6 ms·

God am I sick of tedious gloomy post-apocalyptic stories. I had them in school when they were about nukes. Now they're about the environment but they're the sam

by citatus 17y ago

God am I sick of tedious gloomy post-apocalyptic stories. I had them in school when they were about nukes. Now they're about the environment but they're the same boring gloomy defeatist stuff. Between those two dates, of course, we had tens of millions of Chinese and Indian people being lifted out of poverty, the fall of apartheid and the Soviet Union, democracy in Eastern Europe, the Internet... The future is the Jetsons, baby, not this shit.

aresant 17y ago
I owe you a nickel each time I use "The future is the Jetsons, baby, not this shit" - awesome!
JacobAldridge 17y ago
March 5, 2040. Ate Astro today. It was either him or Elroy, and frankly the boy is more tolerable these days since we can no longer find refined sugar to feed him.
m0th87 17y ago
Whether or not you deem it a realistic scenario does not detract from the artistic quality of it. What about 1984? Brave New World? Dr. Strangelove? All of them gloomy and dystopian, and all of them damned good! Nuclear warfare was (and still is) a very serious threat. Just because we've been lucky enough to skirt such a conflict doesn't mean it's not a viable threat. And depending on who you ask, ecological collapse is a very serious issue as well. I like these types of stories because they serve as a grim reminder of what could be. And maybe, just maybe, they effect enough change to steer us clear from it.
joe_the_user 17y ago
I'm not even an optimist. I'm not necessarily a pessimist either but I know that the technological Genie is not going back into the bottle no matter what else. Even if the future is going to be grim, it will be grim in a complex technological fashion, not this simplistic shit. Already the homeless have mobile phones.
rbanffy 17y ago
I am not sure an economic collapse (although we more or less dodged that bullet last year the shooting continues) would not drag a big part of mankind into abject poverty. We are seriously looking into a billion people having to move because of lack of water, and a huge disruption on coastal communities - and a huge people displacement because of that. We also have to contemplate a diminishing energy budget per person. And all that in the next 90 years. The future is a dangerous place, even if some pockets of it may look like The Jetsons.
- berntb 17y ago
  Why would the world have a lower energy budget? Solar cells are getting cheaper about as fast as Moore's law. Nuclear power (and if we're really lucky, fusion) can solve most problems. As usual, the probably real danger for people is... other people.
  - Gupie 17y ago
    The real danger is that most of the world will become unsuitable for agriculture, e.g. the Sahara expanding to Southern Europe, the Mid-West becoming one great dust bowl.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      You're joking right? The majority of agriculture in the western world is produced directly because of the Gulf Streams warming effect, look at any agricultural output maps and you'll see North American and European production is squarely centred around where the gulf stream contacts the continent and increases local temperatures. As the global temperature increases vast amounts of land will be moved into the range of arable crops, specifically the two largest countries in the world (Canada and Russia) have very low percentages of arable land due to the vast amount of taiga, as temperatures increase the arable land will increase exponentially. These two countries could easily feed the world at present production densities. [Edit: Canada currently has less than 5% arable land, and presently only uses ~0.6% of all land for agriculture. Russia has about 7% arable land, but only uses ~0.1%. The prairies account for ~80% of Canada's agriculture land, and these very prairies are expected to grow exponentially as temperatures increase] Incidentally your claim that the Sahara is expanding is quite frankly laughable, when all current evidence has been showing it is presently shrinking due to increased rainfall. Expectations are that if this trend continues it will turn into the 'Green Sahara' of 12,000 years ago. This would turn the Sahara into the biggest pasture land in the entire world . . . that's if you believe the global warming models being used.

by citatus 17y ago

aresant 17y ago

I owe you a nickel each time I use "The future is the Jetsons, baby, not this shit" - awesome!

JacobAldridge 17y ago

March 5, 2040. Ate Astro today. It was either him or Elroy, and frankly the boy is more tolerable these days since we can no longer find refined sugar to feed him.

m0th87 17y ago

Whether or not you deem it a realistic scenario does not detract from the artistic quality of it. What about 1984? Brave New World? Dr. Strangelove? All of them gloomy and dystopian, and all of them damned good! Nuclear warfare was (and still is) a very serious threat. Just because we've been lucky enough to skirt such a conflict doesn't mean it's not a viable threat. And depending on who you ask, ecological collapse is a very serious issue as well. I like these types of stories because they serve as a grim reminder of what could be. And maybe, just maybe, they effect enough change to steer us clear from it.

joe_the_user 17y ago

I'm not even an optimist. I'm not necessarily a pessimist either but I know that the technological Genie is not going back into the bottle no matter what else. Even if the future is going to be grim, it will be grim in a complex technological fashion, not this simplistic shit. Already the homeless have mobile phones.

rbanffy 17y ago

I am not sure an economic collapse (although we more or less dodged that bullet last year the shooting continues) would not drag a big part of mankind into abject poverty. We are seriously looking into a billion people having to move because of lack of water, and a huge disruption on coastal communities - and a huge people displacement because of that. We also have to contemplate a diminishing energy budget per person. And all that in the next 90 years. The future is a dangerous place, even if some pockets of it may look like The Jetsons.

berntb 17y ago
Why would the world have a lower energy budget? Solar cells are getting cheaper about as fast as Moore's law. Nuclear power (and if we're really lucky, fusion) can solve most problems. As usual, the probably real danger for people is... other people.
- Gupie 17y ago
  The real danger is that most of the world will become unsuitable for agriculture, e.g. the Sahara expanding to Southern Europe, the Mid-West becoming one great dust bowl.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    You're joking right? The majority of agriculture in the western world is produced directly because of the Gulf Streams warming effect, look at any agricultural output maps and you'll see North American and European production is squarely centred around where the gulf stream contacts the continent and increases local temperatures. As the global temperature increases vast amounts of land will be moved into the range of arable crops, specifically the two largest countries in the world (Canada and Russia) have very low percentages of arable land due to the vast amount of taiga, as temperatures increase the arable land will increase exponentially. These two countries could easily feed the world at present production densities. [Edit: Canada currently has less than 5% arable land, and presently only uses ~0.6% of all land for agriculture. Russia has about 7% arable land, but only uses ~0.1%. The prairies account for ~80% of Canada's agriculture land, and these very prairies are expected to grow exponentially as temperatures increase] Incidentally your claim that the Sahara is expanding is quite frankly laughable, when all current evidence has been showing it is presently shrinking due to increased rainfall. Expectations are that if this trend continues it will turn into the 'Green Sahara' of 12,000 years ago. This would turn the Sahara into the biggest pasture land in the entire world . . . that's if you believe the global warming models being used.