Existential threats to civilization

[Politruk]

I mean global, not Western or Euro-American, civilization -- Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory is bullshit -- human civilization is all one thing, now. And there are not very many threats to its continued existence. I count only four:

1. Wealth/income inequality. Unequal hierarchical civilizations have indeed survived for millennia -- but the danger of revolution is always present.

2. Technological unemployment. A constant threat since the Industrial Revolution began, but AI puts it on a whole new level.

3. Climate change. We know it's happening, we know it's caused by human activity, and we know its effects on civilization can be nothing good.

4. Nuclear war. Included just for completeness. Not the threat it was during the Cold War, but the U.S., Russia and China still maintain their arsenals at roughly Cold War levels, upgrading them as technology improves.

And some would add a fifth:

5. Peak oil. Controversial. Its civilization-threatening potential depends on many unknown factors, like just how much petroleum is left in the ground, and how rapidly we can substitute other power sources, and technological progress, which is always unpredictable.


What are not existential threats to civilization, though some do speak of them in that way: Crime. Terrorism. Conventional Warfare. Dysgenic pressure. Cultural changes, including decline in religious belief. "Decadence" however defined.

 

[Lathanar1]

Number 4 is the only legitimate threat. None of the others would end civilization.

Mass extinction event, alien invasion, hell even a zombie apocalypse would be threats.

 

[Politruk]

Number 4 is the only legitimate threat. None of the others would end civilization.

Climate change definitely could. Our species is not adapted to a world without ice at the poles -- we have never lived in such a world.

Mass extinction event, alien invasion, hell even a zombie apocalypse would be threats.

I'm trying to limit the list to things that are not purely speculative.

 

[Politruk]

[TR]
[TD]4.5 Degrees[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Title text: The good news is that according to the latest IPCC report, if we enact aggressive emissions limits now, we could hold the warming to 2°C. That's only HALF an ice age unit, which is probably no big deal.[/TD]
[/TR]

 

[Politruk]

[TR]
[TD]Earth Temperature Timeline[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]↓ Skip to explanation ↓[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]

 

[zysmith]

I mean global, not Western or Euro-American, civilization -- Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory is bullshit -- human civilization is all one thing, now. And there are not very many threats to its continued existence. I count only four:

1. Wealth/income inequality. Unequal hierarchical civilizations have indeed survived for millennia -- but the danger of revolution is always present.

2. Technological unemployment. A constant threat since the Industrial Revolution began, but AI puts it on a whole new level.

3. Climate change. We know it's happening, we know it's caused by human activity, and we know its effects on civilization can be nothing good.

4. Nuclear war. Included just for completeness. Not the threat it was during the Cold War, but the U.S., Russia and China still maintain their arsenals at roughly Cold War levels, upgrading them as technology improves.

And some would add a fifth:

5. Peak oil. Controversial. Its civilization-threatening potential depends on many unknown factors, like just how much petroleum is left in the ground, and how rapidly we can substitute other power sources, and technological progress, which is always unpredictable.


What are not existential threats to civilization, though some do speak of them in that way: Crime. Terrorism. Conventional Warfare. Dysgenic pressure. Cultural changes, including decline in religious belief. "Decadence" however defined.

Don't forget there's an asteroid headed this way that could hit us

 

[Politruk]

Don't forget there's an asteroid headed this way that could hit us

But it's much more likely to miss us.

In the films Deep Impact and Armageddon, they dealt with an Earthbound asteroid by blowing it up with nukes.

If you do that, now you have a cloud of fragments, of the same aggregate mass and kinetic energy as the original asteroid, headed for Earth at the same velocity on the same trajectory -- only now, they're radioactive.

A better solution would be to place a bomb on one side of the asteroid to deflect it, to alter its course so it misses Earth.

 

[Politruk]

5. Peak oil. Controversial. Its civilization-threatening potential depends on many unknown factors, like just how much petroleum is left in the ground, and how rapidly we can substitute other power sources, and technological progress, which is always unpredictable.

More broadly, see Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate.

 

[Lathanar1]

Climate change definitely could. Our species is not adapted to a world without ice at the poles -- we have never lived in such a world.

