NASA Study Concludes When Civilization Will End

by Lurker Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:30 pm

Civilization was pretty great while it lasted, wasn't it? Too bad it's not going to for much longer. According to a new study sponsored by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, we only have a few decades left before everything we know and hold dear collapses.

The report, written by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center along with a team of natural and social scientists, explains that modern civilization is doomed. And there's not just one particular group to blame, but the entire fundamental structure and nature of our society.

Analyzing five risk factors for societal collapse (population, climate, water, agriculture and energy), the report says that the sudden downfall of complicated societal structures can follow when these factors converge to form two important criteria. Motesharrei's report says that all societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity" and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]." This "Elite" population restricts the flow of resources accessible to the "Masses", accumulating a surplus for themselves that is high enough to strain natural resources. Eventually this situation will inevitably result in the destruction of society.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:43 pm

Are we best just wiping out Africa, South America and the Middle East right now, to save the rest of us?

by Andy Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:51 pm

Well, it mainly puts the blame on the wealthy 'Elite'.
This implies thst Capitalism is a long term epuc failure and whilst not perfect and having some social limitations, communism is the more likelily way to prolong and progress society.
It makes sense to exterminate all rich people and those who vote to the right.

Sorted.

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:54 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Well, it mainly puts the blame on the wealthy 'Elite'.
This implies thst Capitalism is a long term epuc failure and whilst not perfect and having some social limitations, communism is the more likelily way to prolong and progress society.
It makes sense to exterminate all rich people and those who vote to the right.

Sorted.

Vote Miliband! cheers

by Andy Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:56 pm

You see Andy, despite some people trying to drive wedges between opposing sides, we do agree sometimes!

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:58 pm

Handy Andy wrote:You see Andy, despite some people trying to drive wedges between opposing sides, we do agree sometimes!

So you're not going to put me up against a wall?

Smile

by Andy Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:02 pm

Not yet, there is always time to repent and turn your back on the dark side.

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:04 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Not yet, there is always time to repent and turn your back on the dark side.

I'd rather choose death by Umbongo!

by Andy Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:28 pm

I'm not that cruel Andy.
I'll send you the greatest hits of Billy Bragg.

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:29 pm

Handy Andy wrote:I'm not that cruel Andy.
I'll send you the greatest hits of Billy Bragg.

Oh god, definitely death by Umbongo

by Andy Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:31 pm

Haha, BB it is then.

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:05 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:You see Andy, despite some people trying to drive wedges between opposing sides, we do agree sometimes!

So you're not going to put me up against a wall?

No BA, because you are not the elite, you're just the apologist for them.

by Irn Bru Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:05 pm

No wonder Osborne is telling the pensioners to spend the money that they have saved in their pension pots.

He wants the tax off them now before the lever is pulled.

What a chancer

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:35 pm

Just saw this. Now that's what I call cynical!!!!!!

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by eddie Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:41 pm

See these sort of threads scare the bejesus out of me! Shocked

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:52 pm

Oh don't worry Eds, when I was a teenager we had the Cuba Missile Crisis and everyone thought we were going to be nuked within days. I was going to run away from boarding school to be with my family.

by eddie Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:55 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh don't worry Eds, when I was a teenager we had the Cuba Missile Crisis and everyone thought we were going to be nuked within days. I was going to run away from boarding school to be with my family.

Yes I suppose so. Then there was the whole 2000 thingy where all computers were going to take over the world and kill us or something....

On that note, bed!
Night sass x

by Guest Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:57 pm

Night Eds x

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:04 am

has anyone read about the georgia guide stones, quite interesting mandate, I think it was written by the free masons...

by Lone Wolf Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:39 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Are we best just wiping out Africa, South America and the Middle East right now, to save the rest of us?

THIS is one weird comment, even from someone so well known for the extreme weirdness of some of his comments...

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:23 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Well, it mainly puts the blame on the wealthy 'Elite'.
This implies thst Capitalism is a long term epuc failure and whilst not perfect and having some social limitations, communism is the more likelily way to prolong and progress society.
It makes sense to exterminate all rich people and those who vote to the right.

Sorted.

You do know that in communism the division between the elite and the commoners was far greater than in capitalism and that there was bugger all chance of moving from commoner to elite - hence why communism has collapsed before capitalism.

by Andy Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:32 pm

Sphinx, my post did include a bit of tongue in cheek. Capitalism encourages greed, corruption and inequality, communism encourages corruption and a lack of self independence.

