4 ms·

> We are provably not beyond the great filter. At least one great filter lies tangibly in front of us: ecological sustainability. > Barring several fairly larg

by privong 12y ago

> We are provably not beyond the great filter. At least one great filter lies tangibly in front of us: ecological sustainability. > Barring several fairly large changes to our energy and resource systems, our civilization is mathematically and physically guaranteed to collapse within the next 200 years at most. Would you mind elaborating on this or posting some links with more evidence for this? As stated, your claim seems reminiscent to previous claims that humanity would soon not be able to grow enough food for the projected population. So far, unexpected scientific advances have managed to increase food yields substantially, and we can now effectively produce more than enough food to feed people (though we clearly have issues ensuring that food gets to everyone who needs it). So I wonder what is different now, that makes this looming catastrophe "provable" and "mathematically and physically guaranteed". I agree that humanity is facing significant challenges (e.g., climate change), but I think the claim of "guaranteed collapse" is not as well established.

api 12y ago
"your claim seems reminiscent to previous claims that humanity would soon not be able to grow enough food for the projected population" This is a cautionary tale about something that stock market traders know well: never try to call the top of a bubble. You'll just look like a fool, and if you bet on it you will lose all your money. The "Population Bomb" crowd in the 70s and the peak oilers of today tried to do just that: to call the top. They were not wrong about the underlying realities, but they were absolutely wrong about the timing -- which is nearly always the case. Bubbles almost always go higher and further than anyone ever expects or imagines. We're exponentially growing on the back of finite resources that we are consuming without replenishing. That's a bubble. I don't know when it will pop, but it will. Question is what happens then, and will we have enough alternatives available to keep going or not? On the counterpoint side: Life faced a similar situation prior to the advent of photosynthesis. It was growing exponentially and consuming chemical resources that would have been depleted. Had photosynthesis not evolved in time, life would have likely mostly died out and retreated to small colonies around a few hydrothermal vents. That might have been one of the first great filters. We seem to be past that one.
- taygetea 12y ago
  The comment you were responding to wasn't referring to the 1970s, it was referring to the repeated cries of Malthusian catastrophes dating back to Malthus himself. The unexpected technology mentioned was a 50-fold increase in agricultural productivity per person working in agriculture. Several times in the last several hundred years, similar patterns were pointed out. All of them were solved with technology they had no way of knowing about.
  - api 12y ago
    All of them have been solved so far by using more fossil fuels. It's nice to have a line of credit, but we know neither the limit nor the interest rate.
avn2109 12y ago
>> "Would you mind elaborating on this or posting some links with more evidence for this?" I'm not the GP, but I suspect api has in mind something like this [0]. The money quote from that article is this: "At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years." The obvious first-order thermodynamic consequences of that fact for the temperature of the surface of the earth are pretty undeniable. [0] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-...
- privong 12y ago
  Thanks. I had seen that calculation before, but had forgotten about it. It is good to remember that we will eventually come up against limits from basic physics. Though, to be a bit picky, showing that we can't indefinitely sustain our current trajectory is a different argument than saying a collapse is inevitable.

by privong 12y ago

api 12y ago

"your claim seems reminiscent to previous claims that humanity would soon not be able to grow enough food for the projected population" This is a cautionary tale about something that stock market traders know well: never try to call the top of a bubble. You'll just look like a fool, and if you bet on it you will lose all your money. The "Population Bomb" crowd in the 70s and the peak oilers of today tried to do just that: to call the top. They were not wrong about the underlying realities, but they were absolutely wrong about the timing -- which is nearly always the case. Bubbles almost always go higher and further than anyone ever expects or imagines. We're exponentially growing on the back of finite resources that we are consuming without replenishing. That's a bubble. I don't know when it will pop, but it will. Question is what happens then, and will we have enough alternatives available to keep going or not? On the counterpoint side: Life faced a similar situation prior to the advent of photosynthesis. It was growing exponentially and consuming chemical resources that would have been depleted. Had photosynthesis not evolved in time, life would have likely mostly died out and retreated to small colonies around a few hydrothermal vents. That might have been one of the first great filters. We seem to be past that one.

taygetea 12y ago
The comment you were responding to wasn't referring to the 1970s, it was referring to the repeated cries of Malthusian catastrophes dating back to Malthus himself. The unexpected technology mentioned was a 50-fold increase in agricultural productivity per person working in agriculture. Several times in the last several hundred years, similar patterns were pointed out. All of them were solved with technology they had no way of knowing about.
- api 12y ago
  All of them have been solved so far by using more fossil fuels. It's nice to have a line of credit, but we know neither the limit nor the interest rate.

avn2109 12y ago

>> "Would you mind elaborating on this or posting some links with more evidence for this?" I'm not the GP, but I suspect api has in mind something like this [0]. The money quote from that article is this: "At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years." The obvious first-order thermodynamic consequences of that fact for the temperature of the surface of the earth are pretty undeniable. [0] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-...

privong 12y ago
Thanks. I had seen that calculation before, but had forgotten about it. It is good to remember that we will eventually come up against limits from basic physics. Though, to be a bit picky, showing that we can't indefinitely sustain our current trajectory is a different argument than saying a collapse is inevitable.