• Welcome! SanctionedSuicide is a forum for the discussion of mental illness and suicide. Please read our rules and our Principles.
    If you are in need of immediate support, please call the Samaritans hotline at (877) 870-4673, or check our recovery resources.

pride and prejudeath

pride and prejudeath

Pride
Jul 27, 2018
13
I was always going to kill myself if there was a global collapse from war or natural disaster, but those were always a "what if" scenario. I believed there was a good enough chance they wouldn't happen (despite what my anxiety told me), and that I'd live as long as my parents have.

Then climate change walked in, a "when if". The rabbit hole was deep and terrifying.

This gave me a real push to do it, even if I'm waiting a few years for business as usual to start breaking down. The feedback loops lined up in our lifetime will make life Hell on Earth, and I don't want to be around to see that. Famine, elongated heatwaves, diseases from the arctic permafrost, water shortages. I don't want to experience that. Of course, I might ctb before things even get in the yellow, since my anxiety eats me alive.

I'm just pissed since this was all avoidable. We could and should have gone forward with ecologically friendly living years ago, decades ago, but we didn't, and now the world is teetering on the brink. The crash will be hard, and I don't want to hit the ground with it.
 
Revan

Revan

Darth
Jul 8, 2018
73
Yeah, Hawking said we need to get off this rock or humanity will perish because of climate change, and that's if we don't wipe ourselves out in a nuclear holocaust beforehand. Instead of working together to off this planet, however, we're busy fighting each other and meddling in the lives of celebrites. In my opinion, if humanity can't even work together for its own survival, it doesn't deserve to survive.
 
Volatile

Volatile

God
Jun 18, 2018
1,286
How do we know for sure if all that climate catastrophe is actually going to one day happen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strumgewehr
Justanotherconsumer

Justanotherconsumer

Paragon
Jul 9, 2018
974
1 volcanoe in a single day releases more co2 than in the history of man
 
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
Yeah, I know what you mean. I really should order myself a bit of N at some point. Neither me, or my mother, could survive in the brutal uncertainty of a post-collapse world, so having N on hand would be an enormous godsend. However, I doubt a collapse of that sort is in the cards. Short of a nuclear war or the clathrate bomb going off, things are probably going to play out in a much slower & more excruciating fashion. Like a torturer who decides he's going to take his sweet time with you, instead of just letting you die. That's not to say we're not currently in a state of collapse because we most certainly are. In fact, for me personally, I'd say that since about the 1970's we've, more or less, been in a perpetual state of collapse. One quick example of this being that without insidious self-defeating shit, like debt-financed growth, the world economy would have crumbled long ago. Now only surviving from a cannibalizing strategy, like a rasping parasite. That is, sucking out the remaining marrow from this dying planet & stealing from the future for our own benefit. So pathetically resilient is the system, that from this insane method of cannibalization it has somehow managed to limp along and partly even "thrived" as a result (assuming you can call shitting in your one & only nest thus making it unlivable "thriving"), is nothing short of terrifying being that it only worsens the conditions of collapse in the long run. That actual BAU tactics is nothing, but a clandestine operation of politics at large to siphon ever increasing mountains of wealth to the financial elite of society, is simply undeniable. The fact is, no real efforts have been, or will be made, to avoid the coming downward steps in the catabolic collapse of society, or the world (such as with the next global economic crisis, for instance). Then there's also the fact that peak conventional oil was a few decades ago, population is still exploding, the globe is warming quickly, and extinction rate is beyond Permian (etc. etc.) Ultimately though, I think that the painful, gradual decline of society will probably continue until it finally busts apart at the seams in about a decade or so, after the coming financial failures and natural disasters become too much to handle. A slow collapse is still hellish, if not more so in some respects, but at least there's still some semblance of stability & BAU. Things are bad and will continue to worsen, but, if you lack the constitution for suicide (as I do), then you can still technically afford to squeak by and slither on. In that sense, perhaps a fast collapse would be better since it equals a faster death instead of prolonged hardship, but you know. Whatever. I guess we'll see.


I'm just pissed since this was all avoidable. We could and should have gone forward with ecologically friendly living years ago, decades ago, but we didn't, and now the world is teetering on the brink. The crash will be hard, and I don't want to hit the ground with it.


