Survey

The Renewable Energy Survey: RESULTS

gc2reddit-logoyoutube-Logo-4Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on The Doomstead Diner on June 12, 2016

RES-5

Discuss this article at the Survey Table inside the Diner

Take the Renewable Energy Survey HERE (still open!)

Survey Discussion & Analysis with Ugo Bardi & Gail Tverberg

The RES has accumulated an enormous amount of data, so now is a good time to take a Snapshot of what the current attitudes are about its potential for maintaining the techno-industrial lifestyle.

Before we look at the numbers though, a few important points about the sample.  By no means is this a random sample of attitudes of the world at large.  If you were to drop this survey on USA Today, I am quite sure you would get completely different results.  This sample comes from 6 main websites:

Cassandra's Legacy

Our Finite World

The Archdruid Report

Economic Undertow

Reddit r/collapse & r/globalcollapse

The Doomstead Diner

There are a few contributions from other sites like Global Economic Intersection and Reddit r/solar, but by far the majority come from the sites listed above.  If you were on the list to receive the full data set, you can see how many results came from each site, most respondents did list their referral site.

All of these sites have a readership which follows collapse issues and dynamics, and there is something of a consensus opinion on these sites that industrial civilization is bound for collapse.  The results of the survey reflect that consensus.  However, the results also demonstrate that there are two distinct sub-camps among these readers, those that hold out some hope for a technological solution, and those who do not believe a technological solution can work.

For the population being sampled, this survey is highly significant and a statistically reliable measure of the population being surveyed, estimated at around 50,000.  It comes in with a 95% Confidence level with a 5% margin of error roughly.  For the most part also, since the first 50 or so responses came in, the percentages for the responses and their distribution really hasn't varied all that much.  I will leave the survey open after this article publishes to see if there is any change in the later submissions.

As a long time reader of the Collapse Blogosphere, the aggregate results of the survey didn't surprise me at all.  Does this mean the survey is correct in its predictions of timelines and numbers?  Not necessarily, but it does tell you what most of the people reading collapse blogs THINK will occur and when it will occur.  Given these readers follow the trends more closely than the average J6P, they're making a more informed decision than most people would.  It's also a very highly educated sample, with over 75% of respondents with Baccalaureate degree or above.  One of the most interesting things to do is to parse the data by the demographics, to see the differences in attitudes by things like age, gender, education level and so forth.  I'm not going to do that in this post, but readers who get the spreadsheet will be able to do that quite easily.

 survey-saysOK, all that being said, now let's look at the results themselves!  With each of the graphs, I'll include a few of the text responses that came in also.  All the text responses are included in the spreadsheet.  I calculated this data when the total submissions were at 237, they have increased some since but percentages haven't changed significantly.

First up, Ugo Bardi's original question from a survey he did on a renewable energy forum a few weeks ago.  In that survey, he got a generally positive view of the future potential of RE.  The Kollapsniks we got survey submissions from are not so positive.

The question is about the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but 100% based on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of obtaining it before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?

 
 

It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of natural resources, we'll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)

 

It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.

 

It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.

 

It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.

 

It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 128
(54%)
19
(8%)
55
(23%)
25
(11%)
10
(4%)
43.04 237

RES-1

The low EROEIs of renewables would require change to our industrial civilisation but I think that it could be qualitatively similar. The differences are enough though to create fierce resistance to that change, until it's too late to be effective.

It's technically possible but the amount we need to cut would require a radically different type of society. A type of society that would be fervently fought against by our world leaders. At the very least we need some kind of steady state economy.

Having significantly less people located in areas of high carrying capacity or high energy density would perhaps let us remain similar in quality but not in quantity. A timely transition though does not seem likely. However all depends on what is meant with "ours". If it means the average internet user – it will be different.

If you look at the first two choices as being from those who do not see renewable energy as being a possible solution and the last 3 choices as those who give it at least some chance for success, you are at about 62% with little hope it will help as opposed to 38% with some hope that it will.  What this indicates is that for people trying to promote RE as a solution, they're not convincing most people in the collapse blogosphere of this.  That doesn't mean they are wrong of course, it just means the ideas aren't selling too well in this population.

What are the major impediments to replacing fossil fuels with Renewable Energy? (rank from biggest impediment to smallest by sliding the choices up and down with your mouse on the icon to the left of the choice)

RES-2

In When trucks stop running, I show why an 80 to 100% renewable grid is not possible (partly based on research from Germany and Europe, which are far ahead of the USA in this). Indeed, DOE found that we may not even be able to cope with a 56 to 61% renewable powered grid — it is too unstable. But mainly because of limited sites for pumped hydro, CAES, geothermal, and the cost and scale of electrochemical batteries.

Fossil fuel energy use quantity is unlikely to be replaceable for a very long time to come. Most energy use is a means to a specific end though, and if the needs and desires can be met in a similar manner a full replacement is not necessary. That is why political ranks highest. Thermodynamics is likely to be a major impediment in the short and medium term (e.g. centuries). Characterizing transportation systems with a scalar is not adequate, but the gist remains the same.

The obsession to use electricity for everything is not good due thermodinamical reasons (many conversions, ineficiencies in some electrical uses, intermitenci, etc). This adds to intermitency, seasonality, YoY variability, that implies overscaling, that implies energy storing, that implies damn high costs, that are too expensive to adapt this to transportation that is the backbone of our economy right now. This will lead to increased costs, lower wages and salaries, and feedback into our economy. After all, what we are seeing now is that EROEI is too low even for FF, to sustain our economy and society. Lower EROEI of RE will do things worse. If the current status of economy (and FF depletion) will allow us to do some real switch.

I tend to agree that the biggest impediment here is the battery technology, for all sorts of reasons.  Mining up all the materials necessary for enough battery storage to balance the loads is probably impossible to do, even if there are enough materials in the ground to do it.  All manufacturing processes also create tremendous waste products, and figuring out how to safely dispose of them would be a large problem too.

I do think that the thermodynamic issue is underrated here.  Although certainly plenty of energy drops on the earth from the Sun every day, how much of it is actually collectible and convertable to usable form?  Can you get the energy from where it might be collected (say ocean waves) to where it would be used somewhere on land without a huge loss in the transmission?  What kind of EROEI is there for this?

Rank which form of Renewable Energy from which is Most Likely to be Successful to Least Likely to be Successful.

RES-3

Where is nuclear power? It seems to me that nuclear is renewable on the timescales that matter for climate change, and fully renewable if "on the horizon" designs of breeder reactors are considered. The one thing that is irrefutable is that nuclear is a low carbon technology, which is also despatchable. As such, it seems incredible that you don't include it in a transitioned world view. This is especially true as it currently contributes over a tenth of global electricity supply, which is more than wind!

When it comes to energetic return on investment, hydro tends to work better than wind, which works better than solar. Draft animal power, slave labor, water wheels, micro-hydro, and mechanical windmills have already been proven to work in pre-industrial conditions (though they don't provide much energy). For the others, large-scale systems tend to benefit from economies of scale.

Direct action renewables will be the real only source of energy in the future. Electrical society wouldn't work, and would lead to social collapse. The amount of resources to keep our current tecnology alive is overwhelming. Semiconductors, the cornerstone of our technology and the actual bet for All Electric RE require >70 elements of the periodic table. And they are NOT RENEWABLE.

In the text responses, I began with the Nuclear Energy critique, because this came up several times.  I responded to my rationale for that in my last RES post, which is that when constructing the survey I don't myself generally lump Nuclear in the "Renewable" category, although you can make the case that it is.  If I had it to do over again, I probably would include this as a choice.  There were other forms of potentially renewable energy I neglected to include as well, Solar Thermal, Small Scale Geothermal and Biomass.  However, the selection I did include allows for a good parsing of the attitudes on which of these is most likely to succeed vs not likely to succeed.

Now, because most respondents have a negative view of renewables overall, the top vote getter in this question was NOTHING is going to work to keep our modern techno-industrial culture going, and I tend to agree with that.  However, you do have the transition question to deal with, and where to invest the effort, time and money on which type of RE to develop as we spin down?

Generally the large scale projects such as Hydro plants and large Solar PV farms get a low ranking, and I agree with that.  Smaller scale distributed systems have better potential, particularly of the direct, low tech kind like Water Wheels and mechanical Windmills.  While these won't allow maintenance of a high tech society, they hold potential for keeping the slide from dropping all the way down to stone age technology and lifestyle.

One area I COMPLETELY disagree with the consensus is the high ranking of Human Slave Labor.  Of all these forms of energy conversion to work (Homo Saps aren't the energy here, just the machine.  The food they eat is the energy), Homo Saps easily have the lowest EROEI, it is actually probably negative.  It takes HUGE surplus of resources to run a slave society, besides the cost for keeping the slaves fed clothed and housed so they are available for work in a renewable fashion, you ALSO need a large class of Overseers and a Military to keep these slaves in line and not revolting.  While we may see some slave societies develop during this spin down, it is not likely they will last long, and definitely not renewable in a world of overall deficit.

If we could make a full conversion to Renewable Energy resources overnight, with the current climate conditions what would be the maximum population you think the Earth would support of Homo Saps sustainably, including all the Best Practices of Permaculture, Hydroponics and Aquaculture? (pick the choice closest to the number you think most likely)

 
 

>7.2 Billion People (current population or more)

 

7B

 

4B

 

1B

 

100M

 

10M

 

1M

 

100K

 

10K

 

<10K Homo Saps will go Extinct

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 30
(13%)
9
(4%)
40
(17%)
101
(44%)
26
(11%)
9
(4%)
6
(3%)
2
(1%)
1
(0%)
5
(2%)
28.92 229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RES-4er

The population of <1B based on photosynthesis energy prior to fossil fuels wasn't all that sustainable as it was practiced. There was still extinctions of large species, soil degradation etc. With the addition of renewables I think 1B could be entirely sustainable.

Impossible to determine. I picked a number closest to global population as the industrial revolution began. We should expect to be able to maintain a population above that level due to subsequent technological advances – but disruptions will lower carrying capacity for a significant amount of time. Therefore, a population level as it was in pre-industrial times. 4 billion seems too optimistic.

Approx. the equivalent of world population pre-Columbus. In the Americas they were building soil and in Europe they were forestalling an ice age, roughly holding a balance. That is sustainable. Nuclear war or multiple meltdowns would cut that number because of contaminated land area.

Of all the questions on the survey, this one was of the most interest to me personally.  Reason for that is all the hubbub about Near Term Human Extinction you run across these days on all the collapse sites, not just on Guy McPherson's blog Nature Bats Last.  I was real curious as to how deeply this meme has penetrated among the average Kollapsniks, and apparently not too well.  Only 2% of the respondents think Homo Sap will drop below 10,000 Human Souls and then go Extinct.  That's the Good Newz here! 🙂

Now the Bad NewzBY FAR, the overall consensus amongst Kollapsniks is a population die off down to 1B Human Souls, maybe 12% of the current population.  There is no timeline to this question, but even if you figure it will take a full century to get down to that figure, that means for every year from now to 2116, you have to have more than 60M Deaths than Births in every single one of those years.  For scale here in ALL the years of WWII, 60M people died, about 3% of the World Population in 1940 estimated at 2.3B.  So basically here you would have to QUADRUPLE the death rate from WWII, and do that every year from now to 2116.  This scenario seems highly unlikely to me.

The more likely scenario is a crisis point to be reached, probably a year to a decade  in length where the world food supply drops and there is large scale starvation through many parts of the world.  I doubt this die off will stretch out over a century.  Can techno -industrial culture survive such a die off period with all the geopolitical problems and environmental problems resultant from it?  Burying the bodies alone will be an enormous task!  Even recycling them as Soylent Green will take a huge build out of infrastructure of Human Waste Recycling Centers!

Because of all these problems, while I think the Earth probably could support 1B Human souls, I voted an order of magnitude below that at 100M.  That is still a pretty good number though, and way short of extinction! 🙂  If we build a lot of good renewable energy infrastructure now, it could go a long way toward making the lives of the survivors better. 🙂

In what year do you expect to see the beginning of regular brownouts & blackouts and gas shortages in the United States? (choose the answer closest to the year you expect this to begin)

 
 

2017

 

2020

 

2025

 

2030

 

2040

 

Energy scarcity in the United States will not be a problem for the forseeable future. Renewable Energy will pick up the slack.

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 24
(10%)
65
(28%)
68
(30%)
34
(15%)
9
(4%)
29
(13%)
21.46 229

 

 

 

 

 

 

RES-5

It could happen sooner if the economy collapses before that. Also it will not be uniformly seen if it happens. Cities will likely continue to have electrical power as first priority customers due to population and political clout.

