/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11202293]

Will the world be able to deal with global warming or will civilization collapse?

[Anonymous No.11202303]

Global warming was caused by the death cult called "science" actually.

[Anonymous No.11202328]

>>11202293
It's 50/50, we either will or we won't. Basic math.

[Anonymous No.11202377]

>>11202303
Not wrong, without science human population would be in the millions not billions. Not to mention the industrial revolution would have never happened.

[Anonymous No.11202394]

People are forgetting there's one advantage to China being a totalitarian hellscape. The regime wants to survive. This is dictatorship 101, everything is done so the regime can survive and enrich themselves. The regime in China cannot survive a collapse of the world food supply. So when global warming starts having civilization-crunching effects, the entire industrial might of the Chairman Chang dynasty will be turned to solving the problem. There's no democracy to get in the way, they can just mobilize their entire economy to do one thing because it needs done to protect the regime.

[Anonymous No.11202402]

>>11202293
What civilization?

[Anonymous No.11202405]

>>11202303
>dude just live in the Stone Age

Nah

[Anonymous No.11202408]

>>11202293
It’s ultimately a non-issue. Nothing human industrial power can’t compensate for.

[Anonymous No.11202415]

>>11202394
It's also one of the benefits of a monarchy. when they're doing their actual job instead of getting seduced by bankers.

[Anonymous No.11203995]

>>11202293
what we now call civilisation? yes, this will collapse

[Anonymous No.11204003]

Look at the timescales involved anon. We became an industrial species in 1850 which is just 170 years ago.

Society will not collapse until we reach 4C of warming. If we keep polluting at current rates we will reach 4C of warming in the 2230s. So we have 210 years to fix global warming.

Look how far we've come since 1850. 210 years is more than enough for humanity to fix this problem. Hell we're probably a multiplanetary species at that point and people will laugh at the idea that people actually thought global warming was a genuine threat to the glory of mankind.

[Anonymous No.11204008]

>>11202394
>dynasty will be turned to solving the problem
already on it, china's activity in africa is part of it, rent/buy land for producing food

[Anonymous No.11204019]

>>11204003
bs, there will be major disruptions in crop yields in the '30s already, annual rainfall in the subtropics (lat 23...40) will fail by 50-75%

[Anonymous No.11204029]

>>11204019
The vast majority of global crop yields are already done in artificial hydroponic systems.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/

This combined with GMO actually resulted in higher and higher yields per hectare. In fact farms are now actually shrinking in size every year since it's more profitable to have a small patch of land that has very high yields and focus on the technology side of it rather than having large expanses of land with mediocre yields.

This farming shift is almost 10 years old now and is changing how farming is done. As someone that actually works in agritech you don't have to worry about the food supply any time soon. In fact I would be surprised if the cost of food isn't going to be lower than 10% of its current price in another 10 years time.

[Anonymous No.11204034]

>>11204029
how naive, when the water runs out everyone will act cool, no wars or anything
good luck with that

[Anonymous No.11204039]

>>11202293
stfu greta

[Anonymous No.11204044]

>>11204034
Water isn't running out very soon. Especially with the new GMO crops that require less than a percent of the water current crops do. Some of them can even be grown in the sahara desert with just the water grabbed through condensation at night.

[Anonymous No.11204051]

>>11204034
Water isn’t running out lol

[Anonymous No.11204053]

>>11204051
California and Australia would disagree. In another decade you'll see.

[Anonymous No.11204055]

>>11204053
>Prophecies

I like the religious schtick but it’s not very scientific.

[Anonymous No.11204057]

>>11202293
Civilization must collapse to deal with global warming.

[Anonymous No.11204210]

>>11204055
more heat causes the hadley cells to expand further from the equator
>>11204019

[Anonymous No.11204214]

>>11202303
Science is based
Fuck off, caveman /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.11204216]

I'm hoping that civilization eventually collapses.
Most people are awful.

[Anonymous No.11204217]

>>11204053
>water is running out guys, look at these two examples! one is a desert island in the middle of nowhere and the other 1 of 50 US states!!!
Woah, can't believe we are all gonna die because the water is running out in an area serving as habbitant for 50m people.

[Anonymous No.11204220]

>>11204216
Civilization is never going to collapse anon. Well at least there is closure in the fact that the universe will eventually end in the heat death of the universe due to entropy.

[Anonymous No.11204232]

>>11202293
Yes Anon, humans are as dumb and unflexiable as algae. Temperatures go up by 2 degrees and we all fucking die.

[Anonymous No.11204236]

>>11204232
Some places, such as the Middle East, will run out of water. There will be a third World War because of this, and it will involve nukes on a massive scale.

[Anonymous No.11204239]

>>11204236
Yes, because some sandniggers ran out of water there will be a third world war. We can't just nuke and manipulate their government for another thousand years. No, no, it'll be a world war.

[Anonymous No.11204244]

>>11204236
>Some places, such as the Middle East, will run out of water.
Good, nothing of value will be lost.

[Anonymous No.11204248]

>>11204244
They will not just die. They will migrate to neighboring countries and that has proven to be problematic.

[Anonymous No.11204251]

>>11204248
Right, I forgot.
Fuck.

[Anonymous No.11204258]

>>11204053
you realise that water shortages are driving turkish conflict right? the main reason israel is so boneheaded about stealing the Golan heights is because of water
hell, part of the Iraq war was about water access rights

[Anonymous No.11204260]

>>11202415
>>11202394
>dictatorship is more efficient in crisis
All historical examples show that no, not really.

[Anonymous No.11204281]

>>11204260
You realize Hitler's reign was one of the most impressive feats in human history, right? And the only reason he lost was because it was [tiny ass country surrounded by enemies without access to noteworthy natural resources] vs. [the entire planet].

[Anonymous No.11204302]

>>11204214
>(blocks your path)

[Anonymous No.11204345]

>>11204281
he chose to fight a war against jewish finance...

if the rothschilds hadn't pushed their attack dog churchill into power he might have succeeded.

[Anonymous No.11204360]

>>11204281
>A developed European country with a larger population than France and some of the greatest industrial power in the world is a “tiny ass country surrounded by enemies without access to noteworthy natural resources”, even though Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, and Switzerland are so weak in comparison that they could never threaten Germany, and Italy, Hungary, and Romania, allied countries, are nearby. The only real enemy of Germany near it was France, and Germany was the stronger and larger of the two. You’re a Neo-Nazi lying about reality because you are delusional.

[Anonymous No.11204363]

>>11204360
>A developed European country with a larger population than France and some of the greatest industrial power in the world
You might wanna brush up on your history, because this is far from being an accurate description of post WW1 Germany.

[Anonymous No.11204373]

>>11204281
the only reason he lost was [stupid ass tactical decisions based on nonsensical sentiments which lead to Germany being unable to obtain the necessary natural resources].

had he not lost a sizeable amount of armed forces in the first Russia push and subsequently fucked up the south Russian/Chechnya/Caucasus offensive pushing for oil resources by diverting half the forces to a strategically valueless target - Stalingrad - where they eventually got enclosed and slaughtered by enemy forces, WW2 would have been a very different ball game. this was the big one, perhaps together with the loss of the Battle of Britain just as pointlessly; there were other gaffes (letting Italy fuck up and lose so much, holding Norway for too long for no good reason, ...), but none of them would have counted if the Russia offensive hadn't been fucked up so stupidly and/or the Battle of Britain, which was basically won, hadn't been given away stupidly.

it is really, really fucking astonishing how close it was, though, despite all of that. And how history lessons in school always made it seem like it was a lost battle from the start when it really, really wasn't. and it's even more astonishing when you learn that most of the stupid decisions and fuckups were caused quite simply by Hitler flat out ignoring his generals, who were amongst the smartest warriors at the time and could very likely have brought home the victory had they been given more free reign.

anyway, we can be glad none of that happened.

[Anonymous No.11204380]

>>11204363
>You might wanna brush up on your history, because this is far from being an accurate description of post WW1 Germany.

It is an accurate description of Post WW1 Germany.
In 1933, Germany had a population of 90,000,000. Two years prior, France had a population of only 41,000,000.
In 1937, Germany had a GDP per capita of 9464. That same year, France had a GDP per capita of 7381.

[Anonymous No.11204405]

>>11204380
>1933
fuck off, it was 65M

[Anonymous No.11204406]

>>11204405
>fuck off, it was 65M

Sorry, that number was for 1941. Either way, bigger than France.

[Anonymous No.11204433]

>>11202293
Civilization will collapse because you believe stupid shit and base politics on your "feeeelings"

[Anonymous No.11204438]

>Oil and gas are responsible for more than 60% of Russia's exports and provide more than 30% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).

Wow, it's like Russia doesn't care about global warming at all ..... oh wait .... oh shit.