You're damn right this was avoidable and it fucking pisses me off too. I mean seriously, we could have easily remained at this level of material excess, luxury and technological advancement for thousands of years, assuming we were a little more intelligent as a species, had a more sane arrangement of governance and, most importantly, that human population have been restricted under 100 million people. Instead, because the fucking breeders couldn't keep it in their god damned pants, human population skyrocketed to what is now 7.6 billion people, making these current living arrangements, which could've lasted millennia at a small enough scale, now last less than another 20 years (at best). At only 100 million people globally, technology would've had more than enough time to advance, to give us true AI, interstellar travel, virtual reality, you fucking name it. Climate change wouldn't have been an issue, extinction rates would be normal and biodiversity would be unphased, the world's corrals would still be alive, pollution (especially of the plastic variety) would be marginal at best (etc.) But now, because of again, fucking breeders, and the capitalist ethos of unrestrained infinite growth of population like a literal cancer, all those dreams of human ascension have been dashed. It pisses me off so much. It's impossible to put into words. THERE SIMPLY DIDN'T NEED TO BE THIS MANY FUCKING HUMANS! IT DIMINISHED US, IT SQUANDERED OUR FINITE TIME & RESOURCES AS A SPECIES, IT STOLE OUR POTENTIAL! IT FUCKING RUINED EVERYTHING!!! Now the only choices left are to either A. suffer apocalyptic collapse, or B. (although it's now far too late for this) become a bunch of eco-friendly hippy, anarcho-primitivists and forsake all modern convenience & technology, along with their continued evolution. And all because the breeders flooded the world with their ilk. Paying for the crime of their unconscious stupidity, at the cost of a future worth living in. Damn them all. If only we could have had benevolent alien overlords that made sure to educate & enlighten us far enough to where we could've exercised enough self-restraint to remain under the 100 million threshold. You'd have to do it in a Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke sort of way though and wait for the older generations to die off, otherwise we'd probably launch a nuke at them because "ain't no alien bustard gunna tell me whetherz i can have kidz or not!!!"


Yeah, Hawking said we need to get off this rock or humanity will perish because of climate change, and that's if we don't wipe ourselves out in a nuclear holocaust beforehand. Instead of working together to off this planet, however, we're busy fighting each other and meddling in the lives of celebrites. In my opinion, if humanity can't even work together for its own survival, it doesn't deserve to survive.

Think of the most inhospitable terrain on planet Earth (The Sahara Desert, Antarctica, or the depths of the ocean) . Now think about how those places are still 100000000x times easier to colonize than, let's say Mars, and yet we still can't even manage that. Humans thinking they're going to colonize anything beyond the dirt beneath our feet in such a short spans of time really is a staggering act of hubris. Like a bunch of ants thinking they're going to sail the Atlantic on a fucking leaf. Even sorting out the god damned Moon and putting a base up there would be too much for us pitiful humans to wrap our puny minds around. We ain't leaving shit (especially as long as capitalism is the dominant ideology). Again, we needed more time, but it was stolen from us by breeders wanting another bbbbbaaaayyyyybbbbbbeeeeeee. This rock is, and will be, our grave. It's high time we laid down in it for good.

 
Last edited:
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
How do we know for sure if all that climate catastrophe is actually going to one day happen?

It's already happening.

vIr2ulu.jpg
 
pride and prejudeath

pride and prejudeath

Pride
Jul 27, 2018
13
How do we know for sure if all that climate catastrophe is actually going to one day happen?

I find it curious someone with a Captain Planet icon would be denying the possibility of ecological collapse.

There's too much to go over, I was never well versed in the gathering sources for your argument field, but I've been down the rabbit hole of Terrifying Side Effects™ of it for months now. I'll prepare the primer and a few future feedback loops that scare me shitless.

NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet General overview.

The Sixth Mass Extinction Animals are dying off at unprecedented rates.

Clathrate Gun Hypothesis Methane trapped in frozen areas, if released, will go hard accelerating with that greenhouse gas effect that will make the climate change irreversable. There's unknowns of when it might happen, and how long it would take, but the idea is there and it's nightmare fuel.

Phytoplankton Die Off If the phytoplankton in the ocean all die (which they're expected to at 6C warming), a whole bunch of oxygen production will get cut off. That will suffocate us. It scares me shitless. We won't hit 6C in a year or two, but there's always things that aren't taken into account that could make them die faster than expected.

While there might be time to lower some of the possible damage, but it would probably take a World War Two level of work from every angle and company to stop it now. And that just isn't going to happen (especially not in America, considering the people in power).
 
D

Dip

Student
Jul 27, 2018
171
Yeah, I know what you mean...

Some good points, though I would also add the following:
-You have to continually grow the economy to offset diminishing returns. Efficiency improvements alone aren't enough because you also run into diminishing returns there (more and more resources invested for smaller and smaller improvements as you get closer and closer to the bare minimum mass/energy needed to perform a particular function)
-Technology of any sort is reliant on cheap-to-extract resources, especially highly dense energy. The other celestial bodies in our solar system do not have such resources (either due to nothing of value being there, or the required energy/material investments being far too high relative to the return you would get)

EDIT: I suppose the below doesn't matter much since you've already acknowledged that it's too late for us to go back to more primitive ways.