The US will be one of the last places to feel the squeeze on resources due to it's wealth. I do think the decline in oil production will be readily apparent in the early 2020's.

US has large amounts of natural gas plus coal to insure electrical supplies can be maintained for quite some time. Brown outs can also come from another form of "rationing" that is many people who fall out of the economy due to unemployment will use less energy thus freeing capacity for members of society who can afford electricity. This scenario assumes there are no major outbreaks of war or there is no large scale political/social upheaval. If any of those scenarios apply then all bets are off.

This question is a close second for me to Q4, because it puts a timeline on when BAU might really start to be disrupted in 1st World countries.  The general population of these countries will not recognize BAU is going the way of the Dinosaur until the basic services of LIGHTS at the FLICK OF A SWITCH no longer work and they can't get gas on demand at every pump from Anchorage to Key West to fill up the SUV.

The VAST majority of respondents put the date for this sometime between 2020 & 2025.  I went Long on that one at 2025, basically because I think Demand Destruction through the 3rd World countries will outpace the supply shortages.  However, it really could occur anytime due to either a Financial System collapse or a major Geopolitical Event.

To finish off now with the survey stats to date, here's a Snapshot of the Demographics we got so far here.

My Gender is:(optional)

 
 

Male

 

Female

 

Other

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 194
(84%)
33
(14%)
4
(2%)
83.57 231

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Age Range is:(Optional)

 
 

<18

 

18-24

 

25-29

 

30-39

 

40-49

 

50-59

 

60-69

 

70+

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 0
(0%)
5
(2%)
14
(6%)
30
(13%)
46
(20%)
59
(25%)
58
(25%)
20
(9%)
21.66 232

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Region of the World I live is:(Optional)

 
 

North America

 

Central America

 

South America

 

Europe

 

Asia

 

Africa

 

Middle East

 

Oceania (Australia-New Zealand)

 

Polynesia

 

India/Pakistan/Bangladesh

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 145
(62%)
1
(0%)
5
(2%)
56
(24%)
1
(0%)
1
(0%)
0
(0%)
23
(10%)
1
(0%)
0
(0%)
43.92 233

My highest level of formal education is:

 
 

 

High School Graduate

 

Some College or Technical School

 

Associate's Degree

 

Bachelor's Degree

 

Master's Degree

 

Doctorate Degree

Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 4
(2%)
3
(1%)
37
(16%)
9
(4%)
82
(35%)
75
(32%)
25
(11%)
30.61 235

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, it is a well balanced group in terms of Age, although skewed more toward the older age groups.  You can parse the data by age group to look for differences in the spreadsheet.  Education levels also well represented, again weighted toward people with a higher level of formal education.  Still a highly male dominated sample, but improved here from 10% early on to 14% responses from Females.  Geographic distribution ended up mostly North America, Europe dropped to 24% and Oz/NZ held steady around 10%.

Far as selling Renewable Energy goes, at least inside the Collapse Blogosphere it appears this will be a very hard sell indeed, not sure how hard it will be to sell to the general public though.  After years of discussions on these topics from all sides, the majority of Kollapsniks do not see this as a means to maintain the techno-industrial lifestyle.  Even so, this does not mean Renewable Energy is not worth pursuing, there are many reasons that it is, even if it can't keep 7.2 Ambulatory Homo Saps walking the Earth at the same time in perpetuity.  It may work to make the downspin slower and more manageable.  It may work to make it possible for more Homo Saps to survive a dieoff event.  It may work to keep the spark of inovation alive and present opportunities in the future to find the Holy Grail of enough energy and ways to apply it to get off Planet Earth before the Sun Goes Red Giant.  I don't see that as very likely, but if you can keep this going to some extent, it might be possible over a few million years.  So you do the best you can given the parameters and limitations you have here.

The Future is a Mystery, and nobody can predict it absolutely.  Nobody has all the answers, hell nobody really even has all the data to make a concrete prediction on a system with so many variables.  So you  just need to follow the Imperative of ALL LIVING CREATURES, which is to STAY ALIVE, just as long as you can.  Life is not meant for QUITTERS like Guy McPherson.  They can all go into Hospice and count the days down until they die.

It Aint OVAH till the Fat Lady Sings.

http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/05/fat+lady+sings-feature.jpeg

The Renewable Energy Survey

youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on The Doomstead Diner on May 29, 2016

Take the New Renewable Energy Survey HERE

survey-says

Discuss this article at the Energy Table inside the Diner

One of the biggest controversies among people who are aware of the Energy problems we face moving into the future is whether Renewable Energy (RE) can substitute for the Fossil Fuels (FF) we currently use to run our Industrial Lifestyle and Civilization. Can they produce enough energy, can we transition to them fast enough, can they replace all the things we use fossil fuels to power?

 

ugo-bardi-rLast week, Ugo Bardi of the blog Cassandra's Legacy  and Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Firenza in Italy put up the results of an Informal Survey he did of “experts” in RE who participate on a discussion forum dedicated to the topic. There were 70 respondents to this survey, and they mostly were positive in their view of the future potential of RE as a replacement for FFs. I thought it would be a good idea to get a wider sample of opinions on this topic, and hopefully a larger Sample Size as well in a new Renewable Energy Survey.  The first question in this survey is a duplicate of Ugo's question, the rest of the questions are designed to get further detail on your opinions on the future of RE as we move forward toward a Different Tomorrow.  I won't say better or worse, just that it surely will be different.

 

Now, our survey by no means is a Random Sample of the population at large, it is a sample of people who read blogs & websites where we are dropping the Links on to take the survey. However, we are not just dropping the links on Collapse oriented sites, we also are dropping them on Renewable Energy sites where the readers are generally more positive about the future potential for RE than on Collapse oriented sites. So we hope to get a balance of opinions in this way.

 

We also hope that the readers will email Friends & Relatives with the link to the survey, so we can get an even wider sample of opinions from people who don't usually concern themselves with this topic and don't haunt either the Renewable Energy blogs or Collapse Blogs. The larger the sample size we can get, the more accurate the results of the survey will be as a reflection of what people think about these issues.  Larger sample size also allows better parsing of data based on demographics.

 

http://www.easydigging.com/images-new/old-fashion-waterwheel.jpg RE doesn't come in only One Flavor, there are many forms of it, some used since Antiquity such as Mechanical Windmills and Water Wheels, which go back to the Roman Empire at least. Animal Labor from Draft animals is also a form of Renewable Energy, as long as you have food for the Horses & Oxen anyhow. Similarly with Slave Labor of Homo Saps, as long as you can feed, clothe and house them in enough numbers they reproduce effectively, this also is a form of RE.  The energy itself in both the latter 2 cases comes in the form of FOOD, but for that energy to be converted to usable work, it needs a biological machine that does that, which mainly are draft animals and slave Homo Saps.

 

More commonly though, when you talk to modern people about RE, what they think of are Photovoltaic Panels popping up on some of the rooftops around Suburbia amongst people seeking to go “off grid”. They also picture the large Arrays of Wind Turbines sprinkled across mountains in California, along with huge Hydro plants like the Hoover Dam. One of the questions in our survey is what you think the relative effectiveness of each of these types of RE will have as we move into the future?

http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/article1347212.ece/alternates/article_main/OCI%20Alamo%20I%20Solar%20Farm%20%20%20%20%20Credit%20-%20OCI.jpg   http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/wind-farm.jpg

 

Other questions revolve around your opinions on how much energy we need to maintain the techno-industrial lifestyle, and how large a population of Homo Sap is sustainable on the planet in the absence of FFs, with only REs as a source of usable energy? If we made the transition today, how many people could live sustainably on Mother Earth? We also would like to know your opinion on when serious Energy Shortages for maintaining the Industrial Lifestyle will begin to be apparent in 1st World countries, using the United States as the primary example of a highly consumptive Industrial society.

 

Our survey provides room for detailed text answers to each question, along with the Multiple Choice and Ranking options for the questions. No matter what you do on such a survey, you never can provide all the answer choices everyone would like to see. The most common criticism we get with our surveys is that “you did not ask this or that” or “you did not provide this or that answer choice”. First off, you never can think of EVERY possibility in advance, and second even if you could your questions and answers would get way too long. So inevitably, any Survey is just a subset of possibilities.

 

https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/sjCtSm2Pn8pKn2xJSfE6cg/ls.jpg Another common criticism is that our surveys are not "scientifically" designed.  This is fucking horseshit to begin with, you don't need a Ph.D to ask a fucking question. lol.  However, insofar as designing tests that provide a decent measure of WTF you are trying to measure goes, I'm as close to an expert as you will get.  I spent several years working for The Princeton Review designing test questions to mimic the SAT for wannabee Ivy Leaguers seeking to get a leg up on that test.  I got the job because I myself am a first class test taker, it's a gift. lol.  I also taught Args (Arguments) for wannabee Lawyers taking the LSAT, and all sections of the MCAT for wannabee Doctors.  In fact I'm the only person I know of who taught all of those tests for TPR. 🙂  So take it from me, this survey is measuring exactly what I set out to measure here.  That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement though, and based on responses and criticisms so far dropped on, I may do a follow up of this later on.

 

One criticism which has popped up in text responses so far is WHY did we not include Nuclear Energy as a Renewable energy resource?  This one I will answer now, so I don't get more of the same critique in the text fields as more responses roll in.  There are several reasons for this.

 

https://www.icheme.org/~/media/Images/TCE/News%20Images/Nuclear/Nuclear%20Tower.jpg First off is that strictly speaking fissionable material that can be mined up is not infinite, so this is not renewable.  Even with breeder reactors, eventually this will run out, although it might take quite some time.  Then you have the spent fuel problem and the waste generated by these plants.  Although in THEORY you might make such waste benign through further nuclear processing and reactions, such a method has not been implemented anywhere, and poisonous spent fuel continues to accumulate everywhere that nuclear reactors are running.  Third is that although some projected forms of Nuclear energy such as Thorium Reactors are claimed to be safe and clean, no such reactor has been built to date to demonstrate even on small scale that it can be run economically.  So all in all, to date Nuclear energy does not appear to be renewable, but rather presents its own existential threat to the environment due to the waste problems it has.

 

Next Week or the week after, depending on the Survey Sample size we will present the results here on the Diner for further discussion, and we will keep the survey open after that to see if the discussion materially affects the total numbers for any category. You can't change your answers from your first submission, but if the discussion materially affects your choices, you can make a second submission. Put a “#2” in the beginning of the email field along with your email address if you submitted one, and I will filter the second set. Or I may just duplicate the whole survey to get a whole new sample. Or I may filter the data by submission date.  One way or the other, I will try to sort this out.

 

We did a "pre-release" of the survey in the last week, dropping links on Cassandra's Legacy, Our Finite World, Economic Undertow and various Reddit Subs as well as on the Diner Forum to get some initial readings on what the zeitgeist is out there as far as RE Questions go.  As of this publication, we currently have 121 respondents so far, which is not a bad sample size to begin with, but hopefully we can expand it some from this.

 

I'm not going to publish the current stats on answers to the the substantive questions from this sample, because that would skew answers from people who have not yet responded.  However, I will drop down here some of the early Demographics on the respondents.

survey-RE-education-1

 

https://www.rochester.edu/commencement/2013/doctoral/doctoral1.jpg The most ASTOUNDING one so far is the Formal Education level of the respondents, it is extraordinarily high.  14% of respondents have Doctorate Level education, 29% with Masters level.  This compared to a general population level of 3% Doctorate and 12% Masters or above.  So by NO MEANS is this a Random Sample!  lol.

 

You can look at this as a Good or Bad thing depending on your perspective.  If you consider that getting opinions from mostly well educated people is a good thing, then a survey which draws in mostly well educated people in responses is good.  If you would rather have a general cross section of the population at large, then such a survey is not valid for that population.

 

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/09/gender-restroom.png A disappointing (though not unexpected) demographic so far is the number of Females who have responded.  Not unexpected because the collapse blogosphere is heavily weighted toward males, so there just aren't that many females reading this stuff to be able to get them to post up their opinions.  A suggestion I have to remedy this problem is for male respondents to the survey to coax females they know into filling it out.  Your mom, wife, girlfriend etc.  Transgender people self identifying as female are also welcome to check this box! 🙂  Or you can choose the "other" selection (nobody has picked that yet).

 

The rest of the Demographic questions are coming out distributed nicely, particularly the Age Demographic which is almost a perfect Bell Curve at the moment, though this has fluctuated some.  In any event, there are substantial responses in all categories besides <18 or >70 to parse out opinions by age.  Global distribution is weighted heavily to North America as to be expected given the Diner is an English language blog based in NA, but substantial contribution from Europe as well since this is where Ugo's blog Cassandra's Legacy is based in Italy.  It's been holding pretty steady at 55% North America, 30% Europe, 10% Oz & NZ and the rest everywhere else.