[Anonymous No.11204450]

>>11204438
Basically all white countries will be fine and even benefit from global warming.

[Justin Ramsey No.11204466]

Infinite Synth Cocaine

[Justin Ramsey No.11204472]

Infinite Earth Drug Catalog Exists

[Anonymous No.11204476]

>>11202293
Global warming, or climate change, or whatever we're calling it today, will not be solved until there's a way to make money by doing so.

[Anonymous No.11204481]

>>11204281
LOL Hitler has a couple good years because he literally mugged untold amounts of moneys from german jews to fund his war machine and got a couple of victories against pushover neighboring nations then his ego got the best of him and he went full retard by trying to go literally head to head against the rest of the entire world

he was an idiot and he died like an idiot

[Anonymous No.11204489]

>>11204481
you're missing how they acquired the ab wehr's gold reserves

[Justin Ramsey No.11204537]

Kurt Roocke Is About To Serve Me The Biggest Lawsuit !

[Justin Ramsey No.11204540]

The World Consensus Is We Hate Low Intel Drug Dealing America Spics!

[Justin Ramsey No.11204542]

Mostly Because Undeveloped Home Countries !

[Anonymous No.11204590]

>>11204281
>You realize Hitler's reign was one of the most impressive feats in human history, right?
No I don't. He got a few relatively good years as the economy recovered from the crisis of 29, and then created a new crisis by starting wars against [the entire planet] and proceeded to sacrifice his whole country to end up losing.

By the way his was [the largest, most populous country of western europe with the strongest economy and the brightest minds and large resources in steel and coal].

>>11204373
>diverting half the forces to a strategically valueless target - Stalingrad
Tbh, it was strategically valuable, because Japan promised to declare war on the USSR if Hitler took a major city on the Volga.

[Anonymous No.11204844]

>>11202293
i think there is a decent chance of solving the problem, if we act the right way. that actually seems to be the biggest problem. depending on where the warming should come to a halt, it isn't too late for anything yet.

you can pretty much get any ressource if you have enough energy at hand, so global warming is really an energy crisis. we need to find a way to provide the energy for our civilization without polluting the environment too much. In theory there are enough energy ressources to do so but it would cost us a bit to restructure our civilization to use the energy.

if we were to make the right decisions in politics to encourage the change of our society, then it will happen on its own and we can make it, no problem, but politicians don't seem to make a lot of good decisions. so its really up to us to do it. not by turning of the lights or driving less, that doesn't help enough. by voting for the right people, protest, call or write your political representative. inform yourself about the possibilities and then inform others.

and im not talking about political measurements that involve ending capitalism or lowering our luxury. I'm talking about more capitalist approaches, like a carbon tax or an emissions trading system(like the one the eu has but improved and with less flaws) or subsidies for the right technologies. things like these can naturally change our society without us even having to bother about it.

[Anonymous No.11204860]

>>11202293
Level of technology is directly proportional to the energy density of the fuel. First the oil will run out, then the uranium will run out, then the economy will cannibalize itself, then mass starvation and war over the last caches of fuel and food, then over a period of 10000 years, humans will have regressed to Hunter gatherers of roughly iron age tech level, we won't have the resources to get out into space. Eventually some catastrophe will end us, and if another intelligent species arises, all of the easy resources will be gone. Entropy operating as intended, humans are the perfect entropy accelerating engines. The question is can we increase it just enough to get off the planet before we get stuck in the well.

[Anonymous No.11204874]

>>11204860
Have you got that graph?

[Anonymous No.11204884]

>>11204860
i disagree. just because oil and uranium will run out on some point, doesn't mean that we will have no energy. i suspect fusion will be our ultimate energy source. and untill we get that one(even if it takes a few hundret years), we can live of off solarpower and all the power sources that arise from it (wind, water, etc.). and sure i also believe that humanity should venture out into space but it wouldn't be because we have to to survive(well at least not until the sun itself makes earth unsuitable for life). being restricted to earth just restricts our energy consumption and max population and maybe our capability to produce some ressources.

also it the current rate of spacecrat development, i don't think it will be very long until we have a moon base and people on mars. in the last century we came from barely being able to fly to the moon landing and the internet. int the second decade of this century we already got reusable rockets. can you imagine where we will be by 2100?

[Anonymous No.11204886]

>>11204874

[Anonymous No.11204890]

>>11204260
>All historical examples show that no, not really.
dude, stabilizing the german economy when it was on its knees in 9 years to the point of being able to basically invade all of europe and win sound very efficient to me.

Efficiency in crisis and speed are the only real upsides of authoritarian governments.

[Anonymous No.11204891]

>>11204884
I think there is a critical time period in which those technologies will need to be deployed, or there wont be the industrial capacity to develop them past a certain point. I think there is still a way out, but that graph keeps me up at night desu

[Anonymous No.11204903]

>>11204891
well we already pretty much developed them. look at the solar panels that are installed on so many buildings. and even though there were heavy subsidies for them until recently, today people install them almost on their own. so i think we are already in midst of the change and we got good chances that we will survive.

there is a nice book called 'sustainable energy without the hot air'. its free and open. its about the different energy sources and their yields. i would say it is pretty accurate and essentially calculates how much you can get out of each energy source. the conclusion of the book is that it is in principle possible, even though some of the paths you can take might not look very nice (like plastering the entire country with wind farms)

[Anonymous No.11204908]

>>11204886
i don't like the term EROI much. In germany there is a word for this: 'Erntefaktor', which is composed of the words 'Ernte', which means harvest and the word 'faktor', which simply means factor. so pretty much 'harvest factor' why can't there be a term like that in english too?

[Anonymous No.11204912]

>>11204903
I'll have to check that out. Does it talk about the logistical challenges of converting from fossil fuels as a primary source to alternatives like battery and solar farms?

[Anonymous No.11204914]

>>11204884
>>11204860

With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium and thorium to last of billions of years at current consumption levels. We ain't running out of fissionables, period.

[Anonymous No.11204915]

>>11204908
>harvest factor
we use harvest factor or index for crop biomass analysis

[Anonymous No.11204922]

>>11204914
If that's the case then it's smooth sailing from here boys

[Anonymous No.11204924]

>>11204912
partly yes. it does talk about storage and some solutions if you mean that. but i don't think it goes into too much detail in the matters of how to achieve these things. it manly calculates howmuch energy there is and how much we consume.

also the book is 300 something pages long but don't be afraid. the last 100 pages is just more accurate calculation for those interested and most of the rest is graphs and references so the text itself is more like 50-100 pages. i read it in two days

[Anonymous No.11204928]

>>11204914
true. there is even a lot more uranium in the oceans although from my understanding its retrievability in large scales is questionable. none the less, nuclear power has some advantages, there is just an inherent problem with the nuclear waste. not that we can't deal with it at all, it's just difficult to deal with it. and even highly efficient reactors like thorium reactors do produce some long lasting radioactive waste(although be it a very small quantity of it). so i would say that renewables are more desirable as long as it is possible to use them in one way or another.

[Anonymous No.11204929]

>>11202293

global warming will bring about an age of paradise, no more cold and hunger

[Anonymous No.11204930]

>>11204915
cool, so you actually call it that way ?

[Anonymous No.11204933]

https://www.withouthotair.com
Rip Dr David JC Mackay you died way too soon.
is there an updated version anywhere?
https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1wmjjz87t09usoq6jva
>Perhaps the best way of illustrating just how rapidly solar photovoltaics have moved on is to quote the figure that David used (using data from a then-recently opened solar farm in Germany) for the cost of providing each person in the UK with 50 kWh per day. The number was about €91,000 for each inhabitant. Today, that has fallen to about €18,000, or just under 20% of the cost less than a decade ago.

[Anonymous No.11204937]

>>11204933
not that i know of. even if some of the numbers are outdated, it is still mostly accurate and gives you a good impression of what our situation is and what the challenges are

[Anonymous No.11204939]

>>11204930
say you had a willow coppice field to harvest. the harvest index would be the usable component the stems instead of the total biomass that would include leaves and roots.

[Anonymous No.11204941]

>>11204924
Thx anon you're a cool dude

[Anonymous No.11204942]

Maybe the new age of genome screening and sensible eugenic selection gradients will give the next generation the cognitive power base to brute force their way out of this?

[Anonymous No.11204943]

>>11204939
ah so it has a different meaning then the EROI

[Anonymous No.11204949]

>>11204942

"global warming" is obviously just a diversionary tactic by the (((elites)))

[Anonymous No.11204951]

>>11204943
return on investment is a common financial term so it's an easy transfer by sticking "energy" in front of it.

[Anonymous No.11204953]

>>11204949
these are the guys trying to flood europe and america with retarded third worlders?