-Civilized humans can ill afford to just go simpler ways en mass because

--There are around 4000 spent nuclear fuel ponds and 400 nuclear power plants dotted around the world that require industrial civilization to function
--Almost all the soil being used for farming has been farmed using various chemical fertilizers and pesticides that have rendered the soil dead and thus useless for more primitive humans for many years to come. Even farming communities like the Amnish (however you spell that) in the USA use various modern chemicals for farming
--The firsthand knowledge/experience/skills for living as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers is almost completely lost. Of the current 7.6 billion humans only a few isolated tribes are able to "live off the land" without support from industrial civilization
--Given the dead soils and nuclear radiation that would inevitably be released from unmaintained nuclear facilities very little (possibly even zero) percentage of the Earth's surface will be habitable by humans. Being in the right sufficiently isolated place and having all the skills/knowledge/experience for surviving in that place over the long term AND using only that place's resources will be very unlikely for civilized humans.

Even sorting out the god damned Moon and putting a base up there would be too much for us pitiful humans to wrap our puny minds around.

It might have been possible to operate a tiny moon base for a while with a global effort (especially when resources were much cheaper to extract and our systemic costs such as pollution/complexity/debt were lower) but it would still be entirely dependent on receiving resources from Earth, which is likely why it has never been done.

Given all the dense energy on this planet in the form of wood and fossil fuels it was probably inevitable that some species would eventually take advantage of it. It just turned out that species was us. By the way, are you familiar with the site Our Finite World?

I've already gone into way more detail than I intended, so if you want more details I can give you a list of resources that I built up over the years. I didn't save links for data relating to other celestial bodies but you can check that on NASA and other sites.

If the phytoplankton in the ocean all die

The overall trend for the last few thousand years has been depletion of phytomass, as shown in figure 3 in zeta joules:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534254/
 
Last edited:
R

ReleaseMe

I know it's over And it never really began
May 26, 2018
121
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
You have to continually grow the economy to offset diminishing returns

Yep. Joseph Tainter & the ideas he lays out in "Collapse of Complex Societies" come to mind here. That is, the need for growth arises from people trying to solve problems. These problems are not solved by more sustainability or more common sense, but always by more growth. An introduction of new unsustainable methods, establishing more organization, harvesting more resources, (etc.), all of which increase complexity, which in turn causes new problems of its own. Size is one of such problems, because it requires more overarching organizational structures to keep all interacting parts of the system connected with each other. Not to mention, that the EROEI on a barrel of oil is practically 1:1 these days, whereas in the heady days of civilization's rapacious & self-destructive quest for more growth to try and solve the problems that more growth brings, the EROEI was more like 1000:1 (such as at the infamously rich oil fields of Spindletop in Texas in the early 20th century, for instance). Also, the energy density of renewables, when taken altogether, account for less than 2-5% the energy density of fossil fuels/petroleum. Try running modern civilization, accounting also for its projected growth, on that. Ain't gonna happen. At the right scale, renewables are a beautiful fusion of function & form, but that's the key word here. SCALE. The only thing that has ever come close to meeting civilizations grotesque needs, has been nuclear which has, I believe, 30-40% the energy density of fossil fuels/petroleum. Here we have the cheerleading for nuclear power by the likes of James Hansen and such, but can you blame them? It's the only substitute for fossil fuels, bar none. From their mind, they want to keep civilization afloat for as long as possible so, therefore, it simply must be done. Granted civilization collapsing would cause mass death & suffering, but that's simply unavoidable at this point. Nuclear won't solve anything, but you can still certainly understand their reasoning on the matter. It's all bullshit though because at the end of the day, you're never going to have jumbo jets, CAT construction equipment, or cargo ships be run on nuclear. Fossil fuels have a portability, malleability & ease of use that no other energy source can match (even outside of energy density). That's not even getting into how much is synthesized with fossil fuels that ends up in so many key areas of society that we couldn't get by without (petrochemicals, asphalt, petroleum coke, and many other items which range from refrigerators to replacement heart valves etc.) It's all a complex web of madness and we're thoroughly caught in it.

Technology of any sort is reliant on cheap-to-extract resources, especially highly dense energy.

Yes, you're 100% correct. All the low hanging energy dense fruit on this planet has already, long ago, been picked & squandered. Short of constructing a Dyson Sphere around the Sun (the kind spawned from the crack addled visions of hopium addicts like Neil DeGrasse Tyson), this solar system is a graveyard of energy resources. With the sole exception of Titan, I suppose (a moon around Saturn, which has entire oceans of petroleum). We'd probably drink it all up in less than a year anyway, due to, again, the cold mathematical reality of the exponential function, as it relates to our unending pursuit of continued growth. As far as technology is concerned, anything of the modern variety is, indeed, utterly dependent on cheap energy. That's why I have my doubts about automation/AI. We simply don't have the energy for it. If we were only 100 million globally and, as a result, had a much larger reservoir of remaining cheap energy, then yes. It'd absolutely be a concern. In the world we actually live in though? The 7.6 billion and rising one? Not a chance. Now don't get me wrong. Millions of jobs have been, and will continue to be, eaten up by automation, causing more social unrest/strains on the economy, but this cockamamie notion that the rich will eventually just kick back and let robots do literally everything, while the 99% of the rest of us starve in the gutter, is pure dystopic fantasy of the Bladerunner variety. As is any hope of AI coming into being within the time we have left, but that's neither here nor there.