 

The next question you face when analyzing such statistics is their VALIDITY across the population you sample.  Across the entire population of the earth at around 7.2B people right now, this survey has virtually no statistical significance at all!  However, that is not the population being sampled here.  This population is mainly those who consider energy/collapse questions and regularly participate in net discussions on these topics.  How BIG is that population?  Well, I have been doing this biz for almost a decade now, and my estimate on the population size for people who both are aware of the eenrgy problems AND regularly haunt the websites concerned with this topic is around 50,000.  I get that number because for a variety of reasons I know what the subscription numbers are for the largest sites concerned with the topic.

 

So, if you take the current Sample Size of ~100 and the estimate of the total population you are sampling as 50,000, what is the Validity of this survey with those numbers?  For  a Population size of 50,000 with a Confidence Level of 95% and a Margin of Error of 10%, we need 96 respondents to the survey, which we have ALREADY exceeded!  Plug the numbers in on Survey Monkey if you don't believe me. lol

 

I really don't think we need a greater Confidence interval than this, so the main thing a bigger Sample Size will do is to increase the total size of population that sample is valid for.  I expect by the time this survey has accumulated  maximum responses that we will easily have a 99% confidence interval on the results for a population size of 50K.  I only do this statsitical shit because I constantly get  hammered when I do surveys they are not "scientific" enough.  The only criticism that beats "your question and answer choices SUCK!" when you do a survey is how "scientific" it is and what validity it has.  lol.  You can easily tell using CFS principles what is going on though, you don't really need to do the math.

 

Remember though, for surveys to have good validity and make them tough to deny, they need a good Sample Size! So get as many people as you can to fill it out!  This is particularly important if you want to parse the data based on different demographic parameters, which is quite interesting already. Everybody who drops an email addy on the survey will get a copy of the complete dataset (less the emails and website referrals) to do their own analysis.  If you do undertake such a dissection, let me know and I will publish your analysis.  A real nice one to look at is the difference in results between males and females.  Parsing by education level and age also is quite interesting.

 

At current pace, I'll probably have enough numbers for a publication next week of results, but I may wait 2 weeks on this depending on what the stream is and the decay rate in responses.

 

Thanks to all who have contributed to the survey so far, and for the rest of you, TAKE THE SURVEY NOW!

Terrorism Survey Results

Democracy comes to you - bombergc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on December 22, 2015

terrorists-Anthony-Freda-Studio

TAKE THE TERRORISM SURVEY HERE

survey-saysDiscuss this article at the Survey Table inside the Diner

Early results are IN, and quite remarkable in how completely OPPOSITE they are to the policies actually being undertaken by Western Goobermints to try and combat this problem.  Also, many very strong opinions expressed by the Survey takers in the Open Text response areas of the survey.

The results speak for themselves, I am going to publish them without comment until the end.  The Survey remains open, and if there are significant numbers of additional respondents and/or the percentages change very much, I will publish an update of the survey results in 2016.

Now, on to the results!

 

Question 1: Do you think air strikes will resolve the Terrorism problem?

  Yes, retaliation with air strikes will help No, retaliation with air strikes will make it worse It doesn't matter either way. No opinion Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(4%)
46
(64%)
23
(32%)
0
(0%)
18.43 72


Question 2: Rank these solutions to the Terrorism problem in Western countries in order of Most Effective to Least Effective

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Standard Deviation Responses Weighted Average
Sending money to Border Countries to build Refugee Camps 19
(35%)
12
(22%)
10
(18%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
4
(7%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
5.97 55 2.62 / 8
Closing all borders and building Fences 6
(11%)
11
(20%)
11
(20%)
14
(25%)
7
(13%)
3
(5%)
3
(5%)
0
(0%)
4.51 55 3.47 / 8
Ground Troops in MENA 4
(7%)
9
(16%)
6
(11%)
11
(20%)
10
(18%)
9
(16%)
6
(11%)
0
(0%)
3.41 55 4.18 / 8
Stricter Gun Control Laws 3
(5%)
12
(22%)
9
(16%)
3
(5%)
8
(15%)
5
(9%)
11
(20%)
4
(7%)
3.37 55 4.45 / 8
Air Strikes in MENA 2
(4%)
4
(7%)
9
(16%)
10
(18%)
15
(27%)
10
(18%)
5
(9%)
0
(0%)
4.65 55 4.49 / 8
Everyone should carry a Gun so Terrorists can be killed before they kill too many people 2
(4%)
3
(5%)
7
(13%)
7
(13%)
7
(13%)
15
(27%)
9
(16%)
5
(9%)
3.76 55 5.18 / 8
Other (explain below) 17
(31%)
3
(5%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
4
(7%)
28
(51%)
9.52 55 5.22 / 8
Nuking MENA 2
(4%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
8
(15%)
16
(29%)
18
(33%)
6.25 55 6.38 / 8

Question 4: Detail any other solutions to the Terrorism problem you can suggest here.

Terrorism is not a problem until we in Europe have a situation similar to Israel. Paris clearly shows that politicians endanger democratic values.
Deporting Muslims
Apologize, end American occupations and weapons exports, send reparations, send unarmed aid teams with equipment.
Terrorism, in my mind, is a lot like domestic violence in families. It's a cycle of abuse you could say. Violence begets violence. The lack of economic and educational opportunity, employment after education creates, or marriage prospects creates a bunch of young men who have no outlet. Young men without a purpose are very dangerous. So, long term, we need to make sure men don't want to turn to terrorism because they can see a stable future elsewhere.
Inequality in many aspects is the root of terror, in order to tackle that you would need to change the current system of capitalist economics, which operates as a wealth transference mechanism. The current system transfers wealth from developing countries to core countries, or more simply stated from places that have less money to places that have concentrated money and even within the core countries themselves, as shown by the amount of inequality in the United States and other Western economic dominated countries.
Prevent radicalisation more efficiently, destroy ISIS' money sources
Accept & encourage as many refugees from affected countries as possible. Afterwards: Dissolve all majorly affected countries from their status as a nation, conquer the resulting territories and establish a new temporary military government. Immediately enact martial law.
No trade policy with involved countries
Stop giving them the attention they want do not publish names or photos of perpetrators.
Investments in Islamic countries- particularly in education. Improving efforts at integrating immigrants into European and American society so as to reduce propaganda material and decreasing susceptibility to radicalization.
International / Global coalition and participation in efforts and information sharing
Recognitio of the terrorist groups within our borders not affiliated with Islam. Correcting the "counter factual information" spread amongst the extreme right political and religionist.
Quit killing millions of innocent people in a culture where their relatives are bound by tradition and religion to set aside their daily lives until the deaths are avenged.
economic development
How about NOT FUCKING BOMBING THEIR COUNTRIES! THE CIA IS THE TERRORIST, THEY ARE HAVING FALSE FLAGS!!!!!
Abolish the Us military, disolve NATO, say we are sorry, make reparations
NATO to be disbanded. Ban the sale of all weapons to MENA especially those that are actively supporting terrorism – S. Arabia, Qatar. Turkey and others. Western leader brought to account for their warmongering. Cease regime change and other interference in MENA. Western countries should apologise to MENA and offer reparations for the damage they have caused. Financial assistance must be offered by western govt to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs in affected countries.
Degrowth
Stay the hell out of the middle east. Let them all kill themselves.
Just leave them the fuck alone.
Negotiate and inform.
Keep out of other countries. We just make it worse.
Stop bombing other countries and overthrowing other governments.
Spend the billions spent on arms in humanitarian aid. Withdraw troops and cease hostile action Buy the oil legitimately Put in birth control programmes Assist with local economy and growing some of their own food.
Stop destroying other countries
Let's have a war. An all-out Holy War. Can We get a Table Dance. Then we can get on with our lives.
Stop harrassing other countries for their resources.
as per my article on how to cure terrorism
People only use terrorism as a tool to archive their political objectives. While at full extent it is impossible, avoiding being their enemies and as many interactions as possible you can indeed reduce being a target of their interests to start with. Dialog, despite it can lead to nasty concessions, is also a potential and more civilized approach.
Massive investments in family planning and environmental protections. It's hard to be a terrorist when you are safe, comfortable, employed and well fed. Might want to also collectively stomp on religious fundamentalism. Stop supporting Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan and make trade concessions only upon harmonizaiton of their policies with our. (China too)
Withdraw from MENA and everywhere else. Stop being the biggest terrorist.
Redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries and establish more options for a livabel future for the young people in their countries. Better education about Islam and religion in muslim communities in western countries to prevent radicalization.
The single best strategy to reduce terrorism would be to quit meddling in the sovereign affairs of other countries. Gun control might have an impact, but I don't like the cost (of losing my rights).
It is done by the 1% and they are not going away. No solution.
Send The Donald to Syria without a haircut for 2-3 months. The Donald's appearance will terrorize the terrorists into submission.
Deportation of anyone who 1) attends a radical mosque, 2) travels to MENA, buys guns, and grows a beard, and 3) pledges allegiance to IS on Facebook
leave those people the hell alone, that might help.
Stop fucking bombing them! Stop Turkey buying their oil and supporting them. Stop using oil at all and so stop funding them.
Don't elect Democrats or Republicans and completely replace all our elected representatives with new independent blood.
The obvious one is to remove all imperial forces from MENA, collapse voluntarily (properly prepare nuclear plant shutdowns, with ample funding for the 40 to 60 years it takes to decommission them)), and try to live as people 200 years ago did. So, yeah, this is a unicorn, but it's still a possibility for policy.
diplomacy, negotiation, compromise, understanding, intelligence, common sense, peaceful resolutions
Get out of MENA immediately. "Support the troops" and bring the troops home. Round up the neocons and oblige them to retire in public disgrace.
redirect us war effort to washington d.c. the enemy is there
The "terrorism problem" is mostly a fraud.
Give up the industrial lifestyle, ground all planes and junk all cars.
Treating terrorisim for what it is: crime an not as an existential threat. As well not loosing our shit every time someone with an Arabic name walks by.

Question 5: Where do most Terrorists come from?

  Most are recent immigrants from foreign countries Most are home grown locals who become radicalized It's about equal between Foreigners and Locals Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 4
(5%)
28
(38%)
29
(40%)
12
(16%)
10.64 73

Question 6: Are most Terrorist actions Centrally Planned by Masterminds operating abroad or are most independent actions by disaffected individuals and small groups?

  Most are planned abroad by Masterminds Most are disaffected Locals It's about equal between planned abroad and locally grown Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 5
(7%)
33
(46%)
26
(37%)
7
(10%)
12.03 71

Question 7:Who kills more innocent civilians each year, Terrorists shooting, beheading and suicide bombing people or NATO dropping Bombs and using Drones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Terrorists NATO It's about equal in Death Count of civilians between Terrorists and NATO Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(4%)
56
(78%)
7
(10%)
6
(8%)
21.99 72

Question 8: Rank these current US Presidential Candidates in terms of who would do the Best Job of handling the Terrorism problem and who would do the Worst job Best to Worst.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Standard Deviation Responses Weighted Average
Bernie Sanders 26
(52%)
8
(16%)
7
(14%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(4%)
4
(8%)
7.72 50 2.56 / 9
Rand Paul 7
(14%)
18
(36%)
5
(10%)
5
(10%)
5
(10%)
1
(2%)
5
(10%)
4
(8%)
0
(0%)
4.86 50 3.52 / 9
Hillary Clinton 6
(12%)
14
(28%)
8
(16%)
6
(12%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
3
(6%)
4
(8%)
7
(14%)
3.83 50 4.16 / 9
Jeb Bush 0
(0%)
3
(6%)
14
(28%)
14
(28%)
5
(10%)
4
(8%)
3
(6%)
5
(10%)
2
(4%)
4.74 50 4.64 / 9
Chris Christie 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(8%)
12
(24%)
13
(26%)
12
(24%)
4
(8%)
4
(8%)
1
(2%)
5.04 50 5.32 / 9
Ben Carson 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
6
(12%)
4
(8%)
9
(18%)
7
(14%)
11
(22%)
10
(20%)
3
(6%)
3.86 50 6.1 / 9
Ted Cruz 1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
3
(6%)
6
(12%)
11
(22%)
13
(26%)
9
(18%)
3
(6%)
4.17 50 6.18 / 9
Marco Rubio 1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
8
(16%)
13
(26%)
9
(18%)
11
(22%)
3
(6%)
4.42 50 6.22 / 9
Donald Trump 9
(18%)
3
(6%)
2
(4%)
3
(6%)
1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
27
(54%)
7.92 50 6.3 / 9

Question 9: What percentage of Refugees trying to get to Europe are Terrorists in disguise traveling with the specific intention of doing a Terrorist action?

