyone up to the fantasy lifestyle that capitalism promises us; well forget it.

> Of course our capitalist society is based on growth, which is obviously unsustainable indefinitely. Or is it? We can't keep extracting from the earth and making stuff indefinitely, but lots of the income growth that we see nowadays is not based on making stuff. The income comes from information. Many of us now make a living in the virtual world, producing nothing physical. Growth of this kind can be unlimited. 

This is really interesting and could be scary, after all, our physical needs are relatively small, if technology can provide an alternative to our daily grind by plugging us into the Matrix then  we could trade digits while machines make our nutrients, reproduce us and dispose of our remains. I begin to wonder which science fiction dystopia we are headed for, is it Wall-e, Skynet, a matrix or some shoddy 1984 scenario.

Post edited at 19:18
 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I didn't create those straw men, those are the outcomes that people were proposing up thread. I was just pointing out that it doesn't have to be that way, and we are not necessarily doomed. I'm in no way suggesting that the way I described is the only option. I'm sure there are other solutions, and if you've got some let's hear them.

 jethro kiernan 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

Blade runner but without Rutger Hauer or Daryl Hannah is our most likely destination probably followed by a brief foray into The Road

 jkarran 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Of course our capitalist society is based on growth, which is obviously unsustainable indefinitely. Or is it? We can't keep extracting from the earth and making stuff indefinitely, but lots of the income growth that we see nowadays is not based on making stuff. The income comes from information. Many of us now make a living in the virtual world, producing nothing physical. Growth of this kind can be unlimited. 

It's quite possible to maintain economy without destroying the environment in which it exists. You do have to redefine what you mean by economic activity though, change the goals. This obviously sounds like cheating but what is an economy actually for? Currently we measure GDP which is frankly absurd, you can grow it by growing the population while the lives of those individually gets significantly worse (the brexiteers claim). If you target wellbeing or years of quality life then the economy and the experience of it becomes radically different. Potentially 'growth' becomes good for the environment in which it occurs. Hippy shit, right but it's where we're headed if we're not going to be briefly subsisting on rat and bare-knuckle prizes.

jk

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

OK here’s a starter about growth, what is it even for, how is it measured and what are the figures used for? China was said to have almost double figure growth a few years ago, what did that mean? Is it a competition? A suicide pact?

I really don’t know what to say about a measure of success that is so clearly non-sensical. So let’s find another one, one that involves people’s opinions. That would be a small step towards a fully participative democracy/society. I hesitate to use the word democracy on it’s own as it has become seriously tarnished by populism & manipulation.

Really it takes about ten seconds of not very serious thought to come up with ideas that could make our species more ...... what, happy, responsible, equal, just, sustainable?

I really wonder whether I’m mad or everybody else is.

pasbury 27 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Imagine if cheap fusion power became available to every nation.

That scares me because it takes the handbrake off. 

 Tobes 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

“I reckon the answer is to move further north where it's cooler, cleaner, less crowded and societies are accustomed to dealing with seasonal differences so food and energy shortages are less likely.”

ok let’s all move further north where it will be less crowded- oh hang on

 Hooo 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I agree that the focus on growth is mad, but Capitalism is a monster that feeds on growth. The trouble is that we can't just stop growth and kill the monster, because the monster feeds us. What I was suggesting is a way in which we can make the current system sustainable, even if it's not ideal. There may well be much better ways to run the world, and we should move towards these, but change needs to be gradual.

Clauso 27 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Imagine if cheap fusion power became available to every nation.

> That scares me because it takes the handbrake off. 

What on earth are you talking about?...

So, imagine we get to fuse hydrogen and oxygen, to create power, with a by-product of water... How is that worse than fission? Or fossil fuels? Or Piers Morgan?

Is it because there would be too much water?... Fish eat water, don't they? Therefore, grow more fish! Shirley? 

 wintertree 27 Jun 2019
In reply to Clauso:

> So, imagine we get to fuse hydrogen and oxygen, to create power, with a by-product of water... How is that worse than fission? Or fossil fuels?

