There is no shortage of evidence that we are, in fact, doomed.
August 9, 2011 10:09 AM Subscribe
Everything in this thread should be read in Professor Farnsworth's voice.
posted by kmz at 10:13 AM on August 9, 2011 [20 favorites]
posted by kmz at 10:13 AM on August 9, 2011 [20 favorites]
We're good until 2443. We all know what happens then.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:14 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:14 AM on August 9, 2011
Terrible news, everyone!
posted by Navelgazer at 10:15 AM on August 9, 2011 [15 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 10:15 AM on August 9, 2011 [15 favorites]
Of course we're doomed in that scenario. They replaced the warp nacelles with what appear to be enormous blue-fin tuna. What the hell did you expect? Those can't go past warp 3!
posted by griphus at 10:16 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by griphus at 10:16 AM on August 9, 2011
I read everything in every thread in Farnsworth's voice. Oh my yes.
posted by Babblesort at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2011 [15 favorites]
posted by Babblesort at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2011 [15 favorites]
Everyone dies, and in five million years, nobody will care.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2011
There are too many humans on Earth. This is our fundamental problem. Any solution that does not address this problem is not a solution.
posted by DU at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by DU at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2011 [10 favorites]
Well, there was a lovely little story posted to the front page this morning, but lots of people voted to kill it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:21 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:21 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I read everything in every thread in Farnsworth's voice.
I switch between Quentin Crisp and Mr T. I feel this may explain a lot about my participation on this site.
posted by elizardbits at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
I switch between Quentin Crisp and Mr T. I feel this may explain a lot about my participation on this site.
posted by elizardbits at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
posted by brevator at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by brevator at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Too many humans for what, DU? How can there be a correct number of humans?
posted by clockzero at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 10:22 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
Living in Rhode Island, I have realized that there are a lot of people who like imagining disaster. The state is slowly gearing up for a new Hurricane Season, and I meet a lot of people who look forward to "the next big one" with an unsettlingly avid glee. On the other hand, they don't like it when there is even a small amount of flooding. So, I think we, as a culture, if not a species, just likes imagining disasters. Thus, the popularity of eschatology in many, if not all religions.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:23 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:23 AM on August 9, 2011
So apparently the New Statesman asked a bunch of scientists if we were doomed, and then this week a bunch of science bloggers decided to answer it.
I read all the short blog posts and the answer appears to be a solid 'dunno'.
This is silly, of course, because in the leading link it points out the actual answer - in the long run, of course. Unless we figure out some way to escape the heat death of the universe, all human civilization will eventually be destroyed. That's assuming that we last that long, which seems... unlikely.
But we're all going to die anyway, and sooner rather than later. Even if humanity lives until the end of our universe none of us are going to see it. We'll all be dead in the next hundred years or less at best.
So there's no point moaning about whether or not we're doomed. We are. The question is: with our incredibly short time to live, what are we going to do to make it worthwhile?
My answer is to eat weird cheeses, listen to a lot of music and not think about it too much, but everyone has to find their own answer.
posted by winna at 10:24 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I read all the short blog posts and the answer appears to be a solid 'dunno'.
This is silly, of course, because in the leading link it points out the actual answer - in the long run, of course. Unless we figure out some way to escape the heat death of the universe, all human civilization will eventually be destroyed. That's assuming that we last that long, which seems... unlikely.
But we're all going to die anyway, and sooner rather than later. Even if humanity lives until the end of our universe none of us are going to see it. We'll all be dead in the next hundred years or less at best.
So there's no point moaning about whether or not we're doomed. We are. The question is: with our incredibly short time to live, what are we going to do to make it worthwhile?
My answer is to eat weird cheeses, listen to a lot of music and not think about it too much, but everyone has to find their own answer.
posted by winna at 10:24 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Everyone dies, and in five million years, nobody will care.
We care about dinosaurs.
posted by stormpooper at 10:26 AM on August 9, 2011 [10 favorites]
We care about dinosaurs.
posted by stormpooper at 10:26 AM on August 9, 2011 [10 favorites]
MetaFilter: There is no shortage of evidence that we are, in fact, doomed.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 10:26 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 10:26 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
I switch between Quentin Crisp and Mr T. I feel this may explain a lot about my participation on this site.
I'm stealing this idea. The former for the political and economic news. The latter for cat macros.
posted by griphus at 10:27 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm stealing this idea. The former for the political and economic news. The latter for cat macros.
posted by griphus at 10:27 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
well, if it makes anyone feel any better, the grey goo scenario has already happened...only it's not grey...it's green.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:28 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 10:28 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
From my understanding, we've got about a billion years left on our sun before it starts to act up, and few more years after that before the universe itself runs down. It's not looking good.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by blue_beetle at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011
The latter for cat macros.
