Meadows holds that collapse is now all but inevitable, but that its actual form will be too complex for any model to predict. "Collapse will not be driven by a single, identifiable cause simultaneously acting in all countries," he observes. "It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues"—including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. When economies slow down, Meadows explains, fewer products are created relative to demand, and "when the rich can't get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments." As scarcities mount and inequality increases, revolutions and socioeconomic movements like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street will become more widespread—as will their repression.
Many observers protest that such apocalyptic scenarios discount human ingenuity. Technology and markets will solve problems as they show up, they argue. But for that to happen, contends economist Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge in the U.K., policymakers must guide technology with the right incentives. As long as natural resources are underpriced compared with their true environmental and social cost—as long as, for instance, automobile consumers do not pay for lives lost from extreme climatic conditions caused by warming from their vehicles' carbon emissions—technology will continue to produce resource-intensive goods and worsen the burden on the ecosystem, Dasgupta argues. "You can't expect markets to solve the problem," he says. Randers goes further, asserting that the short-term focus of capitalism and of extant democratic systems makes it impossible not only for markets but also for most governments to deal effectively with long-term problems such as climate change.
"We're in for a period of sustained chaos whose magnitude we are unable to foresee," Meadows warns. He no longer spends time trying to persuade humanity of the limits to growth. Instead, he says, "I'm trying to understand how communities and cities can buffer themselves" against the inevitable hard landing.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
104 Comments
Add CommentWhen I saw the article title, I thought how very Tabloid, having read it, I think there is some truth in, most probably from unexpected source(s), no matter how many scenarios you describe, nature will provide more...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy your own definition, this article is no more insane than your own opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmotions, Ego, Ideology, and Politics -- the "Four Boogeymen" that are *always* used against rationality by those who are most deeply invested in preserving the Status Quo. (And of course, they are *always* Righteously Scientific and Exempt from the influence of these same boogeymen.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo wonder Meadows no longer tries to get civilization to wake up and save itself. Neither do I. Focus on survival, folks -- that's all that's left. At some point, you just have to flee Pompeii and leave the hanger-ons to their fate.
I don't believe Civilization is yet at the point of no return in terms of abilities to correct problems. But in terms of geo-politics and/or the desires of various cultures and peoples to change ingrained habits and desires...then yes we are past the point of no return. Short of some kind of natural and manmade disasters and some kind of worldwide population controls, I think the tipping point and the frog in the hot water tub has been in effect for a hundred years. The water is slowly inevitably reaching the boiling point while we frogs continue happily swimming in our own broth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is feasible to correct and change, but not likely.
The complexity of human civilization and ability to adapt does lend some hope in this matter. However we humans can be quite self destructive as well. The economic models have definitely shifted from goods and services being scarce, to energy and natural resources being scarce. Just like with goods and services, how we increased productivity several hundred times over during the industrial revolution, we can do the same with natural resources. Currently we are very inefficient and crude when it comes to the use of the earths resources. This mean there is a tremendous business and economic opportunity that many are beginning to realize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember reading about predictions of catastrophe that were made over 100 years ago, due to the piles of horse droppings that were expected to accumulate as the population grew and horse carriages grew along with it. By now we were all supposed to be buried in a pile of horse droppings several feet deep. Apparently the horse droppings have been replaced by car and electric power plant emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep trying to persuade people of the benefit of replacing coal, natural gas, and oil power with non-polluting renewables. But it's a tough slog. A lot of people don't want to let go of their familiar fossil fuel energy sources, just like people back then didn't want to let go of their horse drawn carriages. We'll see what happens.
"some researchers think....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup...on can quuote 'some researchers' to think anything...crop circles are from UFO's, Sasquatch's like ice cream....Noah sailed around for 40 days.
What really gets me is that you have a small group of influential business and civic leaders in every nation who are the pied pipers of humanity's coming near demise.The inability of greedy nations to change the course of environmental destruction will be the main culprit.Our own pollution (greenhouse gases)is melting the permafrost, warming the oceans and releasing millions of tons of methane which will make life here for billions impossible. It's the old frying pan into the fire scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOut here on our ranch we have wood rats. They build these large complex nests in the trees and on the ground. They use whatever is at hand and the nests tend to leak excrement, smell terrible and the rats don't mind at all.Every so often they move into a barn or truck and start setting up house- they use the upholstery or carpeting or irrigation pipe fittings- they're flexible and uh resourceful.They are very smart at what they do! Busy being rats. Eventually though they move on due to environmental changes and build new nests and breed and continue to be instinctively destructive to their surroundings. Fortunately for them they have a lot to work with....
So all you climate-change nay-sayers out there I challenge you to turn off your tv's,cell phones and tablets, electricity too and pick up a shovel and see what you can grow on your own. Not much I'm guessing.
The time is coming when ideology and a fat bank account won't matter.Doomsday prepping for centuries...right. I don't know when this time is coming probably one mega-disaster after another spread out over the coming decades but it is coming.One tsunami after another.
All the kings horses and all the kingsmen won't be able to reconstruct humpty dumpty together again.
The way things are very much reminds me of those wood rats.Well,if we are to stupid to change now we can at least use those shovels to dig our own graves.
I hope the authors are wrong, I really do, but life has taught me that my wishes don't carry a lot of weight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to consider the possibility that the actual situation will be even worse than their prediction.
As I look around me I can see that most people change when they have no choice. At some point in the future, we'll have no choice.
It may be too late to prevent a regression to a lower population and lower standard of living, but I'm thinking that it is never too late to mitigate the extent of the damages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a bit like seeing a car wreck coming, and being pretty sure you can't avoid it. Do you hit the brakes or not? Wrecking at 30 mph is better than wrecking at 70 mph.
Getting off of fossil fuels would not only mitigate the amount of environmental degradation caused by climate change, but also make in so that the survivors would be less committed to repeating the pattern again.
The crash is 8 months away. Genetic bomb is rumored to attack the heart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's silly to cast this article as "insane." It's totally reasonable: it doesn't say that the world will end, or that everyone will die. It says that there will be temperature increases, resource shortages, food shortages, all of which will cause unrest and war, ultimately resulting in a population significantly less than we have today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've seen such scenarios play out again and again in the past in places like Easter Island and Mayan Central America and the Roman Empire. There are limits to technology, and without the energy and raw materials to support it, technology will not be able to save us no matter how ingenious we might be.
When you include the possibility of worldwide bird flu pandemics and antibiotic-resistant staph and tuberculosis infections, is it really so far-fetched that we'll have massive declines in population at some point in the next fifty to hundred years?
The economic model that has governed us for the past century and prior is unsustainable. We have the means to prevent this catastrophe but, our leadership is married to this model til death do us part. So, they're in the business of denial. They will soon spend more on denial (thanks to Citizens United) than we invest in public transportation which would largely alleviate our insatiable need to burn fossil fuels without any new miraculous technological breakthrough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen signs of economic degeneracy all along the way. Our national business model does not support the production of durable dry goods. I have power tools from the 1970s that continue to work long after the garbage that I've bought in more recent decades has turned to trash. Part of reducing consumption is as simple as building products such as vehicles, tools, electronics, and appliances that last longer. We've gone the other way where all you can find in most stores is cheap shoddy crap assembled by slaves in China who themselves are ready to leap from the roof and go splat on the pavement below.
