Nasa: Industrial civilization headed for collapse

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by RushKing (1777 posts) -

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Reformism isn't going to save us. We are dealing with a systemic issue here. The mainstream are coming to the same radical conclusion. The two business factions can continue to bicker over the trivial all they want, while we drift into the void. In the end we will all die.

Great video I would like to share:

#2 Posted by Masculus (2867 posts) -

It does no take a rocket scientist to figure that, hell just look back at Spengler.

#3 Posted by Master_Live (14780 posts) -

Oh no.

#4 Posted by Makhaidos (1614 posts) -

Once again, science diligently confirms what everybody has already known for years.

#5 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13033 posts) -

It's the liberals and their gay agenda. Two ancient cities in the middle east fell for the same reasons.

/ExpectedConservativeResponse

#6 Posted by playmynutz (6040 posts) -

Wonder what herb will flourish out of this one

#7 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15042 posts) -

"Although the study is largely theoretical"

Nothing to see here folks.

#8 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

The solution is to throw ourselves back into the dark ages and let anarchy reign supreme. I for one welcome the time when I can use my training to indiscriminately shoot people instead of using it to defend them.

I also look forward to never enjoying life ever again. Spending all of my time defending what I own will certainly allow for plenty of free time.

#9 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13033 posts) -

@airshocker said:

The solution is to throw ourselves back into the dark ages and let anarchy reign supreme. I for one welcome the time when I can use my training to indiscriminately shoot people instead of using it to defend them.

I also look forward to never enjoying life ever again. Spending all of my time defending what I own will certainly allow for plenty of free time.

Eh, most people will starve out in the first few months. Those of us who can look in our back yard and know what's edible aren't going to be encroaching on your shit. We might have to worry about you, though.

#10 Edited by RushKing (1777 posts) -

In an anarchist confederation, I believe it is likely communes would alert each other about the serial killer on the run. It would be in everyone's interest to do so. Communities could have different policies on murder, or have a more universal one agreed upon through federalism.

In an ideal situation where the killer has surrendered, I think he would have a choice to either live in isolation or let us rehabilitate him.

Maybe we could have an island criminals can voluntarily decide to go to were they would receive protection from vengeful people. I don't believe punishment is ever a good strategy. I believe we should curb crime by creating an economic system that makes crime obsolete.

I think a lot of people kill because they feel alone and alienated. If society is communicating to someone that no one cares, why do we expect them respond without the same apathy?

#11 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3939 posts) -

I always figured republicans would have their hand in the end of the world.

#12 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@airshocker said:

The solution is to throw ourselves back into the dark ages and let anarchy reign supreme. I for one welcome the time when I can use my training to indiscriminately shoot people instead of using it to defend them.

I also look forward to never enjoying life ever again. Spending all of my time defending what I own will certainly allow for plenty of free time.

Eh, most people will starve out in the first few months. Those of us who can look in our back yard and know what's edible aren't going to be encroaching on your shit. We might have to worry about you, though.

Absolutely you'd have to worry about me. Me and all of the like-minded military types I can gather around me. My family has a lot of property that I plan on heading straight for and using as a base for our raiding operations.

#13 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -
@RushKing said:

In an anarchist confederation, I believe it is likely communes would alert each other about the serial killer on the run. It would be in everyone's interest to do so. Communities could have different policies on murder, or have more universal one agreed upon through federalism.

In an ideal situation where the killer has surrendered, I think he would have a choice to either live in isolation or let us rehabilitate him.

Maybe we could have an island criminals can voluntarily decide to go to were they would receive protection from vengeful people. I don't believe punishment is ever a good strategy. I believe we should curb crime by creating an economic system that makes crime obsolete.

I think a lot of people kill because they feel alone and alienated. If society is communicating to someone that no one cares, why do we expect them respond without the same apathy?

You mean an economic system where people can legally steal from each other. Oh yeah, nobody would be resentful of a system like that. You're an idiot. People are self-interested and that will never change. People with families will do ANYTHING to have those people survive. I would do ANYTHING to ensure the survival of my family. If that meant killing you and stealing your things? Sucks to be you.

