Doomstead

The last couple of decades have found me contemplating peak oil, global heating, biodiversity loss, etc, etc. One of the subjects that keeps cropping up is "sustainability" the meaning of which seems to have been perverted to support just about any view. The latest bizarre definition of sustainable comes from Hannah Ritchie who, in a TED talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl3VVrggKz4), defines it as a lower footprint and a better standard of living for all. The definition has nothing to do which what can be maintained indefinitely, the true meaning of sustainable. Thus, it seems we just make up stuff to rationalise what we want to do.

My decades long consideration of these things has lead me to a basic truth (at least that's my current opinion; I'd love to be wrong): Humans are a species.

Since humans are a species, we can't expect them to act in a non-species way. Actually, there is no hard and fast definition of a species and evolution acts on individuals, not species, but the idea is convenient because we know individuals may act in odd ways that other members of the species don't. But this is how evolution works. Random mutation, filtered by some selection mechanism (usually, natural selection). A genetic mutation which gives the individual an advantage in survival and reproduction will tend to spread through the species and may result in a new species, over deep time. So the genes are only concerned with the now, get an advantage now, not in some mythical future, which can't be known. The primary resource for most organisms is food but other resources are used in different ways to make a life (e.g. for nest making) and gain an advantage.

So all species will access resources as quickly as they can.  Where useful resources are easy pickings, the species will thrive until some critical resource depletes. Then a different set of mutations may make some individuals able to make better use of what's available or move to find more. Humans are no different, except that they are far better at accessing resources than other extant species. So the boom in numbers that we see when useful resources become apparently abundant is to be expected.

If a species learns that accessing and using resources in a certain way may have a long term detrimental effect on their survival, what do they do? Nothing! They continue to act like a species, living for now, not a future that is uncertain. They can't act any other way. So denial of reality is really just a rationalisation of behaviour they have no real control over. Where individuals try to limit their resource use (e.g. by not having babies or not flying) their genes are less likely to be passed on. A species will never be dominated by genes that inhibit reproduction and resource use.

So some of us can be horrified by the inaction of most people to rein in their resource use but it makes no difference; humans will continue to act like a species.

So modernity will end, as it is unsustainable (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/). This seems obvious to some but still most people want to somehow save the nice bits of modernity. There are no nice bits, so far as nature is concerned. We've never really learned that you can't do just one thing. There are always consequences. Since modernity is unsustainable, the best we can do is recycle as much as possible as our societies inevitably contract and simplify. Eventually, the only sustainable way of living is to consume renewable resources. No-one will like this. So-called renewable energy can't come riding to the rescue, since it isn't sustainable.

There will be some future species (or possibly some remnants of ours) which will try to do the same things that we did, 10,000 years ago. They won't have fossil fuels to accelerate their civilisations but there will be unsustainable civilisations in future, unless humans become extinct and no other species arises with similar abilities.

Nature is a cruel place, contrary to hope of living in harmony with nature. Most wild creatures would die a horrible death, eaten by predators or killed by disease and injuries. That was the lot of humans, also until fairly recently but it will the lot of increasing numbers of humans.

The only real question is how long will it take for the resource and environmental problems we've created really bite home and make the inevitable decline of our species obvious?

Is this reality?

@Tonyprep

  I agree with your overview of humanities predicament. I also see the signs of collapse occurring all around me. Air, water, land, food, weather, inequality, resource depletion, soil depletion, poisons everywhere, and the potential of WWIII and/or another "Black Death". All of this is in all of our lives now, and we are had. Some people think we could collapse in the next 10 years. Without some drastic changes, IMO, it will be about 15.

  My "pie in the sky" solution is the rapid advancement of AI. We don't need a miracle, we need to find a way to make the computers with an energy source that won't extract too much energy that can decipher tons of data that is relevant to the problem. In doing this we can come up with ways to implement a sort of "degrowth Marxism". The computers can convince us of the practical ways of implementing a UBI. Of living and surviving with 1/10th of the crap we think we need now.

All of this will have to occur after the election this year, and after we all realize that there is no way in hell we are going to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The main obstacle to achieving "sustainability" is population size.  All that needs to happen is for conditions to change enough so that the total population of Homo Saps and our domesticated animals and plants remains at or below .0001% of the total biomass on the planet and the species will be sustainable.  About 2 orders of magnitude, leaving around ~100M meat packages ambulatory at any given time.

A sufficient increase in the Death Rate of people past reproductive age to 99% coupled with a Fertility Rate <1 for females should drop the population down to a sustainable level in a few generations, then after that these two parameters can self adjust to maintain a steady population of homo saps between  0-60 years of age of around 100M sustainable meat packages.

Famine, Pestilence and War will probably accelerate the population reduction so that it achieves a sustainable figure more rapidly, perhaps as fast as within a single generation.  Such a rapid reduction is not ideal since it would be very socially disruptive, but once all the corpses were picked clean by scavengers life would settle down to the new normal.

Quality of life would improve dramatically with the disappearance of fast food, Netflix and Rap music.  The disappearance of smart phones would lead to the gradual rediscovery of sex by teenagers.  We will have only have two genders, people with assholes and people who are assholes.