Our economic model is governed by cowardice and so is our government. Instead of freeing ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil, we send drones and giant battleships full of hardware to murder people all over the globe. We worship the denizens of the stock markets as if they were gods when their conduct is actually more akin to a hypervigilant herd of sheep that stand shivering in the sun ready to stampede at the slightest whim. This is what governs us.
So, I'm not the least bit surprised that all this stupidity leads to the very real possibility of extinction or something very close to that. Humanity has survived ice ages. We're untested facing the prospect of a boiling hot planet. Those are the stakes.
The good news is that we can avoid this by changing our ideas about how to work with each other and get rid of our leaders. We are many. They are few. Get rid of them sooner rather than later.
The Zombies are us! RUN!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural catastrophes have always been natures way of keeping over population in check. What is considered a natural catastrophe is really just a matter of definition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you put two rats in a silo full of corn with a water supply and let them multiply at will, eventually their increase in population would increase until food was scarce, the water was polluted, and the environment fouled. Next homosexuality, cannibalism, violence and infighting would erupt. Eventually, when enough carnage and pollution reached a tipping point, plague would become the dominant life form, the colony would die and only mold, microbes, and bacteria would be left to digest the effluent.
Apparently Chicken Little is writing under a nom de plume (nom de plumage?).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of the growing and extreme methane threat -- something that can accelerate global collapse to within a decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethane is the crack cocaine of climate change.
The BIG problem with this article is the "catastrophe" it predicts is very general. It sounds as if every place, every nation on the planet will suffer tremendously, when it's already clear there are nations whose fate is as clear as day, especially once the oil runs out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely HUGE population drops will occur in the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, UAE Etc., the nations that are entirely desert and desalinate ocean water for ALL their needs.
They can afford to do that now, but once the oil runs out they won't. Their fantasy notions of becoming a financial center are idiotic, and destined to fail.
The populations of those nations is booming, but they have invested almost nothing in the tech that might carry them safely beyond the end of their oil resources.
Unfortunately for them, the option for emigrating won't be one for any but the wealthiest among them for the rest of the world's nations will be struggling to cope with the problems as well, and they will have NO will to stretch what the have even further.
So in terms of population collapse nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq will be devastated. Those deaths will spare other parts of the world.
Nations which depend overwhelmingly on other nations outside their borders for the basics of like like water are the nations that will suffer the absolute worst should the scenarios come to pass.
Even worse for these nations, they import 99% of their food, because they have not bothered to develop sustainable desert agriculture which is possible. There are a multitude of desert flora that are very edible and produce in abundance with the minimal water resources these nations have, yet they waste their fossil water growing water hungry wheat and cotton.
They are predicted to run out of water for these crops about the same time they run out of oil.
So they'll be hit hard when their oil runs out. They'll lack the resources to buy food and pay for the desalinization.
Then there are a host of mini island nations that will all but disappear whose populations will perish NOT emigrate.
The irony is rich. The nations that have the most to lose and who currently have the resources to spend on finding solutions to survive the predicted collapse are the ones who waste their resources with wonton abandon.
Other nations like Russia should it survive intact until then will benefit tremendously from the chaos, as well as Canada, and even the USA and the EU. All these regions are able to at least feed themselves.
While the US is currently able to feed itself, this ability relies heavily on agricultural equipment that requires fossil fuels. Once the oil runs out, we'll be hard pressed to provide enough for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have enough coal to produce petrochemicals for agriculture for hundreds of years. You're not impressing anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe malthusians have beed at it ever since Malthus. As kids in the 60's we were told world pop. would be 10billion by 1980. Later it was 1990, then 2000. Now 10 billon is not viewed as remotely possible. Bear in mind that these prediction were made be the most enlightened among ivy leaguers and west coasters among us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs is true that we are entering a time of massive transition culturally and economically. Just as the late 19th century, looking forward we can not predict exactly the combination of elements that will define the next 100 years but they will develop. Will world population drop from current levels; most certainly. I we are proactive this can be more of a gentle trajectory, if not it will be a fall either by conflict or disease, probably both.
The one thing that can turn this into a disaster would be undue regulatory involvement by government types. Such people are forever trapped the the fallacy of zero sum games, consequently they are frozen in the mode of picking what they perceive as winners and losers. Examples such as Solendra, prove the idiocy of the approach. For all we know the essential step in the evolution to the new economy could be made by a pig farmer in Iowa. We have to retain the economic fluidity to permit such ideas to play with the big boys.
Singing Flea wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you put two rats in a silo full of corn with a water supply and let them multiply at will, eventually their increase in population would increase until food was scarce, the water was polluted, and the environment fouled. Next homosexuality, cannibalism, violence and infighting would erupt.
------------
One of the results of resourse scarcity is an eruption of homosexuality? . . . Got to call you on that one, bro.
Sorry, "resource".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to understand just how bad the envoronment got in the US in the late 60's came to a head where even republicans voted for the EPA, Clean Air, water acts, etc.
Places like LA, most steel, coal, chemical industry towns, the Great Lakes, most rivers were dying or dead with some even catching fire in major cities. Had that continued we'd be like China is now choking on their offal and dying in big numbers from it.
Even China now understands they will all die soon if they don't get pollution under control. Sadly it's likely to be too late to prevent the Candian, Siberian tundra's from turn it's massive frozen peat into CO2 and methane will put the nail in the GW coffin so jusy plan for to to get hotter and many coastal areas become sea bottom.
However there is a far more likely way to destroy civilization. Repubs tried in 2000-2008 to run us, US gov, into the ground small enough to drown in a tub. And they almost did if Obama hadn't saved their, our as-es and pulled us back from a 10-20 yr world wide depression.
Since 2008 they have done everything they can to keep the economy from growing and things like not increasing the debt ceiling which caused the last fall GDP dip of 1% and dropped the US credit rating. Now they have warned they are going to do it again!!
If Romney wins and go back to the same GOP policies the money speculators will drop the $ like a rock and since the national debt, $1.3T/yr deficit they left us more in debt than Greece!!!! True fact, look it up.
Only because investors think we will clean up the repub mess are they still bankrolling us. Once they see Repubs leading us back into debt as the RyanRomney plan does, they will no longer believe we will pay it back and we'll, the world be bankrupt. That is our biggest danger.
Think if Repubs/Bush had kept Clinton's budget we wouldn't have any nation debt now. Do the numbers $250B surplus and rising, $5T, now $15T, debt when Bush took office run to $1.3T deficit/yr with the off book expenses they hid on books like Obama does and repubs can't seem to remember.
If we had forecasts of economic growth based on some laissez faire model that matched reality like the plots in this article, denialists like Huffman would be touting them as a triumph. But because they tell us something the denialists don't want to hear, they don't count.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery single negative trend in the U.S. can be traced to excessive population: illegal immigration, traffic and urban sprawl, crowded air travel, crime, increased social spending, etc., etc.
