Industrial Civilization Collapse?

[asiab3]

I've lurked in these parts long enough to have read a few well-placed comments on the obtuse nature of coerced consumerism and over-consumption. While I know it's hard to make a difference as one person, perhaps a scare with a near-collapse would be a swift kick in the rear for our actions as a developed world. I'm not saying it would be a good thing, but do you think an au natural "blow it up start again" a la Guy Fawkes would result in a different human civilization after?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... scientists

I think the time frame of 15 years is farfetched, but I do understand our expoential growth rate as a species is completely unsustainable. What I like about the article is the talk on accumulated surplus, which can be COMPLETELY applied towards many of the topics of this forum, notably the CEOs and other 1%'ers who would perish with less than seven figure incomes. Wealth or resources can be interchanged.

... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels.

[Jivermo]

Well, that does it! I'm ordering a rebuilt AFM NOW!

[BellePlaine]

“We are so used to the notion of our own inevitability as life's dominant species that it is hard to grasp that we are here only because of timely extraterrestrial bangs and other random flukes. The one thing we have in common with all other living things is that for nearly four billions years our ancestors have managed to slip through a series of closing doors every time we needed them to.”
― Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything

If civilization as we know it were to collapse, then we'd either adapt and if not then we will end up like 99% of all the other species that have lived on this planet and become extinct.

Did you see this statement by NASA saying...

""A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."
http://www.space.com/25160-nasa-stateme ... pid=514648

You can't legislate morality. It would be better to undo the advantages that we legislate to the elite (I'm thinking inflationary money) then it would be to add on to that a redistribution of wealth to the poor. The advantage is still with the elite.

[glasseye]

You can't legislate morality.

No? Then how do you explain the war on (some) drugs?

[asiab3]

You can't legislate morality.

No? Then how do you explain the war on (some) drugs?

I think legislating morality is immoral in itself, so even though it's done, it's not ok. Similar thoughts come up evert time a big election has a topic of "[noun]'s rights." You can't vote on rights, that's why they're called rights!

If civilization as we know it were to collapse, then we'd either adapt and if not then we will end up like 99% of all the other species that have lived on this planet and become extinct.

That's an interesting comment. One I agree with. Humans are the only creature to think we're exempt from nature. We aren't just killing the planet; we are a part of the planet and we're killing ourselves. The planet will move on just like it always has. We're just too vain of a species to see it that way.

[TrollFromDownBelow]

You can't legislate morality.

No? Then how do you explain the war on (some) drugs?

I think legislating morality is immoral in itself, so even though it's done, it's not ok. Similar thoughts come up every time a big election has a topic of "[noun]'s rights." You can't vote on rights, that's why they're called rights!

The war on drugs may not be a good example, as one could argue choice, however, what about laws against murder? rape? Aren't those laws legislating morality? Is it not okay for those who don't obey those laws to be segregated from society or punished from doing harm to others? Better yet, aren't those types of laws protecting our rights to freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc? And in a twist on words, don't we vote for the folks who will create those laws, so therefore we are voting on our rights?

Playing Devil's advocate here.....

[asiab3]

…Playing Devil's advocate here.....

I see where you're going- and I see you're username is not shy of your position either

The "morality" voting rights issue:
The right to "freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc," is such a right, that when you say that murder and violence can't be voted on either negates the rights to commit crimes against others. Crimes that violate others' rights can't be rights. Right?

[Amskeptic]

You can't legislate morality.
It would be better to undo the advantages that we legislate to the elite (I'm thinking inflationary money) then it would be to add on to that a redistribution of wealth to the poor.
The advantage is still with the elite.

I don't get the first sentence.
If a piece of legislation has a moral component open to moral interpretation, that does not make it a moral or immoral piece of legislation. The consequences can be interpreted freely by those who wish to do so.

It would never be about legislating morality if I said "we must pass a law to more equitably distribute the products of our labors, as it is clear to anything smarter than a garden slug that the rich are greedily hoarding 'representative labor units' (money) far beyond their actual contribution to our aggregate wealth. It is immoral what they are doing."
No, I would offer this legislation based on the sensible foundation that The Survival Of Our Civilization Depends On It, and, to a more practical extent, "we will increase our aggregate wealth with the greater participation of all." This is a damn fact.

Legislating morality might be something like preventing people who love each other from marrying because one's genitalia looks suspiciously similar to other's genitalia. That has no damn business in the realm of Civilization and Societal Discourse, because there is no proof that it actually harms childbirth rates or destroys the fabric of our Nation or blah blah blah. Is it "immoral" to not let them marry? Is it "immoral" to let them marry? It does not matter. Legally, we cannot legislate road blocks to customary pursuits of citizens to share life with their chosen others. Period.
Colin