• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

NASA study predicts collapse of global civilization ?

Migrated topic.
From the study, quoted in the Guardian article:"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

Umm, yeah, I'm sure we'll get right on that.
That's it, boys and girls, the future has been canceled, so we might as well just get high and forget about it.
 
Afaik...Zeitgeist/Venus Project and its proponents fail to actually explain the magic by which their system gloriously rises from the rubble of the current system. They also fail to explain who does all of the undesirable work necessary for their vision to come to fruition. They also fail to engage in any sort of deeper analysis of the technologies they label as "sustainable" or the scale they would be operating on.

The technologies/social structures presented by Fresco and his followers carry an inherent human and ecological cost. Simply put, I don't think it's a serious possibility nor do I think it would be desirable, even if it were possible.

Conceiving of Nature as a Resource to be commodified and exchanged (in this case "for free" whatever that means) in the marketplace is inherently destructive and unsustainable, imo. I personally find myself frustrated with these fantasies that don't present people with a way to plug-in and engage in meaningful action/resistance in the here and now.

It's funny (in the most cynical sense) that this is news. It will be funnier when it's Big News. This has been known for decades. The fact that NASA felt the need to emphasize that this is usually a "fringe" position evidences the degree to which this has been propagandized out of public discourse. MIT released a similar study some 2-3 decades ago with minimal fanfare. It's the sad reality of where we're at.
 
I think you have a false understanding of how the zeitgeist movement works. There is no leader, and there are forums AND physical get togethers where those involved put their minds together to formulate plans and remedies for issues.

The videos are not there to explain how to do it, it is up to the community of the world to work on how to properly operate things on the planet. If you just watch the videos, which many people who doubt the movement do, you are not getting the full picture. They are just to raise awareness and motivate people to join the movement in order to start working together on different projects.

Its actually very similar to how things are happening here with the different nexus projects of sustainability with our beloved plants. It would be counter productive if the zeitgeist movement were an entity that figured this out for all of us to then just follow. That's actually the opposite of what is proposed by those in the community.

And to respond to your frustration to lack of here and now...

That's exactly what they are doing. They do not blindly follow some idea that the world needs to one day become this automated land of robots and free stuff. It us well understood in the movement that this is a long term goal and progress towards it is what they are working on.

Further more, robotics are slowly taking over all these remedial jobs as we speak. Cashiers are being replaced with computer and even cooks are as well. It is only inevitable that corporations will opt for the cheaper and long working computers for employees in all areas or the workforce.
 
There's definitely an economic/social shit-storm heading our way. But I don't see any change happening until it all boils over, when the masses get so desperate and their survival is threatened (myself included)for us to decide to make actual change- not just advocate it.

I love it when people say 'it wont work' when the current model is completely screwing everyone but the elite.
I hope I'm around for the times when this happens, because I'm sick of the entire lie we call a society.
 
anrchy said:
Further more, robotics are slowly taking over all these remedial jobs as we speak. Cashiers are being replaced with computer and even cooks are as well. It is only inevitable that corporations will opt for the cheaper and long working computers for employees in all areas or the workforce.
Click to expand...
This.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The notion that a "sustainable" society can be built on the backs of computers and robots is absurd. The fact that you present corporations as a facet of a "sustainable" paradigm is similarly difficult to swallow. Seriously though...where do you think the raw materials for computers and robots comes from? Where do you think they are refined? How can you even begin to label these processes "sustainable"? Look at the "alternative" and so-called "sustainable" energy sources touted by advocates of Fresco's vision (geothermal, wind, solar, etc.) and explain how these technologies can be created "sustainably" (from mining, to refining, to production, to implementation). It's just not possible.

Industrial civilization requires the exploitation and destruction of humans, animals, and the environment. period. The notion of some post-scarcity, industrial utopia is extreme folly, imo.
 
Interesting article!

