|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects
#14470692 - 05/17/11 10:55 PM (13 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
If you've got any ideas on manmade technology that ,upon mans inability to maintain once he's wiped out, will leave behind nasty effects on the planet then post em here. Anything like nuclear power plants, oil pipelines, stored diseases etc.
More importantly, help come up with ideas to remedy such technological malfunctions and post them here too.
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes


Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder] 3
#14471324 - 05/18/11 01:24 AM (13 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
You know oxygen came about as essentially a poisonous pollutant?
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Sleepwalker] 2
#14471480 - 05/18/11 02:12 AM (13 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
This. The whole concept of 'malfunctions' is based on an implicit assumption that the world after we've gone is supposed to work in a particular way. Which isn't the case; life will simply adapt.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14472488 - 05/18/11 10:27 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Don't be all "it is what it is".
Think.
Not too hard, just a little.
The entire atmosphere is filled with the radiation from 500+ nuclear power plants melting down, eventually megatons of poisonous gas, which no living creature would adapt to, will be packing our atmosphere as well. Massive catastrophic earthquakes from disturbances in the faultline after our oil drilling plants burst and malfunction...... And u quoted me saying "malfunction" is based on some irrelevant assumption, no I said technological malfunction, meaning the technology ceases to work properly and has a strong influence on the condition of the planet. I wouldn't mind letting the earth do whatever it's gonna do naturally knowing that our technology isn't going to cause a significant change in it's functioning. I don't see any current life on this planet withstanding such a catastrophe. The thread is not titled "do you care if all life will be wiped out after humans are gone?"
I, personally do, and just for fun am interested in plans to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring.
If you dint give a shit about life remaining on this planet then don't bother telling me about it in this thread because it's irrelevant. Thanks.
Edited by LightShedder (05/18/11 10:38 AM)
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14472499 - 05/18/11 10:31 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
This. The whole concept of 'malfunctions' is based on an implicit assumption that the world after we've gone is supposed to work in a particular way. Which isn't the case; life will simply adapt.
I'm not assuming anything is "supposed to work in a particular way".
But you are implying that because you don't believe so, you're content with us causing the destruction of every creature because "nothing is supposed to work in any particular way"
I am in such admiration of your non-dualistic philosophy!
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14472508 - 05/18/11 10:34 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I'll start the thread off by pasting a post I made in another thread in regards to a solution for the NPPs.
"Have a computerized system in place with every facility that requires a password to be typed in every day. If the password is ever not typed in every day, then after 3 non-password-authorized days, the computer engages a deconstruction program on the reactors uranium/plutonium etc. with equipment installed into facility. This way, if were not around for 3 days it'd be a good indicator that it has got to be disabled within 3 weeks or however long the generators would last."
|
djnoktirnal
Ponderer



Registered: 04/26/06
Posts: 195
Loc: the psychabyss
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14472551 - 05/18/11 10:44 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: , stored diseases etc.
The entire atmosphere is filled with the radiation from 500+ nuclear power plants melting down, eventually megatons of poisonous gas, which no living creature would adapt to, will be packing our atmosphere as well. Massive catastrophic earthquakes from disturbances in the faultline after our oil drilling plants burst and malfunction......
um... maybe a better understanding of how some of this works would be required to know that mere absense of humans does not mean disaster. In fact, the end result would be a planet similar to the one that existed before our arrival on the scene. Stored diseases? Where did we collect these from? Did we not wipe some of these organisms from the globe?(destruction of nature?) Some diseases only exist in CDC labs. Power plants are mostly automated. Hydroelectric dams could possibly proce electricty for 50yrs or more with no human intervention. Nuclear plants have an automatic shutdown feature. For 500 plants across the world to be melting down, some catastrophe would have to cause damage. With damage that widespread across the globe, some global natural disaster would have had to occur; in which case the planet's remaining life will have much bigger problems than what WE left behind. Nature works with or without us... we should not presume to think we know how to "fix" nature. We can't engineer the planet's environment without harmful consequences.
-------------------- WWJDWWMD's? What Would Jesus Do With Weapons of Mass Destruction?
 