I pity the mew?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
I pity the mew?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
This topic always reminds me of one of my favorite Stanislav Lem essays, "The World as Cataclysm." He argues that our world only exists by an extremely improbable series of coincidences going back to the Big Bang, that our little local patch of the universe has never been obliterated by some cosmic cataclysm.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
How can there be a correct number of humans?
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
posted by DU at 10:30 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
posted by DU at 10:30 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
I can still see the sky and it does rain sometimes, so no, we're not domed.
posted by GuyZero at 10:31 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by GuyZero at 10:31 AM on August 9, 2011
We're all going to die, and the earth has an unavoidable date with absolute destruction. Also, there is no god, and no afterlife. So I guess you could call that doomed. On the other hand, so what? There's booze.
posted by Decani at 10:33 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Decani at 10:33 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
I prefer to read it in GIR's voice.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:34 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:34 AM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
DU : "There are too many humans on Earth. This is our fundamental problem. Any solution that does not address this problem is not a solution."
Humanity needs some unnatural predators. This calls for a little genetic manipulation. Vampires. Werewolves. An alien or two, set loose in Paris.
Game over, man. Game over.
posted by zarq at 10:38 AM on August 9, 2011
Humanity needs some unnatural predators. This calls for a little genetic manipulation. Vampires. Werewolves. An alien or two, set loose in Paris.
Game over, man. Game over.
posted by zarq at 10:38 AM on August 9, 2011
Decani : "We're all going to die, and the earth has an unavoidable date with absolute destruction. Also, there is no god, and no afterlife. So I guess you could call that doomed. On the other hand, so what? There's booze."
Metafilter Morale Officer Achievement Unlocked!
posted by zarq at 10:39 AM on August 9, 2011 [6 favorites]
Metafilter Morale Officer Achievement Unlocked!
posted by zarq at 10:39 AM on August 9, 2011 [6 favorites]
Metafilter Morale Officer Achievement Unlocked!
posted by zarq at 6:39 PM on August 9
I am a little ray of sunshine; it's true. :-)
posted by Decani at 10:42 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 6:39 PM on August 9
I am a little ray of sunshine; it's true. :-)
posted by Decani at 10:42 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not me, but the rest of you are fucked.
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Decani : " I am a little ray of sunshine; it's true. :-)"
My kids have just started watching Winnie the Pooh movies. Reading your comment in Eeyore's voice was fun. The mental image of him kicking back with a Guinness and some fried thistles, even more so.
posted by zarq at 10:45 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
My kids have just started watching Winnie the Pooh movies. Reading your comment in Eeyore's voice was fun. The mental image of him kicking back with a Guinness and some fried thistles, even more so.
posted by zarq at 10:45 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
I feel doomder than usual lately, if not to imminent death, then to a long, arduous life.
NOT FEELIN' IT.
posted by everichon at 10:45 AM on August 9, 2011
NOT FEELIN' IT.
posted by everichon at 10:45 AM on August 9, 2011
What about doom's partner, gloom? I am gloomed.
posted by AugustWest at 10:47 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by AugustWest at 10:47 AM on August 9, 2011
"Shit just goes on and on, you know. Next thing you know somebody might try to smoke me. Don't matter, though. We all gotta go sometime, hm?" - Doughboy
posted by mkultra at 10:49 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by mkultra at 10:49 AM on August 9, 2011
Living in Rhode Island, I have realized that there are a lot of people who like imagining disaster. The state is slowly gearing up for a new Hurricane Season, and I meet a lot of people who look forward to "the next big one" with an unsettlingly avid glee.
As someone who grew up in North Carolina, I'm laughing at the idea of Rhode Islanders worrying about hurricanes. On the other hand, I'm guessing the Floridians are laughing at me.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:49 AM on August 9, 2011
As someone who grew up in North Carolina, I'm laughing at the idea of Rhode Islanders worrying about hurricanes. On the other hand, I'm guessing the Floridians are laughing at me.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:49 AM on August 9, 2011
Reading your comment in Eeyore's voice was fun.
posted by zarq at 6:45 PM on August 9
No word of a lie: Eeyore was by far my favourite Pooh character when I was a kid. I can tell you're shocked.
posted by Decani at 10:50 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 6:45 PM on August 9
No word of a lie: Eeyore was by far my favourite Pooh character when I was a kid. I can tell you're shocked.
posted by Decani at 10:50 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
There'll be no escape for the Princess this time.
posted by ShutterBun at 10:52 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by ShutterBun at 10:52 AM on August 9, 2011
It's surprising how much this all cheers me up.
posted by Peach at 10:54 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Peach at 10:54 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
An alien or two
xenomorphs! [end nerdery]
posted by elizardbits at 10:54 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
xenomorphs! [end nerdery]
posted by elizardbits at 10:54 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
There'll be no escape for the Princess this time.This is the greatest 1-2 comment punch in the history of MetaFilter.
posted by ShutterBun at 12:52 PM on August 9 [+] [!]
