NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End

  On 3/23/2014 at 7:32 PM, very honest said:

apparently the UN is in on it.

Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report

this UN?

the world is filled with whiny little children who love to play funny little games

The creep returns

Edited March 24, 2014 by Schlitze

that's mr. creep plees

No fighting in the war thread please!

Left, right. It ain't gonna matter when you're riding a fiery space rocket into oblivion, is it?

 

Accept the Lord. Accept the Infinite Universe in to and out of your being. Join the hyper-intelligent thought-cloud of lifeforms and smoke weed. Definitely smoke weed.

  On 3/24/2014 at 2:07 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 3/23/2014 at 7:32 PM, very honest said:

apparently the UN is in on it.

Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report

this UN?

 

 

At moments at this you wonder if there are Archangels about, and why they haven't swooped down from the heavens to vindicate.

 

Oh wait, can't have dem wrathful feelings.

I would just like to poke in and say that NASA can't predict what technology will do in the next 15 years.

 

We have been 'on the brink' several times and technology has bailed us. We were facing mass starvation 100 years ago until there was a breakthrough in synthetic fertilizer.

 

We'll see, I guess.

  On 3/24/2014 at 2:07 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 3/23/2014 at 7:32 PM, very honest said:

apparently the UN is in on it.

Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report

this UN?

Yes clearly a program that was introduced by the US 19 years ago is extremely relevant to the UN today. Never mind that the Secretary General has changed twice since that bill was introduced (and it wasn't even introduced by the UN), they're exactly the same.

 

Also you haven't done a goddamn thing to question the NASA study.* You've erected a strawman whereby your perverted vision of what a "leftist" looks like (they're all the same don't you know) somehow convinces the government and elites to start hoarding supplies.

 

Fucks sake, at least try and maintain a modicum of reality when making an argument.

 

*please note this statement does not signal agreement with the NASA study's conclusion.

  On 3/24/2014 at 9:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I would just like to poke in and say that NASA can't predict what technology will do in the next 15 years.

 

We have been 'on the brink' several times and technology has bailed us. We were facing mass starvation 100 years ago until there was a breakthrough in synthetic fertilizer.

 

We'll see, I guess.

 

 

they can definitely look at general trends though, which is what their bit about "efficiency --> more consumption" was. that's a pretty well-documented phenomenon, and unless the industrialized nations of the world step up and unanimously agree to limit consumption even as energy gets cheaper and easier to acquire, things won't be able to change much (ex: if someone buys a gas-efficient car, do they generall drive less miles than in a gas-guzzler? unfortunately, they generally do the opposite). i just finished reading "Technofix: Why technology won't save us or the environment" a few months ago and there's a lot of interesting, well thought-out arguments about the limits of technology (often wrt the "bail outs" it's lended to our societies). i'd recommend reading it if you're interested in this subject. all i can say as a quick summary is that technology won't fix the environmental issues we face today... in fact it's largely what got us into this mess.

booyah, the study is actually available to read now: http://www.sesync.org/sites/default/files/resources/motesharrei-rivas-kalnay.pdf

 

(just found it, haven't read it, but i'm glad it's available now -- will read tomorrow)

  On 3/25/2014 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/24/2014 at 2:07 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 3/23/2014 at 7:32 PM, very honest said:

apparently the UN is in on it.

Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report

this UN?

Yes clearly a program that was introduced by the US 19 years ago is extremely relevant to the UN today. Never mind that the Secretary General has changed twice since that bill was introduced (and it wasn't even introduced by the UN), they're exactly the same.

 

Also you haven't done a goddamn thing to question the NASA study.* You've erected a strawman whereby your perverted vision of what a "leftist" looks like (they're all the same don't you know) somehow convinces the government and elites to start hoarding supplies.

 

Fucks sake, at least try and maintain a modicum of reality when making an argument.

 

*please note this statement does not signal agreement with the NASA study's conclusion.

 

my argument was simply to counter the suggestion that the UN being involved in some form of corrupt happenings is absurd. my point was made. i didn't say that that proved they WERE involved in something here. VH bringing them up 'oh apparently the UN is also involved' was presented as if the idea becomes ridiculous because the UN could never be involved in something like that. look at the magnitude of corruption in the oil for food program and all the ways it was gamed, by some of the people who set it up. and you can say it was however many years ago but so fucking what? many of the people involved in that scandal totally got off the hook. some of the investigations INTO the scandal were handled BY the UN. to some degree, it IS still the same organization, in the sense that the united states is still the same country as it was then, with the same form of government, the same capacity for corruption, and the same agendas.

 

your whole post is just a lot of anger towards me and pretty much no substance. and btw it was introduced 19 yrs ago but it continued up to 2003.

 

i don't have to counter the study. its some math used to predict the fall of mankind. you want to believe that shit makes sense go ahead. too bad this math guy wasn't around to predict the rise of hitler back before ww2. and also limpy pointed out that the way shit goes doesn't only come down to the millions of individual people involved, but also the scientific solutions that might come up to deal with problems. you think some guy can predict all that with math, there are plenty of great programs about ufos and pyramids on the history channel you might be interested in.

Edited March 25, 2014 by MisterE

it isn't about the fall of mankind, lol

 

it's about depletion of resources and economic stratification trends through history

 

totally quantifiable and documented subjects, therefore, math.

Edited March 25, 2014 by luke viia

its not about the fall of mankind, it's just about the 'collapse of society' which is right in the fucking title. seriously, i know you guys don't like that i have an opposing view, but when youre looking to find something to disagree with me on, do a bit of a better job ok?