RE

Hanna says she is a data scientist.  Meaning she gave herself permission to cherry-pick a few graphs and ignore some others, because halfway through:

QuoteWe need to move away from fossil fuels while feeding eight, nine, ten, billion people  at the same time.

Not possible.  Hanna has no graph to show how to do this.  Hanna Ritchie is a nice enough person.  As human intelligence goes Hanna seems to be on the high side of the curve.  Dummies don't give TED talks.  But Hanna smokes the hopium.

Hanna is a nebie to the world of doom.  Hanna does not understand how big eight, nine, ten, billion people is.  She is a data scientist really?  How does a data scientist not understand overshoot and that eight, nine ten billion is Overshoot-R-Us.

Fun fact:  People, livestock and pets dominate the overall picture of life on Earth. Homo sapiens with a total weight of 390 million metric tons, is slightly less than the weight of domesticated cattle which is 420 million metric tons.
Dogs rank fifth at 21 million metric tons but still constitute about as much mass as all wild land mammals combined.

Hanna's talk is 100% hopium.  She has not read up on Jevons paradox.  If she has she has not thought about it.  Hanna does not understand that when efficiency meets an exponential curve, the exponential curve wins.  Always!  The only way for humanity to endure, is to plant a new fruit tree in the garden of Eden! 

But that won't happen.  Modern culture has other ideas.  Modern culture wants to cut the penis off and go trans.  But going trans won't save shit.  Going trans will only confuse people and will provide no social benefit.  Other useless eaters will breed around trans as the movement goes the way of Shakers (https://www.learnreligions.com/the-shakers-4693219).

There is an advantage to being a long-term doomer.  Knee-jerk solution which are so attractive to a new doomer are seen as the empty promises they are. 

Hanna is going to save the world by making sure wind and solar is cheap.  This is abysmal ignorance.  When the cost of using a resource decreases, it becomes more attractive for consumers and industries to use it. The increased affordability of a resource leads to higher consumption which offsets any initial gain in efficiency.

It is a contradiction.  People who become interested in the future are the same people who are most uncomfortable with the reality and mathematics of the actual situation.  Intelligent people are more facile with self-deception compounding the problem.  It takes about two years for a person to overcome hopium confirmation bias on average.  Some people never do.

Hanna is a data scientist with a severe case of confirmation bias.  How do I know?  Because she told us she is a data scientist, that is how. 

Hanna is saying she is right in a socially acceptable way so likely you did not pick up on it.  Credentials. 

Once we accept a person as an authority.  (I am a data scientist) we generally stop thinking about the substance of what they say and we simply accept it.  This is another hockey stick graph we have not seen I think, reason being: The more things get crazy the more people will be playing follow the leader and unfortunately any leader will do.  With leaders having an anti-populist agenda generally being more popular than boring politicians who have the best interest of the nation at heart.

Basic Al Bartlett (https://www.albartlett.org/books/essential_exponential_ch1_recollections.html) stuff.  Al and others (Sid Smith (https://bsidneysmith.com/writings/essays/all-the-bunnies-in-the-meadow-die)) make a big deal about the day before an exponential growth event becomes painfully apparent, it is hardly noticed at all.

Hanna does not understand the energy density of fossil fuels and how their are no substitutes for fossil fuels given the overpopulated nature of a planet in overshoot.

Overshoot works like this.The character Mike Campbell in the 1926 novel "The Sun Also Rises" was asked about his money troubles and responded with a vivid description.

Quote"How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked.

"Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."

Currently we be doing the gradual.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 02, 2024, 10:40 AM

QuoteWe need to move away from fossil fuels while feeding eight, nine, ten, billion people  at the same time.

Not possible.  Hanna has no graph to show how to do this.

Hanna has a video.


AI will invent food replicators.

I don't think it's inability to understand the exponential function or energy density that is the problem.  It's the inability of people to accept the inevitability of death.  Is a species survival trait built in to all animals.  As soon as you tell people death is inevitable, all rational thought stops and they keep trying to come up with some way to avoid it.

RE

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 01, 2024, 10:24 PMThe last couple of decades have found me contemplating peak oil, global heating, biodiversity loss, etc, etc.

Could have spent more time focusing on the important ones, did anyone ever notice ANY of the peak oils just in this century?

Quote from: Tony PrepThus, it seems we just make up stuff to rationalise what we want to do.

You aren't the only one who noticed, years ago, that doom, any doom, was a great idea to justify buying hunting and fishing cabins, bug out bags, gold guns and ammo etc etc. The suggestion wasn't taken well, as it had to much truth in it, seemed to me. But now could be the time?

Quote from: Tony PrepHumans are a species. Since humans are a species, we can't expect them to act in a non-species way.

Seems a bit self evident, your argument is that all the doomers didn't even realize they had forgotten they are just human, and therefore do all the stupid crap that got us into the mess we are in, and certainly aren't about to do what it takes to get out of it.