It's surprising how much this all cheers me up.
posted by Peach at 12:54 PM on August 9 [+] [!]
posted by dirtdirt at 10:56 AM on August 9, 2011 [7 favorites]
This topic always reminds me of one of my favorite Stanislav Lem essays, "The World as Cataclysm." He argues that our world only exists by an extremely improbable series of coincidences going back to the Big Bang, that our little local patch of the universe has never been obliterated by some cosmic cataclysm.
How strange it is to be anything at all.
posted by Anyamatopoeia at 11:08 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
How strange it is to be anything at all.
posted by Anyamatopoeia at 11:08 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
As someone who grew up in North Carolina, I'm laughing at the idea of Rhode Islanders worrying about hurricanes. On the other hand, I'm guessing the Floridians are laughing at me.
Well, it's not so much worrying as anticipating. About every 50 years or so, a hurricane hits the opening of the Narragansett Bay just right and runs right into Providence. This is now past due, so people like to spend their time imagining it. It's frankly bizarre behavior, much like living in Florida.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:09 AM on August 9, 2011
Well, it's not so much worrying as anticipating. About every 50 years or so, a hurricane hits the opening of the Narragansett Bay just right and runs right into Providence. This is now past due, so people like to spend their time imagining it. It's frankly bizarre behavior, much like living in Florida.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:09 AM on August 9, 2011
There are too many humans on Earth.
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
posted by ennui.bz at 11:14 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
posted by ennui.bz at 11:14 AM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Thirty Two Short Blogs About Doctor Doom
posted by Herodios at 11:17 AM on August 9, 2011
Aria
Tree of Knowledge
Flood
Antichrist
Malthus
Decline and Fall of Empires
Darwin
Martians
Brave New World
Mushroom Clouds
Big Brother
Animal Farm
Red Menace
Yellow Peril
Holy War
Them!
AI
AIDS
Darwin Again
Grey Goo
The Liberations of the Earth
The Weather Channel
Easter Island
Malthus Again
Antichrist Again
Asteroid
Singularity
The City and The Stars
Heat Death of the Universe
The Big Crunch
Let There Be Light!
Aria
End Credits
posted by Herodios at 11:17 AM on August 9, 2011
Everyone dies, and in five million years, nobody will care.
We care about dinosaurs.
NEVER FORGET.
posted by Kabanos at 11:24 AM on August 9, 2011
We care about dinosaurs.
NEVER FORGET.
posted by Kabanos at 11:24 AM on August 9, 2011
I agree philosophically with Emily (2nd link) that almost any ruin won't be the DOOM! of us all.
But it's irritating that those of use who are apathetic and self-destructive can drag the rest of us who aren't to DOOM! DOOM! I tells ya!
Serendipitously (unless I've done it unconsciously) I'm in one of the "if anyone survives at all" small groups (family, close friends) with skill sets such that we could probably survive almost anything.
Farming? I'm tight with people who own farms. Already in Illinois, prime farm country, close to one of the largest sources of freshwater in the world. Virus? Grew up with medical doctors who still live near me. Got bioresearchers, and engineers in the family. Zombies? Violence? Yeah, not going to be a problem. Family full of military and law enforcement on different levels and we still live here. Genocide/democide? We have political connections and enough family money to be protected but not too much to be considered a threat.
We're not survival nuts hole up in bomb shelters, we have a wide variety of experience with the rough bits in the world from combat to NGOs and we know it's overlapping supporting skills and cooperation that save lives, not stockpiles of MREs and ammo.
And then I look at climate change and melting clathrates and the thousand other things the brilliant resourceful people I know probably don't see coming and I feel like we're just another set of rubes.
Like Burt from Tremors going from "Broke into the wrong God damn rec room, didn't ya you bastard!?" Capt. Bad Ass to realizing the one thing he didn't cover - "Food for five years, a thousand gallons of gas, air filtration, water filtration, Geiger counter. Bomb shelter...*grimace, shakes head* Underground god damn monsters."
What keeps me going though, prevents total despair on this topic isn't the tongue in cheek approach. Because I've seen it happen. It's a real possibility.
But I think that it wasn't all that long ago (for the planet) that our entire species wasn't much more than the average attendance of a baseball game in the U.S.
Whether it was caused by a disaster or not, 26,000 of us endured. Had kids they taught to endure. Suffered perhaps repeated disasters, living maybe 20 years of a life of extreme hardship. A comparative handful of us kept the species going for hundreds of thousands of years.
And slowly we crawled out of animalhood into science and knowledge fighting and dying for every step even despite ourselves in some cases. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let a million years of sacrifice be in vain.
I know something in us, whatever shape we're in after a nuclear war, supervolcano, glaciers, zombies, virus, lack of food, the sun roasting Earth like a marshmallow, gamma radiation from space, a meteor strike, a thousand kinds of hell we can't yet imagine - something in us, we'll look back at the universe and say "We're still here, fucker."
posted by Smedleyman at 11:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [7 favorites]
But it's irritating that those of use who are apathetic and self-destructive can drag the rest of us who aren't to DOOM! DOOM! I tells ya!
Serendipitously (unless I've done it unconsciously) I'm in one of the "if anyone survives at all" small groups (family, close friends) with skill sets such that we could probably survive almost anything.
Farming? I'm tight with people who own farms. Already in Illinois, prime farm country, close to one of the largest sources of freshwater in the world. Virus? Grew up with medical doctors who still live near me. Got bioresearchers, and engineers in the family. Zombies? Violence? Yeah, not going to be a problem. Family full of military and law enforcement on different levels and we still live here. Genocide/democide? We have political connections and enough family money to be protected but not too much to be considered a threat.
We're not survival nuts hole up in bomb shelters, we have a wide variety of experience with the rough bits in the world from combat to NGOs and we know it's overlapping supporting skills and cooperation that save lives, not stockpiles of MREs and ammo.
And then I look at climate change and melting clathrates and the thousand other things the brilliant resourceful people I know probably don't see coming and I feel like we're just another set of rubes.
Like Burt from Tremors going from "Broke into the wrong God damn rec room, didn't ya you bastard!?" Capt. Bad Ass to realizing the one thing he didn't cover - "Food for five years, a thousand gallons of gas, air filtration, water filtration, Geiger counter. Bomb shelter...*grimace, shakes head* Underground god damn monsters."
What keeps me going though, prevents total despair on this topic isn't the tongue in cheek approach. Because I've seen it happen. It's a real possibility.
But I think that it wasn't all that long ago (for the planet) that our entire species wasn't much more than the average attendance of a baseball game in the U.S.
Whether it was caused by a disaster or not, 26,000 of us endured. Had kids they taught to endure. Suffered perhaps repeated disasters, living maybe 20 years of a life of extreme hardship. A comparative handful of us kept the species going for hundreds of thousands of years.
And slowly we crawled out of animalhood into science and knowledge fighting and dying for every step even despite ourselves in some cases. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let a million years of sacrifice be in vain.
I know something in us, whatever shape we're in after a nuclear war, supervolcano, glaciers, zombies, virus, lack of food, the sun roasting Earth like a marshmallow, gamma radiation from space, a meteor strike, a thousand kinds of hell we can't yet imagine - something in us, we'll look back at the universe and say "We're still here, fucker."
posted by Smedleyman at 11:29 AM on August 9, 2011 [7 favorites]
DU:
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
The point is that there *is* no long-term survival for humans. There was a time when there were none of us, and now we'll try to figure out a way for an increasing number of us can live on this planet, and eventually there will be none of us again. The Malthusian question-begging involved in saying that an identifiable upper limit of human population exists is beside the point; a specific number that we can safely conclude constitutes the sustainability boundary is meaningless when we're talking about long-term teleology.
posted by clockzero at 11:36 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
The point is that there *is* no long-term survival for humans. There was a time when there were none of us, and now we'll try to figure out a way for an increasing number of us can live on this planet, and eventually there will be none of us again. The Malthusian question-begging involved in saying that an identifiable upper limit of human population exists is beside the point; a specific number that we can safely conclude constitutes the sustainability boundary is meaningless when we're talking about long-term teleology.
posted by clockzero at 11:36 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Everyone dies, and in five million years, nobody will care.
We care about dinosaurs.
So you're saying that in five million years from now, Our Replacements (tm) will be powering their go-carts with liquified human? Yum!
posted by Old'n'Busted at 11:41 AM on August 9, 2011
We care about dinosaurs.
So you're saying that in five million years from now, Our Replacements (tm) will be powering their go-carts with liquified human? Yum!
posted by Old'n'Busted at 11:41 AM on August 9, 2011
You folks are worried about the wrong things. When I go, all of you go. Poof! So the question is really, how can you help me to live a longer life?
