nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are we heading for a dystopian future? (Warning: Heavy)

Proxy

Was watching Blade Runner last night, and this morning on the bus I thought of this at least as an interesting talking point; are we heading for a dystopian future like the one in many sci-fi flicks? Where do you think we're heading, as a civilisation?

Before you answer, just take into consideration the changes in civilisation in the last 100, 50, 10 years. The government, the media, technology, culture, our collective outlook, the way we live, the way our kids live/might live?

With the way some of "the young folk" act... its looking a bit daunting as it is.... and I don't just mean the skangers or "da baiz". I'm talking about some people I know who are in first/second year of college.

Also, the amount of control given up/taken by governments around the world, the cloak and daggar, the tabloid-style disemmination of knowledge. The conflicts now and in the future that we don't know are made up or not.

It seems a bit that this kind of progression is becoming normal, or else we're becoming apathetic. What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well heres why not: Everyone would starve to death within a month.

...and why is that a reason why my scenario wouldn't happen?

You're confusing cause and effect.

In such a scenario there would be massive population loss. England had a population of about 4 million in the 16th Century.

It was only industrialisation that caused massive population growth and concentration in the 19th Century.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Even the Romans had great difficulty supplying their population with food and water, and their cities were miniscule compared to what we have today.

The Romans had an empire to run. The scenario I described would see society re-arrange itself along feudal lines.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Storage of most foodstuffs over a long period of time (the kind of timescales it would take to transport things by horse and cart) requires refrigeration and / or sealed containers (which you need an industrial base to produce). Not to mention we would literally drown in horse manure.

Well, mankind survived for tens of thousands of years before it invented the 'frige or had any kind of industrial base. Obviously they weren't eating frozen pizza and out-of-season fruit and veg transported from the other side of the planet back then.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Everyone can't become a farmer.

No, but I think we'll see a return back to the small-holdings (>1 acre) that most Irish people lived on in pre-famine times.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I can't believe how out of touch you are with energy alternatives available right now. We already have a "Mr Fusion", except hes called "Mr Nuclear".

You're obviously ignorant to the science. Mr. Nuclear is actually "Mr.Fission". You need an advanced industrial base to build, maintain and operate such an installation.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Biodiesel alternatives exist, Brazil ran most of its cars on ethanol for quite some time.

Again, you need to read up on the science. Biodiesel is not the same as ethanol.

Farming Biodiesel on the scale required to replace today's supply of oil would practically destroy the worlds topsoil. Topsoil takes about 15 million years to replenish.

Again, I can't believe how naive people are in thinking some miracle alternate energy source will rush in and save the day.

It's not just a question of oil being used to generate energy either. Look at everything around you that was manufactured using petrochemicals - plastics for example.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

....In such a scenario there would be massive population loss. England had a population of about 4 million in the 16th Century...It was only industrialisation that caused massive population growth and concentration in the 19th Century.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

DublinWriter wrote: »

..and why is that a reason why my scenario wouldn't happen?

So lets see, 80% of the world's population dying of starvation when plenty of alternative energy sources exist. I don't know, why don't you tell me why it couldn't happen?

DublinWriter wrote: »

Well, mankind survived for tens of thousands of years before it invented the 'frige or had any kind of industrial base. Obviously they weren't eating frozen pizza and out-of-season fruit and veg transported from the other side of the planet back then.

We're not talking about transporting from the other side of the planet. We are talking about transporting food a few hundred miles before it goes rotten. While the hunter gatherer lifestyle might suit your needs, I doubt many will see it the same way.

DublinWriter wrote: »

You're obviously ignorant to the science. Mr. Nuclear is actually "Mr.Fission". You need an advanced industrial base to build, maintain and operate such an installation.

Why, oddly enough, we happen to have just such an industrial base! How about that!

DublinWriter wrote: »

Again, you need to read up on the science. Biodiesel is not the same as ethanol.

Aaaand you need to read the few posts just above yours.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Farming Biodiesel on the scale required to replace today's supply of oil would practically destroy the worlds topsoil. Topsoil takes about 15 million years to replenish.

Thank goodness we can produce it from algae then eh? I'm not too sure of the lifecycle of algae, but I think its a bit less than the order of 15 million years. Besides why are you so fixated on biodiesel, we'll probably all be using electric vehicles for most our needs.

Oh won't somebody think of the topsoil!

DublinWriter wrote: »

Again, I can't believe how naive people are in thinking some miracle alternate energy source will rush in and save the day.

Hey I guess you better run and tell France their nuclear power generation facilities, which give them 80% of their electricity, won't save them.

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's not just a question of oil being used to generate energy either. Look at everything around you that was manufactured using petrochemicals - plastics for example.

Sigh. Even if all of the readily useable oil runs out, there are still enormous quantities left in harder to get to shale oil. And hey you know what else algae are good for? Producing plastics! :eek:

Greetings from the 21st century! Shouldn't you be off smashing a cotton mill or something?

mike65

Oil will not be running out in 10 years, oil has been 'running out' since 1962 (the year of peak finds) its been downhill, just not visible, since.

There is still alot of oil out there though its just of a rather dubious type - the huge fields of tar-oil gunk in Canada for example.

Grow your own will make a return but only for a minority who have some land or access to same.

Mike.

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Besides why are you so fixated on biodiesel, we'll probably all be using electric vehicles for most our needs.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

Powered by what exactly?

We're still waiting for the Hydrogen-Cell revolution and time is ticking-down.

Hydrogen is a dead end. Producing it is difficult, storing it is tricky, and there is no infrastructure in place to transport this highly volatile substance. As for where else we might get the power, I have already mentioned nuclear several times, and geothermal at least once. Most likely power will come from a wide variety of sources though, wind, wave, and solar as well.

Mizu_Ger

Predictions of the future weren't all doom and gloom. This one was upbeat and kinda accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO58SGiYwwo

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hydrogen is a dead end. Producing it is difficult, storing it is tricky, and there is no infrastructure in place to transport this highly volatile substance. As for where else we might get the power, I have already mentioned nuclear several times, and geothermal at least once. Most likely power will come from a wide variety of sources though, wind, wave, and solar as well.

A nuclear powered car? You're kidding, right? Are you talking about Fission or Fusion?

As for cars powered by wind/wave/solar, how exactly will that happen given the relatively low yield of those energy sources compared to fossil fuels?

Your thinking is typical of those who are in denial. You're mentioning very vague methods of energy production that possibly are at least 30 years away from being viable to totally replace fossil fuels.

Personally I think it's too late and we're now witnessing the start of the 'end-times' as indicated by the spiraling cost of oil and the subsequent high inflation we are now starting to have.

DublinWriter

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

Predictions of the future weren't all doom and gloom. This one was upbeat and kinda accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO58SGiYwwo

Yeah, especially the part about the husband paying for his wife's shopping!

mike65

DublinWriter when oil spiked in the 70s inflation went though the roof, that has'nt happened this time and its not a spike this time of course. The funadmentals of the global economy have changed hugely since the bad old days. Shocks still happen but whereas a generation ago the first thing would have been a run on several currencies that does'nt happen now nor do the lights go out.

Your pessimism seems misplaced to me. And no I'm not saying all is well, its just not THAT bad.

Mike.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

A nuclear powered car? You're kidding, right? Are you talking about Fission or Fusion?

As for cars powered by wind/wave/solar, how exactly will that happen given the relatively low yield of those energy sources compared to fossil fuels?

Wow.

Lets see if you can track this: Nuclear power plants (a mature and existing technology which already supplies 80% of the power needs of a major first world country, France) put electricity into the grid.

You car / whatever gets plugged into the grid, via your common household plug socket.

You drive off into the sunset.

As for wind/wave/solar I did not say these could replace all current energy sources. They will however prove to be important supplemental sources.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Your thinking is typical of those who are in denial. You're mentioning very vague methods of energy production that possibly are at least 30 years away from being viable to totally replace fossil fuels.

Er which one of nuclear or geothermal is 30 years away? The largest geoplant in the world is in the Philippines of all places, I've visited it myself. Places like Greenland also get most of their power from geo already.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Personally I think it's too late and we're now witnessing the start of the 'end-times' as indicated by the spiraling cost of oil and the subsequent high inflation we are now starting to have.

Personally I leave talk of "end times" to tinwitted preachers trying to bulk up the collection plate.

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote: »

DublinWriter when oil spiked in the 70s inflation went though the roof, that has'nt happened this time and its not a spike this time of course.

The reason oil spiked in the early 70's was purely because of OPEC choking the supply to the West for political reasons. The spike was caused by artificial reasons then.

What I think will happen now is that there won't be a big spike. Oil will gradually get more and more expensive, gradually driving inflation to massive levels in 10 years time.

What will happen at that point will resemble Weimar Germany or the Russian currency crises of the late 90's; currency will become so devalued that it will ultimately become worthless.

Without currency, International Banking will collapse, taking with it the entire industrial and capital base of the modern economy as we know it.

mike65

Thank God its Friday.

Mike.

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Lets see if you can track this: Nuclear power plants (a mature and existing technology which already supplies 80% of the power needs of a major first world country, France) put electricity into the grid.

Oh, I'm all for nuclear, don't get me wrong.

Firstly, it won't happen in Ireland.

Secondly, the whole supporting infrastructure behind Nuclear Fission will always be heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

The heavy plant machinery needed to mine, process, refine and transport Uranium Ore will still require fossil fuels to operate. Why? For the same reason that you don't see electric powered jet-airliners.

Electricity as a power source is completely inefficient in supporting the huge amount of torque required to run such massive engines.

ScumLord

I still think poo power is the way forward it just seems perfect to me, poo goes in, methane and fertilizer comes out. It wouldn't solve transport problems but home heating and electricity would be sorted. The other byproduct fertilizer goes into producing more food, which in turn makes more poo, which in turn makes more power and fertilizer. It's so simple it's amazing and all we'd need to do is put a mini power plant at the end of every towns sewage system. Sounds expensive but in the long run it would pay itself off. It's allot more Eco friendly than any other option because it's recycling.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

Firstly, it won't happen in Ireland.

If there are no alternatives, you had better believe it will happen in Ireland.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Secondly, the whole supporting infrastructure behind Nuclear Fission will always be heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

The heavy plant machinery needed to mine, process, refine and transport Uranium Ore will still require fossil fuels to operate. Why? For the same reason that you don't see electric powered jet-airliners.

Electricity as a power source is completely inefficient in supporting the huge amount of torque required to run such massive engines.

Electric engines can produce just as much torque as fossil fuel powered engines, and whats more they can go from zero to full power instantly. In fact they can do better, using tight inductive coupling which, combined with low loss magnetic materials, enables the development of high torque at high rpm, and you don't need torque converters.

Have you any facts at all, or are you just making it up as you go along?

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If there are no alternatives, you had better believe it will happen in Ireland.

Two words - Joooooooooooooe Duffy!

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Electric engines can produce just as much torque as fossil fuel powered engines, and whats more they can go from zero to full power instantly. In fact they can do better, using tight inductive coupling which, combined with low loss magnetic materials, enables the development of high torque at high rpm, and you don't need torque converters.

So you're suggesting, and with a straight-face, that we'll be seeing battery-powered Boeing 747's in the near future?!?