Quote from: Tony PrepSo denial of reality is really just a rationalisation of behaviour they have no real control over.

Sounds reasonable. Buy any doom at hand so going all bonkers over the hunting or fishing cabin, gold guns and ammo, etc etc. seems justified.

Quote from: Tony PrepSo some of us can be horrified by the inaction of most people to rein in their resource use but it makes no difference; humans will continue to act like a species.

Makes more sense to be specfic..humans will just continue acting like humans. Not all species are as stupid as we are.

Quote from: Tony PrepSo modernity will end, as it is unsustainable (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/).

Would have been nice if everyone has jumped to this reasonable conclusion rather than dragging in all the nonsense they have over the years. Of course modernity will end, one way or another. After all, the Sun is getting lighter every day we've been talking about doom, and it won't ever stop until it has destroyed the planet.

Quote from: Tony PrepNature is a cruel place, contrary to hope of living in harmony with nature.

Nature isn't cruel. You are imposing a human perspective to it. Nature isn't human. Nature just does what it does, things stay in a general natural balance. Life, death, etc etc. Humans just had a better scheme to improve their geographic range to develop resources to keep breeding rather than..turtles....or goats.

Quote from: Tony PrepThe only real question is how long will it take for the resource and environmental problems we've created really bite home and make the inevitable decline of our species obvious?

Doesn't you talking about it mean it already has?

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 02, 2024, 06:21 PM

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 01, 2024, 10:24 PMThe last couple of decades have found me contemplating peak oil, global heating, biodiversity loss, etc, etc.

Could have spent more time focusing on the important ones, did anyone ever notice ANY of the peak oils just in this century?

Or he could have spent them trolling Peak Oil websites and regurgitating the same insults at "Peak Oilers" while at the same time agreeing that civilization is doomed. just not because of Peak Oil but because the Sun is losing weight or some other calamity, and not on a timeline that makes it worthwhile to buy a cabin for hunting and fishing.

QuoteNot all species are as stupid as we are.

No idea how you would measure intelligence n order to prove that statement, but in terms of behavior based on the way the Predator-Prey cycle works and the way Bacteria reproduce, not only do all animal species continue multiplying exponentially until resources are exhausted or they are killed off, it goes across to the bacteria & insect kingdoms as well.  The only living organisms which don't seem to have an overpopulation problem are plants, but since they are generally stuck in one place and die off when the weather changes, you can't consider them very bright either.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 02, 2024, 03:39 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 02, 2024, 10:40 AM

QuoteWe need to move away from fossil fuels while feeding eight, nine, ten, billion people  at the same time.

Not possible.  Hanna has no graph to show how to do this.

Hanna has a video.

AI will invent food replicators.

I don't think it's inability to understand the exponential function or energy density that is the problem.  It's the inability of people to accept the inevitability of death.  Is a species survival trait built in to all animals.  As soon as you tell people death is inevitable, all rational thought stops and they keep trying to come up with some way to avoid it.

RE

You are quite right.  I have gone down this rabbit hole.

I read The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker a few years ago.  The first book I read all online.  The premise is that the avoidance of death is a more powerful drive than sex.  Freud went down the sex rabbit hole, but that does not explain the reality of the human condition.  Death anxiety is a far more powerful force.




We also have a podcast.




Denial of death, denial of collapse.  You got it.






Here is a deeper dive.

Your replicator video pisses me off.  It turns out that denial is big.  Here is another video from the same assholes.



Do vertical farms have shadows ::)  Vertical farms are a SCAM.  The solar energy that falls on a square kilometer is the solar energy that falls on a square kilometer.  No more, no less.  The most efficient use of this energy is to farm on a flat surface.  Vertical farms are smoke and mirrors.

This is the most irresponsible You-Tube channel I have ever seen.  A website that hosts nothing but snuff videos would be more civilized and dignified than this snake in the grass bullshit.

An entire You-Tube channel dedicated to pseudoscience. 

QuoteBetter to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

The forces behind this website embrace this philosophy.  If you can't do honest science and you don't respect education, you are free to do your own thing.  Make shit up.  You can be a total liar, but pretend to be serious.  Pretend to be serious and normal.

The best poser wins their game.

Satan hides in plain sight.

Just in the last week a Netherlands court finally allowed a Dutch woman to commit Assisted Suicide despite being physically healthy.  She was autistic and despite years of therapy and drugs, suffered from constant depression.  Though legal on paper, they have a lot of roadblocks to prevent people from doing it who might change their minds or be cured somehow.  Her required treatments included electroshock therapy before they at last let a Dr Kevorkian help her pull the plug.

Far as taboos go for Christians, Suicide is even bigger than Original Sin of Sex.  Bigger than homosexual sex with a dog.  Express train ticket to hell.

Despite this really powerful social abhorrence of death, people contemplate suicide all the time, and the number of people who actually do pull the plug is steadily increasing as we move down the collapse highway.

(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XRqTx/full.png)

add in drugs and booze, it's worse.