My answer: Leave me alone.
posted by Splunge at 11:48 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
My answer: Leave me alone.
posted by Splunge at 11:48 AM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Which, needless to say, caused him to empty his bowels.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:49 AM on August 9, 2011
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:49 AM on August 9, 2011
Smedleyman: " I know something in us, whatever shape we're in after a nuclear war, supervolcano, glaciers, zombies, virus, lack of food, the sun roasting Earth like a marshmallow, gamma radiation from space, a meteor strike, a thousand kinds of hell we can't yet imagine - something in us, we'll look back at the universe and say "We're still here, fucker.""
SWACK!
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on August 9, 2011
SWACK!
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on August 9, 2011
Splunge: "You folks are worried about the wrong things. When I go, all of you go. Poof!"
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
posted by namewithoutwords at 12:03 PM on August 9, 2011
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
posted by namewithoutwords at 12:03 PM on August 9, 2011
Nope, it's just me.
posted by clockzero at 12:14 PM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 12:14 PM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
Exit Mundi is an obligatory link for this topic.
posted by charred husk at 12:24 PM on August 9, 2011
posted by charred husk at 12:24 PM on August 9, 2011
Thank you zarq. This needs moar Bloom County!
posted by hot_monster at 12:29 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by hot_monster at 12:29 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
There are too many humans on Earth. This is our fundamental problem. Any solution that does not address this problem is not a solution.
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
DU
And you're wrong. This is not and has never been the "fundamental problem". There aren't "too many humans". The problem is and has always been poor resource management, poor and unequal resource distribution, wasteful practices, etc etc. Our problems have much more to do with *how* humans live than with *how many* humans live.
The current famine in Somalia is not happening because we've simply hit the Earths capacity for food production and we can't support all the people. The oceans and air aren't being poisoned because it's just the only we things can be if there are this many people. We do and have been doing stupid, terrible things, but it doesn't have to be this way. The Earth can easily physically support the current population and many more at good standards of living. It's just that there are so many other factors fucking things up that we get the current state of affairs.
If you could fix all that, then we can talk about whether there are just too many people to comfortably be sustained, but I get tired of this misanthropy being repeated as received Truth online.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2011 [9 favorites]
I didn't say there was a "wrong" number. I said "too many". You can have an upper bound on the number of humans a planet will support long-term.
DU
And you're wrong. This is not and has never been the "fundamental problem". There aren't "too many humans". The problem is and has always been poor resource management, poor and unequal resource distribution, wasteful practices, etc etc. Our problems have much more to do with *how* humans live than with *how many* humans live.
The current famine in Somalia is not happening because we've simply hit the Earths capacity for food production and we can't support all the people. The oceans and air aren't being poisoned because it's just the only we things can be if there are this many people. We do and have been doing stupid, terrible things, but it doesn't have to be this way. The Earth can easily physically support the current population and many more at good standards of living. It's just that there are so many other factors fucking things up that we get the current state of affairs.
If you could fix all that, then we can talk about whether there are just too many people to comfortably be sustained, but I get tired of this misanthropy being repeated as received Truth online.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2011 [9 favorites]
The good news is that vat based meat substitute will supply enough protein for 900 Billion souls in towering buckytube structures that reach so high into the sky that the thin aired penthouse will go to the plebes.
The bad news is that we'll all choke to death from 900 Trillion farts per day.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2011
The bad news is that we'll all choke to death from 900 Trillion farts per day.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2011
The current famine in Somalia is not happening because we've simply hit the Earths capacity for food production and we can't support all the people. The oceans and air aren't being poisoned because it's just the only we things can be if there are this many people. We do and have been doing stupid, terrible things, but it doesn't have to be this way. The Earth can easily physically support the current population and many more at good standards of living. It's just that there are so many other factors fucking things up that we get the current state of affairs.
If you could fix all that, then we can talk about whether there are just too many people to comfortably be sustained, but I get tired of this misanthropy being repeated as received Truth online.
QFT
posted by clockzero at 12:44 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you could fix all that, then we can talk about whether there are just too many people to comfortably be sustained, but I get tired of this misanthropy being repeated as received Truth online.
QFT
posted by clockzero at 12:44 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
The Earth can easily physically support the current population and many more at good standards of living. It's just that there are so many other factors fucking things up that we get the current state of affairs.
And what would you say is the easiest - or more practical, achievable - way of tackling this analysis (assuming it's true, which is highly debatable)? Taking steps to encourage the limiting of human numbers or rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
posted by Decani at 12:55 PM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
And what would you say is the easiest - or more practical, achievable - way of tackling this analysis (assuming it's true, which is highly debatable)? Taking steps to encourage the limiting of human numbers or rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
posted by Decani at 12:55 PM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
BrotherCaine: "The good news is that vat based meat substitute will supply enough protein for 900 Billion souls in towering buckytube structures that reach so high into the sky that the thin aired penthouse will go to the plebes."