I can believe this synopsis. Apparently about 90% of large fish have been taken from the sea and it looks very likely we are accelerating global warming. Its all commonsense there are too many of us, using to much energy and the earths resources. This will lead to tipping points and lets just hope on top of this we do not have any major wars or worse still nuclear conflicts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very scarry picture, I hope he is wrong but he paints a very believable picture. Humanity does seem to be on a course of self destruction. We seem do to be following natures course, species build up and just keep taking from their environment with no reguard for the future and then nature kicks in and the species is taken back to a 'sustainable' number....that may or maynot be sustained. It has happened over and over again since life evolved, perhaps our perceived intelligence is not sufficient to save us from ourselves. I guess a society based on greed is not, in the long term, sustainable on a finite planet!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Great Revival of The Club Of Rome Report recalls another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1756 that founding father of televangelism, John Wesley published a pamphlet warning the world to repent before 1758, when “The Earth would be set afire and burnt to a coal’ by the fiery tail of Halley’s Comet.
Armed with Newton's <i>Principia</i>, one Paul Gemsege took exception, pointing out that the mighty preacher had his comets crossed, having confused the trajectory of the “excellent and accurate Doctor Halley’s” harmless namesake with an obscure Jacobean comet that will not recross the Earth’s orbit until 2256.
Gemsege's geometric proof of Wesley’s error was so elegant that the Editors of <i>The Gentlemans Magazine </i> gave him space to publish it as the first science Op-ed in the English language. It concluded thus:
Authors who throw out such important particulars as these, though it be done with the best design in the world, should be very sure of their hand before they alarm us with their notices, lest by the subjecting of weak minds to groundless pains they should contribute to embitter their lives, which has in it something most very cruel, and even criminal.
<i>As the tree falls so must it lie,</i> a reflection that if considered withal, to how many real disasters, without having recourse to any imaginary ones the life of man is daily exposed will be abundantly sufficient for the purpose of true religion.
That is, to make men think on the judgment of the Great Day. Therefore there is no reason to distract their minds by unreasonable fears that, as they tend to so greatly distract them, instead of doing them any service , are likely to do them a great deal of harm.”
Humans can control many things these days, but not the movement of tectonic plates, with earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Toba eruption almost wiped out our species, 70,000 years ago.
It could happen again.
Don't worry about asteroids from space, or running out of resources.
We live on a ticking time bomb.
The Egyptian empire lasted many milleniums. We're in the first few hundred years of an American empire that may last ten times as long. Technology is accelerating so fast that humans may outlive the environment if not this planet's star, but hopefully will have the wherewithal to leave at that point and start fresh, versus the all to predictable stripping other worlds of resources in a ghoulish quest for survival. We shall see (that is, if we catch the illusive wave of "immortality" that is so close, and yet so far).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first environmental type article that hasn't attracted hoards of deniers. The few gainsayers here either completely ignore the article (e.g. geojellyroll and outside the box - who is totally inside the box) or trot out old irrelevant arguments (e.g. ssm1959) but most seem to at least have some awareness of what is going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo reiterate one point mentioned; we now need the services of 1.5 earths for our global economy. It seems to slip by the deniers, who perhaps think we can draw down resources and destroy habitat at a continually increasing rate for ever. Someone mentioned the 90% loss of big fish in the ocean. Another fact emerged from scientific study recently that we've lost 30% of the wildlife, on this planet, since 1970. A further recent study showed that loss of biodiversity has a detrimental environmental effect similar to global warming. Species extinctions are now running at, at least, 100 times the background rate.
We've got nowhere to go but down. Better prepare yourself.
The apocalyptic predictions look good to me. Population down to four billion in 2100. Pollution, industrial output, non-renewable energy all down by 2100. Isn't that good? That means lower population growth, cleaner environment, lower consumption, more renewable energy. It's a clean and green sustainable future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis apocalypse is too good to be true!
The apocalyptic predictions look good to me. Population down to four billion in 2100. Pollution, industrial output, non-renewable energy all down by 2100. Isn't that good? That means lower population growth, cleaner environment, lower consumption, more renewable energy. It's a clean and green sustainable future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis apocalypse is too good to be true!
folks if what this said is true then look at the last book in the bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I'm a retired physicist/math/eng from Caltech/JPL. If you doubt this, I will send you my key to review my patents & pubs. SA was once my favorite mag. I especially enjoyed Martin Gardner's math columns. One science article about the Earth's history when the oceans receeded 100 meters has always stuck in my mind. Now you have sunk so low as to roll in the muck with such lying/sex perverts/political criminals as Algore. "How the Mighty Have Fallen". You have no shame, no responsibility to educate people as to the truth about AGW--the greatest science fraud since Lysenkoism. Hang your heads in shame. The first publishers of SA must never hear of this denigration of truth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we don't act immediately and take draconian action, we humans could be extinct by 2060. This is not a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full
"Drought Under Global Warming: a Review"
"Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series" by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought caused by GW [Global Warming].
See:
"Ecological Footprints and Bio-Capacity: Essential Elements in Sustainability Assessment" by William E. Rees, PhD, University of British Columbia and "Living Planet Report 2008" also by Rees.
We went past the Earth's permanent carrying capacity for humans some time in the 1980s. We are 20%+ over our limit already. And the US no longer has excess biocapacity. We are feeding on imports. 4 Billion people will die because we are 2 Billion over the carrying capacity. An overshoot must be followed by an undershoot.
Reference: "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. When agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. Fagan and Diamond told the stories of something like 2 dozen previous very small civilizations. Most of the collapses were caused by fraction of a degree climate changes. In some cases, all of that group died. On the average, 1 out of 10,000 survived. We humans could go EXTINCT in the 2050s. The 1 out of 10,000 survived because he wandered in the direction of food. If the collapse is global, there is no right direction.
We must take extreme action now. Cut CO2 production 40% by the end of 2015. [How to do this: Replace all coal fired power plants with factory built nuclear. Renewables do not work except for niche markets.] Continuing to make CO2 is the greatest imaginable GENOCIDE. We have to act NOW. Acting in 2049 will not work. Nature just doesn't work that way. All fossil fuel fired power plants must be shut down and replaced with nuclear. Target date: 2015.
2. Expect at least 4 Billion people to die because of the population overshoot. Attempt to maintain some form of civilization while this happens.
How are we feeding 7 billion now? On "mined" water. Aquifers are running dry. When the aquifers are dry, the food is gone.
Why is it that when well-trained, experienced and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgenerally pretty independent-minded scientists,
using the well-substantiated scientific method,
explain and predict for us the most probable results
of performing an action on animate or inanimate
objects, most of us tend not to kick and whine or
otherwise hold our breaths 'til our faces turn
blue... when it's about classical or quantum
mechanics, astronomy or even (gulp) biology?
But when the same kinds of scientists, indeed,
in some cases, precisely the same scientists,
using the same methodology and care, explain
and predict for us the most probable outcome
of ignoring accelerating emission of CO2 and
methane and the misuse of finite resources, a
sizable fraction of us immediately acquire a
transcendent, and apparently impenetrable,
certainty that their hood is being winked,
their bam has been boozled and that someone
thinks they just fell off the turnip cart.
In short, that no so-called scayntists groping
for grant money can pull the wool over their
infallible eyes.
What political, economic and social forces can
cause usually modern minds to unhinge and retreat
to utterly entrenched hostility somewhat resembling
the reaction of the Holy Office of the Inquisition
of the seventeenth century, when it realized the
dangers of science to the comfortable power of
the church? Not to mention the danger to the
lovely status quo.
I'd say it's nearsightedness (not looking into the future) and navel-gazing (thinking only of the human herd).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of us seem to think only about the inner dynamics of our species, forgetting that the human herd is supported by a vast machine that surrounds it.