(https://www.tfah.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/image007.png)

Clearly there is a point at which life is not worth living anymore, and more people are achieving that level of despair.  But what about the level right below that?  Where it's not SOOOO bad you're ready to put a bullet through your brain, but it just REALLY SUCKS every day just to be alive every day?  How many people in the society feel that way now?

RE

Population size alone is not the determinant of sustainability. If that were so, krill, for one example, would be unsustainable. However, population size can make formerly sustainable behaviour unsustainable.

There is no solution to humans being a species. No species is more stupid than any other; they are all acting like species. And, OK, nature is not cruel, since it doesn't care one way or the other. But the way most creatures would end their days might be considered cruel to our civilised way of thinking.

As there is no solution, the best we can hope for is that the shit really hits the fan after we're dead (hopefully dying peacefully in our sleep).

I don't agree that awareness of inevitable death invariably leads to the cessation of all rational thought. This is partly because there is no such thing as rational thought; it only seems there is. Without free will (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/01/free-will-good-riddance/) there can be no rational thought process. But also because I think I'm thinking rationally yet I know my death is inevitable.

All of the approaches to our predicament that might help will have no impact, mainly because rational approaches would never be accepted by humans. In particular, only primitive living could be sustainable and that definitely is something people don't want.

But back to Hanna who wants low cost renewable energy.



In this video we are told low cost is not the issue if capitalism can't make a profit.  We are told this for the second time this week.  No surprise, there is a socialist thread here, and an understanding of economics that capitalist economics does not have.

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 02, 2024, 11:10 PMI don't agree that awareness of inevitable death invariably leads to the cessation of all rational thought. This is partly because there is no such thing as rational thought; it only seems there is. Without free will (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/01/free-will-good-riddance/) there can be no rational thought process. But also because I think I'm thinking rationally yet I know my death is inevitable.

We have will.  It is not free, but we can reach rational conclusions and act on them.  Having no free will is not the same as having no will at all.  My choice about giving two fucks about my rational conclusions is far from free, I agree.  But I still can reach rational conclusions, and if I enter into a feedback loop where I respect and seek rational conclusions.  I begin to be free.

Rational conclusions I am free to ignore.  Or not.  Depending on my will, even though it not be free. 

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 02, 2024, 11:10 PMPopulation size alone is not the determinant of sustainability. If that were so, krill, for one example, would be unsustainable. However, population size can make formerly sustainable behaviour unsustainable.

Krill have predators.  A million krill is a nice snack for a Blue Whale.  When they overpopulate and eat up whatever it is they eat, they die off, a few survive and ocean currents  blow them to a new neighborhood where they rinse and repeat.

Homo Sap is Apex predator on the planet now.  We've even defeated many of the microscopic predators which used to keep our numbers in check.  The only predator we have now is other Homo Saps.  However,WMDs present the possibility of war bringing death to everyone, you can't really win with them.  The small brush wars aren't a big enough killer to keep population in check, nor are even car accidents.  Our population has apparently responded to this by becoming unwilling to reproduce at replacement level.  How society will deal with this and the demographic problems attached are one of the big questions we face over the next 20 years.

QuoteThere is no solution to humans being a species. No species is more stupid than any other; they are all acting like species. And, OK, nature is not cruel, since it doesn't care one way or the other. But the way most creatures would end their days might be considered cruel to our civilised way of thinking.

We don't need a solution to being a species, we need more dead people faster.  We'll get this solution one way or the other.  The only question is how far the knockdown goes before population stabilizes and rebounds.  The biggest death vector is likely to be famine.  That's our predator, other people eating food we need, then us killing those people.  Then the predator prey cycle takes over.

(https://www2.nau.edu/lrm22/lessons/predator_prey/rabbit_wolf_graph.png)

QuoteAs there is no solution, the best we can hope for is that the shit really hits the fan after we're dead (hopefully dying peacefully in our sleep).

Personally, I hope to be alive long enough to say "I told you so", then be eaten for dinner by the CNAs here in the Gulag.

QuoteI don't agree that awareness of inevitable death invariably leads to the cessation of all rational thought. This is partly because there is no such thing as rational thought; it only seems there is. Without free will (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/01/free-will-good-riddance/) there can be no rational thought process. But also because I think I'm thinking rationally yet I know my death is inevitable.

Not everybody is irrational.  Plenty of rational people out there want to commit suicide.  If you're still living an OK life, you're not homeless, not in horrible physical or mental anguish, it's rational to want to live also.  But you don't stop driving your car, because nobody else is doing that, so society remains on a suicidal trajectory.

QuoteAll of the approaches to our predicament that might help will have no impact, mainly because rational approaches would never be accepted by humans. In particular, only primitive living could be sustainable and that definitely is something people don't want.

You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.


RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 02, 2024, 07:03 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 02, 2024, 06:21 PM

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 01, 2024, 10:24 PMThe last couple of decades have found me contemplating peak oil, global heating, biodiversity loss, etc, etc.

Could have spent more time focusing on the important ones, did anyone ever notice ANY of the peak oils just in this century?

