|
I'm guessing you'll see increased economic precarity, foreign water/climate wars, some internal climate refugees, etc. in your lifetime. We're not going back to medieval living no matter what we do, but first world countries aren't going to be hellscapes within 50 years (any more than late capitalism has already produced one). A retirement crisis as even people who saved are unable to retire due to slow/no economic growth seems likely though, as does even more widespread unemployment.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
That's okay, I was supporting the Logan's Run system anyway. Or at least Soylent Green.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
call to action posted:Accumulate wealth in dollars? Do you think dollars will be worth anything if things progress like you say? Historically it is the poors who are hit the hardest by social/economic/environmental upheaval, because as conditions deteriorate they're the first to lose access to necessary goods and services (food, medical attention), and lack the means to relocate to avoid trouble or secure safety. Basically, if poo poo's hosed be sure not to be poor. Things won't collapse globally overnight. Tiax Rules All posted:What do people think in terms of how hosed we are and how soon? Guy McPherson levels? Medieval living by the end of the century? Or is there still too much uncertainty to make an educated guess? Well, if you live (and own property) in say Florida, you have maybe 15 to 20 years to divest yourself and get out. The situation is going to get pretty poo poo locally in many places across the world, but living in a developed nation like the US of A, your concern shouldn't be Mad Max-style roaming cannibal death cults, but that the economy, globally, is going to go down the drain. The kinds of issues that brings are decaying infrastructure, unemployment, social unrest, rising costs for basic necessities, etc; repeating myself, poo poo that kills the poor. So your biggest threats are starving and dying from illness due to being unable to afford medical attention. Subset of that, being caught in an epidemic or the more remote chance of dying from violence due to being victim of rising crime or being caught in the wake of violent protests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Food will cost more, everywhere, including in the places where people don't have enough. So basically the world is going to get hella hangry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Tiax Rules All posted:What do people think in terms of how hosed we are and how soon? Guy McPherson levels? Medieval living by the end of the century? Or is there still too much uncertainty to make an educated guess? It's really uncertain. You're asking about what things look like 80 years from now and that answer is going to be difficult no matter what. Food and water scarcity seems likely in the developing world. Broad impacts on developed nations could range from unpleasant distraction to collapse under worst case scenarios, but there are too many variables and unknowns to say where we're gonna fall with any certainty. Live your life, cross that bridge when you get to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Temper your enthusiasm for survival planning with the knowledge that major catastrophes induce social catastrophes and will affect you randomly. I'm just going to keep my head down and count the feedback loops and go in on a later prime number. It's really the only sensible plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
The absolute best-case scenario is that something forces an international moonshot, which would utterly transform every nation, every culture, and every way of life. We'd probably end up in or near a zero-carbon monoculture with an unrecognizable lifestyle compared to what we have now. A lot of the facets of that monoculture are predictable now due to various societal trends, such as automation and 3D printing. The worst-case scenario is probably some fraction of humanity clinging to life as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers in whatever temperate habitable zones remain. Planet-wide extinction isn't on the cards, but the utter collapse of industrial civilization is a definite possibility. (Of course, it always was.) If you're affluent enough right now to have a personal computer to be reading this, which makes you one of the top ten or twenty percent of humans on the planet right now, it's entirely likely that your life will be affected simply by rising food prices and potentially by encroaching refugees. You may end up having to abandon some or all of your current lifestyle due to expense or practicality. It could be better for you, of course, in the long run ("Grandpa, did you guys really eat dead animals?"), but you can expect that near the end of your life, you'll be even further adrift than your oldest relatives are now. Evil_Greven posted:I mean, part of it is realizing poo poo is going to hit the fan and being somewhat more ruthless in accumulating wealth - not floating by because thing are nice right now. To be honest, I think that approach makes you part of the problem. If you're really serious about developing the resiliency to withstand a potential civilization-wide disruption, your best bet would be to get together with as many like-minded individuals as you can and invest in permaculture. Buy land where it's cheap and learn how to replenish the soil. If you're really paranoid, look for a defensible location, but you'll be better off building communities and developing skills that will serve you than you are in trying to ride it out by accumulating wealth. Even if we inexplicably get our poo poo together and the worst doesn't come to pass, you'll at least be self-sufficient. Then you can mail-order your preserves to hipsters for twice what they're worth and resubscribe to cable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