[Anonymous No.11205008]

>>11202293
The world will be fine. Humans, may not. W/e the case, we'll be long dead so it wont matter.

[Anonymous No.11205059]

>>11202408
human industrial power has relied on fossil fuels a lot. With nuclear transition into renewables and some genius engineering we can survive.

[Anonymous No.11205082]

>>11205059

and we will continue to rely on fossil fuel for the next 100 years, we will simply use more natural gas and less crude oil

[Anonymous No.11205114]

>>11205082
well partly yes but i think that the use of fossil fuels will continuously decline over that time. by 2100 we will probably use very little fossil fuels

[Anonymous No.11205303]

>>11205114
>>11202293


global warming timeline will bring about the world of nier automata

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePKjkPl8jJs

[Anonymous No.11206023]

>>11204929
>no more hunger
nope
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

[Anonymous No.11206080]

>>11206023

>Phd in middle eastern history

[Anonymous No.11206097]

>>11206080
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.11206437]

>>11204450
this is a lie, the opposite is the case, especially "white countries" are warming up much faster then the rest of the world, already causing stronger fires floods, storms and crop failures
just look at the news, Australia is burning and may keep burning for months https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzkSAVHTV8

Same story in California and Russia.

Cities like Venice, states like Florida and nations like the Netherlands will cease to exist because of raising sea levels.

[Anonymous No.11206499]

>>11204029
absolute horseshit.

farmers are legit freaking out now. all over. crops are straight up dying, not growing at all, barely growing, or being wiped out by massive flooding. 2019 was an atrocious year. youll see that im right when meat prices skyrocket next year

[Anonymous No.11206532]

>>11206499
The futures market disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.11206548]

>>11206437
>and nations like the Netherlands will cease to exist because of raising sea levels.
I'm Dutch and we are literally 6 meters below sea level. Even if all ice in the world melts the sea level will only raise 3 extra meters.

We already have the infrastructure in place to deal with this increase in water levels. Since we are already dry because of large engineering projects.

In fact what most people don't even know is that we have a separate government besides our normal government that is only there to manage our massive national engineering projects to keep or upgrade our dykes or even reclaim more land from the sea.

The Netherlands is 80% artificially made. Rising sea-levels will have no impact on us and other countries will most likely adopt a similar government type as ours when they need to build their own massive engineering projects to keep their land dry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands

[Anonymous No.11206563]

>>11206499
I know you're wrong because this is literally the field I work in. Agricultural output is booming right now and yield have never been better. This is natural since agricultural yields have only gone up since the 1960s every single year but the yields are increasing exponentially due to better and better crop management.

I can only speak for the company I work for which is in the Netherlands but what we do here is "precision farming" what this means is that we use technology like GPS, electrolythic sensors in the soil and the like to maximize the nutrients and minimize the amount of water and fertilizer each plant gets.

This combined with greenhouses and dynamic temperature control we basically create the absolute perfect circumstances for crops.

We also do this for animals as well.

It's why we're the 2nd biggest agricultural exporters in the world despite being such a small country of only 17 million people. The only country that produces more food than us is the USA but at the rate we are ramping up production we will become #1 agricultural producer before the 2030s.

We produce enough food to feed 40% of the global population. The majority of the Milk comes from our country. 30% of the world's pork meat comes from our country. A large share of all eggs comes from our country.

Except for cereals (which the USA dominates) we basically produce the majority of all other crops. Especially vegetables and root crops like potatoes and onions.

Our country has increased agricultural yields more than 100x since the 1990s and we expect to increase it by another 10x by the 2030s.

You underestimate how high-tech this field is. The vast majority of people working in agriculture here have at least a BSc. It isn't a domain for farmers anymore but for scientists and engineers.

Most labor is automated using self-driving tractors, drone pollination and sensor based nutritional delivery systems.

Global warming can't disrupt these solutions.

[Anonymous No.11206581]

>>11202293

If you want discussion about this above the idiot level then visit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/

[Anonymous No.11206588]

>>11206581
Thank you for directing all the retards that believe in a inevitable collapse to Reddit. They don't belong on a scientific community like /sci/.

[Anonymous No.11206620]

>>11206548
>Even if all ice in the world melts the sea level will only raise 3 extra meters
lmao no. you are correct with saying 'the dutch are making the netherlands' but stating, that with all the ice in the world melting, it would only increase the sea level by 3 meters? thats plain wrong.

I admit that melting all the ice of the polar caps would probably take hundrets to thousands of years, but if it melted, it would not be only 3 meters.

It is really just basic arithmetic. There is an estimated 25 million quibic kilometers of ice on the earth. Now say we were to spread out this ice evenly on the entire globe. how high would that ice sheet be? The earths area is about 500 million sqare km so devide 25 000 000 km^3 by 500 000 000 km^2 and you get about 50 meters of ice everywhere.

now this is far from exact but it leaves you with a good impression of how much it actually is. To get an exact number you'd need to consider that only 2/3 of the earths surface are covered with water and ofcourse the density of ice. and also ice swimming in the ocean does not add to the sea level if melted. but most of the ice is located in ice sheets on continents like antarctica.

all things considered, you'd get a rise of around 60 meters. good luck building over 60 m high dykes in future

[Anonymous No.11206621]

>>11206437

California’s climate makes it a tinderbox from before modernity. That’s what happens when you get very wet winters and long, totally dry summers.

[Anonymous No.11206654]

>>11206563
>agricultural yields
that is so. fucking. cool.
just googled some of the stuff and seems to be legit. but now i have a few questions
doesn't this cost a lot of energy(as in energy and as in woirk effort/time) to do all these measurements and keeping a close eye on everything?
what do you use as soil? is it literally just dirt from outside ?
how do you deal with soil depletion? do you still use fertilizer or some other methods?
how many people could be fed on earth if all the nations would use such high tech mehtods for food growing ?

[Anonymous No.11206834]

>>11206621
as a result of climate change almost all northern regions get this climate, Alaska, Germany, Canada, Scandinavia, Russia everybody now lives in a tinderbox

[Anonymous No.11206837]

>>11202328
based big brain anon.

[Anonymous No.11206843]

>>11206548
It's more like 50 meters, but this will take centuries. So you got time to build 50 meter tall dykes. Or claim asylum in Germany.

[Anonymous No.11206844]

>>11204029
>the vast majority
Your country or your cherry picked pages and articles do not represent the "vast majority" of the world's food production.

[Anonymous No.11206853]

>>11204476
I hate everything about your post because its true.

[Anonymous No.11206854]

>>11206654
>doesn't this cost a lot of energy(as in energy and as in woirk effort/time) to do all these measurements and keeping a close eye on everything?
Yes but it's a one-time investment. You just make these systems one time and you can scale it up. It's monitored using a database so it's not like you have to walk the field and look at every plant. Instead you look at your screen and you can look at the current situation as well as a graph of how the soil looks over time.
>what do you use as soil? is it literally just dirt from outside ?
Depends on the crop of course. It's specialized soil that uses confidential admixtures that are trade secrets.
>how do you deal with soil depletion? do you still use fertilizer or some other methods?
There's no soil depletion in modern greenhouses as we put the precise mixture of chemicals in the soil to make that certain crop grow as efficiently as possible. It's completely different from classical agriculture which is just putting seeds in the ground and then fertilize it with some water and maybe pesticides from time to time.
>how many people could be fed on earth if all the nations would use such high tech mehtods for food growing?
Considering only about 30% of the netherlands is farmland and we can currently provide 40% of the global population with the calories they need I think we could theoretically feed trillions of people.

It's one of the main reasons why I also don't believe in overpopulation or some sort of food collapse.

This modern method of farming is also resistant to climate change because the crops and animals are already mostly reared in artificial habitats such as greenhouses. The climate change won't impact these crops because the crops aren't grown in nature but in artificially crafted habitats instead.

There won't be any type of collapse. At least not due to water shortages or food security. And I think these 2 things are the most important parts to keep a society running.

[Anonymous No.11206862]

>>11206437

>california
>white

[Anonymous No.11206863]

This threaf just proves that everyone that talks against Global warming and climate change do not back up their claims and talk about race out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.11206865]

Greed is the Great Filter.

[Anonymous No.11206915]

>>11206865
No such thing as great filter. We're just the very first species that reached this point.

[Anonymous No.11207002]

>>11206854
interesting.
do you know anything about how ressource intensive the process of creating that specialized soil is?
also do you know anything about how efficiently the plants can absorb the sun light ? from what i have heard even energy crops only get to very small overall efficiency in converting sun light into chemical energy. but with better conditions concerning soil, temperature etc. that efficiency should rise right? do you have any rough numbers for that ?

>And I think these 2 things are the most important parts to keep a society running
well and energy. we will always need energy. and i think energy is also the key to unlocking
water and food like pretty much any other ressource too.

