1. We invest in renewable energy
2. We invest in renewable sources of food & water for an ever expanding population
3. ????
4. The world doesn't end
[QUOTE=person11;35455643]1. We invest in renewable energy
2. We invest in renewable sources of food & water for an ever expanding population
3. ????
4. The world doesn't end[/QUOTE]
Easier said than done to be honest
Chill bro's
Time to call NatGeo and show them my Doomsday Preppers compound.
[QUOTE=skifer;35454138]Solution = stop using non-renewable resources and concentrate on stable economic growth not hyper growth that ultimately leads to economic decline.[/QUOTE]
Did you just look at the graph or did you actually read the 50page report?
Pro tip read the report and look at all the If then statements, sure he pulls number but many of them are outdated, or from a prior report done in 1972
[QUOTE=Glorbo;35452722]These statements are always at least partially filled with bullshit.
They're unreliable because they take into account the current technological setup of the world, without taking into account any technological development that might improve the economy, because let's be honest, nobody can predict that.
So who knows.
Maybe the world will go to shit, maybe it won't. Maybe we'll be able to harness nuclear fusion to our benefit. Maybe we'll come up with a crazy solution to solve global pollution. Or maybe we won't. who knows.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Earthen;35453456]Technology is changing faster than you can imagine. This is just malthusian bullshit because it really does not take into account how vastly different technology will be in 18 years. Solar panels are getting cheaper at a ridiculous pace, treating water with nano-technology is working and is getting cheaper, GM crops will eventually have some regulation and be used properly. Nano-mollecular technology is slowly, but surely going into 3d so we can fully manipulate molecules and quite literally create food from mud. From an economical outlook we haven't even tapped in Africa's resources or all of Asia's resources. The rest of the world is developing slowly and will develop even faster when they drop neo-liberal economic practices. I'm pretty sure it's almost impossible to judge what is going to happen to the world, not to mention the world economy when we can't even readily predict what will happen next week.[/QUOTE]
This is, unfortunately, the single stupidest goddamn attitude a person can have about this subject. Your attitudes reflect the "science is magic" belief. NONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE GRAND WIZARDS WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, LOOK UPON THE MYSTERIES THEY HAVE ALREADY WROUGHT. MAYHAP YON FUSION AND MUDFOOD ARE JUST OVER THE HORIZON!
What critical cognitive defect do you posses that allows for both faith in the continual progression of technology, and yet knee-jerk rejection of threat prediction, when both come from the same pool of people? This is the attitude that allows for anthropogenic climate change to be dismissed as bunk- "well [I]real[/I] science wouldn't tell us we need to [I]change something[/I], it would tell us how we can keep being grotesque slobs forever and present magical little devices to solve all our problems!"
It's doublethink. An assumption progress is unpredictable when someone makes a prediction you do not like, because of predictions you do.
Wow 2030. 1 year before Episode 3 releases.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35458488]This is, unfortunately, the single stupidest goddamn attitude a person can have about this subject. Your attitudes reflect the "science is magic" belief. NONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE GRAND WIZARDS WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, LOOK UPON THE MYSTERIES THEY HAVE ALREADY WROUGHT. MAYHAP YON FUSION AND MUDFOOD ARE JUST OVER THE HORIZON!
What critical cognitive defect do you posses that allows for both faith in the continual progression of technology, and yet knee-jerk rejection of threat prediction, when both come from the same pool of people? This is the attitude that allows for anthropogenic climate change to be dismissed as bunk- "well [I]real[/I] science wouldn't tell us we need to [I]change something[/I], it would tell us how we can keep being grotesque slobs forever and present magical little devices to solve all our problems!"
It's doublethink. An assumption progress is unpredictable when someone makes a prediction you do not like, because of predictions you do.[/QUOTE]
agreed that shit's getting annoying
Hopefully they will cure diabetes before this so I can run into the wilderness and survive by myself and my side-kick who is a bear.
Let's get Bill Gates, James Cameron, Warren Buffett, and Richard Branson to invest in building a gigantic underwater utopia.
All the unworthy people will have to duke it out on the twisted hellish landscape of the apocalyptic future, while the chosen people enjoy a carefree life of excess and fantasy under the ocean.
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;35462385]Let's get Bill Gates, James Cameron, Warren Buffett, and Richard Branson to invest in building a gigantic underwater utopia.
All the unworthy people will have to duke it out on the twisted hellish landscape of the apocalyptic future, while the chosen people enjoy a carefree life of excess and fantasy under the ocean.[/QUOTE]
I'll go steal me a solar/wind generator assisted sailboat in all the chaos and sail out to sea and live with some Island natives until things cool down.
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;35462385]Let's get Bill Gates, James Cameron, Warren Buffett, and Richard Branson to invest in building a gigantic underwater utopia.
All the unworthy people will have to duke it out on the twisted hellish landscape of the apocalyptic future, while the chosen people enjoy a carefree life of excess and fantasy under the ocean.[/QUOTE]
Then we can invest in genetic mutations!
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35451845]I know you're trying to be skeptical but you bolded a word which had no impact on what you said (the several scenarios were talking about things we might change, not potential outcomes along the same course, hence the mention of the "business-as-usual scenario")[/quote]
If only we still had the "bad reading" rating...
I misread that part.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35451845] and then cited a guy who believed inflation was an "extralegal form of redistribution" and wanted to increases taxes on any company daring to pay its workers a wage above a government set baseline, and assumed it would be more fun to let an economy die by way of free market than attempting to reign it in.[/quote]
Oh. I didn't know that, I was just going with what the article said.