Cheap, harm free energy from so-far-mythical fusion plant could be an awful thing.  Energy poverty is a major governor on human growth.   If fusion ever comes through it won’t have the same built in limits fossil power and fission power have.

If fusion doesn’t deliver in the next 50 years, solar electric will.  100 years from now we could be seeing the Mediterranean drained, the deserts of the world irrigated and developing gigacities all fueling a new round of population growth,

> Or Piers Morgan?

A world of 100 Bn people could have 10 Pierses in it.

Post edited at 23:15
 SenzuBean 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

I’m also moving into sustainable farming (and associated research). If you do end up choosing that path let me know.

 1234None 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Obviously I have no experience of ancient lives, which is why I qualified my statement with "measurable criteria". We can't measure actual happiness, but by any measure that we can make life is better nowadays.

Again stated as fact...we have no idea whether people thousands of years ago were happier or less happy with their lives.  We can make assumptions, based on the idea that the thinking and psychology of ancient man was the same as our own.

 > a couple - for hunter gatherers life expectancy would be about 35. So if I lived in that society I'd most likely be dead. Most people would agree that being alive is better than being dead. 

You ignored my points about this and you don’t seem to have read much philosophy.  Being dead involves no suffering or pleasure... being dead is ‘nothing’ so cannot really be compared with being alive in any useful way.

> I disagree. Ask anyone who's destitute and exposed to the elements and I bet they'd say these things make them happier. Their lives are hard, but would be even harder without the benefits they do get from modern society.

Again, you’re making the assumption that the emotions and psychology of ancient humans was the same as our own today, which I believe is a mistake.  What modern humans think makes them happier may have little or no bearing on what may have made ancient humans content.

> Edit: And one more thing, food. This is the first time in human history when poor people are fat. They might be miserable because they're fat, but you ask anyone who's ever known real hunger and I bet they'd give up all their wandering through the woods for food security. This point alone is enough to convince me that most people are happier now then they would be only 100 years ago.

As above... I suspect people in those days were accustomed to hunger...whereas we, by comparison, know that it isn’t necessary with our modern agriculture etc.  The way people think’about hunger and food has undoubtedly changed a lot.  We can make assumptions that their hunger may have made them miserable...but that is all we are doing.,,assuming.

Post edited at 06:23
2
 SenzuBean 28 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> I really wonder whether I’m mad or everybody else is.

This makes me wonder about what our current society is 'selecting' for. We no longer have selection pressure based on ability to run and catch prey, and in the last 50 years even severe diseases can be mitigated and intelligence doesn't really confer much advantage. By contrast being able to thrive in this capitalist society we've created and to be physically attractive - do seem to be selected for still. Where does it lead?

What if you had a vast underground network filled with trash, rats and smoke - would the rats eventually evolve to ignore the smoke, and the rats who were paralyzed with fear of smoke die out? This probably seems like a great adaptation, until one day - the accumulated waste stored in the abandoned coal mines of Centralia catches alight and a great fire sweeps through... (synopsis of the short story I'll probably never finish)
Maybe some of us are these 'rats who smell the smoke'.

 Hooo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to 1234None:

You're correct in assuming I don't read much philosophy any more, and you'e also perfectly summed up the reason why. You're arguing that it's not valid to say that being alive is better than being dead. If you're going down that road why not just go full postmodernist and deny the existence of objective reality? This sort of philosophy is just a game of intellectual point scoring, and I have better things to do with my time. I'm arguing that pain, death and hunger are bad and people are happier with less of them in their life. You have listed a bunch of first world problems (I hate the misuse of that expression, but for once it is entirely appropriate) and said that maybe we'd be happier as primitive hunter gatherers. I suggest you do a bit of reading on primitive societies, because from what you've said you sound very naive on the subject. The only reason people can afford to get stressed about their modern rat-race lives is because all the really important problems have gone away. If you're a hunter gatherer you don't want a flashy car, you just want something to eat. OK, maybe there are some people who who genuinely prefer the hardships of a primitive life. Maybe someone like Into The Wild's Christopher McCandless is better off dead than he would have been living in modern society. But I'm sure the vast majority of people, if given the experience of a primitive lifestyle, would be desperate to get back to their warm safe home and plentiful food. 