Have you tried Soylent Blue™? It's the latest thing!
posted by zarq at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2011
Have you tried Soylent Blue™? It's the latest thing!
posted by zarq at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2011
I'm gonna sing the doom song!
posted by lekvar at 1:04 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by lekvar at 1:04 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
And what would you say is the easiest - or more practical, achievable - way of tackling this analysis (assuming it's true, which is highly debatable)?
Is easiest our goal? We could just pick 2/3 of the world and kill them all. That would be easier and quicker, right? Gotta be real and make the tough choices.
rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Yes, that sounds pretty nice. We should work towards that.
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
What you and those espousing this view need to face is that this attitude only hinders actually progress at making things better for everyone. It's the lazy answer, and not a good or helpful one. It's just an excuse to avoid actually helping people, but you get to posture and act tough and hard-nosed. If you want to lower population, improve living standards. Improve education and opportunities for women. Improve santiation and hygiene. That's how you tackle overpopulation. I'd like to actually alleviate the suffering of millions, rather than ignore their suffering and work towards causing more misery.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:09 PM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
Is easiest our goal? We could just pick 2/3 of the world and kill them all. That would be easier and quicker, right? Gotta be real and make the tough choices.
rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Yes, that sounds pretty nice. We should work towards that.
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
What you and those espousing this view need to face is that this attitude only hinders actually progress at making things better for everyone. It's the lazy answer, and not a good or helpful one. It's just an excuse to avoid actually helping people, but you get to posture and act tough and hard-nosed. If you want to lower population, improve living standards. Improve education and opportunities for women. Improve santiation and hygiene. That's how you tackle overpopulation. I'd like to actually alleviate the suffering of millions, rather than ignore their suffering and work towards causing more misery.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:09 PM on August 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
By using the term "overpopulation," it seems like you're assuming what you're trying to assert.
The hierarchical model of socio-economic coexistence, itself, implicates tendency rather than ability as the limiting factor in feeding and caring for everyone. A very few people command astronomically disproportionate shares of resources, and in general societies are not structured to maximize material equality. They could be, it seems, but they are not, and some are much less egalitarian than others, e.g. Somalia.
posted by clockzero at 1:10 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
By using the term "overpopulation," it seems like you're assuming what you're trying to assert.
The hierarchical model of socio-economic coexistence, itself, implicates tendency rather than ability as the limiting factor in feeding and caring for everyone. A very few people command astronomically disproportionate shares of resources, and in general societies are not structured to maximize material equality. They could be, it seems, but they are not, and some are much less egalitarian than others, e.g. Somalia.
posted by clockzero at 1:10 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Since we seem to think it *is* arguable, delmoi did a basic back-of-the-envelope calculation in response to an ask-mefi how much the earth could easily produce. The math worked out to be ...enough to feed 119 billion people 2500 calories/day....
posted by fragmede at 1:10 PM on August 9, 2011
posted by fragmede at 1:10 PM on August 9, 2011
Improve education and opportunities for women.
Really, this one is huge. Citation
posted by clockzero at 1:13 PM on August 9, 2011
Really, this one is huge. Citation
posted by clockzero at 1:13 PM on August 9, 2011
Has anyone said, "Ragtag fugitive fleet" yet?
posted by Standeck at 1:22 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Standeck at 1:22 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sangermaine writes:
Is easiest our goal?
Easiest is not our goal. But it may influence the choice of approach, no?
We could just pick 2/3 of the world and kill them all. That would be easier and quicker, right? Gotta be real and make the tough choices.
Reductio ad absurdum does not impress. I'll just pretend you didn't go there.
rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Yes, that sounds pretty nice. We should work towards that.
I agree, it certainly does sound pretty nice. And do you think the probability of our achieving that in sufficient time to save the world is high enough that we can just ignore the breeding rate? Is that right?
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
What you and those espousing this view need to face is that this attitude only hinders actually progress at making things better for everyone.
I reject that assertion, not least because you have not supported it.
It's the lazy answer, and not a good or helpful one.
No, it is the realist answer. The Cassandra answer, sure. But Cassandra was right, and so are we. I almost hope you will live long enough to see that, and by God I will not shrink from saying "We told you so." if you do
It's just an excuse to avoid actually helping people
That is an insolent and unwarranted statement. Many people who share my view on this subject are all for helping people in the situation as it stands. The fact that we recognise that overpopulation and over-breeding is a huge problem does not mean that we also give up on trying to alleviate the problems it causes.
but you get to posture and act tough and hard-nosed.
Where did I do that? I believe you are confusing these things for "Stating a perfectly defensible opinion that you do not like".
If you want to lower population, improve living standards. Improve education and opportunities for women. Improve santiation and hygiene.
