Where are we headed(future of the human race)

[Zecora]

The ocean isn't dropping. If you mean raising, it's happening at a very slow pace which allows metro areas to slowly shift infrastructure higher.

/facepalm.

"a drop in the ocean" is a saying, a way of saying that something is very, very small.

As far as other countries "demanding the same standard of living as people in the West", that is not how it works nor even possible anytime soon. You can't simply give out things like that. A couple places like China/India will do a great job competing in some sectors, but most places overall don't have the capability to significantly negatively effect Western civ.

Demanding, as in expecting to achieve the same level of comfort and convenience we enjoy in the West, NOT as in "we demand you give this to us". Ask yourself what happens when a billion Chinese swap their bicycles for cars. Or just look at the left side of the picture below.

[PC2]

"a drop in the ocean" is a saying, a way of saying that something is very, very small

My bad on that. I'm on my phone, read that part wrong.

Demanding, as in expecting to achieve the same level of comfort and convenience we enjoy in the West, NOT as in "we demand you give this to us". Ask yourself what happens when a billion Chinese swap their bicycles for cars. Or just look at the left side of the picture below.

So China emits the most. Unless you want cap them right now, you have to accept it and focus on the science needed to return the atmosphere back in the future. No amount of social change is going to sequester those CO2 molecules already there.

[Vash The Stampede]

/facepalm.

"a drop in the ocean" is a saying, a way of saying that something is very, very small.

Drop in the bucket.

Demanding, as in expecting to achieve the same level of comfort and convenience we enjoy in the West, NOT as in "we demand you give this to us". Ask yourself what happens when a billion Chinese swap their bicycles for cars. Or just look at the left side of the picture below.

You get 1970's America. The Chinese are going through what we did before regulations kicked in. That pollution isn't just from cars but low standards for dealing with emissions. Also factories don't forget, that's a big one. But the cars are catching up to ours, mainly cause they copy. Why don't we buy Chinese cars? Cause they don't meet our standards.

America went from V8's to small efficient 4 cylinders with catalytic converters to reduce emissions, and even then we made factories also filter their smoke stacks. China has a long way to go to match our emission standards.

[Azgraal]

Hopefully removing "every man for himself". Or atleast giving it to the horde too.

Came here for this. Thank you.

[Zecora]

No really we really did reduce the mosquito population to reduce malaria by using CRISPR. It works so no magic wand is needed

You know what "long term" means? Get back to me in a century or two.

You should really watch this video, and yes it's a form of genetic modification. In fact before transgenic or what you think is GMO we would screw up a plants genes on purpose to try and get beneficial traits. Once we get the trait we breed it. With GMO's it's no different except we take a gene from another source and splice it into the plant.

No, no matter how many times you claim it, it will never be the same. The fact that you would claim that it is, indicates that you are either ignorant of what genetic modification is and how it works, or have bought into the usual propaganda. Look up genetic scrambling as a result of genetic modification, and read a bit up on stable vs. unstable mutations, and you'll be better suited to discuss this.

Breeding allowed us to take the wolf and turn it into the verity of dogs we have today, and that was just a couple hundred years ago.

/facepalm

Seriously? Is this your level of knowledge, and you purport to understand science? The wolf and dog separated somewhere between 40 THOUSAND and 27 THOUSAND years ago, NOT "a couple hundred years ago". Selective breeding (which is not genetic modification but selection of traits) continues up until today.

Again, no scientific study proves that. Should really watch this video.

Again, the huge European mother-child survey which looked at thousands of born children has proven that. Don't you get tired of sticking your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA!!!"?

Because biodiversity, heritage crops, crop genetic diversity and organic farming is nonsense? I really don't want to tell you why all that is make believe. I didn't even know people could be a GMO fanboy? Nvidia AMD and now GMO. Why not.

Oh gods, this is like discussing with a wall. I have already told you why organic farming is better. As for crop genetic diversity is important, it is because it acts as a depository of genetic variety, offering a vide variety of genes that can help in situations where disease wipes out one variant. As for biodiversity...if you don't understand why we need to preserve the Earth's biodiversity, then I really cannot help you. Go back to school.