[Anonymous No.11207003]

>>11206915
so time is the great filter?

[Anonymous No.11207035]

>>11207002
>do you know anything about how resource intensive the process of creating that specialized soil is?
Pretty resource intensive but it's less resource intensive than using a lot of soil. Because if you improve the yields you can use relatively little soil to get a lot of produce. Not to mention that using a smaller area means you need fewer land so you can locate your farms closer to cities or transport hubs so you can save on transportation costs.
>also do you know anything about how efficiently the plants can absorb the sun light ? from what i have heard even energy crops only get to very small overall efficiency in converting sun light into chemical energy. but with better conditions concerning soil, temperature etc. that efficiency should rise right? do you have any rough numbers for that ?
Yes we actually tackle this from the other side. In hydroponics we just use LED lighting that only emits light in the spectrum that they will convert to save on energy bills. We also pressurize the air with more CO2 than normal air somewhere betweeon 600 to 800 parts per million while natural air has around 400 parts per million now. This seems to be the range where photosynthesis seems to be most efficient.

Things like GMOs are also promising as it opens up the ability to supercharge photosynthesis and accelerate the growth rate of plants.

Yes I agree with energy being a barrier but there's no indication of us going to have less energy to use in the future. Most collapse scenarios revolve around water or food shortage. I remember the early 2000s peak oil fears but that is becoming less and less of a thing as we have found enough oil to last hundreds of years and we are becoming less and less dependent on fossil fuels by the day.

Even if humanity fucks up with climate change it will not result in the collapse of society. What will happen is that nature will slowly die and humans will slowly over time start living more and more in artificial habitats.

[Anonymous No.11207048]

>>11202408
kek imagine having such blind faith

[Anonymous No.11207051]

>>11207035
is this type of soil production sustainable ? is the "used" soil captured and refurbished or how does this work?
is it really more effizient to capture sunlight with PV cells and then light the plants with a specific light spectrum? i know that plants only need a specific spectrum but does that roundtrip with the PV cells and leds really pay?

yea i pretty much agree with you. i don't even think that we will have to live in habitats. but we will have to start relying on solar power more and that will be a challenge. but nothing impossible to do or something

[Anonymous No.11207054]

>>11204029
>The vast majority of global crop yields are already done in artificial hydroponic systems.
Post proof, cause this sound like a pretty obvious lie

>nationalgeographic
Paywall

[Anonymous No.11207056]

>>11204055
>water is running out
>you religious moron!!
>but I prophesi that water isn't running out!!

[Anonymous No.11207057]

>>11202293
Rainforests and large urban areas seem to sprout in the warmer wetter areas, and I hear melting ice caps mean more water. let's do it, let's heat up this bitch. Everyone loves more people for some reason, right?

[Anonymous No.11207066]

>>11206548
> Even if all ice in the world melts the sea level will only raise 3 extra meters
Who the hell have you been listening to actually believe something so utterly wrong. If all the ice melts, the rise in sea level will be about 70 fucking meters, you god damned ignorant retard

[Anonymous No.11207068]

>>11204928
>there is just an inherent problem with the nuclear waste. not that we can't deal with it at all, it's just difficult to deal with it.

Nuclear waste is not a real problem and it isn’t difficult to deal with.

Throw it in the ground, where we mined the uranium from in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11207070]

>>11205059
>human industrial power has relied on fossil fuels a lot

We can continue using fossil fuels until it’s no longer economically viable to harvest them while nullifying global warming by purposefully emitting aerosol pollution.

[Anonymous No.11207074]

>>11206620
>all things considered, you'd get a rise of around 60 meters. good luck building over 60 m high dykes in future

That’s actually a trivial feat of engineering, especially when sea levels that high are literally impossible for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.11207075]

>>11206563
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities
>control f "netherlands"
0 results
Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.11207079]

>>11207048
Faith in the power of humanity to dominate and control nature is anything but blind. It’s what we’ve been doing for about five thousand years now.

[Anonymous No.11207081]

>>11206588
What sort of "scientific discussion" is actually going on here anon? You're in a daycare center for narcissists suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.

[Anonymous No.11207084]

>>11207051
The soil is "recaptured" as much as possible one of the main tricks is to get the chemical balance as precise as possible. The more precise the balance the less chemical re-adjusting it needs every harvest. But yeah you need to add chemical nutrients back into the soil after every harvest. At least right now but this is an area undergoing rapid improvement and a lot of low hanging fruit that can still be picked. I don't know the specifics because I don't personally work on this soil.

>is it really more effizient to capture sunlight with PV cells and then light the plants with a specific light spectrum?
We do it so that we can intensify the light in that spectrum. Normal sunlight isn't as powerful (in these bands) as artificial light. It also allows 24/7 lighting as well as laying a foundation that could in the long-term be more efficient and scalable than relying on sunlight. The entire effort is basically to decouple agriculture from the whims of nature like how cloudy it is or the amount of rainfall that happens and make it completely controllable.

Of course due to the low efficiency of current PV cells it isn't efficient but as our PV cell power efficiency goes up it's obviously the best long-term solution. There are also harmful effects of light outside of the spectrum that the plant uses that you should take into consideration. If EU laws wasn't as strict on GMO we would be a lot farther in this area.

[Anonymous No.11207085]

>>11207056
>We’re somehow running out of water even though water covers most of Earth’s surface miles deep

Is there a giant bathtub drain sucking all the water into a wormhole I haven’t heard about?

[Anonymous No.11207095]

>>11207075
https://dutchreview.com/news/innovation/how-the-netherlands-remains-second-largest-agriculture-exporter-in-the-world/

Basically it's because the netherlands decide to produce everything instead of focusing on individual crops so they are #2 in the world even though they aren't the leader in any specific crops.

[Anonymous No.11207100]

>>11207085
Crop irrigation is largely done using ground water because rain isn't sufficient. This groundwater is rapidly being depleted by many major agricultural regions.
Not to mention that rainfall patters and changing, adding flocks of black swans here and there.

[Anonymous No.11207103]

>>11207079
>It’s what we’ve been doing for about five thousand years now.
Except that most civilizations have actually fallen and now we're destroying the basis of ours. Maybe technology will save us, but that's one hell of a bet to make.

[Anonymous No.11207112]

>>11206581
The problem with that place is that's just a collapse focused echo chamber. They don't actually evaluate the potential solutions, instead they dismiss them as "hopium."

[Anonymous No.11207113]

>>11207068
its long term radioactivity makes throwing it in the ground a risky procedure. In germany there is an old mine called "Asse II" where they essentially just -threw the radioactive waste underground- and now look what it got us. describing is as dumping makes it seam so easy but in reallity you have to make sure that none of that material comes back in even 100 000 years. At that time scale you have to consider geological processes. what do you think why nations take decades to find geologically suitable dumping sites and still didn't find any suitable sites in most nations? it is a very complicated matter and dealing with it safely is what makes its long term handling difficult.

[Anonymous No.11207116]

>>11207074
well i wouldn't call it trivial. 60 meter high walls across thousands of kilometers that need to be maintained is a big challenge. i mean sure its possible but one structural weakness and you destroy pretty much all of the netherlands.

[Anonymous No.11207123]

>>11207103
>Except that most civilizations have actually fallen

Very few civilizations ever actually fell. The only examples I can name are Norte Chico and the North American moundbuilders. Other strains of civilization, like that which began in Mesopotamia and China, continued linearly into the future and still exist, even though many states annexed other states and fractured into yet more states over that time, so I’d say that you have confused or conflated states and civilizations. The extent and power of modern civilization dwarfs any and all prior forms of civilization in the extreme, and little could threaten us aside from large meteor impacts and super volcanic eruptions. Even those threats are conceivably defeatable.

[Anonymous No.11207127]

>>11207035
Do you guys use glass panels for all those greenhouses?

[Anonymous No.11207133]

>>11207113
>its long term radioactivity makes throwing it in the ground a risky procedure

Oh no, maybe the worms will mutate, become giant, and attack cities. Radiation is a paper tiger, and even Chernobyl is perfectly safe to live in.

> but in reallity you have to make sure that none of that material comes back in even 100 000 years.

If you want the stuff gone so badly, bury it in a subduction zone. Geology will carry it down into the mantle.

[Anonymous No.11207136]

>>11207095
Interesting article, thanks.
I'm wondering though what the limiting factors of this kind of food production might be if applied to very large scales. For example, it's pretty energy intensive, so will there be enough materials needed for solar panels. Or is there enough of the right quality sand in the world to make all so many greenhouse panels? Or will the limiting factor be the depletion of phosphate rock?

[Anonymous No.11207141]

>>11207116
> well i wouldn't call it trivial. 60 meter high walls across thousands of kilometers that need to be maintained is a big challenge.

