Can our civilisation survive this century? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

In his book entitled Our Final Hour, Martin Rees (no relation to Nathan), has given our species - let alone our civilisation - only a 50-50 chance of surviving this century, due to environmental, political and military threats. It should be noted that Rees is not a crackpot and has a doctorate, is a well-renowned cosmologist, astrophysicist and scientist and has taught at Yale, Cambridge and Sussex.
So can we as a society survive this century, or are we doomed to self-created extinction? If so, what gives you hope? If not, what is stopping us?

 

[Trefoil]

It's easy to assign coin toss odds to a vague cataclysm. When he's wrong he can just say "well we're on the winning side of the coin" and make lots of money off his books and publicity in the process.

 

[Omium]

Every year, someone predicts the apocalypse.. guess what, we're still here.

We are the most resilient species, we'll find a way to survive regardless.

 

[Graney]

Peak oil, water crisis, food crisis...

Even thinking in terms of this century is too shortsighted. You have to look at ways we can live permanently sustainably.

It's pretty plain our civilisation can't survive at it's current rates of resource use, forever.

Human civilization won't spectacularly implode, but it will be forced to slowly decline.

 

[moll.]

Every year, someone predicts the apocalypse.. guess what, we're still here.

We are the most resilient species, we'll find a way to survive regardless.

Predicting the apocalypse in the 19th century and before required a belief that God would intervene and destory humanity.
However, since July 1945 we've had another way to do so: nuclear weapons. The fact exists now that humanity almost has at it's fingertips the capability to destory entire planets, let alone cities. Placed in the wrong hands, an apocalypse of this kind is entirely possible.
Furthermore, because of globalisation and increased contact with humans over the world, a viral apocalypse is also far more likely, depsite all our advances in medicine. Combined with man-made climate change, and the apocalypse is far morwe likely to occur this century than in any other.

 

[moll.]

Peak oil, water crisis, food crisis...

Even thinking in terms of this century is too shortsighted. You have to look at ways we can live permanently sustainably.

It's pretty plain our civilisation can't survive at it's current rates of resource use, forever.

Human civilization won't spectacularly implode, but it will be forced to slowly decline.

I just can't see it slowly declining. I can't see our civilisation just slowly rotting and fading away without many people trying in their individual ways to fix it and either succeeding or accelerating the process. With the decay of civilisation also come the decay of our institutions, which means that nuclear, chemical and biological weapon proliferation could rage unchecked. All it would take would be one deluded nutjob to start a sudden apocolypse.
Also, to decline means that there has to be some relative measure by which it can be compared. So what measure are you using, and is mine the same?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

largely intact? no. massive decrease in world population from starvation is my theory (thanks to peak oil, largely). Also obviously the way of life changes in an absurdly large way.

 

[Rafy]

Reminds me of The Population Bomb.

 

[spiny norman]

We are the most resilient species, we'll find a way to survive regardless.

I don't know about that, we've only been around all of 2 million years, whereas others (eg. sharks) have been around for hundreds of millions.

 

[Lentern]

Genetic modification is the key, but for these bloody pansies who read Dystopian novels.

 

[A High Way Man]

prolly

 

[Omium]

Our Species needs to ascend to a higher plane of existance

 

[moll.]

Bring forth the Ubermensch!
Arise, ye neo-homo-sapiens!

 

[toadcat]

Humanity is going to have a very hard time getting over the resource change, from fossil fuels to something else, probably nuclear. If we are going through what is called a recession now, I shudder to think what it will be called when there is not enough fuel to deliver food, run industry, produce electricity etc.

At the moment, society is completely unsustainable, and in 20-30 years when China and India have completely industrialised, where exactly are the resources going to come from? They don't exist.

 

[moll.]

Humanity is going to have a very hard time getting over the resource change, from fossil fuels to something else, probably nuclear. If we are going through what is called a recession now, I shudder to think what it will be called when there is not enough fuel to deliver food, run industry, produce electricity etc.

At the moment, society is completely unsustainable, and in 20-30 years when China and India have completely industrialised, where exactly are the resources going to come from? They don't exist.

It will be called the collapse of civilisation, as nation-states wage nuclear war for the scraps and drips of oil left in the world. Ironically in this scenario, they'd be using their only other major source of energy to destroy each other rather than harnessing it. Nukes ftw.

 

[Graney]

I just can't see it slowly declining. I can't see our civilisation just slowly rotting and fading away without many people trying in their individual ways to fix it and either succeeding or accelerating the process. With the decay of civilisation also come the decay of our institutions, which means that nuclear, chemical and biological weapon proliferation could rage unchecked. All it would take would be one deluded nutjob to start a sudden apocolypse.
Also, to decline means that there has to be some relative measure by which it can be compared. So what measure are you using, and is mine the same?

I like to think the nations of the world wi'll rise above warring over declining resources. Mabye. Hopefully. As the world has become increasingly globalised over the past century, with ever greater trade ties between the nations, warfare has become less and less common among the developed nations.

I also don't believe nuclear warfare will occur in our lifetime. Mutually assured destruction has defused the prospect of nuclear war.

Still, a lot can change in 100 years. The political landscape could easily shift and mabye you will be right about nuclear apocalypse

Also, to decline means that there has to be some relative measure by which it can be compared. So what measure are you using, and is mine the same?

Present population, resource use, water use, food production levels all must decline at some point in the future. It might not be in the next 100 years, but the population will crash eventually.

 

[moll.]

I like to think the nations of the world wi'll rise above warring over declining resources. Mabye. Hopefully. As the world has become increasingly globalised over the past century, with ever greater trade ties between the nations, warfare has become less and less common among the developed nations.

I also don't believe nuclear warfare will occur in our lifetime. Mutually assured destruction has defused the prospect of nuclear war.

Still, a lot can change in 100 years. The political landscape could easily shift and mabye you will be right about nuclear apocalypse


Present population, resource use, water use, food production levels all must decline at some point in the future. It might not be in the next 100 years, but the population will crash eventually.

I hope I'm wrong about a nuclear apocalypse too. But the entire doctrine of MAD was just that: mad. Whilst we as citizens, detached from the world of politics and power, can recognise that war is useless, politicians often don't have that luxury.
Tolstoy, in War and Peace theorised that history is not determined by one man, and is instead a continuous wave of events that no single person can change, only alter to the slightest degree. This would mean that even if the President of the U.S. wanted to avoid war, a continuous roll of events, once started, may prevent him for stopping it. A military establishment which is poised over the big red button, a public which is openly supportive or war and a President who is constantly told only of the outcomes were he to go to war would all conspire to bringing about the situation.
As much as pacifism may permeate throughout a society, war can still occur.

Also, you were talking about decline of civilisation before, but a lower population, lower water use, lower food production and lower resource use could still occur without the civilisation declining.

 

[Graney]

Also, you were talking about decline of civilisation before, but a lower population, lower water use, lower food production and lower resource use could still occur without the civilisation declining.

???
Well yeah, as long as a reasonable population of humans exist with enough free time to invest in study, our knowledge, culture, arts and learning, all those things we associate with the civilized world, will survive.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

<armchair expert post>

Humanity is going to have a very hard time getting over the resource change, from fossil fuels to something else, probably nuclear. If we are going through what is called a recession now, I shudder to think what it will be called when there is not enough fuel to deliver food, run industry, produce electricity etc.

Can't make fertiliser out of nuclear waste broheim. World oil price spirals out of control, so too does the cost of making fertiliser (haber process). world runs out of oil, no more fertiliser = death.

srs bizness
</armchair expert post>

 

[Graney]

More like peak phosphate.