/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10828743
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

Where's the observed trend for 2000-2019?

>>10828750
Good video, it explains everything pretty well.

>>10828743
anon that graph is just for whites, asians will keep building on the foundations of western civilization, long after every european and american city is burning to the ground and drones are shooting anything that moves.

>>10828858
Did you even watch the video? We don't have the ressources for 10 billions of human beings, and climate change will eventually fuck our societies.

>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>10828881
You're an idiot, climate change and energy production is obviously /sci/.

>>10828743
It doesn't need a solution, it is the solution

>>10828958
A solution that might destroy every form of civilization isn't a good one.

>>10828879
but the video is posted by green retards the same people who used science in the 70s to prove wed run out of oil, air and water by the year 2000. it's a religious movement op, the people inside it just want their apocalypse to be real so they lie to themselves about it. it happens very often, you should treat the green movement like you would mormons or scientologists.

>why is the video wrong

because he takes some rather crazy assumptions to reach his conclusions and he hides them from you. like 'we dont have resources for 10 billion, (if every single one of those people lived to 100, and consumed 100 gallons of water a day, and needed 20,000 calories of food and used 100kw of electricity....)'

he has a lot of 'ifs' he conveniently leaves out, because it exposes him as a liar. but remember he's self deceiving, so you can't even open a dialogue with someone like him. it's a failure of imagination, very similar to how religious people find god in the gaps of our knowledge. the green/mother earth/gaia movement finds catastrophe in models that are not actually a good fit for reality. they start off with the idea that humans cause problems, when in reality things just happen, and humans are very adaptable so they survive the worst of it.

there is enough space and energy on this planet to have 50 trillion people, underground, underwater in the air and in low earth orbit. and you could still live your entire life without ever seeing another person. all you would need for this is 50-75% efficiency photovoltaic solar cells.

>>10828750
Your time is over old man. AI has got this.

yep, Marx was right. This is the crisis that is emerging from the inherent contradictions of capitalism, and it will destroy it. Hope you're all ready comrades.

>>10829004
>all you would need for this is 50-75% efficiency photovoltaic solar cells
That's where I know you haven't watch the video. There are physical limits for scientific progress, your 75% efficiency photovoltaic solar cells don't exist, or need tremendous amount of energy to be created in the first place. Our rare metals resources also fac depletion. And worst of all, solar intermittency is a huge problem and require fossil fuels.
>>10829039
That's simplistic. The USSR didn't give a fuck about the environment. And human kind certainly didn't wait for capitalism to kill all big mammals and to destroy hectares of forest.

we're all going to starve once phosphorus is depleted in 2030

shit we're one mediocre harvest away from starving in actual first world countries right now

>>10829064
im watching it now, so far he has quoted

>homeostatic ecological systems

this idea was abandoned before either of us were born. natural systems (environments) are largely out of balance and in a chaotic state of flux as species compete with each other for resources available to them in the form of other living things.

then he mentions rome and the collapse of the western empire

>the dark ages following

historians are abandoning dark ages in favor of a network view. rome was a big hub on a network of information exchange stretching from north africa to northen england to anatolia and the western edges of the persian empire and east into hispania. when rome was sacked by the goths in the late 300s it was not the first time this had happened in it's history and it had basically recovered almost immediately. however due to the demographic change within it's borders (more non-romans born than romans) it failed to be able to field professional armies, and as a hub the city of rome itself diminished, and it's former connected territories sought autonomy. around the same time plagues swept different parts of their western provinces which caused a massive loss of life.

there were no dark ages, because there was no light age prior to them. you simply had a centrally controlled economy which had already a huge competitor in byzantium, and essentially there was a soft coup from the east to the west, the barbarians that sacked rome were pushed westward by the hunnic empire (which would later occur again under the mongol expansion) and they were organised by the eastern roman emperor a usurper who saw a chance at cutting the rome node from his network and expand his own influence. byzantium itself was protected from the huns by the carpathian mountains.

dark ages and collapse of europe story is over. the eastern empire continued for another 1000 years, the holy roman empire formed 400 years after the sack of rome for lasted 900 years.

>>10829039
This. Capitalism actually does triumph over communism and really does bring higher efficiency and wealth, but that's only because it is fueled by exploitation and you can only go so far exploiting the environment before you run out of things to exploit, and then suddenly the dream of infinite growth disappears and people are forced to see the harsh reality - that communism which doesn't bring you prosperity and an aggressive colonization of the environment was better long-term, and you fell for the standard bait that people have been falling for since they evolved the ability to take decisions - that they'll always go with the short term ones because the long term seems boring and unrewarding in the moment.

In fact, we've already been through exactly this some time ago, a couple thousand years to be precise. Once upon a time, humanity discovered mass international trade and capitalism for the very first time. Of course, rapid growth and the formation of civilizations far superior to anything before followed, with science and literacy skyrocketing as well. It took only half a century to go from peak growth to a total Dark Age collapse - the famous Bronze Age Collapse to be exact. It was the exact same colonizing and exploitative force that we see right now - the exponentiating rise of complexity that we still haven't evolved the cultural capacity to manage, until it hits critical levels and we overextended in societal complexity far beyond our ability to govern, yet completely unable to revert to earlier levels because that on itself would cause a collapse as well.
In fact this is the idea behind this guy's video >>10828750 , which he took from Joseph Tainter's book, The Collapse of Complex Societies.

>>10829064
>>10829114
now re-read what i wrote and look carefully at his 'energy' model.

hunter gatherer's he claims had a 1.5 return on energy. in reality hunter gatherers as observed by actual people going out into the field and studying them, work about 2-3 hours a day hunting and gathering, the rest of the time they relax, lounge around, tell stories and make things for fun (decorations, jewelry, presents).

what about medieval farmers? we know from manuscripts of the era that farmers worked from sunrise to midday or about 6 hours. after which they had the rest of the day for themselves, typically to make alcohol, drink it, gamble, socialize or work on their hobbies. now his return on energy for the agriculturalists is 4 to 1.

notice a pattern here?

an 18th century factory worker works 12 hours a day in shifts.

a 20th century office worker works 8 hours a day and commutes 2 hours.

a 21st century worker works 8-10 hours a day and commutes 1-3.

his energy thing is a meme he is trying to force. the reality is civilization squeezes efficiency out of human time. it has little to do with energy and a lot more to do with what people are doing. everyone in the world could run their own farm, but there would be a glut of agricultural products and it would be a slow and boring world with little development technologically or advancement socially.

again, the planet is a lot bigger than the humans occupying it, who largely sit on coastlines in massive clusters for WORK efficiency.

>>10828750
Do notice how in the Energy Cliff slide at 26:00 he casually omit nuclear.
Typical environmentalist.

>>10829136
>everyone in the world could run their own farm
Oh yeah, right, we would just need to destroy all forest on earth to achieve that.

>>10829175
the forests on earth are growing faster than you can cut them down due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere and massive depopulation of previously habitated zones in rural and inland areas. in under 20 years siberia will overtake the rainforests in south america as the largest oxygen producer on land. the treeline is advancing north and south every year towards the polar regions.

i fucking cant stand brainlets who can't think in the correct scale. human impact on this planet is incidental to larger effects occuring largely due to glaciation and solar cycles. we're like a retarded kid pedalling an electric scooter, adding a little bit extra to something that would go that way no matter what.

>>10829182
you’re so dumb lol

>>10829209
>haha my religion protects me from criticism! ecosystems and natural goodness!

this is why we need to encourage abortions.

>>10828750
This guy is walking proof we need to cut funding to these state universities. The guy is a waste of oxygen.

>>10829222
Nice arguments.

>>10829218
>religion
Alright, you're retarded.

>>10829222
You have no idea what he was talking about, do you?
But it was fun to use a Reddit meme.
You can go back to /b/ now.

>>10829222
Funny, reddit actually seems way smarter than this broad.

>>10829597
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030645301730879X

Every civilization that existed so far has collapsed. Civilization has a 100% collapse rate. What does that tell you?

>>10829609
Sure, but no other civilization has developed as our. Its fall could quite possibly lead to the end of humanity.

amazing the number of people who continue to rationalize doubling ever 30 years. doubling the consumption of energy, doubling the mining of metals, doubling the deforestation, doubling the population.

why do they do it?

HOW do they do it? are they stupid? or is some other psychological phenomena going on in their heads?

>>10829218
And your religion is CONSUME. CONSUME IT ALL. CONSUME EVERY FUCKING THING. CONSUME IT NOW
>NOM NOM NOM NOMNOMNOM

>>10829120
Thanos time

>>10829679
Shut up fat faggot go back to obese land and store your massive wealth under those stretch marks

>>10828743
no you fool you have to collect knowledge then when everything goes to shit you will be the one with a shitty induction water heater that doesnt need the electrical grid and the stock pile of salt for food. then you wait out the weaklings and the gun faggots then you get the women

>>10829218
Yes, to reduce the population and save the environment

>>10829631
What have we developed that prevents civilization collapse? I don't remember anyone inventing that device

>>10828743
It will collapse unless nutrition improves.
Copper was declared a toxic heavy metal in error, its deficiency causes perception distrubances and mental retardation.
Iron causes "type A personality"
Magnesium makes both of the above worse, as well as introducing its own issues, as well as atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, thymus degeneration and cancer.
High calcium intake makes magnesium deficiency worse, making worse all of the above.

>>10828743
It will collapse unless nutrition improves.
Copper was declared a toxic heavy metal in error, its deficiency causes sensory distrubances and mental retardation.
Iron causes "type A personality"
Magnesium makes both of the above worse, as well as introducing its own issues, as well as atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, thymus degeneration and cancer.
High calcium intake makes magnesium deficiency worse, making worse all of the above.

>>10828743 (OP)
It will collapse unless nutrition improves.
Copper was declared a toxic heavy metal in error, its deficiency causes perception distrubances and mental retardation. (typical signs are the loss of peripheral vision and an illusion of time speeding up)
Excess iron causes "type A personality"
Magnesium deficiency makes both of the above worse, as well as introducing its own issues, as well as atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, thymus degeneration and cancer.
High calcium intake makes magnesium deficiency worse, making worse all of the above.

>>10829675
Some people, particularly boomers, are in denial and can't imagine a world different than the one they've known for 60 years.

>>10828743
Collapse is fine, so long as it's not total collapse.

Your graph seems to show the population becoming steast after a while.

I don't trust humans not to just start nuking the shit out of the planet once resources become scarce.

>>10829912
>Collapse is fine, so long as it's not total collapse.
It basically will thanks to global warming.

>>10828931
Can it really be science if all base data is understood? No. What you have here is no longer climate science. You have climate engineering.

>>10830022
>Can it really be science if all base data is understood?
Yes.

Science, noun: a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

>>10830022
>empiricism isn't science

>>10828743
That's retarded, there's enoujgh resources on earth for thousands of years at current rate. and known extraction techniques

better extraction techniques? make that hundreds of thousands of years

space resources? we could support 100.000 times the current population with a standard of living of a trillionaire

>>10828743
whats with the 20 year old chart?

>>10830467
>WAH WAH WAH keep crying because you can't have ANY of my sweet sweet delicious GRUB because there's enough room in my stomach for 18 more corndogs and a gallon of coke, you fucking retarded hypocrite

>>10830555
not to mention predictions that are 50 years old at this point.
>services per capita peaking in 2025
>food per capita increase leveling off in the 2010s and falling in the 2020s

>>10828743
Friendly reminder the corporate fascist elite wants you to cut back to 1.5 burgers per week and supplement protein with insects so they can continue to profit from population (economic) growth for as long as possible.

>>10829076
I'll probably just move to Africa.

>>10829076
Nothing interesting will happen for at least a century. This is the last period where most of our political and economic discourse can effectively ignore the resource and climate crises and this should last at least a few more decades.

>>10829631
Stop exaggerating. The smart people will just go back to hunter-gathering.

>>10829609
That people aren't as intelligent as they think they are. If they all lead to collapse why do people keep doing it?

>>10830467
You forget all about Jevon paradox. Even if we could go to space, our consumption would keep on growing and growing unless mass sterilisation is applied.

So we're basically fucked unless we can figure out how to make nuclear fusion in a viable from.