I have been thinking of the future of our industrialised societies for a couple of years and I think it can only result in some sort of collapse. Our society is based upon exploiting the natural world in a way that is not sustainable. Overfishing is one example, rainforest deforestation and the use of fossile fuels, which are completely nonrenewable, to give us over 80% of our energy are two other examples.

In the year 2500 i think that we will live approximatly like we did in the year 1500.
 
This one sums up the solution rather nicely imo. :)

923376_10151893297953545_1136395944_n.jpg
 
anrchy said:
[...]
Further more, robotics are slowly taking over all these remedial jobs as we speak. Cashiers are being replaced with computer and even cooks are as well. It is only inevitable that corporations will opt for the cheaper and long working computers for employees in all areas or the workforce.
Click to expand...
But I like preparing my own food, and I like talking to someone in the shop! (and what Snozz said).
 
We will return to the earth. Tribal communities, village communities, local economy, local everything, all things decentralized. Basically, all the things that I've been saying for decades--and being called a hippy, idealist, utopian or whatever over--all that stuff, will have to come true.


More and more people will continue to get more and more hip...Permaculture will grow. Robots, computers and technology will not save us. Sensible and sustainable design might.
 
dreamer042 said:
This one sums up the solution rather nicely imo. :)
Click to expand...

Gertjan Meeuws has a different opinion:

[YOUTUBE]

My guess is that both models have their benefits depending on the circumstances.

And here is why genetic engineering could be the future IMO (not in the hand of Monsanto of course). It would be nice to see universities and non profits working on the common good "improved genetic plant code":

en.wikipedia.org

Golden rice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
I'm curious. When you make a statement like this:

Ufostrahlen said:
And here is why genetic engineering could be the future IMO (not in the hand of Monsanto of course). It would be nice to see universities and non profits working on the common good "improved genetic plant code"
Click to expand...

By what mechanism are you proposing this happens? I'm very interested in your thoughts, as to me, this represents a rather large disconnect from where we are currently at.

At this moment, Monsanto (and similar companies like Syngenta and others) controls huge amounts of resources (both "public" and private) in the forms of capital, land, politicians, regulators, etc. Similarly, universities are increasingly being taken over by private interests (look at the people on the boards of major public universities...it's kind of a joke that we still call them "public" as they are increasingly being run on a "for-profit" model) or are privatizing knowledge through their actions.

So when you make the claim that "genetic engineering could be the future, but..." I'm curious as to your vision of how such a thing would come about, given the current sociopolitical (and economic) climate.
 
People like to cite how great golden rice is for the poor of the world but ignore the potential risks to both health, environment, soil fertility, and the fact that there are alternative ways to supplying populations with vitamin A etc. that can possibly be even less expensive and potentially risky... It was $100 million to just develop, remember. And as like snozz said giving it the green light disregards the current situation because the corporations like monsanto that are leading the way with GMO agriculture are not something we should be jumping on board with.


Imagine how much food we could grow if we actually utilized rooftops, public spaces, miles and miles of endless green lawns, etc...Or cut back on meat consumption, which would free up a massive amount of land and have a number of benefits to the environment besides. I read one analysis showing that if a city implemented the right techniques it could grow around 80% of it's own food.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
At this moment, Monsanto (and similar companies like Syngenta and others) controls huge amounts of resources (both "public" and private) in the forms of capital, land, politicians, regulators, etc. Similarly, universities are increasingly being taken over by private interests (look at the people on the boards of major public universities...it's kind of a joke that we still call them "public" as they are increasingly being run on a "for-profit" model) or are privatizing knowledge through their actions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this view very well. I don't believe this will happen in the US, because of the privatized education and farming. I heard figures of $75,000 for a year of studying. That's unbelievable here in Europe (except the UK). In my country you'll _get_ 670EUR per month from the state if you study and your parents' income is low. Studying is free. No wonder the golden rice comes from universities in Germany and Switzerland, as education is still considered a common good.

Also Monsanto had big problems introducing GMO crops in Europe:

Monsanto backing away from GMO crops in Europe
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/monsanto-europe-idUSL2N0EC1B720130531
Click to expand...

I guess it will happen like the computer revolution, first the technology can only be afforded by huge companies like Monsanto. But lets wait a decade or two and the technology will be affordable by smaller universities or non-profit companies funded by the goodwill of wealthy individuals or foundations.

The golden rice is a good example for noncommercial genetic code:

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.
Golden rice - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

And I don't see why plant code can't work like computer code. The Linux kernel code is estimated to be worth a $1 billion, written by people and companies for free. If people can write free computer code that stands up to commercial code, they can write free plant code stands up to commercial code as well. It's only a matter of time.
 
universecannon said:
Imagine how much food we could grow if we actually utilized rooftops, public spaces, miles and miles of endless green lawns, etc...Or cut back on meat consumption, which would free up a massive amount of land and have a number of benefits to the environment besides. I read one analysis showing that if a city implemented the right techniques it could grow around 80% of it's own food.
Click to expand...
Sure, GM crops aren't the miracle cure for the hunger in the world. I think it will be a matter of diversity: GM crops, local grown food, local plant factories, education on sustainable farming, permaculture, stop wasting 10g of grain for 1g of meat etc.

Also WaterFX is a good idea:

WaterFX Sees Solar Desalination As One Way To Address The World's Water Problem

WaterFX Sees Solar Desalination As One Way To Address The World's Water Problem
Click to expand...
Parabolic reflectors don't look like rocket science to me, I'm sure third world countries can afford them, too. WaterFX even follows an open-source approach.

Similar companies:

Sahara Forest Project

-
saharaforestproject.com saharaforestproject.com
 
At some point we are going to have to realize the industrialized agricultural system we have become so reliant on is not sustainable over the long term. It takes an incredible amount of resources to keep the shelves of grocery stores, convenience stores, and fast food joints filled at all times, all around the globe. This system is inherently reliant on petroleum to create synthetic fertilizers, to run the farm machinery, to package the products in shiny plastic, and to keep the trucks delivering hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Frankly there just isn't enough petroleum to keep up with this demand long term, alternative technologies are slow in the coming and unlikely to fit in as a quick and easy replacement to maintain the status quo.

Investing millions of dollars into creating more genetically modified plants with ever increasing yields is not the answer to this one, we don't need more industrialized food production. The United States alone throws away hundreds of billions of lbs of food every year. What needs to change is our whole food production model. This microwavable, pre-packaged, dollar menu, drive thru, convenience culture just can't last; it's going to have to change. The question is will we take the responsibility to make the transition easy or will we be caught off guard because we refused to accept the fact that we've locked ourselves into a completely unsustainable paradigm?

The choice is an individual one and the answer is as simple as planting some seeds. Please consider this on your next trip to the grocer.

May you never hunger
 
dreamer042 said:
...we don't need more industrialized food production. The United States alone throws away hundreds of billions of lbs of food every year.
Click to expand...
And don't forget, the logic of capitalism dictates that the largest instances of this food waste will wind up in the dump following a police escort or after being locked in dumpsters with "no trespassing" signs posted on them. Armed thugs are required to ensure that people are not able to acquire these goods for free, thereby damaging commodity values by driving down demand/prices and hurting investors/shareholders. It is sadly and cynically "funny" that "damage" and "hurt," in this case, are applied not to hungry people, but to those who profit off of their hunger.

It's even larger than just the food production paradigm.
 
Growing ones own food and buying locally-grown fruit would be better.
Hoping someone can verify the degree of truthfulness to this: my father once told me about reading that food can be made to last up to 4X as long before spoilage, if one just dunks their foods into ozone-injected water, and pulls it right back out. About how much longer would this keep the food spoiling?

Searching food preserve ozone injector, I didn't see any side-by-side experiments.
I did see these: APPLICATIONS OF OZONE IN FOOD PRESERVATION and How to Build an Ozone Water Injector

Energy, climate change, and the enormous wealth gap are some of the biggest problems humans are facing.
 
Back
Top Bottom