  <1% 1%-5% 5-10% 11-50% 50-100% Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 57
(78%)
12
(16%)
3
(4%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
21.62 73

Question 10: Is State Sponsored War a form of Terrorism?

  Yes No It depends (explain below) Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 50
(68%)
13
(18%)
10
(14%)
18.19 73

Question 11: Explain what circumstances State Sponsored War is Terrorism and what circumstances it is not Terrorism

is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Use_in_Iraq_.282004.29 its all pretty crappy though
It's terrorism on a larger scale
When the stated goal of an invading force is "terrorize into submission". See invasion strategy shock and awe, United States invasion of Iraq strategy. They define it as inflicting terror on a population. That any moment they could be killed; and that any resistance they would be killed.
Generally, war could be considered terrorism if you're on the losing side. However, terrorism generally is associated with actions against primarily civilian targets.
no
I think anytime it's underwent with the express purpose of furthering an ideology, or meant as a "show of power" to either citizens or non-citizens.
Mutual aggression is not terrorism
Killing innocent people by the millions as collateral damage is terrorism.
attacks on non-military targets to harm civilians. think israel blowing up the only water treatment facilities in gaza.
All war is terrorism, premeditated, mass murder
War is just terrorism by another name – it is sponsored by the state and has a larger budget – those being the main differences.
Its terrorism if regime change is being sponsored from abroad.
CIA operation after WW2 OSA operation during WW2
State Sponsored War has legal status. Terrorism is extra-legal action. EG Mr Cameron killing in Syria prior to vote in Parliament authorising action.
It is not when it is in self defence. All other times it is terrorism.
It is not terrorism if directed at specific source of an attack on the country. Otherwise terrorism.
wars of choice and exploitation
I suppose Killing people is wrong, no matter what you call it.
USA bombing Iraq and Afghanistan is terrorizing those countires. We terrorized Lybia and Syria as well. What is one to expect from these countries in return, Thank You notes.
this requires a ten page essay
When instill fear is the main mean to archive your political interests, like bombing your foes with collateral damage to civilians not in consideration. It is not terrorism when there is a clear military objective to forcefully impose partly or fully your political interest (though it is still a crime).
Self-Defense of the state is similar to self defense of a person. Self defense is always a legitimate form of war. Foreign wars of aggression are not.
State sponsored war is not terrorism if it's done to repel a foreign invasion of native soil. So the kind of war we're in now is terrorism.
If aggression it is terrorism. If defense it is war. The war of 1812 was OK. The rest terrorism.
SSW as terrorism is sending The Donald to Syria without a haircut for 2-3 months. It is not SSW as terrorism when ISIS/ISIL captures The Donald and beheads him and his hair.
retalliating against a nuclear attack, or physical invasion of the US would not be terrorism.
killing innocents and children is not terrorism. Show me a bomb that can target only those people we are calling terrorists today and I will stop calling state sponsored war terrorism
Dead is dead. It does not matter how you get there the destination is the same.
State sponsored terrorism is, like other forms, using lethal violence to obtain political objectives (that usually reflect the narrow focus of a limited group and often against the will of the great heard. ) Kent State was clearly terrorism, for example.
defense when attacked directly is not terrorism going abroad to commit violence is terrorism
Clausewitz said War is Politics by other Means. To the extent that our serial wars in MENA are a latter day version of colonialist extraction, all military operations in MENA (as well as Ukraine) is terrorism. "Terrorism" is whatever the definer says it is.
state sponsored war is always terrorism
Anything that isn't a declared war by a state upon another but involves violence or coercion is terrorism. Period. Most of what the US does as foreign policy under this definition is indeed terrorism which is most US foreign policy since 2001.
When you are in a fight for survival and there are only enough resources for one group or the other. All the rest of the time it is terrorism, which is most of the time since the beginning of the Age of Agriculture.
Terrorism is a tactic. A state's foreign policy, including war, is a strategy. A tactic cannot be a strategy.

Question 12: Which driver of Terrorism is more powerful, Religious Fanaticism or Economics and Poverty?

  Religious Fanaticism Economics and Poverty Other (explain below) Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 17
(24%)
36
(50%)
19
(26%)
8.52 72

Question 13: Explain other drivers for Terrorism you think are as important or more important than Religious Fanaticism or Economics and Poverty.

cyclical effects in control systems, there has been terrorism before, some research might be in order
Oppressive governments that make life seem hopeless
False flag attacks by states against themselves, such as 9/11.
I think they're both at play. Fanaticism is a primary reason there is even a war right now. Some religious extremists want a theocratic state instead of a secular one. However, the key factor to getting low-level recruits is that those folks lack opportunity to hold normal jobs or they are pissed off about losses in their lives.
both
History
It's both.
NATO killing family members
I think media helping to drive the polarization of groups – be it political parties, religions, nationalities – creates a constant cultural narrative of "us vs. them" that increases and incentivizes and confines extreme/violent behavior to the "other" group.
Religious fanaticism is a vehicle through which economics and poverty leads to terrorism
Both factors drive terrorism together, with historical military actions and international relationships playing a role.
Profit by warmongers and bankers in the "civilized" world.
Poverty is number one because if people have shit to do or buy they wont build bombs
The CIA is the root cause of all terrorism.
US military and the US state dept
Anyone with a personal grudge against society can perform an act of terrorism – losing a job, being personally rejected by another or even imagining a perceived rejection can lead to terrorism – the many high school/college shooting in America being a case in point.
But the two combined are a fatal, toxic brew!
Climate change
Arms and Funding from Gulf States or the Pentagon
Energy
Religions tend to have reached accomodations with one another. Terrorisim tends to flow from a combination of political and religious views that narrowly promote their wellbeing at the expense of others.
Corporate greed.
Nearly as important as economics and poverty is the lust for power. Religion is simply the tool used for rationalization.
domination and occupation of other societies
I believe the two go hand in hand. People turn to strange religions (pretty much all of them) to help them cope with feelings of inadequacy financial, cultural, etc. But Islam is Bullshit.
was hen or egg first……
Hatred of Western exploitation of world resources.
Revenge and anger fueled by abuse and injustice.
Both in equal partts. Economics and poverty create the fundamental motivations, Religious fundamentalism shapes the motivations into weapons.
Greed. Anger. Fear.
Economics and poverty are more powerful, but religious fanaticism plays a strong role as of right now.
The sadism of the ruling class in the west followed by the sadism of all other ruling classes.
Looking at The Donald's hair is worse torture than fanaticism and poverty. Are NY Yankee or Green Bay Packer fanatics the result of poverty and religion. Well, yes, poverty of the intellect and a strong belief that professional sports are essential to existence.
Poverty amplifies fanaticism.
climate change. climate change,. climate change
The CIA and the Department of Homeland Security.
How about Classism. The Global .01% don't give a rip about the rest of their fellow humans, and steal wantonly from the great multitudes. It is inevitable there will be pushback as 99% is a large amount to keep docile and underfoot.
ignorance, lack of education nationalism tradition fear
Ignorance and nationalism.
Imperialism
As a driver, climate change is setting up the underlying unstable conditions that lead to war, conflict as terrorism.

Question 14: Would Terrorism be reduced if Wealth was redistributed from Rich Countries to Poor countries internationally and from Rich People to Poor people locally?

  Yes No It would remain the same Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 40
(56%)
16
(23%)
15
(21%)
11.56 71

Question 15: You may explain your answer to Q14 here (optional)

You know of the correlation between riots and food prices, beyond that you can pay off many people the rest you can ignore or avoid pissing off.
The governments of poor countries would steal all the aid money and give it to the already rich elite. Also giving free money to poor people is just a temporary solution that makes them passive and lazy.
it is self evident.
When a country is in conflict or poor, there is often a high level of corruption. If you attempt to get aid to actual citizens, it will likely be siphoned off before it reaches them.
Think of it as the law of the instrument, "often stated as" if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". The current "real existing capitalism" operates as the "instrument", and whoever is in charge of wielding the instrument begins to see everything as "a nail." A change to the system of wealth transference is a necessary step, but that only addresses one item. It does not address environmental, or social institutional needs.
I don't think there are any right answers here, for all the questions
I don't know
By no means do I suggest that distribution would solve terrorism, but constant poverty often creates a vacuum of purpose and general anger/ feeling of "unfairness" that extremists exploit to garner followers. I think it would certainly help measurably.
Wealth redistribution may not solve the driving issue
Poverty and lack of education and opportunity result in disaffection, and alienation. Religionists are providing "answers" and a way to belong – to strike back at the evil and evil ones "responsible" for these dismal conditions.
reduce poverty would help alleviate terrorism
The CIA plans all false flags, they may contract the shit out, but they control all.
The rich countries are only rich because they stole from the poor, give it back.
A more egalitarian distribution of wealth would help reduce resentment between different socio economic groups and between different cultures but is not a cure all as other factors are also in play – religious fanaticism, resource depletion – the disputes over water resources are a good example of a driver that can lead to war/terrorism.
Rich people, even middle class people, vested in their socieites have better things to do than wage war and die.
I kinda feel like it would have varied effects across the board. I kinda feel like global redistribution might cause more problems in some places even as it decreases problems in other places. I support it locally but I dont know how it could work internationally, it would mostly change things up
It is called stress. Stress leads to action. Sometimes good, but too easy to be hijacked for the worst purposes.
Poverty is not the cause. Exploitation and inequality in a nation are the causes.
Terrorists come from the group that is disaffected economically, socially and politically. Committing acts of terror becomes a reason d'etre to some of the disaffected.
wealth distribution is not related to terrorism
It would also help if people could unit within their own communities and work together for their common good. Running to the white developed countries and demanding to be cared for may not be the best plan.
People would be less drawn to religious fundamentalism, or any risky behavious if they had a roof over their head, a job and a full belly AND their neighbours had it too.
Yes, and when that happens monkeys will fly out of my butt.
No act for increased efficiency will work if the number of humans are not limited. Too many humans.
Each month I make my rent, insurance, and car payments, I feel poor and thus am terrorized financially and economically. Therefore, I deserve to have a rich guy pay at least half of my living costs so I can use the difference to buy guns and ammo, and to make pipe bombs to terrorize terrorists who are coming to the US by the millions to kill us all.
It would help in the short term but ultimately be ineffective as new grievances arose and violence ensued.
I have no earthly idea.
It would intensify if governments were not changed out. The terrorists don't want their stuff given away and would be orchestrating the return of their stuff if it were redistributed. Redistribution is a bad answer anyway. There are other better ways. Of course redistribution is impossible with the government we have so it really does not matter.
As long as the Global North keeps looting the South, there will be problems. The wealth doesn't need to be redistributed; the North and the West just need to stop stealing ftom the South and East.
Scarcity breeds aggression.
Eat the rich.
poor countries are poor because we've already raped them
It would help, but ultimatly there will be blood regardless.

NOW…

Democracy comes to you - bomberWhat is the takeaway from this Survey????

Quite obviously, at least amongst people who frequent collapse websites, they are in COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT with just about every policy being followed to combat terrorism.  Not by a small margin either.  About nobody thinks bombing is doing any good, most think The Donald would be the absolute WORST choice for a POTUS who might be able to handle the problem, few think Refugees are a huge source of Terrorists, and even fewer think there are big time Terrorist Masterminds out there like Osama Bin Laden planning all the mayhem from caves in Afghanistan, and most think a redistribution of wealth (from rich to poor rather than poor to rich) would if not solve the Terrorism problem, might at least make it a little less problematic.

Now, are Kollapsniks TM really THAT different from the population at large?  Or is the opinion of the population at large simply being IGNORED by TPTB running the show here?  I tend to think toward the latter, but the general population is so Brainwashed I'm not entirely sure of that.  If the opinion of the population at large is just being ignored here, what does that say about the so-called "Democracy" that we supposedly live under and are delivering to the rest of the world via Carpet Bombing them all?  What does it say about the power of the Ballot Box and Voting?  It's obviously not changing the policies here no matter WTF you vote for!!!

On the other hand, if it's true that the general population DOES think these policies are a good idea, then what does that say about Democracy?  Do you really want a Democracy when most of the Voters are Brainwashed IDIOTS?!?!?!  Imbeciles electing Morons is a good way to run a Goobermint?  What?  I'm no fan of the Dictatorship idea either, so clearly we need to come up with a different plan here, because Plan A and Plan B are not working.  Suggestions?  Buehler?

https://images.rapgenius.com/60512a3c587a53cd3492c56154e88845.500x205x33.gif

 

Drought Survey Results

survey-saysgc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on December 1, 2015

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/eastafrica/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/kenya-dead-cattle-620.jpg

Discuss these Results at the Survey Table inside the Diner

Drought Survey Results are IN!

