Society/Culture Has society become better or worse over the past 30 years?

[Gethelred]

Yeh I understand this view point and certainly held it maybe 5 years ago. We are the universe looking at itself which is very cool

The last 150(250? depends on where you count from) years are the important bit, whats happened in that time? Massive amount of energy we have unleashed through fossil fuels(aka the carbon pulse). If you look at all species through energy exploitation/dissipation/gradients it makes sense, the size of the wolf pack is set by the size of the deer herd is set by the amount of vegetation that grows etc reaching an equilibrium

Any species given the amount of energy we have access to would do the same, rabbits will breed and eat out a pasture(if it's fenced from predators) until its barren and they die off. We are in the barren and die off stage, we killed the predators a long time ago(including bacteria/viruses etc)

The interesting thing about humans is that we(some of us at least) are aware of this and could well change our behaviour before natural limitations kick in. The cruelty of this is that we won't

How fatalistic.

Just because every biography should end with the phrase 'and then he/she/they died' does not render everything that came before it meaningless or without worth.

 

[Seeds]

Yeh I understand this view point and certainly held it maybe 5 years ago. We are the universe looking at itself which is very cool

The last 150(250? depends on where you count from) years are the important bit, whats happened in that time? Massive amount of energy we have unleashed through fossil fuels(aka the carbon pulse). If you look at all species through energy exploitation/dissipation/gradients it makes sense, the size of the wolf pack is set by the size of the deer herd is set by the amount of vegetation that grows etc reaching an equilibrium

Any species given the amount of energy we have access to would do the same, rabbits will breed and eat out a pasture(if it's fenced from predators) until its barren and they die off. We are in the barren and die off stage, we killed the predators a long time ago(including bacteria/viruses etc)

The interesting thing about humans is that we(some of us at least) are aware of this and could well change our behaviour before natural limitations kick in. The cruelty of this is that we won't

Humans arent over populating themselves. Poverty rates have been falling dramatically over the past century and the few poverty events that occur now are driven by gross institutional failure rather then drought or flood. Even poverty levels are now falling sharply. If we were suffering an overpopulation problem the opposite would be happpening with poverty rates.

Its staggering that people still have malthusian attitudes given how much he has been proven wrong. Its almost like some people want it to be true and then believe it to be so.

 

[barreness]

How fatalistic.

Just because every biography should end with the phrase 'and then he/she/they died' does not render everything that came before it meaningless or without worth.

Nahhhh its only fatalistic if you can't escape the growth ideology, can be really quite life affirming otherwise. This is terror from fear of death speaking

Of course it's not meaningless, the giant store of human knowledge and culture is incredible. however where we are heading is undeniable

 

[barreness]

Humans arent over populating themselves. Poverty rates have been falling dramatically over the past century and the few poverty events that occur now are driven by gross institutional failure rather then drought or flood. Even poverty levels are now falling sharply. If we were suffering an overpopulation problem the opposite would be happpening with poverty rates.

Because the rest of the world bar humanity is externalised under our economic models. don't worry though it'll happen, the end point of this model is a couple of trillionaires and a dead planet

Its staggering that people still have malthusian attitudes given how much he has been proven wrong. Its almost like some people want it to be true and then believe it to be so.

His supposition is correct under a fixed resources model, hard to deny this(minus his racist bullshit). The theory that we can tech our way out of this continually is folly, has 'worked' for a while but the world has limits

 

[Gethelred]

Nahhhh its only fatalistic if you can't escape the growth ideology, can be really quite life affirming otherwise. This is terror from fear of death speaking

Of course it's not meaningless, the giant store of human knowledge and culture is incredible. however where we are heading is undeniable

I suppose it is at least in part derived from a Catholic upbringing, but I have an inexhaustible faith in people's ability to do the least expected thing imaginable.

 

[barreness]

I suppose it is at least in part derived from a Catholic upbringing, but I have an inexhaustible faith in people's ability to do the least expected thing imaginable.

There is a bit of dominion over the world view in the abrahamic faiths, it's understandable

I hope you're right

 

[peetoo]

Sometimes advertising firms quietly that the piss out of their clients

In this case Apple. Btw my iPad Pro 2 gens ago is ok and doesn’t need to be thinner.

Apple apologises for iPad ad criticised as ‘destruction of the human experience’

Advert featuring huge hydraulic press crushing cultural objects struck wrong note with many

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gavin Excell]

Thats hightened again, as the most powerful memories we form are usually from your teens until your mid 20s.

So forgetting the worries of the times, plus the powerful good memories. This is why people glorify that time in their lives, even if the external realities don't exactly match up.