Either way, though, I don't want any part of a system that means I have to stop doing the things that make me happy. Without a doubt your system would destroy the lives that some of us very much enjoy. That's the main reason nothing you want will ever be achieved. Thank the stars for a society that makes life enjoyable for 90% of us.

#14 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13033 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Absolutely you'd have to worry about me. Me and all of the like-minded military types I can gather around me. My family has a lot of property that I plan on heading straight for and using as a base for our raiding operations.

Staying in one place...not a good idea. Most people are going to want to do what you're doing: staying somewhere they feel safe and gathering resources from the areas around them. Baronies would rise pretty quickly, though most would fail just as quickly through power struggles and disputes with other settlements. Once you get it good, someone is going to notice. You may be able to deal with the first group, or the first ten, but you're going to run out of ammo and/or be outnumbered eventually.

The ideal would be to remain mobile and unseen until shit settles down into some semblance of order. It's the hunter-gatherer groups that are most likely to survive over those who plant a flag in the ground and set up shop.

#15 Posted by foxhound_fox (88651 posts) -

If the Earth's warming trend is on par with the concept of the Earth revolving around the Sun, then why are politicians still arguing about it and not doing something? They are the only people in some position of authority to do it.

#16 Edited by Storm_Marine (11108 posts) -
@RushKing said:

In the end we will all die.

Umm...who is saying otherwise? I mean besides Ray Kurzweil.

#17 Posted by RushKing (1777 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@RushKing said:

In an anarchist confederation, I believe it is likely communes would alert each other about the serial killer on the run. It would be in everyone's interest to do so. Communities could have different policies on murder, or have more universal one agreed upon through federalism.

In an ideal situation where the killer has surrendered, I think he would have a choice to either live in isolation or let us rehabilitate him.

Maybe we could have an island criminals can voluntarily decide to go to were they would receive protection from vengeful people. I don't believe punishment is ever a good strategy. I believe we should curb crime by creating an economic system that makes crime obsolete.

I think a lot of people kill because they feel alone and alienated. If society is communicating to someone that no one cares, why do we expect them respond without the same apathy?

You mean an economic system where people can legally steal from each other. Oh yeah, nobody would be resentful of a system like that. You're an idiot. People are self-interested and that will never change. People with families will do ANYTHING to have those people survive. I would do ANYTHING to ensure the survival of my family. If that meant killing you and stealing your things? Sucks to be you.

You say theft isn't in self interest, and then go on to say theft would be in your self interest. There is a lack of coherency. I'm not advocating Stirner style anarchism, if that's what you are thinking.

Either way, though, I don't want any part of a system that means I have to stop doing the things that make me happy. Without a doubt your system would destroy the lives that some of us very much enjoy. That's the main reason nothing you want will ever be achieved. Thank the stars for a society that makes life enjoyable for 90% of us.

More likely 30% of us, 70% of people say they feel alienated from their labour. The economic system I'm advocating is not mine. It's not a blueprint, and it's not meant to be one.

#18 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@airshocker said:
@RushKing said:

In an anarchist confederation, I believe it is likely communes would alert each other about the serial killer on the run. It would be in everyone's interest to do so. Communities could have different policies on murder, or have more universal one agreed upon through federalism.

In an ideal situation where the killer has surrendered, I think he would have a choice to either live in isolation or let us rehabilitate him.

Maybe we could have an island criminals can voluntarily decide to go to were they would receive protection from vengeful people. I don't believe punishment is ever a good strategy. I believe we should curb crime by creating an economic system that makes crime obsolete.

I think a lot of people kill because they feel alone and alienated. If society is communicating to someone that no one cares, why do we expect them respond without the same apathy?

You mean an economic system where people can legally steal from each other. Oh yeah, nobody would be resentful of a system like that. You're an idiot. People are self-interested and that will never change. People with families will do ANYTHING to have those people survive. I would do ANYTHING to ensure the survival of my family. If that meant killing you and stealing your things? Sucks to be you.

You say theft isn't in self interest, and then go on to say theft would be in your self interest. There is a lack of coherency. I'm not advocating Stirner style anarchism, if that's what you are thinking.

Either way, though, I don't want any part of a system that means I have to stop doing the things that make me happy. Without a doubt your system would destroy the lives that some of us very much enjoy. That's the main reason nothing you want will ever be achieved. Thank the stars for a society that makes life enjoyable for 90% of us.