 Hooo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Or to put a positive spin on it, cheap harm free energy could be the thing that saves us. Poverty is the major driver of population growth, poor people have more children in the hope that some will survive. Free energy will mean people have to work less hard, they can afford an education and their children will survive. All these things have led to a slowdown in population growth in developed countries, to the point where in some countries the only increase in population is due to immigration. If the whole world can reach this state then we could stabilise the population and it could even start reducing.

 1234None 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> You're correct in assuming I don't read much philosophy any more, and you'e also perfectly summed up the reason why. You're arguing that it's not valid to say that being alive is better than being dead. If you're going down that road why not just go full postmodernist and deny the existence of objective reality?

Errrmmm, because that is a different case altogether. 

> This sort of philosophy is just a game of intellectual point scoring, and I have better things to do with my time. I'm arguing that pain, death and hunger are bad and people are happier with less of them in their life.

You're ignoring the fact that people thousands of years ago may not have known that things could be better.  They had different goals, perhaps, and also maybe different ways of looking at things, as they were brought up in a way that neither you or I have any experience of.  Your way of looking at things and your opinions about what makes a person happy are most likely entirely social constructs.  Those of ancient man may have been different.  My main point in response to your post was to present an alternative way of looking at it, as you seemed to present your assumptions and ideas as facts.

> You have listed a bunch of first world problems (I hate the misuse of that expression, but for once it is entirely appropriate) and said that maybe we'd be happier as primitive hunter gatherers. I suggest you do a bit of reading on primitive societies, because from what you've said you sound very naive on the subject.

I've done a lot of reading on them, thanks and most of what has been written on the subject is a projection of our modern ideas onto a subject we know very little about.  All that has been written is a collection of assumptions and ideas about how those people may have lived and what motivated them.  We have little to no insight into their psychology or emotions.

> But I'm sure the vast majority of people, if given the experience of a primitive lifestyle, would be desperate to get back to their warm safe home and plentiful food. 

You show again you've missed my point.  Ancient humans maybe didn't know that a warm, safe home and plentiful food were possible, so perhaps they were happy with their lot?  They weren't educated to prolong life, consume more, run away from cold etc, in the same way that we are.  We're taught to want these things through our education and through modern society.  Of course modern people would prefer these comforts...but that's not to say than ancient man longed for those things and lacking them made him miserable.

Your point about McAndless uses the case of yet another modern day human in order to challenge my suggestions that ancient man might have been happier than you think.  McAndless isn't relevant to the points I have made...

I understand your arguments perfectly but I don't think you understand mine.  You seem to want to say that modern humans wouldn't want to live in the way ancient humans did.  In this we agree fully.  Where I disagree is on your  statement that ancient humans were much unhappier than we are today because they lived shorter lives, had more disease, had less food etc.  I am not saying you are definitely incorrect...merely that you may be

Post edited at 09:25
1
 jkarran 28 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> Cheap, harm free energy from so-far-mythical fusion plant could be an awful thing.  Energy poverty is a major governor on human growth.   If fusion ever comes through it won’t have the same built in limits fossil power and fission power have.

I don't see fusion as cheap or limitless. Sure, we have a lot of fusible material but it's diffuse and more importantly most of the credible fusion machines still look to be complex, eye-warteringly expensive to build and no longer-lived than existing nuclear plant. The capital costs will ensure roll out is patchy and even with free fuel, which it won't be, the energy is never cheap.

