The Die Off

Discussion in 'Environment' started by toobfreak, Jun 2, 2018.

  1. toobfreak
    Offline

    toobfreak Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    11,079
    Thanks Received:
    2,105
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +13,530
    A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.

    In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.

    The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.

    The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.

    You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.

    The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.

    Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.

    How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    14,937
    Thanks Received:
    3,133
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +14,361
    let me see...

    all parameters were hypothesized thus inherent biases are the norm...

    conjecture in = conjecture out...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. toobfreak
    Offline

    toobfreak Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    11,079
    Thanks Received:
    2,105
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +13,530

    Let me see... you didn't even bother to read the article. So what you're saying is that no model no matter its sophistication, is worth anything because it is a model.
     
  4. abrere
    Offline

    abrere BANNED

    Joined:
    May 28, 2018
    Messages:
    286
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +150
    90% reduction in population is mandatory, within 60 years and there's a way to get it. Just sterilize all women of childbearing age, everywhere, for 20 years. Skip an entire generation. Then, by lottery, let 10% of women have one kid, before sterilizing them, too. in 60 years, you'll have the populaiton reduced to the point that the Earth MIGHT be able to give them all a decent life

    currently, 1/4 of the world tries to live on $1000 USD per year. half on 2k US per year, 3/4 on 4k per year or less and 90% on 10k US per year. Try that sometime! even in the third world, 10k a year is nothing.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    14,937
    Thanks Received:
    3,133
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +14,361
    Current climate modeling is not Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD). Thus it is a SIMPLE MODEL and can not accurately predict a chaotic system. That is problem one.

    Problem two, as the writers of your paper indicate, used preconceived notions of how they think a alien species would think and act, according to those hypothetical and extremely biased views. In other words they used their own views.

    This is simply a fantasy without facts. When modeling is done and it is verified by observation that is the only way a model can be 'empirically' verified or tested.. Absent a way to verify the output, makes the model worthless and leaves it about as reliable as playing the lottery.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,919
    Thanks Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +2,735
    Prometheus Minimized

    Like the long-refuted economist, Thomas Malthus, you're stuck on static thinking. We've barely scratched the potential carrying capacity of the Earth. However, we will have to change the way we treat our most valuable human resource, the creative mind. High IQs should be treated the same way their classmates treat superior athletes, from childhood on.

    We don't even have to eliminate the plutocratic parasites who are behind the humiliation of the talented. We have to wake up the talented to crush them, which they can easily do if they put their minds to it instead of wasting their mental energy on escapism, such as astronomy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    14,937
    Thanks Received:
    3,133
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +14,361
    How about you who believe this crap lead by example and just abort yourselves?

    The hard left has been fantasizing about killing off 90% of the population for hundreds of years... only they get to be the ones who survive... they get to live as kings with a population they get to decide who lives and dies...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    44,315
    Thanks Received:
    5,645
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +23,298
    The puppeteers moved their worlds further from their sun.
     
  9. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    44,315
    Thanks Received:
    5,645
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +23,298
    I don't believe you.
     
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,300
    Thanks Received:
    12,127
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,102





    There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1

Share This Page