• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there hope?

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
How bad is it going to get when our natural resources started to dwindle? What’s going to happen? How are our governments going to react? Will certain parts of countries infrastructures start shutting down? Are billions of people going to starve to death? The future looks bleak.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How bad is it going to get when our natural resources started to dwindle? What’s going to happen? How are our governments going to react? Will certain parts of countries infrastructures start shutting down? Are billions of people going to starve to death? The future looks bleak.

I suppose it does appear bleak to some extent. Much of what we appear to be facing now was predicted. We knew about global warming, shortages of energy and other vital resources, overpopulation, etc. I'm not sure if we could have done something sooner, but we probably should have tried. We may have recognized that we were in a technology trap, but on the other hand, technology always got us out of these traps, so the idea is that if we go on business as usual, we will ultimately find a way out of this mess. Or maybe not.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I suppose it does appear bleak to some extent. Much of what we appear to be facing now was predicted. We knew about global warming, shortages of energy and other vital resources, overpopulation, etc. I'm not sure if we could have done something sooner, but we probably should have tried. We may have recognized that we were in a technology trap, but on the other hand, technology always got us out of these traps, so the idea is that if we go on business as usual, we will ultimately find a way out of this mess. Or maybe not.
Past performances don't predict future development.

We will find ways out of this predicament, the real question is who will be counted under those "we". Being far away from the equator and well above current sea level will help as will already having invested in green energy.
One prediction is that we will have "eco-dictatorships", voted in or forced by an ever growing protest movement. Our current capitalist system and plutocratic government are not equipped nor willing to transition to a sustainable economy. Our current system needs growth to function but eternal growth isn't possible on a finite earth.

We are bad at preparing for bad times if we have no experience with such, especially when we can procrastinate because the bad times are still far in the future. The bad news is that it may be too late when we get the experience. There are trigger points after which we can't go back, even if we stop producing CO2 tomorrow. And we may be behind some of those trigger points.

So, yes, the future looks bleak and civilisation may end by 2040 but the end of civilisation is not necessarily the end of mankind.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
How bad is it going to get when our natural resources started to dwindle? What’s going to happen? How are our governments going to react? Will certain parts of countries infrastructures start shutting down? Are billions of people going to starve to death? The future looks bleak.
What resources?

Some are renewable and life adapts.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How bad is it going to get when our natural resources started to dwindle? What’s going to happen? How are our governments going to react? Will certain parts of countries infrastructures start shutting down? Are billions of people going to starve to death? The future looks bleak.
Our inclination to exploit the world around us for our own desires seems to be innate in us. When we can no longer exploit one thing, we'll move on to the next. We are parasites within our own limited "host" environment and the relationship is not symbiotic. So we will either destroy the host and ourselves along with it, move on to new hosts to exploit, or stumble onto an actual renewable host that can resist our endless exploitation.

Will we ever actually stop using exploitation as our mode of survival? That's not very likely. We are parasites, after all.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Past performances don't predict future development.

We will find ways out of this predicament, the real question is who will be counted under those "we". Being far away from the equator and well above current sea level will help as will already having invested in green energy.
One prediction is that we will have "eco-dictatorships", voted in or forced by an ever growing protest movement. Our current capitalist system and plutocratic government are not equipped nor willing to transition to a sustainable economy. Our current system needs growth to function but eternal growth isn't possible on a finite earth.

We are bad at preparing for bad times if we have no experience with such, especially when we can procrastinate because the bad times are still far in the future. The bad news is that it may be too late when we get the experience. There are trigger points after which we can't go back, even if we stop producing CO2 tomorrow. And we may be behind some of those trigger points.

So, yes, the future looks bleak and civilisation may end by 2040 but the end of civilisation is not necessarily the end of mankind.

I see that link mentions the MIT study from back in the 1970s, when we could already read the handwriting on the wall and see where we were headed. We probably should have tried to change our ways and tackle these issues back then. The energy crisis should have been a wake-up call. Unfortunately, Reagan came along, and the foolish masses flocked to him and his way of thinking like flies on ****. People might look at the upper crust of society, how they live and the measure of resources they consume and think "well, if they can do it, so can we." If one of the Kardashians uses a private plane to take a 3-minute trip to avoid traffic, then people might conclude that "the problem must not be as bad as they're saying."

I also agree with your point about who will be counted among the "we." During the same period, I've heard many right-wingers argue about the need for America to defend itself and protect against all the evil of the world, which also entails securing the resources necessary for survival. It's as if they want to build a "fortress America" and think of "America first," which was to be expected based on the direction we've taken since the Reagan era.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have hope that things will be handled.
I have expectations that they’ll be handled poorly.
So it goes.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Past performances don't predict future development.