> If fusion doesn’t deliver in the next 50 years, solar electric will.  100 years from now we could be seeing the Mediterranean drained, the deserts of the world irrigated and developing gigacities all fueling a new round of population growth,

Increasing salinity around the Mediterranean and changes in circulation that may drive could well be a serious problem as solar power driven desalination opens up major new economic opportunities along the North African coast.

I think PV integrated with grid scale and distributed storage is probably the key energy technology of the coming century.

I'm not convinced by the population argument. Countries with declining populations aren't held back by energy scarcity or cost, they're choosing smaller families because they're safe places to live, survival rates are high and predictable leading to two or even single child families, people have the rights and ability to manage family size and choose when they start them though increasingly I fear this is coming under attack. I don't see being able to leave the TV on all day guilt-free changing that much though a stable economy and energy to provide secure food and water will make countries with that magnets for those displaced by climate change and resource conflict.

Generally education, public health and social security shrink family sizes. Energy/food poverty may suppress growth by boosting death rates but I think that's a problem we can address without triggering a population explosion.

> A world of 100 Bn people could have 10 Pierses in it.

Now there's a thought.

jk

 Hooo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to 1234None:

We're both making assumptions about ancient humans. I'm assuming that they had similar base drives to us, such as a desire to avoid pain and hunger. I've based this assumption on the evidence that these drives are inherited. If we inherited these drives from our ancestors then it's reasonable to assume that they had the same drives.

You're assuming that ancient humans experienced pain and hunger but this didn't make them unhappy because they didn't know any better. I think we'd both agree that if you took a newborn child and subjected her to pain and hunger then she would be unhappy, and if you fed her and stopped the pain then she would be happier? Even though she previously didn't know any better. To me it seems reasonable to project this view onto ancient humans, since in an evolutionary sense they are virtually no different from us.

Edit: regarding this:

>They weren't educated to prolong life, consume more, run away from cold etc, in the same way that we are. 

These traits are not a product of our education, they are inherited, because they help ensure the survival of our genes. It's reasonable to assume that ancient people did have these same drives.

Post edited at 10:23
 summo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> poor people have more children in the hope that some will survive. Free energy will mean people have to work less hard, they can afford an education and their children will survive. All these things have led to a slowdown in population growth in developed countries, to the point where in some countries the only increase in population is due to immigration. If the whole world can reach this state then we could stabilise the population and it could even start reducing.

Healthcare, education of women and a society that enables women to work is what reduces the numbers of children. Also reducing the influence of religion that states a womens role is at home etc.. wealth is a by product, not a driver. But if you get beyond comfortable wealth a lot of families g8ave 3,4,5 kids because childcare costs or owning a large enough house are no longer a concern. 

 Hooo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to summo:

> Healthcare, education of women and a society that enables women to work is what reduces the numbers of children. 

That's my point. Supplying healthcare and education for all requires a wealthy society. I don't think individual wealth helps anything.

 wercat 28 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

The Four Horsemen are called

Population, Population, Population and Population

Finding a humane and fair solution to this is the challenge of all challenges and the one which will settle the future for us.  On our current trajectory we are certainly doomed but I hope that trajectory will be corrected without cataclysm

If we die out I hope there will be Blackbirds still Singing

Post edited at 12:42
 1234None 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> These traits are not a product of our education, they are inherited, because they help ensure the survival of our genes. It's reasonable to assume that ancient people did have these same drives.

Just in terms of consuming more, the benefits of the paleo diet or reduced calorie intake are fairly well-documented.  Conversely,  our "in-built" urge to survive doesn't stop huge proportions of people stuffing their faces with too many calories, leading to things like diabetes and obesity.  We are more influenced by the society we grow up in than you claim. 

Once fire was discovered, people could keep warm when temperatures required it fairly easily (although not walk around in their boxer shorts in an over-heated home in the midst of winter).  Much of what we think gives us comfort, or makes us happy, is due to our education and the society we live in, rather than genetics or evolution.  