Or he could have spent them trolling Peak Oil websites and regurgitating the same insults at "Peak Oilers"

Obviously Tony spent time on peak oil webites, otherwise I wouldn't know his username from more of them than I recognized yours. I am not the only one familiar with this topic. And how it was entertaining for awhile, and reasons why it faded away for more interesting doom scenarios.

Quote from: RE

QuoteNot all species are as stupid as we are.

No idea how you would measure intelligence n order to prove that statement,

Of course I have an idea on how to measure intelligience, and no more need to prove it than you do. Personal preference works that way when it comes to statements with multi-dimensional and multi-species angles. Just as you have an idea on how you measure human intelligience (you tend to like people who know and can use the English language inside and out) I also have the same capability. And obviously it isn't just how well some knows English.

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 03, 2024, 09:47 AMI am not the only one familiar with this topic. And how it was entertaining for awhile, and reasons why it faded away for more interesting doom scenarios.

It would be refreshing if you spent half as much time commenting on the more interesting doom scenarios as you do rehashing Peak Oil commentary that is so old and tired it has mold growing.

QuoteJust as you have an idea on how you measure human intelligience (you tend to like people who know and can use the English language inside and out) I also have the same capability. And obviously it isn't just how well some knows English.

It's helpful if I can understand what someone is talking about to evaluate their intelligence, but it's not the only criteria.  I can't understand what dolphins squeak about, but I can tell they're brighter than tuna.  Behavior is a good indicator.  However, comparing human intelligence to that of other species is pretty tough, since besides the language constraints there are behavioral differences, environmental  differences and input/output limitations that make comparisons impossible.  Even though we know dolphins can use sonar to determine distances, we don't know how or if they use math to do it, for instance.  So saying some species are not as stupid as homo sap is anthropomorphizing them just as much as saying nature is cruel does so.  Your attributing a human quality of intelligence to other species.  It' not a provable assertion, and it's also irrelevant.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 03, 2024, 11:28 AM

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 03, 2024, 09:47 AMI am not the only one familiar with this topic. And how it was entertaining for awhile, and reasons why it faded away for more interesting doom scenarios.

It would be refreshing if you spent half as much time commenting on the more interesting doom scenarios as you do rehashing Peak Oil commentary that is so old and tired it has mold growing.

Fine. I will resist the urge to mention what a poor excuse for doom any of the past peak oils were.

So, other good doom scenarios tend to run towards some of those mentioned by Tony certainly. I am partial to gradual doom, climate change. Less so "here comes WWIII!!" doom. Economics is always a good local problem, with lower probability of being full scale take down the world issue. Saw an attempt in 2008, it was ugly as economic downturns are, but a doom? Eh. Pandemics? Have low probability potential, but there is always hope and anti-Fauchi angles.

Cosmic collisions and GRB's, lower probability but always good for some conversation, and far cooler than run of the mill "humans be stupid" stuff.

Quote from: REYour attributing a human quality of intelligence to other species.  It' not a provable assertion, and it's also irrelevant.
RE

Lots of things aren't provable. So I'll go with humans being less intelligent than some species or another because humans have the ability to KNOW better....and do the stupid shit anyway.

Take two species, one knows better, one doesn't. The ones that know better do stupid shit regardless and die off. The others that don't know better, naturally fit within their world and system and can do it as long as the system endures. Naturally smarter because they lack the cleverness that dooms the stupid bipeds who can't see past their next dig it up, cut it down, burn it exercise.

T-Rex was the apex predator for millions of years. Humans and all their smartness will be lucky to break 2 orders of magnitude LESS time than that.

I sense a tendency to elevate humans beyond being a species. "Intelligence" was defined by humans so has no intrinsic meaning. All species act like species. Some appear cleverer than others, to our eyes (partly because we think we're rational and so can set arbitrary bars for what is intelligent), but all would enter overshoot if they had our abilities, or if they are presented with an abundance of resources that they could access (perhaps by some natural environmental disaster for other species). Even in declaring rationality, we use our definition of it (there are no other definitions). We are rational because we are. I don't believe any of it.

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 03, 2024, 08:34 PMSo I'll go with humans being less intelligent than some species or another because humans have the ability to KNOW better....and do the stupid shit anyway.

SOME homo saps have the ability to know better, all do not.  I'm sure you're familiar with the concept in chemistry of a "rate determining step".  For those of you not familiar with this idea, it basically states that in a multi-step reaction, the speed of the reaction is governed by the speed of the slowest individual step.  When one step moves very slowly compared to all the rest, you can ignore all the fast ones because the overall rate at which the total reaction proceeds to completion is governed by the slowest step.

With society, you have individual intelligence, which can be amazingly brilliant in some people.  Collective intelligence though is only as good as the stupidest guys in the room.  The stupidity of a HUGE percentage of the population is breathtaking.  I give the example here of Terence Howard, the actor from the 1st Iron Man movie who played Tony Stark's best friend.  He was fired from this role, likely because he's a flaming idiot, which the casting director didn't pick up on when he was given the role.  It later probably surfaced because Terence has some thoroughly whack-a-doodle theories about math & physics and probably spouted off about them on set.  He's recently got a lot of publicity because Joe Rogan had him on his show to spout off on these ideas.  Here's a brief debunking of his idiocy.