We will find ways out of this predicament, the real question is who will be counted under those "we". Being far away from the equator and well above current sea level will help as will already having invested in green energy.
One prediction is that we will have "eco-dictatorships", voted in or forced by an ever growing protest movement. Our current capitalist system and plutocratic government are not equipped nor willing to transition to a sustainable economy. Our current system needs growth to function but eternal growth isn't possible on a finite earth.

We are bad at preparing for bad times if we have no experience with such, especially when we can procrastinate because the bad times are still far in the future. The bad news is that it may be too late when we get the experience. There are trigger points after which we can't go back, even if we stop producing CO2 tomorrow. And we may be behind some of those trigger points.

So, yes, the future looks bleak and civilisation may end by 2040 but the end of civilisation is not necessarily the end of mankind.
2040? We have more time. Eco dictatorship? More like no government.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
If/when the **** hits the fan, those responsible will simply double down and blame everyone else.
As they have always done.But that might get them removed. Not are there more and more people who take the crisis serious but they also get more and more angry.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Love to see you championing renewable resources.
I never was against it. Just the means by which to champion an ends to a means is what I'm usually critical of.

I think recycling and renewable materials are a stellar way to stay in line and balance as nature itself does the same things.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
2040? We have more time. Eco dictatorship? More like no government.
That's why I'm privy for winning hearts and minds rather than the punitive and forced compliance under various threats to a person.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Past performances don't predict future development.

We will find ways out of this predicament, the real question is who will be counted under those "we". Being far away from the equator and well above current sea level will help as will already having invested in green energy.
One prediction is that we will have "eco-dictatorships", voted in or forced by an ever growing protest movement. Our current capitalist system and plutocratic government are not equipped nor willing to transition to a sustainable economy. Our current system needs growth to function but eternal growth isn't possible on a finite earth.

We are bad at preparing for bad times if we have no experience with such, especially when we can procrastinate because the bad times are still far in the future. The bad news is that it may be too late when we get the experience. There are trigger points after which we can't go back, even if we stop producing CO2 tomorrow. And we may be behind some of those trigger points.

So, yes, the future looks bleak and civilisation may end by 2040 but the end of civilisation is not necessarily the end of mankind.
I knew the anti-capitalists would show up eventually.

The problem is the choices that people (like you, me)
make when electing leaders who don't do what you want.
If the people won't vote in leaders to make those changes,
how do you think that an even more revolutionary change
to rid countries of capitalism will happen?
Nah, not enuf consensus yet to get leaders to face AGW
with greater urgency..
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I knew the anti-capitalists would show up eventually.

The problem is the choices that people (like you, me)
make when electing leaders who don't do what you want.
If the people won't vote in leaders to make those changes,
how do you think that an even more revolutionary change
to rid countries of capitalism will happen?
Nah, not enuf consensus yet to get leaders to face AGW
with greater urgency..
Public opinion is not just one person one vote, it's more like one person * dedication = vote. I see people getting more and more radical. Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, Last Generation are few but dedicated. Revolutions are not made by majorities, they are made by small, dedicated groups. The difference between failure and success is how much the majority will resist the change.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Public opinion is not just one person one vote, it's more like one person * dedication = vote. I see people getting more and more radical. Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, Last Generation are few but dedicated. Revolutions are not made by majorities, they are made by small, dedicated groups. The difference between failure and success is how much the majority will resist the change.
Those small dedicated groups aren't having
the effect you want now. Why should they
be expected to have it in the future?a
Perhaps instead of trying something radical,
like eliminating capitalism, they should
try for evolutionary change. Then they'd
be useful instead of merely dangerous.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Those small dedicated groups aren't having
the effect you want now. Why should they
be expected to have it in the future?a
Perhaps instead of trying something radical,
like eliminating capitalism, they should
try for evolutionary change. Then they'd
be useful instead of merely dangerous.
Evolution usually takes time and time is running out - at least in their view.
We have known about climate change for about 50 years, it is obvious for about 25 years. We knew what measures had to be taken to stop or mitigate it and failed to implement them. The longer we wait, the more radical the changes will have to be - at least as long as we can make changes ourselves - before we get changed.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I knew the anti-capitalists would show up eventually.

The problem is the choices that people (like you, me)
make when electing leaders who don't do what you want.
If the people won't vote in leaders to make those changes,
how do you think that an even more revolutionary change
to rid countries of capitalism will happen?
Nah, not enuf consensus yet to get leaders to face AGW
with greater urgency..
Unfortunately the suffering is still not universal enough for that. Because capitalism doesn't just destroy us economically, being based on greed and selfishness, it also destroys us socially, morally, and spiritually. So we're still happy to step over the broken bodies and lives of our fellow humans on our way to manning the big money pump for the rich. As long as their suffering is not ours, we really just don't care.
 
Top