I like to think that this is equivalent to the engineer that constantly frets about the gauges (i.e., growth) while neglecting to see that the rusting, bulging boiler is slowly (at first) exploding in his face.
"The pessimists are learning Russian, and the optimists are learning Chinese." - Cold War cliche
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver-shoot collapse forecasts are nothing new. Great divide tipping points ... ditto. Famine and plagues are on the retreat thanks to the response power of modern civilization.
The 3 big questions with AGW have always been:
1. How bad will it get?
2. How quickly will it get bad?
3. How long will it stay bad?
The study attempts to model answers to question 1 (very bad), and question 2 (mid-century). But observations don't match that projection; and the science doesn't match some of the model's parameters (don't expect 'crop bloom' - there's no sign of it after a 40% CO2 supercharge). The study's projection of a serious headshot precludes the need for addressing question 3.
In actual observations, AGW is manifesting itself so far as oceanic disruptions (ex. dead zones), and extreme event anomalies (ex. Russian summer-cook 2010).
If that's all you have to say, maybe you should get back in the box.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you get your degree in climatology, get back with us on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Strangelove: "Population down to four billion in 2100. Pollution, industrial output, non-renewable energy all down by 2100. Isn't that good? That means lower population growth, cleaner environment, lower consumption, more renewable energy. It's a clean and green sustainable future."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue...where do we sign up?
Excellent article Madhusree. While I'm a little skeptical of forecasters ability to precisely predict the implications of global warming ("The Future of Everything" written by a mathematician and forecaster does an excellent job explaining why), I do believe we are rapidly approaching (or have surpassed) the point in which significant climate change is inevitable. For example, in my upcoming book "Rush: Science and Technology in our Acceleration Age" I discuss the vast chasm between where we "should" be (ie Bill Gates believes we should be emitting 0 carbon-emissions by 2050) and where we will be (ie Jared Diamond explains why the world's "consumption factor" will go up astronomically). To read more about BigInScience.com and preview our upcoming book, visit http://biginscience.com/big-in-science-book-previews/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood comment and good solution. The problem is therefore 100% political, not technological. And that is politicians nowadays are only interested in who puts the most dollars in their pockets, and a lot of those dollars are Oil dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would respectfully disagree with the author about the food production as falling off the cliff due to "human changing the environment" as the cause. The food production has dropped because of government intervention of paying farmers to not farm, and of the markets doing away with the 180 day food supply to where now we are down to 30 days. Its market controlled, not food or disaster controlled. I would also submit that much of the problems of food are due to nations who actually will destroy food supply as a way to control their people. The world has a lot of cultivatable land, and plenty of water - but policies that are stupid, collapse a lot of it and also politicians who fall into the "create a crisis to control people" use the environment as a way to control people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe guys doing the global analysis forgot a couple of major factors that govern world affairs and the distribution of resources. NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Nuclear weapons helps to keep certain groups (nations) in control. it would help those nations (like the United States) in securing it's natural resources like ag land and water (or what's left of it) and nukes allow those countries to take resources from other people. it helps to keep the status quo in terms of keeping the current nations with power in power. and when things get out of hand, we don't need lack of natural resources to cause world wide de-population, we can do it ourselves pretty quickly with a few pushes of some buttons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other thing to consider is Pandemic disease which will probably hit the developing nations hardest. The countries in power will most likely be the ones with the technology to create cures and vaccines...thus once again helping to maintain the status quo.
Actually, Noah's ark was floating for five months before coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this". . . Death seed blind man's greed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoets' starving children bleed
Nothing he's got he really needs
Twenty first century schizoid man."
- King Crimson 1969
Same old Malthusian/peak oil nonsense people have been spouting off about for forever. I'm surprised Sciam allows this non-scientific speculation. Humans will adapt. We always do. There's already enough food being produced on the planet for 10 billion people, it's just not cost-effective to save it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand what SciAm is trying to do, scare everyone with a story they know to be over the top, because maybe it'll shock people into changing their ways. But that strategy been tried and hasn't worked for decades, and it won't ever resonate with more than a small number of White middle-class liberal-leaning Westerners. The rest of humanity won't change, and are actually increasingly going the opposite direction, using more fuel and resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should all be more efficient, but the story's doomsday prepper apocalypse isn't going to happen. There will be challenges, but we will adapt to them as always. There's plenty of food now with even current technology, and unfortunately, plenty of fossil fuels. (coal, for one) Costs of some things we'll go up and we'll just have to deal with it, and there will be some modest instability, but there will be no massive Malthusian dieoff.
If you wanna help, the best thing you can do is embrace nuclear power and GMOs, the only safe mid-term solutions to these issues.
My book HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD: HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD; THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING is a thought provoking and offers many ways that we can combat and escape any doomsday scenario. Happy reading!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article certainly has generated a lot of heat....more contributions to global warming, I guess. But a serious note: I strongly suggest that readers interested in the topic take a look at the recent paper (May, PNAS) by David Crews and his colleagues on the epigenetic transfer of behavioral / environmental stresses (e.g cross-generational stress responses to environmental toxins) that certainly deserve both applause for beautiful work and caution in the ways we are treating our environments. [In brief: Epigenetics refers to alterations in the ways genes are "read out", rather than changes in the genome, and these "read out" changes can be transferred via biological mechanisms across generations.]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as the United States and Europe have been cast as villains. the truth remains that western nations would have zero or negative population growth if it were not for immigration and resulting births. This population growth is what has been driving the increases in consumption and the associated release of greenhouse gasses since the 1970s. The problem is the third world has not gotten the message. They want their chance to have elevated standards of living, but are not willing to make the necessary changes. Religion has driven much of this resistance to modernization. Some of the worst offenders are Catholic nations where abortion and birth control are viewed as sins against God. Europe and the United States have welcomed these millions of people and their children and now are laboring under the strain of trying to bring these people up to western standards. If we had not allowed this mass influx of people, their countries would have had to had a reckoning, and the world may have moved toward sustainability sooner. It is time we allowed cultural evolution to take place so that these imbalances may be repaired and some degree of sustainability can be achieved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo perceptive individuals, population overshoot and its deleterious effects on diversity and health of other species and ecosystems of the planet has been occurring for well over a hundred years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLocalized observations of the damage have been written for perhaps over 2000 years, and of course, city-states of agrarian civilizations overreaching their capacities has occurred for longer than that.
Within the lifespan of any individual of a species, the probability of experiencing species collapse is low: you all may feel personally safe.
Characterizations of population overshoot of resources as tragedy, is solipsistic in the extreme. The vast majority of cellular life exists, and has always existed in its present. Due to this species' evolved ability to fantasize and act upon the products of individual minds, you perhaps perceive population decline as a catastrophe, when in fact, for the biosphere, it is clearly the opposite.
Numerous uncertainties make difficult prediction of just which human populations would "save themselves" following population overshoot.
The medical industry is at grave fault for its necessary and sufficient role in both producing overpopulation, and increasing the vulnerability of the overbloomed human population to some of the stronger probabilities.
Doomsday is a mental construct initiated by the insecurity inherent in any member of any social species.
I've continually seen the destruction wrought by human development since childhood on coral reef life, in desert environments unsuited for the level of human occupation forced upon them, and island groups unsuited to a species without sufficient predation occurring to it, as it introduced itself and its commensals everywhere.
