Very good. That's my logic, too. I think everyone can agree that the probability that our civilization will exist on planet Earth 10 billion years from now is pretty much 0%. I think most people would agree about that for one million years from now, or even 100,000 years from now. As we move that timeline forward toward the present, an increasing number of people will believe that probability is higher. By the time we get to the point where we ask "do you think our civilization will exist 10 seconds from now, you'd probably find that almost everyone thinks that probability is near 100%. So we are talking about a spectrum of beliefs. Picture a timeline with a graph above it representing the probability that our civilization is history. My graph would obviously have a much steeper slope than yours, as I see the probability increasing more rapidly. But at least we have a common basis for discussion.
"[Civilizations]" have come and gone with great regularity over the relatively brief course of human history, and extinction of species heretofore hovers in or near the 99th percentile. Again, this is not a particularly novel observation.
Of course I haven't calculated the probability.
Well, that is a bit of a problem if you intend to declare something to have a "high probability." I guess you can speak in relative terms, but that still demands some fairly rigorous qualification.
So there's no way I or anyone else can mathematically calculate the probability of something as complex as the collapse of civilization.
Would you like to revise your claim, then?
So if your position is that I have to mathematically prove the probability is above x% with a margin of error of y% and a confidence level of z% for you to take my positions seriously, well then, I guess we have a non-starter there.
Maybe so.
But I would submit that every day we all makes unconscious probability calculations.
Sure. Humans operate inductively, by and large. But we also don't intend to construct "rational" arguments about most of those things, either. Sometimes we could but just don't, because there's no point. If there's a thunderstorm cell moving toward my house while I'm gaming online, I can conceivably check the lighting strike counter thus far, consider the proximity of my home relative to the storm's projected path, factor in the height of surrounding architecture and foliage — and maybe I could come up with some reasonable approximation of my chances of getting lit up. Most of the time, however, I'm prone to simply shut the computer down without too much debate.
If the standard of proof you intend to uphold in this discussion is the same standard you hold yourself to when deciding whether to take a chance on that strange-smelling calamari, then that is what I might label a non-starter.
Because after all, that is a relative term.
Yes, it is, but that doesn't absolve you of qualifying it.
In this topic, the risk is the collapse of civilization as we know it and all that ensues, and the cost is the expense and/or mental and emotional pain required to prepare for it.
No, that's cart-before-horse. First, you have to define "it" and explain why it has whatever relatively probability you assign to it.
My intuitive calculation is that the risk is greater than the cost. Your intuitive calculation is that the risk is less than the cost.
I'm not concerned with your intuition. I'm concerned with you providing evidence for your claims.
I'm sorry I can't do better than that. So if you require rock-solid proof based on a statistical analysis of every variable involved, well, I guess you can just write me off as another kook and tune out of this thread right now.
That's a possibility, but I think so primarily due to your woo-woo website, rather than anything you've posted here thus far.
BTW, this link — http://www.buildingofthebeast.com/goto/uforeports — is dead.
Just because I can't provide statistical analysis to support my position, doesn't mean I don't have any basis.
Going out of your way to say you don't know what, when or how, but something, strikes me as pretty damn baseless. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Each one of these risks are simply something that could happen in the foreseeable future.
That might be an incredibly long list, and you could probably include Elvis piloting a spaceship over Time Square, though admittedly near the bottom. Lots of things "could happen in the foreseeable future," but that unto itself does not translate into a de facto argument for relevance, imminence or notable likelihood.
(And please don't ask me to state the specific probabilities of each one. See my above point on that).
I don't think your point on that is very good. I think it's a cop-out, actually.
Solar flares - a major event could knock out global communications satellites, bring down the electric grid or worse.
Sure, though not everywhere at once, and it is possible to reinforce (and repair) power grids. Satellites can be protected to an extent as well, but it's just one of those things. This is mentioned on the Solar Flares page local to this website.
Asteroid hit - Even though we are good at tracking those asteroids with known orbits, there are still unknown asteroids out there.