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:38 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Sphinx, my post did include a bit of tongue in cheek. Capitalism encourages greed, corruption and inequality, communism encourages corruption and a lack of self independence.

It also encourages massive inequality - but that is because it is a human institution and in my opinion the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that humans are not, never have been, and probably never will be equal animals. The fairest systems we can hope for are the ones that are the closest to meritocracy where level is based on ability not birth position.

by Andy Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:46 pm

Agreed, Sphinx.
Won't happen in our generation, or perhaps even inthe next 100 years.
When personal wealth and acquisitions become redundant, then humanity can move forward.
Until then, we will live in a dystopian rather than utopian society,

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:48 pm

We've got to do something about the size of the global population and the distribution of the world's resources -- not to mention global warming -- unless we want to see human civilization collapse.

The free market capitalists preaching that we can just keep going as is are dooming us.

by Stephenmarra Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:49 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Are we best just wiping out Africa, South America and the Middle East right now, to save the rest of us?

Ahh! this so reminds me of this Randy's song. affraid

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:50 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Agreed, Sphinx.
Won't happen in our generation, or perhaps even inthe next 100 years.
When personal wealth and acquisitions become redundant, then humanity can move forward.
Until then, we will live in a dystopian rather than utopian society,

When that happens it will no longer be homo sapiens

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:52 pm

sphinx wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Agreed, Sphinx.
Won't happen in our generation, or perhaps even inthe next 100 years.
When personal wealth and acquisitions become redundant, then humanity can move forward.
Until then, we will live in a dystopian rather than utopian society,

When that happens it will no longer be homo sapiens

Are you kidding? Homo sapiens have lived far more equitably without consuming nearly as many resources as today for most of our history.

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:07 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:We've got to do something about the size of the global population and the distribution of the world's resources -- not to mention global warming -- unless we want to see human civilization collapse.

The free market capitalists preaching that we can just keep going as is are dooming us.

Its not a case that we can keep going as we are it is a case of we will keep going as we are.

You could wipe out 99% of the population tomorrow - and the remainder will promptly divide up into roughly the same portion of acquisition of whatever is considered wealth as we see with what we consider wealth now - I mean in todays society I am considered to be poor - but what I have would have meant ultra wealthy 80 years ago.

Equally if you were take all the possessions/wealth/resources in the world and divide them up completely equally between every human - wipe out all ownership and debt and make a completely fresh start with everyone having the same within a shockingly short space of time the same portions of people would own/control the same portions of everything as they do now - it might be different individuals in different position but the over all picture would be the same.

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:08 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

When that happens it will no longer be homo sapiens

Are you kidding? Homo sapiens have lived far more equitably without consuming nearly as many resources as today for most of our history.

The over population is new - the division of acquisition is not.

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

When that happens it will no longer be homo sapiens

Are you kidding? Homo sapiens have lived far more equitably without consuming nearly as many resources as today for most of our history.

The over population is new - the division of acquisition is not.

Actually it really is if you take all cultures through history into account.

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:17 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The over population is new - the division of acquisition is not.

Actually it really is if you take all cultures through history into account.

I was doing so - even primitive tribes show an unequal distribution of wealth/power. The problem is to modern man the difference between 1 cow and 10 cows or 1 land strip and 10 land strips or foraging south and foraging north seems so minuscule as to appear nearly equal yet in the societies they exist in the differences are as huge as the difference between Buck palace and a leaky top floor bedsit.

by Lone Wolf Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:18 pm

JUST consider HOW many times "civilisations" have previously been wiped out over the years, and others stiil managed to come along in the nick of time to replace them...

Phoenicians.
Babylonians.
Egyptians.
Greeks.
Romans.
Chinese.
Mongols.
Saracens.
Dark Ages/Renaissance.
Ottoman.
British.
Now the largely US/Euro' led "Western Civilsation".

With NASA being such an American-centric organisation, just the promise of the USA being relegated to the World's #3 economy by the end of the century ~ behind India and China ~ could well be enough to have them screaming "the End of the World as We know it !" Laughing

I reckon humankind could still have a few hundred years at least, maybe a few thousand, a million at a distant outside chance ~ whatever it is, I'll be long-buried by the time the next "end" rolls around !