More likely 30% of us, 70% of people say they feel alienated from their labour. The economic system I'm advocating is not mine. It's not a blueprint, and it's not meant to be one.

Where did I say theft couldn't be in someone's self interest? I think you need to reread what I said. You are advocating for anarchy. That is so wildly OUTSIDE my self-interest that it's not even funny.

Even if it was 30%, which I don't believe, their lives are much better now than under any type of system you propose. A system that will kill millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions.

#19 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36824 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Once again, science diligently confirms what everybody has already known for years.

We have known this for years due to science...

#20 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -
@br0kenrabbit said:

@airshocker said:

Absolutely you'd have to worry about me. Me and all of the like-minded military types I can gather around me. My family has a lot of property that I plan on heading straight for and using as a base for our raiding operations.

Staying in one place...not a good idea. Most people are going to want to do what you're doing: staying somewhere they feel safe and gathering resources from the areas around them. Baronies would rise pretty quickly, though most would fail just as quickly through power struggles and disputes with other settlements. Once you get it good, someone is going to notice. You may be able to deal with the first group, or the first ten, but you're going to run out of ammo and/or be outnumbered eventually.

The ideal would be to remain mobile and unseen until shit settles down into some semblance of order. It's the hunter-gatherer groups that are most likely to survive over those who plant a flag in the ground and set up shop.

For some people it would be feasible to stay mobile. A small group of adults would be able to do that. But when you have kids it becomes impossible. And this property is right at the base of a mountain range. So it'll be fairly defensible. As defensible as one could make something without military hardware. And if worse comes to worst, we can boogie up into the mountains.

Either way, you'd be wise to get as far away from NYC and the surrounding metropolitan area as possible.

Also a good idea to know where all of the national guard armories are. THEY'LL have military hardware that could help you survive.

#21 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13033 posts) -

@airshocker said:

For some people it would be feasible to stay mobile. A small group of adults would be able to do that. But when you have kids it becomes impossible. And this property is right at the base of a mountain range. So it'll be fairly defensible. As defensible as one could make something without military hardware. And if worse comes to worst, we can boogie up into the mountains.

Either way, you'd be wise to get as far away from NYC and the surrounding metropolitan area as possible.

Also a good idea to know where all of the national guard armories are. THEY'LL have military hardware that could help you survive.

At the BASE of the range? So there's high ground around you? So...that's where you're going to get attacked from...from on high. Then they can lob anything they want at you, and you have to worry a hell of a lot more about bullet drop than they do.

And it's quite possible to be mobile with children. The Bedouin do it. Horses would certainly help but aren't necessary as long as your men are in shape. Obese folk would certainly not make it, nor the sick or elderly. But this is survival, the weak links are gonna give.

As for national guard armories, I'd assume those would have been depleted in the last days in an attempt to retain order. I seriously doubt G.I. Joe is gonna drop his APC off at the armory before skulking home to gather the wife and kids in the SUV to head to grandmas.

A total collapse of society is going to require sacrifices to survive. Home and hearth are the least of those.

#22 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@airshocker said:

For some people it would be feasible to stay mobile. A small group of adults would be able to do that. But when you have kids it becomes impossible. And this property is right at the base of a mountain range. So it'll be fairly defensible. As defensible as one could make something without military hardware. And if worse comes to worst, we can boogie up into the mountains.

Either way, you'd be wise to get as far away from NYC and the surrounding metropolitan area as possible.

Also a good idea to know where all of the national guard armories are. THEY'LL have military hardware that could help you survive.

At the BASE of the range? So there's high ground around you? So...that's where you're going to get attacked from...from on high. Then they can lob anything they want at you, and you have to worry a hell of a lot more about bullet drop than they do.

And it's quite possible to be mobile with children. The Bedouin do it. Horses would certainly help but aren't necessary as long as your men are in shape. Obese folk would certainly not make it, nor the sick or elderly. But this is survival, the weak links are gonna give.

As for national guard armories, I'd assume those would have been depleted in the last days in an attempt to retain order. I seriously doubt G.I. Joe is gonna drop his APC off at the armory before skulking home to gather the wife and kids in the SUV to head to grandmas.

