/sci/ - Science & Math

D is the most inevitable

The dark ages dont mean life sucked. The dark ages mean we dont have any recorded history from that period. 80% of human history was during a dark age. It doesnt mean it was inherently bad. If anything, I would assume the opposite. People were just chilling living normal lives, with no cataclysmic event, or super massive corrupt entity's worth of recording history.

B. As long as we have natural resources, we'll be fine. You can recover from economic collapse rather easily. Look at the great depression. Jihad is no serious threat. China maybe, but if push came to shove, I think we would be fine. They're unlikely to initiate an attack anyway. It's better for them if we work together. Plague could be bad, but it's extremely unlikely that a deadly one will happen, and even more unlikely that it would wipe out the entire West.

Fear.

>>2928881

I love FDR

E) Greed.
US goes into other countries and starts wars (A) to steal and use all the oil (B), but only the upper 1% profits (D).

B, without any doubt.

Plagues suck but go away relatively quickly, especially with modern medicine and public health procedures. Foreign aggression is ubiquitous throughout human history and doesn't really seem to be too much of a threat for most civilizations. Economic collapses fuck shit up for awhile but are always recoverable. Even Russia is getting its shit back together despite their entire economy evaporating overnight.

Peak resources though cannot be recovered from (once it's gone it's gone). And even one resource getting depleted will royally fuck shit up for the world. For example, try to imagine a world where we've run out of indium (main use is the manufacturing of LCD screens). Suddenly no more computers, cell phones, TVs, digital watches, calculators, etc. We'll be back to 1910.

Oh yeah, and we've got about 4-13 years left of indium before its gone. Hope you enjoyed living in the golden age of humanity because its all downhill from here.

>>2929016
Wow got more info on this bro?

>>2929063

>>2928864
>>2928864
>implying that peak oil eventually running out of fossil fuel is inevitable

>>2929016

>recycling

>>2929074
We won't run out. We'll just start using less and less because it'll get too fucking expensive to make it worthwhile.

Like the Saudis have been saying for the past week, there's no demand for oil at these prices.

>>2929075
they're gonna have a field day with that

religion reversing the legacy of the enlightenment->dark ages

A.
Islam has the greatest potential to knock Western civilisation out and keep it from advancing again. Their ideology is completely incompatible with Western values and go against any form of innovation (see Biddah). There are far too many Islam sympathisers already in the West who defend this tyrannical political movement and thus pave the way for it to infiltrate our culture and "destroy it's [the West's] house with it's own miserable hands" (sauce: leaked document for the Muslim Brotherhood of America).

oil will only set us back a couple hundred years, and new technologies are being invented to harness renewable energies. Also, even with no oil biofuel can still be used.

Infection has a possibility, but the reason we don't see many highly infectious and deadly diseases is because they kill off their host organism before they can spread to another, thus they are in essence self defeating. Anything less than extremely deadly can easily be treated by our current medical advancement.

Economic crisis is possible, but only in the sense that it allows extremist ideologies to become more prevalent, and thus leads back to point A.

either apocalyptic desaster or economic desaster in the sense that we abandon the relativetely free market system
(sweden germany usa canada system is practically the same compared to comunism or state capitalism like in china)

>>2929083
>We'll just start using less and less because it'll get too fucking expensive to make it worthwhile.
You do realize that's effectively the same thing as running out, right? If a resource gets so expensive to the point that no one can afford it then it is effectively depleted.

>>2929087
Which religion do you think will drag us back into the dark ages? I think atheism will.

>>2929140

Either that or radical Islam.

B causes D which will then cause A. The Homefront backstory trailer was fairly accurate at portraying what may happen in the United States when oil goes through to roof. Might not happen quite that soon, but yeah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5yyWZ2Z6Ps

>>2929188
i would agree with you on B->D->A but it will likely be social and economic agression in terms of protectionism sanctions embargo radical movements etc. witch will cause >>2929121
so we will no longer live in a free market society

I believe B

Also C is pretty bad but I dont know if it can destroy the whole civilization.

>>2929226
I just want shit to seriously hit the fan after 2030. We really do need automation.

>>2929266

I dont believe in automation, but I too have a secret desire for shit to his the fan. And I expect it to come.

Hello Friend.

>>2929273
>I dont believe in automation
Clarify?

>>2929266
Stop ignoring the economic viability of your hair-brained ideas. Thanks.

>>2929295

I take that back. I thought that was dumb right after I said it.

This is what I think:

Automation is good, but over rated. Automation is good in select few circumstances, and can be prone to failure.

Inurdaes, we both expect the future to face scarcity challenges yes? In a world where resources are scarce and expensive, automation wont be cost efficient anymore. When you have a large quantity of cheap materials, that need to go through a simply process automation is good. But in we live in a future where materials arent cheap, and we arent processing a million said cheap materials a day. Then the cost of the robot is considerably more expensive relative to the goods it produces.

for instance, its easier for me to bake 10 cakes by hand, than to build a robot to bake 10 cakes, but its easier for a robot to bake 1,000 cakes, than it is for me to bake 1,000 cakes.

>>2929314
Fantastic argument there. So concise and well-worded.
>>2929319
Don't robots do shit cheaper than humans in nearly every case? Won't this continue to be the case as automation improves and more intelligent systems are devised?

>>2928864
>the most inevitable
>most inevitable

>>2928851
"Peak oil" will reveal that we since long have passed something called "peak soil". Basically what this mean is that our industrial use of annual monocrops is destroying the very soil of our farmlands. The way we currently combat this is by artificial fertilizer. What most people do not realize is that these fertilizers are so limited in their natural occurrence that they have to be mined (mainly phosphorus that is) and that this is a very expensive (resource wise) procedure.

This mean that today, for every one calorie of industrially grown produce you eat, we spend an average of nine calories of petro-chemicals (gas, oil, etc.)

So what happens when oil resources begin to dwindle is that the depleted soil will fail to sustain growth of crops. Which means that food resources will fall and food prices will sky-rocket. The inflated world population that have been supported by this vicious circle of abusing resources, will fall into catastrophic mass-starvation. There will be wars and civil-wars over food, water and other resources.

Economic depression is childs-play compared to the near apocalyptic wasteland that will spread as eroded topsoil that is unable to sustain any further growth is no longer protected by any covering growth and thus gets carried away by the winds (remember the dust-bowl of the thirties).

At this stage pandemics become probable and may actually help us by decimating the population (and thus lowering its pressure on supply).

>>2929327

change the demand curve, change the world

>>2929327

Not every case. But it still costs considerable money to design and build such robots. Basically if you are going to calculate the costs involved you have to divide the cost of such robots by the amount of goods it will produce. The use of robots will get more ideal the larger your production is.

One example of robotic failure that comes to my head immediately is a General Motors car plant.

Basically they had some robots that put windshields onto the cars. The problem was the robots couldnt see black cars and basically fuck it up every time.

GM scrambled to fix the problem, but by time they really got the kinks worked out they had already hired and replaced many of the robots with human workers, where upon it would be more costly the replace the humans with robots again.

>>2929350


>>couldn't see black cars

que storm fags

>>2929319
You realize the vast majority of products in the western world are made using automation right?

It has found its way into every aspect of live, most modern farming is done using it (driver-less crop harvesters using GPS to navigate is in use in most western countries already), driver-less transits is in service use, almost all manufacturing in the western world is done though it.

Automation is far from being unreliable and resource intensive, and will continue to expand into our daily lives. Even with peak resources automation will still be around, people will adapt their systems to work with what ever power sources are in use.

>>2929372

>You realize the vast majority of products in the western world are made using automation right?

Uh... Citation please...

>most modern farming is done using it (driver-less crop harvesters using GPS to navigate is in use in most western countries already)

I firmly believe this technology exists, and is cost efficient. But I would like a citation that says most of our farming is done in such a way.

>>2929392

inb4 b& ! ! ! !

>>2929403
People need a reason to get banned?

You have a name and a trip. That should be enough.

>>2929400

Why would I be banned?

