Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is there any future?

  • 07-05-2008 02:30PM
    #1
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭


    Has civilisation banjaxed the world? Does anyone think its sustainable? Do you think our leaders are insane? What can we do about it? Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?? I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....


«134

Comments

  • #2
    dewsbury
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 441 ✭✭dewsbury


    kamana wrote: »
    Has civilisation banjaxed the world? Does anyone think its sustainable? Do you think our leaders are insane? What can we do about it? Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?? I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....

    Does anyone think its sustainable?

    Definately not sustainable based on current lifestyles.

    Do you think our leaders are insane?
    No, but there is a famous quote... A politician is someone who thinks of the next election - A statesman is someone who thinks of the next generation.

    Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?
    Disagree, if we don't use renewable energy then it will be cold and dark and miserable. I read an article which suggested that there was plenty of renewable energy. We just need to learn how to harness it (and learn it quickly).


  • #3
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    Give a look around the world and their leaders. Where are the statesmen looking to the future generations? Ther aren't any. Civilisation is based on violence and control.


    What rewnewable energy are you talking about?


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kamana wrote: »
    I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....
    kamana wrote: »
    Civilisation is based on violence and control.


    OK...:confused:

    Civilisation as we know it will change, as it has changed in the past.
    The biggest changes will be in the distrubution of energy consumption around the world, countries like China & India will rapidly increase their consumption while the western countries will reduce theie excessive consuimption. BUT world consumption will continue to increase!

    Renewable energies such as wave wind & solar will continue to play an ever increasing role in the future. Bio-fuel crops run the risk of displacing food crops in some regions, which could create man-made famines.

    Lifestyles can and must change, otherwise the crunch when oil runs down will be much harder to bear. The kinds of changes I would expect to happen are (in no particular order)
    • no long commutes to places of employment, meaning that there is either distributed employment and/or everyone lives near work - thus vastly reducing relience on cars.
    • housing being constructed to be low energy - possibly clustered to share resources, an apartment block is much more energy efficient than the same number of individual houses.
    • goods and services will be generally limited to the local areas that they are produced/provided - no more sending a lorry of beans from Manchester to Galway while another lorry is taking beans (from a differernt manufacturer) in the opposite direction, or runner beans being flown in from Uganda. This will also reverse the trend of supermarkets having HUGE stores that people drive 30km + to shop in, local shops will revive.
    • the range of consumer goods will become more limited and be expected to last longer - no more throwing out a DVD player because it's last years model! manufacturers would be expect to make products servicable again rather than deliberatly making them unrepairable.
    • an end to long distance holidays - cheap flights etc
    • the end of disposible cameras, cutlery, nappies etc

    To sum up 19th century living with 21st century health, technology etc
    with vastly reduced individual energy consumption.


  • #5
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    oh come on I'll give anything up except travelling. Can't we keep that one????
    I brought up the idea that we have too much "stuff" in this day and age and we eat too much meat on After Hours a while back and I was laughed out of the forum.
    Seriously - cattle farming is a huge issue, we need to find other sources of protein. Fish farming could be the way forward, but I think that's dodgy, doesn't it give you cancer or something? farmed fish that is?


  • #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BraziliaNZ wrote: »
    I brought up the idea that we have too much "stuff" in this day and age

    That's the one thing that must change in the longer term future, energy is used at every points in the "stuffs" lifecycle. The average person in the west probably has more stuff than a small African/ Chinese/Indian village.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    yes but if we stop making more and more stuff there are no jobs left anymore. Then people get angry and war starts. Then people work as soldiers and rebuild destroyed countries. Maybe we need war to be sustainable?


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Part-time jobs for all, sufficient income to have a resonable standard of living, should need less income as you will have less "stuff" to buy!

    Don't forget that as fewer goods will be flying around the world, more local manufacturing jobs will be greated.


  • #9
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    people wont accept a lower standard. I mean we wouldn't have a choice but powerful nations like Britain etc. will probably start wars and stuff. We're doomed, I'm just glad I was born into the tail end of the good times.


  • #10
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    BraziliaNZ wrote: »
    people wont accept a lower standard. I mean we wouldn't have a choice but powerful nations like Britain etc. will probably start wars and stuff. We're doomed, I'm just glad I was born into the tail end of the good times.

    People will accept anything. At the moment we are accepting the destruction of the planet and we are doing feck all about it. We all know about oil companys controling/destroying civilization, we know companys like monsanto poisoning our food with genetic modifications. All we do is talk about how to sustain our living standards, for what? so we can make sure the planet is destroyed.