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: djnoktirnal]
#14472572 - 05/18/11 10:49 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Before you tell someone who's obviously done far more research than yourself, why dont you actually go take your own advice?
Look at links I posted in the overpopulation thread and you'll be guided in the direction towards some truth.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: djnoktirnal]
#14472577 - 05/18/11 10:50 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Before you tell someone who's obviously done far more research than yourself to do research, why dont you actually go take your own advice?
Look at links I posted in the overpopulation thread and you'll be guided in the direction towards some truth.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14472621 - 05/18/11 10:59 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Are you sure NPP have automated shutdown features??? I've read a lot that would confirm that they don't.
|
djnoktirnal
Ponderer



Registered: 04/26/06
Posts: 195
Loc: the psychabyss
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14472669 - 05/18/11 11:10 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
actually they do check out the incidents at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, run by TVA. Last month, tornadoes took out all electricity to the plant. Backup generators came online. The reactor shut itself down. This is the way they are designed to work. Obviously, with major damage this is not always the case. Fukushima tried to shut itself down.... just too much damage from the earthquake and following tsunami. I have done research. It's pretty much all I do. I read 5-6 hours a day. From what I have observed in life, humans seem to do more harm than good when trying to fix something we don't even know for sure is broken, because we don't fully understand it. I believe we have begun using technologies too early, without understanding consequences. Also, i fail to see the similarities between a planet overpopulated with Humans and one with none. Why are ALL humans going to gone? Will the event that removes us from the planet leave all other species unharmed? Would "bad" things happen if we all were gone? I think so. Everything we build will eventually crumble. But would the tragedy not be much worse, if the same events occurred with us here? I'm not getting what specific things would harm the planet without active human participation. For example, dams would eventually fail, releasing captive waters - the river returns to its natural state. Locally, wildlife will die, but not widespread. If stored diseases are released, with the exception of bio engineered or weaponized bugs, things just go back to the way they were before we captured said disease. Bio-weapons usually target humans if im not mistaken, so they probably wouldn't survive long without us. Personally, I just don't see much to actively fear. Definitely not enough to stir up fears in others. Besides if ALL humans are gone, it doesn't matter anyway. Sustainable living should be a means of preservation of our species. Not preservation of all other species at the expense of our eradication.
-------------------- WWJDWWMD's? What Would Jesus Do With Weapons of Mass Destruction?
 
Edited by djnoktirnal (05/18/11 11:28 AM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14472771 - 05/18/11 11:28 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
You know oxygen came about as essentially a poisonous pollutant?
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
This. The whole concept of 'malfunctions' is based on an implicit assumption that the world after we've gone is supposed to work in a particular way. Which isn't the case; life will simply adapt.
Great posts, I agree whole heartedly.
If we dont leave behind broken nuclear waste containers, then we deny future species the ability utilize that unique environment. Choosing not to leave nuclear waste is still making a choice, a choice that is against one future species and for another. All man's 'waste' can be viewed as such. For every six pack plastic ring we cut up - we deny some species a meal.
If we choose not to decide we still have made a choice.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14472772 - 05/18/11 11:28 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: But you are implying that because you don't believe so, you're content with us causing the destruction of every creature because "nothing is supposed to work in any particular way"
I am in such admiration of your non-dualistic philosophy!
You make the false assumption that, because I know that life will adapt through processes of evolution to whatever mess we leave behind whenever humanity ceases to exist, I don't care about how we treat our environment. Again, that is a false assumption.
Anyway, what you seem to be trying to say, is that our current use of technology will ultimately lead to undesirable results, and our current behavior is therefore maybe even immoral. My response to that is that nature itself has, in my firm belief, no inherent concept of morality; not as an abstract concept, and not in the form of specific norms. Normative thinking is a human construct, and hence, when humans seize to be, our norms seize to be. The 'undesirable' results I mention are an example of what a human being considers as essentially 'wrong'. However, 'wrong' doesn't exist in nature outside the human mind. When we are gone, our concepts of right and wrong will be gone along with us. The fact that we may (will) leave an environment that is uninhabitable to humans is then irrelevant, because we are gone already. Whatever is left of nature will adapt to the circumstances. And maybe, somewhere very far in the future, some emergent life form will reinvent normative thinking, and the concepts of right and wrong. It would be interesting to see how the specific implementation of those concepts will look like: i.e. what will they (the intelligent species that comes long after we've gone) consider as right and wrong? I believe that it is highly unlikely that they will have exactly the same general conceptions of right and wrong that we humans have (apart from the fact that in this respect, humans themselves are very much divided to begin with).
I ask you then: what is the relevance of applying our human norms to a world in which humans have ceased to be, as you essentially asked in your initial question? I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, I'm just pointing towards a very fundamental philosophical issue that your question relies on, and I think it's too easy to step over it by attempting to insult those who bring it to the fore. You want discussion? Then you'll get it. Then don't whine if it goes somewhere where you appear to be unable to follow it.
Quote:
LightShedder said: Are you sure NPP have automated shutdown features??? I've read a lot that would confirm that they don't.
Then you haven't really read much. Here's a very brief overview of what you've missed in your 'research': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_systems
|
djnoktirnal
Ponderer



Registered: 04/26/06
Posts: 195
Loc: the psychabyss
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14472865 - 05/18/11 11:44 AM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
LightShedder said: But you are implying that because you don't believe so, you're content with us causing the destruction of every creature because "nothing is supposed to work in any particular way"
I am in such admiration of your non-dualistic philosophy!
You make the false assumption that, because I know that life will adapt through processes of evolution to whatever mess we leave behind whenever humanity ceases to exist, I don't care about how we treat our environment. Again, that is a false assumption.
Anyway, what you seem to be trying to say, is that our current use of technology will ultimately lead to undesirable results, and our current behavior is therefore maybe even immoral. My response to that is that nature itself has, in my firm belief, no inherent concept of morality; not as an abstract concept, and not in the form of specific norms. Normative thinking is a human construct, and hence, when humans seize to be, our norms seize to be. The 'undesirable' results I mention are an example of what a human being considers as essentially 'wrong'. However, 'wrong' doesn't exist in nature outside the human mind. When we are gone, our concepts of right and wrong will be gone along with us. The fact that we may (will) leave an environment that is uninhabitable to humans is then irrelevant, because we are gone already. Whatever is left of nature will adapt to the circumstances. And maybe, somewhere very far in the future, some emergent life form will reinvent normative thinking, and the concepts of right and wrong. It would be interesting to see how the specific implementation of those concepts will look like: i.e. what will they (the intelligent species that comes long after we've gone) consider as right and wrong? I believe that it is highly unlikely that they will have exactly the same general conceptions of right and wrong that we humans have (apart from the fact that in this respect, humans themselves are very much divided to begin with).
I ask you then: what is the relevance of applying our human norms to a world in which humans have ceased to be, as you essentially asked in your initial question? I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, I'm just pointing towards a very fundamental philosophical issue that your question relies on, and I think it's too easy to step over it by attempting to insult those who bring it to the fore. You want discussion? Then you'll get it. Then don't whine if it goes somewhere where you appear to be unable to follow it.
Quote:
LightShedder said: Are you sure NPP have automated shutdown features??? I've read a lot that would confirm that they don't.
Then you haven't really read much. Here's a very brief overview of what you've missed in your 'research': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_systems
 i love you gave him the link to a specific emergency shutdown technology. Without these safeties, every nuclear plant would probably already have melted down. I don't know, but I assume the NRC has documentation of every incident of a reactor automatically shutting down in the US. How many humans have died as a result of nuclear power plant incidents worldwide since the first reactor came online? Wildlife? Check the death tolls for natural disasters over the same period. Which is higher? I tend to think that nature > humans, and nature has the abilities to destroy all life in the universe, along with the universe itself. We humans think very highly of ourselves, thinking we can rule nature and thinking we can destroy it. We would be even more arrogant to assume that nature would somehow need us back if we were gone. Although, humans did come about to serve a purpose on the planet, as all species did. The loss of ANY species is a great loss. Nature always finds a way to fit another creature into that niche. IMO, If you really wanna break down right and wrong, in nature, wrong is that which is impossible or goes against natural laws, and right is possible and is consistent with natural laws.
-------------------- WWJDWWMD's? What Would Jesus Do With Weapons of Mass Destruction?
 