In the 70s schools told us half the world population would starve by the 2000s. In the 80s we were told acid rain was going to destroy all the statues, the statue of liberty would have to be enclosed to save her, and we would have to hide from the rain. The 80s also brought global.cooling, the next ice age was coming. Then there was the ozone layer and how we would have to wear heavy sunscreen all the time or die. All the while we practiced hiding under tables so we'd be protected from "the bomb". I'm about burnt out on the doomsday crap. The climate will change as it always does, and we will adapt, as we have always done. The only existential threat to humanity is humanity.

 

[Politruk]

In the 70s schools told us half the world population would starve by the 2000s. In the 80s we were told acid rain was going to destroy all the statues, the statue of liberty would have to be enclosed to save her, and we would have to hide from the rain. The 80s also brought global.cooling, the next ice age was coming. Then there was the ozone layer and how we would have to wear heavy sunscreen all the time or die. All the while we practiced hiding under tables so we'd be protected from "the bomb". I'm about burnt out on the doomsday crap. The climate will change as it always does, and we will adapt, as we have always done. The only existential threat to humanity is humanity.

Never, ever fall back on "Science was wrong before."

 

[Lathanar1]

Don't quote that rat wiki balderdash. This is not they've been wrong before. This is they haven't been right yet. Not once. Nostradamus has a better predictive track record.

 

[Politruk]

Don't quote that rat wiki balderdash. This is not they've been wrong before. This is they haven't been right yet. Not once. Nostradamus has a better predictive track record.

Science can successfully predict a lot of things, from eclipses to how long a cancer patient will live.

 

[Lathanar1]

Lol, climate science. Don't be pedantic.

 

[Politruk]

Lol, climate science. Don't be pedantic.

It's not astrology, it is a real science. And there is a definite scientific consensus -- like there never was about a coming ice age, etc.

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:[28]

• National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Royal Society (UK)
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
• UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[note 3] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[29][30]

Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs.[31] There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.[32

 

[Politruk]

See also Wikipedia:

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[9] In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[10] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11] A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions,[12] and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence,[13][14] attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.[15]

 

[Politruk]

1. Wealth/income inequality. Unequal hierarchical civilizations have indeed survived for millennia -- but the danger of revolution is always present.

See here: "America on the Cusp of a Revolution."

 

[John_von_Neumann]

I agree that 3 and 4 constitute existential threats, and will include:

• AI takeover
• Manufactured pandemic
• Decline in fertility
• Gamma ray burst

 

[Politruk]

I agree that 3 and 4 constitute existential threats, and will include:

• AI takeover

[TR]
[TD]Machine Learning Captcha[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]

• Manufactured pandemic

Who would manufacture a pandemic? Why?

• Decline in fertility

I'd say overpopulation is a much graver threat than that!

• Gamma ray burst

From what?

 

[Politruk]

What are not existential threats to civilization, though some do speak of them in that way: Crime. Terrorism. Conventional Warfare. Dysgenic pressure. Cultural changes, including decline in religious belief. "Decadence" however defined.

I notice that nobody is disputing any of this.

 

[Venefica]

The sketch is intentionally a bit misleading as it is set up to create an as sharp as possible curve by showing temperatures of a difference of only 8 degrees and extends the timeline especially long. That leads to the optical dramatic increase.

 

[Politruk]

The sketch is intentionally a bit misleading as it is set up to create an as sharp as possible curve by showing temperatures of a difference of only 8 degrees and extends the timeline especially long. That leads to the optical dramatic increase.

There's nothing dishonest about it. How would you design such a timeline?

 

[Buffalogurl]

I notice that nobody is disputing any of this.

No, corruption and the unquenchable thirst for power is the only threat to civilization.....

 

[Politruk]

No, corruption and the unquenchable thirst for power is the only threat to civilization.....

Those never destroyed any civilization in the past.

 

[Politruk]

And the Tytler Cycle never destroyed anything either.

 

[Politruk]

A NASA-funded study says the greatest threats to civilization are economic inequality and resource depletion.