Which is why NASA has a whole department devoted to this sort of thing. Anything large enough to cause serious problems still has to obey physical laws, which means there's a decent chance of spotting it well in advance, whether it was previously known or not.
Ozone layer depletion - This is our shield against ultraviolet light and it has been depleting, off and on, for many years.
I'm having trouble linking this to the "widespread death and destruction" you crowed about earlier. More skin cancer? Yeah. Doomsday? No.
Supernova - Probably the wildcard of the bunch, but still, it's out there.
We've got a pretty good handle on the stars close enough to warrant concern, one of the popular specimens at present being Betelgeuse. In terms of gamma ray bursts (which are the actual issue, really, rather than nova events per se), they seem extremely rare, with perhaps only a few per galaxy per million years, and even rarer is having one take aim at Earth.
*Yellowstone super volcano
Yeah, woo artists everywhere have been rooting for that thing to blow for a while now.
*The "Big One" in California
Like … all the other "big ones?" And once again, I'm having trouble linking "the Big One" in California, USA with "widespread death and destruction."
*Random earthquakes
Earthquakes happen all over the world, every day.
**Pacific Tsunami
It's happened before and will happen again. Sucks to be sure, but the world is still here.
Now we're getting into the range of things that happen on a more regular basis. Hurricanes, typhoons, floods, droughts, etc. are as perennial as the grass. Some are worse than others.
Which really raises the question of why these things should suddenly deliver "widespread death and destruction" on some level beyond what is normally expected. Even if things are far worse than we could possibly expect, you still have not defended your position. You're just making claims.
We could just get that one that puts things over the top.
What does that even mean? What is "over the top," and relative to what?
*Nuclear war between Isreal and Iran
Would definitely have a destabilizing effect on a region that … has never been all that stable. As always, the U.S. would rush to defend Israel, and it would be quite nasty. Still having trouble with that "widespread death and destruction" thing, unless you limit "widespread" to the Middle East.
*Pakistan falls into hands of radical Islamists
[Insert country here] falls into the hands of radical [insert group here]. Wouldn't be the first time.
*Mexico becomes a narco state
If that were to happen, it would be a direct result of all the other governments in the world, but particularly those in North America, who have spent decades fostering a black market via criminalization. Again, you've failed to defend your claim of "widespread death and destruction."
*Major country (bigger than Greece) defaults on loans
*Russia invades Georgia or Chechnya or?
*North Korea hauls off and does something crazy
*US invades Venezuela for oil
*North American union forms and has unintended consequences
*US election pushes some group of people over the edge
*A creative new form of terrorism destabilizes countries
I'd like to add one.
*A brilliant scientist in a remote part of Kenya engineers a deadly, fast-mutating strain of Avian Influenza that turns infected persons into mindless killers until the fever finally kills them 24 hours later. He sells it to Al-Qaeda, who deploy the new weapon in subway stations all around the world. Zombie apocalypse ensues.
Seriously, anything can happen. This has been true throughout history. Our species is more adept at killing on a large scale now, sure, but you still have not made a case for "widespread death and destruction." Your gut feelings coupled with stating the obvious make a horrible argument. I'm not even sure "argument" is the right word.
*Wall street figures out another trick to siphon more money from the economy
*California goes bankrupt
*Influx of illegal immigrants continues unchecked until it reaches a critical mass
*Disparity between haves and have not's continues to widen until it reaches critical mass
*Continued outsourcing of jobs to third-world nations combined with advancing technology keeps unemployment high
*Baby boom generation progresses into old age, swamping Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
Assuming any of that has merit (which varies wildly, and I'll eschew the political discourse), what is the connection to "widespread death and destruction?" I keep asking that, because it keeps jumping out at me every time you add another layer to your "argument."
*New strain of flu pandemic or other disease
Yep, welcome to Earth.
*Genetic engineering of people
So?
*Cloning
So?
*Tainted food or water supplies
In what context? Where? Do you consider this an imminent threat? If so, why?
