Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    Ravenous: What if our models suggest billions of humans starving is unavoidable

    Just a bit of common sense, think with me, face the logic

    Started by: Ruud Dirven Raves:2

    Subscribe » RSS

    The situation the US, large parts of europe, China and Japan (is postulated as having) deteriorated in 2019 to such a degree that: (1) people are compelled, somehow, to grow their own food (2) Supermarkets close down and systems of barter return (3) large populations are on the move because of climate change or epidemic (4) Criminal hackers using small electronic devices can monkeywrench large complicated systems and infrastructure. If it is this bad in, say, the US or Europe then the inescapable conclusion it is much much worse in , say, Cairo. 1 - Largescale riotting in most densely populated, least economically resilient areas in the world. Say - Cairo. Mexico. Brazil. India. Indonesia. We are talking civil wars over half the globe. People arent angry about not being able to drive - they are STARVING on a massive scale. This will cause unspeakable atrocities, in up to half existing countries. 2 - A total collapse of international currencies. Export/Import bans. It's impossible, or very hard, to import foods. No international trade. Unemployment levels way over 30%. Governments being terrified. Police states everywhere. Hysteria, depression, the weak or affraid committing suicide in droves. 3 - A cataclysmic and irreversible overexploitation of natural resources, plants, animals in places with overpopulation and inadequate production methods. Africa is becoming one giant desert. 4 - Probably the first incidents of cannibalism in the worst hit cities - think very poor countries. This is pure logic. We have seen this happen pretty sudden in North Korea, Haiti. It is a fact, and not some old wives tale, people were eating bark, sand cakes and in time their own dead infants in those places as far back as 2005. Then it became worse and this model of societal/infrastructural collapse affected rich countries as well as poorer countries in equal measure. Anyone reading this - many third world countries have grotesque populations and very few reserves. For gods, sake, people in large parts of africa have been so poor they have been butchering and eating Gorillas since before 2000. Now you go and stretch that scenario into a downwards spiral, and nobody is accepting the consequences. Please get the story straight. If you don't think this is a valid conception, please let me know where my reasoning is incorrect. If my reasoning IS valid, why aren't politcians preparing for this collapse yet?

    Ruud, you have a brain. You shouldn't be here. I know you care, but your efforts and insights could be put to better use in a vast variety of NGO organizations.

    QuidProQuo - I can not stand to look at acute human misery. I cant stand blood. I am disabled IRL and sleep on average 12-14 hours a day without and 10 hours a day with a handful medication. I have extreme migraines and nightmares fairly often. I am on a minimum income and live of 50 euro per week, which is pretty spartan over here. And even with these limitations I study and I am dead set to use my studies (game design) to get my perspective across - no holds barred ...... If you made an earnest remark, great, but your suggestion is not the road I walk. I wouldn't know where to start and most NGO's would frustrate me to death. If your remark however was sarcastic, then please realise that what I do, and have always done, is precisely what superstruct is doing - speculating, inferring trends, accepting consequences and extrapolating beyond that. That's what I can handle without my mind unraveling. It's what I am wired to do. Personally I can't stand ignorant people, complacency and people not able to look at the cold hard facts. Superstruct has the pretense to make a difference and I am deeply, *deeply* motivated to go all the way. So, knowing this, what do you think I should do? If you have suggestions you are sure that can enhance the meaning of my existence, by all means, give them to me.

    I urge participants in Superstruct no to be deterred by very dark, very negative imagery. This is the world we live in........ http://current.com/items/76348662_kenya

    Look on the bright side if about 4 billion people perish world wide that still leaves about 2 billion to carry on. If disease and starvation amount for the bulk of these fatalities then conflict will be somewhat subdued. You really can't fight effectively if you are sick and starving.

    Thorn, you are largely correct. But if 2-4 billion actually do starve, the ensueing chaos, fear and fury will destroy EVERYTHING. Your answer was criminally shortsighted. People on a dingy don't enter a fight, they'll tip the boat. If we enter a fight over food now - we'll get thermonuclear meltdown or at one stage someone panics and starts spreading genocide virals.

    If the models suggest it's unavoidable, then I reckon we're pretty screwed. Even if it only affected certain continents or areas, billions of starving people would leave an utter wasteland in their wake, which would have a knock-on effect on surrounding areas (maybe even the weather patterns, depending on scale). On the other hand, we don't know the yet the models say it's unavoidable, hence we're all here. :) Absolute worst-case scenario, though, I don't know how feasible it would be to build some sort of super-bunker facilities to preserve as many species as possible. It's a nice thought that even if everything else went tits up, this bit could be done properly (and if things get to that stage then everyone in a position of power has truly dropped the ball, imo) but... even with frozen embryos, you still need a surrogate mother for most organisms to reproduce, our experience of restarting ecosystems damaged to that extent is extremely limited and... hmmm. I mean, it *could* be done. Sigh. My two cents re the politicians - democracy as we have it at the moment is an unfortunate iteration of extremely short-term cycles, each one often aimed at nothing more than remaining in power for the next cycle. Long-term plans, especially those involving sacrifice - even at a tax level - are therefore difficult, or even political suicide, to implement. I still hope that as and when more evidence comes in that we might be stufed if we don't do something then leaders at all levels will rise to the occasion, this has happened in the past during wars and other periods of hardship. Question is, will it be in time? But people *have* managed to do remarkable things in short spaces of time, with little resources - for instance, the pyramids. I could be wrong on this but I did see a programme suggesting they were built in a matter of years by the populace during the inundation, when they couldn't farm - basically, a giant anti-unemployment scheme. You do need a working infrastructure of some sort for this scale of organisation though, and I think that's one of the most important things to look at. What a load of waffle.

    If billions of humans starve to death, it is not the end of everything. It's happened before, at a different scale (there were less people in earth) in different times of history. We've survived. Sure, it's shaken the systems, but it also becomes a 'big cleanse'. Humans are terribly resilient, and will always find a way to survive. Time after time we think the world will end, only to find that for every tipping boat there was someone who took off with the *other* boat while nobody was looking. (or the women's boat got ahead and away of the swirling waters). Let's have some more faith in the human grittiness for survival. :)




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL