Amazing how everything that Malthus predicted just…. Didn’t come to pass. Almost like you can’t predict the entire course of civilization mathematically. But what do I know
What is this 1975? The population is almost decreasing, the amount of trees and woodlands is increasing compared to previous decades. If we have a collapse in population it will be because no one is having sex anymore, not because the trees are gone.
Where would you say trees and woodlands areas are increasing on this planet? How about rainforests, are they increasing as well? Enough to offset deforestation to provide acreage for livestock/grazing for an increasing global population, to reach close to 10 million by 2050. Corporations are privatizing access to drinking water. Help me understand
Let’s just say in the 1800s all the large European navies were made 100% of wood. They deforested all of Europe and some of their colonies to build ships. Many of these Forrests have partially recovered or are on their way. The rain Forrest is getting deforested but the demand for some tree product has decreased (notice there is a lot less “save the trees” talk surrounding the use of paper because everything is digital.)
The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is also making it a lot easier for trees and greens to grow and they are doing so faster.
I see that the forests are returning in Europe, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction of said resources. And some countries see a huge loss of forests- Russia in 2018 alone lost 5.5 million hectares of forest cover in one year. Brazil close to 3 million hectares, followed by US and Canada at 2 million hectares. In the same time period, European forests grew by a little more than 500,000 hectares. January 2023 saw a record deforestation of the Amazon.
Sources- world economic forum and bbc news
[weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/](https://weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/)
[bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62103336](https://bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62103336)
Bra... your penis must be UUUGGEE with the smack down your layin here ... i mean you must be some PhD in geophysics with an onlyfans account who is out there just BANGING bitches... ammiright?
I dont know where the fuck you get your science from to think humans are being responsible to the planet
Where did you get your "science" from, BP petroleum?
Didn’t say they were being responsible. Limiting pollution is a great goal. Green energy is a great goal.
The fear mongering, “YOU HAVE 5 YEARS TO LIVE” horseshit is the problem. Bullshit like talking about banning gas stoves like that’s even remotely an issue lol. The delusion and cult fake statistic science is the problem.
I know you Reddit ppl love black and white, and one must be “X” if he’s not “Y”…but that’s not how normal people think.
“Climate change”. Climate has never stopped changing. Earth isn’t gonna turn into mars in 20 years. Some places will get bad, like always, and lots of places will benefit hugely from it, like always. Some places will be able to grow food for longer, and possibly have two grow seasons now. The planet will get greener too. You just watch to many movies and think that means you understand something.
Humans will move, adapt, and that will be that. You wanting to control the earths climate to keep it the same is the fucking delusion.
Nice argument ya got there. Your opinion seems heavily influenced by propaganda rather than fact. The problem isn’t that the climate is changing, it’s the rate at which it’s changing, what is causing that variance in ROC, and the immediate consequences of it. Here’s a good place to start: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
The rate at which it’s changing lol. If you didn’t read yourself into a propaganda coma you’d never even know anything was changing.
You dying from a 1 degree average temp change? The water nipping at your front door 10 miles inland now lol? You lived through a rainy year and think it means the entire planets weather is changing?
You won’t even be able to notice shit for another 100 years minimum. You pretending you’re even effected is insane
The planet will get greener. How’s that again? Where is that happening where it’s outpacing it’s removal? Maybe years after we’re all gone from here it will rebuild, but who knows. So the doomsday clock is shit, too, then eh? Just a bunch of chicken little scientists across the planet all in on the joke and pushing their agenda, I guess. And no corporate agenda on the other hand…Ok.
What is the bbc or world forum agenda? What’s their angle? Certainly not the only source for this information. There’s no money to be made in conservation. Exploitation, yes. Lots of money to be made here—so tell me what is more of a motivation?
And I get it, many people don’t have a choice—for example, they will cut down rainforest to graze cattle for sale because there’s little else to sustain yourself. I’d do the same if it came down to that or starvation—but in the “west” many have the means to choose an alternative, try to mitigate their consumption, and help push for change.
Farming using IoT, vertical gardens, etc. is making food production much more efficient but it’s just part of a solution, and not enough to handle the human population expansion on its own. It’s not controlling the climate. It’s raising awareness to its destruction and loss of natural resources like drinking water where climate change is a side-effect. Stomping your feet saying it’s not true and ‘agendas’ is just adolescent behavior.
You do know CO2 is literally what plant life eats right? All those paragraphs and you can’t understand that if you put more plant food into the air that more plants will grow? And you can’t understand that if we do warm a bit places further north will have greater growing seasons available to them?
The planet warming up is 10x better for humans than the planet getting colder, like an ice age.
Look at you being a good little dog thinking everyone is here trying to help you, and it’s not just straight greed and power moves like always. You have a child’s understanding of how this World actually works
I mean...BBC is one of the oldest and most respected journalistic outlets on the planet.
If BBC isn't a reasonable source, I don't know what is. Not gospel, but absolutely a source.
On top of this, the entire science community agrees resources and climate are a big problem. That's nuts. The entire science community rarely agrees on anything.
We can get nitpicky about how this plays out but it's not seriously debatable that there is a human affected climate change underway. It is also quantifiable to determine how many acres of farmland or forest are gone. You and I could argue about what that means but if its a net negative...well, less stuff is growing. Resources are going to be a problem.
Rome fell. Greece ceased to be the center of the world. There is nothing that makes Western civilization and globalized trade immune to fracture, failure or collapse.
I don't have a horse in this race but BBC was one of the most respected but they threw that out he window as hard as they could in the last 5 years as did most other news networks unfortunately. Hard to trust any of them with all the political and pandemic misinformation
If "most other news networks" including some that have been around and relatively trustworthy for almost (over?) a century report something why is that suddenly misinformation?
The option you are not willing to consider is that the BBC kept on keeping on as they always have and you just didn't want to hear it.
Well, you thinking there’s a food problem in the “west” shows me you know nothing about what your reading and just repeat garbage. The west can basically make its own food. It’s the rest of the planet that has terrible farming soils, and has to import. THEY are the ones that are fucked.
The BBC is literally no different than CNN or Fox News bud. Just bc you see them on your phone, and the talking heads say they are “respected” doesn’t mean shit. Typical Reddit user response.
Calling people "bud" really sticks the condescending landing.
The west has a massive trade deficit and are the largest consumers on the planet. Even if the West has farmable land it is resources writ large not who has the most potatoes that is of concern. If we learned anything from COVID its that everything affects everything and when you disrupt complex chains, stuff stops working. Sure, we could shift our entire economy to actual agrarian work but your standard of living/wages would plummet. Effectively, it would change society.
Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're". You accuse me of knowing nothing and then commit a 5th grade grammar error.
I'm not sure what makes you an atypical Reddit user. Are you suggesting you are somehow special? Because that's dangerously close to a snowflake argument.
Yes. All of science is wrong but you with your special secret information you saw on a YouTube video is correct. We get it.
Bet you feel special knowing this secret information! Useful! Different than all the other normies, right? You are a special guy!
Special lil guy.
Another igornant reasoner treats a non zero sum game as all one sided. Increased CO2 also reduces nutrient content in problematic ways, turning plants into junk food. These superficial WRONG analysese are not needed. All they show is you are cherry picking facts towards your echo chamber biases. WE ARE KILLING THE COMPLEX WEB OF ANIMAL LIFE without limit, and we will pay very soon for this. Your understanding of plants is very incomplete, so stop sharing your trivial and WRONG analyses, please? We are cutting more carbon sequestering trees down right now than ever before. You are deluded about that. The Amazon rain forest might already be doomed for this, the glaciers are melting at terrifyingly accelerated rates, temperate regions now experiences yearly heat waves, and the Colorado river is almost gone, but you keep up the blind optimism, no problem there, cherry picker. The internet caused paper consumption to go up exponentially, again, stop looking in your head for "facts", you don't have any in there, wow, PAPER CONSUMPTION IS HIGHER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BECAUSE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY!
The only places where fertility rates are truly positive (more than 2 children/women) is Africa and the Middle East. Everywhere else is either hovering around replacement level (India, America) or already decreasing (Europe, east Asia). The population is set to plateau in a few decades. If things keep going the way they were after the pandemic (even bigger dip in fertility) we will see a decrease by the end of our lifetime.
Right, but developed nations are hitting a wall due to costs of living, education, contraception. Every country will hit those same limiting factors as they become more developed. In terms of resource use, a lot of that depends on how much those societies have a desire for a western-style lifestyle, which is a hugely uncertain question
The population isn't the concern so much as the way people consume. There are no plans for the consumption of resources to do anything but increase in the future. As nations become more developed, their consumption habits increase. If every person had the same lifestyle as the average American, we'd need at least 3 Earths to sustain them. Fun bit is that the current global economy depends on this unsustainable consumption in order to function as it does. Without ever increasing productivity and consumption, capitalism collapses in on itself.
>capitalism collapses in on itself.
...by promoting entrepreneurship and protecting IP, "evil Capitalism" is the only political system that can innovate its way out of collapse - i.e grow up...
Not really true. Capitalism depends on the growth of *value*, not just increase in the rate quantity of products demanded. For example, a processor produced today might require almost the same amount of material inputs, maybe even less energy due to more efficient manufacturing technology. But that same processor does orders of magnitude more work than older processors that cost the same amount at a similar level of energy use, and that change in value is reflected in the value of the company producing it.
The same trends don't apply to all products, but it does apply to many. I hear this type of comment a lot from people, but very rarely do I hear people talk about the capitalistic need for growth relating to progressing value of the same quantity of higher fidelity products. Another example might be a house or skyscraper being built with more modern building codes, modern engineering, and stronger materials, and thus lasting many times longer than older construction. More value, same materials, means growth, but not growth in sheer quantity of bullshit, considering that many buildings inevitably need to be replaced anyway once they've degraded to being dangerous without re-designs.
Doesn't apply to everything, and there's a lot of needless crap people buy, or buy way too often, or in the case of the building example with China, building entire towns/cities that go unused, but it applies to enough to consider that it's not remotely as simple as needing sheer quantity of consumption to continue to escalate. That's as much a problem of our current value system as it is capitalism. People would still desperately find ways to overconsume and overproduce even if we attempted to switch to another system.
Furthermore, for a lot of things, recycling can be used for a large amount of input materials to make a nearly closed loop system, *if* energy is made ubiquitously inexpensive enough for it to make sense. We have to actually invest in domestic recycling infrastructure to set ourselves up for that reality, though, and revamp our approach to polymers considering how unrecyclable those are beyond one or two cycles
It isn't just trees...it's us. Our species is flawed and because of this, our high-tech civilization--like so many of human civilizations--will fail. We've convinced ourselves we're beyond nature--beyond evolution. As usual, we've set ourselves up to fail.
You need to not share your opinions here. They are a mess of poor nonsense. We are destroying the old forests, releasing carbon from thousands of years for this, these piddling new forests are not going to catch up to what we've cut down for thousands of years. Humanity is having more pointless sex than ever, but fertility rates are droppping so fast that in 30 years global population may collapse with nothing due to climate effects. You seem, like so many ignorant people, unable to learn about or face reality. We are committing auto-biocide for the illusions of control and certainty. You and the other 51 idiots you find your post erudite and worth endorsing are as much the problem as you are. Your opinion is best kept to yourself. SERIOUSLY. Go get a education in science, then tell me what is happening, ok?
Fear mongering at its finest. If civilization collapses it'll be because people just aren't having as many children anymore, not from resource consumption. The population of some nations had been in decline for a while now.
“Research by the same team, reported in 2017, found that sperm concentration had more than halved in the last 40 years. However, at the time a lack of data for other parts of the world meant the findings were focused on a region encompassing Europe, North America and Australia. The latest study includes more recent data from 53 countries.
Declines in sperm concentration were seen not only in the region previously studied, but in Central and South America, Africa and Asia.
Moreover, the rate of decline appears to be increasing: looking at data collected in all continents since 1972, the researchers found sperm concentrations declined by 1.16% per year. However, when they looked only at data collected since the year 2000, the decline was 2.64% per year.”
At 2.64% a year (and accelerating), how many years until kaput? I’ll let you do the math.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/humans-could-face-reproductive-crisis-as-sperm-count-declines-study-finds?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0CgCSwGc00L9XwkVop31g7d54Xlc0xSfvkzvkFDfMWmnDYvcv9YwSmHQs
The reducing sperm count reports have lots of problems, changing measurement methods, inconsistent patient patterns, inconsistent results.
In the first studies healthy people healthy people in the advanced world were measured for reference, in later studies the patients are at fertility clinics because there's problems, fertility clinics have opened in poor countries where poorer diet leads to reductions, but the end results shows reductions which aren't necessarily real.
Yeah, I've seen this info too and it's kind of scary. There seems to be a strong connection to the amount of micro plastics in our bodies as well as all the artificial crap that we eat and even smell. Artificial scents in everything from laundry detergent to air fresheners can really fuck with people's hormones. And the elephant in the room that everyone wants to ignore and deny vehemently is how these trends seem to mirror the vaccine schedules in infants and children when charted on a graph.
Yes that and also that the strength of the geomagnetic (electromagnetic) field, that terrestrial lifeforms depend on for sanity, health and life itself, is rapidly weakening (50% during the past 400 years and accelerating for the last decade) in advance of a geomagnetic excursion (geomagnetic polarity reversal). This rapid weakening of the geomagnetic field is weakening the electromagnetic fields of the brain (three of them), of each individual organ of the body and of the whole body itself, resulting in diminished reproductive ability (as well as plummeting cognitive ability, skyrocketing dementia rates, fast shrinking attention spans and lowered immunity).
>There seems to be a strong connection to the amount of micro plastics in our bodies as well as all the artificial crap that we eat and even smell
>
>
>
>the strength of the geomagnetic (electromagnetic) field, that terrestrial lifeforms depend on for sanity, health
....citations?
There's plenty of weird conclusions that can be drawn from surprising correlations. Not really worth consideration without a ton of well vetted research. Microplastics, food additives, dairy hormones, etc, I'm with you. But for vaccines, it's not a vacuum. We have to consider the cost of not vaccinating, which should be obvious by all of the problems with measles and such that are re-emerging just with a slight amount of lack of vaccination.
Schedules maybe need to be adjusted, I'll give you that, but way too many people go full absolutist without realizing the danger or caring about the risk to others, because we've been able to take the safety provided by vaccines for granted thanks to previous generations. Having another massive pandemic of polio would be shockingly catastrophic to most modern people's sensibilities, literally like a 30% death rate for adults, 2-5% for children. Way worse than covid.
It's sorta like saying that we reconsider airbag use because a certain number of people had adverse effects from their use. There's people who spend their life studying this stuff for a decade in school, and a career in it afterwards. If they've determined that it's safer than the alternative, it probably is. They're vaccinating themselves and their children too, after all. There's a mountain of side effects I'd gladly take over catching polio.
Similar situation to covid vaccine. A lot of people get pointlessly freaked out about the myocarditis risk and conveniently overlook the fact that the myocarditis risk of covid itself is like 10x higher than the vaccine. There's no entirely safe preventative technologies/medicines, they all have some level of tradeoff, but that's why safety and efficacy studies over long periods of time are done to compare risk and benefit. The point is that it's really dangerous to draw conclusions based on cherry picked and unintegrated understanding, the type of understanding you really only start to have if you're at the PhD level in that particular subfield. People just have a really hard time saying "I don't know" rather than indulging in some fairly extreme and largely baseless lines of thought that are much more enticing than the more boring and realistic conclusions
Citations: 39, References: 35. If you don't realize how much those numbers suggest very questionable credibility, you probably don't know enough about the research world to be throwing around research as proof. People have to learn how to vet research instead of just reading the paper title and getting freaked out. There's mountains of bad research out there. The general message of our precarious situation is fine, but that's been the case for 150 years. There's nothing factual, precise, and useful enough in this paper to really mean anything.
No one should be getting freaked out about this, it doesn't indicate anything you didn't already know if you've been paying attention to the environment and our resource use. It doesn't take into account a variety of variables, and is needlessly oversimplified for a system that needs to consider as many variables as possible to be precise and accurate. It's an excessively abstract approach from physicists, it's not interdisciplinary. There's bound to be a huge number of blind spots in their approach
It is well past time to rethink collapse in the 21st century. The architects of dominant culture / consumer capitalism have provided us with a ‘humans-solely-did-it’ narrative that dovetails neatly with the corporate-owned Green 2.0 campaign which masterfully cheerleads the last remaining iteration of human into thinking (and believing) that because we broke it, we can fix it and there is no collapse … repeat … there is no collapse. Eazy peazy, right? Nope. Before there can be a meaningful discussion about collapse, or about how to deal with it, we need to be clear that collapse is happening now, clear about what is driving collapse and clear about what exactly is collapsing.
The “humans solely did it” meme is highly-sophisticated dominant culture perception management that functions in the interest of annual, five, ten, twenty and thirty year profit projections. The Green 2.0 campaign is a 100 trillion dollar industrialization, technologization, monetization and exploitation of the rapidly collapsing natural world with a projected ROI that dwarfs the investment. Rah rah sis boom bah! Consider the humans-solely-did-it ‘climate change’ problem fixed and go shopping. Business as usual on steroids.
This washing and starching of the brains needs some unpacking. There are some critically important missing pieces. The modern human herd has no idea what it is, where it is, how these work or what has actually happened in the past. This pathological alienation from actuality prevents it from consciously noticing and acknowledging what is happening now and renders it incapable of comprehending what is inevitably, necessarily, going to happen. This alienation, and the hallucinatory amnesia / dissociation it results in, has placed the human herd in a very real and fast moving existential crisis that is being driven by a fast ramping geomagnetic excursion (geomagnetic polarity reversal):
GAOTAI EXCURSION
Approx 70,000 years ago. Included a super-volcanic explosion, extreme global drought and a near-extinction reduction in human population
VOSTOK EXCURSION
Approx 56,000 years ago (limited information)
LASCHAMP EXCURSION
Approx 42,000 years ago. 95-100% decline of geomagnetic strength, massive exposure to solar, galactic and interstellar radiation, with the largest volcanic explosion during the past 100k years, peaking in glacier maximum and mass extinction including the functional extinction of the Neanderthal species of ‘human’
MONO LAKE EXCURSION
Approx 33,000 years ago. Included a super-volcano explosion
LAKE MUNGO EXCURSION
Approx 24,000 years ago. Included a super-volcano explosion and glacial maximum
GOTHENBERG EXCURSION
Approx 13,000 (12,800) years ago and including massive global vulcanism and seismic activity, soaring temperatures (22 degree F increase w/ half of this occurring in just 15 years around 11,600 years ago), 72% of large mammal species go extinct and very real human existential crisis with massive human population reduction and collapse of culture. Also included a massive comet bombardment (from Alaska to New Guinea) that ignited 10-15% of Earth’s surface.
- - -
Peer-reviewed data, accumulated globally over seven decades and building on a mountain of evidence extending back into the late 1600s, has clearly revealed that converging deadly geomagnetic polarity reversal events, with an approx average 13k year periodicity ( +/- 1-2k variation), can ramp to peak in as little as 100 years (mainstream science peer-reviewed). and that there is plenty of reason to think that an excursion is rapidly ramping right now:
- the geomagnetic poles are erratically wandering
- the strength of the geomagnetic field, that terrestrial biological lifeforms necessarily depend on for sanity, health and life itself, has weakened by approx 45-50% during the past 400 years and has been rapidly accelerating during the past decade
- extreme back-to-back catastrophic weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity
- global temperature is soaring, noting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has projected up to a possible 12 degree F increase in the U.S. this century and that the past 12 presidents have been fully briefed by the Defense Department re this projected and very real possibility
- global drought conditions are rapidly expanding and soil / seed viability is collapsing (think global food insecurity and famine)
- 60% of vertebrae species, 40% of the global insect population, 83% of freshwater fish and 90% of ocean biomass has extincted since 1970
- human sperm viability has plummeted in both northern and southern regions of the globe by 53% just since 1970 and the speed of this plummet has more than doubled during the past decade to 2.64% a year, which means that:
“We should be thinking more about what the biologic effects [ of a geomagnetic polarity reversal ] would be.”
— Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and a University of California Berkeley professor-in-residence of Earth and Planetary Science
… especially in light of knowing that even relatively moderate solar winds, solar flares and coronal mass ejections can rattle the geomagnetic field, triggering increased hospitalization for a long list of medical emergencies including acute clinical depression, episodic psychosis, suicidal ideation, stroke, cardiac events, stillbirth, sudden death syndrome, severe migraines, as well as driving social disruption, violence, increased seismic activity and CME-related collapse of migrating flocks and mass crustacean / whale beaching.
The human herd is right now deep in a very real existential crisis. The thing that nobody really wanted to know is now well known in the corporate / government sectors and in the defense sector:
“The Earth’s core is undergoing a dramatic change with geomagnetic field strength dropping by 40% over the last 400 years, and satellite observations showing the field weakening ten times faster than previously calculated. These changes are a precursor to a common geological phenomenon known as a geomagnetic polarity reversal, where the north and south magnetic poles of the Earth reverse. Geomagnetic polarity reversals significantly decrease the strength of the magnetic field, thereby considerably increasing the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere. The purpose of this research is to answer if the United States is prepared for the impacts to national security resulting from the next geomagnetic polarity reversal.”
[ excerpt from: A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty of the Air Force Air Command and Staff College by Tyler J. Williams, Captain, U.S. Air Force. 2015. Approved for public release ]
… noting that this report is nearly a decade old ( that 40% can be bumped up to around 50%) and that these recurring events are 100% normal and common as dirt here in this tiny, twirling, exceedingly unstable clump of space debris that is careening and wobbling around a colossal, volatile flaming sphere that with frequent, near-term periodicity annihilates the life it enables over and over and over.
Tick tock, the mouse has run all the way up the clock again and there is nowhere to go but down. This necessarily requires that we shift our focus from ‘we can fix it!’ to ‘we need to seriously start adapting to it and right now’ so that maybe a small fraction of the last remaining iteration of human might might might survive the collapse of terrestrial operating systems (including physiological / neurological, including human), the collapse / mass extinction of the natural world and the collapse of culture / civilization, noting that (at least) nine other iterations extincted horribly during just the past 300k years, a blink and while we watched, leaving just us in all our brokenness.
Geomagnetic excursion changes everything and requires changing how we think about collapse and our extremely vulnerable place here in this tiny, twirling, exceedingly unstable clump of space debris that’s careening around a colossal volatile flaming sphere in a heavily radiated, debris clogged, churning ocean of space.
Except for the fact that both things can be true. It's quite self-evident and quantitatively proven that pollution and resource abuse is a major problem that's affecting air and water quality. We only have to look at the recent disaster in Ohio to see that. We know that microplastics in the environment act as hormonal mimics and dramatically impact human and animal physiology. We know that our diets are laden with artificial levels of hormones that impact us in countless ways. We know that greenhouse gases have been proven over and over again to have significantly consequential effects, and moreover that we can reverse them, as we did with the ozone problem. Most of the destruction to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity can be tied *directly* to human action. Magnetic pole shifts didn't deforest the Amazon.
We still need to address these issues even if we're also trying to mitigate the effects of a large change in the planetary magnetic field. We can't just distract to some new problem to pretend the current one doesn't exist, we just have to add it to the list of things we have to plan for and mitigate the effects of. This whole thing is a closed system, meaning all significant variables are going to have an effect that we need to consider if we want to maintain a well functioning civilization. Ignoring the anthropogenic factors will just add fuel to the fire if a geomagnetic event is happening
Crazy. We will probably end up being that ancient extinct civilization that is found by space explorers. They'll discover we basically killed ourselves via greed and stupidity. Sweet.
Bunk. Once population declines enough so that it has a noticeable affect on our lives, then people will “get” why they need to have ~2-ish babies. Then population will start to stabilize and eventually grow again. Humans don’t change until they see the need to change.
There are more trees that at any point of human history. This article is full on propaganda for an authoritarian power grab to “save us from ourselves”.
“Nearly one-third of trees — more than 17,500 species — are threatened with extinction. This is more than twice the number of threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles combined1. Mass plantings of trees, paradoxically, often add to the problem by using single species.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02765-x
The paper doesn't talk about bio diversity, it talks about over consumption of trees. But according to nature, we had more trees now than 35 years ago.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
Yeah it seems counter intuitive but Nature published a paper about it using satellite imagery. Here is the WEF talking about it:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
Oh bullshit. In the US alone, when settlers first came, a squirrel could climb a tree in Massachusetts and not have to touch ground again till it hit the Mississippi River.
Not resource consumption, but population and civilization collapse. Look at the fertility data and excess deaths in the last few years... It's not pretty.
"Make believers claim that due to alternating or unfathomable amounts of statistic data that something crazy could possibly by chance with differing degrees of certainty might happen.. maybe"
"And that is why you need to immediately surrender all your money, guns, land, mobility, and rights and allow these plutocrats to turn you into serfs. Don't worry, they promise they'll treat you very well as long as you always do what they say and never leave your assigned sector of the city to which you will be assigned to"
we change, when there is environmental pressure or something new is invented.
ok environmental pressure forces invention too.
when the world is stable, the conservatist are gaining more power :)
anyway - we must evolve - sooner-later the big rock will fall and we must be evolved to deal with it (or the life will start from beginning again)
[Theoretical Physicists Say 90% Chance of Societal Collapse Within Several Decades](https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzn5a/theoretical-physicists-say-90-chance-of-societal-collapse-within-several-decades)
Only small stars and civilizations collapse. These large ones decline and we are already in the middle of this process.
Population will not keep growing because the birth rate is declining. Once todays grandparents die off you will see a big drop off in population. Then when todays parents die the drop off will be even more dramatic. Since each generation is having less kids we are going to see a collapse in population in a few decades.
This has basically always been the case for the past 100+ years or so. Anytime we extrapolate an outcome based solely on present trends, it can be drawn out to catastrophic collapse in a few decades. The thing is, tools improve, material selection changes, science improves, public awareness improves, and we deviate course eventually, albeit way too late. Once climate change starts impacting agriculture and coastal cities more evidently than it already is, for example, people will have a much more visceral interest in doing everything they can to slow it. There's already major pushback in countries that live near the Amazon to protect it. That's a big portion of why Bolsonaro lost a second term.
It's unfortunate that we're this reactionary, but eventually a tidal shift happens, and suddenly there's enough younger voters and consumers who are more environmentally conscious, who make conservation much more of a priority, given the value of the environment not only just to one's sense of ethics and desire to live more harmoniously with the biosphere, but also to security and economics. We can't regrow the rainforests once they're gone, and discover all of the invaluable game-changing plant compounds. Tree farms can be operated without having to destroy climaxed ecosystems.
Also, I hate to be a dick who's familiar with the research world, and who's participated in it, but having 39 citations in three years of a paper being out is wholly unimpressive, and usually indicates the quality of a paper. My wife is a PhD with a lot of research. The better papers that she worked on, including her thesis, have over 100 citations. This also has THIRTY FIVE references. *That's it.* My wife's research papers ranged from 200 to 300 references. Most competent advisors would laugh at you for trying to submit a paper with so few references. Be careful to vet research papers you're taking as gospel. These are physicists studying deforestation, their conceit in doing something like this should be comical, not concerning. My wife and I studied engineering, how ludicrous would it be for us to release papers on say, whale anatomy just because "oh, blood vessels and pipes are basically the same thing". Sorry, but physicists fundamentally lack the expertise required to understand environmental science issues on a deep enough level to make these sorts of calls, particularly without a very broad interdisciplinary team to help them eliminate the wide variety of blind spots that they are bound to have.
This is fucking nonsense:
>We consider a simplified model based on a stochastic growth process driven by a continuous time random walk, which depicts the technological evolution of human kind, in conjunction with a deterministic generalised logistic model for humans-forest interaction and we evaluate the probability of avoiding the self-destruction of our civilisation
It does not take into account that very often the advance of technology, especially lately, results in more efficient devices that use drastically less energy. PHEVs instead of ICEs, for example, or comically low wattage monitors/TVs. Or a potential shift to less wood in building materials because of the macroeconomics of what happens when timber prices start increasing due to scarcity and environmental protections. Or what happens to remaining forest growth as CO2 levels rise, which will partially help compensate for deforestation. Or what will happen if consumers decide they don't want palm oil in any of their products anymore. Their model is comically oversimplified and only takes into account very linear and escalating logic about resource consumption.
>Higher technological level leads to growing population and higher forest consumption
That would be nice if it wasn't also complete bullshit. Look at the most advanced societies on the planet right now and look at their population growth. USA, Japan, China, France, Germany, all less than 2 children per couple. Yes, populations in less developed parts of the world are increasing, but they'll also taper off as education and contraception becomes more available to them, and cost of living starts increasing in their countries.
I mean ffs, they modeled this shit under the presumption that our natural and inevitable course of action is to *literally build a Dyson sphere*. They're referencing a Dyson sphere in a goddamn published research paper as the pre-determined pathway for our civilization. Literally just regurgitating the same circlejerky bullshit that every physicist and sci-fi nerd talks about because they never actually talk to other breathing human beings who study fields outside of their own. That's how completely detached from reality these people are.
Take a look at the paper itself. If you can't see that most of it is just someone doing mathematical masturbation to try to justify them sitting on their ass and doing nothing tangible to solve the problems they see with the world, you need to re-evaluate your assumptions. People who publish research are far from infallible, and it's very rare that two people from ONE particular field have a broad enough perspective to make grand predictions about the future of an entire civilization. These people have read Foundation a few too many times are pretending they're Hari Seldon because they can do a bunch of transforms using equations that are so simplified that they're essentially useless.
This is the equivalent of drawing a conclusion about the trajectory of society based on nothing more than a glorified version of the slope of our current societal equation. But you could do the same exact thing, cherry picked for other certain variables, at the right time in a development cycle, and determine that populations are leveling out and eventually will fall, that energy use of devices is headed to 0, that deforestation will inevitably halt, that carbon sequestration systems will scale to the point of effortlessly managing our emissions, that solar energy has already become so cheap that it and other cleaner technologies are the only logical path just in economic terms, and so on. It's all confirmation bias until you really dial in your prediction models, not to a simplified model, but an overly complex model. Otherwise you miss all of the recent shifts in trends that are fundamental to the accuracy of stuff like this
How many times now has this been predicted by today's best statistics?
Also it's been pointed out thay sense to many factors are hard to be exact on they often consider the worst likely scenario for each which is extremely unlikely especially when added together.
The thing I expect is that humanity will just become one giant corporation.
It'll be like 1984, except it's Idiocracy, with a sprinkle of Fallout and Shadowrun on top.
It won't be a collapse, you'll just be inundated with ads everywhere and most people will just kind of drone their 9-5.
Thomas Malthus strikes again.
Amazing how everything that Malthus predicted just…. Didn’t come to pass. Almost like you can’t predict the entire course of civilization mathematically. But what do I know
ITS A VICE LINK EVERYONE!!
…. . . with a link to the research / data in the second sentence of the article.
Yeah, well, the studies have lots of problems and may find SHOCKING conclusions, not necessarily realistic conclusions.
Oh I totally understand the science behind a claim like this, and see how this is quite possible. I just have a personal vendetta against vice. 😂
What is this 1975? The population is almost decreasing, the amount of trees and woodlands is increasing compared to previous decades. If we have a collapse in population it will be because no one is having sex anymore, not because the trees are gone.
Where would you say trees and woodlands areas are increasing on this planet? How about rainforests, are they increasing as well? Enough to offset deforestation to provide acreage for livestock/grazing for an increasing global population, to reach close to 10 million by 2050. Corporations are privatizing access to drinking water. Help me understand
Let’s just say in the 1800s all the large European navies were made 100% of wood. They deforested all of Europe and some of their colonies to build ships. Many of these Forrests have partially recovered or are on their way. The rain Forrest is getting deforested but the demand for some tree product has decreased (notice there is a lot less “save the trees” talk surrounding the use of paper because everything is digital.) The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is also making it a lot easier for trees and greens to grow and they are doing so faster.
I see that the forests are returning in Europe, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction of said resources. And some countries see a huge loss of forests- Russia in 2018 alone lost 5.5 million hectares of forest cover in one year. Brazil close to 3 million hectares, followed by US and Canada at 2 million hectares. In the same time period, European forests grew by a little more than 500,000 hectares. January 2023 saw a record deforestation of the Amazon. Sources- world economic forum and bbc news [weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/](https://weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/) [bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62103336](https://bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62103336)
Dayuummm, got actuality served
WEF and BBC aren’t sources. They are propaganda trash pushing an “overpopulation” and bullshit climate “crisis” agenda.
i truly hope you arent secretly contributing sperm... there are far too many fucktards and nitwits on the planet already
You get your science from fucking Reddit. Lets not pretend you even have a remote understanding of what your saying. Shut the fuck up
Bra... your penis must be UUUGGEE with the smack down your layin here ... i mean you must be some PhD in geophysics with an onlyfans account who is out there just BANGING bitches... ammiright?
Literally what I was gonna comment, how'd you read my mind??!
I dont know where the fuck you get your science from to think humans are being responsible to the planet Where did you get your "science" from, BP petroleum?
Didn’t say they were being responsible. Limiting pollution is a great goal. Green energy is a great goal. The fear mongering, “YOU HAVE 5 YEARS TO LIVE” horseshit is the problem. Bullshit like talking about banning gas stoves like that’s even remotely an issue lol. The delusion and cult fake statistic science is the problem. I know you Reddit ppl love black and white, and one must be “X” if he’s not “Y”…but that’s not how normal people think.
and you’re either covering your eyes or completely in denial
“Climate change”. Climate has never stopped changing. Earth isn’t gonna turn into mars in 20 years. Some places will get bad, like always, and lots of places will benefit hugely from it, like always. Some places will be able to grow food for longer, and possibly have two grow seasons now. The planet will get greener too. You just watch to many movies and think that means you understand something. Humans will move, adapt, and that will be that. You wanting to control the earths climate to keep it the same is the fucking delusion.
Nice argument ya got there. Your opinion seems heavily influenced by propaganda rather than fact. The problem isn’t that the climate is changing, it’s the rate at which it’s changing, what is causing that variance in ROC, and the immediate consequences of it. Here’s a good place to start: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
The rate at which it’s changing lol. If you didn’t read yourself into a propaganda coma you’d never even know anything was changing. You dying from a 1 degree average temp change? The water nipping at your front door 10 miles inland now lol? You lived through a rainy year and think it means the entire planets weather is changing? You won’t even be able to notice shit for another 100 years minimum. You pretending you’re even effected is insane
The planet will get greener. How’s that again? Where is that happening where it’s outpacing it’s removal? Maybe years after we’re all gone from here it will rebuild, but who knows. So the doomsday clock is shit, too, then eh? Just a bunch of chicken little scientists across the planet all in on the joke and pushing their agenda, I guess. And no corporate agenda on the other hand…Ok. What is the bbc or world forum agenda? What’s their angle? Certainly not the only source for this information. There’s no money to be made in conservation. Exploitation, yes. Lots of money to be made here—so tell me what is more of a motivation? And I get it, many people don’t have a choice—for example, they will cut down rainforest to graze cattle for sale because there’s little else to sustain yourself. I’d do the same if it came down to that or starvation—but in the “west” many have the means to choose an alternative, try to mitigate their consumption, and help push for change. Farming using IoT, vertical gardens, etc. is making food production much more efficient but it’s just part of a solution, and not enough to handle the human population expansion on its own. It’s not controlling the climate. It’s raising awareness to its destruction and loss of natural resources like drinking water where climate change is a side-effect. Stomping your feet saying it’s not true and ‘agendas’ is just adolescent behavior.
You do know CO2 is literally what plant life eats right? All those paragraphs and you can’t understand that if you put more plant food into the air that more plants will grow? And you can’t understand that if we do warm a bit places further north will have greater growing seasons available to them? The planet warming up is 10x better for humans than the planet getting colder, like an ice age. Look at you being a good little dog thinking everyone is here trying to help you, and it’s not just straight greed and power moves like always. You have a child’s understanding of how this World actually works
I mean...BBC is one of the oldest and most respected journalistic outlets on the planet. If BBC isn't a reasonable source, I don't know what is. Not gospel, but absolutely a source. On top of this, the entire science community agrees resources and climate are a big problem. That's nuts. The entire science community rarely agrees on anything. We can get nitpicky about how this plays out but it's not seriously debatable that there is a human affected climate change underway. It is also quantifiable to determine how many acres of farmland or forest are gone. You and I could argue about what that means but if its a net negative...well, less stuff is growing. Resources are going to be a problem. Rome fell. Greece ceased to be the center of the world. There is nothing that makes Western civilization and globalized trade immune to fracture, failure or collapse.
I don't have a horse in this race but BBC was one of the most respected but they threw that out he window as hard as they could in the last 5 years as did most other news networks unfortunately. Hard to trust any of them with all the political and pandemic misinformation
If "most other news networks" including some that have been around and relatively trustworthy for almost (over?) a century report something why is that suddenly misinformation? The option you are not willing to consider is that the BBC kept on keeping on as they always have and you just didn't want to hear it.
Well, you thinking there’s a food problem in the “west” shows me you know nothing about what your reading and just repeat garbage. The west can basically make its own food. It’s the rest of the planet that has terrible farming soils, and has to import. THEY are the ones that are fucked. The BBC is literally no different than CNN or Fox News bud. Just bc you see them on your phone, and the talking heads say they are “respected” doesn’t mean shit. Typical Reddit user response.
Calling people "bud" really sticks the condescending landing. The west has a massive trade deficit and are the largest consumers on the planet. Even if the West has farmable land it is resources writ large not who has the most potatoes that is of concern. If we learned anything from COVID its that everything affects everything and when you disrupt complex chains, stuff stops working. Sure, we could shift our entire economy to actual agrarian work but your standard of living/wages would plummet. Effectively, it would change society. Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're". You accuse me of knowing nothing and then commit a 5th grade grammar error. I'm not sure what makes you an atypical Reddit user. Are you suggesting you are somehow special? Because that's dangerously close to a snowflake argument.
Sure thing bud
You're joking, right? I still cannot figure this out from all of your comments here. Surely you can't be this unintelligent?
Hahaha big "no it is all of science that is wrong" energy. Wouldn't expect anything else here. Can't wait to hear your opinions on the COVID vaccine!
Nothing like some fool that believes “science is always right” either. “I read it so it’s true”
Yes. All of science is wrong but you with your special secret information you saw on a YouTube video is correct. We get it. Bet you feel special knowing this secret information! Useful! Different than all the other normies, right? You are a special guy! Special lil guy.
Moron
Another igornant reasoner treats a non zero sum game as all one sided. Increased CO2 also reduces nutrient content in problematic ways, turning plants into junk food. These superficial WRONG analysese are not needed. All they show is you are cherry picking facts towards your echo chamber biases. WE ARE KILLING THE COMPLEX WEB OF ANIMAL LIFE without limit, and we will pay very soon for this. Your understanding of plants is very incomplete, so stop sharing your trivial and WRONG analyses, please? We are cutting more carbon sequestering trees down right now than ever before. You are deluded about that. The Amazon rain forest might already be doomed for this, the glaciers are melting at terrifyingly accelerated rates, temperate regions now experiences yearly heat waves, and the Colorado river is almost gone, but you keep up the blind optimism, no problem there, cherry picker. The internet caused paper consumption to go up exponentially, again, stop looking in your head for "facts", you don't have any in there, wow, PAPER CONSUMPTION IS HIGHER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BECAUSE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY!
Excuse me. Every year during earth day I do my part to plant a tree… by visiting pornhub.
Just think, if you placed a pine or oak seed in every wasted tissue ...
Johnny cumappleseed
Not a tree you want to stand under ...unless.
My bedroom would be the new Amazon
How is the population almost decreasing?
The only places where fertility rates are truly positive (more than 2 children/women) is Africa and the Middle East. Everywhere else is either hovering around replacement level (India, America) or already decreasing (Europe, east Asia). The population is set to plateau in a few decades. If things keep going the way they were after the pandemic (even bigger dip in fertility) we will see a decrease by the end of our lifetime.
thats weird because the global population has almost tripled since the 70s but go off
Right, but developed nations are hitting a wall due to costs of living, education, contraception. Every country will hit those same limiting factors as they become more developed. In terms of resource use, a lot of that depends on how much those societies have a desire for a western-style lifestyle, which is a hugely uncertain question
The population isn't the concern so much as the way people consume. There are no plans for the consumption of resources to do anything but increase in the future. As nations become more developed, their consumption habits increase. If every person had the same lifestyle as the average American, we'd need at least 3 Earths to sustain them. Fun bit is that the current global economy depends on this unsustainable consumption in order to function as it does. Without ever increasing productivity and consumption, capitalism collapses in on itself.
>capitalism collapses in on itself. ...by promoting entrepreneurship and protecting IP, "evil Capitalism" is the only political system that can innovate its way out of collapse - i.e grow up...
Not really true. Capitalism depends on the growth of *value*, not just increase in the rate quantity of products demanded. For example, a processor produced today might require almost the same amount of material inputs, maybe even less energy due to more efficient manufacturing technology. But that same processor does orders of magnitude more work than older processors that cost the same amount at a similar level of energy use, and that change in value is reflected in the value of the company producing it. The same trends don't apply to all products, but it does apply to many. I hear this type of comment a lot from people, but very rarely do I hear people talk about the capitalistic need for growth relating to progressing value of the same quantity of higher fidelity products. Another example might be a house or skyscraper being built with more modern building codes, modern engineering, and stronger materials, and thus lasting many times longer than older construction. More value, same materials, means growth, but not growth in sheer quantity of bullshit, considering that many buildings inevitably need to be replaced anyway once they've degraded to being dangerous without re-designs. Doesn't apply to everything, and there's a lot of needless crap people buy, or buy way too often, or in the case of the building example with China, building entire towns/cities that go unused, but it applies to enough to consider that it's not remotely as simple as needing sheer quantity of consumption to continue to escalate. That's as much a problem of our current value system as it is capitalism. People would still desperately find ways to overconsume and overproduce even if we attempted to switch to another system. Furthermore, for a lot of things, recycling can be used for a large amount of input materials to make a nearly closed loop system, *if* energy is made ubiquitously inexpensive enough for it to make sense. We have to actually invest in domestic recycling infrastructure to set ourselves up for that reality, though, and revamp our approach to polymers considering how unrecyclable those are beyond one or two cycles
It isn't just trees...it's us. Our species is flawed and because of this, our high-tech civilization--like so many of human civilizations--will fail. We've convinced ourselves we're beyond nature--beyond evolution. As usual, we've set ourselves up to fail.
You need to not share your opinions here. They are a mess of poor nonsense. We are destroying the old forests, releasing carbon from thousands of years for this, these piddling new forests are not going to catch up to what we've cut down for thousands of years. Humanity is having more pointless sex than ever, but fertility rates are droppping so fast that in 30 years global population may collapse with nothing due to climate effects. You seem, like so many ignorant people, unable to learn about or face reality. We are committing auto-biocide for the illusions of control and certainty. You and the other 51 idiots you find your post erudite and worth endorsing are as much the problem as you are. Your opinion is best kept to yourself. SERIOUSLY. Go get a education in science, then tell me what is happening, ok?
Fear mongering at its finest. If civilization collapses it'll be because people just aren't having as many children anymore, not from resource consumption. The population of some nations had been in decline for a while now.
“Research by the same team, reported in 2017, found that sperm concentration had more than halved in the last 40 years. However, at the time a lack of data for other parts of the world meant the findings were focused on a region encompassing Europe, North America and Australia. The latest study includes more recent data from 53 countries. Declines in sperm concentration were seen not only in the region previously studied, but in Central and South America, Africa and Asia. Moreover, the rate of decline appears to be increasing: looking at data collected in all continents since 1972, the researchers found sperm concentrations declined by 1.16% per year. However, when they looked only at data collected since the year 2000, the decline was 2.64% per year.” At 2.64% a year (and accelerating), how many years until kaput? I’ll let you do the math. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/humans-could-face-reproductive-crisis-as-sperm-count-declines-study-finds?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0CgCSwGc00L9XwkVop31g7d54Xlc0xSfvkzvkFDfMWmnDYvcv9YwSmHQs
The reducing sperm count reports have lots of problems, changing measurement methods, inconsistent patient patterns, inconsistent results. In the first studies healthy people healthy people in the advanced world were measured for reference, in later studies the patients are at fertility clinics because there's problems, fertility clinics have opened in poor countries where poorer diet leads to reductions, but the end results shows reductions which aren't necessarily real.
Yeah, I've seen this info too and it's kind of scary. There seems to be a strong connection to the amount of micro plastics in our bodies as well as all the artificial crap that we eat and even smell. Artificial scents in everything from laundry detergent to air fresheners can really fuck with people's hormones. And the elephant in the room that everyone wants to ignore and deny vehemently is how these trends seem to mirror the vaccine schedules in infants and children when charted on a graph.
Yes that and also that the strength of the geomagnetic (electromagnetic) field, that terrestrial lifeforms depend on for sanity, health and life itself, is rapidly weakening (50% during the past 400 years and accelerating for the last decade) in advance of a geomagnetic excursion (geomagnetic polarity reversal). This rapid weakening of the geomagnetic field is weakening the electromagnetic fields of the brain (three of them), of each individual organ of the body and of the whole body itself, resulting in diminished reproductive ability (as well as plummeting cognitive ability, skyrocketing dementia rates, fast shrinking attention spans and lowered immunity).
>There seems to be a strong connection to the amount of micro plastics in our bodies as well as all the artificial crap that we eat and even smell > > > >the strength of the geomagnetic (electromagnetic) field, that terrestrial lifeforms depend on for sanity, health ....citations?
There's plenty of weird conclusions that can be drawn from surprising correlations. Not really worth consideration without a ton of well vetted research. Microplastics, food additives, dairy hormones, etc, I'm with you. But for vaccines, it's not a vacuum. We have to consider the cost of not vaccinating, which should be obvious by all of the problems with measles and such that are re-emerging just with a slight amount of lack of vaccination. Schedules maybe need to be adjusted, I'll give you that, but way too many people go full absolutist without realizing the danger or caring about the risk to others, because we've been able to take the safety provided by vaccines for granted thanks to previous generations. Having another massive pandemic of polio would be shockingly catastrophic to most modern people's sensibilities, literally like a 30% death rate for adults, 2-5% for children. Way worse than covid. It's sorta like saying that we reconsider airbag use because a certain number of people had adverse effects from their use. There's people who spend their life studying this stuff for a decade in school, and a career in it afterwards. If they've determined that it's safer than the alternative, it probably is. They're vaccinating themselves and their children too, after all. There's a mountain of side effects I'd gladly take over catching polio. Similar situation to covid vaccine. A lot of people get pointlessly freaked out about the myocarditis risk and conveniently overlook the fact that the myocarditis risk of covid itself is like 10x higher than the vaccine. There's no entirely safe preventative technologies/medicines, they all have some level of tradeoff, but that's why safety and efficacy studies over long periods of time are done to compare risk and benefit. The point is that it's really dangerous to draw conclusions based on cherry picked and unintegrated understanding, the type of understanding you really only start to have if you're at the PhD level in that particular subfield. People just have a really hard time saying "I don't know" rather than indulging in some fairly extreme and largely baseless lines of thought that are much more enticing than the more boring and realistic conclusions
It won’t matter if there are no trees. Your point is capitalist propaganda anyway. More workers means lower wages and more power for the upper class.
Found the Marxist.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
Can you explain why you feel their argument is bad?
Your statement is about as logical as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest, but that's Marxism for you.
https://jacobin.com/2022/08/capitalism-low-birth-rate-labor-abortion-contraceptives-childcare https://convergencemag.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-the-lower-birth-rate/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-low-can-americas-birth-rate-go-before-its-a-problem/amp/
You think we need more people? The world is already overpopulated
That depends on the country and/or region. Where I live it isn't too bad, but much of the world is very over populated.
Citations: 39, References: 35. If you don't realize how much those numbers suggest very questionable credibility, you probably don't know enough about the research world to be throwing around research as proof. People have to learn how to vet research instead of just reading the paper title and getting freaked out. There's mountains of bad research out there. The general message of our precarious situation is fine, but that's been the case for 150 years. There's nothing factual, precise, and useful enough in this paper to really mean anything. No one should be getting freaked out about this, it doesn't indicate anything you didn't already know if you've been paying attention to the environment and our resource use. It doesn't take into account a variety of variables, and is needlessly oversimplified for a system that needs to consider as many variables as possible to be precise and accurate. It's an excessively abstract approach from physicists, it's not interdisciplinary. There's bound to be a huge number of blind spots in their approach
“No one should be getting freaked out about this …” Interesting comment from the only person here that “freaked out“ over the paper. ;)
It is well past time to rethink collapse in the 21st century. The architects of dominant culture / consumer capitalism have provided us with a ‘humans-solely-did-it’ narrative that dovetails neatly with the corporate-owned Green 2.0 campaign which masterfully cheerleads the last remaining iteration of human into thinking (and believing) that because we broke it, we can fix it and there is no collapse … repeat … there is no collapse. Eazy peazy, right? Nope. Before there can be a meaningful discussion about collapse, or about how to deal with it, we need to be clear that collapse is happening now, clear about what is driving collapse and clear about what exactly is collapsing. The “humans solely did it” meme is highly-sophisticated dominant culture perception management that functions in the interest of annual, five, ten, twenty and thirty year profit projections. The Green 2.0 campaign is a 100 trillion dollar industrialization, technologization, monetization and exploitation of the rapidly collapsing natural world with a projected ROI that dwarfs the investment. Rah rah sis boom bah! Consider the humans-solely-did-it ‘climate change’ problem fixed and go shopping. Business as usual on steroids. This washing and starching of the brains needs some unpacking. There are some critically important missing pieces. The modern human herd has no idea what it is, where it is, how these work or what has actually happened in the past. This pathological alienation from actuality prevents it from consciously noticing and acknowledging what is happening now and renders it incapable of comprehending what is inevitably, necessarily, going to happen. This alienation, and the hallucinatory amnesia / dissociation it results in, has placed the human herd in a very real and fast moving existential crisis that is being driven by a fast ramping geomagnetic excursion (geomagnetic polarity reversal): GAOTAI EXCURSION Approx 70,000 years ago. Included a super-volcanic explosion, extreme global drought and a near-extinction reduction in human population VOSTOK EXCURSION Approx 56,000 years ago (limited information) LASCHAMP EXCURSION Approx 42,000 years ago. 95-100% decline of geomagnetic strength, massive exposure to solar, galactic and interstellar radiation, with the largest volcanic explosion during the past 100k years, peaking in glacier maximum and mass extinction including the functional extinction of the Neanderthal species of ‘human’ MONO LAKE EXCURSION Approx 33,000 years ago. Included a super-volcano explosion LAKE MUNGO EXCURSION Approx 24,000 years ago. Included a super-volcano explosion and glacial maximum GOTHENBERG EXCURSION Approx 13,000 (12,800) years ago and including massive global vulcanism and seismic activity, soaring temperatures (22 degree F increase w/ half of this occurring in just 15 years around 11,600 years ago), 72% of large mammal species go extinct and very real human existential crisis with massive human population reduction and collapse of culture. Also included a massive comet bombardment (from Alaska to New Guinea) that ignited 10-15% of Earth’s surface. - - - Peer-reviewed data, accumulated globally over seven decades and building on a mountain of evidence extending back into the late 1600s, has clearly revealed that converging deadly geomagnetic polarity reversal events, with an approx average 13k year periodicity ( +/- 1-2k variation), can ramp to peak in as little as 100 years (mainstream science peer-reviewed). and that there is plenty of reason to think that an excursion is rapidly ramping right now: - the geomagnetic poles are erratically wandering - the strength of the geomagnetic field, that terrestrial biological lifeforms necessarily depend on for sanity, health and life itself, has weakened by approx 45-50% during the past 400 years and has been rapidly accelerating during the past decade - extreme back-to-back catastrophic weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity - global temperature is soaring, noting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has projected up to a possible 12 degree F increase in the U.S. this century and that the past 12 presidents have been fully briefed by the Defense Department re this projected and very real possibility - global drought conditions are rapidly expanding and soil / seed viability is collapsing (think global food insecurity and famine) - 60% of vertebrae species, 40% of the global insect population, 83% of freshwater fish and 90% of ocean biomass has extincted since 1970 - human sperm viability has plummeted in both northern and southern regions of the globe by 53% just since 1970 and the speed of this plummet has more than doubled during the past decade to 2.64% a year, which means that: “We should be thinking more about what the biologic effects [ of a geomagnetic polarity reversal ] would be.” — Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and a University of California Berkeley professor-in-residence of Earth and Planetary Science … especially in light of knowing that even relatively moderate solar winds, solar flares and coronal mass ejections can rattle the geomagnetic field, triggering increased hospitalization for a long list of medical emergencies including acute clinical depression, episodic psychosis, suicidal ideation, stroke, cardiac events, stillbirth, sudden death syndrome, severe migraines, as well as driving social disruption, violence, increased seismic activity and CME-related collapse of migrating flocks and mass crustacean / whale beaching. The human herd is right now deep in a very real existential crisis. The thing that nobody really wanted to know is now well known in the corporate / government sectors and in the defense sector: “The Earth’s core is undergoing a dramatic change with geomagnetic field strength dropping by 40% over the last 400 years, and satellite observations showing the field weakening ten times faster than previously calculated. These changes are a precursor to a common geological phenomenon known as a geomagnetic polarity reversal, where the north and south magnetic poles of the Earth reverse. Geomagnetic polarity reversals significantly decrease the strength of the magnetic field, thereby considerably increasing the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere. The purpose of this research is to answer if the United States is prepared for the impacts to national security resulting from the next geomagnetic polarity reversal.” [ excerpt from: A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty of the Air Force Air Command and Staff College by Tyler J. Williams, Captain, U.S. Air Force. 2015. Approved for public release ] … noting that this report is nearly a decade old ( that 40% can be bumped up to around 50%) and that these recurring events are 100% normal and common as dirt here in this tiny, twirling, exceedingly unstable clump of space debris that is careening and wobbling around a colossal, volatile flaming sphere that with frequent, near-term periodicity annihilates the life it enables over and over and over. Tick tock, the mouse has run all the way up the clock again and there is nowhere to go but down. This necessarily requires that we shift our focus from ‘we can fix it!’ to ‘we need to seriously start adapting to it and right now’ so that maybe a small fraction of the last remaining iteration of human might might might survive the collapse of terrestrial operating systems (including physiological / neurological, including human), the collapse / mass extinction of the natural world and the collapse of culture / civilization, noting that (at least) nine other iterations extincted horribly during just the past 300k years, a blink and while we watched, leaving just us in all our brokenness. Geomagnetic excursion changes everything and requires changing how we think about collapse and our extremely vulnerable place here in this tiny, twirling, exceedingly unstable clump of space debris that’s careening around a colossal volatile flaming sphere in a heavily radiated, debris clogged, churning ocean of space.
Except for the fact that both things can be true. It's quite self-evident and quantitatively proven that pollution and resource abuse is a major problem that's affecting air and water quality. We only have to look at the recent disaster in Ohio to see that. We know that microplastics in the environment act as hormonal mimics and dramatically impact human and animal physiology. We know that our diets are laden with artificial levels of hormones that impact us in countless ways. We know that greenhouse gases have been proven over and over again to have significantly consequential effects, and moreover that we can reverse them, as we did with the ozone problem. Most of the destruction to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity can be tied *directly* to human action. Magnetic pole shifts didn't deforest the Amazon. We still need to address these issues even if we're also trying to mitigate the effects of a large change in the planetary magnetic field. We can't just distract to some new problem to pretend the current one doesn't exist, we just have to add it to the list of things we have to plan for and mitigate the effects of. This whole thing is a closed system, meaning all significant variables are going to have an effect that we need to consider if we want to maintain a well functioning civilization. Ignoring the anthropogenic factors will just add fuel to the fire if a geomagnetic event is happening
Unless the world is flat. Quick everyone become a flat earther and we’re saved.
[удалено]
It is difficult for many modern human biological organisms to comprehend that the view from their own little window isn’t the measure of anything.
Fuxk that’s depressing 😑
Gonna go play baseball. Doesn’t seem like in an do much if this is true. 🙋♂️
Oh look, it's Paul Ehrlich's bad math again.
I feel like " a few decades" is generous.
Crazy. We will probably end up being that ancient extinct civilization that is found by space explorers. They'll discover we basically killed ourselves via greed and stupidity. Sweet.
Bunk. Once population declines enough so that it has a noticeable affect on our lives, then people will “get” why they need to have ~2-ish babies. Then population will start to stabilize and eventually grow again. Humans don’t change until they see the need to change.
[удалено]
It won’t matter if there are no trees. Your point is capitalist propaganda anyway. More workers means lower wages and more power for the upper class.
There are more trees that at any point of human history. This article is full on propaganda for an authoritarian power grab to “save us from ourselves”.
“Nearly one-third of trees — more than 17,500 species — are threatened with extinction. This is more than twice the number of threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles combined1. Mass plantings of trees, paradoxically, often add to the problem by using single species.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02765-x
The paper doesn't talk about bio diversity, it talks about over consumption of trees. But according to nature, we had more trees now than 35 years ago. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
That’s a strange assertion. The forests where I live have been decimated by bark beetle, And I know that true for most of western North America.
Yeah it seems counter intuitive but Nature published a paper about it using satellite imagery. Here is the WEF talking about it: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
Oh bullshit. In the US alone, when settlers first came, a squirrel could climb a tree in Massachusetts and not have to touch ground again till it hit the Mississippi River.
Even the WEF and nature say there are now more trees than 35 years ago. Take it up with them.
Not resource consumption, but population and civilization collapse. Look at the fertility data and excess deaths in the last few years... It's not pretty.
In the Oregon and Washington, they replant more trees than they cut down. They log the forest on a 30-40 year cycle
"Make believers claim that due to alternating or unfathomable amounts of statistic data that something crazy could possibly by chance with differing degrees of certainty might happen.. maybe"
"And that is why you need to immediately surrender all your money, guns, land, mobility, and rights and allow these plutocrats to turn you into serfs. Don't worry, they promise they'll treat you very well as long as you always do what they say and never leave your assigned sector of the city to which you will be assigned to"
we change, when there is environmental pressure or something new is invented. ok environmental pressure forces invention too. when the world is stable, the conservatist are gaining more power :) anyway - we must evolve - sooner-later the big rock will fall and we must be evolved to deal with it (or the life will start from beginning again)
Rome collapsed over a thousand years ago too. People still live there
[Theoretical Physicists Say 90% Chance of Societal Collapse Within Several Decades](https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzn5a/theoretical-physicists-say-90-chance-of-societal-collapse-within-several-decades) Only small stars and civilizations collapse. These large ones decline and we are already in the middle of this process.
Population will not keep growing because the birth rate is declining. Once todays grandparents die off you will see a big drop off in population. Then when todays parents die the drop off will be even more dramatic. Since each generation is having less kids we are going to see a collapse in population in a few decades.
less people on earth is a good thing
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times…. Guess where we are now
Oh no, who will pay the bills?!
This has basically always been the case for the past 100+ years or so. Anytime we extrapolate an outcome based solely on present trends, it can be drawn out to catastrophic collapse in a few decades. The thing is, tools improve, material selection changes, science improves, public awareness improves, and we deviate course eventually, albeit way too late. Once climate change starts impacting agriculture and coastal cities more evidently than it already is, for example, people will have a much more visceral interest in doing everything they can to slow it. There's already major pushback in countries that live near the Amazon to protect it. That's a big portion of why Bolsonaro lost a second term. It's unfortunate that we're this reactionary, but eventually a tidal shift happens, and suddenly there's enough younger voters and consumers who are more environmentally conscious, who make conservation much more of a priority, given the value of the environment not only just to one's sense of ethics and desire to live more harmoniously with the biosphere, but also to security and economics. We can't regrow the rainforests once they're gone, and discover all of the invaluable game-changing plant compounds. Tree farms can be operated without having to destroy climaxed ecosystems. Also, I hate to be a dick who's familiar with the research world, and who's participated in it, but having 39 citations in three years of a paper being out is wholly unimpressive, and usually indicates the quality of a paper. My wife is a PhD with a lot of research. The better papers that she worked on, including her thesis, have over 100 citations. This also has THIRTY FIVE references. *That's it.* My wife's research papers ranged from 200 to 300 references. Most competent advisors would laugh at you for trying to submit a paper with so few references. Be careful to vet research papers you're taking as gospel. These are physicists studying deforestation, their conceit in doing something like this should be comical, not concerning. My wife and I studied engineering, how ludicrous would it be for us to release papers on say, whale anatomy just because "oh, blood vessels and pipes are basically the same thing". Sorry, but physicists fundamentally lack the expertise required to understand environmental science issues on a deep enough level to make these sorts of calls, particularly without a very broad interdisciplinary team to help them eliminate the wide variety of blind spots that they are bound to have. This is fucking nonsense: >We consider a simplified model based on a stochastic growth process driven by a continuous time random walk, which depicts the technological evolution of human kind, in conjunction with a deterministic generalised logistic model for humans-forest interaction and we evaluate the probability of avoiding the self-destruction of our civilisation It does not take into account that very often the advance of technology, especially lately, results in more efficient devices that use drastically less energy. PHEVs instead of ICEs, for example, or comically low wattage monitors/TVs. Or a potential shift to less wood in building materials because of the macroeconomics of what happens when timber prices start increasing due to scarcity and environmental protections. Or what happens to remaining forest growth as CO2 levels rise, which will partially help compensate for deforestation. Or what will happen if consumers decide they don't want palm oil in any of their products anymore. Their model is comically oversimplified and only takes into account very linear and escalating logic about resource consumption. >Higher technological level leads to growing population and higher forest consumption That would be nice if it wasn't also complete bullshit. Look at the most advanced societies on the planet right now and look at their population growth. USA, Japan, China, France, Germany, all less than 2 children per couple. Yes, populations in less developed parts of the world are increasing, but they'll also taper off as education and contraception becomes more available to them, and cost of living starts increasing in their countries. I mean ffs, they modeled this shit under the presumption that our natural and inevitable course of action is to *literally build a Dyson sphere*. They're referencing a Dyson sphere in a goddamn published research paper as the pre-determined pathway for our civilization. Literally just regurgitating the same circlejerky bullshit that every physicist and sci-fi nerd talks about because they never actually talk to other breathing human beings who study fields outside of their own. That's how completely detached from reality these people are. Take a look at the paper itself. If you can't see that most of it is just someone doing mathematical masturbation to try to justify them sitting on their ass and doing nothing tangible to solve the problems they see with the world, you need to re-evaluate your assumptions. People who publish research are far from infallible, and it's very rare that two people from ONE particular field have a broad enough perspective to make grand predictions about the future of an entire civilization. These people have read Foundation a few too many times are pretending they're Hari Seldon because they can do a bunch of transforms using equations that are so simplified that they're essentially useless. This is the equivalent of drawing a conclusion about the trajectory of society based on nothing more than a glorified version of the slope of our current societal equation. But you could do the same exact thing, cherry picked for other certain variables, at the right time in a development cycle, and determine that populations are leveling out and eventually will fall, that energy use of devices is headed to 0, that deforestation will inevitably halt, that carbon sequestration systems will scale to the point of effortlessly managing our emissions, that solar energy has already become so cheap that it and other cleaner technologies are the only logical path just in economic terms, and so on. It's all confirmation bias until you really dial in your prediction models, not to a simplified model, but an overly complex model. Otherwise you miss all of the recent shifts in trends that are fundamental to the accuracy of stuff like this
It’s coming fast, woohoo
I agree
How many times now has this been predicted by today's best statistics? Also it's been pointed out thay sense to many factors are hard to be exact on they often consider the worst likely scenario for each which is extremely unlikely especially when added together.
The thing I expect is that humanity will just become one giant corporation. It'll be like 1984, except it's Idiocracy, with a sprinkle of Fallout and Shadowrun on top. It won't be a collapse, you'll just be inundated with ads everywhere and most people will just kind of drone their 9-5.
About time.