My argument is fairly simple.  We do not know that we are happier than those people were.  We can assume we are...but have absolutely no evidence (based on evolution, genetics or anything else) to support this assumption. So I'll agree to disagree...  If you think your assumptions are reasonable, then - to you at least - does this makes them right and worthy of being stated as fact.  Nothing I have stated here is fact - it cannot be.

Post edited at 12:50
 Hooo 28 Jun 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Just in terms of consuming more, the benefits of the paleo diet or reduced calorie intake are fairly well-documented.  Conversely,  our "in-built" urge to survive doesn't stop huge proportions of people stuffing their faces with too many calories, leading to things like diabetes and obesity.  We are more influenced by the society we grow up in than you claim. 

It's precisely our built in urges that cause obesity. We are genetically programmed to consume all the high calorie food we can get, and some people can't override their basic drives even when their higher consciousness knows that it's causing them harm. We've evolved in this way because for the whole of human history up until now, we have never had too much to eat. For the whole of history, the vast majority of humans have spent their lives always trying to get more food. I think this is a good explanation for why some people (not me) have the constant drive for material wealth. The drive for food is pre-programmed, and since it's no longer necessary it has been diverted to something else.

We can't prove anyone is happier than anyone else. Am I happier than you? It's impossible to answer, and I can't be bothered with impossible questions. But, based on the evidence, the best conclusion that can be reached ​is that life is better nowadays. 

Jimbo W 28 Jun 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

Thanks. We've made a start with a no-till market garden which we are going to expand, and have layers too, which we are using to condition soil. All very small scale at the moment with the plan of providing for ourselves first, getting on top of composting processes, circular processes and schedules etc but if we do go for it, the plan would be to move into agroforestery. We are also hoping to do this hand in hand with a local sustainability group to build a robust community around the farming in the area. I've been following Richard Perkins work in Sweden.

 SenzuBean 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Thanks. We've made a start with a no-till market garden which we are going to expand, and have layers too, which we are using to condition soil. All very small scale at the moment with the plan of providing for ourselves first, getting on top of composting processes, circular processes and schedules etc but if we do go for it, the plan would be to move into agroforestery. We are also hoping to do this hand in hand with a local sustainability group to build a robust community around the farming in the area. I've been following Richard Perkins work in Sweden.


I'll be doing agroforestry for the short term and a bit of a garden. We don't have tons of mentors in our area (NW coast of the South island of NZ) so there will be a fair bit of experimenting (plus I also want to do research, such as breeding and 'root grafting' trials)
Visiting the UK briefly in September and will visit Martin Crawford and quite possibly the pfaf site as well. I will look up Richard Perkins (although it sounds like Sweden's climate won't be too similar!).

Jimbo W 28 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> As for global warming v ice ages, is global warming reversible in the same way ice ages are? I don't know, I'm asking. 

In theory yes, but with hysteresis, which means its much more difficult to go back than it has been to go forward. For example, once the arctic ice is gone, bringing emissions right down to preindustrial levels won't bring back the arctic ice and because of the positive feedback loops implicated, getting emission levels down will itself be much more difficult than it would have been 20yrs ago. Hysteresis.

Jimbo W 28 Jun 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

Sounds great. Good luck to you.

I haven't met Martin Crawford but his books are great. Richard Perkins does courses, and while he is doing things in a very short season, his expertise is in soil management in multiple different climate zones. He has a youtube channel which appears open and honest about successes and failures.

 MargieB 29 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Be aware of the signs of losing control of political destiny and hi-jacking by selfish , narrow minded authoritarianism.

Here is my dummies guide to signs of authoritariansim.

Un-mandated leaders.

Reassurances instead of discussion.

synthesis of the "language " of religion with political language to give added and incontrovertible  authority to un-discussed ideas.