A total collapse of society is going to require sacrifices to survive. Home and hearth are the least of those.

No, there are no properties directly at the base of the mountain range. I doubt anybody is going to take the time to come at the place from on high. Not if they don't know people are there to begin with. With the layout of the property it'll be fairly easy to see where any possible hostiles are coming from. Especially if I can get a tree-stand blind set up. And if they do come from on high, well, that's what long rifles are for.

There's a Guard armory close to where I live. Obviously I would like to hit that before everything went to hell, but if not I can survive without it. There's also two more within 50 miles of our property upstate. If possible I'd try and take what I can from the department.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best. There's always a back-up plan if I'm unable to get to where I want to go.

#23 Edited by deeliman (2438 posts) -

Societal collapse is going to be a lot more boring here in the netherlands, almost no one has any guns :(

#24 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (812 posts) -

I'll be on my way to Mars with Elon Musk and his friends, you gun happy freaks can shoot each other to death if you want.

#25 Edited by RushKing (1777 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Where did I say theft couldn't be in someone's self interest? I think you need to reread what I said. You are advocating for anarchy. That is so wildly OUTSIDE my self-interest that it's not even funny.

Even if it was 30%, which I don't believe, their lives are much better now than under any type of system you propose.

30% isn't a number polled out of my but.

Here you go:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150383/Majority-American-Workers-Not-Engaged-Jobs.aspx

A system that will kill millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions.

Prove it

I for one know anarchy in Spain raised the standard of living of the former middle-middle and lower classes, and managed to reverse economic growth at the same time. It even raised the living standards of many former capitalists.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Pages 57-80

In reality the capitalist class are not middle class (Including small business owners that aren't just mom and pa). This author likes to call them middle class for some reason.

#26 Posted by Boddicker (2783 posts) -

Once the oil runs out the world will rip itself apart. I'm hoping I won't be here to see it.

#27 Posted by Serraph105 (28143 posts) -

Well yeah, even if its not global warming that does us in, as long as we use finite resources as our main sources of energy society will be headed towards a major cliff.

#28 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@airshocker said:

Where did I say theft couldn't be in someone's self interest? I think you need to reread what I said. You are advocating for anarchy. That is so wildly OUTSIDE my self-interest that it's not even funny.

Even if it was 30%, which I don't believe, their lives are much better now than under any type of system you propose.

30% isn't a number polled out of my but.

Here you go:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150383/Majority-American-Workers-Not-Engaged-Jobs.aspx

A system that will kill millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions.

Prove it

I for one know anarchy in Spain raised the standard of living of the former middle-middle and lower classes, and managed to reverse economic growth at the same time. It even raised the living standards of many former capitalists.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Pages 57-80

In reality the capitalist class are not middle class (Including small business owners that aren't just mom and pa). This author likes to call them middle class for some reason.

What do I care if people aren't engaged with their jobs? Plenty of people hate what they do. Yet they come home and try and enjoy themselves anyway. That will cease to happen under a system you propose. A system where nothing is sacred and everything can be trampled on. No more internet, no more television, no more movies, no more music. Nothing. That is what you're proposing. You want this entire world to be plunged into conflict because you perceive that something is fundamentally wrong with capitalism.

Prove what? It's common sense that scores of people will die when trying to switch over to a system that you describe. You think it's going to be peaceful? You think people will willingly throw away the best parts of their lives to follow something you think they should?

People WILL resist. Governments WILL resist. You add that together and you get a whole lot of death. Not to mention the deaths that will come when people start to die of starvation, lack of medical care, crime, etc. Because what you propose isn't a good thing. Your utopia will quickly become a nightmare and I for one am very thankful that we'll never see your craziness manifest in anything other than forum posts.

#29 Posted by RushKing (1777 posts) -

@airshocker said:

What do I care if people aren't engaged with their jobs? Plenty of people hate what they do. Yet they come home and try and enjoy themselves anyway. That will cease to happen under a system you propose. A system where nothing is sacred and everything can be trampled on. No more internet, no more television, no more movies, no more music. Nothing. That is what you're proposing. You want this entire world to be plunged into conflict because you perceive that something is fundamentally wrong with capitalism.