It has been clear to any observer of the last half-century that we were far beyond carrying capacity nearly everywhere in the world. Few of you have experienced the vast populations of tropical areas, just as few who live in the far north can comprehend the crushing effect of humans and their development on temperate ecosystems.
The article makes a some aware of it now, but most humans, just as any other organism, will continue to strive to reproduce and to arrogate resources it recognizes as useful.
Those who wish to protect intact functioning ecosystems fight a losing battle, as technology will allow any large-scale surviving populations to emigrate and replace declining population, taking over the continuing depredation of the world's habitable areas.
Only organisms resistant to human eradication can counter this trend.
Greed. That's the only real problem I see, rapacious human nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the solution? What could possibly change a greedy man/race to one who is content with what he's got?
I don't have any issue with apocalyptic predictions, it's just a matter of time.
I like the analogy of the rats, and we have run out of places to ru'i'n.
As a recent UVic graduate in Mathematics in the summer of 1974, I was tasked by Canada's Ministry of Science and Technology with doing a sensitivity analysis of the World3 model. The relatively simple set of differential equations that make up the model are very sensitive to the initial conditions specified. You camn make the model predict almost any outcome by choosing parameters not too different from those use in "Limits to Growth" I don't believe that this model is a reason for concern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you're renting your place and find out they are destroying your property and misused their privileges and to top it off they disrespected you. wouldn't you have reason to evict. this is the situation in our case, we have been given a beautiful home with all its needs and wants to enjoy the place, and how has that home been taken care of? very inconsiderately poor. don't you think. the time has come for eviction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"some researchers think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a researcher and I don't even need a computer program to figure this out.
Civilization is heavily subsidized by cheap petroleum energy. It allows more "middlemen" between farmer and consumer; it allows escape from subsistence existence.
Energy is rapidly becoming expensive. That reduces the diversity of the economy; no longer can 300 million people exist with most of them playing World of Warcraft (for instance). Farming will rapidly become less productive without petroleum fertilizer and farm machinery; getting farm produce to market will rapidly become more expensive and finally impossible over longer distances.
Large cities will be hardest hit as they grown no food whatsoever and depend entirely on the byproducts of trade for their existence.
I believe the United States will have a population no more than 40 million in 100 years *unless* cheap solar power is perfected in the next 20 or so years in time to replace petroleum.
Does this mean that the environmental control freaks will now leave us alone? I hope so. If none of their stupid regulations and prohibitions matter anymore then there is no sense in bothering us with them. Maybe these tiresome pests will go find someone else to inflict themselves upon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue that something could have been done about is overpopulation but nobody wants to tackle that because it brings up the issue of who should breed and who shouldn't. More of "us" and less of "them" kind of thing, you know. This is the real taboo that humanity is stuck upon.
Until it is too late, how can we be sure we have done too much damege? If there is a push to promote legislation and research that promotes minimizing, eliminating, and reversing planetary degredation who or what can be harmed? More efficient and clean methods of manufacturing should lead to more long-term profits. Power/energy companies will be beneficeries of elimininating green house gase pollution. Reversals? I have to believe there are a few wizards in school who will realize ways to turn our muck into their gold and the whole planet benefits. I hope they graduate soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are 100% correct in your logic. Just several years before 1972 I noted that all of the caterpillars in my back yard were aligned in a semi circle around a an arc lamp. At that time I predicted that this was a scientific prediction that the world would end some day as we now know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI now know with the help of this magazine that I was totally correct.
Thanks for your "science" Scientific America where would we be without you?
Has anyone considered the "Fallout" from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants disaster-? Some scientists are predicting that ultimately the entire Northern Hemisphere will be wiped out from this event. The short term scenario is that the population of Japan will have to be evacuated. But perhaps that too is Insane and Tabloid-?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone considered the "Fallout" from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants disaster-? Some scientists are predicting that ultimately the entire Northern Hemisphere will be wiped out from this event. The short term scenario is that the population of Japan will have to be evacuated. But perhaps that too is Insane and Tabloid-?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisГенная модификация происходит давно например с целью изменения наследственной информации для остановки передачи раковых заболеваний но в конце 2012 года будет официально объявлено о генной модфикации-моделировании человека.Это объявление будет означать начало конца цивилизации человека "разумного"и начало цивилизации генетически модифицированного человека(gennomoda).Генномодов в дальнейшем невозможно будет идентифицировать на генном уровне как людей,поэтому Майя не стали составлять свой календарь дальше,они составляли календарь для людей а не для генномодов.В настоящее время уже создан искусственный ген со способностью эволюции и передачи наследственной информации.У белка есть своя природная инженерия и геном эволюционирует согласно полученной из окружающего пространсва информации.Изменение структуры генома грозит изменением наследственной информации полученной нами от Бога(если конечно мы соданы по образу и подобию Бога а не произошли от обезьяны).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisИнформация о генной модификации человека проскользнёт мимо сознания людей из-за глобальной финансовой рецессии а главное из-за того каким способом Federal Reserve будет спасать доллар.
Изменяется форма Земли(шар,эллипсоид,геоид,в настоящее время форма Земли напоминает картошку с выступом в районе японских островов),глобальное изменение климата это показатель изменения формы Земли,антропогенный фактор это ускоритель процесса глобального потепления.Дальнейшее изменение формы Земли до яйцеобразной с острым концом на севере приведёт к изменению скорости вращения Земли вокруг своей оси,изменит угловой наклон.Эти изменения нарушат равновесие в системе Земля-Луна.Это уже когда то происходило и последствия известны,на Земле найден брекчий а лунный лёд это земная атмосфера,флип Луны доказали сотрудники парижского Института физики Земли,таже они доказали,что слой брекчия на одной стороне Луны тоньше чем на другой.Смена географических полюсов Луны и Земли начнётся во время лунного затмения в северном полушарии Земли,произойдёт одновременно и со скоростью вращения Земли вокруг своей оси на тот момент.Как это будет происходить хорошо написано библейскими пророками,если пропустить религиозные слова то становится всё понятно.
I can actually offer a great deal of good information on exactly what is happening, as the "tsunami" of broken relationships builds. That's because the economy is a self-managing environmental system, and 30 years ago I developed a competent whole new general science for understanding their behaviors. Growth is an irreversible process of building that collapses on itself, but our economy is designed to never use our wealth for anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor over 30 years I've found other scientists almost totally uninterested in new methods, thinking it should have be a deterministic theory rather than a method of expert observation for non-deterministic and uncontrolled systems... go figure!
I have a nice long article answering some of the hard questions raised at the Mar 1 40th Anniversary meeting in DC on The Limits to Growth, with Dennis Meadows and all. http://www.synapse9.com/signals/2012/03/24/approaching-30-days-from-the-40th-anniversary/
The simple "answer" of our "fate" is that the cascade of failing systems can be halted at any point, even before it gets going. The correct system's steering principle is for investors to spend the earnings on their assets as an endowment for the earth, rather than to multiply its exploitation. I have lots on the blog on that too.