When that construction takes place over thousands of years, it is trivial. At that scale, you could just raise the rest of the Netherlands up or leave it and go inland. I doubt it will be very labor intensive for whatever the hell passes for humanity’s descendants in 15000 CE. Cybernetic centipedes or something.

[Anonymous No.11207142]

>>11207085
i think its about clean water. getting clean water costs energy and money

[Anonymous No.11207144]

>>11207100
> This groundwater is rapidly being depleted by many major agricultural regions.

Where does the water go??? Presumably we eat the plants and piss it out. Treat the stuff and reuse it for agriculture.

[Anonymous No.11207145]

>>11207133
do oyu think people didn't consider this? that comes with other problems
and its not only about worms bat about radioactive water for example that could bubble up in thousand years and start irradiationg densly populated areas. risks like these are no joke

[Anonymous No.11207152]

>>11207141
also building this thing costs a lot of money and keeping it too. also in the worst case the time span would be more like a few hundret years.
but sure over 1000s of years it would be possible but raising these dykes 3 m or so every century is already pretty costly and the cost rises with higher dykes

[Anonymous No.11207153]

>>11207144
right but that costs energy and money. and treating it in such vast quantities in which we need the stuff is pretty hard. thats why people desprately fight over the existing reservoirs

[Anonymous No.11207156]

>>11207145
>do oyu think people didn't consider this? that comes with other problems

Name one.

> and its not only about worms bat about radioactive water for example that could bubble up in thousand years and start irradiationg densly populated areas. risks like these are no joke

1. Bury it above the water table.
2. Bury it under the water table.
3. Put it somewhere that no one lives like we already do.
4. Ignore the problem and let the mutant techno-barbarians of 3019 solve the issue

[Anonymous No.11207175]

>>11207144
>Where does the water go???
Most of it just drains into the oceans or evaporates after being sprayed on fields.

[Anonymous No.11207176]

>>11207175
That’s a waste that sounds like it could be prevented by growing the plants in greenhouses. Either way, we need more desalination plants.

[Anonymous No.11207184]

>>11207176
Sure, if you have unlimited energy and materials.

[Anonymous No.11207186]

>>11204260
Right, just ignore Cincinattus, Lee Kuan Yew, and many others.

[Anonymous No.11207187]

>>11207184
We don’t need unlimited energy and materials to make some glass boxes.

[Anonymous No.11207191]

>>11206563
Based. Technical agriculture can produce far more food than people realized. Taiwan could become completely agriculturally self sufficient, even though it has a population nearly as high as Australia's.

[Anonymous No.11207220]

>>11207187
We do need a whole lot of them.

[Anonymous No.11207222]

>>11207156
>Name one.
how about radioactive volcanos. also especially in these regions there is large geological activity, meaning there is a higher probability that some of that stuff comes back up.

>4. Ignore the problem and let the mutant techno-barbarians of 3019 solve the issue
lulz. but srsly where are we already doing it ? i know there are some plans for doing it in finnland but did they already start burying this stuff?
also nuclear fission comes with the problem of safety. there can always be some problems. and even if they plan on building inherently safe power plants, there is no guarantee that it is safe. now there is obviously never a guarantee of safety but in the past scientists already tried building inherently safe nuclear power plants and in the end they were not. i will only believe some shit about inherently safe power plants if they actually build them, not before that.

[Anonymous No.11207228]

>>11207084
another question:
where are the limits of these possibilities ? what can you grow in greenhouses? corn? wheat? tomatos,potatos, herbs, fruits vegetables? how about trees? is there any research being done in that direction?

[Anonymous No.11207245]

>>11207156
>1. Bury it above the water table.
>2. Bury it under the water table.
see thats the problem. things like that change over geological time scales so it isn't quite that easy

[Anonymous No.11207248]

>>11204476
There's no preventing climate change. It was coming sooner or later and all this talk of prevention is pointless. If tundra is thawing we are already fucked. The actual research should be going into how we deal with the repercussions.

[Anonymous No.11207252]

>>11207248
its all aquestion of how much you want to prevent and how much you want to adapt. obv you cant prevent everything because it already happend partly but also obv it is also possible to prevent some change because literally one co2 mmolecule less means we prevented some change. why do i say that stupid sentence? it proves my point.

[Anonymous No.11207262]

>>11206437
California was settled during a wet period and is historically a much drier territory. Nobody gives a Fuck about Australia.

[Anonymous No.11207263]

>>11207222
>how about radioactive volcanos. also especially in these regions there is large geological activity, meaning there is a higher probability that some of that stuff comes back up.

Stuff that goes into subduction zones is totally fucking gone. It becomes part of the mantle and has a possibility of returning to the surface millions of years in the future through volcanos and mid-ocean ridges, but by that time it will be significantly decayed and diffused to all hell. I’d have taken possible small amounts of radioactivity millions of years from now over frying my ass off in the immediate future with greenhouse gasses. Anyway, reactor designs exist that can burn the nuclear waste itself.

[Anonymous No.11207273]

>>11207127
They are special glass that can change transparency based on how much electric current is run through them so you can dim the amount of light you let through/out. You can use this to increase or decrease the temperature inside the greenhouse. But yeah it's a type of glass.

>>11207136
You could most likely make those panels from plastic composites as well if you really wanted to. As far as I know solar panels are mostly silicon which is one of the most abundant materials on the planet so that will most likely not be a problem. There's a lot of research into replacing phosphates in agriculture. That is one of the main benefits with high yield farming. Less land means fewer phosphates are needed. GMO might also help with this in the future.

>>11207228
Well the limits are that everything within the greenhouse needs to be around the same temperature so you don't want to have different crops sitting in the same greenhouse.

Size is also a limitation of course. Having trees grow in greenhouses would be a big limitation. About herbs, yeah funfact most of the oldest greenhouse techniques were invented to grow weed indoors in the 1960s and 1970s to avoid police detection. You can thank stoners for kickstarting this agricultural revolution.

The Netherlands wants to become the "Silicon valley" of agriculture and eventually become the world leader that dominates the market of agriculture so there's a lot of money thrown behind it by the government right now. It's very obvious this is the future of farming. Just like most factory workers are now Engineers and logistical scientists so will farming be a field for engineers and scientists in the future as well. We just started early because of the government putting billions of euros behind it in a big push.

[Anonymous No.11207297]

>>11204860
Still loads of relatively easily accessible coal in the UK deliberately left underground, and loads of potential wind power. If things went to shit you can bet Yorkshiremen would be back down t'pit to usher in a steampunk age and there'd be windmills everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11207310]

>>11204450
> Whites want economic prosperity
> Africa pays the price
So same old story?

[Anonymous No.11207312]

>>11204860
>First the oil will run out
Will take 600 years at current consumption assuming we won't find new oil deposits or develop a new technology to extract unconventional oil like shale
>Then the uranium will run out
Fast breeder power plants will be able to provide the world with power for 400 years
>then mass starvation and war over the last caches of fuel and food
Or in the almost 1000 years we have left on conventional fuels we will figure out fusion power and will have billions of years of fuel left due to the deuterium in salt water.

Energy will NEVER be a problem for humanity.

[Anonymous No.11207330]

>>11207312
It’s a misanthropic fantasy produced by depression and personal failure. They should do mushrooms

[Anonymous No.11207362]

>>11207112
Sounds like r/braincels. A closed group of xenophobic depressed people who pull eachother down.

[Anonymous No.11207365]

>>11207263
you'd think so but the top layers of subduction plates tend to curl back out and form volcanos. so if you just dum the stuff there then will likely just come back. and even if you dig deap enough so thats not a problem, these zones tend to be very hot and filled with a lot of hot fluids. so its a pretty harsh environment in general and that too can lead to some of the trash coming out sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous No.11207372]

>>11207222
Fun fact, every nuclear disaster and near disaster was caused by a human operator getting between the computer and the safety mechanisms. In the case of three mile and chernobyl the operators in question were originally trained on naval reactors that have very different characteristics than a big ass power plant.

[Anonymous No.11207391]

>>11207312
i find it bold of you to assume consumption rates stay constant. im not sure about all the different kinds of fossil fuels but for coal if you extrapolate using the growth rate present from 1900 to 2000 then you will find that coal runs out somwhere in 2100 not in 600 years. i suspect that the situation is similar for other fossil ressources.

But 1. we are actually slowing down in our usage of fossil fuels, so you might be right to some extend and 2. before we run out of fossil fuels we get pretty large problems with climate change

[Anonymous No.11207395]

>>11207312
but none the less there are other energy ressources than oil, coal and natural gas. so we will always have a means of getting our hands on fossil fuels

[Anonymous No.11207399]

>>11207395
energy i mean. jesus fuck my brain just turned off

[Anonymous No.11207403]

>>11202394
>mobilize their entire economy to do one thing because it needs done to protect the regime

Good thing all they have to do is to take the vast thawing tundra directly north of them

[Anonymous No.11207439]

>>11207391
>but for coal if you extrapolate using the growth rate present from 1900 to 2000 then you will find that coal runs out somwhere in 2100 not in 600 years. i suspect that the situation is similar for other fossil ressources.

Our population is plateauing, technological improvements reveal more deposits and make known deposits economically viable to exploit.

[Anonymous No.11207444]

>>11207439
even if, the climate problem is´ still there

[Anonymous No.11207487]

>>11207439
>tfw exploiting space based resources completely floods the market and you have to transition to a supply side resource based economics
>heavy industry, agriculture, and exploitation of resources is all done off world
>literally the only thing left to do on earth is ecological repair and solving social and cultural issues now that basic needs can be met for a pittance
The trick is surviving long enough as a technological species to get there, and until a real resource crunch happens, there's no pressing motive to do it.

[Anonymous No.11207512]

>>11204260
Any autocracy is more efficient, any time, any place.
Not only that but a natural alliance is created automatically between the autocrat the common people, against special interests.

This is the reason why special interests want democracy at any cost; it is the only way they can control society.

[Anonymous No.11207529]

>>11207512
Bullshit, bulshit you just said bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11207533]

>>11207512
This might fly on other boards like /pol/ but the average people on /sci/ is well read enough to know this is complete bull.

Every type of government system has its upsides and downsides. The perfect system would be one that changes government system whenever that switch is needed.

During times of decline, crisis or war autocracy is the more efficient form of government. During times of growth, peace or innovation democracy is the more efficient form of government.

You can actually provide this if you make a game theory matrix of all interest groups and what their default plays would be in each of these scenarios. You'd come up with capitalist individuals eating themselves up during times of decline. And demographic interest groups trying to exclude others through democracy.

But during innovating and growth times (which human society has been since the 1850s) the interest groups would try to maximize wealth acquisition and the most efficient way to do so in this time is by educating and enriching the average person so that they can generate wealth for society. Thus it's a win-win feedback loop which democracy is very conductive towards.

Therefor if you wanted to have the perfect system you should try to codify that democracy should only be used in Scenario A. And that Autocracy should be used in Scenario B.

Problem is Autocrats almost never voluntarily return power which is why the Roman Republic eventually became a Roman Empire. The Romans understood that under certain situations you needed to be a autocracy and under others you needed to be a democracy to maximize the progress of a society.

I recommend Machiavelli's the Prince if you are interested in this notion of when to use certain government systems.

[Anonymous No.11207632]

>>11207487
I’d rather turn earth into an ecumenopolis. Fuck nature.

[Anonymous No.11207641]

>>11207632
>I’d rather turn earth into an ecumenopolis
As cool as they are, they're very impractical.
Caves of steel megacities/archologies on the other hand.
Also if you're just going to live in hives, might as well dig into continental shields and on the ocean floor.

[Anonymous No.11207743]

>>11202293
3 things will happen with us, humanity will adapt to the new climate, leave Earth and find a new home or died, but most likely we will adapt, even if it will cost us a huge number of lives

[Anonymous No.11208017]

Literally what is the downside to civilisation collapsing? Sure, short term it'll be bad and I'll probably die, but in the long-run it'll be beneficial for the planet and we can start again and do things better next time. I say keep on all the lights, ramp up the oil production to 11, leave your TV on standby: accelerate the process!

[Anonymous No.11208035]

>>11207512
Autocracy is only efficient if it has enough supporters, otherwise you have to spend 80% of state resources just to keep your small govt cabal from getting assassinated. Look at China, it has to have a large number of supporters in the bureaucracy to support it, ANY autocracy does not have that kind of support. Ancient monarchies had the support of the people through spiritual rewards and military protection. China would cannibalize itself without it's thousands of supporting state actors and citizens who support it.

[Anonymous No.11208116]

>>11207070
Aerosols wind de-acidify the oceans.....

Solving the warming issue is a band aid over a deep wound.

[Anonymous No.11208187]

>>11207070
well geo engineering is currently poorly understood and might have dangerous side effects, so i believe a more desirable solution would certainly be to find other energy sources before we have to rely on something like that. also there are other problems that do not purely come from temperature like ocean acidification. or by changing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere drastically there could be large stresses on eco systems because the entire plant world is turned around. Because some plants suddenly have better groth rates and better chances of survival than others, the balance in eco systems can be disturbed, which can also lead to a loss of biodiversity.

[Anonymous No.11208192]

>>11207273
>There's a lot of research into replacing phosphates in agriculture
Could you elaborate a little bit on this? What sort of alternative phosphorous sources are they looking at?

[Anonymous No.11208194]

>>11207743
what about humanity will adapt the climate itself or not change it drastically at all?

[Anonymous No.11208199]

civilization will collapse one way or another
haven't you been to history class?

[Anonymous No.11208200]

>>11207312
>Will take 600 years at current consumption assuming we won't find new oil deposits
This isn't even remotely true.

[Anonymous No.11208201]

>>11208017
i don't think that we would change much. see assuming the civilization would collaps and the co2 and temperature would slowly go back down before we start industrializing again. In the beginning there would be no incentive to be environmentally friendly and the entire process would start again. also a collaps would bring great misery and that is inherently undesirable

[Anonymous No.11208202]

The Roman Empire collapsed largely due to climatic changes. This is the first time that such an empire of such scale is able to anticipate its own demise. Either it can act on its prediction, or it will fail. This the first test in history whether anticipation can predict avoidance of failure.

[Anonymous No.11208204]

>>11207362
There's definitely a lot of depression in that place. But they don't just uncritically accept clickbait doom-porn either. It's a good place to go if you want some idea of what the absolute worst case for humanity's future could be (just make sure you bring your grains of salt).

[Anonymous No.11208207]

>>11208199
well not necessarily. usually in history when a civilization collapsed somewhere, there were still civilizations left elswhere. so if we spread to space before the civilization on earth collapses, then other civilizations in space can kickstart civilizations on earth after the collapse. the larger the entire civilization, the less likely a total collapse is

[Anonymous No.11208387]

>>11204051

[Anonymous No.11208558]

>>11208116
Treating the symptoms is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.11208565]

>>11208387
>the water isn’t in this river so it’s all gone now!!!

Literally in the clouds.

[Anonymous No.11208574]

>>11208187
>so i believe a more desirable solution would certainly be to find other energy sources before we have to rely on something like that.

Not happening until it’s economically viable unless a technocratic dictatorship takes over.

> also there are other problems that do not purely come from temperature like ocean acidification

We can geoengineer that too. I’ve de-acidified solutions hundreds of times.

[Anonymous No.11208595]

>>11206563
Agriculture is dependent on fertilizer and irrigation inputs that aren't sustainable. Also soil erosion is a serious problem in most agricultural regions of the world.

[Anonymous No.11208618]

>>11204481
>Implying an uncommonly ungodly winter didn't save Russia
>implying he declared war on the USA
Say what you will, evil or not, he dragged a beleaguered nation out of an submissively weak government and out from under Europe's heel and put it back on top. What have you done
>inb4 I was a nice guy who dindu noffin

[Anonymous No.11208620]

>>11208565
https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/07/16/wildfires-above-the-arctic-circle-in-greenland-and-alaska/

[Anonymous No.11208637]

>>11204260
Dictatorships are more efficient by default, you retard. Why do you think there is any sort of centralisation in the first place? Why do you think we have REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY instead of actual democracy?

I am so fucking tired of seeing you fucking BRAINLET RETARDS POST WITHOUT THINKING. KILL YOURSELF, you worthless fucking NIGGER.

[Anonymous No.11208642]

>>11207533
>but the average people on /sci/ is well read enough

Just because a hypothetical autist from /sci/ is well-versed in mathematics and/or some natural science does not mean they have any sort of advantage in humanitarian fields.


Your fail to miss one thing: the downside of autocracy is not efficiency, but the possible decline to tyranny. A benevolent dictator is always preferable to a democracy.

[Anonymous No.11208644]

>>11204476
this
>>11202303
based
fuck application.
Applied math is the the ugliest most bastard shit I've ever seen.
Remember when niggas used to just enjoy that shit? shit around thinking?
>>11202293
>will civilization collapse?
I can only dream
>>11202377
When will money and dogmatism stop raping math and science?
>>11202405
t. wouldn't make it
then stop contributing to carbon emissions
consumers are basically the ones to blame.
supply is based off demand, not the other way around.
>>11202415
>own the bankers
>bankers cannot influence you
Shit i'ma say based
>>11204055
LOL look at this religious dogmatist. lmao religious cucks are at it again
>>11204248
>>11204251
kek LMAO
>>11204281
Germany lost because Germans were retarded, and had shitty plans.
>>11204433
allah will save us, and the rise from the masculine spics and nogs will rebirth masculinity in america and europe.