Prove what? It's common sense that scores of people will die when trying to switch over to a system that you describe. You think it's going to be peaceful? You think people will willingly throw away the best parts of their lives to follow something you think they should?

People WILL resist. Governments WILL resist. You add that together and you get a whole lot of death. Not to mention the deaths that will come when people start to die of starvation, lack of medical care, crime, etc. Because what you propose isn't a good thing. Your utopia will quickly become a nightmare and I for one am very thankful that we'll never see your craziness manifest in anything other than forum posts.

"Common sense"?

I'm not going to waste my time with someone unwilling to educate themselves. Hopefully someone got something out of the resources I provided.

#30 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@airshocker said:

What do I care if people aren't engaged with their jobs? Plenty of people hate what they do. Yet they come home and try and enjoy themselves anyway. That will cease to happen under a system you propose. A system where nothing is sacred and everything can be trampled on. No more internet, no more television, no more movies, no more music. Nothing. That is what you're proposing. You want this entire world to be plunged into conflict because you perceive that something is fundamentally wrong with capitalism.

Prove what? It's common sense that scores of people will die when trying to switch over to a system that you describe. You think it's going to be peaceful? You think people will willingly throw away the best parts of their lives to follow something you think they should?

People WILL resist. Governments WILL resist. You add that together and you get a whole lot of death. Not to mention the deaths that will come when people start to die of starvation, lack of medical care, crime, etc. Because what you propose isn't a good thing. Your utopia will quickly become a nightmare and I for one am very thankful that we'll never see your craziness manifest in anything other than forum posts.

"Common sense"?

I'm not going to waste my time with someone unwilling to educate themselves. Hopefully someone got something out of the resources I provided.

You haven't provided any resources that could possibly enlighten me.

But yes, you go ahead and ignore my points. We all know what you're spouting is bullshit. And the fact that you don't have anything relevant to say back to me is proof enough.

#31 Posted by Aljosa23 (25111 posts) -
@airshocker said:

The solution is to throw ourselves back into the dark ages and let anarchy reign supreme. I for one welcome the time when I can use my training to indiscriminately shoot people instead of using it to defend them.

I also look forward to never enjoying life ever again. Spending all of my time defending what I own will certainly allow for plenty of free time.

I was essentially going to say something like this. ^

Anarchism is stupid. OP needs to stop thinking he's living in the 1800s and think his shit ideas are anywhere near viable.

#32 Edited by RushKing (1777 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:
Anarchism is stupid. OP needs to stop thinking he's living in the 1800s and think his shit ideas are anywhere near viable.

I would much rather stand up to the blue bureaucracy and keep the struggle alive, than surrender and join the bad side of history. Passivity is a guaranteed road to nowhere. Your political cynicism is cancer.

#33 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@Aljosa23 said:
Anarchism is stupid. OP needs to stop thinking he's living in the 1800s and think his shit ideas are anywhere near viable.

I would much rather stand up to the blue bureaucracy and keep the struggle alive, than surrender and join the bad side of history. Passivity is a guaranteed road to nowhere. Your political cynicism is cancer.

To struggle against something would imply you know of a better way to exist. You don't. Your way translates to the destruction of everything we currently know. You are even so naive as to think it won't kill millions of people who will not roll over and cede to your insane delusion of utopia.

Our views aren't cancerous. Yours are.

The status quo is infinitely better than anything you have suggested now, or in the past.

#34 Posted by Aljosa23 (25111 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@Aljosa23 said:
Anarchism is stupid. OP needs to stop thinking he's living in the 1800s and think his shit ideas are anywhere near viable.

I would much rather stand up to the blue bureaucracy and keep the struggle alive, than surrender and join the bad side of history. Passivity is a guaranteed road to nowhere. Your political cynicism is cancer.

No, stop being stupid. I am perfectly fine with the life I live. Your ideas are terrible and would bring nothing but misery.

#35 Edited by nomsayin (1141 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@Aljosa23 said:
Anarchism is stupid. OP needs to stop thinking he's living in the 1800s and think his shit ideas are anywhere near viable.

I would much rather stand up to the blue bureaucracy and keep the struggle alive, than surrender and join the bad side of history. Passivity is a guaranteed road to nowhere. Your political cynicism is cancer.

Hate to break it to you bud, but all anarchism is is really one big pipe dream.