The thing is, Joe Rogan's audience IS stupid enough to eat this shit up.  Just as MAGA crowds are stupid enough to eat up the shit that Donald #VonShitzinPants defecates from his mouth every day.  Collectively, Homo Saps are only as intelligent as the low grade morons who buy this drivel.  It doesn't matter how brilliant all of us geniuses who populate this website are  ;D , the intelligence rate determining step is Joe Rogan's audience, not ours.

Far as T Rex long duration as Apex predator, it wasn't adaptable to many different environments or grow its own food supply.  I'd bet it followed the same Predator-Prey cycle as Lions do, which are Apex predators in their particular ecosystem.  When weather is good and the antelope the lions eat multiply, lions start multiplying and eat up the excess antelope.  Once they eat so many they're hard to find, lions die off from starvation until the next time the weather is good and the antelope breed up again.  Long as the overall climate doesn't change much, stable ecosystems like this persist for a long time. Everything is in balance, so it's sustainable.

Homo Saps lived this way during the H-G period,  which lasted from the emergence of the species ~300K years ago until the development of agriculture ~15,000 years ago.  If you include earlier versions ofthe genus Homo, we go back millions of years too.  Our "stupidity" in population overshoot is the paradoxcal result of our intelligence in being smart enough to develop metallurgy which allowed us to produce tools for doing large scale agricultural production of food.  The same metallurgical acumen gave Ag societies a big advantage over the H-Gs, who they proceeded to kill off over the last 15K years, leaving only the unsustainable ag version around.

Not satisfied with the speed at which we were turning the planet into desert just with ag, 275 years ago the geniuses of the era came up with the Steam Engine and numerous other inventions which made it possible to expand population even faster to even more relatively inhospitable places.  Other geniuses of the era like Mathus pointed out that if it continued we'd ultimately overrun the planet, but as a society these folks were ignored because the collective intelligence drew the conclusion steam engines are great, love those steamships and railroads, let's build more and better!

Sometime in the 1950s a few geniuses pointed out that so much of this burning was going on it was going to have some very nasty blowback in a few decades, but other geniuses told the vast majority of Joe Rogan viewers not to worry about this because 1st climate change wasn't real, then later that renewables could substitute.  Since this is what Joe Rogan viewers wanted to hear because it meant they could keep Happy Motoring, nobody listened to the geniuses here and other websites that told them, no, sorry, that dog won't hunt.  Our message is not as appealing to the collective intelligence as the message they get from Billionaires who tell them they should breed more kids to buy more Teslas.  Despite this message however, the simple fact most people can't afford to have more than 1 kid without a huge sacrifice to their own personal standard of living, they are choosing not to have the kids regardless of what Billionaires, their Church or Da Goobermint tells them.  In this case, Collective Intelligence is actually proving smarter than geniuses like Elon Musk.

Anyhow, as a species we're no smarter or stupider than other species, we operate within the same constraints of a finite planet and like all species we exploit the environment until the environment pushes back in one way or another.  No species voluntarily stops reproducing, it only happens if something in the environment changed enough to make reproduction a less appealing choice.  What changed?  Most significantly for homo saps in the industrialized countries, women had to go into the workforce of capitalism and leave the role of full time homemaker and baby factory.  It was painted as a "choice" and "Women's Liberation" by geniuses in the field of sociology, but appealed to women tired of the subservient role and being dependent on men.  I think most of those women still haven't grasped they just traded one form of slavery for another one.  In any case, it is slowing down the overshoot problem, but as noted by many comes with its own set of demographic problems.

The bottom line is regardless of the intelligence of ouur species, we will have a large population knockdown, the only questions are how soon before it really takes off, how fast will it be and what percentage of global population will be wipe out before it stabilizes?   There are too many variables to do any better than a WAG on this.  A blight of one of the major monooculture crops like corn, soybeans or rice could bring on a global version of the Irish Potato Famine in any given year.  A collapse of the Larsen Ice sheet or Greenland ice sheet could raise sea levels 3m in a single year. A collapse in the currency markets could slow global trade to a crawl.  The border crisis and northward migration from Africa-->Europe or SA-->NA could grow by a order of magnitude in 2 or 3 years.  Or you may just have slower deterioration on many fronts over the next decade.  All we can do is keep observing the progress until something pops up that will set off a cascade failure.  It could be as small as a Food Vendor setting himself on fire, or the assassination of a major political figure.  At some point on the timeline though, it will blow.  Everybody Knows.

Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
Everybody knows


RE

QuoteFar as T Rex long duration as Apex predator,

Will you last six months?  No you will not.  Pick any random old time, likely it will be a critter you never heard of who will have you for lunch.

In the absense of man nature grows megafauna.  But dinos with sharp teeth in the 40-200 lb range were far more common than the big as a tank monsters like T-Rex.  One of them would be more likely to get you.

A Sabine Hossenfelder video makes it into the Diner.

It had to happen someday.