>>2929403
see >>2929382


also, inurdaes is in line also, the mods are angry tonight, their skirts are in a bunch

>>2929372
cuba has non of that and they're eco system is doing better than ours... the west is fucked
I'm getting out of here as soon as i can

>>2929408
what a joke

>>2929392
Are you going to pull up citations on your claim that it is unreliable and resource intensive? So far you have given one single example of one problem in one factory, with out any citation, and ofcourse there will be some problems, I could also point you to the British car manufacturers that went under because of unreliable and expensive labour force (humans not robots).


GPS Farming.
http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/129384/CORSnet-NSW_Brochure.pdf

Not sure where to find a citation on manafactoring, but the vast majority of factories I have been though in Australia and NZ use automation on part of their process, if not all of it. Coca Cola, golden circle, Riviera, are factories that come to mind that do it. I have even seen many distribution centers that are starting to use automatic forklifts for packing (although this is a lot less common).

The whole idea of industrialization is centralized mass production, automation is the same principal it just replaces the human overseas with computers to monitor the line, it is not, and likely never will be, humanoid robots mopping the floods with a traditional mop.

Scientist was banned for (presumably) frantic reporting of any posters who beat him in an argument (read: religious argument). Crybaby.

>>2929419
and nothing of value was lost

>>2929416

Hey man, Im not the one running around making claims here, such as, "a vast majority of manufacturing in the US is done through automation"

Im not arguing about that. I just want to know what the hell you are talking about.

What do we mean by automation? I think, a car factory completely employee-less, is different from lets say... a factory that contains a conveyor belt.

Please, refer me to such a company that went under for not using robots.

inb4 delorean.

>>2929421

Nope. I never report those whom I disagree with. It's stupid and cowardly. I've bitchslapped that guy so many times over the last week that he finally had a complete spastic breakdown.

>>2929416

>GPS Farming.

This is a brochure for GPS farming, does it actually say any where in it "A vast majority of farmers use GPS tracking"?

>but the vast majority of factories I have been though in Australia and NZ use automation on part of their process, if not all of it

Okay, if we are talking about partial automation than I agree. I think I was too quick to ignore that. Im sorry. Im just roo used to talking with inurdaes about robots replacing everyone.

>and likely never will be, humanoid robots mopping the floods with a traditional mop.

Than I think I agree

Also what do you do that gives you opportunities to tour all these factories?

>>2929431

But you are claiming that automation is unreliable (prone to failure was your words), so where is your citation for that? My claim that it wasn't unreliable, and is in fact so reliable that it is in mass use in the western world.


Also automation is "Automation is the use of control systems and information technologies to reduce the need for human work in the production of goods and services." stolen from wiki, and an automaton is a self operating machine, which are the robotic parts that make up automation. Humans program and oversea this operation, and do the jobs that the machines have not yet been able to do effectively. In the coke factories a human does not actual touch any of the cans and bottles being produced (outside of quality control), the whole process is an automatic process, including the forming of the PET bottles, to the packing. Also I never claimed that the British car factories closed down because they didn't swap to robots, I said it was because of an unreliable and expensive work force. The strikes in the 70's for the Morris factories is an example of that.

>>2929450
I work in urban planning, spatial science, and GIS, I don't as such "tour" the factories but I do need to plan for their needs which means I have visited the factories and had to understand their requirements.

>>2929481
I guess Mr economist has no problem demanding citation, but is no where to be seen when someone calls him out.

>>2929587

I just got back.

But I need to go to bed now.

Sorry I didnt respond, I just had to do something else.

Ill keep this thread open, and Ill make a good response later. As for now I need to go to bed. Its 5 am.

I dont ignore people.

>China
>Agressive
>China
>Agressive
>Mfw

Also:
It's B and D in combination,
Resources are finite and running out fast.
This will lead to increased consumer prices and poverty.
This will add up to the point where powerfull people secure the last resources and world ends in chaos.

don't need oil when you have uranium everywhere in the sea

when the bees die out and all our crops fail and we have to polinate every single fucking plant by ourselves which pushes the price of food up so high that everyone is forced to live a subsistance lifestyle and no more science gets done ever again.

B and D kinda go together, don't ya think?