Exactly
In 30 years time the teenagers of today will speak in glorified tones about living in 2024 and how great it was

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Exactly
In 30 years time the teenagers of today will speak in glorified tones about living in 2024 and how great it was

They’ll probably sound like Darth Vader with the vocoded gas masks.

 

[Seeds]

Because the rest of the world bar humanity is externalised under our economic models. don't worry though it'll happen, the end point of this model is a couple of trillionaires and a dead planet

His supposition is correct under a fixed resources model, hard to deny this(minus his racist bullshit). The theory that we can tech our way out of this continually is folly, has 'worked' for a while but the world has limits

There are limits with food efficiency. But those limits wont be hit unless the global human population starts going into the trillions in the next couple of centuries. And given most estimates suggest the world population will peak below 12 billion and start falling by the end of the century such a scenario is not even worth considering.

Food efficiency has improved at such speeds that humans are already allocating less land to agriculture production in the past despite rising population and wealth. And this is before we even have either lab based meat and vertical indoor farming with 24 hour artifiicial light take off. Both of which will revolutionise food production more than fertilizers.

Prediction: in 100 years the world will allocate less then 25 percent of its current agriculture land to agriculture. Simply because we will no longer need it for agriculture any more. I.e. I predict the opposite of what you think will happen.

 

[ReidBetweenTheLines]

Think you only need to take a look at the increase in mental health issues to realise society’s in a worse spot. God help kids that grow up with online bullying following them home from school.

The exponential curve of technological advances has me completely black pilled. Every century the evil people in the world have slowly gotten their hands on more advance weapons. How many decades do we have before a terror group starts the chain effect leading to nuclear fallout? It doesn’t seem that far away honestly.

 

[barreness]

There are limits with food efficiency. But those limits wont be hit unless the global human population starts going into the trillions in the next couple of centuries. And given most estimates suggest the world population will peak below 12 billion and start falling by the end of the century such a scenario is not even worth considering.

Yeh we aren't making 9 billion, trillions lol

Food efficiency has improved at such speeds that humans are already allocating less land to agriculture production in the past despite rising population and wealth. And this is before we even have either lab based meat and vertical indoor farming with 24 hour artifiicial light take off. Both of which will revolutionise food production more than fertilizers.

Food efficiency? how are you measuring that
Top soil depletion is entering a critical zone in a lot of areas, petrochemicals is the only thing that keeps it going. Throw in a few climate events and you've got bread basket failure

Lab meat and vertical farming, they've both failed in the economic sense. Possible? yes, feeding the population? no and a waste of time. Tech isn't gonna beat photosynthesis and the biosphere for efficiency and fail-safe mechanisms

Prediction: in 100 years the world will allocate less then 25 percent of its current agriculture land to agriculture. Simply because we will no longer need it for agriculture any more. I.e. I predict the opposite of what you think will happen.

I guess we'll see. Don't think it'll take 100 years though, catastrophic consequences within the decade imo

 

[Blue1980]

If true, once it isn't aware, it won't care.

The only thing that saddens me about an end to the world is the fear and suffering immediately beforehand.

After that, well it's gone. My fear now has nothing to do with what happens after extinction. And nobody will be left to mourn.

Just as long as we get to 17 flags first before it happens.

 

[Blue1980]

Think you only need to take a look at the increase in mental health issues to realise society’s in a worse spot. God help kids that grow up with online bullying following them home from school.

The exponential curve of technological advances has me completely black pilled. Every century the evil people in the world have slowly gotten their hands on more advance weapons. How many decades do we have before a terror group starts the chain effect leading to nuclear fallout? It doesn’t seem that far away honestly.

I think a lot of it is it’s diagnosed more now, maybe not accounting for all of it, but I think our understanding in that space is a lot better now.

 

[Seeds]

Yeh we aren't making 9 billion, trillions lol

Food efficiency? how are you measuring that
Top soil depletion is entering a critical zone in a lot of areas, petrochemicals is the only thing that keeps it going. Throw in a few climate events and you've got bread basket failure

Lab meat and vertical farming, they've both failed in the economic sense. Possible? yes, feeding the population? no and a waste of time. Tech isn't gonna beat photosynthesis and the biosphere for efficiency and fail-safe mechanisms

I guess we'll see. Don't think it'll take 100 years though, catastrophic consequences within the decade imo

Vertical farming is not commercial yet because energy is too expensive. This wont be true in the future with renwable energy becoming very cheap. It still may be some decades away though.

Why do you say lab based meat has failed? Its a technology thats still in its infancy. 70 percent of agriculture land today is used for livestock (either to directly feed livestock or grow crops to feed them). Once we no longer need livestock then land requirements for agriculture will plummet.

Further development and adoption of advanced genetically modified food will also further improve crop efficiencies and also enable crops to be grown where it previously couldnt.

Climate events will make some land less suitable for crops. Particularly in southern australia and regions along the equator. But its also making other land more suitable for crops up in the north. And as stated above, we are also making crops more suitable to arid environments using gm. The impact of climate change on global crop production is likely to not be significant in my view and will be more then offset by tech developments.

 

[Chief]

Why do you say lab based meat has failed? Its a technology thats still in its infancy. 70 percent of agriculture land today is used for livestock (either to directly feed livestock or grow crops to feed them). Once we no longer need livestock then land requirements for agriculture will plummet.

Or just get protein elsewhere.

 

[barreness]

Vertical farming is not commercial yet because energy is too expensive. This wont be true in the future with renwable energy becoming very cheap. It still may be some decades away though.

Why do you say lab based meat has failed? Its a technology thats still in its infancy. 70 percent of agriculture land today is used for livestock (either to directly feed livestock or grow crops to feed them). Once we no longer need livestock then land requirements for agriculture will plummet.

Further development and adoption of advanced genetically modified food will also further improve crop efficiencies and also enable crops to be grown where it previously couldnt.

Climate events will make some land less suitable for crops. Particularly in southern australia and regions along the equator. But its also making other land more suitable for crops up in the north. And as stated above, we are also making crops more suitable to arid environments using gm. The impact of climate change on global crop production is likely to not be significant in my view and will be more then offset by tech developments.

Where's that deus ex machina when you need it, oh right this isn't the movies

Base yourself in reality not some sci fi future

 

[Seeds]

Or just get protein elsewhere.

There is that option as well. The rise of veganism is also going to reduce land requirements for food.

 

[Seeds]

Where's that deus ex machina when you need it, oh right this isn't the movies

Base yourself in reality not some sci fi future

Gm is reality. Falling global land use for agriculture is also reality. As is falling poverty rates. This is all reality.

We dont even need the tech developments im talking about. But occams razor suggest they are more likely to happen then not.

 

[barreness]

Gm is reality. Falling global land use for agriculture is also reality. As is falling poverty rates. This is all reality.

We dont even need the tech developments im talking about. But occams razor suggest they are more likely to happen then not.

GM of course, it's mostly a good thing except for the capitalist component, pursuing people who attempt to grow crops two years in a row, tsk tsk

Land use is not a choice, it's top soil depletion that makes areas uneconomical under the current system. Not like its being reforested, pasture at best

Falling poverty rates is literally china and India burning coal to develop, we have an issue here

 

[barreness]

Gm is reality. Falling global land use for agriculture is also reality. As is falling poverty rates. This is all reality.

We dont even need the tech developments im talking about. But occams razor suggest they are more likely to happen then not.

That isn't occams razor, that's futurism. there is no guaranteed tech

And yes we do require them, this level of CO2 or CO2 equivalent is like 6C of warming, which is a death sentence for most mammals

 

[Seeds]

That isn't occams razor, that's futurism. there is no guaranteed tech

And yes we do require them, this level of CO2 or CO2 equivalent is like 6C of warming, which is a death sentence for most mammals

There is no guaranteed tech. But most techs that have reached their level of development come through to commercialization. Not all do. But most do. Occams razor suggests the higher probability outcome is the one we should think will occur.


You have switched from a poverty/starvation argument to a co2 argument. They are different problems. Agriculture emissions are the most problematic ones to get rid of. You are right we do need lab based meat (or mass uptake of veganism) to reduce livestock methane emissions as we dont have technology options in this space to do so. But we do have technology options to reduce other emissions and mass reforestation can help offset livestock emissions if we ever bother to set up the appropriate rules and enforcement procedures to make land use sinks valid.

 

[barreness]

There is no guaranteed tech. But most techs that have reached their level of development come through to commercialization. Not all do. But most do. Occams razor suggests the higher probability outcome is the one we should think will occur.

Dude
problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements
You're adding elemnts.
Lol the capitalism, it's a failure mate

You have switched from a poverty/starvation argument to a co2 argument. They are different problems. Agriculture emissions are the most problematic ones to get rid of. You are right we do need lab based meat (or mass uptake of veganism) to reduce livestock methane emissions as we dont have technology options in this space to do so. But we do have technology options to reduce other emissions and mass reforestation can help offset livestock emissions if we ever bother to set up the appropriate rules and enforcement procedures to make land use sinks valid.

It's the same argument, you just haven't figured it out yet

yeh industrialised live stock is horrible. Methane has hit feedback loop from swamps, let alone gas leaks
It's a termination event. Mass reforestation lol, that'll happen