Talk Tuesday: NASA thinks we're Doomed, and I'm wondering what took them

So I found this. And I wanted to speak about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

So NASA has funded a study that has concluded that civilization is headed for collapse. Their logic mirrors much of what was argued by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. And much of this is, again, old news to readers of the late Social Critic and Author Daniel Quinn. And even before that, much of this was spotted and articulated in 'The Population Bomb' by Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich predicted mass starvation well before the beginning of he twenty first century. And as you can imagine, this cause people to discount his arguments, much as Thomas Malthus was ignored before him.

But.

But here's the thing, the logic is still correct. We can't predict new resource discoveries (I'm thinking of the discovery of oil in the North Sea as an easy example). And it's really hard to anticipate the technologies of the future of their impacts (I'm thinking here of chemical fertilizers and pesticides). But basic laws of physics and biology don't change.

Depletion of non-renewable resources is a one way street. That's what non-renewable means. If we our food production and population levels causes damage to the ecosystem in which we reside (it is), then that damage will reduce the carrying capacity of the area. If we reduce the carrying capacity of the area, but bring more people into the area (we are, that's literally what urbanization is); then we can only maintain that population by importing resources from outside the area. If we import resources from outside urban areas to maintain an urban population (we are), then we will reduce the carrying capacity of those regions and damage those ecosystems as well. If a civilization depends upon this system of urbanization and expanding resource depletion (we are), then that civilization will need to continue expanding to survive- whether by trade or by expansion or by conquest. If a civilization is continuously expanding (we are), and if that civilization exists in a finite environment (like say one little planet); then eventually there will be no place or method to expand. If a civilization that survives through continued expansion reaches a point where it can no longer expand....

boom.

It happened to the Romans. It happened to the Mayans. It happened on Easter Island. It happened again and again throughout history on a smaller scale as local empires and nations competed against each other for dominance. But eventually the collapse will not be local.

New technologies may push back the date of said collapse again, as it has done in the past.

New Discoveries may buy us more time.

But there is only so much planet.

And we are running out.

Of planet.

Think about this for a moment. We once thought of the planet and the oceans as functionally limitless. But they aren't. And every now and then throughout history we noticed, and then disregarded what we noticed. Dodo goes extinct? Passenger Pigeons go extinct? Not a big deal. Oil crisis as the world hit peak crude oil discovery? Brief panic and then back to happy motoring. DDT causing mass decline in bird populations? Some nations pass local laws and then move on. Hole in the ozone layer? Minor course correction and then forgotten. Northwest Passage is ice free for the first time in recorded history? Start fighting over control of shipping lanes and oil drilling rights.

So yeah, the clock is still ticking. We can buy more time on the clock. But it's still ticking.

So yeah, Civilization is doomed. Better enjoy it while you can.

And maybe use your time well.

If you're lucky, you'll be like Thomas Malthus and not live to see things fall.

But.

But, maybe you won't be lucky.

Life is Short.
Work is Crap.
Join my Cult.