There are around 4000 spent nuclear fuel ponds and 400 nuclear power plants dotted around the world that require industrial civilization to function

Bingo. This right here is what utterly seals our fate. You ever seen the movie "Speed" with Keanu Reeves & Dennis Hopper? Because this is most certainly a "Speed" situation. Civilization is the bus & nuclear power plants are the bomb. It takes decades of time, money and, most importantly, CHEAP ENERGY to fully decommission a nuclear power plant. And yet the world keeps building more and more of them to sustain its own growth and to not let the bus slow down, thus ensuring that the inevitable collapse is even more terminal. The fallout & damages from Fukushima alone is enough to drain the blood from any sane person's face, what with the hundreds of thousands of gallons of Tritium tainted heavy water (nuclear waste) that has been, and is still being, dumped continuously into the pacific ocean. Even Chernobyl's "concrete sarcophagus" still requires constant maintenance, and was originally built at the cost of workers literally having to go to their death just to make it. With rising seas and a more unstable climate, any nuclear power plants near the coast (which many of them are, since it's more expensive to have water pumped further inland) are completely fucked. There's no time or money to move them, so there's guaranteed to be more Fukushima's in the future, I'm afraid to say. Which, naturally, in turn, will contribute to the inevitable collapse and total disintegration of the biosphere.


Almost all the soil being used for farming has been farmed using various chemical fertilizers and pesticides that have rendered the soil dead and thus useless for more primitive humans for many years to come.

The firsthand knowledge/experience/skills for living as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers is almost completely lost.

Again, bingo. The below clip from James Burke and his concept of the "Technology Trap" immediately came to mind. This is not the same world of 1000 years ago. The entire planet has been laid barren and, even without the threat of nuclear devastation, the entire climate will be, and currently is, so unpredictable and erratic that even IF people could recover the knowledge/experience of our barbaric, yet hardy ancestors, they'd, in all likelihood, still die. As you said yourself, even traditionalist groups like the Amish can hardly accomplish by hand what their forefathers were able to with vastly inferior technology. Factor in a more unstable/uncertain climate and yeah. Doesn't leave much hope for the rest of us, now does it? I don't care how much "permaculture" you engage in. You're still fucked. Don't do it because you hope that it'll ensure you're survival. Do it because these are the end times, and it's what you love to do.




Given the dead soils and nuclear radiation that would inevitably be released from unmaintained nuclear facilities very little (possibly even zero) percentage of the Earth's surface will be habitable by humans.

Knocking it out of the park here, I must say. Again, I agree completely and have posted about this sort of thing before on this site here (https://sanctioned-suicide.org/thre...r-days-i-am-terrified-of-death.631/#post-7707) & here (https://sanctioned-suicide.org/threads/is-intelligence-a-curse.1315/#post-15850). I really find it hard to believe much of anything will survive. Perhaps a few scattered microbes. That's about it. Certainly not any humans, that's for damn sure. Some rich cunts might go and entomb themselves in a fancy hole in the ground, but that's all it will really be. A hole in the ground. A hole which, before they'd know it, would end up being their grave.


It might have been possible

And that's what pisses me off the most. Of course it was possible. More than possible, even. If we had the time & energy. Now I realize that even at a restricted global population of 100 million, resources would've still been finite and fossil fuels/petroleum would still have had a deleterious effect on the biosphere, but we would've had so much more time & energy to spare and our vastly tinier numbers would've left an enormously smaller mark on the planet's support systems. That extra time & energy could've allowed us to do even more amazing things. To evolve and grow as a species. Maybe even to accomplish some semblance of a utopia. Instead we pissed it all away on the retarded, dead end experiment of capitalism, which main function is to WASTE energy, to WASTE resources, to WASTE time, to WASTE human potential & ingenuity (etc.). Combine this with the ballooning of our population like some out of control yeast in a test tube and you have perhaps the worst/dumbest combination you could ever have the foolishness to make. I don't know. I just find it so frustrating. It just didn't have to be this way and, as much as I'd like to say I don't care and that humans are just like any animal who discovers a new energy source (multiply then crash), it still bothers me. We could've, and should've, done better, but oh well. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, as they say.