Hey guys, whats going on in this thread?

c. would help us out.
assuming it killed off mostly the old, weak, and very young which it normally does we wouldnt be using as many resources those people are essentially wasting.

OP your pic depicts the aftermath of a hydrogen bomb dropped on chicago, so I guess you should have included a nuclear exchange as one of your options.

B is the most likely to set us back, and is inevitable

C only...

In any other case, people find away around the problem, or live in technology laden holes till it is over and then pop back out... or whatever else.

I think tech is irreversible. We would live in solar paneled moutain holes and ride solar powered go carts around before we went back to the dark ages.

I have heard that GM is sitting on tuns of patents for cars that like run on sugar cane and stuff like that.

>>2929481

>But you are claiming that automation is unreliable

This is really dependent on what we are referring too. I also said that if we are just refering to simple processes, like folding boxes, then I feel differently, and I could definitely see automation as being feasible.

However, usually when Inurdaes and I talk about automation we are talking about the entire process becoming automated, by complicated machinery. I think thats something different. Ive said this before, and Ill say it again, I think automation is good when you need to do one very simple thing in a high frequency. If you add any kind of complication, automation starts to fail pretty fast. An example was that GM plant I mentioned. Its easy to stick a windshield in the right place. Its not easy to identify where a windhsield needs to go.

You keep asking for a citation from me. One I dont think I owe. Mostly because I am not making objective statements. Its impossible to prove automation is feasible or not, because I dont even think the companies that use automation know if its feasible. Whether or not automation is good is going to vary from circumstance to circumstance. By automation, I mean, complex automation, like an employeeless car factory. And not a like a machine that sprays liquid cheese on cheetos every 3 seconds or something.

A) obviously because to go back to the dark ages would most likely be the result of nuclear war.
C) is second because there are more and more resistant superbugs and conceivably one could kill a large portion of the earth's population because it would spread so quickly

>>2931974
>If you add any kind of complication, automation starts to fail pretty fast.
For now.

>>2932011

Yes, for now.

Im just going to bet that it will continue to be with way for a long time. But I have no basis for that.

Inurdaes do you want to make a 50 year bet that robots wont replace everyone?

>>2932050
They won't replace everyone, only the jobs people don't want to do. And yes. I bet they will by 2061. Set the bet at $1,000? If dollars still exist by then.

>>2932071

Okay.

Ill save this. I keep a folder on my computer called "Stuff that will matter in 50 years"

I save predictions I see politicians or famous people make in the news. Some of them have already turned out to be laughably false.

$1000? Alright, Ill bet you about 10 trillion Space Bucks, which I assume will be the equivalent in 2061.

YOURE ON

>>2932011
sheesh you already won!
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

>>2932144

>>2932144

We arent betting about whether complicated machines can be built. I have confidence a complicated, and capable robot can be built.

The bet is about whether expensive automation will replace an immensely large chunk of the work force.

Or as Inurdaes said "Jobs no one wants to do"

I know what he means, but I should point out doesnt make any sense to me. If you wanted to do it, it wouldnt be called a job. A CEO is a job. Being a super rich awesome man is something else.

D) leads to artificial resource scarcity, driving up demand... thus you get a world that works like (B).

When (D) happens, a few people are still getting richer, but many rich people find their money in danger. They own the government, so the government cuts social services, health care, and general usefulness to the average person's life, so that they can give tax breaks and credits to these rich people. The dangerous situation that puts the average people in creates a risk of (C).

When (B) and (C) start to leave us in ruins, it is human nature for other cultures to come in and take over... leading to (A).

A bad enough (D) = (A), (B), and (C), eventually. That, combined with the fact that it's most likely to happen first anyway, makes it the most dangerous.

>>2929140

I'd say B. It'll trigger D which will trigger A which will lead to C. Then humanity must begin again, except in a world that is devoid of any diversity of life, and will never know its former glory again. We're a cancer upon this world.

Theres new strains of bacteria in india that are completely immune to any sort of antibiotics.

If they become widespread, modern medicine is over.

>>2932854
I hope they do become widespread before long. I don't even care if it wipes out my entire family.