This is a very speculative survey of course.  Nobody can give any absolute scientific proof for their opinion on any of these questions.  However, when you look at a group of Doomers, you begin to get a picture of where they think things are worst, and where they are less worse.

Since you don't know precisely where Mother Nature will decide to drop down some water in any given month or year, these estimates can change quite a bit from year to year.  For instance, the El Nino event this year appears to have brought copious rainfall to Texas, which has been in drought for quite a few years.  It hasn't completely alleviated the drought, and has actually brought the opposite problem of several major Flooding Events, which can be just as destructive.  In flooding events also, most of the water isn't captured, it ends up running back to the sea before it can be sequestered behind some dam, if in fact the dam has not burst.  For predictable Ag needs, your ideal is a regular amount of rainfall, not so little everything dries up, not so much that everything is periodically under 3 feet of water and bridges get washed away.

Despite the problems with being precise here, there are some fairly obvious ongoing trends, and Doomers who follow climate issues are pretty aware of them, so getting a snapshot here of how Drought will play out is interesting information.

So, here we go.

Starting with when the Hoover Dam will have to be shut down and stop producing cheap electricity for the Vegas Strip to stay lit up and Californicators to run their Plasma TVs

http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/23/df73eed0-6c72-40de-ba13-b6f6aba30f38/resize/620x465/3f5be2b2aaff9d34c24e49b7f3d74720/452330338.jpg

What is closest to the year that the Hoover Dam will have to be shut down and stop providing Electricity?

  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 or later The Hoover Dam will produce Electricity for the forseeable future Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(6.25%)
9
(18.75%)
10
(20.83%)
2
(4.17%)
9
(18.75%)
9
(18.75%)
4
(8.33%)
2
(4.17%)
3.32 48

Most Doomers believe this will occur between 2017 and 2020, about 60%.  I agree with that assessment.

At the same time though, most Doomers think it will take until 2025 before Vegas is a complete Ghost Town and the lights on the Strip will go dark forever more.

http://banki.ir/images/stories/picture/gardeshgari/vegas-business-x3.jpg

What is closest to the year that Las Vegas will become a Ghost Town?

  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 or later Las Vegas will not become a Ghost Town for the forseeable future Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 2
(4.17%)
3
(6.25%)
3
(6.25%)
1
(2.08%)
7
(14.58%)
17
(35.42%)
15
(31.25%)
0
(0%)
6.1 48

It is hard to fathom though how people will still live there for 5 more years even if there is some drinking water left.  The Casinos will all be out of biz.  What will they do for work?  It will take a while for it to empty completely of course, but I don't think it will take 5 years.

How about Los Angeles?  When do the Californicators hit the Refugee Highway and abandon Hollywood?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fa/84/57/fa8457de390c1cbc8f233bd93cb018dd.jpg

What is closest to the year that Los Angeles will become a Ghost Town?

  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 or later Los Angeles will not become a Ghost Town for the forseeable future Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 2
(4.35%)
0
(0%)
3
(6.52%)
0
(0%)
3
(6.52%)
11
(23.91%)
22
(47.83%)
5
(10.87%)
6.96 46

Most Doomers think LA doesn't become a complete Ghost Town until 2030, and I mostly agree with that. There will still be some left, they will desalinate water, expend huge amounts of energy to keep Snorting Cocaine in Malibu Mansions, at least if they haven't been inundated with Mud Slides before they get the lines laid out on the Mirror and the $100 Bills rolled up..

There are even bigger and more immediate problems with drought than in Vegas or LA down in Sao Paolo, Brasil.  Really all of Brasil since they are burning down the Rainforest for Ag land which might last them 2 seasons, but Sao Paolo has the worst problems right now.

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1406633/sao-paulo-drought.jpg

What is closest to the year that Sao Paolo will become a Ghost Town?

  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 or later Sao Paolo will not become a Ghost Town for the forseeable future Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 2
(4.26%)
2
(4.26%)
1
(2.13%)
2
(4.26%)
13
(27.66%)
12
(25.53%)
14
(29.79%)
1
(2.13%)
5.56 47

Again, most Doomers think it will take until 2020 before the city becomes unlivable, but on that one I am not so sure.  They'll need some serious rainfall in 2016 to stay viable,and the Brasilians are also BROKE.  So building new infrastructure and pipelines for water doesn't seem likely either for the Paolistas.

Probably the BIGGEST question in terms of Global Homo Sap Dieoff from drought issues is concerned is the Great Plains of the FSoA, the so-called "Breadbasket".  It's only been a breadbasket since we started pumping water up from the Ogallala Aquifer and throwing down megatons of fossil fuel based fertilizer on the soil.  Prior to this, the neighborhood was basically a desert, only suitable for grazing herds of Bison and a few First Nations People who hunted them down, following the herds.

When Ogallala is pumped dry, or when the energy to pull up what water is still left deep underground is unavailable, the Great Plains are DONE as a Breadbasket.  Once that occurs, the FSoA will not only no longer be shipping off Food Aid to MENA countries, we will have serious problems feeding our own current population.

So when does this major Doom Event come to pass?

http://www.rodhandeland.com/FreshWater/4o3%20Ogallala%20Aquifer%20Map.jpg

What is closest to the year that the Great Plains will cease to be productive as an Agricultural Region due to depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer? (20% or less of current total grain produced)

  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 or later The Great Plains will remain productive for the forseeable future Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(6.25%)
2
(4.17%)
4
(8.33%)
0
(0%)
5
(10.42%)
17
(35.42%)
16
(33.33%)
1
(2.08%)
6.24 48

According to general Doomer Wisdom, this will not occur until 2025 or later.  I would agree with that except for the energy issue, having enough energy to pump the water UP from an aquifer that drops lower each year.  That factor plus availability of Fossil Fuel based fertilizer brings the crash date for Midwest Grain Production closer to 2020 than 2025, IMHO.

Ordering  few US Big Shities currently threatened by drought west of the Mississippi, Vegas comes out on top as expected.

Order these USA cities from 1st to last on which will be 50% depopulated from its current population level.

 
 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

Standard Deviation

 

Responses

 

Weighted Average

Las Vegas 31
(68.89%)
8
(17.78%)
2
(4.44%)
3
(6.67%)
0
(0%)
1
(2.22%)
0
(0%)
10.35 45 1.58 / 7
Los Angeles 0
(0%)
12
(26.67%)
14
(31.11%)
5
(11.11%)
8
(17.78%)
3
(6.67%)
3
(6.67%)
4.75 45 3.67 / 7
Fresno 4
(8.89%)
7
(15.56%)
9
(20%)
9
(20%)
9
(20%)
6
(13.33%)
1
(2.22%)
2.82 45 3.76 / 7
Phoenix 8
(17.78%)
13
(28.89%)
7
(15.56%)
8
(17.78%)
7
(15.56%)
2
(4.44%)
0
(0%)
3.96 45 2.98 / 7
Abequerque 1
(2.22%)
3
(6.67%)
10
(22.22%)
8
(17.78%)
9
(20%)
11
(24.44%)
3
(6.67%)
3.7 45 4.47 / 7
El Paso 1
(2.22%)
1
(2.22%)
2
(4.44%)
8
(17.78%)
9
(20%)
16
(35.56%)
8
(17.78%)
5.1 45 5.29 / 7
Salt Lake City 0
(0%)
1
(2.22%)
1
(2.22%)
4
(8.89%)
3
(6.67%)
6
(13.33%)
30
(66.67%)
9.81 45 6.27 / 7

Obviously none of these places are real good choices, but at least for this bunch if you are committed to staying in this neighborhood, this might be a good time to consider converting to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  lol.

Can Water Desalination make a difference here?  There's PLENTY of Water Earth of course, Oceans FULL of it, even if it is a little warm and being pumped full of radionucleotides by the Radiation Supply Warehouse at Fuck-You-Shima.  Just gotta take the Salt out of the water and we are SAVED!

Of course, the first problem here is that desalination is energy intensive by itself, then after that it really only works in coastal cities.  Anywhere else you have to expend still more energy to pump it uphill from Sea Level.

What do Doomers think about the plausibility of Desalination as a solution to Fresh Water Resource Depletion?

http://alarifeassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SaudiAl-KhobarDesalinationPlant.jpg

Can Water Desalinization make a signficant difference for coastal cities in maintaining potable water supplies?

  Yes No Maybe for a short while, but not for long. It depends how large the city is. Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 4
(8.33%)
13
(27.08%)
27
(56.25%)
4
(8.33%)
0
(0%)
9.69 48

Most Doomers think it can make a significant difference in coastal cities for a while.  I disagree with that.  Only a very few of the richest cities in the world like Riyahd in Saudi Arabia or Los Angeles could even get credit to build these plants to begin with, and then as soon as the monetary system and energy distribution systems fail, they fail right along with them.  It's completely insignficant as a solution on the grand scale.  Epic Fail and waste of what resources we have left here.

So, all in all the Water Issues are not shaping up well, and based on the fact Homo Sap can't live more than around 3 days without Water and the crops we grow for food need copious amounts to produce high yields, it looks likely the Dieoff of Homo Sap and population reduction will begin between 2020 and 2025.  How far down it will go is anybody's guess, but once it gets rolling my guess is that it will move along pretty fast.

Next Collapse Survey TM coming soon to a Laptop Near You:  Terrorism!

Collapse Personality Profile Update

Printgc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on October 27, 2015

Print

Discuss this article at the Survey Table inside the Diner

TAKE THE COLLAPSE PERSONALITY PROFILE SURVEY HERE

I'm going to hold off on publishing FULL RESULTS of the Collapse Personality Profile Survey TM until next week, because the results coming in so far are absolutely FASCINATING and I don't want to skew further respondents answers by giving away too much of what has come in so far.  We have around ~80 respondents to the survey in the first week, and I will tell you that watching the numbers accumulate, the percentages for each category have not changed much if at all from the first ~20 or so to the current ~80. What that means in statistical terms is that the results are invariant in terms of sample size in this population.  So it's pretty valid already, but still I want another week's worth of data in there before doing a final crunching of the numbers on the spreadsheet for the Personality and IQ data.

What I will fill in on in for this week is the Demographics, which mostly I expected but in some areas i was surprised. 

The first surprising area was Doomer Gender.  My experience across the net over the last 8 years or so has been 10% or even less of the participants on Doom Websites were female.  However, the Survey Sez that the percentage of females haunting the Doom-o-sphere TM is actually around 20%!

  Male Female Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 62
(80.52%)
15
(19.48%)
0
(0%)
26.41 77

So with Doomer Females, it seems likely that only half of those who read Doom (and will do an anonymous survey also) actually will ever post up on a Doomsite TM.  That is an anecdotal WAG based on my own experience, not scientific.  lol.

Unsurprisly, most Doomers are White Males from North America with a formal education of Bacheors Degree or better:

  High School Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Doctoral Degree Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 10
(12.99%)
10
(12.99%)
27
(35.06%)
16
(20.78%)
5
(6.49%)
9
(11.69%)
7.1 77
  White Black Brown Red Yellow Albino Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 68
(90.67%)
3
(4%)
1
(1.33%)
1
(1.33%)
2
(2.67%)
0
(0%)
24.84 75
  North America Central America South America Western Europe Eastern Europe North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Middle East North Asia Southeast Asia Australia/New Zealand Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 53
(68.83%)
0
(0%)
1
(1.3%)
16
(20.78%)
1
(1.3%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(2.6%)
1
(1.3%)
3
(3.9%)
15.2 77

The most surprising to me Demographic was the Age Distribution!   My experience has been that most Doomers are Boomers, aka people around age 50-70.  This does not seem to be the case at all though, rather Doomers are distributed pretty evenly through all generations, although the Gen X-Y group is dominant here.

  <18 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 0
(0%)
4
(5.19%)
13
(16.88%)
18
(23.38%)
13
(16.88%)
13
(16.88%)
14
(18.18%)
2
(2.6%)
0
(0%)
6.57 77

I will save the stats on Personality Typing and IQ for next week, other than to say that Doomers appear to be a good deal Smarter than the Average Bear by the measure of a short IQ Test.   I was a bit surprised at how many actually took that test and reported their results.  Whether everyone was honest about it  or did not cheat the test I don't know.   Based on the average level of education though, I think this average IQ is probably valid, although perhaps up-skewed 5-10 points.