Sure. I agree. Those are most definitely helpful things. But you can, and should do those things while facing up to the fact that overpopulation is a huge problem, and tackling the causes of that, too.
I'd like to actually alleviate the suffering of millions, rather than ignore their suffering and work towards causing more misery.
I have said nothing that suggests I favour the latter approach rather than the former.
posted by Decani at 1:36 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Is easiest our goal?
Easiest is not our goal. But it may influence the choice of approach, no?
We could just pick 2/3 of the world and kill them all. That would be easier and quicker, right? Gotta be real and make the tough choices.
Reductio ad absurdum does not impress. I'll just pretend you didn't go there.
rearranging the world to maximise the efficiency of production and cinsumption technology so that everything will be just dandy no matter how many people we spawn, and no matter which part of the world we spawn those people in?
Yes, that sounds pretty nice. We should work towards that.
I agree, it certainly does sound pretty nice. And do you think the probability of our achieving that in sufficient time to save the world is high enough that we can just ignore the breeding rate? Is that right?
Get real: overpopulation needs to be attacked. Hard. Face it, or continue to dream of a new Eden while watching the suffering millions.
What you and those espousing this view need to face is that this attitude only hinders actually progress at making things better for everyone.
I reject that assertion, not least because you have not supported it.
It's the lazy answer, and not a good or helpful one.
No, it is the realist answer. The Cassandra answer, sure. But Cassandra was right, and so are we. I almost hope you will live long enough to see that, and by God I will not shrink from saying "We told you so." if you do
It's just an excuse to avoid actually helping people
That is an insolent and unwarranted statement. Many people who share my view on this subject are all for helping people in the situation as it stands. The fact that we recognise that overpopulation and over-breeding is a huge problem does not mean that we also give up on trying to alleviate the problems it causes.
but you get to posture and act tough and hard-nosed.
Where did I do that? I believe you are confusing these things for "Stating a perfectly defensible opinion that you do not like".
If you want to lower population, improve living standards. Improve education and opportunities for women. Improve santiation and hygiene.
Sure. I agree. Those are most definitely helpful things. But you can, and should do those things while facing up to the fact that overpopulation is a huge problem, and tackling the causes of that, too.
I'd like to actually alleviate the suffering of millions, rather than ignore their suffering and work towards causing more misery.
I have said nothing that suggests I favour the latter approach rather than the former.
posted by Decani at 1:36 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, it is the realist answer.
The point is, it's not. As I've said, and others like clockzero have noted, none of our current problems come from the "breeding rate" or their being too many people. That's why I brought up the famine in Somalia. It's not a result of too many people and too little food, it's a distribution problem. All our problems are. There is enough food and resources to easily go around, but some have fortunes and others have nothing, but it doesn't have to be that way.
As clockzero said, you are begging the question with your declarations of overpopulation as the problem when you have yet to demonstrate a single problem caused purely by population exceeding capacity and not by things like unequal distribution or poor practices. You don't even have a meaning for the terms you keep throwing around: over-populated compared to what? Over-breeding compared to what?
Your answer just seems "realist" because you're confusing "realist" with "harsh" and dismissing other answers as soft-headed fantasies that can't be achieved...which is what I meant when I said your attitude hinders progress, because you've decided to use this circular term over-population and so can dismiss or even actively fight efforts to aid and help because they aren't addressing the "real" problem.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:49 PM on August 9, 2011
The point is, it's not. As I've said, and others like clockzero have noted, none of our current problems come from the "breeding rate" or their being too many people. That's why I brought up the famine in Somalia. It's not a result of too many people and too little food, it's a distribution problem. All our problems are. There is enough food and resources to easily go around, but some have fortunes and others have nothing, but it doesn't have to be that way.
As clockzero said, you are begging the question with your declarations of overpopulation as the problem when you have yet to demonstrate a single problem caused purely by population exceeding capacity and not by things like unequal distribution or poor practices. You don't even have a meaning for the terms you keep throwing around: over-populated compared to what? Over-breeding compared to what?
Your answer just seems "realist" because you're confusing "realist" with "harsh" and dismissing other answers as soft-headed fantasies that can't be achieved...which is what I meant when I said your attitude hinders progress, because you've decided to use this circular term over-population and so can dismiss or even actively fight efforts to aid and help because they aren't addressing the "real" problem.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:49 PM on August 9, 2011
Yay!, great to see a Smedleyman comment.
There is a limit to how much preparation/amelioration of doom is useful. I don't carry travel insurance for delays. Yeah, it would be inconvenient, and might cost some ticket change fees, but I'll live with the risk.
Similarly, I don't have a contingency plan for asteroid impact, but I do have a well stocked pantry and fire insurance, and off site back-ups. Those three counter the most likely risks to my well being that reward a little time or money.
