So, there's no truth in such beliefs — TheMadFool

Truth in beliefs? I’m sure you know better than that.

Truth in beliefs? I’m sure you know better than that — Brett

:up: Belief has to be true for it to count as knowledge. Right?

oh, so we're here again. I tell you what, if you answer my question then I'll answer yours. Or is your question only rhetorical?

Yes, I agree about survivalism. Your suggestion that such behaviour is only necessitated by great global catastrophes, is I fear over optimistic. Such events would probably bring about the extinction of humanity, or a reduction to a few hundred, or thousand of the most tenacious survivors.

It will require only small changes in climate, in the direction of warming, to result in a fall of civilisation and a return to a primitive human existence.

Robots just don't fit into my fantasy of what is valuable. I am old and as far as I am concerned if humans do not thrive, nothing matters. I care as much about robots outsurviving humans as I care about my shoe existing a hundred years from now. — Athena

Well. flesh-and-blood humans aren't, I think, likely to survive the capitalist climate Gotterdammerung, so if we want something to survive, robots seem the best bet, if we create them such that they evolve.

So the climate is supposed to start killing hundreds of millions of people by 2080 and I'm just supposed to pretend like it doesn't matter because concerning myself with survival measures in the event makes ME a fool? Oh okay.

I did not say to take weapons into public. Go gaslight someone else, Tim. Or we can talk about your neurosis of projecting disgusting assumptions onto people you know absolutely nothing about.

I dont even see why I have to explain this line of thought. It seems like common sense to take measures now to protect future generations from an oncoming catastrophe that we have all already determined is going to take a miracle to curve. This is the next logical step in the event that this miracle does not happen.

What is it too early to be concerned? Is that what it is? Because newsflash: that ideology is what got us here in the first place. Oh who cares about the smog billowing into the air it's not hurting anything yet. Oh let's just waste all of these resources and build a bunch of useless shit so we can feel comfortable and better about ourselves, nevermind the heaps of it dumping into the ocean and rivers! I'll be too old to see it anyway.

So when do you make the move to protect your family? When it's too late or when the predictions don't look good?

Accuse me of being a terrorist because I know well enough not to bet my life on someone else and to prioritize my family's survival over risking their safety to assist others in the event of global catastrophe?? That's just gross. Really disappointed.

the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.

You are trolling? Do I really have to write a thesis for you on how to google a word before you make a claim that is incorrect on a forum that revolves around definitions?

The branch of knowledge is surviving climate change.
The study is how to.

And it is in the category of current affairs because it happens to be in progress.

And lastly, is anyone here considering that it is not smart to have a weapon in the event of mass migration, starvation, illness? You know... during the bullshit that my children and their children and your children are going to be forced to deal with now that we have 2 decades to resolve it before it's too late yet the nations have their thumbs shoved so far up their own asses that they are likely not going to fix it in time.

You sound like you’ve found the wrong forum to post on.

You posted something like a rant and some paranoid version of a post apocalyptic survival guide. It’s really hard to see the philosophical value if this unless you maybe shifted the discussion to a hypothetical scenario and ask how society would rebuild - that would interesting.

If others are happy to engage, fair enough. I don’t see any merit here though.

No need to announce your exit. If you would like to have a discussion then discuss otherwise move along.

Sorry, I was mistaken. Just noticed this isn’t in the ‘philosophy’ category. :/

You are right that a big cataclysm is a-coming, but the two critical factors are timing and location (always, location, location, location). The ocean has risen some, and will rise a lot more; as bad as the long-term effects will be, remember, the rise--relative to our life times--is slow. But again, it depends where you live. People who live on low-rise islands are already screwed. People who live in areas only a little above sea level (Jakarta, Baltimore, Amsterdam, Venice) won't have to wait too long for really serious problems-- probably in the latter part of this century. The New York Metropolitan area has already paid many billions of dollars to repair itself after Hurricane Sandy. They should be spending as many billions more to get ready for the next one. Areas along the gulf coast need to be depopulated for a ways inland to get people and property out of harms way.

For a lot of people, flooding isn't going to be the problem: it's drought, as you mentioned, and yes, fresh water will be in very short supply. People who have been driven out of their homelands by successive crop failures, drought, or repeated floods (whatever the hell it is) are going to move, and if the nations in their path don't want them there, there will be BIG trouble.

However, granted all that, I don't believe "survivalism" will work. What the "survivalist" hunkered down in his huge underground bunker with huge tanks of water, canned food up the ying yang, and so on, are really "delayers of the inevitable" rather than survivalists.

That a little cadre of Navy Seals (or something like that) can hole up in a mountain fastness and not only protect themselves and their children's children's children, but actually sustain a fragment of civilization is fantasy. Such fantasy makes for great SF plots, but a poor plan for the real world. Why?