Next week I will publish the actual PERSONALITY of DOOMERS results, which are actually even more interesting. 🙂  So if you have not yet already done so, you have one more week to take the tests and answer the survey before I run the spreadsheet for this tally!

TAKE THE COLLAPSE PERSONALITY PROFILE SURVEY HERE

New Collapse Survey: Best Collapse Survival Locations & World’s Worst City Survey Results

survey-says-2Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on August 11, 2015

Visit the COLLAPSE.GLOBAL Portal for Links & Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

survey-says

Discuss these results at the Surveys Table inside the Diner

Last week we surveyed the KollapsniksTM on where the WORST places to be as Collapse moves around the Globe.  Results for last week's survey are down at the bottom of this page.

For this week we look at choices for the BEST place to park yourself would be.

https://www.ctbto.org/uploads/tx_ctbtoslider/HA09_007.jpg

Tristan de Cunha, Edinburgh of the Seven Seas

Take the Best Collapse Location Survey HERE

For last week's survey, once again there were some surprising results..

Not too surprising was Las Vegas was ranked worst, because most respondents come from the FSoA and they are mostly Kollapsniks well aware of the water problems in Vegas.

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/04/22/lake-mead-1.jpg

However, Sao Paolo has worse water problems already, but was ranked 3rd below Mexico City.  I also found it surprising New York Shity was ranked above Phoenix as worse.  Phoenix has the same water problem as Vegas, NY still has decent water supply.  Also, as center of Finance, the economy in NY still is kind of functioning.

It's also hard to imagine how Baghdad can be ranked less worse than NY?  It's a fucking war zoe already AND a desert!

My guess here is the survey respondents stopped after making acouple of selections because it is too long.   Future Surveys will have fewer choices.

World's Worst Cities Survey Results:

  1 2 3 4 Standard Deviation Responses Weighted Average
Las Vegas 4
(12.12%)
2
(6.06%)
1
(3.03%)
2
(6.06%)
1.04 33 9.76 / 36
Mexico City 1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
1.48 33 10.15 / 36
Sao Paolo 1
(3.03%)
2
(6.06%)
3
(9.09%)
0
(0%)
1.3 33 10.39 / 36
Los Angeles 1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
3
(9.09%)
1
(3.03%)
1.14 33 10.91 / 36
Beijing 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1.34 33 11.18 / 36
New York 8
(24.24%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
0
(0%)
1.46 33 12.48 / 36
Phoenix 1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
0.98 33 12.52 / 36
Delhi 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(9.09%)
1
(3.03%)
1.11 33 13.48 / 36
Chicago 1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
0.95 33 14 / 36
Rio de Janeiro 1
(3.03%)
2
(6.06%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1.14 33 14.7 / 36
Baghdad 10
(30.3%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
2
(6.06%)
2.07 33 14.7 / 36
London 0
(0%)
5
(15.15%)
0
(0%)
3
(9.09%)
1.14 33 14.82 / 36
Moscow 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
3
(9.09%)
0.92 33 15.33 / 36
Calcutta 2
(6.06%)
4
(12.12%)
1
(3.03%)
2
(6.06%)
1.28 33 15.85 / 36
Houston 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
1
(3.03%)
1.23 33 15.88 / 36
Singapore 1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
0.92 33 16.36 / 36
Riyadh 1
(3.03%)
5
(15.15%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1.57 33 17.3 / 36
Berlin 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
3
(9.09%)
3
(9.09%)
0.98 33 17.67 / 36
Miami 0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1.32 33 18.09 / 36
Dallas/Ft. Worth 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
1.42 33 18.3 / 36
Tokyo 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.11 33 19.36 / 36
Detroit 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(6.06%)
0
(0%)
1.32 33 20.76 / 36
Nairobi 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1.36 33 20.79 / 36
Tel Aviv 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1.34 33 20.94 / 36
Delhi 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
4
(12.12%)
1.28 33 21.03 / 36
Tehran 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
1.34 33 21.24 / 36
Sydney 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.14 33 21.97 / 36
Athens 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.4 33 22.36 / 36
Madrid 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.59 33 24.21 / 36
Paris 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.4 33 24.67 / 36
Caracas 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
1.55 33 25.24 / 36
Buenos Aires 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1.62 33 26.06 / 36
Wellington/Christchurch 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
1.55 33 26.27 / 36
Lisbon 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.52 33 27.3 / 36
Helsinki 0
(0%)
1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1.74 33 28.82 / 36
Honolulu 1
(3.03%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2.51 33 31.09 / 36

 

The WORST POTUS Survey

Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on July 25, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

survey-says-2

Discuss this Survey at the Geopolitics Table inside the Diner

 

 

I haven't dropped any new surveys onto the Diner since we had all the problems in June, which probably were not related to The Human Extinction Survey, but nonetheless it has made me skittish about using that plugin.

Besides that though, it doesn't have a means for doing a Ranking Answer, which is something I have been looking for in a Polling system.  I believe I finally found one!  It's off-site, so it poses no threat to the Diner server.  It's also FREE up to 50 responses anyhow.  :icon_sunny:

After you go to the page, you just slide the worst choice to the top of the list, the least worst to the bottom.  It's not a complete list of all possibilities, but I think I got most of the main contenders in the horse race to be the Leader of an Empire in Collapse for the next 4 years.

Once you are done with your sort, you hit the Finished Sorting  radio button and then the Finish Sorting submit button.

Who do you think is the WORST choice among this crowd to lead us down the Collapse Highway?

RE

The Human Extinction Survey: The Collapse Pundits Email Stream

Off the keyboards of RE & other Collapse PunditsTM

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Like us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 31, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

extinction2

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

extinction-buttonOne of the more interesting developments that arose as a result of The Human Extinction SurveyTM was an email stream between numerous bloggers who concern themselves with Collapse issues.  Besides myself, this included Ugo Bardi (Resource Crisis), Albert Bates (Peak Surfer, The Farm), Dmitry Orlov (Club Orlov), George Mobus (Question Everything), Steve Ludlum (Economic Undertow), Thomas Lewis (Daily Impact), Jason Heppenstall (22 Billion Energy Slaves) and Lucid Dreams (Epiphany Now).  These are just the bloggers that actively participated in the conversation, there were numerous on the list who were recipients of these emails as well, including Gail Tverberg (Our Finite World), Guy McPherson (Nature Bats Last) and many others.

I asked permission to make these emails Public, and with the exception of Dmitry Orlov, the participants in the conversation are OK with this (at least nobody else told me NOT to publish their emails), so in this latest Sunday Brunch Installment of The Human Extinction SurveyTM series, I am going to begin the process of publishing most of the email stream that came out of this exercise in Collapse Analysis.  However, there is so much material in there that publishing it all in one Blog is simply overkill, nobody would read through it all in one sitting.  So for today, just the first dozen or so responses.

Following the email stream are responses to Q3 in the survey by the respondents.  The survey itself is closed for the time being, since it appears to be making the blog unstable, we crashed the Diner Blog twice this week.  We're still working on figuring out where the exact problem is and how to correct it.

Even without another iteration of the survey and even though I am only publishing a small portion of the email stream, this is going to be one INCREDIBLY long Blog article nonetheless.  LOL.  Hope you have plenty to eat for Sunday Brunch while you read.

Here we go, from the very beginning…

Off the keyboard of RE:

Today I published THE HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEY.
 
This survey is designed to gather opinion and numerical data on belief about the possibility of Human Extinction in the Near Term.
 
I am inviting all people who write on or contemplate this topic to participate in the survey.  I will be publishing all the results as they come in, in bunches.
 
For submissions by known Authors on this list, prior to publication I will vet the information with you to make sure it came from you and is not falsely attributed to you by a troll.  Nothing you write into the submissions area will go up automatically without prior verification and editing and your final approval.
 
You may participate in the Survey either Anonymously or Publicly with your Name/Internet Handle, however I hope you will choose to identify yourself as this will increase the validity of the survey.
 
This is THE most important question of our time.  I hope you will assist me in getting this information out to the world at large.
 
If you run a Blog or Website, I also encourage you to tell your readers about the poll, to gather still more data.
 
Thanks to all of you in your work in developing an understanding of Collapse, regardless of what your opinion is on this topic.
 
RE
Admin

DoomsteadDiner.net

Off the keyboard of Ugo Bardi:

Well, a short term human exinction is obviously possible. Unfortunately, it is not a measurable parameter; although we might extrapolate the population curve once it starts crashing down. But extrapolation is always very uncertain – so, it is an unsolvable problem

 

There is another way of looking at it, that is consider that human may or may not go extinct, but may become irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. For the "singularity" crowd, that's where we are going; it is trascendence, not extinction. For the followers of Richard Duncan it is the return to hunting and gathering. Either way, it is pretty much a possibility.

 

Finally, there is another possibility not usually considered: humans do not go extinct, but evolve into something else. The recent result of genomic research has opened up a Pandora's box of things that happened to humans during the past few millennia. They did evolve, oh, yes! They did. The idea that we are still the same guys who hunted wooly mammoths during the ice age badly needs an update. We are similar to them, but not the same; not at all.

 

So, if we can survive for a few millennia, we are going to change into something more adatpted to the world of the future, whatever it will be. And I think the key element of the human future is "eusociality." That is, collaboration, not competition – the human hive, in short. It wll be an interesting future, even though much different than it used to be. No flying cars, no robot butler bringing you the margaritas on the edge of the pool. Nothing like that. I, for one, welcome our new hive masters.  

 

UB

Off the keyboard of George Mobus:

I just posted my latest blog. It's titled Civilization Collapse 3.0 and is basically a reminder that things are coming to a head soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am in the camp that Ugo mentioned. Humans will eventually go extinct outright, meaning that the whole genus Homo will too. Or the current species will evolve into a new one, hopefully Homo eusapiens! I agree with Ugo that the key will turn out to be eusociality. The pattern of cooperation trumping competition is an evolutionarily old one – the emergence of collectives that are more successful than individuals goes back to the auto-organization of complex organic molecules to form primitive cells. See: The Major Transitions in Evolution by John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rise in levels of organization and hierarchical complexity is a recurring theme in evolution. No reason it shouldn't apply to hominid evolution as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

George

Off the keyboard of Jason Heppenstall:

Obviously, nobody has a crystal ball, so what we have are only tentative feelings, best guesses.

 
For what it's worth I don't think that humans will go extinct anytime soon. Barring  some cataclysmic turn of events that would make all vertebrate life impossible (such as a lack of oxygen) I would place my bets on pockets of humans hanging on around the globe in various ecological niches. We are a tough and adaptive species, and once the pressure valves of overpopulation and resource over-exploitation have been released then it will free up a lot of natural capital for the 'survivors'.
 
That said, it may FEEL like we have gone extinct, by today's standards of modern communications. Certainly the genus of (HT to Mike Ruppert) Petroleum Man will go extinct, right alongside with Gadget Man and a few others. Eventually, of course, we'll all go – probably due to a super volcano or something similar. Near term, though? I doubt it.

Off the keyboard of George Mobus:

Jason,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best to not mix biology with sociology when talking about evolutionary bottlenecks. Petroleum Man, whatever that may be, is not a real species. Homo sapiens is bound to go extinct in the biological (Darwinian) sense because all biological species do eventually. It may be that they go extinct by evolving into a new species, preserving the basic plan of the genus Homo. But that still counts as extinct. Regardless of total genus extinction or just the species, the selection pressures resulting from huge declines in net free energy will operate to cull the herd as it were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No crystal ball is needed. Just a measure of free energy per capita and its decline tells the story well enough. You don't have to feel anything one way or the other. All you have to do is recognize physical reality when it comes to the per capita requirements for free energy to survive. It is science, not guessing.

Off the keyboard of Jason Heppenstall:

That's true, George. The question we are being asked though is if all humans everywhere will go extinct in short order. What with all the bottlenecks and declining per capita energy availability it's inevitable that a large proportion, if not most, of our number will be heading off the cliff, and leading them will be so-called petroleum man (shouting "Forwards!" as he plunges off the edge).

 
I think timescales are too short for any meaningful evolution to take place (e.g. for a genus of humans to evolve who can live off eating plastic), although in the long run, if we make it through the bottleneck,  I'm sure 'we' will evolve into something unrecognisable to what we are today. So, I remain skeptical that homo sapiens will die off in the next 30 years or whatever constitutes 'near-term', but open to the possibility that we might.

Off the keyboard of RE:

Interesting email conversation you gents are having on this topic, but it doesn't get recorded in the Survey.
 
Astounding number of people have dropped in to take it on the first day, now past 130 respondents.
 
Hope you folks are among them.
 

Off the keyboard of Ugo Bardi:

I marked 100 years because I had to mark something. But the answer is none of the above. If the sapiens survive for another century (not granted at all), then they have the possibility to stick around for several hundred thousand years – perhaps a few million. In this period, they will probably speciate and create several new, different hominid species. They won't be "sapiens" any moe (but they never were, anyway).

U.

Off the keyboard of Ugo Bardi:

Evolution is well known to be a misnomer. The correct term is "adaptation". During the Holocene years, the Sapiens quite some of their cranial capacity in comparison to the earlier forms. From wikipedia: "The cranial capacity has decreased from around 1,550 cm3 to around 1,440 cm3 in males while the female cranial capacity has shrunk from around 1,500 cm3 to around 1,240 cm3.[7]

 

This you wouldn't call "evolution", but it was a necessary adaptation to a new situation. I can imagine that our hunter/gatherer ancestors needed to be smart and creative. The peasants of neolithic times had to develop different skills and different capabilities: they didn't need to be so smart and creative; they had, rather, to be stubborn and dependable. Being too smart was a negative feature (it is still so, today).

 

So, the future will bring more adaptation. If we go back to hunting and gathering (I figure that's what Dmitry means with "going feral") our cranial capacity may increase again. If we maintain an agricultural civilization, instead, we'll move along the lines started during the Neolithic. More and more adaptation to social specialization and quite possibly more reduction in cranial capacity. The hive will think for individuals, not the reverse!

 

The end result could well be a civilization which is simple (stone age) in technological terms, but much more complex than ours in social terms ("ultrasocial" or "eusocial"). We may well see some humans going hunter/gatherers in parallel; but the two kinds might survive together since the hive might not have the kind of technological weapons able to exterminate the independent hunters. The two might "speciate" and become mutually infertile; just like Chimps and humans are today, even though they descend from the same ancestors. We may think of a relationship not unlike that of bees and hornets; bees are social creatures organized in hives, the second are independent hunters that sometimes prey on bees. Sometimes bees kill hornets and sometimes it is the reverse. It is co-evolution.

 

Lots of fun these thoughts. I would love to be here in a million years from now and see what the hell has happened to humans. Is there any place where you can sign for this reincarnation thing?

 

U

 

(preparing a post on this matter, of course!)

Off the keyboard of Albert Bates:

Ciao Ugo –
 
If you are preparing a post on this you might have a look at my post 2 weeks back on the subject of brain mass. (http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2015/05/language-and-fire.html) While I also used the shorthand of decreasing brain mass equating with loss of intelllect, I am not wedded to that concept and included some illustrations of the brain size of elephants and numerous varietals of dolphins and whales to cast some doubt on the correlation. Having had some eye contact with elephants and whales, I know them to be intelligent but am not convinced they are _more_ intelligent. There in Firenze you doubtless run across any number of pocket toy poodles and chihuahuas whose cortex is the size of an almond but are exceedingly intelligent and have complex emotions. They also eye-vibe.
 
My own theory runs to the electric field side of things. Our brains have cloud intelligence, most of which is local and holographic but some portion is remote and exhibits quantum effects. How much biological substrate is necessary to create that kind of neuroelectrical field? The chihuahua may be representative, the elephant may not. (http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2012/02/listening-to-your-hair.html)
 
Thinking of the brain cybernetically leads to utopian fantasy. The problem with digitizing our memories and porting ourselves into an AI format to circumvent death (and reduce the footprint of all the wetware) is that most philanthropists working towards such ends (Kurzweil, Gates) see transhumanism arising from machine tech and Moores Law. But did you ever get a blue screen? If that is what was left of your memories, ouch.
 
Better and more enduring cloud computing might be a biological evolution, provided enough time. Looking around, tho, I think the luxury of time is not something we have.
 
humbly,
 
Albert

Off the keyboard of Ugo Bardi:

Wow…. that's what I call an interesting discussion! Must thank RE for having started it. Really, RE, you are spectacular!!!

 

Apart from this, yes, Albert, I understand your point about elephants and Chihahua. Yes, we have them in Firenze (I mean, more chihuahuas than elephants, at least for what I can see in public parks on Sunday afternoons). It is known that brain size correlates with intelligence, but weakly. So, the fact that Neandertals had bigger brains than us doesn't mean that they were brighter (although they might well have been)

 

The specific point I was making in my ramblings on this question is that it makes sense to me that the small shrinkage of the human brain may be correlated to a certain degree of loss of what we call "intelligence" at the INDIVIDUAL level. In other words, social intelligence may well replace individual intelligence at an overall profit for the survival of the species.

 

It is something that struck me in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He noted how "primitive" people are often individually smarter than Westerners, and yet westerners normally have the upper hand. It is an observation that I also made with my Roma (gypsy) friends. Individually, they are extremely smart, but they are at the lowest rung of society's ladder. I think it is the same effect: their social intelligence is less developed than ours; it is the opposite for their individual intelligence.

 

And, of course, there is the utopian idea of the "singularity". Yeah, yeah…. sure….

 

Very humbly,

 

Ugo

That I think is a good spot to end the Collapse PunditTM Email Stream for this article.  Plenty more to come on this however.

Prior to getting into the results of the main Human Extinction Survey, I'll publish the results from the Joke Survey of Human Extinction Surveys 😀 I did after Dmitry published HIS Human Extinction Survey, after calling the one I dropped on a "Waste of Time" in the email stream.  Not too many respondents for this one as to be expected (most people should have got that I was doing a parody joke), and of those who did respond, they are mostly favorable to the Diner Survey since it's probably Diner readers who responded to it rather than Club Orlov readers.

Which Human Extinction Survey is more informative? You may explain your reasons for your choice on Human Extinction Surveys here: Who is more Ethical? You may explain your Blogging Ethics choice here
Doomstead Diner Survey i think you are the first one to survey NTHE and the internet really never even have any discussion about this, just only because this is a deppresing topic, people are addicted to hope and good news, and the motto always "everything going to be alright". Both are Ethical don't sell out, always tell the truth and your opinion.
Doomstead Diner Survey   Bloggers who provide Links to other Blogs when they use their material  
Doomstead Diner Survey Who the fuck is comfortable with destroying the biosphere? Most folks….including Koch Bros. Bloggers who provide Links to other Blogs when they use their material But do you REALLY need the validation of asking these questions? EITHER of you? Public opinions on extinction are irrelevant, it will happen, or it won't.
Doomstead Diner Survey   Bloggers who provide Links to other Blogs when they use their material  
Both are a waste of time   Bloggers who provide Links to other Blogs when they use their material  
Both are informative Informative is probably not the right word. Thought-provoking and discussion-starting are better descriptors. Unfortunately, the whole endeavor DOES have a preaching to the choir vibe to it. Splitting hairs on how many will survive–if any–glosses over just how MANY will not (and that's only considering self-absorbed humans, which tragically ignores the great number of other SPECIES that sink with us.) Neither are Ethical Again, not the right word. Linking is more of a courtesy when individuals are pointing out their takes on other's materials. I think it's understood at this point that it's the receiver's responsibility to review source material under discussion, not the sender's. The sender produces a message–however derivative it may ultimately be, and the receiver needs to determine to their own satisfaction the amount of information in the signal. That generally means reviewing the source material (which, today, is generally resolved by a quick google.) Attribution isn't only about giving "credit"; it's most importantly about message veracity (trust).
Doomstead Diner Survey   Bloggers who provide Links to other Blogs when they use their material  
Doomstead Diner Survey   Bloggers who do NOT link to other Blogs when they use their material  

05-24-human-extinction

survey-saysNow let's get onto the KollapsnikTM responses to Q3 on the Survey.  First the Tally of all 354 Total Respondents by Proximal Cause for Extinction:

Alien Invasion:   2

Anthropogenic Climate Change:   193

Asteroid Impact:   7

Geological Climate Change:   28

Global Thermonuclear War:   48

Sun Going Red Giant:   48

Supervolcanic Eruption:   9

As you can see, the VAST plurality of Doomers who consider the Human Extinction question believe it will come about as a result of Anthropogenic Climate Change.  This should be no surprise also, because many of the respondents come from the Nature Bats Last blog, where I dropped a Plug Article for the survey.  That is the hypothesis of Guy McPherson, and readers of that blog are generally in agreement with Guy on this hypothesis.

It would be very interesting if you could get a sampling of how the general public would respond to this question, but alas I doubt that will ever happen 🙁 since only Doomers read Doom Blogs.  I'd also love to see the distribution of responses from CONgress Critters and other Pols as well.  Also never gonna happen.  Still, it is interesting to see how the Doomers themselves distribute out.

Finally, the 125 Respondents who provided a text explanation, sorted by the Proximal Cause they think most likely:

The Proximal Cause of Human Extinction will be: You can explain your choice of Proximal Cause here (optional)
Alien Invasion Humans will go extinct when we evolve into metal bodies and explore the universe.
Alien Invasion The preclusions to invasion have been prophesized for years, simultaneously unbeknownst to most the very seals and doomsday machinations were being constructed behind iron curtains and woolen eyes.
 
Anthropogenic Climate Change Civilization based on infinite growth on a planet with finite carrying capacity is unsustainable. Civilization the way it is practiced is driving the Earth into a new equalibrium point as positive feedbacks have been set into motion by carbon forcing. Even with questionably motivated carbon reduction schemes, if we were to sink (capture) more carbon than released, the point of no return was reached 40 years ago; there is a 40 year lag from when CO2 is released until its effect is felt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

Anthropogenic Climate Change – Of course, global nuclear war could take us humans + most other life down a bit faster if initiated by the 'real owners' as George Carlin calls them, or a large asteroid impact, but civilized human hubris takes the lead I believe. Again, habitat loss, water loss, ocean acidification, extreme heat + cold, etc. – Actually, nuclear war would be Anthropogenic, wouldn't it?
Anthropogenic Climate Change ACC may be not direct cause, but for sure it is main reason behind…
Anthropogenic Climate Change ACC may very well lead to Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios. On the other hand, the Ring of Fire has been very, very active as of late.
Anthropogenic Climate Change alien invasion? is this survey for real? I'm done
Anthropogenic Climate Change And, of course, only a trickle of useable fossil fuels by 2100.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Answers one and three although I can only select one. Answer one would be the surefire trigger for answer three…
Anthropogenic Climate Change Anthropogenic becomes natural runaway.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Anthropogenic Climate Change (with breakdown of necessary ecosystems, because climate change (incl ocean acidity etc) happens too fast) as ultimate cause, but proximate causes will of course be many: wars, pandemics etc. But still: a slow demise, is my guess.
Anthropogenic Climate Change As I said before, climate change is the most serious threat. Whether it's anthropogenic or not is a moot point in my opinion, even though I believe it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But there are four horsemen of our current apocalypse:

Climate Change

War, with Global Thermonuclear War being the worst case

Currency/Economic Collapse

Decline in available energy

Anthropogenic Climate Change But I don't think extinction is in the cards – drastically reduced numbers of humans (deaths) yes, but that wasn't a choice given.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Civilization is a heat engine.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Climate change and peak oil will result in nuclear reactor meltdowns and possibly nuclear war.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Climate change is already happening, the arctic is warming much faster than the lower latitudes, the jet stream has slowed & is meandering bringing more heat to the arctic that's destabilizing methane which is another very potent greenhouse gas.
The arctic may have already heated enough to start a positive feedback between heating & methane destabilization leading to more heating.
When civilization collapses, 420+ nuclear reactors will no longer be maintained, their cooling pumps will run out of fuel, their cores will over heat then melt through their containment vessel releasing radioactive elements into the environment in huge amounts, enough to sterilize the planet if they all fail & they probably will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overpopulation by itself could cause our civilization to collapse as demand outstrips supply, climate change could do us in or nuclear powered resource wars could finish us off.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Combination of climate change, resources, political, worsening confluence of things.
Anthropogenic Climate Change connect the dots…and the methane releases are just ramping up
Anthropogenic Climate Change Contamination from abandoned civilian nuclear power installations will also play a role.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Could have gone with Geological but the trigger for that was Anthropological. The others are wild cards or black swans.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Geological Climate Change would probably take 100,000 years to happen.
Global Thermonuclear War is just too stupid even for humans.
Asteroid Impact would be the easy way out, but no such luck is likely.
The other three possibilities belong in comic books.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Guy says so…
Anthropogenic Climate Change I agree with the science supported by this group.
Anthropogenic Climate Change I read somewhere that C02 emissions trap heat like a greenhouse. We're emitting lots of C02.
Anthropogenic Climate Change I really don't think we will go extinct.
Anthropogenic Climate Change If there is an extinction event (of humans) it will be initiated by anthropogenic climate forcing that will morph into geological climate change as the earth tries to re-balance herself from the mess humans have made. We are the fuse, earth is the TNT.
Unintentional nuclear war triggered by geopolitical misunderstandings will render localized parts of the planet uninhabitable but life will go on for a short while with pollution induced cancer being the normal way to die early on (radiation and other toxic waste thrown into the atmosphere via nuclear detonations). The climate change forced migrations will mean that people move away from the nuclear destruction to less polluted areas but get high doses of poisons on there way to said destinations. Swathes of land will be dead zones from fallout. Any cooling from "nuclear winter" will be rapidly offset by exponential changes in climate forcing derived from methane already spewing out from the arctic and sub-sea clathrate explosions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its gonna suck if it happens.