Merging of religion and politics. So one cannot criticize the other.

narrowing of representation- often initially in form of gender.

"That will be alright attitude" to electorate, with an attitude of  paternal governance where electorate treated as child { considered recalcitrant}.

Lack of broad representation with parity at its  attitudinal norm.

Exaggeration, economical with the truth, short one liners and downright lies.

Displacement behaviour  and none sequiturs e.g climate/ economy is  bad,- blame rabbits.

Post edited at 08:05
In reply to 1234None:

Most folk on this website get fulfilment from their outdoor lifestyle, some have taken a leap to make it their livelihood, so not hard to imagine that hunter gatherers were probably pretty happy on the whole.

The life expectancy was shorter because infant mortality was high but an adult hunter gatherer can lead a long and healthy life similar to ours and they were less exposed to hunger than people up to the modern age because they had a more varied diet. It was the dawn of agriculture that first filled peoples lives with daily drudgery, poor health, and exposure to famine and disease.  

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/05/were-we-happier-in-the-stone-... 

2
 wintertree 02 Jul 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I don't see fusion as cheap or limitless.

Its got the potential to be both.  

> most of the credible fusion machines still look to be complex, eye-warteringly expensive to build and no longer-lived than existing nuclear plant.

Well ITER and it’s ilk are one of the most expensive ways of turning money into concrete yet known.  But one distant day, something much more manageable than a giant tokamak will work and will do so an order of magnitude cheaper than current power generation.  

> The capital costs will ensure roll out is patchy and even with free fuel, which it won't be, the energy is never cheap.

I don’t think giant tokamaks will ever roll out, full stop.  They’re to preposterous and meanwhile solar is getting cheaper and cheaper.

> Increasing salinity around the Mediterranean and changes in circulation that may drive could well be a serious problem as solar power driven desalination opens up major new economic opportunities along the North African coast.

Interesting take on it.

> I think PV integrated with grid scale and distributed storage is probably the key energy technology of the coming century.

The next few decades anyhow.  There’s a lot of dark horses in the fusion race.

> I'm not convinced by the population argument. Countries with declining populations aren't held back by energy scarcity or cost, [...]

For sure.  On the other hand, with sufficiently cheap energy there’s vast tracts of desert that start to look like massive business opportunities waiting to be colonised.  Look at the explosions in global population associated with new land being opened up to people.  Sure, most people are content with their lot in life and their 2 children and are contributing to a net stable population.  The ones who aren’t content are a minority - until they move to a new land and get started in earnest.  

 Angry Bird 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MG:

Short answer: yes, we're doomed.

We're in great company though; every other species that has ever inhabited the earth was or is condemned to extinction too. Yes, I know humans are really clever, and we 'could' be the first species to ensure we survived an extinction event (rather than just surviving and thriving by random chance)... ...but we won't. For all our knowledge and technology we lack the species-wide altruism that would be necessary for us to beat the system.

Having established that there is absolutely no hope for us, the best course of action is to get on with living the best life you can, for as long as you can. Live sustainably, care about the planet and all it's inhabitants, practice random acts of kindness, and generally try to be the best version of you that you can be.

Try not to worry about the doom scenarios; yes, one day, one of them will occur... ...but... ...I'm ten years older than you... ...during my lifetime I've heard that the following will occur:

We'll all die in a new ice age (1970s)

We'll all die in a nuclear war (1970s & 80s)

We'll all die of AIDS (1980s)

We'll all die because of the hole in the ozone (1980s and 90s)

We'll all die due to the effects of climate change (2000s onwards)

Add to this list all the diseases we've been told will kill us (plague, flu, a haemorrhagic fever), all the extra terrestrial threats (aliens, meteor strike, solar flares) and all the supra-natural predictions (Nostradamus, millennium bug, Mayan Calendar)

The list goes on; the above is not comprehensive. The take away message is that the media make money from peddling doomsday scenarios which make people fearful. Statistically, heart disease, cancer or a stroke will claim the majority of us. Death is a certainty. Try not to worry, and try to enjoy your life to the full before doom strikes!