The video below explains Joe Rogan's audience.  If you compared the general genetic quality of the American population of 1880 to the quality of American DNA today there will be differences.  Medical care to keep the weak breeding has been around for a hundred years.  That is a few generations.  Sugar which was once as hard to find in the natural environment as gold has been around all that time.  Sugar became cheap, and is growing people like weeds.  Dickweeds to be exact.

New Study Reveals Sharp Decline in American IQ Scores as the "Reverse Flynn Effect" Takes Center Stage (https://thedebrief.org/new-study-reveals-sharp-decline-in-american-iq-scores-as-the-reverse-flynn-effect-takes-center-stage/)

The Reverse Flynn effect is more environmentally caused, and not due to hard science reasons I describe above.  Reasons I am sure everyone will prefer to be in denial of.

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 03, 2024, 10:03 PMI sense a tendency to elevate humans beyond being a species. "Intelligence" was defined by humans so has no intrinsic meaning. All species act like species. Some appear cleverer than others, to our eyes (partly because we think we're rational and so can set arbitrary bars for what is intelligent), but all would enter overshoot if they had our abilities, or if they are presented with an abundance of resources that they could access (perhaps by some natural environmental disaster for other species). Even in declaring rationality, we use our definition of it (there are no other definitions). We are rational because we are. I don't believe any of it.

I agree with you.  We are legends in our own mind.

However, there is this thing called science and something called ancient wisdom.  (Not to be confused with ancient knowledge.)  Some people seem more gifted than others in some way which lets them appreciate this thing called science and that thing called ancient wisdom more than others do.  In a way I won't bother defining.

The pic I posted which shows I understand what you say, suggests something else.

The free will debate is silly.  We do not have free will.  Robert Sapolsky and I are on the same page about that. 

But: Chaos theory shows the solution space of decisions humans can choose to make is huge.  The predator prey model is only predictable when coefficients in the model are below thresholds.  Above which population behavior becomes chaotic.  The consequence of chaos theory on human thought gives us essentially free will within our deterministic solution space.  Free will within limits.

Combine human psudo-random deterministic behavior with consciousness (I assume you have it, I know I do.)  Let you hand draw itself.  Hands drawing themselves is the stoic thing to do.  Human and natural.  That is pretty close to being free to me.

How much your hand draws itself is up to you.  Some hands are better than others at this.  Your mileage will vary, and it matters where you start.


The solution space sets you free.  =>

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 04, 2024, 10:31 AMHop into a time machine and go back to any healthy biome older than 10,000 years.  Humans were not around to extinct the megafauna back then.  The only thing that will go into the time machine with you is one set of clothes and one Buck knife.

Among the mega-fauna Homo Saps are credited with extinctifying are the Wooly Mammoth, the Sabre Tooth Tiger, the Cave Lion and Cave Bear and ancient Bison, 7.5' tall at the shoulder weighiing about 3500 lbs.  All accomplished before we had metal knives, they did it with stone and bone tipped spears, or more often by pack hunting and driving them into traps.  Big but not real smart or fast animals in general.

Would a modern homo sap be successful at this game?  Unlikely except for a small number of Cody Lunden types, and not alone, you get to travel back with a typical H-G hunting party of 6-12 healthy adult males.  We did have the necessary qualities to take over as Apex predator from these animals.  Your ideal time traveling hunting party would need training in making stone tools, making traps and practicing pack hunting strategy prior to getting in the time machine.  Like the Terminator, you get sent back naked with no weapons.  For the test subjects, I'd probably select from NFL players and trackers from African or Native American tribes.

Would we have been as successful against Dinosaurs, some of which were bigger?  Unless somebody builds a IRL Jurassic Park we'll never know for sure.  I suspect we would have by out-competing them for prey and by eliminating their environment.

RE

Quote from: Tonyprep on Jun 03, 2024, 10:03 PMI sense a tendency to elevate humans beyond being a species.

By who? The silly humans who think they have it all figured out and are busy wrecking the joint..and KNOW they are wrecking the joint?

Quote from: Tonyprep"Intelligence" was defined by humans so has no intrinsic meaning. All species act like species. Some appear cleverer than others, to our eyes (partly because we think we're rational and so can set arbitrary bars for what is intelligent), but all would enter overshoot if they had our abilities, or if they are presented with an abundance of resources that they could access (perhaps by some natural environmental disaster for other species). Even in declaring rationality, we use our definition of it (there are no other definitions). We are rational because we are. I don't believe any of it.

Good for you then. If folks had worked through to this point of view prior to all the End Times Rapture Scenarios that folks began building back on Earth Day 1970 we wouldn't have had to endure all the secular end times nonsense since then.  Us humans are terrific pud knockers when it comes to intellectual masturbatuon, we just can't help ourselves.

Quote from: RE on Jun 04, 2024, 01:46 AMThe thing is, Joe Rogan's audience IS stupid enough to eat this shit up.  Just as MAGA crowds are stupid enough to eat up the shit that Donald #VonShitzinPants defecates from his mouth every day.
RE

Nice analogy, the slowest reaction thing.

And your comment above applies exactly to the legions of doomers as well. Stupid enough to eat that shit up.

Cold War! Mayan Calendar! The Great Dieoff! Planet X! Peak oil 1990! 2008 recession! Area 51! Blue Ocean Event! The Sun is getting lighter every day!

Well...not that last one....but the timing of it isn't the neato cool doom tomorrow requirement of the stupid shit that gets shoveled into the feeding troughs at the doomer feedlot.

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 04, 2024, 02:21 PMAnd your comment above applies exactly to the legions of doomers as well. Stupid enough to eat that shit up.

There's a difference  With Terence Howard's physics or anyone buying the MAGA party line vs doomers: it's a quid pro quo.  They are all automatically idiots.  It's not automatic for Domers.

Just being a Doomer doesn't make you an idiot.  I'm not an idiot, and I'm a doomer.  If you can make jusifiable arguments for your doomer philosophy, you're not an idiot.  Even if your timeline isn't right on the nose.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 04, 2024, 03:36 PMThere's a difference  With Terence Howard's physics or anyone buying the MAGA party line vs doomers: it's a quid pro quo.  They are all automatically idiots.  It's not automatic for Domers.

Incorrect. Both groups have intelligient people leading the charge, slopping the hogs at the trough for votes, likes and clicks, doom, political, or web popularity fame.

Quote from: REJust being a Doomer doesn't make you an idiot.  I'm not an idiot, and I'm a doomer.

Because I don't buy your premise it doesn't matter. You are correct, you aren't an idiot, but neither is Ted Cruz, Eastman, Clarence Thomas or his wife, etc etc.

Quote from: REIf you can make jusifiable arguments for your doomer philosophy, you're not an idiot.  Even if your timeline isn't right on the nose.
RE

Slopping the hogs for MAGA or doomer fame isn't about timeline accuracy or philosphy. It is about "all hogs are equal, but some are more equal than others". Smart hogs run MAGA and Doomerville, no slop for them. They just need enough slop to keep the other hogs going for it so they don't notice that it is slop they are being fed. And besides, most hogs are happier following the herd without a seconds thought. Be it white nationalists or doomers.

Quoteintelligient

people or intelligent people.  Which is it.

Are they that the same as these?

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 04, 2024, 08:45 PM

Quote from: RE on Jun 04, 2024, 03:36 PMThere's a difference  With Terence Howard's physics or anyone buying the MAGA party line vs doomers: it's a quid pro quo.  They are all automatically idiots.  It's not automatic for Domers.

Incorrect. Both groups have intelligient people leading the charge, slopping the hogs at the trough for votes, likes and clicks, doom, political, or web popularity fame.

Anyone following Terence Howard who buys his scientific reasoning is an idiot.  Same with anyone who buys Trumpovetsky's politics

Quote

Quote from: REJust being a Doomer doesn't make you an idiot.  I'm not an idiot, and I'm a doomer.

Because I don't buy your premise it doesn't matter. You are correct, you aren't an idiot, but neither is Ted Cruz, Eastman, Clarence Thomas or his wife, etc etc.

Don't know who "Eastman" is, don't know anything about Clarence Thomas' wife, but Ted Cruz & Clarence Thomas are idiots.  Just idiots who made it through Law School.

Quote

Quote from: REIf you can make jusifiable arguments for your doomer philosophy, you're not an idiot.  Even if your timeline isn't right on the nose.
RE

Slopping the hogs for MAGA or doomer fame isn't about timeline accuracy or philosphy. It is about "all hogs are equal, but some are more equal than others". Smart hogs run MAGA and Doomerville, no slop for them. They just need enough slop to keep the other hogs going for it so they don't notice that it is slop they are being fed. And besides, most hogs are happier following the herd without a seconds thought. Be it white nationalists or doomers.

Since I don't slop hogs for Doomer fame nor have I ever claimed anything about the hierarchical organization of hogs or doomers, I don't see how this commentary is relevant.  I write about Doom because the topic interests me.  My writing isn't slop, it's generally pretty concise prose.  The readers who like my prose aren't hogs, generally they're pretty well read people with expertiese in some field  and contribute their own ideas to the total content here.  Your implication is that I write slop, the Diner serves slop and Diners are consumers of slop.  I can only interpret this as a full on insult of the Diner.  Cooler time.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 05, 2024, 01:32 AMSince I don't slop hogs for Doomer fame nor have I ever claimed anything about the hierarchical organization of hogs or doomers, I don't see how this commentary is relevant.  I write about Doom because the topic interests me.  My writing isn't slop, it's generally pretty concise prose.  The readers who like my prose aren't hogs, generally they're pretty well read people with expertiese in some field  and contribute their own ideas to the total content here.  Your implication is that I write slop, the Diner serves slop and Diners are consumers of slop.  I can only interpret this as a full on insult of the Diner.  Cooler time.

RE

Again interesting. You are so sensitive to the basic observations of what I wrote that not only are you stymied for a response but it must be removed that others dare not see the truth of it.

Fasinating RE. Just fascinating.