If you're seriously concerned (or just kind of concerned, but enough to take personal action) then the best thing you can do is to assume that things in general will be subtly but noticeably worse over the next couple of decades. Sea level rise, more common extreme weather events, and less predictable seasons are all going to be a drag on developed nations and probably catastrophic for developing ones. It might get bad, but betting on total collapse is kind of silly because there's really nothing you can do to prepare for that anyway. The most you can do is make sure you're living well within your means and saving what you can so that you're actually able to weather the worst of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Once again I'd like to remind everyone of the power of states to simply machine-gun desperate people. There will be no Mad Max collapse in our lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Naaaaah, this is 2017. Historical precedent has no bearing, and the rich will assuredly look out for the masses this time. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Lamar Smith is a douchebag: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
also I think the question of what you can do to "prepare" is wrong in its premise. this poo poo is already happening. the arab spring was caused (in part of course) by drought driven food price increases. you can draw a line around the world at around the world at the tropic of cancer and it is a shitshow of global hotspots, drought, desertification, and societal collapse. every few years it will march a bit north (details like mountain ranges and ocean currents adding variance). the tropic of capricorn too, but nobody lives down there except south africans and austrialans, so gently caress 'em. its not about preparing, its about reacting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:To be honest, I think that approach makes you part of the problem. While accumulating wealth, I'm doing far more these days in order to better our chances of getting off this rock. My point is, don't slouch around now. I used to do that. I worked retail for a good number of years. poo poo pay, but I floated by, screwing around and wasting time. I do have LF to thank for kicking my rear end into gear, though. If not for that, I might still be doing retail, because for a very long time I had little drive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Space travel will never happen. This rock is going to be our collective grave. Live how you like and accept the idea of dying young.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Great pep talk, Gets yours while the gettings good. Good thing we stopped those backward 3rd world folks from affording cheap HFC so they could improve their lives even slightly, in order for us to have more time to correct our mistakes, by participating in capitalism harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Come up with a better plan, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:To be honest, I think that approach makes you part of the problem. Sorry, but unless you have a significant amount of wealth you won't be able to: a) buy a large piece of land that is capable of supporting agriculture b) convince anyone who is smart and skilled to help you build it up But if you have, say, a hundred million dollars, you're set. You can buy a sweet piece of land in a defensible location, develop the hell out of it by hiring skilled labor, and even have your own private little army to help defend against roaming raiders, of which there is guaranteed to be plenty of in any sort of post-apocalyptic setting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
It's good to see the optimists purged and this thread rightfully returning to apocalyptic thinking. Feels more honest than another university press release about some carbon sequestration tech they'll take 20 years to go online
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Ugh god how do people even keep going I'm gonna poo poo myself to death
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, but unless you have a significant amount of wealth you won't be able to: You can buy enough land to support a family for four digits; it's only when you want to add grazing animals that the land requirements shoot up. For a self-build house, tools, and outbuildings, add low five digits, and you're set. A lot of people reading this thread could buy the land and start building today, most could save enough in five years (barring economic collapse) and everyone could do so in ten years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M1uMqRUabw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY0h4IUfIxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kPzMSvdDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jh1481J6qw etc Building a fortified village is the realm of prepper fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Space travel will never happen. This rock is going to be our collective grave. I do wonder why people think the solution to climate change is moving planets  No matter how bad the climate gets here it's still gonna be pretty comfortable living conditions compared to loving Mars.Even if your plan is to live in a self-sufficient space station, the best spot to park that space station would be on earth
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I do wonder why people think the solution to climate change is moving planets I take it to mean the sci-fi fantasy of unending technological advancement leading to colonizing other celestial bodies. Because you know, just like space truckers, that's what sci-fi always says will happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You can buy enough land to support a family for four digits True. Placid Marmot posted:Building a fortified village is the realm of prepper fantasies. Also true but much more relevant. Actually I think anyone living in the United States should relax. We're probably going to end up in a position of reestablishing our power in a climate changing world. So, barring spiteful nuclear aggression from China or Russia (and given that we'd be able to bribe them with our stable stocks I doubt even that) we'll be fine. Totalitarian probably, but fine. Were it not for Russia's enormous border shared with lots of soon-to-be-desperate people, I would have also assumed Russia would come out ahead in the changing climate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Ugh god how do people even keep going I'm gonna poo poo myself to death I don't believe in any life but the one we get, so there's no other option but to keep going.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You can buy enough land to support a family for four digits; it's only when you want to add grazing animals that the land requirements shoot up. For a self-build house, tools, and outbuildings, add low five digits, and you're set. A lot of people reading this thread could buy the land and start building today, most could save enough in five years (barring economic collapse) and everyone could do so in ten years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Edit: Nvm.
AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Actually I think anyone living in the United States should relax. We're probably going to end up in a position of reestablishing our power in a climate changing world. So, barring spiteful nuclear aggression from China or Russia (and given that we'd be able to bribe them with our stable stocks I doubt even that) we'll be fine. I think this depends a lot on how you want to define "fine." I don't think there's any chance of the US government collapsing or everyone posting in this thread suddenly turning into post-apocalyptic climate refugees, but many of the US' most economically productive cities are located in areas that are vulnerable to even minor climate disruptions. Just to use a recent example, even Hurricane Sandy prompted the Obama administration to start talking about "managed retreat" from vulnerable coastal areas. More frequent and severe storms along the east coast are going to be a real problem. Same goes for more severe and lengthy droughts in the west. It's not a sexy end of the world scenario, but it's not going to be great if we end up dealing with a Sandy (or Katrina) every few years along with a constant stream of droughts, false springs, and "minor" events like the LA flooding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:These are all really interesting, but something they all have in common is the realization that they aren't and aren't ever going to be completely self-sufficient. It's more about doing what you can afford to do based on time and effort and inclination. You can definitely get enough food to supplement survival but you aren't going to be able to get a bunch of land and some seed money and come out the other side of 5 years in a fully mature, self-supporting situation no matter how much work you put into it. The examples I posted are all low-acreage, producing excess food with low-medium time investment. If you want low acreage, med-high time investment, massive excess, high profit, sub-2 years, you can do that too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNobM0K-HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KpZ5wX47ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BH0NkN6zHs
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
The most likely outcome for the west will look like Russia and the Balkans through the 1990's, following the collapse of the USSR, economically and socially. A large amount of the rural USA already looks like this, but somebody in the Appalachians or Northern Saskatchewan living on $400/month and dealing Oxy to their cousins isn't shitposting on SomethingAwful, so we only really get the perspectives of a relative elite around here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Rime posted:so we only really get the perspectives of a relative elite around here. You make it sound like this is the kind of place where people who pay money to talk to each other hang out
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
vermin posted:You make it sound like this is the kind of place where people who pay money to talk to each other hang out No no no. We dislike each other's opinions the same as all internet creeps. The money is to keep people out. Look in the leper's colony; the ultimate goal of the site is to have no users at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
I don't know what you two are on about, this isn't The WELL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
it's hard to imagine we'd be 'fine'. Humans have fought wars and sacrificed millions of lives over petty economic/social/political ideology. climate change impacts every single state in the world. it will strain every single state in the world. there won't be a single government in the world that will have the luxury of avoiding the problem. you can't be 'neutral' to mother nature. climate change won't pick sides. I think some posters are severely underestimating developed nations reliance on its economic framework that is dependent on abundant global resources. climate change is going to change everything. the developed world will stay on life support by ramping up imperialism to the nth degree extracting as much resources (human, natural, economic) as possible while leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. it won't be sustainable. it will end quickly unless a radical shift in our political structures happens today, things are going to get bad. billions are going to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:it's hard to imagine we'd be 'fine'. Humans have fought wars and sacrificed millions of lives over petty economic/social/political ideology. climate change impacts every single state in the world. it will strain every single state in the world. there won't be a single government in the world that will have the luxury of avoiding the problem. you can't be 'neutral' to mother nature. climate change won't pick sides. Nah, you're not taking into account the actual dramatically low modern population density of the United States, its enormous agricultural potential, the existence of a major underpopulated hyperborea, and its lack of shared borders with major population dense regions. All that adds up to USA enjoying the climate change world in a way Europe, China, India, Russia, the Middle East, Australia, South America and Sub-Saharan Africa most decidedly do not. Not one of those regions has the same set of attributes, oh and also the USA has a huge powerful military. It's totally unfair, but its true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Instead of doing anything, let's turn off our lights for an hour to show solidarity with mother earth. #earthour
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The examples I posted are all low-acreage, producing excess food with low-medium time investment. If you want low acreage, med-high time investment, massive excess, high profit, sub-2 years, you can do that too: I just spent an hour on these, thank you. That first guy turns out to be an insane lolber nut, but hey w/e we've all got flaws. edit: for the record though this has dick-all to do with solving for climate change, unless you're looking at the "after 5 - 8B ppl die off i'll start again from my saved youtube folder" angle or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I just spent an hour on these, thank you. That first guy turns out to be an insane lolber nut, but hey w/e we've all got flaws. I don't know what a "lolber nut" is. He is a successful market gardener and has a ton of useful videos. Permaculture (as seen in the first batch of videos I linked) certainly has something to do with solving climate change, since it is actual, genuine carbon sequestration today that also produces lots of food per acre, with minimal external requirements, and can be implemented anywhere and adapt to changing conditions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Nah, you're not taking into account the actual dramatically low modern population density of the United States, its enormous agricultural potential, the existence of a major underpopulated hyperborea, and its lack of shared borders with major population dense regions. This is all perfectly true if you're only worried about what the world looks like on the other side, but the long process of dealing with increasingly untenable coastal regions is what most people should be worried about. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html quote:In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. This population is expected to increase by 8% from 2010 to 2020. Not all of those people are equally vulnerable, but that's still a ton of the US population on the front lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Siberia: 200-plus Arctic lakes which bubble like jacuzzis from seeping methane gas quote:Scientists say these leaks are year round in lakes where carbon processing and methane emission occur even at temperatures close to zero degrees Celcius. Detailed study of satellite data from 2015-16 has identified more than 200 lakes which are seen as an active source of methane emissions. Eh, cool, it's warm enough that lakes are turning into little methane generators in the arctic and blowing holes beside them from permafrost releases. Cool. I went looking for an update on those seafloor methane releases to see how much it actually had increased since 2014, there are only vague statements about "Significant" increases having been found, but the results from the Tomsk conference back in 2016 still aren't publicly available. Good poo poo, good poo poo. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I don't know what a "lolber nut" is. He is a successful market gardener and has a ton of useful videos. quote:Permaculture (as seen in the first batch of videos I linked) certainly has something to do with solving climate change, since it is actual, genuine carbon sequestration today that also produces lots of food per acre, with minimal external requirements, and can be implemented anywhere and adapt to changing conditions. we have a roughly 20 Petawatt-Hour per year problem to solve, no amount of backyard gardening is going to make a dent in that. In fact, a massive massive massive driver of the problem is "people who insist on having their own yard". StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:03
|
|