>>10831496
Which is impossible. At least, not in 10 years.

>>10831473
Bingo. Comes down to one thing: too many people on this planet.

>>10831804
Ultimately, it all comes down to this. Which is why I don't believe leftists who think going full degrowth and communism will solve the problem.

>>10828743
that video
>nuclear bad, what do
brainwashed coal pleb.

>>10832030
Nuclear is of course better than coal. It doesn't mean it's a perfect solution, we still have troubles demantling nuclear reactor and don't know what to do with nuclear waste. Not to mention it's expensive as fuck. If we had invested in nuclear a few years ago, it might have been different, but it's too late now.

>>10831473
Overpopulation leads to population declines. You don't need mass sterilization, you damn malthusians.

>>10829004
>t. delusional techno-optimist fanatic

>>10829004
>because he takes some rather crazy assumptions to reach his conclusions
>there is enough space and energy on this planet to have 50 trillion people

>>10831006
THIS

>>10832165
Overpopulation is a meme, anon.

Read Kropotkin, you uneducated pigs

The Psychopathic Elite demand economic growth, forever. Their greed is insatiable. Since white and asian people will naturally control their own populations and form a balance with nature the Psychopathic Elite use Africans (biological weapon) to extract more wealth from the planet. By promoting Leftism the Psychopathic Elite prime white countries, asian countries are too based, to accept a transfer of wealth to Africa, to boost the African population, as well as prime white people to accepting the inevitable "migration" of millions of African males into their countries when Africans over populate and/or destroy everything in Africa and become famine personified. This has another positive effect for the Psychopathic Elite and that is the niggification of Europe and the destruction of intelligence and empathy and all other higher order attributes of Europeans. By doing this the Psychopathic Elite ensure they can never be overthrown again. At this point they can rebuild the 3rd Temple in Palestine and rule over a darkness of homogenized Brazilian like consumer class who will by spiritually euthanized and anesthetized with endless masturbation and instant gratification. All biological functions will be easily satiated through technology. "Humanity" will be reduced to talking animals controlled and enslaved by ruling class of organized psychopaths and self-worshiping narcissists. Asia may or may not be safe. They too may be lulled to death by the Psychopathic Elite, or, through over reliance on technology, they may evolve into more robotic ans insect like creatures. Asians may help the Psychopathic Elite due to an inferiority complex with Europe. Alternatively, there is a very small and unlikely hope that WWIII will breakout before the 3rd temple is constructed and reset everything. This is our only hope.

>>10832275
It isn't psychopathic elite, it's boomers who knew nothing but rapid growth in their lives and naively expected it to continue forever.

>>10832165
>Overpopulation leads to population declines
And billions of deaths, which really no one want to bear the responsibility.

>>10828750
Pretty good. Really liked how laid out everything.
Are there any good sources that back up his claims and talking points? I'd like to believe that all of us in the outer city don't die due to a collapsing economy and lack of farmland.

>>10828743
We are nowhere near any limit when it comes to growth. The future of humanity is to spread all over the galaxy group, with numbers in the quadrillions and to live for trillions of years. Our growth is just getting started, you luddite fool.

> Video says it would not make my feel better
> watch video
> Feel better

>>10828743
I guess non renewable energy sources doesn't include uranium or thorium.

>>10828750
Nice vid. What are some nice "surviving the apocalypse" manuals to go with it? Any 20GB torrents filled with manuals and the whole of human knowledge?

>>10833198
Perhaps. But humanity and civilization aren't the same thing. I don't think total collapse back to the stone age will happen, but I think balkanization of the world is highly probable if we don't find a good alternative for petroleum. That would be, in essence, a whole new civilization.

>>10828743
And the most "intelligent" species to have ever evolved on planet earth, proves itself to be in fact no more intelligent than a colony of bacteria in a pitri dish. Goes extinct.
WOMP WOMP

>>10833470
>Goes extinct
Unlikely. Humanity is incredibly resilient. And there are more of us today than has there been, which means a huge genetic variability. The only thing that can kill us for good is the same thing that can essentially end life on earth: meteors.

>>10833198
If humans, being the most intelligent species on a planet receive a 10/10 on the intelligence scale, and bacteria, fungus, and plants totally lacking self-awareness and completely unable to affect their future are a 0/10, then you my friend are literally a -10/10. That's negative ten out of 10.

You are literally the antithesis of intelligence. I mean clearly you're not retarded (5/10) and are more intelligent than an animal (3/10) - you can read and write afterall. So you deserve an entirely new classification. Like some bloated obese consumer or an alcoholic, literally rationalizing away the fact that you work hard and strive your entire life towards the ultimate goal of death and mass extinction.

It's interesting that evolution could produce a more destructive mindset. pic related. it's witches broom. Its a cancerous growth on a tree that ultimately dies leaving a dense thicket of dry tinder and makes the entire forest more vulnerable to forest fires. That's you.

>>10829737
>Copper was declared a toxic heavy metal
lolwut, it's listed as an essential micronutrient even by American standards. Not to mention it's often used for cookware.

>>10833526
>missed the last 2 words crucial to comprehending what he was reading
Copper was declared a toxic heavy metal IN ERROR

>>10828982
Yes it is. Humans were nature's biggest mistake

>>10833533
lead by example

>>10833198
reading up on witches broom. it seems that it is caused by some virulent fungus. also that certain species of moth and squirrel rely on it for habitat.

so perhaps there is some as yet not fully understood purpose for witchs broom and for people like you who are anti-intelligent. perhaps your brain has simply been infected by some form of virulent fungus not yet documented by science.

>>10833480
>average temp goes up a few degrees
>humans proceed to bake to death
30-40% of the globe is predicted to be non-human habitable by 2050 simply due to tempature
and generally those predictions are conservative in the extreme

>>10833533
You are completely wrong. Humans are the nature's greatest achievement. Humanity is the only thing that has come from billions of years of evolution that nature created with the slimmest hope of saving nature from its own existential crisis. You think nature cares about green-house gases? It doesn't give a fuck. It survived meteors, giant volcanic eruptions and who knows what else. It will adapt as it always has. What it can't survive is time. Nature is on a ticking time-bomb: the sun. Whatever happens, in a billion years or so earth, and the billions of years of evolution it allowed, will be gone. The only thing that can possibly get even the tiniest bit of it out of here is humanity.