It seems that yearly we are deluged with predictions forecasting the end of the world or the end of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch predictions are usually based on religious dogma or political rantings. Have no fear. Human history is predicated on overreaction. For example: (1) Politicians like Al Gore proclaim that Global Warming is caused by burning fossil fuel. (2) Fossil fuel burning is then stigmatized and massively constricted leading to economic collapse and mass starvation. (3) Politicians reinstate fossil fuel burning to save humanity from starvation. (4) The world's population recovers. (5) As the world's economies improve, politicians like Al Gore once again state that Global Warming is caused by burning fossil fuel. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Albert
If the two rats had been same gender then they could have lived happily ever after. These are dots I don't want to connect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you seen all the animals that are dying off???? Thousands of dolphins, pelicans and now crustaceans are dying off in Peru....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of these models take into account the effects of tropospheric ozone and the nitrogen cascade. The emission of precursors to tropospheric ozone continues to rise relentlessly, causing an inexorable increase in the invisible but persistent, background level in even the remotest, rural corners of the earth. It has been well-established through scientific research for decades that ozone is toxic to all living things, causing cancer, heart disease and other fatal conditions in humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's less well known but just as incontrovertible that ozone is actually far more poisonous to all forms of vegetation when it is absorbed through foliage and needles. Annual crop yield and quality are significantly reduced and perhaps even worse, trees that are exposed to cumulative damage season after season are dying off at a rapidly accelerating rate, as they lose immunity to insects, disease and fungus. Injury from ozone makes plant allocate less energy to roots, making them more vulnerable to wind and drought.
The imminent loss of this essential carbon sink is going to accelerate warming and violent weather events. Decades of research both field observations and controlled chamber fumigation experiments have demonstrated that ozone is poisonous to vegetation. Links in a free pdf download available here: http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/
Western civilization based on fear so occasionally this kind of rumors arises in western world.I heard at least hundred times this kind gossip spread ed by western media.Western people always dream of doomsday.One very serious consequences arises from this kind of rumor feared spread all over the world Credulous people afraid so much some suicide, some became anxious and abandoned their work,depression spread in the society.I think effect of this kind of rumor more on western people particularly on women children.What kind of joy rumor monger get from this kind of gossip?.My objection is same on so called futurologists those who wrote on climate changes and pollution.They increased fear in society.No scientific base on their writing.Greatest joke is more pollution is spreading by western countries in the world.They are most cruel and barbarous destructive,ruinous race of earth and remain in first front for hue and cry of decay of earth.Most hypocritical race of mankind.That is why American thinker Susan Sontag wrote "The white race is cancer of human history"another thinker Arundhuti Roy`s mother wrote " the white race is curse to humanity"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisactually I see a collapse earlier- perhaps as soon as 2020, and likely no later then 2030- the climate dominoes are getting close to hitting each other in one broad fall, from one to the next. Its going to be one hell of a ride this century. I may see the start of it- but certainly being old in 2030 do not want to be in the center of this maelstrom.Our nation and human society is on the verge of a huge transformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis response - in all of its pompous arrogance - appears to be yet another case of hubris and ego trumping sceince and sanity. When will these deniers ever learn?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article but misses two points. 1st, past climates have changed gradually for a time and then abruptly. Consider a decade or so of wildly unpredictable change, followed by a new climate pattern that can't be reliably predicted. That spells a world collapse of agriculture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2nd, it overlooks the effects of public over-reaction and panic, likely to occur before the actual climate catastrophe.
It's impossible to forecast details on these issues. Scientists deal with what can be measured. But these are the effects that will likely kill us, long before any cities are flooded by sea level rise.
we went past the point atleast 2 decades ago by permitting more and more automobiles
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe live in environments, habitats built to serve them
i live not on planet Earth, rather I live within an automobile complex with little escape from the constant noise,fumes,filth and all the foul lifestyles that go with a car/van/pickup truck/SUV culture
To be certain of anything wrt the future of the planet is not possible. However, we can see the current effect of our actions all around us and from that - it is a safe assumption that these effects will continue to grow if we continue to 'act' as we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are conducting the grandest experiment of all - terraforming - and we really don't know what the outcome of this experiment will be. What's at stake? At the very least a significant shift is climatatic conditions locally, which we can already see. At worst, a very large shift in global climate with unimaginable consequences.
So as we mudle along with some calling others naysayers or doomsday prophets and in turn using such rhetoric to justify 'business as usual' - we continue down an unknown and potentially fatal path.
Or perhaps everything will be ok? We simply do not know. Should we really be taking this risk? If we continue unchecked (as we most likely will) then we are indeed taking this risk. However, if we curb our greed and selfish 'needs' we stand to lose nothing. Seems clear to me. We have to start thinking about reducing the risk and and stop playing with fire. We have to start taking our resposibility as custodians of Earth seriously and remember that we are only borrowing this planet from our offspring and the we simply do not have the moral right to risk everything based on rhetoric on politics.
The questions that we should be asking include 'what can we do to improve this place for future generations?' and NOT 'how can we improve our lot irregardless of consequence?'. Or 'Is their a possiblility that this action will have dire consequences - in otherwords - risk assesment and mitigation' and NOT 'who cares what they say because they are just naysayers. lets do it anyway and we will fix any problems that come up, when they come up!'
Alas we are human. And our society is governed by politicians - men and women whom for the MOST part are primarily concerned with reelection, at any cost. And we as a population seem to lack the courage to take the hard decisions as the right decisions and in turn vote out the people who would save us all......
M
To be certain of anything wrt the future of the planet is not possible. However, we can see the current effect of our actions all around us and from that - it is a safe assumption that these effects will continue to grow if we continue to 'act' as we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are conducting the grandest experiment of all - terraforming - and we really don't know what the outcome of this experiment will be. What's at stake? At the very least a significant shift is climatatic conditions locally, which we can already see. At worst, a very large shift in global climate with unimaginable consequences.
So as we mudle along with some calling others naysayers or doomsday prophets and in turn using such rhetoric to justify 'business as usual' - we continue down an unknown and potentially fatal path.
Or perhaps everything will be ok? We simply do not know. Should we really be taking this risk? If we continue unchecked (as we most likely will) then we are indeed taking this risk. However, if we curb our greed and selfish 'needs' we stand to lose nothing. Seems clear to me. We have to start thinking about reducing the risk and and stop playing with fire. We have to start taking our resposibility as custodians of Earth seriously and remember that we are only borrowing this planet from our offspring and the we simply do not have the moral right to risk everything based on rhetoric on politics.
The questions that we should be asking include 'what can we do to improve this place for future generations?' and NOT 'how can we improve our lot irregardless of consequence?'. Or 'Is their a possiblility that this action will have dire consequences - in otherwords - risk assesment and mitigation' and NOT 'who cares what they say because they are just naysayers. lets do it anyway and we will fix any problems that come up, when they come up!'
Alas we are human. And our society is governed by politicians - men and women whom for the MOST part are primarily concerned with reelection, at any cost. And we as a population seem to lack the courage to take the hard decisions as the right decisions and in turn vote out the people who would save us all......
M
I agree that over population is the primary cause of all of our socioeconomic and enviromental problems. Global warming and climate change would never become a problem on a planet of say 1/2 a billion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we all just decided to have only one child for the next few generations, all would be good. I have decided to have no children.
I for one am all for mandatory birth control after one child per couple. Imagine if this happened - everything would change. Many of our current problems would cease to be.
We have to wake up and start making the hard decisions.