[Anonymous No.11208660]

>>11206437
>already causing stronger fires floods, storms and crop failures
kek

[Anonymous No.11208665]

>>11204450
>Basically all white countries will be fine and even benefit from global warming.
There we go

[Anonymous No.11208829]

>>11208665
This map elicits skepticism

[Anonymous No.11208848]

>>11208665
today:
usa 100
canada 10
total 110

tomorrow
usa 50
canada 15
total 65

wow that canada's 50% improvement reeeeally helped
thanks trump

[Anonymous No.11208859]

>>11208644
>then stop contributing to carbon emissions

Carbon emissions are necessary for civilization to exist. You’re just gonna have to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11208868]

>>11208859
>Carbon emissions are necessary for civilization to exist. You’re just gonna have to deal with it.
wrong.
you're going to have to deal with being wrong.
(and don't be a retard and consider metabolic carbon emission)

[Anonymous No.11209067]

>>11208595
>soil erosion is a serious problem in most agricultural regions of the world.
this, it's what sunk the romans, their fertile hills eroded

[Anonymous No.11209096]

Our country is destroyed by earthquakes before global warming.

http://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp/hypomap/?ft=1&LANG=en

[Anonymous No.11209110]

>>11208848
hmm Canada will easier have a higher GDP by then, also even Mongola will have a higher GDP than America, this is all per capita obviously

[Anonymous No.11209129]

>>11209110
wew lad
>american education, folks

[Anonymous No.11209138]

>>11209129
http://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

[Anonymous No.11209150]

economics wise the future will probably reflect an inverse gradient with who got landed with the most africans

[Anonymous No.11209328]

>>11208574
>Not happening until it’s economically viable
it is becoming viable right now. i mean prices of renewables are already competing with other sources. we already are in midst a change.

>We can geoengineer that too
yea but it comes with risks. some unforseen consequences might let the engineered ecosystems tip over. just look at examples like the cane toad, that were deliberately introduced to balance something in the ecosystem and then it had unforeseen consequences and caused a lot of damages

[Anonymous No.11209364]

>>11209138
yeah, still means that 100%=today
>retard

[Anonymous No.11209382]

>>11204884
delusional lmfao

[Anonymous No.11209454]

>>11207533
>muh game theory
You only have to look at the results of Democracy over the past 100 years to see that it has very rarely served the interests of anyone except the very wealthy. I don't know if an autocracy would be better (and it's a moot point since there is no immediate way to break the current "democratic" system), but the existing track record is not good.

[Anonymous No.11210434]

>>11209382
lol i'd call it healthy optimism not delusional but sure pull us all down with your depressive mood

[Anonymous No.11211394]

>>11209138
If can't tell that this paper is unmitigated bullshit then you're probably not very bright at all anon.

[Anonymous No.11211408]

>>11209138
>doesn't take ANY effects on ecology into account
>doesn't take changes in rainfall patters into account
>doesn't take extreme weather into account
>doesn't take the loss of major rivers from melting glaciers into account
>doesn't take the fact that Canada has shit low quality, thin soils for most it's surface into account
>doesn't take forest fires into account
>doesn't take the breakdown of the jet-stream into account
>doesn't take ocean acidification into account
>doesn't take fisheries collapse into account

On the positive (for Canada):
>doesn't take oil exploration in the noth into account
>doesn't take the opening of trade routes in the north into account
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with this garbage.

[Anonymous No.11211491]

>>11204053
Energy is cheap enough to make desalination a viable water-harvesting method in the near future. Current costs are $3-$4 per 1,000 gallons. Cheap enough for any western nation. How do you think all of those desert nations survive?

The other end of it it being more water-efficient with agriculture and industry. Water shortages aren't going to happen in any area with access to technology. Third-world shitholes notwithstanding.

[Anonymous No.11211577]

>>11204481

[Anonymous No.11211602]

>>11211577
Saved. Thank you anon, loved reading that.

[Anonymous No.11211637]

>>11204044
nibba you better not be assuming groundwater is an infinite resource in them projections

[Anonymous No.11211645]

>>11202293
There's 7 billion living people at the moment. Even if 99% of humanity die, there would still be more people alive than during the 1500th century, and that 1% would have incredible knowledge knowledge in comparison.

Civilization might collapse though

[Anonymous No.11211653]

>>11204034
We know how to desalinate water. It's just not economical yet.

[Anonymous No.11211964]

>>11211653
good luck desalinating dry sand

[Anonymous No.11212044]

>>11211964
Do you really think that the pacific, the atlantic, the indian and the south chinese oceans will dry up in the next 500 years?

[Anonymous No.11212048]

>>11202293
LOL i missed my opportunity but i'll make a fpbp post anyway:

who the fuk cares lol

[Anonymous No.11212059]

>>11202328
based bayesian prior

[Anonymous No.11212148]

>>11204214
cringe

[Anonymous No.11212160]

>>11212148
>m-muh feelings
hollowhead

[Anonymous No.11212446]

>>11204053
> Do you really think someone would do that? Go on the internet and tell lies?
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/dashboards/#/water-storages/summary/state

[Anonymous No.11213405]

Civilization collapse is a meme.

[Anonymous No.11213410]

>>11204029
There's already mass migration occurring over lowered and failed crop yields in the MENA region, South and Central America, and Southern Asia

[Anonymous No.11213418]

>>11211577
>Look at what this other retard said years ago

[Anonymous No.11213444]

>>11213405
Ancient Rome?

[Anonymous No.11213536]

>>11213444
Never happened. Western Rome was annexed by others states. Civilization has almost never collapsed except in a handful of places like Norte Chico

[Jesus the Devil the Third No.11213550]

>>11213444
Implanted false memories. Ancient Rome never existed.

[Anonymous No.11213970]

>>11213550
In fact, nothing exists yet. Our memories are currently being initialized and loaded so our universe can come into being.

[Anonymous No.11213974]

>>11213405
You're a meme

[Anonymous No.11214585]

>>11207123
Easter island civ?

[Anonymous No.11214642]

We just had a talk by a geophysicist and meteorologist instead of our regular stat physics class and hr went on to give a long and boring talk about climate models. He basically had to admit that the current predictions for a doubling in CO2 since pre industrial times in temperature change are between 1.5 and 4.5 K difference because we have so little understanding of how clouds work and behave... Basically means that we will could have barely any more rise in temperature or a completely catastrophic one that would actually render a large part of the globe uninhabitable.
How anyone can use these results to do any form of politics is beyond me. They literally have no fucking clue whats gonna happen but they will happily call for meat taxes and that the people in the countryside should stop using their cars and switch to trains that don't exist...

[Anonymous No.11214657]

>>11208637
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.11214978]

This century will most likely be kino. The next one will most definitely be kino.

[Anonymous No.11214982]

>>11214642
>The possibilty exists this thing won't end in complete disaster
>So let's continue with business as usual

[Anonymous No.11215005]

>>11214982
>Lol just ignore our massive errorbars. That data is perfectly fit to make real world decisions with!
The point is that we should maybe consider that it wont be so bad after all before we tax the shit out of gas and meat and invest massively in unproven technologies. If CO2 wont fuck us over in the end, were gonna regret plastering every free space with PV and wind turbines and dumping the garbage everywhere else.
Claiming that "the science is settled" is massively dishonest and every researcher who does it just to push an agenda they feel is right should not be called so.

[Anonymous No.11215027]

>>11214585
Oh yeah, that’s another example.
Didn’t they chop down all the trees and not replant them or something idiotic like that?

[Anonymous No.11215073]

>>11215005
>we're gonna regret switching to objectively cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy
?

[Anonymous No.11215080]

>>11204260
also, are you retarded? The USSR could have existed to this very day, the only thing that brought it down was not being a dictatorship, it was economic mismanagement. If the USSR had pulled a China, they could have still existed, being even more repressive then before.

More over, imagine if the National Socialist government was applied to the USA, look at what Germany did by itself, now imagine if Hitler had something like the entire USA at his disposal.

[Anonymous No.11215103]

>>11214978
This. Whatever happens next, this is definitely an incredibly exciting time to live in. I feel like things have never been so uncertain for the future of humanity. There are so many directions we can head for right now. Which one we will choose, that's the question.

[Anonymous No.11215119]

>>11204051
>the thing that literally falls from the sky is running out
If every house in major cities had a roofwater collection system you'd not only be able to supply the entire population but you'd also have enough for hydroponics. That is not entirely true in deserts but the greening of deserts should be the main focus of humanity right now, and trees actually cause more rainfall, which in term permits more trees

[Anonymous No.11216917]

>>11202293
it would be smarter to stop global warming

[Anonymous No.11217248]

>>11208642

>the downside of autocracy is not efficiency

It blatantly is, as we know from the abysmal failure of autocratic fascist and socialist republics throughout the 20th century.

> decline to tyranny

An inherent symptom of autocracies which can be observed as slippery slopes through all of history, because

>A benevolent dictator is always preferable to a democracy

ONLY from the standpoint of the privileged/empowered demographic, which is almost ALWAYS a minority.

Autocratic apologists merely yearn for an autocracy where they are amongst the elite/beneficiary demographic, and to hell with anyone else.

>mathematics and/or some natural science

Are relatively rigid branches of philosphy, whereas mere ideology is a subjective shitshow. Understanding objective truths and proofing equips one with the skill set to better assess ideologies.

[Anonymous No.11217267]

Yes
/thread

[Anonymous No.11217270]

>>11202293
not if i am still around.

[Anonymous No.11217271]

>>11212059
lolled

[Anonymous No.11217275]

>>11204406
>France fought all alone and wasn't allied with the biggest empire in the world.
Trying to rationalize how pathetic the allied forces were will never not be funny. Germany had fewer tanks, men, guns and inferior equipment. Yet they still blew France and the UK away through esprit de corps, operational and tactical superiority.

[Anonymous No.11217324]

>>11217248
>ONLY from the standpoint of the privileged/empowered demographic

There doesn’t have to be one.

[Anonymous No.11217326]

>>11217275
Germany still lost, so nothing else really matters.

[Anonymous No.11217357]

>>11202293
>Will the world be able to deal with global warming
Sure, just permit geoengineering.

>>11202303
It sure isn't real science.

>>11202394
Trouble is, they earn billions n CO2 quotas while expanding coal fired power stations massively. They plan on surviving by massive executions.

[Anonymous No.11217363]

>>11204438
So we are to believe that already depraved total desert countries with near zero GDP is going to be massively worse off? Can't you see how implausible this is?

[Anonymous No.11217369]

>>11206097
>I submit completely and unquestioningly to any voice of authority.

[Anonymous No.11217378]

>>11206834
>now lives in a tinderbox
So this is the reason why commercial buildings spontaneously catch fire during snow covered winters? I had no idea global warming could do this.

[Anonymous No.11217383]

>>11217363
It's just considering agriculture production but the effects can vary from migration to uv issues and plenty more, there's a lot to speculate and not very good pronostics overall.

[Anonymous No.11217392]

>>11208595
Some of the largest rivers in Europe enter the Atlantic through the Netherlands. There is more than enough water there.
There are also projects underway to reclaim nitrates and phosphates from sewage, solving the twin problems of resource depletion and over fertilized waters.

[Anonymous No.11217407]

>>11209138
That is the THIRD map so far over the same topic yet NONE are in agreement with each other. So no, it is not credible.

[Anonymous No.11217409]

>>11217383
>just considering agriculture production
In Sahara!?

[Anonymous No.11218025]

>>11209067
I-is this true?

[Anonymous No.11218116]

>>11218025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_erosion#Global_environmental_effects

[Anonymous No.11218231]

>>11217407
Do you actually think economists agree on anything?

[Anonymous No.11218367]

>>11202293
Absolutely, with most of the low IQ individuals wiped out by nature. the average IQ of the planet will undergo a massive increase. this will result in a lower population earth of higher intelligence, that is inventive, productive, and capable of taking better decisions in its consumption.

Humans are not only a problem for the Earth, low IQ humans are problem for other humans as well. However high IQ humans have too much empathy and consideration to do what is needed to resolve this issue. Which is why the Earth itself resolving the problem of billions of low IQ humans, through deadly extremes in weather.

Life only evolves to meet the requirements of a particular habitat, the Earth becoming hostile to humans incapable of building advanced shelters and industry, is a selection process which will provide the means of the next stage in human evolution.

[Anonymous No.11218489]

Oh look, another /leftypol/ climate change thread. This one doesn't even play around and even has people straight out advocating for a dictatorship

Why are the hot pockets not moving these threads to /pol/? Absolutely zero science in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11218492]

>>11202293
it already collapsed, we just have to rebuild it now, and escape from the quantum multiverse mind control apparatus, and face harsh climate change, ha! check mate, life!

[Anonymous No.11218517]

>>11204281
>>11204260
not only that but the size of the war that he started was near mythical. It is insane that something such as ww2 has ever happened on this planet and we still survived.

[Anonymous No.11218526]

>>11218367
you'd have to wipe out most of the 4 billion projected africans to significantly raise average global IQ.

[Anonymous No.11218532]

>>11218231
if you put 3 economists in a room you'd have 4 different oppinions

[Anonymous No.11218587]

>>11202293
first of all is this "global warming" tuff real?

[Anonymous No.11218591]

>>11204281
>Most impressive regime
>Directly responsible for the death of tens of millions of Europeans
>The levelling of most major western european cities to gravel
>The perpetration of one of the most infamous acts of genocide
>The splitting of a country into foreign hands for over 5 decades
Ebik, simply ebik. Wish i could be such a redpilled /pol/mong like you.

[Anonymous No.11218595]

>>11218591

shalom

[Anonymous No.11218757]

>>11207330
Are you kidding, on mushrooms I basically saw civilization as an out of control fire.

[Anonymous No.11218790]

>>11213536
Damn, you're one of those Dark Age deniers aren't you?

[Anonymous No.11218808]

>>11202293
Why would it collapse? A warmer rock means more rainfall meaning better crop production.

[Anonymous No.11218814]

>>11218790
not him but the dark ages although quite dark were not that dark, they were a slow rebuild

[Anonymous No.11219026]

Are you an Augustin or a Benedict /sci/?
Do you distract yourself with fantasy or strive to make a better world possible?
https://youtu.be/5SDLBqIubCs?t=1934
32:15 minutes in

[Anonymous No.11219046]

>>11218587
yep!

[Anonymous No.11219142]

>>11204373

I have seen this same immature and naive argument trotted out time and again. God knows I actually believed it when I was 18, young and stupid.

No. Educate yourself. The war was lost the moment it started with the invasion of Poland. Even if you choose to ignore that one simple strategic truth then even just the war in Russia was a foregone conclusion right from the beginning, regardless of whatever angle you put on it.

Listen champ, it doesn't matter what the Germans do. They can take Moscow and Leningrad in 1941. You can have a mild winter, stock them full of winter equipment, improve their logistics. They can avoid a Stalingrad. You can remove Hitler from command and everything else you think you needed to be done, and guess what? None of it makes much difference, other than altering the end date of the German defeat by a year or two. Pump out Me262's, put Guderian in charge of everything, or whatever German general takes your fancy, rationalize German arms production, go total war economy far sooner. Hell, you can even keep the western allies out of the war completely, have Britain sealioned and defeated, secure the Persian oilfields and it still makes no difference to the end. Germany is defeated by the USSR.

[Anonymous No.11220569]

what insects will thrive best in a warmer global climate?

[Anonymous No.11221927]

>>11202293

what happens with a population when resources/food gets scarce? it shrinks.

yes, mad max like society will emerge. it is ok.

just basic laws of ecosystems.

[Anonymous No.11221932]

>>11202402

Which gave you smartphone and internet, Ivan

[Anonymous No.11221947]

>>11218808
>warmer rock means more rainfall
lolno
california & australia is what happens
>>11204019

[Anonymous No.11222229]

>>11220569
Mosquitos

[Anonymous No.11222230]

>>11202293

[Anonymous No.11222304]

>>11206437

venice is literally sinking, you leftist scum

[Anonymous No.11223620]

>>11204029
>The vast majority of global crop yields are already done in artificial hydroponic systems

lmfao, no

OP, Civilization is already collapsing.

[Anonymous No.11223631]

>>11206563
what a fucking buffoon

[Anonymous No.11223634]

>>11202293
Civilizations will collapse, and some will reform. Will they ever reach the economic heights of the current groups? Only time will tell

[Anonymous No.11223651]

>>11223634
>Will they ever reach the economic heights of the current groups?
Abso fucking lutely NOT

LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_River_Mine

Boomers fucked us good

[Anonymous No.11223657]

>>11223651
Yes EROI will never be as good as it was in the 50's to the 80's only hope to save us is fusion but if it turns out not to be feasible game fucking over.

[Anonymous No.11223754]

>>11208868
The modern world does not exist if not for Oil.
Past civilizations don't exist either if not for wood, fire, etc.

Carbon emissions really do run this world.
Our best bet is to jump to fusion or some other equally potent source of energy.

[Anonymous No.11225453]

>>11223754
bring on the return to the world of charcoal...

[Anonymous No.11225457]

>>11223657
fission has great EROI, especially with breeder reactors