PDA

View Full Version : Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'



boutons_deux
03-23-2014, 01:05 PM
Natural and social scientists develop new model of how 'perfect storm' of crises could unravel global system


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/11/1/1288641509988/This-NASA-Earth-Observato-006.jpgThis Nasa Earth Observatory image shows a storm system circling around an area of extreme low pressure in 2010, which many scientists attribute to climate change. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common."

The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (http://www.sesync.org/), in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics.

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:

"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."



By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/energy).

These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."

Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with "Elites" based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both:

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


The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:

"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."


Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two centuries has come from "increased (rather than decreased) resource throughput," despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period.

Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharri and his colleagues conclude that under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid." In the first of these scenarios, civilisation:

".... appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature."


Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, finding that "with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites."

In both scenarios, Elite wealth monopolies mean that they are buffered from the most "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners", allowing them to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe." The same mechanism, they argue, could explain how "historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases)."

Applying this lesson to our contemporary predicament, the study warns that:

"While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."

However, the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.

The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth:

"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."


The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognise that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately.

Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies - by KPMG (http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/future-state-government/pages/resource-stress.aspx) and the UK Government Office of Science (http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf) for instance - have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be very conservative (http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-the-rise-of-the-post-carbon-era/).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists?CMP=twt_fd

boutons_deux
03-23-2014, 01:32 PM
The Merchants of Doom (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/03/17/merchants-doom/)


Paul Ehrlich (http://woods.stanford.edu/about/woods-faculty/paul-ehrlich) and Ann Ehrlich (http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Staff/Old/anne.htm), two long-time prominent voices in the environmental community, often speculate about the future of humanity. They recently shared (http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/collapse-whats-happening-to-our-chances/) this anecdote:


A few years ago we had a disagreement with our friend Jim Brown, a leading ecologist. We told him we thought there was about a 10 percent chance of avoiding a collapse of civilization but, because of concern for our grandchildren and great grandchildren, we were willing to struggle to make it 11 percent. He said his estimate of the chance of avoiding collapse was only 1 percent, but he was working to make it 1.1 percent. Sadly, recent trends and events make us think Jim might have been optimistic. Perhaps now it’s time to talk about preparing for some form of collapse soon, hopefully to make a relatively soft “landing.”



If you want to know why the Ehrlichs think it’s essentially game over for civilization, read their 2013 paper (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full.pdf) published in theProceedings of the Royal Society. Their diagnosis:


The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’ aggregate consumption.



Translation: Too many damn people on the earth, driving cars, buying too much crap, all made possible by a globalized, industrialized, capitalistic system. Or something like that. Unsurprisingly, the Ehrlichs don’t agree (http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/a-confused-statistician/) with those who paint a sunnier view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvdeEi2mEc) of humanity’s current trajectory. (What might a model sustainable society look like? Paul Ehrlich recently pointed (http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/sustainable-societies/)to Australia’s Aboriginal culture.)
Now I’m not the only one to observe that the environmental community, as a whole, has a bleak view of the future (http://books.google.com/books?id=q6CadxwWlaYC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=environmentalists+are+too+gloom+and+doom&source=bl&ots=egHUBEk_x-&sig=G3oasE9_Qx9jB3wZWR7_I-1EmsY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XhEnU7SHEcfxkQfX1oGICg&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=environmentalists%20are%20too%20gloom%20and%20do om&f=false).

But is the near-future collapse of civilization virtually guaranteed, as the Ehrlichs seem to think? Is there no reversing this collision course? Here’s what UK environmentalist Jonathan Porritt said last week in an interview (http://ensia.com/interviews/jonathon-porritt-the-world-we-made/):


A lot of people in my community of sustainability professionals have basically come to the conclusion it’s too late.


This strikes me as a self-defeating outlook, as I hinted (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/03/14/11/#.UybxuigwL18) the other day. It lends itself to the fatalism (http://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/A-View-from-the-Future.pdf) that has already infected environmental discourse, which I have previously discussed (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/12/20/misguided-solutions-well-intentioned-eco-doomers/#.Uyb0TSgwL18):


If you are a regular consumer of environmental news and commentary, you are familiar with the narrative of humanity’s downfall.

In the current issue of The New York Review Of Books, the novelist Zadie Smith is conflicted (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/03/elegy-countrys-seasons/?insrc=hpma) about this eco-doomsday narrative. On the one hand, she is bothered that most people aren’t taking seriously “the visions of apocalypse conjured by climate scientists and movie directors,” which she refers to as “the coming emergency.” But she also seems to get the futility of this storyline:


Sometimes the global, repetitive nature of this elegy is so exhaustively sad—and so divorced from any attempts at meaningful action—that you can’t fail to detect in the elegists a fatalist liberal consciousness that has, when you get right down to it, as much of a perverse desire for the apocalypse as the evangelicals we supposedly scorn.



Indeed, the merchants of eco-doom who peddle their vision of apocalypse to a secular choir are just as self-rightous and scornful of humanity as the fundamentalist preachers who hawk their hellfire and brimstone sermons. And like the most warped fundamentalists (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121322) who exploit tragedy, the merchants of eco-doom also cynically seize on current events. On this score, nobody rivals Nafeez Ahmed (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight) (the UK Left’s faux-scholarly equivalent to Glenn Beck (http://www.theguardian.com/media/glenn-beck)), who has an unquenchable appetite for peak-everything porn (http://crisisofcivilization.com/about/). (For commentary on his latest connect-the-collapse dots, see this post (http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/truly-inane-apocalyptic-journalism-at-the-guardian/).)

Not all greens have a fetish for doomsday scenarios. Some are are trying to chart a more empowering vision (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/global_environmental_politics/summary/v011/11.1.vanderheiden.html) for environmentalism. Porritt belongs to this group. He has a new book (http://www.jonathonporritt.com/world-we-made) that appears hopeful about the future.

If only more environmentalists could snap out of their endless mourning for the planet and offer the rest of us something to look forward to other than imminent eco-collapse

:lol yes, the environmentalists really can overcome the $100Bs of the Kock Bros/BigCarbon! :lol

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/03/17/merchants-doom/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20DiscoverMag%20%28Discover%2 0Magazine%29#.Uy8m-vldXwo

DarrinS
03-23-2014, 06:16 PM
If you want to know why the Ehrlichs think it’s essentially game over for civilization, read their 2013 paper published in theProceedings of the Royal Society. Their diagnosis:

The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’ aggregate consumption.




The Population Bomb turned out to be complete bullshit.

boutons_deux
03-23-2014, 06:20 PM
The Population Bomb turned out to be complete bullshit.

it's still exploding, shithead

DarrinS
03-23-2014, 06:35 PM
it's still exploding, shithead

your tantrums don't alter reality

lefty
03-23-2014, 08:07 PM
Heard that theory already



Like a million times


lol fear mongering