7 ms·

When you look at the many different potential sources of, "Fucked... goodbye..." the trend is very clear. We're juggling apocalypses and just waiting to find on

• whyenot 10y ago
  Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, inevitably, they do? Fermi Paradox redux.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    I think it's a good possible resolution, yeah, generally referred to as 'The Great Filter Hypothesis'.
    • antisthenes 10y ago
      It is necessary to note, however, that the great filter does not necessarily occur when a civilization achieves some arbitrary technological level. In fact, it could be at the point of single cell --> multi-cellular organisms or at the point of sexual dimorphism or developing general intelligence and ability to use tools, etc. I guess it's also possible there are multiple Great Filters...
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        That's a good point, and you're right of course. In fact I take some hopeful comfort in the notion that while the leap from organic molecules to single-cells might not have been too big, there are some indication that going to multicellular life was a leap that took quite some time. We still have reasons to hope, but we're doing almost all that we can to extinguish that hope.
  • mattmanser 10y ago
    It's not a particularly good candidate I would think. For example we know what's happening and could theoretically have stopped it but didn't/don't have the will. The Fermi paradox requires it to be extremely unlikely to survive, but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it.
    • louthy 10y ago
      > but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it. I can't imagine that. The only evidence I have to date (from a sample size of 1 planet) is that there is next to zero real political will, even if the politicians of the world create additional heat saying they have in fact found the political will.
      • deathhand 10y ago
        Because we are not unified and working towards the same goal. Tribalism is our roots and they will be our ends. That is the problem with too many sentient beings-everyone believes they deserve something. Thus no intilligent life unless they are a single entity.
        • jnicholasp 10y ago
          Competition is not the only response to being one entity among many, and it is not even necessarily the most reasonable response. Cooperation is also possible, and it is one of the necessary elements in every human organization, from the family to global cultures. We have civilization because we are to some degree able to cooperate, and if you simply turn up the dial on that trait, it is easy to imagine that other creatures could exist who were even better cooperators - and who would be collectively even more successful because of it.
          • TeMPOraL 10y ago
            Sure. The point here, we're not coordinated enough. Not by a long shot.
  • codecamper 10y ago
    Yes I think this is the reason. At least for our class of life: organic. Organic life naturally evolved & so all intelligent organic life lives on top of a pile of stored chemical energy (oil / coal / methane gas) Organic life evolves through competition and so when chemical energy is discovered it is rapidly used, most often faster than such intelligent life can figure out what a truly bad idea that is. Once they realize, it's too late. Runaway climate change is occurring. And this ends the intelligent life.
  • rimliu 10y ago
    No. We did not find any signs, because Universe is very very very very very big, live is very very rare and signal speed is finite. Just look up some visualisation how far our own radio signals have spread since the first were transmitted — they cover just a tiny volume of space.
  • jug 10y ago
    Also, another problem that you easily put yourself into and that we did as well, besides the climate change, is that our world is built on non-renewable resources. Easy, abundant access to oil was essential to kickstart the current society as this only demands low tech solutions for success. Could humanity do the same with the current resources if we were forced to start over?
  • NoGravitas 10y ago
    Yes, that's the [Toolmaker Koan][0]. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067169779X https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067...
  • good_vibes 10y ago
    I agree. This is where the bottleneck is. What really hurts for me is knowing just how close we are but how many are willfully choosing to stay in the dark. We really could make the planet habitable for humans for at least a few more centuries while we become multiplanetary but inertia is our biggest obstacle right now, not lack of technology or information.
• averagewall 10y ago
  How would any of these things end us? We've have world war II. That didn't make a dent in the population. Famine and drought would be localized so we can use international trade to smooth them over, just like we currently do. For long term failures, there will always be other arable places to grow crops, they just might be fewer or more inconvenient than they currently are, and they'll change at an easy human scale speed. China has a 300,000,000 migrant worker population. That's all of the US population migrating every year! We currently produce far more food than we need, so even losing a big part of production capacity will still leave us with enough to eat, but perhaps with less meat or seafood for poor people.
  • konceptz 10y ago
    I think what the point of the parent is saying is that we have never witnessed the likes of something like this and that our system is more fragile than we think. Previous wars and other events have all been leading up to "the big one". We can see it beginning to happen in what you mentioned above or in smaller instances. Also saying that poor people can just not eat meat or seafood seems a bit distasteful; not that you might be wrong.
    • kamaal 10y ago
      >>Previous wars and other events have all been leading up to "the big one". WW2 was quite dangerous in the sense, it put a very serious problem in front. Say you nuke a nation, the nation refuses to surrender. The issue is you need to keep nuking till you finish them off. That will not just finish off your enemies but a lot of planet along the way. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Broadcast_of_the_Imperial_Rescript_on_surrender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Broadcast_o... The key in the above statement is : "Should we continue to fight". Notice how 'continuing to fight' is an option there. This sort of stuff is scary as it is. You can't exactly defeat enemies by weapons if they refuse to give up. The only option then is continue, you then cause larger damage to the planet and biological species.
• mirimir 10y ago
  The freakiest one in Peter Watts' Echopraxia is the firestorms.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    I have to get around to reading those books... I have Blindsight sitting on a shelf.
    • mirimir 10y ago
      I love his ideas, but sometimes they swamp the action. There's less of that in Echopraxia than in Blindsight, as a response to feedback. But Blindsight gives you back story for Echopraxia. After you've read them, do check out https://www.reddit.com/r/SF_Book_Club/comments/2hzpmt/echopraxia_qa_questions_fended_off_by_peter_watts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SF_Book_Club/comments/2hzpmt/echopr... .
      • zyxzkz 10y ago
        Which one should you read first?
• learc83 10y ago
  Even if every bit of the icecaps melt, ocean levels won't even come close to ending civilization.