|
Plus several singularities are as likely as any apocalyptic scenario, though by no means mutually exclusive.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:Let's all be mad dirt farmers for the next 600,000 years. Agrarian socialists a la Democratic Kampuchea  This thread has some serious Judge Holden poo poo going on in it e: not saying that's a bad thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
the whole 'gently caress futurists / space colonizers' thing is just dumb angry yelling at strawmen. yes your arguments against your silly charicatures are true, but those people really only exist as a handful of effortposting autists on some obscure sub reddits, you're getting angry at a small handful of absolute nobodies. even in elon musks wildest dreams there are like, tops, a few thousand people on mars by 2100. that has pretty much dick all to do with being a "solution" to global warming or a plan to "abandon" the planet for the other 3 - 9 billion of us. its a fake argument y'all just look dumb yelling at nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:gently caress futurists and gently caress this bullshit childish science fiction fixation on abandoning the planet being the end goal of human civilization. You grew up on Star Trek fantasies of endless technological development and endless growth, but the dreams these artists and writers showed your impressionable young selves were fueled by a culture high on fossil fuel fumes. A civilization that honestly thought there was such a thing as free lunch. Who said anything about interstellar civilizations? I'd be perfectly fine with a million separate human civilizations in a million different star systems, or just one human civilization in this star system and a million robotically-seeded barren worlds. We don't need some FTL bullshit magic Star Trek, just life in the universe not going extinct in a fraction of the possible span.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the whole 'gently caress futurists / space colonizers' thing is just dumb angry yelling at strawmen. yes your arguments against your silly charicatures are true, but those people really only exist as a handful of effortposting autists on some obscure sub reddits, you're getting angry at a small handful of absolute nobodies. I think it’s reasonable to pissed at people like Musk wasting valuable resources on something that if he succeeds will only be a lifeboat for the rich. You’re correct it isn’t a solution for the rest of us, that’s the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
At any rate, it's not that space colonization is impossible/stupid/ a pipe dream, it's that space colonization under capitalism is. All the more reason to push for socialism, then to post-scarcity fully automated luxury communism. A spacefaring society does not entail post scarcity, or the solution to climate change, it's the other way around: we should solve climate change and end capitalism in order to get a spacefaring society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
As with all things, capitalism is the problem. Once we eliminate capitalism, we'll have hyperintelligent drones to take care of us, and our many artificial glands will pump designer drugs into us as we watch the sun die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the whole 'gently caress futurists / space colonizers' thing is just dumb angry yelling at strawmen. yes your arguments against your silly charicatures are true, but those people really only exist as a handful of effortposting autists on some obscure sub reddits, you're getting angry at a small handful of absolute nobodies. Those absolute nobodies exist in this thread and every so often woefully moan about the future of human civilization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Rime posted:The planet is not going back to the level of abundance and biodiversity we had prior to the industrial revolution. Not within the lifespan of the human species, at least. Something quite interesting may evolve over the next couple billion years before the Sun starts to change significantly. Just imagine believing that the human race would make even a thousandth of that time, to Year Million.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
Hey, eventually the problem will be not enough available carbon and the C3 photosynthesis that the vast majority of plants utilize will become impossible. There's a hard cap of like 600 million years of complex life as we know it left on earth. Fortunately the estimates for a return to pre-industrial levels of biodiversity after we kill everything are something like 10 million years so there's plenty of time for cool stuff to happen again. Will your climate refugee offspring try to smuggle themselves onto a Tube?    or a Toroid?   