2
 jkarran 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Angry Bird:

> Try not to worry about the doom scenarios; yes, one day, one of them will occur... ...but... ...I'm ten years older than you... ...during my lifetime I've heard that the following will occur:

> We'll all die in a new ice age (1970s)

Overdue and potentially not coming due to the industrial revolution. Would very likely have been survivable as a species if not as civilisations.

> We'll all die in a nuclear war (1970s & 80s)

A matter of time really. While they exist they will eventually be used on masse whether deliberately or by mistake.

> We'll all die of AIDS (1980s)

No but had a treatment not been found we would today be living in a radically different world.

> We'll all die because of the hole in the ozone (1980s and 90s)

Addressed remarkably effectively and rapidly by that international cooperation we can't achieve.

> We'll all die due to the effects of climate change (2000s onwards)

This one is still very much playing out in a race against those nuclear weapon stockpiles. It could go the way of ozone layer damage, currently it isn't.

Don't forget 'AI', super-volcanoes and the Kraken.

jk

 jkarran 03 Jul 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> My argument is fairly simple.  We do not know that we are happier than those people were.  We can assume we are...but have absolutely no evidence (based on evolution, genetics or anything else) to support this assumption. So I'll agree to disagree...  If you think your assumptions are reasonable, then - to you at least - does this makes them right and worthy of being stated as fact.

Dentistry. Check out the skulls in any museum, life while short might very well have been good, full of simple pleasures but it also came with an epidemic of toothache! Personally I think that one fact alone tips the balance toward life today being better than for the majority of our forebears, despite all of its pressures, isolation and waste.

jk

 RomTheBear 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Angry Bird:

What seems paranoid is often in fact perfect rational behaviour, paranoia is a survival mechanism, we wouldn’t be here without it. 

If you confuse a stone for a bear 99% of the time, no harm done, but if you confuse a bear for a stone 1% of the time, over time, you’ll be taken out of the gene pool.

Paradoxically, the paranoid who’s wrong 99% of the time about the stone being bear gets to survive, in contrast the “scientist” who uses “data” and his predicting correctly that what you see is a stone correctly 99% of the time, will not.

Post edited at 14:16
 RomTheBear 03 Jul 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> For sure.  On the other hand, with sufficiently cheap energy there’s vast tracts of desert that start to look like massive business opportunities waiting to be colonised.  Look at the explosions in global population associated with new land being opened up to people.  Sure, most people are content with their lot in life and their 2 children and are contributing to a net stable population.  The ones who aren’t content are a minority - until they move to a new land and get started in earnest.  

Just having nice land is not enough. Look at Congo, incredible amount of incredibly fertile and rich plains, enough to potentially feed 300m people and be a major global food exporter.

And yet they produce next to nothing, because they spend their time fighting each other for a quick buck.

 MargieB 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

freedom or licence?

nanny state or protection from exploitative capitalism.

Boris calls tax on sugar and alcohol a tax on "sin" - subtly suggesting it is imposed when in fact it is voted for- but there is the subtle mind game he plays. And the ERG religious language again.

If you vote for a party with those policies you voted for them and they can be unvoted for. But they are not imposed. You can vote for restrictions on capitalism if you think it is for the common good. And we all have to pay for the effects of poor choices that cause collective damage.

freedom or licence to destroy?

 1234None 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Dentistry. Check out the skulls in any museum, life while short might very well have been good, full of simple pleasures but it also came with an epidemic of toothache! Personally I think that one fact alone tips the balance toward life today being better than for the majority of our forebears, despite all of its pressures, isolation and waste.

Hmmm...toothache or depression?  A difficult choice.

 Ridge 03 Jul 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Hmmm...toothache or depression?  A difficult choice.

As a suffer of both from time to time, I'll take the depression any time. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...