We will always have sources of fuel, even in the event of societal collapse, the sun will continue to shine. If snything we'd likely switch to nuclear & solar much faster the more the other options became less available. Hell, even biofuel looks promising these days, especially for developing countries. While the latter isn't exactly ideal, it shows we can innovate where necessary.
and as i've mentioned before in previous threads, solar and wind are not suitable alternatives to oil or fossil fuels in general, let's leave aside the fact that we'd have to ramp up mining and production of certain minerals(cobalt, nickel and lithium) which would contribute more towards CO2 emissions
recognize that even if we were able to live in a 100% renewable energy society, our energy needs would not be met on account of the notion that these are not energy-dense alternatives, you'll always have to cope with the unfortunate fact that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind isn't always blowing. as for nuclear energy, besides the limited uranium supply we have and the extremely long time it takes to commission/decommission nuclear power plants-
we still haven't cracked the ultimate challenge which is the fusion part. we have to remember, while
theoretically they can help; as soon you as you scale them up they won't hold up logistically.
Exactly. Also, ever heard of space travel? I'd like to think... that just maybe... had some intelligent species of raptor (Troodon?) had the ability to predict/track space objects like asteroids that occasionally came barreling into the planet, they'd likely hop ship in order to escape extinction.
and go where exactly? in case you haven't noticed, space is a pretty deadly environment for a human to be in, much less a raptor- only thing we'd be doing is building elaborate tombs for ourselves to die in-
unless you've figured out the secret to building a self-sustaining ship with a rich ecosystem and agriculture capable of producing food and water
without the need for constant supplies from Earth(same goes for any attempts to build a life on a planet like Mars for instance, an entirely new environment that we
haven't evolved on).
that's one problem down and bunch of other ones to deal with like the constant radiation you'll be hit with once you're in space, or the body atrophying as a result of living in a different gravity- which means you'll have to be exercising and consistently be working to combat the effects for longer periods of time.
For all his faults, Troodon Musk is right on this one. Just having the capacity to leave your home planet opens up many possibilities. Also, artificial intelligence, which could potentionally avert that issue altogether via being more capable than we are at solving these issues.
yes, elon muskrat, the embodiment of the future which is filled with false promises and broken dreams- space travel is not exactly a holy grail that saves us for the reasons i've mentioned above, and pinning your hopes on an extremely speculative concept of AI(which is the super-intelligent kind that knows exactly what to do) is tantamount to praying, there's just nothing being done and its more or less religious devotion to something that doesn't exist.
Well, it helps that we're advancing at an expotentional rate isn't it?
source? law of diminishing returns will kick in as our easily accessible and cheap oil reserves inevitably become depleted, so im doubtful of this claim.
Hard to say were we'll be 200-500 years from now, but it's likely we'd be very different as a species if not an entirely new one altogether, Just look at what's happened in that exact same time from then to now.
so just have faith mostly? i don't think you understand the industrial revolution was a one-time event that generated exponential growth and yet we will never have access to the same amount of energy as we did back then, the time for geographical speciation takes a far longer time than just 200-500 years(we're talking about evolutionary timescales here), if you're talking about the artificial kind where everyone is a robot/cyborg and enhanced then again i'd say this is mostly in the realm of speculation and not actual fact.
You're assuming nothing changes at all, which is just unrealistic on that time frame and historical precedent.
i'm not assuming nothing changes, quite the opposite- our climate is changing far too rapidly and fast for us to adapt in time, as a result of the feedback loops and tipping points we've already set off-the time for change(in regards to ourselves) has passed a long time ago and will be done out of futility. although that's not to say we can't hold ourselves to certain virtues and standards as things inevitably fall apart.
Nah, I'd say you're definitely a "doomer" though, if such a thing is considered a philosophy nowadays. I can understand being realistic or pragmatic, but to say all is lost is an absolutist statement. In a strange way, it's like the stimulation theory; one wonders what's the point to it all.
i don't understand the pejorative manner in which this is said, the person saying that the house has burned down is not a "doomer", they're simply pointing that the house has burned down, if you're referring to someone who is pessimistic with no reason to be- sure you could classify them as a "doomer",
but pointing out the scientific conservatism we suffer from(
as in climate scientists releasing IPCC reports with data lagging behind current events, this isn't to blame the scientists so much as it is a feature that comes with the scientific method-often trusting sources that are "mainstream" and "reliable" ) is not "doomerism" it is merely displaying the rate at which certain events were predicted to be later are
now occurring
faster than expected,
worse than we thought almost as if it
sneaked up on us and we weren't accounting for certain variables in climate models.
when it comes to that though,
the simulation theory as far as i'm concerned to doesn't seem to be all that valid(sorry to take away the fun), but let's entertain the idea and think about it- if it is true then chances you probably dont have much influence over your environment as there are forces beyond your control and thus are vulnerable to whatever happens.
but as far as anyone's concerned, it's not like your life changed dramatically, just a difference in perspective and the nature of existence, going from analog to digital, you can still continue living your life for whatever time remains- its just things are different now, that is in a nutshell what it means to live in the ticking time-bomb that is civilization.
that being said, there are thousands of other different, non-verifiable explanations for why we exist as a whole,
God being the most popular, so often i find myself thinking unless you can
prove it demonstrably, there's really not much point to talking about it if only for a thought experiment.
I suppose I'd be considered a hypocrite in this regard if we were discussing american politics, but humanity in general? We're incredibly resiliant.
what we're facing right now isn't really something that can be compared to past catastrophic events, our exponential growth and technological ability has meant a better quality of life for us in the short-term of things, but taking a look at the general state of ecosystems, economic decline, and the fact that our biosphere is dying and we are running out of the resources needed for a good life- resilience isn't going to matter if we've depleted all our resources and have constant crises that exhaust our ability for response.
Progress isn't a myth, if we've progressed even a little then that's worth something.
in the context of human history, i'd say no, collapse is a process that virtually every civilization before ours has succumbed to, to expect "progress" to be the thing that saves us from this is to be arrogant and believe we are any different than our precursors.
R.I.P Ziba.