>>10828750
>Nothing on nucular
But why?

>>10833650
Don't be absurd. This is /sci/. If you want to talk about climate conspiracy theory, there's always >>>/x/.

Climate may change, but it always does. Talking like humans are destroying earth is megalomaniac to the extreme. Yes, we may be the sixth extinction event, but we're no worse than the meteors or whatever that came before. And those models that predict climate never get it right on the first place.

>>10833683
>nuclear bad
Basically that.
Honestly, I think he may be right about our reliance on oil, but I don't think the "collapse" will be that catastrophic on global proportions. The power will mostly shift to places that can maintain their own production, since large-scale transporting will be much more expensive. Basically, those who can feed themselves will survive, and those who can't won't be able to pay for food anymore.

>>10832245
Read what?

>>10833668
>He thinks we'll escape

And where will we go?

>>10833709
>>10833683
nuclear isnt cost effective. If it would produce enough energy alone then why does it rely on subsidies?

checkmate

>>10833731
I'm not sure we'll survive, but if anything on earth can, than it's us. Nothing else can escape the gravity well. It might not be on the form that we are now, just as we are different than the ancient romans.
>And where will we go?
At first, space habitats. Ultimately, it would depend on the structure of the universe, and on luck, I guess. We don't know what the percentage of habitable planets is, for example. Or where the nearest one is. It's futile trying to imagine if we'll ever get out of the solar system, but so far as we can not prove we can't, then the possibility that we can is not 0. But we have 1 billion years to figure it out, I guess, or until we are dead, whichever comes first.

>>10833740
A subsidized service can still be cost-effective if the alternatives are dead and the cost is malleable. The costs of the energy today don't allow it to be paid in full by private investment, but the security it provides to the grid still makes it cost-effective. In a world with rising cost of energy, as is pointed out in the video, nuclear would pay itself pretty easily. I suspect the countries hit the least would be those that have hydro and nuclear power.

>>10833683
>>10829162
He also skipped the humongous death rates and land competition that will arise from the destruction of the cities and the lost of infrastructure and production facilities. I guess you can enjoy the end of the world if you happen to live on an island with few people and abundant arable land. The rest of us will have to make some bunkers and hoarder some weapons and ammo (which he scoffed on the video).

>>10834643
Leftists who believe in the collapse always talk about loving each other. They're retarded. Since I realized collapse was going to happen, I started thinking the Nazis were perhaps right. Life is a competition and only the strongest nations will survive.

>>10832038

It's the best energy source, objectively.

>waste

Can be recycled with 99% efficiency in a plethora of reactor designs

>expensive, too late

is exactly what the fossil fuel shills say about literally anything that isn't fossil fuels - this is a useless attitude that gives up on mitigation.

>>10835069
And would you look at that, their nation wasn't even close to being the strongest
funny how it goes eh

>>10835173
Economically, nuclear doesn't make any sense : https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/24/nuclear-a-poor-investment-strategy-for-clean-energy/

>>10835276
Modern (2026) reactors will be small-scale, and easily deployable. The upkeep will be minimal and safety features more considerate.

I'm sure your source did not take this into account.

>>10835279
Your reactor don't exist for now, and 2026 is already really late to fight against climate change.

>>10828743
The collapse of civilization is caused by declining levels of C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8rsb7qILgE

There exist solution to avoid or reduce climate change. But it need that not only 4chan but the word transform his autisme in weapon.

>>10833500
not an argument

>>10833668
This. Humanity is the only hope of Life to survive in the long term.

>>10835302
>2026 is already really late to fight against climate change.
Applies to renewables, too. Too little, too late.

>>10835380
True. This is why collapse is inevitable.

>>10828881
Fuck you nigger

>>10835276

>dangerous radioactivity emissions
>proliferation

Coal plants expose more people to radioactivity than nuclear and there exist countries with nuclear weapons but not power (Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa, N. Korea) and countries with nuclear power but not weapons (Germany, Sweden, S. Korea, Japan).

>>10836661
Alright, but nuclear still can't compete economically with coal or even renewables.

>>10836699

Nukes can compete with renewables because they only calculate for installed capacity (of which you'd need 5x baseload to make up for latency) or batteries which if we HAD enough material to make would still outstrip nuclear costs.

The only reason nuclear costs so much compared to fossil fuels is because it is not feasible economically to hold fossil fuel to the emission control standard of nuclear. We kill 7,000,000 people a year from pollution and cause billions in healthcare externalities because we straight couldn't contain the pollutants if we wanted to.

There exists no CO2 reduction strategy that can effectively handle both biaseload of future needs AND reduce overall carbon emissions in a fiscally feasible manner.

Cope.

>>10833500

You realise that Malthus was wrong, don't you? You realise that he's been continually proved wrong, for over 200 years? You aren't just wrong, you have to actively deceive yourself to say this shit with a straight face.

Remember peak oil? They've been spouting the myth for decades now. Just keep on pushing the timelines back and credulous people like yourself will believe it. If oil becomes more expensive, we will prospect and survey more and find more reserves. We continually get better at drilling and refining it. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

We are drowning in energy. There's vast reserves of coal - which can be synthesised into oil. We have huge amounts of unconventional oil in Venezuala, not economical right now (but who knows about the future). There are vast amounts of renewables we can access. The sea is full of minerals, as is space. If they become expensive, we will develop methods to extract them from less conventional reserves. We will survey more land.

When obesity affects more people than undernourishment, is it really appropriate to prophecise doom? We produce more than enough food to feed the world - we have to destroy much of it so the farmers earn a profit. Incredible amounts are wasted.

>>10836787
>If oil becomes more expensive, we will prospect and survey more and find more reserves. We continually get better at drilling and refining it.
Great, let's burn all that oil. Climate change? Who cares about that.

>>10836798

Nuclear power's got you.

But you weren't actually looking for solutions.

>>10836805
Alright, let's imagine a world where every country use nuclear energy. Surely, we produce less CO2. What about cars? Electric cars need batteries that contain rare metals, they can't be mass produced. What about planes? We know electric planes are not possible. What about all the stuff we get from China that travel thousands of kilometres? About our cattle that also produce methane and so does rice.
No, we're fucked.