I think about these things, but I think getting on with life is the only way to go about it.
posted by bystander at 1:54 PM on August 9, 2011
There is a limit to how much preparation/amelioration of doom is useful. I don't carry travel insurance for delays. Yeah, it would be inconvenient, and might cost some ticket change fees, but I'll live with the risk.
Similarly, I don't have a contingency plan for asteroid impact, but I do have a well stocked pantry and fire insurance, and off site back-ups. Those three counter the most likely risks to my well being that reward a little time or money.
I think about these things, but I think getting on with life is the only way to go about it.
posted by bystander at 1:54 PM on August 9, 2011
Still the best summation of the topic. WTF Kangaroos?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:47 PM on August 9, 2011
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:47 PM on August 9, 2011
> The math worked out to be ...enough to feed 119 billion people 2500 calories/day....
That's a bit like saying we could fit 7 billion people in a 200x200 km square so carrying capacity is in the quadrillions. See ikkyu2 and sfenders' comments.
Not exclusively about food production but a good read nevertheless: Vaclav Smil's Science, energy, ethics, and civilization (pdf).
posted by Bangaioh at 3:00 PM on August 9, 2011
That's a bit like saying we could fit 7 billion people in a 200x200 km square so carrying capacity is in the quadrillions. See ikkyu2 and sfenders' comments.
Not exclusively about food production but a good read nevertheless: Vaclav Smil's Science, energy, ethics, and civilization (pdf).
posted by Bangaioh at 3:00 PM on August 9, 2011
ikkyu2 and sfender's comments both support a conclusion that Earth can support ~17 billion humans, perhaps a bit differently than right now, but that figure is still well above the almost 7 billion humans that the Earth currently (semi-) supports. My point: food distribution is the problem, not production. World-hunger isn't a problem because we can't make enough food, it's because the people who need food aren't rich enough to pay to fly food in, and even if they were, they don't necessarily have the power to keep the food due to local warlords or similar local problems.
(Bangaioh, thanks for the pdf, it's an interesting read.)
posted by fragmede at 3:34 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
(Bangaioh, thanks for the pdf, it's an interesting read.)
posted by fragmede at 3:34 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
We're all going to die. There's no hope for anyone.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:32 PM on August 9, 2011
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:32 PM on August 9, 2011
So, I think we, as a culture, if not a species, just likes imagining disasters.
Well, I think we like to imagine confronting disasters or unusual situations. Zombie hordes, WWIII, hurricanes, street gangs, unexpectedly needing a screwdriver. I figure it's simply an adaptive trait to spend some time thinking about possible dangers and how to react to them; combine with the noted human propensity to overestimate the likelihood of very rare events, and there you go.
posted by hattifattener at 10:52 PM on August 9, 2011
Well, I think we like to imagine confronting disasters or unusual situations. Zombie hordes, WWIII, hurricanes, street gangs, unexpectedly needing a screwdriver. I figure it's simply an adaptive trait to spend some time thinking about possible dangers and how to react to them; combine with the noted human propensity to overestimate the likelihood of very rare events, and there you go.
posted by hattifattener at 10:52 PM on August 9, 2011
> ikkyu2 and sfender's comments both support a conclusion that Earth can support ~17 billion humans, perhaps a bit differently than right now
Not a bit, a lot different. Not being ikkyu2, I can't say with certainty what the expert he quoted was talking about but based on my limited understanding I'm willing to bet that 17 billion figure is a theoretical maximum, meaning a society whose sole objective is maximising food production and human numbers at the expense of everything else. Not a practical nor desirable situation IMO.
Note that ikkyu2's comment says specifically that 6 billion is probably above carrying capacity, which is consistent with this.
> My point: food distribution is the problem, not production
That's undeniable in the present, but my point is that current food production is already unsustainable, and, bad distribution or not, will eventually be unable to meet the demands of even only 7 billion people, let alone the likely greater numbers when that happens.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:03 AM on August 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not a bit, a lot different. Not being ikkyu2, I can't say with certainty what the expert he quoted was talking about but based on my limited understanding I'm willing to bet that 17 billion figure is a theoretical maximum, meaning a society whose sole objective is maximising food production and human numbers at the expense of everything else. Not a practical nor desirable situation IMO.
Note that ikkyu2's comment says specifically that 6 billion is probably above carrying capacity, which is consistent with this.
> My point: food distribution is the problem, not production
That's undeniable in the present, but my point is that current food production is already unsustainable, and, bad distribution or not, will eventually be unable to meet the demands of even only 7 billion people, let alone the likely greater numbers when that happens.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:03 AM on August 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older European Juggling Convention 2011 | Building Blocks Of DNA Come From Space Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oddman at 10:12 AM on August 9, 2011