However long we humans have left, it will never be a scratch on the tens of millions of years that the dinosaurs ruled the Earth, (between 65 million and 250 million years ago..) .

by Andy Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:51 pm

Fascinating debate - apoligies for my sporadic contributions, just awoken again in preparation for another long night shift here in the UK, where I am happy to continue.
Let me pose this question, is a benevolent dictatorship better than a corrupt or 1 party democracy?

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:31 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Fascinating debate - apoligies for my sporadic contributions, just awoken again in preparation for another long night shift here in the UK, where I am happy to continue.
Let me pose this question, is a benevolent dictatorship better than a corrupt or 1 party democracy?

A " 1 party democracy" is not a democracy at all but a dictatorship by another name (as is communism)

However in theory yes a benevolent dictatorship is not only better than a corrupt democracy but is probably the best form of government. The problem is that I do not believe any human can ever properly be a fully benevolent dictator - and that those who think they could be are actually the least suitable to even think about giving that chance to (EU commissioners spring to mind)

For those familiar with the books think about the Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy series (and I do mean books not radio or TV interpretations) and the man who rules the universe as to what a benevolent dictator would actually have to be like - because the second someone thinks about wielding that much power the hope is lost.

by Lone Wolf Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:12 pm

sphinx wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Fascinating debate - apoligies for my sporadic contributions, just awoken again in preparation for another long night shift here in the UK, where I am happy to continue.
Let me pose this question, is a benevolent dictatorship better than a corrupt or 1 party democracy?

A " 1 party democracy" is not a democracy at all but a dictatorship by another name (as is communism)
..................................

GARBAGE, Sphinxy !!!

In one fell swoop you have just demonstrated your complete and utter ignorance about anything to do with Politics and Economcs, in that one stupidly ignorant sentence..

Nobody could have done as much damage to you, as you have just done to yourself !

Well done, Sphinx !!!

::ftlcheer::

by Andy Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:52 pm

Any country which has elections is, by definition, a democracy. Of course, as demonstrated by the corrupt states such as Idi Amin's, Mugabe's, Ghadaffi etc, they have elections, they are democratic republics, have only one party (or only one party that can ever win), but are clearly not communist.

by Eilzel Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Handy Andy wrote:Any country which has elections is, by definition, a democracy. Of course, as demonstrated by the corrupt states such as Idi Amin's, Mugabe's, Ghadaffi etc, they have elections, they are democratic republics, have only one party (or only one party that can ever win), but are clearly not communist.

Yeah I agree I don't know how sphinx managed to narrow communism down to equating to a dictatorship- I actually think pretty much any RWers who post here (and most in general) have never even read anything by Marx, or read up on him and his beliefs or any other communist philosopher. For them communism=soviet union. A simplification with no place in proper political discussion.

by Lone Wolf Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:10 am

WITH the rare exceptions such as eddie, Drinky and a couple of others, most of the more "extreme conservatives" and their hangers-on on here always sound like a bunch of high-school drop-outs...

Didge and Elizel remain the only self-declared "conservatives" and "moderates" who I believe could have some real-world Uni' or Tertiary education ~ and in my part of the world they would probably be closer to the centre/moderate part (the "wet" conservatives..) of the 'political spectrum' here.. cyclops

by Guest Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:16 am

OMG Eddie and Les are not, and never have been conservatives. Trust you to get it wrong.

by Eilzel Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:17 am

Lone Wolf wrote:

WITH the rare exceptions such as eddie, Drinky and a couple of others, most of the more "extreme conservatives" and their hangers-on on here always sound like a bunch of high-school drop-outs...

Didge and Elizel remain the only self-declared "conservatives" who I believe could have some real-world Uni' or Tertiary education ~ and in my part of the world they would probably be closer to the centre/moderate part (the "wet" conservatives..) of the 'political spectrum' here..

Wow I nearly choked there Wolf- I'm anything but conservative, let alone a confessed one- I see my politics as 'liberal socialist' for the most part. Although I vote Liberal Democrat (who are only is an unfortunate coalition of necessity as things stand) I'm a LW statist where the economy is concerned and as liberal lefty as the come on social issues. Conservative I most certainly am not Laughing

by Andy Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:44 am

Even Conservatives won't admit to voting for the tories nowadays too embarrassed I guess.
Going by the flop site, Ukip will win by a landslide 500 seats!

by Sponsored content