3 ms·

They are estimating that population collapse is a function of resources, google "civilizational metrics", everything from food to steel production looks like an

They are estimating that population collapse is a function of resources, google "civilizational metrics", everything from food to steel production looks like an exponential graph. Population decline will/is occuring, just due to things like 50 years of inflation and a century+ of central planning. They were totally wrong then, and now as an inevitable chapter of history begins, they are saying "look, we were just off a few years!". That said, you should take the apocalypse as an opportunity to brush up on philosophy. We could have engineered our societies such that they are further constrained in their ability to violate human rights, and avoided this entire thing, but they didnt have a full deck when they wrote the constitution. You can help build a better tomorrow by demanding universifiable moral values and sound economics lie at the foundation of the society to come.

marcinzm 3y ago
>"look, we were just off a few years!". Which is what most every doomsday cult does when the world doesn't end on the predicted date. Just off by a few years.
- CSMastermind 3y ago
  Seriously - the original study doesn't make definitive predictions so it can't be proven wrong but they keep updating the model to push the collapse date back "by a few years" because we keep diverging from their original trend lines. Even if their predictions were valid it could be another 'peak oil' moment where we simply invent new technology that undermines the original assumptions.
  - westcort 3y ago
    The comprehensive technology sensitivity analysis already takes into account a possible rate of technology development beyond what has been achieved before, so that argument is baked into this analysis. Another sensitivity analysis for their being twice as many resources as previously known is also accounted for. The initial 1972 estimate placed collapse around 2040. This update places peak civilization around 2018 based on human development index, with slight but measurable decline since, and more decline in the forecast.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      Look at whats happened, populations around the world have been squeezed into a tighter box, war, sanctions, lockdowns, mandates, environmental regulations, inflation, pitting people against eachother. Not a single thing there about our inability to produce commodities due to resource constraints, some nimrod cited oil prices like some oil producing nations couldnt flood the market with $60/barrel tomorrow if they wanted; no, the oil price is high because of a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical order. I see no decline in future prospects as quickly as internet infrastructure is being built (breakneck), nor for the innovation in cars, energy, housing, the only thing that holds a lot of it back is, a rapidly degenerating government.
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      > This update places peak civilization around 2018 based on human development index, with slight but measurable decline since, and more decline in the forecast. I read the footnotes, the Human Development Index peaked in 2019 based on data up 2021. In a purely coincidental and no way related development there was a global pandemic in 2020 and 2021. So they're making projections based on a trend of 2 years driven by an unprecedented and no longer active global pandemic (but coincidentally the data for 2022 and 2023 isn't out yet). And you're taking this as fact?
boringuser2 3y ago
>You can help build a better tomorrow by demanding universifiable moral values and sound economics lie at the foundation of the society to come. What, specifically, does this even mean? The fact that you'd posit this and not understand that these premises can't be readily agreed upon makes me feel like you're too dogmatic to see the forest for the trees.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  A universifiable moral value you could read up on is the nonaggression principle, with further reading into argumentation ethics. This would be as close to the euclidean geometry of ethics as humanity has come; a way of arguing against the nonaggression principle while staying morally consistent yourself has yet to be found, and evidence against that possibility is discussed in arguementation ethics. By virtue of the fact that you typed a response rather than searched for some way to commit violence against me demonstrates that you perfer peaceful solutions to violent ones.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    > By virtue of the fact that you typed a response rather than searched for some way to commit violence against me demonstrates that you perfer peaceful solutions to violent ones. It doesn't, the peaceful solution was significantly easier to enact than the violent one given this specific situation. If that's how this line of discussion tends to go then it strikes me as people finding ways to justify their beliefs versus a sound rational argument.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      A sound rational person such as yourself probably understands that the tone they bring to a conversation matters, as well as the actual content of your speech, lacking as it may be. Its ok, ill help you formulate a rational arguement, its useful to start with standard paragraph form. -thesis-Its morally permissible for me to initiate violence against a peaceful people. -supporting evidence-These people over here are different. -commentary-Those people are less deserving of human rights and moral dignity than I. -conclusion-Since some people have less value than others, its ok to subject them to violence if it confers sime benefit to people of higher value like me.

marcinzm 3y ago

>"look, we were just off a few years!". Which is what most every doomsday cult does when the world doesn't end on the predicted date. Just off by a few years.

CSMastermind 3y ago
Seriously - the original study doesn't make definitive predictions so it can't be proven wrong but they keep updating the model to push the collapse date back "by a few years" because we keep diverging from their original trend lines. Even if their predictions were valid it could be another 'peak oil' moment where we simply invent new technology that undermines the original assumptions.
- westcort 3y ago
  The comprehensive technology sensitivity analysis already takes into account a possible rate of technology development beyond what has been achieved before, so that argument is baked into this analysis. Another sensitivity analysis for their being twice as many resources as previously known is also accounted for. The initial 1972 estimate placed collapse around 2040. This update places peak civilization around 2018 based on human development index, with slight but measurable decline since, and more decline in the forecast.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    Look at whats happened, populations around the world have been squeezed into a tighter box, war, sanctions, lockdowns, mandates, environmental regulations, inflation, pitting people against eachother. Not a single thing there about our inability to produce commodities due to resource constraints, some nimrod cited oil prices like some oil producing nations couldnt flood the market with $60/barrel tomorrow if they wanted; no, the oil price is high because of a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical order. I see no decline in future prospects as quickly as internet infrastructure is being built (breakneck), nor for the innovation in cars, energy, housing, the only thing that holds a lot of it back is, a rapidly degenerating government.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    > This update places peak civilization around 2018 based on human development index, with slight but measurable decline since, and more decline in the forecast. I read the footnotes, the Human Development Index peaked in 2019 based on data up 2021. In a purely coincidental and no way related development there was a global pandemic in 2020 and 2021. So they're making projections based on a trend of 2 years driven by an unprecedented and no longer active global pandemic (but coincidentally the data for 2022 and 2023 isn't out yet). And you're taking this as fact?

boringuser2 3y ago

>You can help build a better tomorrow by demanding universifiable moral values and sound economics lie at the foundation of the society to come. What, specifically, does this even mean? The fact that you'd posit this and not understand that these premises can't be readily agreed upon makes me feel like you're too dogmatic to see the forest for the trees.

Geisterde 3y ago
A universifiable moral value you could read up on is the nonaggression principle, with further reading into argumentation ethics. This would be as close to the euclidean geometry of ethics as humanity has come; a way of arguing against the nonaggression principle while staying morally consistent yourself has yet to be found, and evidence against that possibility is discussed in arguementation ethics. By virtue of the fact that you typed a response rather than searched for some way to commit violence against me demonstrates that you perfer peaceful solutions to violent ones.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  > By virtue of the fact that you typed a response rather than searched for some way to commit violence against me demonstrates that you perfer peaceful solutions to violent ones. It doesn't, the peaceful solution was significantly easier to enact than the violent one given this specific situation. If that's how this line of discussion tends to go then it strikes me as people finding ways to justify their beliefs versus a sound rational argument.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    A sound rational person such as yourself probably understands that the tone they bring to a conversation matters, as well as the actual content of your speech, lacking as it may be. Its ok, ill help you formulate a rational arguement, its useful to start with standard paragraph form. -thesis-Its morally permissible for me to initiate violence against a peaceful people. -supporting evidence-These people over here are different. -commentary-Those people are less deserving of human rights and moral dignity than I. -conclusion-Since some people have less value than others, its ok to subject them to violence if it confers sime benefit to people of higher value like me.