Okay, well screw that guy then.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35451845]How is it that scientists know about how much gold is on the planet total, even though we haven't ripped the entirety of it from the land and sea?[/QUOTE]
I meant more along the lines of oil and natural gas.
But eh, whatever.
[QUOTE=wari65;35462484]Then we can invest in genetic mutations![/QUOTE]
Gene therapy
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35458488]This is, unfortunately, the single stupidest goddamn attitude a person can have about this subject. Your attitudes reflect the "science is magic" belief. NONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE GRAND WIZARDS WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, LOOK UPON THE MYSTERIES THEY HAVE ALREADY WROUGHT. MAYHAP YON FUSION AND MUDFOOD ARE JUST OVER THE HORIZON!
What critical cognitive defect do you posses that allows for both faith in the continual progression of technology, and yet knee-jerk rejection of threat prediction, when both come from the same pool of people? This is the attitude that allows for anthropogenic climate change to be dismissed as bunk- "well [I]real[/I] science wouldn't tell us we need to [I]change something[/I], it would tell us how we can keep being grotesque slobs forever and present magical little devices to solve all our problems!"
It's doublethink. An assumption progress is unpredictable when someone makes a prediction you do not like, because of predictions you do.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because some people don't want to live thinking they're fucked? Honestly if there's no way to fix it as many people in this thread seem to be saying people might as well go on living as if magical technology is right over the horizon anyways. We're all fucked in the end anyways. Apparently it doesn't matter whether we turn to renewable energy sources or not because the resources used to make those will run out as well at least according to the post that killuah made.
I wish the article went more into detail on the course of action which they suggested we take to avoid this. Not like any government would agree to a measure which would limit economic growth though.
I love the fact that no one in this thread actually read the 50+ page report but just look at the graph and go I DUZ KNO EVERYTHING
PS: read the report and you'll realize it is total BS
Sad thing is the only way we could make a full 180 would cost millions if not billions of lives.
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;35462385]Let's get Bill Gates, James Cameron, Warren Buffett, and Richard Branson to invest in building a gigantic underwater utopia.
All the unworthy people will have to duke it out on the twisted hellish landscape of the apocalyptic future, while the chosen people enjoy a carefree life of excess and fantasy under the ocean.[/QUOTE]
That didn't turn out so well in practice...
[QUOTE=Talkbox;35453819]Communism is dated.
[IMG]http://urbnfutr.theurbn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jacque-fresco.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
venus project?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35450911][img]http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/osho/Osho-on-karl-marx.jpg[/img]
Come on, it's worth a try.[/QUOTE]
Nope. I enjoy success, not collective mediocrity.
[editline]9th April 2012[/editline]
This whole study is based on the untrue fact that we will continue to use nonrenewable resources.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35463333]I love the fact that no one in this thread actually read the 50+ page report but just look at the graph and go I DUZ KNO EVERYTHING
PS: read the report and you'll realize it is total BS[/QUOTE]
49 pages get your facts right
I guess i should start investing in some kind of dooms day plan?
Like a bunker or somthing, fill it was dvds and video games and shit and some hot chicks and a chocolate fountain and solid gold chairs, a giant swimming pool and a built in mc donalds.
I'll emerge from the bunker years after and teach the ravaged word how to properly take care of their money.
I'm skeptical that we're heading for economic disaster as this graph describes. Sure, population is limited to the amount of people the planet can support, but that combined with dwindling amounts of nonrenewables shouldn't mean a complete implosion of economics as we know it. Sooner or later we'll beat oil and solve the questions associated with solar and wind power.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35463333]I love the fact that no one in this thread actually read the 50+ page report but just look at the graph and go I DUZ KNO EVERYTHING
PS: read the report and you'll realize it is total BS[/QUOTE]
I'm glad we have someone here smarter than MIT researchers.
I don't wanna die.
We will pull though, we always do. It does not matter if this article is right or wrong, just a general statement.
It always gets worse before it gets better, hopefully after such a collapse we can all put a side the stupid bullshit we fight about and kill each other over every day. Instead work together to protect one another and make sure nothing terrible happens.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y[/media]
Due to law of Supply and Demand, resource depletion incentivizes the market to find substitutes, more deposits, and more efficient use.
For example, take hybrids. More expensive than your typical gas guzzling car, but if you use it regularly, the opportunity costs of driving a cheaper gas guzzling car will exceed the fixed cost of paying for a hybrid. This calculator I found shows this principle very well. [url]http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-hybridcalculator-fl,0,2196084.flash[/url]
Again this applies for many other limited resources, which the paper bases the majority of its argument on. It even addresses this weakness on page 10 of the study, saying that it acknowledges this effect, and simply assumes remaining amounts based on published literature, from over 40 years ago, and as you can see by the above video, will prove to be very unreliable.
[QUOTE=Cone;35450908]This isn't exactly news to most people. You can scarcely turn on the TV without something proclaiming the importance of minimizing our carbon footprint and such.
Not that anybody's actually doing anything, of course.[/QUOTE]
Don't you pay attention to the huge influx in high mpg cars, great increase in priuses (which, contrary to your angsty belief, is more environmentally friendly, don't give me that battery shit I don't care, one battery won't cause as much damage so as to make the 30mpg increase from the average car negligible), electric cars, solar panels, wind power, nuclear power, and yeah.
u guys need to know that copyright and pirates are more important
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