We'll expand into space and exponentially expand available resources.

We could sustain tens to hundreds trillions of humans in our solar system. Using o'Neil cylinders and astetoids.

>>10836815
There are no rare earths in batteries. Just neodymium in the motors

>>10835191
Doesn't that only further prove their point?

>>10836798

Climate change is a gigantic meme. The costs are far smaller than the benefits of industrialization.

At worst, we lose the Pacific islands, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, India has a famine and Australia and sub-Saharan Africa gets fucked. On the plus side, Canada and Siberia get more habitable and we get more shipping routes in the Arctic.

But we can't really stop those things happening, we can only slow them down. We've already burned centuries of C02, which is heating the atmosphere. Geo-engineering can be used to completely solve the whole thing. Sulphate aerosols would fix it but nobody is bothering to deploy them. Everybody knows that nobody is serious about renewables and that they do almost nothing anyway.

The real objective of the climate change meme is to deindustrialize the West and lower global living standards to no avail. Then, as conditions deteriorate, communism will be instituted. The Green New Deal is an example of the hysteria we're seeing now: imagine what'll happen once the sane politicians are dead and we see 100 million bangladeshis seeking climate asylum?

TLDR: Climate change is a power-play, it is well within our ability to control.

>>10836832
Green new deal is a watermelon

Green outside and red inside.

Environmentalism used to push govt take
Over of the economy and society

>>10836820
Based Isaac Arthur poster.
People are way to shortsighted to realize how much resources there is available in space. Really there should be a massive effort to kickstart the space industry into profitability, it is our best bet for the long term to continue our increasing our energy and material usage per person. Going the other way of reducing our usage will eventually end in rationing, and it will be impossible to convince people to invest in space when they are living under rationing. Then we're just waiting for our extinction event to happen

>>10836832
>At worst, we lose the Pacific islands, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, India has a famine and Australia and sub-Saharan Africa gets fucked. On the plus side, Canada and Siberia get more habitable and we get more shipping routes in the Arctic.
You don't seem to have any idea of how bad it's gonna get. We won't just lose India or some countries in Africa, because people living here will all leave to untouched countries, containing them will be impossible. Furthermore, it won't be a 3 degrees warming, some models think it can be as high as 5-7. In that case, Europe and the USA are fucked.

>>10836815

Obviously fossil fuels will still need to be utilized for certain heavy industry. But baseload for electrical generation will be emissions free as will the entire energy chain for personally owned electrical vehicles.

I can live with CO2 emissions solely from merchant shipping, airplanes, and people willing to shell out the money for gas powered vehicles.

>>10836815

>methane from cows and rice

What is it with green faggots and cow farts? Are they THAT hard up to get the rest of the world on a onions and bug protein diet?

>>10837226
Reminder that methane has a 10x more potent greenhouse effect than CO2.

>>10836865
Not just that, we'll have to wait for the bomb that 2 Celsius of warming is going to be, at that point it won't even be in our hands anymore, 5+ warming is going to happen (period).

>>10836865

>Containing them will be impossible

Wrong. There are such things as machine-guns, radar and warships. It is a matter of political will only.

>>10837313

Citation needed.

>>10837791
>Wrong. There are such things as machine-guns, radar and warships. It is a matter of political will only.

Those things they have more of? Enjoy World War 3 that blows the fuck out of the planet and kills everyone if you try to stop people.

>>10836787
He's never been proven wrong. We just managed to turn back the clock with new technology. It's the ultimate in arrogance and hubris to assume we'll be able to do this forever and actually it betrays a serious lack of understanding of basic science. And if you don't make that assumption then you must agree that the sooner we curve our exponentially increasing use of energy, the better our future.

I'm pretty sure you're the guy who think we can mine uranium from sea water and colonize the galaxy, and if you're not him then the 2 of you are on about the same level. Your entire world view is based on a scientifically absurd delusion, and a belief that humans can play god.

>>10836787
>>10836805
>>10837221
This guys like a babushka doll. An absurd rationalization, within an absurd rationalization, within a delusion, within yet another absurd rationalization - every one of them basically an excuse for continued status quo exponentially increasing energy use.

>>10837791
>Wrong. There are such things as machine-guns, radar and warships. It is a matter of political will only.
Europeans and Americans are weak, they're already have a hard time to stop a few migrants, now you're talking about sending soldiers to shoot on defenceless women and children. The Roman empire failed to stop the Gothic people, we won't fare much better.

>>10837284

Reminder that cows don't fart 170 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere.

>>10837810

>I don't have any arguments or data, but I can just say they are rationalizing when sensible and economic solutions are presented with current technology that don't support doom and gloom.

>>10837845
But again, you're not taking into account Jevons paradox. Even if we had nuclear fusion, even if we could go to Mars, we would just use more and more energy.

>>10832275
Except that WWIII will be an engineered event just like I and II aimed at destroying the last pockets of whites capable/willing to resist the niggification. The last leader who had any chance to resist the Rothschilds and their ilk was Napoleon, and he lost. Just accept the blackpill and accelerationismpill. Maybe in the final chaos we can take some of them with us to deny them godhood out of pure spite.

>>10837841
Cows don't fart, they burp

>>10833696
nigger, have you been to india? have you seen what we do to this planet? its fucking reality that you keep choosing to ignore.

>>10833466
Seconding the manual request. It would be nice if some guy found my harddrive or book collection 3000 years later and rebuilt everything.

>>10837807
>He's never been proven wrong. We just managed to turn back the clock with new technology
What a retarded rebuttal, technology is our most important tool, we just found less than optimal solutions for certain problems and kept using them because it was convenient and we didn't know better.

>>10838563
I should make it clear that I was rustled by the bad light in which you seemed to portrait technology. I agree with the notion that people breeding and consuming irresponsibly=bad.

>>10828743 Good video.
I'm not so sure whether collapse is inevitable: there are many different kinds and degrees of collapse. I do think we could transition smoothly or rebuild the new system during early collapse.

