Tipping Point? Earth Headed for Catastrophic Collapse, Researchers Warn

[grandpa]

"Earth is rapidly headed toward a catastrophic breakdown if humans don't get their act together, according to an international group of scientists."
http://www.livescience.com/20778-ear...-collapse.html

First question: Is this really news? People have been saying thsi stuff for a while now, and it's increasingly common. Also, what are these scientists themselves going to do about it? In many ways, scientific advancements are the cause of this mess, so they should certainly have more ideas. All allegations of hypocrisy and alarmism aside, that is still true in principle.

Grandpa h.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Id say people's use of those scientific advancements without thought of the consequences, and the unwillingness for people to actually recognize those consequences and deal with them are the primary causes for the mess we are in as far as climate change goes.

Blaming the scientific advancements for the problem is akin to blaming the gun for a gang shooting. Someone pulled the trigger, that someone is responsible for the consequences.

But the problem is real, and it has been for 2 decades now, at least. we have consistently failed, as a population, to take the major steps necessary to rectify the situation. we need to get off of coal and oil. we have the ability to make electricity on a major scale using other means. we have the ability, but not the will, aparantly.

[samson]

I agree with mortekai with the issue of scientific advancements causing today's problems.

Pointing fingers at a single phenomenon is a gross oversimplification of the problem when it fact the problems today are caused by a complex combination of policies at every level of government and at the international scale.

Today's apparent lack of progress in dealing with today's social problems may have its roots in the problems of coordinating policies at the international scale as every nation's government have their own agenda that may be against such policies.

[Angry Citizen]

I would point the finger at environmentalists instead. The technology to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels has existed for decades: nuclear power. Yet, these very environmentalists who preach and moan about doom and gloom are so unwilling to accept a (much) lesser evil that nothing gets done. The advocates of this theory come across as petulant little children, all whine and no proposal. We hear little more than infeasible nonsense like wind and solar from this camp. Naturally, the population that is open to the possibility of anthropogenic global warming sees an apparently intractable problem and buries their head in the sand, because the people who should know what to do, don't.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I would point the finger at environmentalists instead. The technology to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels has existed for decades: nuclear power. Yet, these very environmentalists who preach and moan about doom and gloom are so unwilling to accept a (much) lesser evil that nothing gets done. The advocates of this theory come across as petulant little children, all whine and no proposal. We hear little more than infeasible nonsense like wind and solar from this camp. Naturally, the population that is open to the possibility of anthropogenic global warming sees an apparently intractable problem and buries their head in the sand, because the people who should know what to do, don't.

Im right there with you. We have reactor designs, especially now, that are much safer than previous designs. Still, the worst issues that we have ever had with nuclear power have been either due to human error (like chernobyl, where they didnt follow proper procedure in the least, and three mile island , where poor training and a faulty valve were to blame, although had the operators been trained to recognize the situation, they could have done something about it) or poor design (like fukushima, where they had the backup pumps in a basement that was primed for flooding. those pumps drove the backup cooling on the reactors, and the cooling pools, i believe. I might be wrong about the cooling pools, though).

The safety factors on the newer generation designs are wonderful in this regard. And considering the damage we are already causing, I would say its worth the minimal risk (especially with designs like the pebble bed reactor).

However, wind and solar have their places. Solar would be nice, especially for charging smaller items. Or, i have seen clothing that has solar cells built into them. The cells are extremely expensive at this point, but once the technology comes along, we could use stuff like that to charge cell phones and portable electronics. But as a primary, I think we agree that its not exactly a great base


Another form of renewable "green" energy that we dont hear enough about is geothermal. It would only be feasable in certain locations, but it is a source that is steady as a rock, and could easily be used for a supplement to nuclear and hydroelectric.

We COULD end our use of fossil fuels if we could get the political will to do it.

