/politics/ - News & Politics

>rapidly deteriorating planet

it's not

>multiplying exponentially

the population will be significantly reduced when parts of this plant become much less inhabitable.

>consuming resources ever more quickly

Resource shortage will not affect everyone in a deadly way. Also, when the population is reduced, resources won't be a problem.

>I realize that I am probably living very closely to the peak

If you are from the third world, probably, climate change and advancement of warfare will wipe you out. We are at the development stage of many technologies that can radically change the world, relate to power, computing, medicine, AI, ..etc The best is yet to come.

>a species living in a single, rapidly deteriorating planet without the capability to search for a new home.

Implying we won't be living on Mars one day.

>>13546

ya depressed dope. living standards higher than ever. em drive in next 10 years. space exploration within your life time. take a woman, have sons, get them trained as space pilots.

>>13546

The global collapse this century will be caused by Global Capitalism's need for growth crashing up against the physical limits of the planet (see Peak Oil, Peak Deforestation, Peak Everything, and the toxification of the planet [everyone will have cancer]).

First the financial system collapses (2008 times a brazillian) because no one can chop down any more forests to earn cash to pay back loans.

Next, industry stops producing what the people need as no one has any money nor can they get any loans to facilitate/coordinate trade.

Next, the people demand that the government fix everything, which it can't, and people give up on the useless government.

Next people start killing each other over the remaining resources, as most of Western Nations only have like 5 days of food supply because they depend on global imports, which have now stopped. Society collapses in desperation - only those in the country who can feed themselves survive the mass killings and then the plagues that hit due to poor immune systems of the masses.

Finally the culture collapses. There is no community, no ritual or ceremony, no projects worked on for the generations to come... as all effort is put towards survival. It is a sad state. Again only the lifeboat communities at the fringes do well, and over time they form the base of the new emergant society that will go to replace what has been lost. (unless some fascist dictators go full Mad Max mode and harvest any surviving rurals...)

The collapse is not a one day/week/month/year affair.

It happens slowly and sporatically. It has already happened in some nations. It is moving from the poorest to the richist nations unevenly.

You and I live in little economic bubble due to living off the efforts of slaves, but when the collapse reaches us, we die the fastest.

The future will be low tech in general, with little pockets of high tech (central universities in each country connected by what remains of the internet perhaps), the economies will be based on 'Local Resilience' and 'Appropriate Technology'.

This means the shift back to locally grown, high labour, organic crops, and back to low tech solutions such as horse and cart, radio, ink and paper... ie. clean, green, renewable, sustainable technologies that don't need global supply chains. This is actually a nice, healthy civilisation to live in, if it is founded on Liberty.

So if you want to be a part of the evolution of humanity, and not die off in the collapse, find out how to be useful for a self-sustaining low-tech village away from the cities.

is my 2 cents.

>>13786

>someone who gets it

wow, you don't see that every day.

You nailed it, but I'd like to add that:

>You and I live in little economic bubble due to living off the efforts of slaves

In western countries, it is generally fossil fuels that allow us to have our current standard of living.

Some areas will do better than others. I predict Iceland and Norway will do significantly better than most, as will any areas that:

>Have lower population density

>Are located in more northern latitudes

>Are more developed

>Have a population that remembers living through harder times (e.g. Russia,, Eastern Europe)

>Are less dependent on imports/exports for their economy

>Have lower levels of mass-immigration

>Are self-sufficient in food production

>Are not too close to cities of >100,000 population

>Have access to hydroelectric or geothermal power (the only renewable sources of energy thus far that have been proven to be economically viable when scaled up)

>>13546

>let's put aside these important things

>only futility remains

How could this happen?

>>13600

>it's not

are you stupid?

>the population will be significantly reduced when parts of this plant become much less inhabitable

So the planet becoming less inhabitable is good?

>The best is yet to come

But will we be smart enough to use the technology in the right ways? Or are we just going to use it to improve our living standards and make no worthwhile progress?

>>13788

>hydroelectric

lucky they have low populations, because that shit kills agriculture

>>13546

The more you crawl inside your skin, the less you will achieve attempting to revert the damage or avoid it completely

suffering is normal, get used to it, make it fun

>>13802

>makes baseless claims

>calls people who don't believe them stupid

>>>/reddit/

>>13786

Ah nice example for what you are desrcibing is the fact that we are actually in danger of being faced with a sand scarcity.

>Wat

Yea.

I had to laugh too as I heard it first, but the world devoures huge amounts of sand in order to produce cement. Now desert sand is not usuable because it is too fine and powderlike, so that leaves us with beach-sand and the one that gets scraped from the soil.

In some cases countries already need to worry about their sand getting rare, tunesia for example already cannibalizes its beaches, destroying long term-tourist income sources for short term gain.

We could invest in looking for alternatives such as new kinds of granulate which could be made from other less scarce junkmaterial, but we dont because it is still easier to rake the soil for its reserves, shitting on ecosystems in the process.

I dont believe this will lead ot a collapse however, it will make us poorer because of the numerous income sources we destroy, but the moment it gets apparent that using up the last ressources is more expensive then inventing an alternative or going local again (such as in ctopics like food production) exactly this will be done out of necessity and fear.

Harsh times, yes-

but a total wipe out of civilisation requieres levels of collective mental retardation I refuse to believe in because that would be quiet depressing.

Some steps are being done already, china for example starts preserving its ecological wealth again because it turned out to be too devastating and expensive in the long run to ignore.

The same goes for germany and its energy policies, I can imagine that we will be hit with a very harsh transistional phase but an apocalyptic scenario as you painted it seems to be not that realistically, harsher times breed a harder enforcementof authority, which in turn enforces changes much more quickly.

Leadership in most nations on earth is utterly fucked and egoistic, but still worrys about the future to some extend like you do.

>The future will be low tech in general, with little pockets of high tech (central universities in each country connected by what remains of the internet perhaps), the economies will be based on 'Local Resilience' and 'Appropriate Technology'.

This sounds realisitc, but not to the levels you imagine it.

>ink and paper

C'mon in the western 20s and in mostly autark commiholes later on like the DDR they had much more primitve and locally based supply chains but the bureaucracy and most of public life still worked with typewriters.