    "How is it conceivable that all our lauded technological progress, our very civilization, is like the axe in the hand of a pathological criminal?" Einstein.


  • #11
    dewsbury
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 441 ✭✭dewsbury


    We do indeed face an somewhat tricky next 100 years.

    However, ponder this!

    The change that people in the western world in the next 100 years will not be nearly as dramatic as the change in the last 100 years.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    dewsbury wrote: »
    We do indeed face an somewhat tricky next 100 years.

    However, ponder this!

    The change that people in the western world in the next 100 years will not be nearly as dramatic as the change in the last 100 years.

    I would have to disagree. I think the change coming will be devastating. 100 years ago the population was about 1.5 billion. Today its 6.5, thats a lot of scope for dramatic events.
    The devastation that has occured in the past 100 years is staggering, the nexy 100 holds a lot of problems and a return to a way of living enjoyed by our ancestors in harmony with nature.


  • #13
    Celticfire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,712 ✭✭✭Celticfire


    kamana wrote: »
    The devastation that has occured in the past 100 years is staggering, the nexy 100 holds a lot of problems and a return to a way of living enjoyed by our ancestors in harmony with nature.

    What sorts of devastation that happened over the last hundred years are you talking about?


  • #14
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    Celticfire wrote: »
    What sorts of devastation that happened over the last hundred years are you talking about?

    Extinction is as old as life on Earth - about 3.5 billion years - but scientists calculate that we are losing species at a rate of somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural "background" rate of extinction. This means that technically we are going through a period of "mass extinction", the sixth that we know about over the hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record. But unlike the previous five mass extinctions, this one is largely caused by the actions of a single species - Homo sapiens. This is caused by Industralised Civilization, Agriculture, Monoculture. There isn't a clean river left in Ireland.
    Certain Native American tribes used to consider the consequences of any decision they made for the next seven generations...what are we doing??


  • #15
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    Kamana;
    Has civilisation banjaxed the world?

    We`re making a good stab of it. Though i think the world will "banjax" civilisation first.
    Does anyone think its sustainable?

    Explosive population growth and higher expectations of living standards all based upon cheap energy , would leaving guessing no .

    Kamana;
    Do you think our leaders are insane?

    Millions of average German citizens went along with their leaders , this a nation of people noted for their rational , analytical minds .

    kamana;
    Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resources are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained

    I disagree, the use of wind / tidal/ solar etc are obviously cleaner than more coal burning power stations.
    Whether we "deserve it or not , our way of living cannot be maintained. 6 Billion people and growing, all desiring 1st World standard of living , complete with all the gadgets and accessories.
    Somethings got to give.


  • #16
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    WalkingEasy wrote: »
    Kamana;
    Has civilisation banjaxed the world?

    We`re making a good stab of it. Though i think the world will "banjax" civilisation first.
    Does anyone think its sustainable?

    Explosive population growth and higher expectations of living standards all based upon cheap energy , would leaving guessing no .

    Kamana;
    Do you think our leaders are insane?

    Millions of average German citizens went along with their leaders , this a nation of people noted for their rational , analytical minds .

    kamana;
    Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resources are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained

    I disagree, the use of wind / tidal/ solar etc are obviously cleaner than more coal burning power stations.
    Whether we "deserve it or not , our way of living cannot be maintained. 6 Billion people and growing, all desiring 1st World standard of living , complete with all the gadgets and accessories.
    Somethings got to give.

    Are you trying to blame the German citizens for what their leaders did? This goes back to my earlier point that civilization is based on violence. When your life is threatened and you're given the choice of comply or death, most comply.


    The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
    The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...


  • #17
    McSandwich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭McSandwich


    kamana wrote: »
    The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
    The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...

    Manufacturing anything requires energy.. If a polluting energy source (e.g. oil) is used in the manufacture something else (e.g. solar cells) which can supply many times more clean energy during its lifetime, then that must be better than simply burning the oil.

    This is an interesting renewable energy initiative : http://www.trecers.net/index.html


  • #18
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    kamana wrote: »
    Are you trying to blame the German citizens for what their leaders did? This goes back to my earlier point that civilization is based on violence. When your life is threatened and you're given the choice of comply or death, most comply.


    The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
    The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...