[samson]

I would point the finger at environmentalists instead. The technology to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels has existed for decades: nuclear power. Yet, these very environmentalists who preach and moan about doom and gloom are so unwilling to accept a (much) lesser evil that nothing gets done. The advocates of this theory come across as petulant little children, all whine and no proposal. We hear little more than infeasible nonsense like wind and solar from this camp. Naturally, the population that is open to the possibility of anthropogenic global warming sees an apparently intractable problem and buries their head in the sand, because the people who should know what to do, don't.

You would have to give credit to environmentalists for pushing for cleaner coal plants which has made a lot of progress since the first coal plant. Also, for their work in making sure hydroelectricity coming from hydroelectric dams have the least impact on the environment. Then, we also have to give credit to environmentalists that push for cleaner waste management produced by industry. We have to give due credit for environmentalists that have pushed for sustainability and environment-friendly policies in various industries.

To point the finger at environmentalists is akin to saying their past work is pointless. Nuclear power is a part of the solution but comes at an environmental impact. Where would we store nuclear waste that we have no idea how to eliminate other than sticking it underground where the pollution of groundwater is possible when the containers of radioactive waste is degraded over time. It is one solution but not without downsides.

To point fingers at x, y, z, calling them a, b, c, and disregarding the legitimate concerns of environmentalists is a hindrance to progress that we are trying to advocate. They have legitimate arguments and we should discuss those arguments. Rather than complaining about how they complain, which really doesn't get us anywhere. You say that these environmentalists are all whine and no proposal, I ask that you read what you have said.

I would just like to say a case of ad hominem has been committed, if its not clear already.

[truthreality]

"Earth is rapidly headed toward a catastrophic breakdown if humans don't get their act together, according to an international group of scientists."
http://www.livescience.com/20778-ear...-collapse.html

First question: Is this really news? People have been saying thsi stuff for a while now, and it's increasingly common. Also, what are these scientists themselves going to do about it? In many ways, scientific advancements are the cause of this mess, so they should certainly have more ideas. All allegations of hypocrisy and alarmism aside, that is still true in principle.

Grandpa h.

This is a blessing in disguise. At times I find this earthly realm boring. Hopefully this scare of a catastrophic earth will motivate scientists to explore options on other planets.

[Zeebadee]

Until humans come up with a method to control population, and a plan for a global economy that isn't based on continuing growth, consumption, and exploitation of our natural resources, catastrophic collapse is inevitable.

[Angry Citizen]

Until humans come up with a method to control population

How many times must I correct this.

The only areas of the world experiencing any sort of population growth whatsoever are the ones who lack education, i.e. Africa, India, and the like. We already have a method to control population.

[Zeebadee]

How many times must I correct this.

The only areas of the world experiencing any sort of population growth whatsoever are the ones who lack education, i.e. Africa, India, and the like. We already have a method to control population.

So you're saying that we don't need to control population growth, even in Africa, India, and the like?

[Angry Citizen]

It'll control itself, in time. Indeed, a sizeable fraction of the world (China) is steadily losing population. It'll be below a billion people within the next five decades. That's an encouraging thought.

[barts]

I would point the finger at environmentalists instead. The technology to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels has existed for decades: nuclear power. Yet, these very environmentalists who preach and moan about doom and gloom are so unwilling to accept a (much) lesser evil that nothing gets done. The advocates of this theory come across as petulant little children, all whine and no proposal. We hear little more than infeasible nonsense like wind and solar from this camp. Naturally, the population that is open to the possibility of anthropogenic global warming sees an apparently intractable problem and buries their head in the sand, because the people who should know what to do, don't.

Unfortunately, this argument is without much foundation. The reason nuclear power is not the dominant energy source is because coal, in particular, is so inexpensive.

Even if all environmentalists were on your side, power companies would still opt for coal over nuclear. In the US, "King Coal" has more control over Congress than the nuclear energy industry.

I say "unfortunately" because the environmental movement today in most countries, including all the largest polluters, has very little influence over public policy. It's dominated by a few large grabs that are so conservative as to be virtually powerless.

Blaming environmentalists about the state of nuclear power is misdirected. Blame "King Coal." You might also blame ordinary citizens who for the most part don't want a nuclear plants in their backyards.