I don't think it has much to do with anything related to entropy. But you asking about that suggests that you already consider this a complex systems issue. One thing somewhat related is that human conduct (behaviour, motivations, decision-making, etc) needs to be organized better or at least differently in that it has to align more with our scientific understanding and method and hence to be in balance with the surrounding ecosystem.
And that's already the basic idea behind the resource based economy.

It's not an issue of overpopulation: it's one of intelligence (including motivations and application of rational thought) and transformative power.

The solution is transitioning to a socioeconomic system that operates based on science and sustainability:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

>>10838563
>we just found less than optimal solutions for certain problems and kept using them because it was convenient and we didn't know better
And that's no longer the case, right?
Riiiiiiiiight.....

>>10828743
no
most problems can be solved by killing people

>>10838563
>Exponenal ecomomic grof foreber and eber!!

You people just don't fucking get it....
It doesn't even matter what the exact numbers are.... as long as there is growth, "exponential" growth, then we're in deep trouble sooner rather than later.

>>10829004
This

>>10836739

Carbon Capture and Storage on CCGT units.
Hydrogen electrolysis

>>10839497
>Carbon Capture and Storage on CCGT units.
Too bad, this technology doesn't work.

>>10833466 Well there's dump of Wikipedia and survival guides for example. Open Source Ecology might also be relevant.
There likely won't be some sudden apocalyptic collapse. But for example infos on how to grow your own food for maximum yield on small land throughout the whole year and stuff like that would be interesting anyways.

>>10828743
The western civilization is doomed to collapse, if for no other reason then because it hates smart people. It will experience a masive brain drain once people learn that not all places are like that.

>>10838323
India doesn't do nothing. They live in plastic and shit but other than that they have low emissions

>>10837791
>liberals won't exist in the future
Most right wingers are boomers and middle aged people not to mention the far right wingers are dead ends with no friends or spouse. I doubt machine guns will be used.

>>10828788
this. op is a faggot

>>10832275
take your meds

>>10838983

And every time you bring it up people need to remind you that the world won't see 9 billion people and wealthy populations have fewer and fewer kids thus leading to fewer people using more energy per person without having to institute your masturbatory fantasy of billions eating onions and cockroaches while you live amongst a ruling elite.

>>10840259

>brain drain

Going to where? Asia?

Asian xenophobia is default set to "western white nationalism".

>>10840500

>no spouse

implying liberals breed and have monogamous relationships.

>>10840691
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10840809
What are you talking about?

https://youtu.be/K0RdrRQ4ags

They are going to discover water in the form of ice on the moon. We can live on the moon and watch Earth collapse

>>10840894

Brain drain.

Typically means smart people leaving one society for another.

human species deserves to go extinct
I'm glad I'll live to see the collapse

>>10828743
>population decline
maybe for west but not for places like india, africa etc

>>10841196

India is already starting to see their population growth rate plateau.

Wealth causes societies to have birth rates below replacement once it gets high enough.

Even Iran has a birth rate below 2.

>>10841203
world will be african then

>>10833466
That would be nice.

>>10841235

Until they manage to reach a wealth status to turn their population as well.

>>10841290
What do we do once the Africans run out of kids?
When do we get artifical wombs?

>>10841299

Populations decrease until it starts negatively impacting a societies health and wealth thus leading to people being poor and causing an uptick in birth rates.

>>10828743
>Is the collapse of civilization inevitable? It seems it all comes down to entropy and can't be solved.

No... USA will still be here 200 years from now.
Mankind will have colonized the moon and mars and be heavily mining the asteroids.

MORE humans alive in 200 years than ever in human history.

Humanity has not even left the earth yet and you are worried about the end of civilization.

This is like a toddler worrying about dying of old age.

>>10840805
God are you ever stupid... You must think iron or grows on trees or something. Fucking idiot.

>>10840805
You and your friends whole retarded plan basically boils down to this:
1) Let's all consume more now
2) This means that in the future we will consume less

It's also based on the retarded fantasy that increased availability of resources leads to lower population growth.

The entire notion is completely absurd. When a species is given more resources (as was made possible do to the industrial revolution and the green revolution for humans), it undergoes massive population growth.

Explain how the industrial revolution corresponded with a massive increase in human population if "wealthy populations have fewer children."

Go ahead. We'll wait.

>>10840805
God are you ever stupid... You must think iron ore grows on trees or something. Fucking idiot.

>>10840805
You and your friends whole retarded plan basically boils down to this:
1) Let's all consume more now
2) This means that in the future we will consume less

It's also based on the retarded fantasy that increased availability of resources leads to lower population growth.

The entire notion is completely absurd. When a species is given more resources (as was made possible due to the industrial revolution and the green revolution for humans), it undergoes massive population growth.

Explain how the industrial revolution corresponded with a massive increase in human population if "wealthy populations have fewer children."

Go ahead. We'll wait.

>>10840805
You're the definition of anti-intelligent.

Bacteria in a pitri dish grow exponentially as long as the carbohydrates they require to multiply are there and they haven't drown in their own waste products, but they have no understanding of their place in the world or ability to conceptualize their future. They're clearly not intelligent.

You and your friends on the other hand are smart enough to read and write so you're not like a vegetable or bacteria, but you have also generated a complex set of delusions to rationalize doing the exact same thing - multiply exponentially in a finite domain. It's total madness - consciously acting against the long term best interest of the species.

>>10829182
>forests on earth are growing faster than you can cut them down due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere

Nope, not even close.

>>10841665
Nomad mentality. Consume all you can then move somewhere else. Likely genetic to some degree. Being able to invest with interest doesn't help either, as it makes it sometimes profitable to destroy the resource and invest the money, rather than keep it producing long term (THIS is the actual reason why usury used to be banned)

>>10833774
>space habitats
Good luck.
Your pet goldfish has a better chance at colonizing your living room than you do space.

The death of humanity is nature's greatest achievement.
Be happy.
Be like a goldfish.

>>10828743
this is that video where he just ignores nuclear right? what a faggot. academics are completely delusional retards.

>>10841734
It's an incurable sickness of the psyche that has taken hold in the species as a whole. Because those who restrain their consumption and practice sustainability are at a serious competitive disadvantage to those who do not.