Edited by djnoktirnal (05/18/11 01:13 PM)
|
FunkMasterShroom
Stranger


Registered: 03/05/09
Posts: 1,379
Loc: Canada
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: djnoktirnal]
#14475966 - 05/18/11 10:34 PM (13 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side. "Adapt. Adjust. Accommodate." "Professional help is being thought." - Bill Hicks It would be hilarious... if it wasn't so sad...
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14478679 - 05/19/11 01:35 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said: I think it's too easy to step over it by attempting to insult those who bring it to the fore. You want discussion? Then you'll get it. Then don't whine if it goes somewhere where you appear to be unable to follow it.
I was being too harsh when I wrote this. I take this passage back. I still stand for the other things I wrote though. My point is valid. My communication was flawed though.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: DieCommie]
#14479280 - 05/19/11 03:34 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
You know oxygen came about as essentially a poisonous pollutant?
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
This. The whole concept of 'malfunctions' is based on an implicit assumption that the world after we've gone is supposed to work in a particular way. Which isn't the case; life will simply adapt.
Great posts, I agree whole heartedly.
If we dont leave behind broken nuclear waste containers, then we deny future species the ability utilize that unique environment. Choosing not to leave nuclear waste is still making a choice, a choice that is against one future species and for another. All man's 'waste' can be viewed as such. For every six pack plastic ring we cut up - we deny some species a meal.
If we choose not to decide we still have made a choice.
Yep. Why limit the biodiversity of our planet? Those that benefit from radiation, for example, would be stunted.
This is a decent issue I think with a lot of the approaches to environmental protection. The whole thing seems pretty ad hoc. Is there any particular reason we should care about species going extinct per se? I can dig the efforts to reduce pollution and soforth thats noxious and stinky, but nonutilitarian efforts or speculative ones (much of the global warming remediation efforts or ideas) seem to often be based on some unjustified presumptions.
Basically, the original poster seems to be begging the question of whether this would be a 'bad' situation. Is there any particular way to tell that's persuasive? How exactly do we decide such in the event of humans not existing? It seems the best measures we have are basically utilitarian and based on our preferences for clean water, air, et cet. Without us, though, does it really matter?
edit: wrote this while half-way through the thread. Koraks said essentially the same thing as I did, didn't mean to disregard his position. especially: "I ask you then: what is the relevance of applying our human norms to a world in which humans have ceased to be, as you essentially asked in your initial question?"
Edited by johnm214 (05/19/11 03:37 PM)
|
FlasharaFirewind
Shambhalite



Registered: 01/26/10
Posts: 60
Loc: BC, Canada
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: FunkMasterShroom]
#14480713 - 05/19/11 08:06 PM (13 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- The dream is over...or has it just begun? "Was it the trout? the tuna? No sir, it was the halibut!" - April 17 2010 trippin ballz on dxm
|
I R Crankey
bang bang choo choo


Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 2,005
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: FlasharaFirewind]
#14489159 - 05/21/11 10:58 AM (13 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
"try a google search. goodbye."
BWAHHAHAHHAHAHA that was great  
i wish i could have everything ill ever need/want for free.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: I R Crankey]
#14519014 - 05/27/11 01:26 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"you're content with us causing the destruction of every creature "
Please tell me how we could destroy every creature.
All the environmental damage we have done, and all we will do, pales in comparison to the 100's of asteroid impacts and super volcano eruptions that have occurred throughout earth's history. The only thing needed to recover from these effects is time. As long as liquid water exists on earth, life will persist.
|
Wise Toad


Registered: 06/08/10
Posts: 2,690
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14519035 - 05/27/11 01:36 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Who cares? The remaining life will adapt to whatever environment remains.
This. The whole concept of 'malfunctions' is based on an implicit assumption that the world after we've gone is supposed to work in a particular way. Which isn't the case; life will simply adapt.
This is where we disagree
Who can adapt to shitty movies, games, and other art forms without destroying themselves or already having severe mental problems
The death of the future will be our world cultures lack of taste 
we will poison the minds of the future
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Wise Toad]
#14519120 - 05/27/11 02:13 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wise Toad said: Who can adapt to shitty movies, games, and other art forms without destroying themselves or already having severe mental problems
The majority of the Western population does this, and I don't think they're destroying themselves or having severe mental problems.
I reckon that the Elders in some stone age village would have said the same thing you just wrote about the first youths brandishing bronze knives. The Elders disappeared, and bronze won over stone.
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14519974 - 05/27/11 09:30 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: Don't be all "it is what it is".
Think.
Not too hard, just a little.
The entire atmosphere is filled with the radiation from 500+ nuclear power plants melting down, eventually megatons of poisonous gas, which no living creature would adapt to, will be packing our atmosphere as well. Massive catastrophic earthquakes from disturbances in the faultline after our oil drilling plants burst and malfunction...... And u quoted me saying "malfunction" is based on some irrelevant assumption, no I said technological malfunction, meaning the technology ceases to work properly and has a strong influence on the condition of the planet. I wouldn't mind letting the earth do whatever it's gonna do naturally knowing that our technology isn't going to cause a significant change in it's functioning. I don't see any current life on this planet withstanding such a catastrophe. The thread is not titled "do you care if all life will be wiped out after humans are gone?"
I, personally do, and just for fun am interested in plans to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring.
If you dint give a shit about life remaining on this planet then don't bother telling me about it in this thread because it's irrelevant. Thanks.
This is nothing compared to the natural process of super-volcanoes erupting (luckily it takes quite some time for this to happen) and throwing unimaginable amounts of ash and SO2 into the atmosphere. It's also probable that the Earth will be hit by an asteroid at some point in time. It's theorized one of these events caused the K-T extinction which lead to us becoming what we are.
As said in the posts before mine, life will find a way to adapt as long as the particular variables essential for life to continue (any life not just chordates). It would be a fortunate event for every other species but ours to be honest. We're causing the most recent mass extinction. Most likely, in our absence, life on this planet would continue to thrive.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
Wise Toad


Registered: 06/08/10
Posts: 2,690
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14528850 - 05/28/11 11:46 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Wise Toad said: Who can adapt to shitty movies, games, and other art forms without destroying themselves or already having severe mental problems
The majority of the Western population does this, and I don't think they're destroying themselves or having severe mental problems.
I reckon that the Elders in some stone age village would have said the same thing you just wrote about the first youths brandishing bronze knives. The Elders disappeared, and bronze won over stone.
Perhaps it doesn't cause mental debilitation but is rather correlated with it
We are not talking about technological advancement such as that, moreso reality TV and twilight
its the prophesy idiocracy proclaims, We are fucked
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: mushiepussy]
#14534199 - 05/30/11 02:18 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushiepussy said: "you're content with us causing the destruction of every creature "
Please tell me how we could destroy every creature.
All the environmental damage we have done, and all we will do, pales in comparison to the 100's of asteroid impacts and super volcano eruptions that have occurred throughout earth's history. The only thing needed to recover from these effects is time. As long as liquid water exists on earth, life will persist.
Not true.... Man has the ability to destroy EVERYTHING on the planet today via nuclear weaponry..... This is not news.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14534443 - 05/30/11 04:48 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
News to me, how do you reach that conclusion? Seems to be nothing more than a common myth
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: johnm214]
#14535692 - 05/30/11 12:30 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
There are critics of the very idea of nuclear strategy for waging nuclear war who have suggested that a nuclear war between two nuclear powers would result in mutual annihilation. From this point of view, the significance of nuclear weapons is purely to deter war because any nuclear war would immediately escalate out of mutual distrust and fear, resulting in mutually assured destruction. This threat of national, if not global, destruction has been a strong motivation for anti-nuclear weapons activism. Critics from the peace movement and within the military establishment have questioned the usefulness of such weapons in the current military climate. The use of (or threat of use of) such weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, according to an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996.
Kenneth Waltz, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better," Adelphi Papers, no. 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981).
"Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age," New York Times Magazine (29 October 2006).
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14535815 - 05/30/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That is not the same as destroying "everything". From a political point of view, all humans dying is 'everything', but from a scientific view that is far from everything.
It has not ever been shown that man is capable of destroying everything on the planet.
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: DieCommie]
#14535889 - 05/30/11 01:03 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: That is not the same as destroying "everything". From a political point of view, all humans dying is 'everything', but from a scientific view that is far from everything.
It has not ever been shown that man is capable of destroying everything on the planet.
Yea, youre right. I mis-stated my point. But I personally think they could do a good job at laying waste to just about everything.
|
snoot
look alive ∞




Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,644
Loc: 45º parallel
Last seen: 20 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14535906 - 05/30/11 01:07 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I was picking up a can the other day in the woods, and I had noticed a lil critter had made a home in it, and for a minute I felt like an asshole picking up litter.
--------------------
∞ I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity. - Simone de Beauvoir -
|
Wise Toad


Registered: 06/08/10
Posts: 2,690
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: snoot]
#14536323 - 05/30/11 02:34 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, there is no way the US would get rid of all the nukes unless it had something even more devastating, still waiting on that satellite weapon
Destruction of the world depends on a great many things. If enough megatons were used in the right way it would be possible to divide the world into pieces which would destroy its orbit/get rid of all the water and other nature based life support systems since there would be no atmosphere to hold it
Even then the surface could still be covered in dormant microbes but I doubt there would be anything active on the surface, who knows
Nuclear winter is possible. Cockroaches and the microbes at the bottom of the sea(especially the thermophilic lifeforms that live off of volcano vents) could remain, depends on how thorough the earth is glazed. The ultra powered vacuum that is the mushroom cloud would shoot many things off into space, even now there are things up there from Hiroshima/Nagasaki and sometimes they even reenter the atmosphere. If something could survive that it would be hurtled off into space at high speeds to meet a new planet, life coming out of death(its like "The Fountain" fro those of you who have seen that
If it could survive it would adapt, can you imagine how life would adapt and evolve on an irradiated Earth
Unless the life adapted to clean up the waste it would be designed to live with or off nuclear radiation though the latter would be disastrous as they would quickly run out of waste to feed off of but that's why adaptation takes time, so that big mistakes like that are not made. Biodiversity also prevents that, nature doesnt put all its eggs in one basket which is exactly why some life is likely to survive most disasters and return
All this makes me think about what life truly is, considering it has infinite forms and has been designed to survive through adaptation. Did it all start with some microscopic/chemical accident? Perhaps there was something before Archae Bacteria that slowly evolved into DNA or something even more basic. Some miraculous microscopic accident made us all, if there is infinity to exist then it had to happen. Was there ever an origin or has this been going on forever in a continuous state and if so what made the universe
Its possible that logic made the universe, the existence of nonexistence is paradoxical therefore we exist
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14536628 - 05/30/11 03:58 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Inner Eye said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: That is not the same as destroying "everything". From a political point of view, all humans dying is 'everything', but from a scientific view that is far from everything.
It has not ever been shown that man is capable of destroying everything on the planet.
Yea, youre right. I mis-stated my point. But I personally think they could do a good job at laying waste to just about everything.
Why? The papers I've looked at, again, seem to suggest this is a myth: even if we're only talking about human survival.
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: There are critics of the very idea of nuclear strategy for waging nuclear war who have suggested that a nuclear war between two nuclear powers would result in mutual annihilation. From this point of view, the significance of nuclear weapons is purely to deter war because any nuclear war would immediately escalate out of mutual distrust and fear, resulting in mutually assured destruction. This threat of national, if not global, destruction has been a strong motivation for anti-nuclear weapons activism. Critics from the peace movement and within the military establishment have questioned the usefulness of such weapons in the current military climate. The use of (or threat of use of) such weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, according to an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996.
Kenneth Waltz, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better," Adelphi Papers, no. 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981).
"Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age," New York Times Magazine (29 October 2006).
I don't see how the use or threat of them is a violation of law. The law only requires that civilian casualties be avoided were possible and that the likely effects be proportionate to the military signifigance. Take Japan in WWII: the history of the Pacifc campaign showed the Japanese to be total retards who'd refuse to surrender. The civilian population was being almost entirely entered into service as militia. The deaths would have been huge, despite no useful military objection being served by the resisting. A nuclear bomb dropped after warning to vacate several cities of military importance seemed a proportionate response to me. Its often ridiculed, but the conventional bombings in WWII seemed far more suspect, and often far more deadly and destructive
As far as I can tell, there's good reason to question whether nuclear war would even have any liklihood of killing all or almost all human life, let alone 'everything'. From my understanding, this kinda hype resulted after the hydrogen bombs were developed and people compared hiroshima and nagasaki with the comparitively small yields of the H bomb technology available. A thousand fold increase in explosive power doesn't result in a thousand fold increase in deaths, destruction, or even applied destrcutive power. Even ignoring the density decreases outside cities, the blast wave falls off exponentially with distance, so a linear comparison to prior cases is silly. Its for this very reason, and better delivery systems, that modern weapons are much smaller yield than the maximum easily available.
I don't know what the state of research on this is, but the following paper seems interesting and persuasive on a number of points:
The global health effects of nuclear war. Brian Martin, Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 7, December 1982, pp. 14-26. http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/82cab/index.html
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,282
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: johnm214]
#14663716 - 06/24/11 03:18 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In the vastness of space, Earth is essentially nothing. Life is even more meaningless. What are the consequences of the disappearance of life? Nobody will be around to observe this change. Even if there are other beings who appreciate beauty and have emotions like we do, what are the odds that they'll ever reach this planet? The change would be so insignificant.
--------------------
Take a look at my journal
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Darwin23]
#14665628 - 06/24/11 01:52 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Plastic house!
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14679652 - 06/27/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
@ Lightshedder - I like your sig 
I won't delve into technical jargon or spin semantics (too much.) I see the state of the planet as being unmanageable. Humanity has made itself a nest too complex - something critical will eventually fail: Agreed.
I dare say that a whole, systemic solution is unmanageable. Therefore, community preparedness ( lost on the majority of Americans) has it's place here. The communal bomb shelter is not outdated, they're becoming envouge once again, with a new spin of course - serious longevity.
I beg to argue that if you see a train coming down the tracks, prepare to move yourself - or not.
So, what do we do about impending danger? Do for yourself what you can, or seek out like-minded people for a more comprehensive analysis and follow-up. All the jokers who run around self-assured that everything is OK, all will continue as is, they may be correct for a time, maybe a long time even, but one day they will be wrong.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
dzza


Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 143
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: PassiveAgressive]
#14682504 - 06/27/11 08:50 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Old thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents-
For anyone interested in this topic, I read a book a few years ago entitled The World Without Us, or something like that. The book examined what would happen to the world if humans disappeared over night. This approach has pros and cons. On the one hand, it could be more devastating because there is no one to lessen certain hazards i.e safely store nuclear waste etc. However it ignores the idea that humans, in their last moments, might take a good chunk of the environment with them to oblivion. I believe the posited scenario was something like a bird-flu pandemic.
Anyway, with regard to nuclear power plants, it is likely that eventually environmental factors would corrode any emergency valves and allow for nuclear waste contamination. While this is terrible for any living being right now, one might also consider that in the aftermath of the (now second?) worst nuclear accident in history, chernobyl resembles a wildlife refuge. Humans moved out and animals/wildlife adapted and moved in over time.
One interesting consideration that the book investigated was microplastics, like the plastic shavings/biproducts that find their way into the ocean or other water sources. These plastics are then ingested and destroy a fundamental part of the oceans biosphere.
The book's conclusion, as well as others in this thread and mine too, is that the world will get by just fine without us. There's not much sense in worrying about what's going to happen when people are gone.
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: dzza]
#14683003 - 06/27/11 10:19 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dzza said: Old thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents-
For anyone interested in this topic, I read a book a few years ago entitled The World Without Us, or something like that. The book examined what would happen to the world if humans disappeared over night. This approach has pros and cons. On the one hand, it could be more devastating because there is no one to lessen certain hazards i.e safely store nuclear waste etc. However it ignores the idea that humans, in their last moments, might take a good chunk of the environment with them to oblivion. I believe the posited scenario was something like a bird-flu pandemic.
Anyway, with regard to nuclear power plants, it is likely that eventually environmental factors would corrode any emergency valves and allow for nuclear waste contamination. While this is terrible for any living being right now, one might also consider that in the aftermath of the (now second?) worst nuclear accident in history, chernobyl resembles a wildlife refuge. Humans moved out and animals/wildlife adapted and moved in over time.
One interesting consideration that the book investigated was microplastics, like the plastic shavings/biproducts that find their way into the ocean or other water sources. These plastics are then ingested and destroy a fundamental part of the oceans biosphere.
The book's conclusion, as well as others in this thread and mine too, is that the world will get by just fine without us. There's not much sense in worrying about what's going to happen when people are gone.
I was given The World Without Us as a gift. I read it and enjoyed it immensely. I still have it and will re-read it soon enough. The book gifted me a fresh outlook on our plight. I do not fear for our longevity. It will all be O.K. no matter the outcome.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,649
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: LightShedder]
#14690319 - 06/29/11 06:16 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If my unscientific source is to be believed, its most likely that power plants, factories and cities etc will be decommissioned in orderly fashion before our post-human successors will take to the forests and plains to live on without advanced technology. They'll probably either rocket the nuclear waste, which is the only pollution that really matters, into space or bury it in subduction zones to redissolve into the lava.
32011 AD will be very ecofriendly.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Asante]
#14690599 - 06/29/11 08:12 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wiccan_Seeker said: 32011 AD will be very ecofriendly.
D'you have a weather report for mid-June of that year as well? I'm flipping through the travel catalog and trying to decide on something.
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14691000 - 06/29/11 10:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It would be very hard to recover from global event that even destroys say 90-95% of our species. Depending on the severity of damage to say cities, technology, education, etc... The amount of time it would take for humans to reproduce and form new civilizations would be fairly long. Also, we've used up easily accessible oil already so having huge wells that would produce appreciable amounts of oil with limited means of obtaining it probably wouldn't happen. You couldn't manufacture most of the stuff needed for the most modern alternative energy sources.
Off topic, but I'm quite scared for my daughter and her future. We consume energy in such ridiculous amounts, and look how much of the world has nowhere near the quality of life developed countries do. That scares me the most... I spend over $100 a week just to commute to college so that amounts to half my fucking cost for the home we live in every month.
I'm more afraid of something like fossil fuels becoming so inaccessible that they'd basically be unobtainable. It would be chaotic as fuck, and at that point people will be the biggest threat to themselves in densely populated areas.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,649
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
#14714551 - 07/04/11 07:37 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Off topic, but I'm quite scared for my daughter and her future. We consume energy in such ridiculous amounts
Are you scared to the point of using LED and CFL bulbs, having good insulatiuon in your home, reusing what you can etc and teaching her how to be energy efficient?
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Asante]
#14714558 - 07/04/11 07:41 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wiccan_Seeker said:
Quote:
Off topic, but I'm quite scared for my daughter and her future. We consume energy in such ridiculous amounts
Are you scared to the point of using LED and CFL bulbs, having good insulatiuon in your home, reusing what you can etc and teaching her how to be energy efficient?
What exactly are the net environmental costs/benefits of LED/CFL lights, insulation and re(down)cycling?
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,649
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14714942 - 07/04/11 10:05 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I made a calculation on a long-life CFL once and it turned out it during its service life saved a barrel of oil worth of energy. And it saves YOU that energy on your electricity bill. Thats pretty awesome.
Quote:
net environmental costs/benefits of LED/CFL lights, insulation and re(down)cycling?
Theres more mercury in that barrel of oil than in the CFL, for one.
And I can't imagine that CFL taking 200,000 kcal of energy to put together, not even counting whats being salvaged in recycling.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Asante]
#14714972 - 07/04/11 10:13 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wiccan_Seeker said: I made a calculation on a long-life CFL once
How? I mean, I interact professionally with several people who have worked in mass-production industries (process optimization, six-sigma stuff), and I've never met one who had a full overview of the production process, including the processes that produced in the procured inputs. So how did you assemble the required information? And how do you deal with the long-term environmental impact of materials that are included in e.g. LED lights? Stuff like gallium and arsenic doesn't sound like the most fun materials to play with in large volumes either, apart from the environmental impact of mining them. And what about the costs of R&D, in terms of energy use? Ever wondered what the environmental footprint of an R&D facility is? The hundreds/thousands of people that work there? How far must we go to ascertain the environmental impact of a product anyway? Before you know it, you're calculating the footprint of the entire economy.
I'm always skeptical of claims that one product is considerably better in terms of environmental impact than its predecessor. Regarding lighting, I'd rather see we develop energy sources that are more sustainable than that we have to invest in the development and production of relatively complex devices. Just look at a CFL vs. a light bulb, where the latter consists of less than a handful of simple components and mundane materials, while the former consists of far more components. Sure, they're small ones, but I've never known the electronics industry as a particularly environmentally friendly one.
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,649
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: koraks]
#14727769 - 07/06/11 07:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How?
I didnt look at the bulb itself, but at the energy saved throughout its service life for the end consumer.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
I R Crankey
bang bang choo choo


Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 2,005
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Asante]
#14732271 - 07/07/11 05:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
nvm.
Edited by I R Crankey (07/07/11 05:02 PM)
|
Wise Toad


Registered: 06/08/10
Posts: 2,690
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: I R Crankey]
#14732286 - 07/07/11 05:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
abandon hope all ye who enter here
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus



Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 9,127
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 2 days, 15 hours
|
Re: The catastrophe that mankind will leave behind, and ideas to counter effects [Re: Asante]
#14733174 - 07/07/11 08:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wiccan_Seeker said: I didnt look at the bulb itself, but at the energy saved throughout its service life for the end consumer.
Was that based on the expected life of the bulb according to the manufacturers? Because I've found them to be highly unpredictable and I'm pretty sure CFLs don't last anywhere near as long as the manufacturers claim they do. In fact, I've had a pretty high failure rate on the CFLs I've tried. And I just don't like the light they produce compared to traditional incandescent.
I believe LEDs would be a lot more energy efficient but I really hate they light they produce even more then CFLs.
-------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
|
|