First, because the life in the bunker will be pretty much static, and minds living in static conditions start to dull after a while. People will go nuts. Second, the supplies will eventually run out. Up in the mountains a good deal of what you bought down in the valley from the local Walmart won't be replaceable in your little habitat. Third, You won't be able to revert to a hunter-gatherer style of living either, because the first thing you will run into is a lot of other people hunting and gathering too. Fourth, all the people who are living in the degraded world will have made critical adaptations to a potentially very hostile environment. Maybe they got over the embarrassment of cannibalism and and know how to select dinner from the herd. You won't; you might be more likely to end up in the kettle.

The best way to survive is to survive in as large a functioning community as possible -- generally that means at least a small city with enough people bearing the diversity of skills it takes to keep everyone alive and well.

All of the large functioning communities are NOT going to disappear. Adaptable cities will have found ways to supply themselves with food--sustainable methods of food production and preservation. Adaptable cities will still have schools, libraries, musical performances, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc. -- all the people and institutions that produce civilization.

In one hundred years, 2120, sea level rise will have fairly noticeable consequences, especially for cities that were reclaimed from the ocean. A good example would be Boston. Some of Boston, MA will stay high and dry, but the core of the city will revert to wetland. It's not called "Back Bay" for nothing. It used to be open water and then was filled in in the 19th century.

In 300 years, it may be the case that the lower Mississippi River Valley will be one very big bay opening off of the Gulf of Mexico. The northern Great Plains in the future will be much warmer, more like the southern plains are now. That is NOT going to take hundreds of years. And just a word to people who imagine the corn, wheat, and bean belt migrating into Canada, it isn't going to happen. A good share of Canada is not agricultural land. It takes a long time for warming tundra to turn into fertile properly structured soil--not hundreds of years, but thousands.

It seems to me that the greatest threat certainly following the first great catastrophe, or economic collapse is from other humans. There will be a race to the bottom through conflict and a desperate fight for resources. Followed by roaming battle hardened warlords. If we're lucky the nuclear warheads won't have been triggered. Although nuclear facilities like power stations would likely go off.

I don't know how much Anthropology has caught up with this idea, so this is only speculation. It looks to me that during a previous catastrophic global flooding most of humanity was wiped out in a stroke. Leaving small pockets surviving at altitude, certainly in the Himalayas, possibly the Ethiopian highlands etc. This may have happened more than once and is talked about in ancient mythology. These isolated groups obviously survived and grew into modern humanity.

I see this extinction event as another such catastrophe, although the initial conditions are unique on this occasion. There are mass populations which there weren't before, deadly weapons and more critically I would think, a mass extinction of species due to a sudden shift in climatic conditions. So who knows, it looks like uncharted territory.

Belief has to be true for it to count as knowledge. Right? — TheMadFool

Is that true? I’m genuinely not sure. It doesn’t seem to add up to me. Does it mean that belief can be counted as knowledge? How so?

Edit: in relation to this:

“So, there's no truth in such beliefs - beliefs that there's a calamity waiting for humanity just round the corner? Geeks have it wrong then.”

I don't know how much Anthropology has caught up with this idea, so this is only speculation. It looks to me that during a previous catastrophic global flooding most of humanity was wiped out in a stroke. Leaving small pockets surviving at altitude, certainly in the Himalayas, possibly the Ethiopian highlands etc. This may have happened more than once and is talked about in ancient mythology. — Punshhh

It’s these sort of posts that undermine you’re position; most of humanity wiped out in a stroke, speculation, possibly, ancient mythology. How can we take that seriously?

But you are attempting to undermine my position while not engaging. What's that about?

What a bunch of pathetic, self indulgent losers. I don’t believe any of you really believe what you write. You insult everyone that’s come before you to forge a life out of nothing. — Brett

My goodness, that is a strong criticism. I am not exactly sure which statements you find so bad. But I think there are books that would change your mind. Such as this book ... by Izolda Trakhtenberg

Life Elements: Transform Your Life With Earth, Air, Fire and Water

Izolda worked at both the National Geographic Society and then NASA where she worked for the GLOBE Program. Envisioned by Vice President Al Gore in his book, Earth In The Balance, the GLOBE Program is a unique international partnership among students, teachers, and scientists where students study the earth and care for the environment. Izolda honed her teaching and training skills in workshops as she developed the training methodology for the Soil protocols and then traveled the world as a Master Trainer in the Atmosphere, Land Cover, Hydrology, and Soil protocols. This knowledge, these skills and her interest in ancient symbolism and methodologies further developed her insight into human interactions and tendencies. She saw the patterns and relationships among self-directed change, self-confidence, and ancient Elemental/environmental symbolism and synthesized them into the Life Elements System. — amazon

Nature works to keep things in balance and humans have greatly disrupted that balance. How could anyone not think this is a very important subject, or see as anything but concern for future generations and our planet? I happen to be a pagan who thinks caring for our planet is very important, and excuse me but humans have become a problem. Something is really wrong when people have such a negative interpretation of our concern. Why all the hostile negativity directed towards those of us who sincerely care about future generations and the planet?

Well. flesh-and-blood humans aren't, I think, likely to survive the capitalist climate Gotterdammerung, so if we want something to survive, robots seem the best bet, if we create them such that they evolve. — iolo

Excuse me but I must disagree with you. Not only do I find little value in life without humans, but robots also demand finite resources. A problem with electric cars is the finite resources required for their batteries. But what if we are God's consciousness? Can that be transferred to a robot? I don't think so.
And our planet sure does not need robots to preserve life. But many ancient cultures thought it was man's purpose to help nature. Too bad we don't live with that belief today.


God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. The teaching of Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Oh my goodness it is so nice to read something written by a well-informed person.

The future of India looks very bad! https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/coastal-concerns-rising-sea-levels-will-inundate-coastal-areas-sooner-than-projected-/articleshow/71985765.cms

The satellite radar used by NASA paints a worse picture of our future than expected.

I am alarmed by someone flagging this thread for not being philosophical. I am not sure how moderators here handle such conflicts of interest, between those who want to remain blind to reality and keep everything pleasant, and those who want to raise awareness of problems with the hope we will use knowledge to resolve problems. Science comes out of philosophy, let us hope those who love philosophy do not turn their backs on science. Doesn't philosophy mean a love of knowledge? Should we shut down threads that are knowledge of things we don't want to think about?

Directly to your explanation of why cities are better than survivalist isolation, we need education for democracy for those cities to function well. It will be as we create it and without an understanding of democracy, we could have short sited ideas of survival and look more like the feudal period of our history than an evolved democracy.

Is that true? I’m genuinely not sure. It doesn’t seem to add up to me. Does it mean that belief can be counted as knowledge? How so?

Edit: in relation to this:

“So, there's no truth in such beliefs - beliefs that there's a calamity waiting for humanity just round the corner? Geeks have it wrong then.” — Brett

There is no contradiction in what I said. Also as far as I know I'm simply repeating the official line.

Although nuclear facilities like power stations would likely go off. — Punshhh

Nuclear facilities are vulnerable, true enough. While a plant can be shut down (the nuclear reaction halted), there is fuel stored in water pools (sometimes above ground) which definitely will not remain harmless forever. As we saw in Chernobyl and Fukushima, things can spectacularly go to hell really fast. The plants will not explode like nuclear bombs, however.

I don't know how much Anthropology has caught up with this idea, so this is only speculation. It looks to me that during a previous catastrophic global flooding most of humanity was wiped out in a stroke. — Punshhh

There was never enough water on the planet to produce a flood that could wipe out humanity all at once. Even the big meteorite that wiped out the big dinosaurs didn't kill everything off -- mammals, birds, and insects survived and mammals became the dominant animal.

The catastrophic event which global warming may well bring about will be composed of features which in combination will prove fatal: too many people to feed, agriculture not able to produce enough food, not enough water, too much heat, severe environmental degradation, disorganization. Nothing more is required than that to drop the population from 7 or 8 billion back to where it was around 70 years ago -- 2 billion. It also won't be instantaneous; expect it to take a few decades. The survivors will get to watch while it happens.

Don't worry man, I've been playing lots of Fallout: New Vegas recently. I'll be right there with you blasting the heads off of raiders and taking the Vegas strip for myself. Yes man is the best ending, isn't it?

Just watch out for Caesar and the NCR. Of course, I'm sure your bunker will keep the meddling governments of our new world out, but all I'm saying is that it didn't work for the Brotherhood of Steel.

Thanks for the link to Economic Times/India Times, and your thoughtful posts.

on second note I like the idea of planning for a rebuild now, but in that case I would need to know just how far along in crisis we go before the ecosystem reaches an equilibrium that gives us the opportunity to rebuild. Are we to the point where we are forced to live in space? Are there people still on the ground that survived? How many, where are they, and what will they need to get back on their feet?

what makes you so sure of these dates and ideas that society will still be functioning by these dates?
What makes you so sure that there wont be wildfires in the west, drought, agriculture failure and mass migration? Have you seen NASA's predictions of soil temperatures into 2100? They do not look good at all.

I'm pretty sure there WILL BE "wildfires in the west, drought, agriculture failure and mass migration". I'm pretty sure that the boreal forests in Canada will burn too -- not next week, but at some point in the not too-distant future. I expect that there will be more fires in various places along the lines of the current fires in Australia (December 2019).

"Society" will survive in some form, even with a catastrophic die-off of human populations. There will be some places where life will go on for some people. How bad the environment becomes in 1000 years can't be guessed; there are just too many factors to consider. Most likely it will not be very good.

"Civilization" (apart from whatever society happens to be like at any given moment) will likely suffer pretty severely. A lot of our cultural heritage will be lost--not just from fire, flood, hot humid mold-and-rot-encouraging climate, marauding hordes, and so forth. "Civilization" requires intact inter-generational stability for learning and style to be passed on intact. Our civilization will die like previous civilizations have died, and will be revived by other people in later times (assuming we do not go extinct).

I'm not optimistic about the long term future. But there is always hope.