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine and the machine is bleeding to death.

Dead Flag Blues Lyric

 
Last edited:
D

Dip

Student
Jul 27, 2018
171
@Imaginos Holy moly some more good points. Given how well you've covered everything I'll just comment on a couple of points:

Fossil fuels have a portability, malleability & ease of use that no other energy source can match (even outside of energy density).

This made me figuratively smack my head since it was so obvious yet I still missed it haha. It's funny how one can so easily forget about all the extraordinary properties of fossil fuels.

It just didn't have to be this way and, as much as I'd like to say I don't care and that humans are just like any animal who discovers a new energy source (multiply then crash), it still bothers me. We could've, and should've, done better, but oh well. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, as they say.

That seems to come down to individual intelligence vs group intelligence. Then there's also the prisoner's dilemma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Although humans tend to be cooperative, that cooperation works best in small groups rather than the large groups we have today (corporations, countries, etc).

Perhaps a few scattered microbes.

Some of those lil bastards are pretty resilient. I won't go into detail here, but here's some resources I saved when I talked about this with others in the past.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC92012/
Ionizing-Radiation Resistance in the Desiccation-Tolerant Cyanobacterium Chroococcidiopsis. Of particular interest as it is a photoautotroph, synthesizing their own food from inorganic substances using light as an energy source.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGux5FH-BdcCie411y6FiZQ
Quick course on microbiology showcasing how resilient and ubiquitous microorganisms are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Of course there are plenty of resilient heterotrophs such as the tardigrade. The wiki info is general but it is well cited and provides a starting point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus
Radiotrophic fungi, granted the research is a bit preliminary but off to a good start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermococcus_gammatolerans
The most radiation-resistant organism encountered, it also lives in extremely acidic and hot environments.

https://micro.cornell.edu/research/epulopiscium/bacterial-endospores
Details how certain bacteria form endospores when confronted with adverse conditions. "Endospores can survive environmental assaults that would normally kill the bacterium. These stresses include high temperature, high UV irradiation, desiccation, chemical damage and enzymatic destruction. The extraordinary resistance properties of endospores make them of particular importance because they are not readily killed by many antimicrobial treatments. A variety of different microorganisms form "spores" or "cysts", but the endospores of low G+C Gram-positive bacteria are by far the most resistant to harsh conditions."

Then there are of course resilient macroorganisms like fruit flies. There's plenty of microscopic and some macroscopic organisms that should do fine even in a worst case scenario, do a search for "extremophiles" to learn about more such organisms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sohei and Tiburcio
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
@Imaginos

That seems to come down to individual intelligence vs group intelligence. Then there's also the prisoner's dilemma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Although humans tend to be cooperative, that cooperation works best in small groups rather than the large groups we have today (corporations, countries, etc).

Heh, interesting concept. Reminds me of that scene from the film "Battle Royale" where this group of girls promises not to kill each other and form a truce/alliance that directly benefits them all despite being in a brutal competition where everybody, save whoever is the sole survivor, must die, but then, of course, one of them decides to poison the rest in the hopes of getting a leg up, only to eventually end up dying herself as a result of said action. Either way, it's certainly quite a maddening facet of human psychology, and by extension organic physiology as a whole.

At the end of the day, humans, like all other lifeforms that we share this planet with, are dominated by the dictates of the MPP (maximum power principle). Living creatures of all kinds maintain steady states of extreme forcing. Human beings especially are essentially all super-consumers who burn through enormous amounts of chemical energy, degrading it and increasing the entropy of the universe, as we power the reactions in our cells. As an example in regards to fossil fuels (and one that also fits well within the "Prisoner's Dilemma") is that, even though not exploiting them is the best option, they carry such high potential economic value that I believe any government that would delay burning them would inevitably at some point receive an incentive to use fossil fuels again. In addition, societies that choose not to use fossil fuels will prove to be incapable of remaining economically competitive when faced with those societies that are willing to use fossil fuels. As a consequence, they still end up using fossil fuels. Logical insanity, as Dan Carlin once put it. Ultimately though, humans are no different than volcanoes, or asteroids. They cause large scale havoc and so do we. Each bringing countless other species into extinction, while inevitably destroying themselves in the process in a total orgy of devastation & death. Generation after generation of evolution has molded us to follow the maximum power principle. As much I hate to admit it, we cannot escape it. We never could. It is simply part of our nature. Hell, it is nature.

The maximum power principle or Lotka's principle has been proposed as the fourth principle of energetics in open system thermodynamics, where an example of an open system is a biological cell. According to Howard T. Odum, "The maximum power principle can be stated: During self-organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency.

MPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle


Some of those lil bastards are pretty resilient. I won't go into detail here, but here's some resources I saved when I talked about this with others in the past.

Yeah, I'm already familiar with extremophiles, but thanks for the info regardless. Personally, beyond just microbes, I can also see those organisms that exist around deep sea hydro thermal vents as being other potential candidates for survival (tubes worms and the like mostly). Then again, it's all quite pointless in the end, since it's estimated that in about a billion years time solar luminosity from the Sun will be so intense that it will boil away whatever remains of Earth's oceans and scorch the land to cinders. Perhaps something might evolve in the interim to "replace or come after us", but I highly doubt it, frankly. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, humans will probably be Earth's last experiment as far as the whole "intelligence" thing goes. What a sad, futile mess it's all been. Good riddance to it all.

One billion years from now, about 27% of the modern ocean will have been subducted into the mantle. If this process were allowed to continue uninterrupted, it would reach an equilibrium state where 65% of the current surface reservoir would remain at the surface.[51] Once the solar luminosity is 10% higher than its current value, the average global surface temperature will rise to 320 K (47 °C; 116 °F). The atmosphere will become a "moist greenhouse" leading to a runaway evaporation of the oceans.[84][85] At this point, models of the Earth's future environment demonstrate that the stratosphere would contain increasing levels of water. These water molecules will be broken down through photodissociation by solar ultraviolet radiation, allowing hydrogen to escape the atmosphere. The net result would be a loss of the world's sea water by about 1.1 billion years from the present.[86][87] This will be a simple dramatic step in annihilating all life on Earth.

Future of Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth#Solar_evolution
 
Last edited:
Volatile

Volatile

God
Jun 18, 2018
1,286
Heh, interesting concept. Reminds me of that scene from the film "Battle Royale" where this group of girls promises not to kill each other and form a truce/alliance that directly benefits them all despite being in a brutal competition where everybody, save whoever is the sole survivor, must die, but then, of course, one of them decides to poison the rest in the hopes of getting a leg up, only to eventually end up dying herself as a result of said action. Either way, it's certainly quite a maddening facet of human psychology, and by extension organic physiology as a whole.

At the end of the day, humans, like all other lifeforms that we share this planet with, are dominated by the dictates of the MPP (maximum power principle). Living creatures of all kinds maintain steady states of extreme forcing. Human beings especially are essentially all super-consumers who burn through enormous amounts of chemical energy, degrading it and increasing the entropy of the universe, as we power the reactions in our cells. As an example in regards to fossil fuels (and one that also fits well within the "Prisoner's Dilemma") is that, even though not exploiting them is the best option, they carry such high potential economic value that I believe any government that would delay burning them would inevitably at some point receive an incentive to use fossil fuels again. In addition, societies that choose not to use fossil fuels will prove to be incapable of remaining economically competitive when faced with those societies that are willing to use fossil fuels. As a consequence, they still end up using fossil fuels. Logical insanity, as Dan Carlin once put it. Ultimately though, humans are no different than volcanoes, or asteroids. They cause large scale havoc and so do we. Each bringing countless other species into extinction, while inevitably destroying themselves in the process in a total orgy of devastation & death. Generation after generation of evolution has molded us to follow the maximum power principle. As much I hate to admit it, we cannot escape it. We never could. It is simply part of our nature. Hell, it is nature.



MPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle




Yeah, I'm already familiar with extremophiles, but thanks for the info regardless. Personally, beyond just microbes, I can also see those organisms that exist around deep sea hydro thermal vents as being other potential candidates for survival (tubes worms and the like mostly). Then again, it's all quite pointless in the end, since it's estimated that in about a billion years time solar luminosity from the Sun will be so intense that it will boil away whatever remains of Earth's oceans and scorch the land to cinders. Perhaps something might evolve in the interim to "replace or come after us", but I highly doubt it, frankly. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, humans will probably be Earth's last experiment as far as the whole "intelligence" thing goes. What a sad, futile mess it's all been. Good riddance to it all.
In general, what are some of your favorite books?
 
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
In general, what are some of your favorite books?

Well I ain't much of a book reader to be honest, so that's kinda hard to say. Literally the only books I've read in the last 10 years have been Hyperion by Dan Simmons & At The Mountains of Madness by HP Lovecraft (among a myriad of other short stories like "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell & graphic novels like "The Watchmen" by Alan Moore). Out of those two, I'd say Hyperion was my favorite, for what it's worth.

frfbfstpx2a4oebbl1qi.gif
 
Last edited:
Volatile

Volatile

God
Jun 18, 2018
1,286
Well I ain't much of a book reader to be honest, so that's kinda hard to say. Literally the only books I've read in the last 10 years have been Hyperion by Dan Simmons & At The Mountains of Madness by HP Lovecraft (among a myriad of other short stories like "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell & graphic novels like "The Watchmen" by Alan Moore). Out of those two, I'd say Hyperion was my favorite, for what it's worth.

frfbfstpx2a4oebbl1qi.gif
If you don’t read many books, how have you acquired so much knowledge?
 
M

Mecha Man

Experienced
Jul 16, 2018
232
No offense to all the people who are pissed off and stuff, but personally I don't have a problem with it. The earth was always going to end anyway, the whole global warming thing is just speeding it up (although I was under the impression that it's not gonna happen for at least a couple hundred years, or more). If anything were to annoy me, it would be the simple fact that this is still considered a controversial issue. I mean, I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting certain truths, or theories if that's what it technically is, when an abundance of scientific evidence lends itself to them. If it's just because they don't want to believe it, then I guess I do understand, because I can relate to that on a personal level.

But besides, if extending the lifespan of humanity means decreasing the quality of life for the human population (which is, if I'm not mistaken, the way it would be if we had to resort to abandoning the use of all fossil fuels, and anything that contributes to global warming), well, I say quality over quantity, metaphorically speaking.

These are just my thoughts, don't hate me ;_;
 
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
If you don’t read many books, how have you acquired so much knowledge?

Internet. It's basically just been a long process of me watching lots of videos/lectures & reading various reports/articles on the subject over the years.

But besides, if extending the lifespan of humanity means decreasing the quality of life for the human population (which is, if I'm not mistaken, the way it would be if we had to resort to abandoning the use of all fossil fuels, and anything that contributes to global warming), well, I say quality over quantity, metaphorically speaking.

I agree, 110%. Ultimately though, I'd say it's mostly irrelevant since, at such a late stage as this, even if we did give up fossil fuels and all the endless modern conveniences that come it, it honestly wouldn't make a lick of difference. Given that's the case, might as well keep the ride going for as long as possible. To do otherwise would just be senseless masochism. I'd rather opt for as much comfort as possible, thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dip
accidentaldeath

accidentaldeath

Student
May 29, 2018
107
I was always going to kill myself if there was a global collapse from war or natural disaster, but those were always a "what if" scenario. I believed there was a good enough chance they wouldn't happen (despite what my anxiety told me), and that I'd live as long as my parents have.

Then climate change walked in, a "when if". The rabbit hole was deep and terrifying.

This gave me a real push to do it, even if I'm waiting a few years for business as usual to start breaking down. The feedback loops lined up in our lifetime will make life Hell on Earth, and I don't want to be around to see that. Famine, elongated heatwaves, diseases from the arctic permafrost, water shortages. I don't want to experience that. Of course, I might ctb before things even get in the yellow, since my anxiety eats me alive.

I'm just pissed since this was all avoidable. We could and should have gone forward with ecologically friendly living years ago, decades ago, but we didn't, and now the world is teetering on the brink. The crash will be hard, and I don't want to hit the ground with it.

I'm afraid, in my opinion some years might pass until that happens. I mean, even if don't ctb I think I would die at old age before I would see that, there's a little chance all that is happening before 50-70 years.
 
Tomasnil

Tomasnil

Mage
Apr 24, 2018
519
I was always going to kill myself if there was a global collapse from war or natural disaster, but those were always a "what if" scenario. I believed there was a good enough chance they wouldn't happen (despite what my anxiety told me), and that I'd live as long as my parents have.

Then climate change walked in, a "when if". The rabbit hole was deep and terrifying.

This gave me a real push to do it, even if I'm waiting a few years for business as usual to start breaking down. The feedback loops lined up in our lifetime will make life Hell on Earth, and I don't want to be around to see that. Famine, elongated heatwaves, diseases from the arctic permafrost, water shortages. I don't want to experience that. Of course, I might ctb before things even get in the yellow, since my anxiety eats me alive.

I'm just pissed since this was all avoidable. We could and should have gone forward with ecologically friendly living years ago, decades ago, but we didn't, and now the world is teetering on the brink. The crash will be hard, and I don't want to hit the ground with it.
I think that if there was global collaps and anarky i would accually crawl out of my whole and join mankind again
 
D

Dip

Student
Jul 27, 2018
171
I think that if there was global collaps and anarky i would accually crawl out of my whole and join mankind again

I'm not sure you'd like what you would see at that point.
 
D

Dip

Student
Jul 27, 2018
171
I dont like it now so who knows

I won't sugarcoat things. I doubt you'll like:
-starvation
-thirst
-disease
-violence
-radiation poisoning if you're "lucky" to live long enough to experience that (4000 fuel ponds and 400 nuclear plants dotted around the world won't function without industrial civilization)

With dead soils, non-functioning infrastructure (including critical infrastructure like transportation, sewerage and water treatment) all you'll have to look forward to is either a slow death from 4 of the above or a fast death from violence (most likely someone killing you for food).