    Yes , i believe the German People were complicit in WW2. A handful of "leaders" could not have committed such an enormous ghastly extermination policy.This is the most frightening aspect, normal people getting on with their job, doing as they are told , the whole way up the chain of command, citizen to fuhrer.
    And we in modern society are complicit in the destruction of our envoirnment, heads down getting on with our jobs, doing as we are told.
    I believe it was an Irish man that said " All that is nessessary for the triumph of evilis that good men do nothing "

    Violence is not an invention of the "civilised age" , it has been with us since the dawn of man. When we cast our mind back to "simpler times" we are always in danger of over romanticizing .
    re; Native Americans society, it was also based on violence.

    Kamana: re; " photovalvic cells don`t grow on trees "

    Have a look at this;
    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002210.html
    The advocates of one proposed approach claim chlorophyll-photovoltaic cell may be able to convert 72% of sunlight to electricity.

    So Kamana, do you think civilisation will crash and burn quickly , or slowly fade out ?
    Or cobble together energy from where ever they can get it , and limp into the next 30 years.......?

    Emmm daddy or chips , daddy or chips !


  • #19
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    Walkingeasy "A handful of "leaders" could not have committed such an enormous ghastly extermination policy.This is the most frightening aspect, normal people getting on with their job, doing as they are told , the whole way up the chain of command, citizen to fuhrer."


    You try to make it sound like they were only 3 of 'em!! It was the might of the German army who carried out the extermination policy not the citizens.

    I never said violence was an invention of civilization. Violence is part of every culture and the history of every nation. I said civilization is based on violence. Who controls you? What happens if you step out of line? If you don't go to work to make rent/mortgage what happens? You get kicked out. What if you don't go peacefully and decide to make a stand? You get arrested. What if you make a stand against a motorway ripping through the heart of our heritage? Where is your police force? Who stands up for rivers, forests, heritage, plants, insects, birds, mammals and fish?? Do we consider these less important than getting to work quicker?
    A thousand years ago this land was inhabited by warriors who walked amongst bears, wolves and eagles....what awaits us in next 1000....


  • #20
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Just a polite reminder: this is the Green Issues board, not History or Politics.


  • #21
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Just a polite reminder: this is the Green Issues board, not History or Politics.

    Its next to impossible to discuss mankind's impact on the environment without mentioning history or politics.
    The mention of WW2 was not a diatribe against the German peoples, i was just using it as an example of how large swaths of a population can get swept along with a particular ideology.

    Green Issues are informed by the past, and shape future social policies.... History/ Politics.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WalkingEasy wrote: »
    Its next to impossible to discuss mankind's impact on the environment without mentioning history or politics.
    The mention of WW2 was not a diatribe against the German peoples, i was just using it as an example of how large swaths of a population can get swept along with a particular ideology.

    Green Issues are informed by the past, and shape future social policies.... History/ Politics.

    It is if you want to discuss the wider implications of any policies that have a green agenda, but at the same time it is easy to focus just on the environmental issues in hand.

    This discussion I believe is (should) be about how mankind can ensure that decent living standards are maintained in a future relient on renewable energy.


  • #23
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    I agree. Green issues take in a whole range of topics. Trying to discuss this subject without history, politics, economics etc would be pointless. It affects our very existence. That means every subject is fair game.


  • #24
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    To drive this discussion on we have to set up a few basic point we all agree on. Is Industrial Civilization sustainable?


  • #25
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,581 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    kamana wrote: »
    I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....
    Nope. Personally I think that 2012 will be the end of the Petro-chemical age of human existance. There won't be a sudden end to the production of oil, instead it will be more of a Weimar Republic situation with the gradual debasement of global currencies leading to massive levels of inflation and therefore ending global currency markets.

    We're already seeing the start of this now. There's no viable alternative to petro-chemicals given a) the world's already insatiable appetite and b) China and India coming on stream as major consumers.


  • #26
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    kamana wrote: »
    To drive this discussion on we have to set up a few basic point we all agree on. Is Industrial Civilization sustainable?

    No.
    It can`t be with finite resources available.

    Is Civilisation sustainable in this form, if not, is there any other form you imagine is sustainable ?


  • #27
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I made a comment earlier on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55872066&postcount=4
    "19th century living with 21st century technology", put simply a complete lifestyle change for all. Energy will be expensive and treated as such.

    no more long distance commuting - personal transport will be limited (to what - I don't know)
    goods & services will be limited to the local areas they serve - large number of small manufacturers producing sufficient to supply the "local" market - an end of producing low value items and transporting them halfway around the world when they can be produced in the same country/province.