 

it's using math to predict the 'collapse of society'

 

i think my replacing 'collapse of society' with 'fall of mankind', which is a bit of (obvious) mocking exaggeration, is pretty similar and fair.

  On 3/25/2014 at 3:48 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 3/24/2014 at 9:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I would just like to poke in and say that NASA can't predict what technology will do in the next 15 years.

 

We have been 'on the brink' several times and technology has bailed us. We were facing mass starvation 100 years ago until there was a breakthrough in synthetic fertilizer.

 

We'll see, I guess.

 

 

they can definitely look at general trends though, which is what their bit about "efficiency --> more consumption" was. that's a pretty well-documented phenomenon, and unless the industrialized nations of the world step up and unanimously agree to limit consumption even as energy gets cheaper and easier to acquire, things won't be able to change much (ex: if someone buys a gas-efficient car, do they generall drive less miles than in a gas-guzzler? unfortunately, they generally do the opposite). i just finished reading "Technofix: Why technology won't save us or the environment" a few months ago and there's a lot of interesting, well thought-out arguments about the limits of technology (often wrt the "bail outs" it's lended to our societies). i'd recommend reading it if you're interested in this subject. all i can say as a quick summary is that technology won't fix the environmental issues we face today... in fact it's largely what got us into this mess.

 

 

My point was that 100 years ago the general trend was "We can't feed 2 billion people, there is undoubtedly going to be mass starvation" and then a solution arose.

 

I'm gonna come right out and say that anyone who thinks that science/technology can't possibly bail us out is wrong.

 

(whether it actually will, however, is the real question)

Edited March 25, 2014 by LimpyLoo

lol, well, both of you are entitled to your opinions. one guy thinks all mathematical models are garbage and uses hyperbole to prove it... the other guy thinks technology will save the world and uses exactly the sort of "technological fix" example that has led us to over-exploitation of resources to make the point. i think you're both happily wallowing in ignorance, tbh. good day gentlemen.

Edited March 25, 2014 by luke viia

  On 3/25/2014 at 4:23 AM, luke viia said:

lol, well, both of you are entitled to your opinions. one guy thinks all mathematical models are garbage and uses hyperbole to prove it... the other guy thinks technology will save the world and uses exactly the sort of "technological fix" example that has led us to over-exploitation of resources to make the point. i think you're both happily wallowing in ignorance, tbh. good day gentlemen.

 

Umm lol

 

If you can't imagine a scientific solution then you need to go back to school, my friend.

i am in school, studying technology. just finishing up my last engineering classes. thanks for the advice though.

i never said all scientific/mathematic models were garbage. you want to act like i'm some kind of idiot but in your last post you were ridiculing me for saying 'fall of mankind' when the title of the paper includes the words 'collapse of society'. you use some sciencey words to show how smart you are and explain that it's nothing to do with the fall of mankind but instead about math and numbers and things which are quantifiable.

 

"it isn't about the fall of mankind, lol

it's about depletion of resources and economic stratification trends through history"

 

oh i see, so it doesn't say 'collapse of society' right in the title? lol indeed. i guess they don't teach basic logic in engineering class.

collapse of society. yeah totally not at all even in the ballpark as anything having to do with the fall of mankind. i must be on drugs.

 

on the other hand, it's good to know that sociology is now a hard science that can be computed with math using predator prey equations/models.

Edited March 25, 2014 by MisterE

why are you such a nozzle

ow.

  On 3/25/2014 at 4:53 AM, MisterE said:

i never said all scientific/mathematic models were garbage. you want to act like i'm some kind of idiot but in your last post you were ridiculing me for saying 'fall of mankind' when the title of the paper includes the words 'collapse of society'. you use some sciencey words to show how smart you are and explain that it's nothing to do with the fall of mankind but instead about math and numbers and things which are quantifiable.

 

"it isn't about the fall of mankind, lol

it's about depletion of resources and economic stratification trends through history"

 

oh i see, so it doesn't say 'collapse of society' right in the title? lol indeed. i guess they don't teach basic logic in engineering class.

collapse of society. yeah totally not at all even in the ballpark as anything having to do with the fall of mankind. i must be on drugs.

 

on the other hand, it's good to know that sociology is now a hard science that can be computed with math using predator prey equations/models.

 

"Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY):

Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the

Collapse or Sustainability of Societies"

 

is the title of the paper. societies do fall, they cite many examples with similar problems to what we (the US) are facing now. mankind has not fallen. i needed to lol.

 

it isn't sociology.

 

i'm not trying to make you out to be an idiot. sorry if i made you feel bad, mistere.

you didn't. the paper is about predicting the collapse of society by mathematically modelling relationships between various elements of society and comparing those with other factors. the ultimate point is to determine a point where society would collapse. which is why the words 'society' and 'collapse' are in the title, and why the title of this thread is 'when civilization will end' and why i said 'fall of mankind'. it's pretty simple.

 

and when i made the comment about sociology i was referring to the math models they have for 'elites' and 'commoners'. so you're saying that even though those two things are what we could call 'elements of society', and even more specifically are elements of society that are studied extensively by sociologists (when they talk about socioeconomic determinants having to do with behavioral patterns, pretty sure that relates to this), you're still saying that this has nothing to do with sociology? they aren't applying math to sociology at all there?

how about we drop the "fall of mankind" thing. i honestly don't care, all i did was lol at you briefly. let us get over it together.

 

i'm not sure what your point is about the sociology thing. sociologists deploy mathematical models regularly, afaik. not sure if you have a problem with that or what, but i don't, so i'd rather not argue about it.