Because everything from food to toothbrushes to computers rely on global supply chains to be manufactured and transported you'll only have whatever stockpiles you can get your hands on which will inevitably run out. Even people who hide in some hole in the ground will be trapped with whatever supplies they have that will eventually run out since the global supply chains at that point will be unavailable.

Global systemic collapse will make previous famines like the Great Irish Famine of 1845 and the Soviet famines of the 20th century look tame by comparison.

Here's a small taste of the sorts of decisions you'll have to make (and keep in mind that this was just a famine, not permanent and total cessation of food production):
"
During the 1930s, multiple acts of cannibalism were reported from Ukraine and Russia's Volga, South Siberian and Kuban regions during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.[117]

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. ... At least 2,505 people were sentenced for cannibalism in the years 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, though the actual number of cases was certainly much higher.[118]
"

Pictures speak many words (and keep in mind these are very mild compared to total collapse):
659px-A_food_riot_in_Dungarvan%2C_Co._Waterford%2C_Ireland%2C_during_the_famine_-_The_Pictorial_Times_%281846%29_-_BL.jpg

A food riot in Dungarvan, Co. Waterford, Ireland, during the famine.
Date 10 October 1846

Maaselk%C3%A4_cannibalism.jpg

Finnish soldiers displaying the skins of Soviet soldiers near Maaselkä, on the strand of lake Seesjärvi during Continuation War on the 15th of December in 1942. Original caption: "An enemy recon patrol that was cut out of food supplies had butchered a few members of their own patrol group, and had eaten most of them."

GolodomorKharkiv.jpg

Starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, 1933.

441px-Cannibalism_during_Russian_famine_1921.jpg

Cannibals with their victims, Samara province, Volga region, Russia, 1921.

Whenever law and order broke down in the past other crimes would also go through the roof like rapes. Don't think that being a man would keep you completely safe from that when dealing with desperate people with nothing to lose.

The only people in that situation who stand any chance of survival beyond the short term are existing hunter-gatherers living in incredibly remote areas, and they'll most likely succumb to chronic radiation poisoning.
 
N

ningaman151

Experienced
Jul 28, 2018
233
I was always going to kill myself if there was a global collapse from war or natural disaster, but those were always a "what if" scenario. I believed there was a good enough chance they wouldn't happen (despite what my anxiety told me), and that I'd live as long as my parents have.

Then climate change walked in, a "when if". The rabbit hole was deep and terrifying.

This gave me a real push to do it, even if I'm waiting a few years for business as usual to start breaking down. The feedback loops lined up in our lifetime will make life Hell on Earth, and I don't want to be around to see that. Famine, elongated heatwaves, diseases from the arctic permafrost, water shortages. I don't want to experience that. Of course, I might ctb before things even get in the yellow, since my anxiety eats me alive.

I'm just pissed since this was all avoidable. We could and should have gone forward with ecologically friendly living years ago, decades ago, but we didn't, and now the world is teetering on the brink. The crash will be hard, and I don't want to hit the ground with it.

This is a really stupid reason to ctb. No climate change is not avoidable and it isn't that bad. If you live your life out normally you won't live long enough to experience the bad of climate change.
 
accidentaldeath

accidentaldeath

Student
May 29, 2018
107
I think that if there was global collaps and anarky i would accually crawl out of my whole and join mankind again
If that actually happens, the natural selection would apply to humans again, so probably only the smartest and strongest would survive. So I don't think that would be a good solution as lot of people would die and world would be even more screwed than it actually is.
 
Tomasnil

Tomasnil

Mage
Apr 24, 2018
519
If that actually happens, the natural selection would apply to humans again, so probably only the smartest and strongest would survive. So I don't think that would be a good solution as lot of people would die and world would be even more screwed than it actually is.
It wont happend its to many rich people depending on status quo.

But if it does thanks for the heads up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiburcio
N

ningaman151

Experienced
Jul 28, 2018
233
Yeah, Hawking said we need to get off this rock or humanity will perish because of climate change, and that's if we don't wipe ourselves out in a nuclear holocaust beforehand. Instead of working together to off this planet, however, we're busy fighting each other and meddling in the lives of celebrites. In my opinion, if humanity can't even work together for its own survival, it doesn't deserve to survive.

Hawking said that because he was paid to. Towards the end of his life he just became another celebrity scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strumgewehr and Dip
D

Dip

Student
Jul 27, 2018
171
It wont happend its to many rich people depending on status quo.

Rich people are not invulnerable to the laws of physics (more specifically diminishing returns and entropy).

@pride and prejudeath

Back on topic, what I recommend is that you just research a simple and effective method of suicide and have the materials ready. Do "trial runs" if possible. That way you'll be prepared and have the option available for whenever the shit hits the fan, which will provide you with a bit more peace of mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiburcio