5 ms·
The point of surviving is not to last forever; it is to last longer. Feeling slightly depressed that your civilization may undergo changes during the next hundr
by vages 8y ago
The point of surviving is not to last forever; it is to last longer. Feeling slightly depressed that your civilization may undergo changes during the next hundred years or that your species may not be able to last until the end of time is a privilege of living in an abundant, technologically advanced society. To paraphrase Stein's law and one of its corollaries: Something that can't go on forever, won't, but it can go on for longer than you think.
The reason why everyone points to Western Rome as an example of fleeting success (forgetting that its eastern part survived for an additional millennium), is that it was the last empire to go out with a real boom. As a counter-example, you could point to the British empire, whose heritage is still alive and well: We are discussing using its language and it is still a part of the G7. The same goes for the Roman language, which is still one of the world's most spoken, just under another name (Spanish). And you probably have dinosaur descendants living in your city, in the form of birds. Things survive, and so will we.
Worrying about imminent ecological collapse is as old as the industrial revolution. Thomas Malthus postulated that agricultural yields would not be able to keep up with population growth. But here we are, more than two hundred years later, better equipped than ever to tackle the challenges ahead of us. I am certain that we will make it out alive, as long as we keep up our good work.
- rorykoehler 8y agoWe are in massive unpayable (with todays technologies) debt to the biosphere. The difference between Rome and now was Romes fall was due to being superseded by other humans. We are in a totally different time now. Western hegemony failing will not be replaced by Chinese or whatever. Humans will die off is unprecedented numbers, along with most other species. This time it won't be humans replacing other humans unless we achieve some pretty remarkable technological breakthroughs in the coming decade. You talk about 100 years in the future but I think you'll be in for a shock when you see the climate change in the next 10 years even.
- vages 8y agoWhere did you get these claims from?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agohttps://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/ http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ipcc.ch/
- vages 8y agoI don't see the prediction of humanity's immediate extinction on the front pages of these organizations. From what I have gathered, their perspective, like mine, is that these challenges are substantial, but surmountable. And we can all contribute. As I see it, the best thing anyone can do right now is to convince their friends and relatives that nuclear energy is safe and necessary; that will buy us a lot of time.
- rorykoehler 8y agoWe're past the tipping point to run away warming according to some reputable climate scientists. Im not saying we can't reverse it but we're not even attempting to at the moment beyond half hearted deals like the Paris climate accord.
- GijsjanB 8y agoAnd the US is not even complying to the half hearted agreement
- graeme 8y agoI agree on nuclear. But, you will not see a government agency predicting imminent doom. They’re constrained by politicians not to do so. The individual scientists, however, are more grim. I can’t find it, but I read an article of some of the top climate researchers in Australia basically planning to abandon the country for themselves and their children. Just the other day, there was an article here where the world’s leading coral expert was saying unequivocally that almost all the world’s coral will die within our lifetime (it sounds like he expected more like 10-20, though he wasn’t specific). He noted that 25-33% of ALL ocean species have part of their lifecycle in this coral. Article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17842553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17842553 Unless we reverse this (sucking carbon from air using nuclear or solar power?), we emphatically do not have 200-300 years.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoA lot of British people would disagree that the heritage of the British Empire is alive and well. And there's not just "worry" about imminent anthropogenic ecological collapse, but growing empirical evidence for it - something that has never happened before.
- vages 8y agoAnd the brits would be wrong, for the reasons I have already mentioned. The remains of their empire are more visible than that of any other. Again, I do not claim that there are no ecological problems. I just think that they are solvable if we put our minds to it, because they have always proven to be so before. I may be wrong, but I don't see any better plan of action than being a rational, action-taking optimist. :-)