>>10841766
just like psychopaths have a competitive advantage over the rest of us

>>10828743
imagine you were locked in a comfortable 1 bedroom apartment with high speed internet and a 2 year supply of food.

right now we have about 3 months of food left. Are we going to starve tomorrow? nope. will we eventually die? yep.

Entropy doesn't apply to a macrostate like a civilization. Civilizations increase entropy through the production of energy and waste, so all in all it works out.

>>10841852
now image your roommate is morbidly obese and keeps sneaking your food supply, and that when you confront him about it, he lies, denies, says he was hungry, and calls you a hypocrite.

>>10841856
the moral to that story is that having roomates is always a mistake.

>>10828750
This is an eye opener, but I'm a bit more optimistic about our chances compared to previous collapsed societies. The fact we're depleting our resources and ecosystem IS still a huge threat (especially overfishing), but not a fatal one. I feel there are several false assumptions and many things were purposely overlooked to lend credence to his doomsday scenario.

The way forward is decentralization and the manipulation of the ecosystem through human intervention (genetic alteration, for example, making bacteria that excrete hydrocarbons). Each population center needs to be able to produce the basic necessities for its entire population (food, water, electricity, clothing, shelter) without relying on outside support.

Most of our current architectural prowess relies on cement, which is one of the worst offenders when it comes to CO2 production (and additionally, we're actually running out of the correct type of sand that cement construction requires, which is pretty insane). Unless we can genetically engineer fast growing trees, it's a bad idea to rely on wood (though we probably SHOULD replant forests, since wood in general is useful for making things and helps store carbon). We need building materials which have a low energy cost and can be made from something abundant.

We also need to structure our society in such a way that the problems of our main energy source are minimized. For example, when the sun goes down, throttle the power transmission. If we don't need to store as much energy during the night, battery problems aren't so bad. Sure, we'll still need energy storage for critical things, but it's still a huge net energy savings.

>>10828982
anon is right, humanity deserves to be wiped out
hopefully next evolution of intelligent life won't be as fucking retarded as we are

>>10831006
Won't they be as fucked as the rest of us when the system collapses?

>>10841739
>production
Get the consumption graph, fag

>>10836856
humanity getting fucked is better option than spreading capitalism across space
we would only fuck over other planets by doing it

>>10838179
nice post, completely negates the point anon made

Vertical indoor hydroponic farming is what will save large cities from total ruin. In the past, we got away with centralized food production because we just relied on the excess energy in fossil fuels to cover our ass and shipped things all over the place; we've currently reached the extreme with this thanks to Amazon's global dominance, but it isn't sustainable. Now, we're going to need to be reliant on solar and wind, which have a much lower energy return, so we need to adjust our strategy to fit that, which means localized production in population centers. But, cities have no land available for agriculture, thus, vertical farming is the only solution. This will actually also slightly alleviate unemployment, because unless it is automated very creatively, vertical farming is going to be labor intensive.

We'll probably also need to ditch beef as a staple food; which FUCKING SUCKS. I am a meat and potatoes person, so knowing I will lose my beef is a depressing thought, but humanity truly cannot sustain cattle farming for much longer. We'll likely end up exclusively raising fish and poultry, while relying much more heavily on plants for nutrition. We might also need to abandon dairy, or genetically engineer some smaller mammals to produce suitable diary products using less energy.

Desalination is an energy intensive endeavor, but one that we will likely be forced to engage in. We've depleted ground water reserves to critical levels in many areas, and the glaciers which supply our major rivers are depleting rapidly.

The true holy grail is Geothermal; the main problem with it is, you need to invest a monumental amount of energy to make Geothermal work; however, once you get it working, it's basically free energy. Geothermal could quite literally cover our asses until we develop our technology enough to survive in space. Assuming we don't trap ourselves on the Earth by creating a huge debris field.

>>10841617
>USA will still be here 200 years from now
burgers will be the first ones to fail once shit hits the fan
nations who don't give a fuck about global economy will last the longest due to being most independent

>>10841736
goldfish space program when?

>>10842084
Vertical farming is impossible becaue of how much energy it consumes.

>>10837791
I like when the conversation turns from "There's no climate change" to "Climate change is fine" to "We'll gun down men women and children if they come near our fortifications"

>>10842105
It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination, we simply need to innovate. The main problems with indoor vertical farming are environmental control (heating/cooling/humidity/UV lighting), the energy cost of creating nutrient solutions, and the building itself requiring tons of energy to create.

We need to build the farms in a way that maximizes their energy return. For example, build them like greenhouses instead of using UV lights. Use mirrors to ensure adequate light coverage. Put big vents at the top of the building which can be opened to vent heat when necessary to cut cooling costs. Institute a mandatory composting program for organic waste in the city and produce your nutrients on site. If you aren't going hydroponic, cultivate your earthworms there too; hell, genetically engineer the earthworms to make your soil even better.

Not much you can do about the building, honestly. Architecture is really our Achilles heel when it comes to energy costs. But here's an idea: it's not like you need the purest see-through glass, just formulate something that takes less energy to produce that lets enough light through to keep the plants healthy, people don't need to see in/out. If the glass is blurry and ugly, so be it, who cares if it gets the job done. You can also build the foundation and lowest floors using rammed earth construction; that's actually very energy intensive, but it's a one time cost that can be filled with human labor and it's a very long lasting type of construction when done properly.

>>10828750
>Talk given at Virginia Tech for the Greens at Virginia Tech, March 26th, 2019.
>for the greens
kek

>>10842005
This is the first collapse where people are completely and utterly dependent on a "just in time" global food production and deliver system. Even 50 years ago, many people produced significant portion of their own food in their gardens.
This situation is FAR worse than anything we've seen. If food supplies collapse, just about everyone's dead in short order.

>>10828743
Don't worry, we already got someone working on this.

In all seriousness, yes, the collapse of civilization is inevitable. The universe can not maintain life indefinitely. Although to my knowledge entropy might not be the closest absolutely unavoidable constraint. For example, maybe the big rip will happen before the heat death of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Obviously civilization has more urgent concerns than unavoidable destruction off in the deep time future.