*Advances in medical technology increases life span dramatically, leading to population explosion
This is already a problem is some places. I do think humanity needs to branch into space in coming generations. Again, "widespread death and destruction" doesn't necessarily follow.
*Advances in robotics renders many workers obsolete, launches new Luddite movement
I see no reason to assume that would be the norm, as opposed to there being a shift in the market. Technological revolutions are not undocumented.
*Global virus shuts down Internet or mobile network for x number of hours/days
While that would make for a lousy "x number of hours/days," you again do not make even the remotest connection to "widespread death and destruction."
*Artificial intelligence advances beyond our ability to control it
As someone who dabbles in this area, I really find that absurd. One legitimate area of concern here, however, is robots being used in combat/security roles. At what point is an AI granted the discretion to use force or not? There was an article about it in a somewhat recent issue of Discover Magazine, but I can't be bothered to go find it.
*Over engagement in digital world leads people to lose real forms of connection
As an avid gamer, I consider some of my in-game interactions will other players more real and meaningful than some face-to-face interactions I experience offline. Again, any compelling reason to expect "widespread death and destruction" is MIA.
I don't know which of those things will occur, or when.
And you can't offer anything even resembling an actual probability. I maintain my previous assertion: "So, basically, you don't have anything."
And given the current state of the world, it could only take one of those events to trigger a chain reaction that leads to the unraveling of the fabric of our civilization.
So your whole "argument" of assertions boils down to yet another assertion made in a vacuum?
There has never before in history been a time when the entire population of the world was so connected together.
Not the entire population, but a lot of it. Internet, mostly. Personally, I don't find this particularly sinister.
One catastrophe in one place can cause ripple effects throughout the world.
Sure. So what?
A tiny band of people were able to drive the US into spending a trillion dollars on two wars.
I don't think the U.S. was driven into it so much as certain powers that be finally got the green light they wanted. That it's billions or trillions of dollars today instead of thousands of denarii fundamentally changes little, in terms of the basic operation of such structures. This is nothing new.
Or the recent financial meltdown: A few Wall Street analysts and brokers figure out an arcane method to loot the financial markets, and millions of people lose their homes or jobs or both.
Economies ebb and flow, come and go. Always have, and always will, so long as actors are acting to constitute a market.
But I suggest that our civilization is more fragile than you think.
You don't know what I think. Well, you might have a better idea now, but you didn't when you wrote that. That aside, you still have offered not a single compelling reason to attach any of your claims or concerns to "widespread death and destruction."
But as the axiom goes: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall".
Not always. They can just as easily fall softly, or simply transition into something else.
Civilizations do fall. And to suggest that it just isn't possible for ours to do so is, I think, misguided.
I don't recall suggesting any such thing. In fact, I suggested the opposite.
It is possible. The question is, how probable is it?
That's a question you should answer, and haven't.
I think it's more probable than you, but neither of us can support our positions with statistical analysis.
I'm responding to your position, and the burden is on you to support your own claims, not on me to disprove them.
Is it probable enough to take actions to deal with it.
There's that nebulous "it" again.
But people (specifically, adults—not children) should examine all views of this question carefully. No one should call for the other side to be silenced.
I have never once called for even the wackiest of wackos to "be silenced." On the contrary, I implore them for evidence, to support their claims with that evidence and reasoned analysis thereof. More often than not, I might be better served discussing calculus with the dying tomato plants in my back yard, but one thing I do not demand is silence on the part of anyone. If that's the impression you've received, combined with your apparent view that I consider modern civilization invincible, then your impression is terribly inaccurate.
In closing, I'm not sure what this "debate" is supposed to be about. Your position seems to consist of listing events of varying degrees of terribleness and claiming that they could happen, though you don't know how or when, only that they might have a "high" probability. Nonetheless, you cannot offer any calculations or compelling arguments in support of those claims.
I guess that's everything, and I'm glad, because I'm as tired of typing as anybody who made it this far likely is of reading. This post might contain an above-average number of typographical errors.
Dane Christensen (guest) 06 Sep 2010 05:34
(account deleted)
.