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
The problem with cramming humans into a finite living space like those seen above is that inevitably, we'll start killing people for more room (or simply because we form tribes). Even if we *could* build something like that, the inhabitants of it would long since have killed each other off before reaching a target solar system. If the Biosphere 2 project failed, a colony ship would definitely fail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Will your climate refugee offspring try to smuggle themselves onto a Mine will be in a cuboid. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
I forget if it was recommended in this thread or the cspam thread, but I got around to reading Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson. Earth is all we've got, fellas. Let's take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think it’s reasonable to pissed at people like Musk wasting valuable resources on something that if he succeeds will only be a lifeboat for the rich. You’re correct it isn’t a solution for the rest of us, that’s the problem. thats a reeeeeeaaallly loving dumb thing to say. I don't get what it is about that guy that makes otherwise intelligent people's brains stroke out and say stupid stuff when he comes up. nothing in space is going to be a "lifeboat for the rich" in any of our lifetimes and probably not even our childrens. its going to be like living on a navy submarine but without ever surfacing. you seem to have mistaken sci-fi movies for a realistic future, which is extra loving ironic because thats what you're accusing the space dweebs of BIG HEADLINE posted:The problem with cramming humans into a finite living space like those seen above is that inevitably, we'll start killing people for more room (or simply because we form tribes). Even if we *could* build something like that, the inhabitants of it would long since have killed each other off before reaching a target solar system. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Don't those toroids have way more surface area than earth anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thats a reeeeeeaaallly loving dumb thing to say. I don't get what it is about that guy that makes otherwise intelligent people's brains stroke out and say stupid stuff when he comes up. Yeah this is incredibly dumb and something I notice leftists/environmentalists seem to do with rich person responses to climate change ("we're screwed because rich people will just go to space/ live in a bunker", although some of it is just shitposting) There is no way Mars ever becomes a more attractive place for human habitation than Earth even if the worst predictions of climate change come to pass and Earth becomes a +10 degree warmer uninhabitable blasted hellscape. The quality of life in a mars colony or space station is going to be worse than someone living below the poverty line on earth, even in the post climate change world (at least they can still go outside) - no rich person will subject themselves to that. The only reason Musk talks about doing it is to build his personal brand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
Then let’s all agree to drop the dumb space derail and ban anyone who ever mentions it again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
I'm already in orbit around Saturn, FYI. We have plenty of food and fuel; the only problem is that my shitposts arrive 1.3 hours late to the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thats a reeeeeeaaallly loving dumb thing to say. I don't get what it is about that guy that makes otherwise intelligent people's brains stroke out and say stupid stuff when he comes up. You seemed to miss the dependent clause in my post. "If he succeeds" means I'm not arguing he will. His goal is a new fiefdom in Mars and Musk as their king. I don't think he's going to succeed but it still seems perfectly reasonable to be frustrated at the waste in his attempts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:gently caress futurists and gently caress this bullshit childish science fiction fixation on abandoning the planet being the end goal of human civilization. You grew up on Star Trek fantasies of endless technological development and endless growth, but the dreams these artists and writers showed your impressionable young selves were fueled by a culture high on fossil fuel fumes. A civilization that honestly thought there was such a thing as free lunch. Looking at how we gently caress up the planet, abandoning Earth looks like a sweet deal for Gaia right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Looking at how we gently caress up the planet, abandoning Earth looks like a sweet deal for Gaia right now. I've heard that one before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Then let’s all agree to drop the dumb space derail and ban anyone who ever mentions it again. this its just so completely and totally not a factor in the time frame we have for the topic at hand (see thread title). we need to get to zero emissions by 2050. then we need negative emissions to prevent a 2C+ situation by 2100 those goals will take TRILLIONS of dollars. all of spacex combined (which for the record is 99% about satellites with mars as little more than a marketing ploy) is a couple-of-billions affair. its just yet another amazing example of how broke-brained internet discourse is. people just hear that guys name and go straight to hyper-myopic stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the whole 'gently caress futurists / space colonizers' thing is just dumb angry yelling at strawmen. It isn't, not because there's a significant number of these idiot futurists to actually make the attempt, but because these idiot futurists put the idea in to the heads of the populace that while we may not escape our dying planet en masse, we will at least be able to science our way out of this mess while maintaining our current standard of living. We need to drastically reduce resource consumption. I'm not talking driving less eating less meat and buying products that have less packaging, I mean people giving up single family living quarters all together and having very few personal possessions at all. I'm prepared to do this if our society as a whole makes that shift but because I know individual action is pointless the best I'm doing at the moment is not having children. I'm also not really planning for the future because truth be told I don't think there's going to be much future to be had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
just lol if you don't believe in Alternative 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks7GSmUnV3A&t=6s    wiki posted:It was claimed that scientists had determined that the Earth's surface would be unable to support life for much longer, due to pollution leading to catastrophic climate change. Physicist "Dr Carl Gerstein" (played by Richard Marner) claimed to have proposed in 1957 that there were three alternatives to this problem. The first alternative was the drastic reduction of the human population on Earth. The second alternative was the construction of vast underground shelters to house government officials and a cross section of the population until the climate had stabilised, a solution reminiscent of the finale of Dr Strangelove. The third alternative, the so-called "Alternative 3," was to populate Mars via a way station on the Moon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:We need to drastically reduce resource consumption. I'm not talking driving less eating less meat and buying products that have less packaging, I mean people giving up single family living quarters all together and having very few personal possessions at all. We face a massive uphill battle trying to convince the consumerism zombies of the western world to give up their "hard-earned" luxuries. We also face an equally uphill battle of trying to convince people in the developing world that they will never enjoy the same luxuries that they've seen people in the western world enjoy for decades. All because we hosed up the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:We need to drastically reduce resource consumption. I'm not talking driving less eating less meat and buying products that have less packaging, I mean people giving up single family living quarters all together and having very few personal possessions at all. Musk's lofty goals are less ambitious
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
I'm glad this thread isn't infected by the same idiots who drop the  MALTHUSIAN ALERT flag when we start brainstorming actual, rational pathways to a future where humans will be able to enjoy a basic quality of life and not trash the world"Overpopulation" is a dirty word to a lot of people- of course, talk to any climate scientist and they'll tell you that with current rates of consumption, this planet is dangerously underpopulated 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to _pretend_ like we're going to Mars to raise cock-waving Musk/Bezos money, use it to do bunch of research on surviving hostile environments, and then use that tech to adapt to a hostile, alien Earth without any fish or birds or bees*. Living on another planet anytime soon is obviously a ridiculous moonshot. * Look into mechanical fish, bird, and bee replacements
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Epitope posted:Musk's lofty goals are less ambitious This is why I'm not planning for the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Big article with lots of info, analysis. Article: How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts From: World Resource Institute Date: 2018 DEC quote:...
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
the "without using more land" is the entire key here. we could expand our population for a long time to much greater numbers if we reduced the amount of space we actually took up with our activities. the big question is "how do we do this", then once that has been answered its "how do we do this economically", but the question that stops anything from happening is "how do we do this profitably" e: right now, the most "economical" approach for farmers and ranchers in brazil (because there's still no dollar value attributed to the work natural habitats do for the world at large) is to just slash and burn more rainforest- the most essential and irretrievable of habitat resources. Harold Stassen fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
I'm okay with the future of civilization being kale, free birth control prescriptions for all, and weekly tree planting parties. Bolsonaro seems to like none of these things. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
dont say anything thatll get lowtax a visit from the brazilian secret service, but, you know
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
You know, in various articles and talking points they always have 10 billion as this future human population of Earth in X years. I find it to be a somewhat weird future projection in an ever increasingly hostile world. People talk about climate change related ecosystem collapses, like the coral reefs getting bleached or overfishing or pollinators dying off etc. but this 10 billion people in the future is always there like it's set in stone. Is it there just for the sake of discussion or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
it's what's coming barring any pandemics or war because we can do damage to things like coral reefs etc. faster than it can have a noticeable impact on our reproduction e: that's not a good thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I'm okay with the future of civilization being kale, free birth control prescriptions for all, and weekly tree planting parties. If our future included both UBI and mandatory community/environmental service I would be stoked beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:This is why I'm not planning for the future. Don't make the great the enemy of the good. Or in the case of climate change, don't make the very^nth bad the enemy of the very^(n + 1)th bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:You know, in various articles and talking points they always have 10 billion as this future human population of Earth in X years. I find it to be a somewhat weird future projection in an ever increasingly hostile world. People talk about climate change related ecosystem collapses, like the coral reefs getting bleached or overfishing or pollinators dying off etc. but this 10 billion people in the future is always there like it's set in stone. Is it there just for the sake of discussion or what? Things would have to get really bad to offset our birth rates and we're probably going to hit 10 billion people before that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:You know, in various articles and talking points they always have 10 billion as this future human population of Earth in X years. I find it to be a somewhat weird future projection in an ever increasingly hostile world. People talk about climate change related ecosystem collapses, like the coral reefs getting bleached or overfishing or pollinators dying off etc. but this 10 billion people in the future is always there like it's set in stone. Is it there just for the sake of discussion or what? Paradoxically, decreased quality-of-life increases growth while increased quality-of-life decreases growth. Climate Change would have to get bad to shrink the developing world. As I understand it, we can thank feminism, healthcare and abandonment of subsistence-farming for the developed world's below-replacement growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:Big article with lots of info, analysis. Holy poo poo does future reforestation do some some heavy lifting there. That's talking about reforesting an amount of land equal to ~60% of the USA. And it doesn't work if it burns.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:00
|
|