VERY LIMITED ANALYSIS... not surprising coming from the source it does... It assumes our OCUPPY movement will fail, among other things. Knowledge... and its spiritual and scientific integration... will "save the day" or most likely the century... or centuries to come... barring something we will not be able to avoid altogether, such as a collision with a major meteor... I am hopeful that, once we occupy our govts and put in place the right (left, but right) policies, which will include turning the war-machinery into a peace-machinery --putting into place all we need for cleaning the air, land and waters-- that we will still be able to inherit our descendants a place under the (not too scorching) sun... But let us Pray and Act accordingly! The nation-estate per se must be dismantled, peacefully but surely, a spiritual rebirth allowing for less cruel and inhumane models of civilization which today is propelled by the "3 fictions" Karly Polany warned against: t land, people and money could be turned into merchandise. We must restore nature to itself, starting with the unnatural things we have turned ourselves into for the sake of "free markets" etc... What we want is fair trade between and among human beings, not corporations turned into people (just as people get turned into things). For God's sake!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree. Such meaningless extrapolations appear with depressing regularity at least since "The Club of Rome". The Erlich clown disappeared for some time when he lost his bet on various scarcities in 80-th and now he start to appear again together with other equally monotonous, ridiculous (and very annoying) co-religionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...when the rich can't get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue, but it is not a sustainable endeavor.
Fracking is a perfect example of this scenario happening today. The easy money in oil is drying up. Now the gas industry is resorting to short term profits that is now being outlawed because of environmental concerns. The practice which benefits wealthy land owners and drilling rig operators leaves the average American vulnerable to future problems like contaminated drinking water, crop contamination and increased CO2 in our air. The rich won't have to eat food contaminated with chemical effluents left over by the process. They can afford to move to cleaner environments when the situation becomes untenable, but that is only as long as the economy holds up.
Sure natural gas benefits the little guy by providing cheaper energy then green sources, but the long term consequences do not look good for the middle and lower class.
Mankind will eventually create the solution to overpopulation, but it won't be by design. The survivors will be the ones least dependent on technology and unless the rich can be taught to grow their own they too will perish in the end, because, as the system self destructs, barter will be the money of the future and that means food, tools and services, not bank accounts and stock options based on insider trading or derivatives.
It is already happening today. I have noticed a huge upsurge in farmers markets lately where I live.
Why has E.T. not arrived? Because E.T. exterminated himself by means of Global Warming his own home planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an interesting approach to thinking "inside-the-box." Our schooling system encourages this sort of thinking. However our research has shown that our educational system is constrained by expecting answers out of the past to be memorized instead of teaching students to use the zone of uncertainty to envision unexplored alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to achieve this kind of multidimensional thinking we need to pay attention to the so-called "wrong" answers on tests, which we systematically ignore when assessing student proficiency. These answers tell us how our students interpreted the questions. When used to plan intervention this information can lead to teaching students how to think and how to learn, using the subject matter as a vehicle for these higher-level skills.
Errors in thinking order into developmental sequences, which tell us their current cognitive maturity status. Profoundly informed students who have moved beyond two-value logic often select "wrong" answers by reading more into questions than item developers intended. This shift beyond two-value logic into multidimensional thinking is detectable by this peculiarity of behavior, making this shift detectable when tests are scored by answer-selection patterns instead of "rightness." This observation makes out-side-the-box thinking teachable when ideas are explored instead of when "facts" are taught to "pass" tests.
Multidimensional thinking goes beyond the capability of computers, which are essentially sequences of "on/off" switches. If we change our way of teaching and scoring tests, we will be able to produce students who can collaboratively resolve the sustainability issues this article raises.
William Byers' book, "The Blind Spot: Science and the Crisis of Uncertainty" addresses this issue cogently. My book, "Making Peasants into Kings" addresses the educational processes required. We have enough "doom and gloom" merchants in the political arena without indulging in such nonsense in the scientific arena. We need to stop extrapolating from the known and start considering the possibilities arising from what we don't know, such as why students answer the way they do.
Jay Powell
The problems we face are human political and social difficulties. Technical problems can be solved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not believe that the resources will be alloted to deal with the issues raised until a large and "Game Changing" crisis occurs.
The authors of the article are correct in substance if not in detail.
A large factor is inertia. We could, in the USA, save and increase forests, absorb carbon with the growth of hemp, and produce better paper. But the large chemical firms, which have the license to produce wood processing chemicals, have a great deal of money and influence. This influence includes a series of laws supporting them. That is inertia. We could produce healthier food, and eat less meat, which is healthier for people, But the corn subsidy sustains what legislators believe is a major, core food system. That is inertia. We now know that a major part of the human body system, and all mammals' body systems, is the flora of bacteria in the intestines. These bacteria, and therefore the whole system, is harmed by the consumption of antibiotics. But the pharmaceutical firms make a great deal of money from antibiotics, and most physicians have been trained to use these antibiotics, and there is a law which dignifies the use of antibiotics as a prescription. That is inertia. There are other examples. In each case the inertia maintains a dysfunctional practice. At this late date, all of this dysfunctionality contributes to the global warming disaster. It is probably too late now, but it was never easy to change political inertia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, but the first I remember thinking in terms of imminent economic and infrastructure collapse, due mainly to government and corporate corruption, was about 40 years ago. Maybe I heard about this program back then, or maybe Limits to Growth. I've been expecting collapse to come sooner. In recent years I've wondered if there might be enough people who still take the Mayan calendar seriously to cause a "self-fulfilling prophesy" effect as they invest differently, maybe concluding early in 2013. I tend to think, in terms of climate change, reducing excess population and starting to rebuild with some new paradigms, the sooner, the better. But don't worry. People like me aren't the big movers and shakers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut Humans using "150%" of biosphere regenerative capacity? How is that possible?
Uh-uh. You can't trust corporations to do the right thing -- they're only interested in the bottom line. It's time we the people took control of out destiny, as many have been attempting to do in the last several years. I think the governments, who are supposed to represent ALL the people, not just the wealthy, need to come up with workable guidelines, convince the people of their worth & then implement them. After all, we were able to make it to the moon about a decade after JFK set that as a goal. Is the survival of billions a less noble goal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat did you say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree more. When the game changer happens will it be way too late....for our current civilisation I suspect so. Humans will survive but life as we know it will be gone. Hopefully a better society will emerge but we need to change the inbuilt human need for total domination and greed otherwise it will happen again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's too late to say that it's too late. Our own lives are on the line, along with those of everyone else alive, and those of our descendants if we have them (I'm among those who have avoided having children, because I've known about the ongoing global catastrophe all my life).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I mean is that world is always in process; change is never not happening. It's true that we are trending toward collapse. But everything that we do every day matters. We can and should be planning for and working toward a saner society now. That means adopting less destructive habits ourselves, to the extent that we can do so within the society that we're living in now; and it also means trying to change the structure of that society. Both are entirely possible, and there are opportunities all around us. Scientists estimate that species are going extinct every day, so the collapse is already happening. But it may not be too late to avoid the worst of it.
In any case, a less greed centered society is not going to emerge from nowhere. If one looks at historical examples of collapse, in some cases (such as Easter Island), people so far as we can tell seem to have been unaware that collapse was imminent and to have continued on in their accustomed way right up until it happened; but in other cases, such as that of the Roman Empire, the actual collapse took place much more gradually. From one perspective, it was a collapse, but from another perspective it more resembled a transition. The central authority became less and less effective and relevant over time, as authority and economic structure devolved to a more regional level. The barbarian invasions simply concluded what was already going on as the central government became weaker, more corrupt, and less able to support itself. This example is more relevant in scale and complexity to our own situation. In the Roman Empire, devolution happened in pretty much a bad way - feudalism and barbarian conquest took over from a system that was for a while able to afford a degree of fairness and civilization to a lot of people. In our case, there are all kinds of positive alternatives that we can work toward and participate in. We can eat lower on the food chain, thus consuming fewer resources; we can choose to have fewer children; we can drive cars less, we can eat locally and sustainably produced foods more, and crucially, we can participate (however frustratedly and incompletely) in the political systems that we are a part of, hoping to at least nudge them in the right direction...
These changes that we can make today may turn out to have a large impact on the future, even on the future after the collapse, if there is one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that I hope the authors of the reports are wrong, but if they are correct it makes sense to try and increase your own personal resilience and "Thriving During Challenging Times, The Energy, Food and Financial Independence Handbook" offers a great roadmap to prepare yourself. http://www.aztext.com/thriving.cfm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight be a good time to consider group marriage arrangements to collectively survive with flexible parent to child ratio, more financial resources and skill sets, less fear of abandeonment in isolated suburban padded cells with little resources, emotional and financial. It would allow some to keep the home running and to nurture fewer shared children for zero population growth and to allow for biodiversity of intimate relationship. A geodesic and biodesic home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't show this stuff to your kids. They'll live or die with your ignorant global warming denials, even the kids of the fascists who kill us a little more each day to add to their billions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis concept may hold true assuming that the level of technology itself remains stagnant. But I suspect that as these problems begin to emerge, technology will deal with them. I'm certain that we have the tools now to decrease the temperature of the planet just using some large scale engineering projects. There are also plenty of options other than fossil fuels for energy such as nuclear energy which could be implemented quickly if the need arose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor some reason people fail to realize just how fast civilization can adopt and spread a new technology IF it is cost-effective. The internet and mobile phone use are two great examples. As long as people can maintain access to the basics - food, water, and energy, they will be fine. With enough energy you can make all the food and water you want. And energy is plentiful if you build the necessary facilities to harness it.
Global warming has been going on since the latter part of the nineteenth century, most of it caused by human activity - industrialization, deforestation, pollution. We have clearly known about this problem for a long time. The road runner metaphor is cute - I'm reminded of another: a culture of bacteria growing in a petri dish will do quite well for a period of time, completely oblivious to the fact that eventually they will run out of nutrients and die en mass unless conditions change. The difference is that we are aware that there is a problem and have the potential to change our future. What is required is the political will to do something - this we have not done. I recognize that the obstacles are formidable: an exceedingly powerful oi/gas industry with their own agenda(s) about energy policy, the drawbacks of alternatives to fossil fuel (nuclear, wind,solar), to name a few. But we need to keep trying, if not for ourselves, then for future generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving expected it for 40 years, I tend to hope it will come sooner, before there's more ecosystem destruction and while I could still be a part of the revival. One factor not mentioned is general economic and governmental corruption and wastefulness. So maybe there's still hope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease be objective people. The universe is large and violent. Humans are a species on a small planet with a well documented history of mass extinctions and violent change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe doesn't care whether humans exist or not. Why should you or I?
It is kind of interesting to watch, but nothing lasts forever; so what is the big deal?
Mike Williams
Contrary to what some have said, nature has no interest in the ongoing survival of the human race. If we do not change direction now, nature will eliminate us as a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature is concerned with the on going survival of the ecological system as a whole, not of the individual species with in the system.
We are at the point where the supply of fuel, water, and food will start to decrease. The result will be the collapse of the economic system, and the amount of unlivable land will increase.
It very likely is too late to avoid catastrophe.
It has already reached the point of no choice. It is now to the point of in the end, how many will perish as a result of our inaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are correct, math is never wrong, it relays upon the interpenetration. The joining of varies maths to express a bigger picture, no different than asking WEB BOT to to pull information what it boils down too is the question, how you ask the question, and the answer in how to read the results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of everyone's idea of the cause being external factor, the main cause is human ignorance and will always be, After thousands of years we suffering painfully in human ignorance not because we have less educated people, or an information pool that is weak
Human's are naturally ignorant in ignorance.
It's learning too accept our natural design flaw as a mechanical factoring number. The Math we use does not include "concepts" We make math fit our creative constructs of concepts. The concepts are bigger than we are and were ignorant to there design flaws as we keep repairing the concepts to fit the math in projecting us forward.
The only way to stop are abusive concepts is to get rid of them yesterday, hard thing too do when 7 billion rely on the concepts they inherent. The math collapse of the concept has too place and 6.5 billion need to leave the concept, so the concept can be overhauled. Every 7
years animals cycle, varies things in nature cycle to renew which keeps balance a natural flow, were absolutely far beyond this.
Ignorance is natural within us, it allows us too renew ourselves, it can be look as the reset button. When "a" reset button is activated Through collapse, naturally and man-made as both are reflect off of each other, like two clasped hands; During this collapse phase the information pool gets lost in lue of survival, once a
balance factor is reached and stabilizes. "a" new concept on how to live will emerge, ignorantly it will be a construct of a concept, and will be the new inherent model of future generations.
That's the answer to your questions, naturally the 6.5 don't want to die, it comes down to choices, the choice to move off world and spread is not available to us.
the natural resources are being over-consumed. Micro management and waste conserving will only go so far,
"as" ignorance factor is still there in the construct of the concept in the way we live ideally.
6.5 billion need to die "ignorance is not bliss"
Sadly the article does not tell me anything that i haven't been aware of for the last 40 years. The 'powers that be' have never acknowledged the 'power that is'. Do they think they are invincible? Indeed do they think at all? or are they simply the puppets of their baser emotions, guided only by hate (thus giving justification for the endless wars) and greed. And of course the belief that 'they' are special. God's chosen ones, the master race...whatever labels they use. And we are but the serfs and slaves. The cannon fodder. Funny how 'they' always cite GOD as being on their side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI consider change in past history our future. It only took 50 years for the population loss from the black death in Europe to recover. Science has noted that our civilizations last approx 5,000 yrs. Chauvin cave art at 40,000 bc, B Seykes DNA; USA identifies X in the Ojibwe as European, at least 8,000 and possibly 18,500, would lead us to understand that our human selves have been organizing the planet since 50,000 bc when we 'got smart.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern discoveries of a weak magnetic reversal lasting altogether about 500 ys exposed E to cosmic and solar radiation.
There was a wonderful comment I read regarding the change from horse to car: An individual living through the change said that the silence was astonishing. No clop-clop of iron shoes, wagon wheels, handers voices--just rubber wheels. Who would have thought that the traffic we are desperate to get away from would have stemmed from this 'quiet?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to add that the effort to stoke the coal furnace or make ricks of wood has been replace by the unseen ionizing radiation that allows us the ease in which to contemplate our cancers.
Western civilization is based on fear so they tremendously afraid of dooms day.Any one tell them this and this day world will be destroy they blindly believed and prepare to protecting themselves.That is why they are upset 22/12/2012 predication
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this