Nice on paper, terrible in practice. It's better to be prepared to face the new problems than to continue to deal with the old ones. If that were the cause we should still be running cars on carburetors instead of fuel injection. Going to fuel injection increased fuel efficiency but now you introduced an electrical system to the car which can create new problems. Fuel injectors goes bad, ECU goes bad, wiring melted, coil packs not working. Where in the old days you just rebuilt the carburetor and you were fine. But todays cars are still pretty reliable once we made better designs.

Bullshit. Solving a problem carefully so that you don't create a new one is the best solution to any problem. Go read up on the use of lead as an additive in gasoline, it is a perfect example of the idiocy of "solve one problem, create another" ideology. And stop wasting my time with handwaving, because like any GMO fanboy, you keep harping on "GMO's are safe" while denying any other problems connected to it exist. It's like discussing with a corporate drone.

- - - Updated - - -

So China emits the most. Unless you want cap them right now, you have to accept it and focus on the science needed to return the atmosphere back in the future. No amount of social change is going to sequester those CO2 molecules already there.

Go back and read my original post, you clearly missed the point.

- - - Updated - - -

Drop in the bucket.

Not where I live.

You get 1970's America. The Chinese are going through what we did before regulations kicked in. That pollution isn't just from cars but low standards for dealing with emissions. Also factories don't forget, that's a big one. But the cars are catching up to ours, mainly cause they copy. Why don't we buy Chinese cars? Cause they don't meet our standards.

America went from V8's to small efficient 4 cylinders with catalytic converters to reduce emissions, and even then we made factories also filter their smoke stacks. China has a long way to go to match our emission standards.

Chinese cars in generl has small engines, and as for legislation, they are fast catching up to everyone else. The problem stems from the huge population, all of whom want a car and a nice, fancy house, and a new TV, and so on and so forth. There is little help in the rest of the world cutting emissions and going on green tech if the reduction is more than compensated for by increased emissions from industrializing countries like China.

Which is why green tech should be freely shared.

- - - Updated - - -

By fix another problem in perpetuity, I mean even if we perfect say, farming, then you deal with a population explosion from the success of the farming. Then you solve that problem, and so on, and so forth.

But if you think ahead, you cap the population at a sustainable level, then you limit the farming to what is needed for that level of population.

You cannot solve problems that are new or ones you have yet to encounter.

Solve them? No. But through forward thinking, you can prevent many problems from arising in the first place.

I agree that the current problems have been solved, they just now need to be implemented.

And places like CA, NY, etc, are doing just that.

Some places do implement some positive changes, which is good. Whether it will be enough, well, we will see. I certainly hope so, even if I don't believe so.

[PC2]

Sorry Yirrah but we have to learn to live with lower biodiversity. All we can do is preserve samples and work towards re-optimizing our environment with more advanced tech. Being aggressive towards those who use calm and collective language will do more to turn people off to your cause.

[Zecora]

Sorry Yirrah but we have to learn to live with lower biodiversity. All we can do is preserve samples and work towards re-optimizing our environment with more advanced tech. Being aggressive towards those who use calm and collective language will do more to turn people off to your cause.

No, we have to stop causing the largest mass extinction in the last 65 million years, and start preserving every shred of biodiversity that still exist.

Also, the guy who called me "the epitomy of apathy and a negative outlook. " lecturing me on how to reply to people is really the largest joke of the day.

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly agree that we could use more forethought in doing things.

But then again I agree very much so with "Future by design" by Jacque Fresco.

Well, we can at least agree on one of the two then

- - - Updated - - -

Anyhow, I have a bed to get to.

To Connal: Thanks for the discussion, I might not agree with you, but it's always a pleasure!

To the rest: Thanks for the laughs!

[PC2]

Also, the guy who called me "the epitomy of apathy and a negative outlook. " lecturing me on how to reply to people is really the largest joke of the day.

Either apathy or whatever happens when you go way too far in the reverse direction. A lot of people put weight into a sort of emotional self-fulfilling prophecy. If you get cancer and spend most of your days worrying about dying as opposed to the science needed to cure you, you're just going to wither away faster.

[nextormento]

Arguing with anti GMO people is like arguing with anti-vaxers.
It's not that going all natural/organic is better or worse. It's that not using the tools at our disposal is irresponsible. We'll need to use GMOs and cope with what drawbacks they bring.

[Vash The Stampede]

No, no matter how many times you claim it, it will never be the same. The fact that you would claim that it is, indicates that you are either ignorant of what genetic modification is and how it works, or have bought into the usual propaganda.

Are you suggesting that breading doesn't cause genetic modification?

Seriously? Is this your level of knowledge, and you purport to understand science? The wolf and dog separated somewhere between 40 THOUSAND and 27 THOUSAND years ago, NOT "a couple hundred years ago". Selective breeding (which is not genetic modification but selection of traits) continues up until today.

Modern dog breeds were recent 100 years. The dog itself yea thousands but we did breed it. It's not natural selection but human selection.

Again, the huge European mother-child survey which looked at thousands of born children has proven that.

Surveys aren't proof or science.

Don't you get tired of sticking your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA!!!"?

Please stop trying to bring me down to your level.

Oh gods, this is like discussing with a wall. I have already told you why organic farming is better.

Not really.

As for crop genetic diversity is important, it is because it acts as a depository of genetic variety, offering a vide variety of genes that can help in situations where disease wipes out one variant.

That would imply we inbreed them not transgenics them. Which we do indeed inbreed them to get the traits we want. This is done with or without transgenics.

Bullshit. Solving a problem carefully so that you don't create a new one is the best solution to any problem. Go read up on the use of lead as an additive in gasoline, it is a perfect example of the idiocy of "solve one problem, create another" ideology.

Oil companies were using a lot of fake science to prove Lead was healthy. Ever watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos on lead? Think there's a lot of upset farmers on the whole GMO thing spreading fud with fake science?

And stop wasting my time with handwaving, because like any GMO fanboy, you keep harping on "GMO's are safe" while denying any other problems connected to it exist. It's like discussing with a corporate drone.

Show me a real scientific study that says GMO's are bad and I'll stop turn around and support you.

Chinese cars in generl has small engines, and as for legislation, they are fast catching up to everyone else.

Smaller engines don't always make better gas mileage and therefore emissions. Corvettes for example have V8's but get 30-40 MPG. Another example.

The problem stems from the huge population, all of whom want a car and a nice, fancy house, and a new TV, and so on and so forth. There is little help in the rest of the world cutting emissions and going on green tech if the reduction is more than compensated for by increased emissions from industrializing countries like China.

Which is why green tech should be freely shared.

Which is why we need more batteries for electric cars. We need to make a lot more of them to replace gasoline cars. Of course manufacturing batteries might cause new problems...

[Deleted]

We're headed towards a long line of man-made disasters. That's guaranteed! Humans as a species rarely inconvenience themselves unless it personally and immediately affects them. You can have 99% of scientists claiming with proof that X or Y will happen unless we change our ways. But, people don't give a shit about that because it's nothing they are affected by right now. If it doesn't hurt them right now then it's not an issue.

You can see this mentality everywhere. For example: Almost all employed people will have a strong dislike of welfare recipients. They will call them lazy, worthless, dumb and all sort of shit. But as soon as these employed people become unemployed and reliant of the very same thing they formerly condemned they have a sudden change of heart, suddenly welfare is to meager and poor people should have more rights. It's like people can't place themselves in another pair of shoes or another situation unless they are literally in that specific situation right now, only at that point does their brain register that a problem exist. And I believe this applies to humans on the macro scale as well. We won't really invest in any major change unless it personally and immediately affects us.

So yeah, we're headed towards a world of hurt. Hopefully we'll learn from these mistakes, document them well and perhaps one day our decedents can continue where we left off but this time much wiser and more considerate.

[PC2]

We're headed towards a long line of man-made disasters. That's guaranteed! Humans as a species rarely inconvenience themselves unless it personally and immediately affects them. You can have 99% of scientists claiming with proof that X or Y will happen unless we change our ways. But, people don't give a shit about that because it's nothing they are affected by right now. If it doesn't hurt them right now then it's not an issue.

You can see this mentality everywhere. For example: Almost all employed people will have a strong dislike of welfare recipients. They will call them lazy, worthless, dumb and all sort of shit. But as soon as these employed people become unemployed and reliant of the very same thing they formerly condemned they have a sudden change of heart, suddenly welfare is to meager and poor people should have more rights. It's like people can't place themselves in another pair of shoes or another situation unless they are literally in that specific situation right now, only at that point does their brain register that a problem exist. And I believe this applies to humans on the macro scale as well. We won't really invest in any major change unless it personally and immediately affects us.

So yeah, we're headed towards a world of hurt. Hopefully we'll learn from these mistakes, document them well and perhaps one day our decedents can continue where we left off but this time much wiser and more considerate.

You said disaster is "guaranteed". Guarantee means this scenario is already inevitable, massive amounts of the population will die. If it's unavoidable then logically you should only look after yourself in order to maximize you and your families chance of survival.

[Deleted]

You said disaster is "guaranteed". Guarantee means this scenario is already inevitable, massive amounts of the population will die. If it's unavoidable then this means you should just look after yourself in order to maximize you and your families chance of survival.

It isn't inevitable because we lack the means to prevent them. It's inevitable because we lack the compassion to prevent them. Your last sentence proves that and that's why disaster is guaranteed. I work the same way, and I would do the same thing so I'm not trying to pretend to be better than anyone else. We just need to start teaching our children compassion and respect for the environment and other creatures. They can make the future better, once we're dead and gone.

[Powerogue]

Well we as a race did survive genocides, slavery, civil wars, world wars, nationalistic wars, ideological cold wars and a bunch of other actions/events that lead to some pretty gruesome atrocities. Not sure which ones that happens in the current day, that can be regarded as more severe for our future, than it was for previous generations.

That's about it. As bad as we have it, we've lived through worse. We're like a weed, we'll grow back eventually.

I hope we don't have to though. Technology has helped to connect the world more than any point in all of human history. The world is going to come out different, but my hope is for the better.

[PC2]

It isn't inevitable because we lack the means to prevent them. It's inevitable because we lack the compassion to prevent them. Your last sentence proves that and that's why disaster is guaranteed.

At least that is logically consistent. More consistent than a socialist saying catastrophe is close and inevitable, but for some reason we should all be loving to eachother right up until that point where inevitable disaster collapses civilization. The hilarious part is many don't even understand the self-defeating aspect.

[Vash The Stampede]

You said disaster is "guaranteed". Guarantee means this scenario is already inevitable, massive amounts of the population will die. If it's unavoidable then logically you should only look after yourself in order to maximize you and your families chance of survival.

Yea I don't get where this doom and gloom is coming from. What evidence suggests that we're going to have a massive die off of people? The way I see it the opposite is going to happen. It's funny cause this disaster is based on pollution, but if we cared we could turn this around in 10 years. We're not going to do it in 10 years cause we haven't stopped using coal for electricity or fossil fuels for vehicles. It'll probably be 15 years before solar is affordable enough and 30 years before 1/3 of cars are electric. Why? Cause we can't make enough batteries fast enough and cheap enough, and big oil companies are trying their best to curb interest in this.

The low gas prices don't help either since people stopped caring and went back to buying SUVs again. Hybrids are not the answer either. Meanwhile we need more cars with turbos in them to make them more efficient and made out of lighter material. What happened to Saturn using polymer panels? Why isn't Fiber glass standard on cars? How about 100% aluminum body panels?

- - - Updated - - -

The future is coming and less not more people are going to die. So yea humans in the future aren't going to have this massive die off. In many ways you'll wish you could die.