>>10842187
Governments will be quick to seize food and ration it out to the military and their families, while the rest starve. With direct government control over food production, they'll be able to get a system going relatively quickly. Even if more than half of humanity starves to death, civilization continues on, as horrifying at that might seem. The only way we truly get fucked is food wars resulting in nuke strikes.

>>10842208
Maybe. I hope the government has a lot of agricultural experts and botanists who can grow food in the conditions that caused the supplies to collapse in the first place. They pretty much need to specifically plan for this scenario to actually be able to pull through.

>>10841662
>>10841665
>>10841700


>waaahhhhh reality doesn't agree with muh methuselah scenario

Cope harder. You will never be special and high status due to some catastrophe that befalls everyone except you.

>>10842144
>implying we haven't been advocating gunning down niggers at the border regardless of climate change

Anyone watched the interview with peter thiel from eric weinstein?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s

>>10841617
>Mankind will have colonized the moon and mars and be heavily mining the asteroids.
>
>MORE humans alive in 200 years than ever in human history.
>
>Humanity has not even left the earth yet and you are worried about the end of civilization.
>
>This is like a toddler worrying about dying of old age.

Civilization is close to collapse even IF they get to mine asteroids which they won't to any significant extent in the next decade. Your silicon valley technocapitalist pipe dreams won't come true. There's too many issues to adress in your naive optimism but they include that it doesn't matter much if a small elite manages to leave the, by then somewhat degraded, Earth (it would even make the problem worse), asteroid mining being too risky, expensive and doesn't yield even close to enough quantities of rare Earth metals or even all of the ones needed, more humans being alive then is a problem and people thinking they can ignore problems on Earth and just hop onto the next planet or moon are worst of all.
Maybe you mixed up collapse of civilization for end of humanity.
We could avert the end of civilization and maybe even a collapse.

>>10842165
No, the main problem is the immense amounts of light that the plants need. It can make it worth it for growing something illegal like weed, where it's worth it because you can keep the plants hidden and you can sell for massive prices. For anything else the energy costs of the lighting are prohibitive.

Every civilization has collapsed. We have a 100% probability of collapsing.

>>10842165
No, the main problem is the immense amount of light that the plants need. It can make it worth it for growing something illegal like weed, where it's worth it because you can keep the plants hidden and you can sell for massive prices. For anything else the energy costs of the lighting are prohibitive. There is really nothing you can do about that. (It oculd perhaps be possible with certain plants as coffee, which do not need full sunlight, but I guess it still wouldn't be worth it)

>>10842874
Every civilization has not collapsed. Ours is still here. You're just saying that 100% of the collapsed civilizations have collapsed.

>>10842992
Ours is also quite young and showing increasing signs of instability.

>>10828881
>>>/retard/

Where are communities that are discussing possible ways to survive after whole world goes to shit?
What are the most optimal ways to survive on your own?
What about if there is a local community, what is the best way to organise in that case?
Even if internet goes dark and electricity grid stops working, what are some pieces of technology that could still be used?
Is there some knowledgebase, some encyclopedia or detiled guidebook that contains useful data for surviving after society got fucked hard?
If there is no such thing, what parts of the internet would be interested in creation and contribution to a project like that?

>>10841721
>Nope, not even close.

You are correct in that we COULD remove forest faster,but in truth forested land in USA is INCREASING and has been for a while.

>>10836815
You can use nuclear power to synthetize hydrocarbons from water and CO2

>>10829012
Omnidisciplinary ASI collectives?

>>10845658 This whole idea of AI taking over is completely absurd. There is not one AI but many algorithms. And they have to be programmed. Any software developers here?
AI won't save us.

ASI is a far future risk. AI and various algorithms are a present problem. But we should accelerate AI for automating work.

Today is Earth Overshoot Day.
>>10847302

>>10842272
I could never know you or be anything like you ("special" and "high status")

>>10847317
>There is not one AI but many algorithms.
There is not one brain per person but many sections performing independently, together

>>10829162
He quickly disregards any possible solutions. His only view is an inevitable total collapse.

Completely pessimistic idiot.

>>10845658
>Artificial Sexual Intelligence

>>10828958
lmao exactly
leftists are screeching for more than a century about "muh capitalism" and when finally a situation arises that is certain to change drastically the human society to a more localized and sustainable model destroying the global trade and the accumulation of immense power to few they start screaming "no!! we must stop it"
what idiocy is this?
or do they seriously think that humanity is gonna wiped out?the same humanty that survived in caves for millenia
seems to me like they cant live without iphones

>>10849338
>or do they seriously think that humanity is gonna wiped out?the same humanty that survived in caves for millenia
enviroment is now more fucked than it ever was since animals conquered land and that's without taking into consideration global warming
and even if we survive do you think humans reduced back to dark ages can achive anything with every nonrenevable resource depleted?

>>10849338
>and when finally a situation arises that is certain to change drastically the human society to a more localized and sustainable model destroying the global trade and the accumulation of immense power to few they start screaming "no!! we must stop it"
Where is this happening? AI is currently just an extension of capitalism used to sell your products and harvest data by large corporationsand cause even larger concentration of power. The technology for change is there or is coming but people aren't applying it. Also see >>10847368 - we need to change the context within which AI is ised and developed first or alongside its development and not blindly run ahead, listening to some technocapitalist optimists.

And I don't think that the left-right dichotomy makesany sense.

>>10849414
even the most apocalypse-tier predictions dont claim the planet will become uninhabitable
there is gonna be a catastrophy probably but that is more the rule in history rather than the exception

>>10849434
holy shit just stop already with that AI meme its not gonna happen
The situation im refering is either climate change or depletion of fossil fuels
neither of those in our lifetime but pretty certain to ccur up until 2100 and the will change the world as we know it
call it dark ages or w/e it will change

>>10849441
>even the most apocalypse-tier predictions dont claim the planet will become uninhabitable
temperatures near the poles wont ever go high enough to be unhabitable but you cant grow any crops with that little light and without agriculture most you can count on are small primitive tribes

>>10828743
yes

>>10849434
you have to stop thinking that developing technologies are going to somehow help change the state of affairs
every new one is just accelerating the inevitable

>>10849455
then small tribes it will be
what is the problem?

>>10849465
>what is the problem?
small tribes until the dawn of time