    Towns will no longer be lit up like christmas trees as this is wasteful..
    the list goes on

    and on.

    These things will of course impact on people's expectations in life.


  • #28
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I made a comment earlier on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55872066&postcount=4
    "19th century living with 21st century technology", put simply a complete lifestyle change for all. Energy will be expensive and treated as such.

    no more long distance commuting - personal transport will be limited (to what - I don't know)
    goods & services will be limited to the local areas they serve - large number of small manufacturers producing sufficient to supply the "local" market - an end of producing low value items and transporting them halfway around the world when they can be produced in the same country/province.

    Towns will no longer be lit up like christmas trees as this is wasteful..
    the list goes on

    and on.

    These things will of course impact on people's expectations in life.

    I am inclined to agree with your low energy outlook.
    I believe that for the majority of people, our sphere of influence will shrink , to the distance you can walk or cycle.

    Large scale food production without cheap oil is impossible , or at least until society is retro-fitted to accommodate a " new" fuel source. This retro-fit would be a challenge on a scale/cost never before undertaken, it would also rely on using the dwindling expensive oil reserve to build it...this is the conundrum at hand.

    My only fear is that we will tear apart what little natural environment we have left, in an effort to maintain a "standard of living" that is clearly unsustainable.
    I believe Cuba experienced a sharp sudden shock when the U.S.S.R collapsed, ended their source of cheap oil.......
    We have a bit of time prepare, but the political silence is deafening.


  • #29
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    WalkingEasy wrote: »
    No.
    It can`t be with finite resources available.

    By that definition, nothing bound to a single planet is sustainable. Indeed, in its strictest sense, nothing bound to a non-infinite universe is sustainable.

    I guess part of the problem is that the term "sustainable" is poorly defined. Are we talking about forever, for the forseeable future, for some arbitrary period like 100 years....or what?

    Similarly, the use of the term "civilisation" seems to be disjointed from any definition of population. Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

    So really, its no wonder that different people are talking at cross purposes. Its beyond question that our current model, complete with our current population trends, is unsustainable.

    I'm reminded of Diamond's book "Collapse" at this point. The main point of the book (backed by other people's study as well) is that societies / civilisations don't collapse based on single factors, but generally when multiple factors combine. Additionally, there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.


  • #30
    WalkingEasy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭WalkingEasy


    bonkey wrote: »
    By that definition, nothing bound to a single planet is sustainable. Indeed, in its strictest sense, nothing bound to a non-infinite universe is sustainable.

    I guess part of the problem is that the term "sustainable" is poorly defined. Are we talking about forever, for the forseeable future, for some arbitrary period like 100 years....or what?

    Similarly, the use of the term "civilisation" seems to be disjointed from any definition of population. Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

    So really, its no wonder that different people are talking at cross purposes. Its beyond question that our current model, complete with our current population trends, is unsustainable.

    I'm reminded of Diamond's book "Collapse" at this point. The main point of the book (backed by other people's study as well) is that societies / civilisations don't collapse based on single factors, but generally when multiple factors combine. Additionally, there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.

    Though we are bound to this planet , we receive all our energy directly/indirectly from the sun. Given that its eventual demise will coincide with this planet , perhaps we could use its remaining lifetime as a time frame .

    I answered no ,
    to the question posed by Kamana ; Is Industrial Civilisation sustainable ?
    Industrial being the key word here, mass produced goods using finite resources in a system inextricably linked to growth and increased demand is not sustainable.
    Agrarian Civilisation? perhaps, if we could maintain our resources (renew as we take), manage the soil fertility etc (grow our plant humus) permaculture etc. Monoculture would be impossible without exhausting the soil, these of course are only small scale solutions.
    Of course unchecked population growth is at the very heart of the matter.
    But, population control is a dirty word for a lot of people , who will do the controlling ? Will there be forced abortions etc.

    I must read "Collapse" , i have seen a lecture by Jared Diamond on the same theme, very interesting (frightening) viewing.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.

    I think that we do recognise the problems but adapting to them is the question. We can all see the destructive nature of our civilization war/peak oil/agriculture/deforestation/industrial fishing etc... but how do we tackle these? Do we expect our governments to actually wake up one morning and say that we have made terrible mistakes and genuinely try to make amends? I don't think so. Is this acceptable? What can we as people do to make a real difference?


Advertisement