Anthropogenic Climate Change If we can believe the data, it seems that we have enough carbon in the system (due to the effects of climate hysteresis and climate inertia) to carry us well over World Banks 4oC. IPCC projections have already been woefully optimistic, for example: we will probably lose all Arctic Summer Ice before 2020, and this was not projected to pass in earlier assesments until well after 2100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many other inaccuracies do we not know about.

All live depends on the hydrological cycles, so if that becomes screwed up (a'la Sao Paolo) worldwide, we will lose much plant life, and animals cannot survive without plants.

Phytoplankton also seems to be at a major downturn (jeremy Jackson), and it and plants are the source of Oxygen. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element on the periodic chart, so if the Oxygen cycle is upset by climate change, that will start its slow recession from our atmosphere as it reacts with other cations to form carbonates, sulfates, silicates, etc. Of course, this would be a much longer effect.

Anthropogenic Climate Change in short term, its a toss up between anthro climate change and nuclear war. i'd put climate change first because nuclear war is avoidable (in theory lol).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

longer term, dangers are probably a super-volcano or an ice age, both which seem to happen every 60,000 years or so. followed by a big asteroid, which is more likely to happen every few million, to hundreds of million years, depending on size.

quite tempted by an alien invasion scenario (aren't we all), but i thats just a cop out to avoid taking responsibility for the very likely first two.

Anthropogenic Climate Change It is already happening, and accelerating because of methane releases in the arctic
Anthropogenic Climate Change It will be the trigger to most everything else.
Anthropogenic Climate Change It will either be anthropogenic climate change or in case a few thousand people manage to survive that, those will then die by something like an asteroid impact, supervolcano or severe climate disruption later on.
Anthropogenic Climate Change It's a toss up between Anthropogenic Climate Change or Global Thermonuclear War. I think that Anthropogenic Climate Change will stress the already unstable World Political Mess and result in a Thermonuclear War. Chicken and egg stuff.
Anthropogenic Climate Change It's what we do.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Look out the window. Seems obvious and self evident.
Anthropogenic Climate Change NDE
Anthropogenic Climate Change No food no people
Anthropogenic Climate Change No food.
Anthropogenic Climate Change None of the above. The nasty Four Horsemen will do it, but they are caused by general resource depletion and the human reactions to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what about plastic? Humans have made mountains of the nasty stuff – kills animals by clogging up their digestive tracts, poisonous when burned, has hormonal effects. I wish I was clever enough to dream up some scenario where we hoist on our own plastic pitard like those poor creatures that get strangled by the plastic rings used to hold together six packs of beer and soda cans.Rough justice much deserved.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Not just climate change but peak oil…
Anthropogenic Climate Change or Global Thermonuclear War as a result of conflicts due to Anthropogenic Climate Change
Anthropogenic Climate Change Our habitat cannot keep up with the pace that we're warming the planet. Food systems will start to collapse, probably in the next ten to fifteen years. Many such systems are already stressed. So, it looks like most of us–if we make it, are going to starve to death.. or end up in our neighbors stew pot.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Plus Fukushima
Anthropogenic Climate Change plus massive die-off from nuclear power plant melt-downs and other environmental factors.
Anthropogenic Climate Change plus nuclear plant meltdowns.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Proximal cause for rapid depopulation.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Runaway climate change and global economic collapse
Anthropogenic Climate Change Scientific evidence.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Seems obvious.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Self-evident self-immolation through inertia, sadly.
Anthropogenic Climate Change The habitat just becomes too hostile.
Anthropogenic Climate Change The main cause of death for the vast majority of humans will be the collapse of industrial civilization, food production, warfare, and attendant violence. But the ultimate cause will be anthropogenic climate change which will make the planet uninhabitable for humans.
Anthropogenic Climate Change The science is as settled as it can be. It is only denial which seems to be getting stronger.
A fact is still a fact no matter how many people deny it, or how unpalatable it is..
Anthropogenic Climate Change The war won't be nuclear, but it will be global and caused by water shortages and too high prices with too low wages.
Anthropogenic Climate Change too many bodies, not enough food, not enough toilets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may peg this to ACC should you wish, but truthfully ACC is a symptom of the core disease. It isn't the root cause. ACC is happening because there are just too many busy little bipeds out there.

Anthropogenic Climate Change We are already in the process of this extinction so it's a given. The others are unknowns with most being highly improbable, but it definitely won't be the last two.
Anthropogenic Climate Change We have sown the wind and will now reap the whirl wind. The goldilocks conditions under which we flourished will be gone.
Anthropogenic Climate Change We're a resiliant species, but we're not well adapted to the PETM-like world of the next 100,000 years. One of our descendant species will outcompete us, but will likely never achieve our industrialized peak, as we'll have used all the accessible fossil energy.
Anthropogenic Climate Change We've made major changes to the Earth's atmosphere.
Anthropogenic Climate Change What we can only have one? I change my answer. If I must pick only one I pick:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The real reason!!!

OVERPOPULATION

& human stupidity.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Whether climate change, war, or other foolishness, it will be man made, and self-inflicted.
Anthropogenic Climate Change You forgot "the rapture". If war beats habitat destruction due to climate to the punch, it will have had climate change induced stress as it's motivator.
Anthropogenic Climate Change You left off one: unmaintained nuke plants going Fukushima.. I think that has a greater possibility of occurring than global thermonuclear war. GTW has a less than 100% chance of occurring, while nuke facility meltdowns have a 100% chance of occurring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a hard time predicting which will come first, though.. the worldwide nuke failures or the world-wide famine. Either one would exacerbate the other, of course.

Anthropogenic Climate Change You should be able have more than one answer. It won't just be one thing but a cacophony of events.
Asteroid Impact A large scale impactor would be enough to extinguish macrofauna, and us at our current stage of technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supervolcanism is insufficient and global nuclear war nevermind climate change. Solar flux increase (and terminal climate change) would do, but we'd go extinct considerably prior to that due to natural or unnatural reasons.

Asteroid Impact It really doesn't matter and this is a false choice menu. What about toxic oceans no longer producing oxygen?
Asteroid Impact Most likely some large scale planetary disruption like asteroid impact or super volcano will finally dislodge all higher homo genus from the earth.
Asteroid Impact other possibilities not provided as a choice : human caused changes to biochemistry of our environment. Viruses, nanotech, germ warfare etc.
Geological Climate Change Again, paleontological data would seem to imply that the most common cause of extinction events is climate change. But this can be influenced, or perhaps even caused, by a variety of different things; volcanic activity, plate tectonics, asteroid impact, etc.
Geological Climate Change I don't like any of these answers. Disease isn't there. Food supply disaster isn't there. Other resource depletion isn't there. So I just picked the best of the multiple-choice lot.
Geological Climate Change If a human extinction were to occur it would probably come either by the release of methane or the acidification in the world oceans causing the death of phytoplankton. Both these events were largely influenced by the amount of waste and energy humans have been producing.
Geological Climate Change Methane release, hydrogen sulfide release from oceans, temperatures increased to extent that food can not be grown, violence between humans that do manage to "survive"
Geological Climate Change Most of the charts & graphs are now in hyper parabolic ascent stage.
CO2 CH4 etc.
Geological Climate Change none of the above, but any one will be trouble without causing mass extinction. We will provide mass extinction toold all by ourselves. Our wasteful extravagance will impoverish the planet that few will survive long term.
Geological Climate Change Not sure…
Geological Climate Change While I think Homo Saps are exacerbating the problems of Climate Change, I think they are mainly Geotectonic in nature. We also may engage in Global Thermonuclear War, but the reason for getting into such a conflagration is the conflict that results as the food sources run thin and the economic system Collapses.
Global Thermonuclear War Chose nuke war because of lunatics in Washington, but it seems likely (and maybe should have been included as a choice) that a collection of these will do the deed.
Global Thermonuclear War Climate change brings frequent droughts, floods, and storms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Severely affect supply of food, water, infrastructure of civilization across the globe.

Bonus diseases to affected regions

Struggle for basic resources among nations

Conflict ensued, ceasefire ignored

Nuclear Launch Detected
Nuclear Launch Detected
Nuclear Missile Ready
Nuclear Launch Detected
Nuclear Launch Detected

Global Thermonuclear War Does not need to be global war — reactors and weapons will produce more than enough radiation to cull all population, especially humans.
Global Thermonuclear War Greed will make us fight.
Global Thermonuclear War Human stupidity?
Global Thermonuclear War Humans have considered themselves above nature for a long time now.
I don't see Humans allowing Nature to do themselves in.
We would rather nuke ourselves off the planet than go extinct by 'natural' means.
So I would say the "Planet of the Apes" was correct, we will do it to ourselves, somehow.
Global Thermonuclear War I lived with nuclear war all my life. I was born in 1954. With so many weapons on a hair trigger alert there's no way that the greatest mistake will happen. So it goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers Anthony

Global Thermonuclear War If humans do not get off the earth they will find a way to kill themselves. It will be technological most likely bio.
Global Thermonuclear War If not nuclear war it will be nuclear pollution from lack of maintenance and/or decommissioning all of the power (1) nuclear power plants, (2) nuclear aircraft carriers, (3) nuclear icebreakers, (4) nuclear submarines and (5) other, such as experimental nuclear systems.
Global Thermonuclear War If we as a species survive a die off (due to current overpopulation) and recover a global society, I think our most likely avenue of extinction would be war with each other.
Global Thermonuclear War It's something we know how to do.
Global Thermonuclear War Limited nuclear war is very specifically planned in great detail, however, RFDI (H+) chips will be much larger de-pop factor due to viral event. Control parameter = H+ for safety & medical security. 20 major corp contractors have been working on on H+ for decades. Already in use at Disney. 3 million implants now being tested in 30 nations. NIH study groups.
Global Thermonuclear War Not 100% Sure
Global Thermonuclear War Nuclear war is a shoo-in. Nations are even now casually bandying about threats of nuclear strike where just a decade or so ago this would have been unthinkable. The situation can turn on a sixpence.
Global Thermonuclear War Probably, first event US gets destroyed by Russia, China & other countries. Then other countries attack each other like China & Russia go at each other. Maybe India & Pakistan go after each other with nukes, etc.
Global Thermonuclear War QU7TRC <a href="http://xpucrrohwwqj.com/">xpucrrohwwqj</a>, [url=http://lrpracxeqlms.com/]lrpracxeqlms[/url], [link=http://rihljphswelz.com/]rihljphswelz[/link], http://vkbhkcvrmjzn.com/
Global Thermonuclear War Republicans® + Bonesman Kerry® + [Bush3® or Clinton2®] = war with Russia.
Global Thermonuclear War The next war is over religion: USA is christian, Europe is muslim. Unlikely that China will be involved in this.
Global Thermonuclear War The others all lead to competition for resources and living space, but in the words of TS Eliot: "I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope, For hope would be hope for the wrong thing."
Global Thermonuclear War This is a faulty question because there is not 1 cause. Anthropogenic climate change is going to kill off a great percentage of the planet in the next 50 years, but the real reason we'll be finished off with no hope of return is nuclear. Whether wars or simply the inability to maintain cooling and storage of 424 nuclear plants worldwide plus who knows how many nuclear weapons, the genie will not stay in the bottle sans electricity. What climate chaos doesn't do, radiation will finish off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the above does not even begin to factor in laboratory diseases and nanotechnological organisms.

Global Thermonuclear War This was just the closest approximation. Most will die because of the four horsemen: war, hunger, pestilence and, obviously, death.
Sun Going Red Giant Again humans are resourceful. Some will cope with whatever happens as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.
Sun Going Red Giant Again, I see a dramatic reduction in human numbers – but do not foresee extinction until there is a cataclysmic cosmic event.
Sun Going Red Giant Humans are stubborn but also adaptable. It's going to be ugly, but our species will survive.
Sun Going Red Giant Humans are stubborn but also adaptable. It's going to be ugly, but our species will survive.
Sun Going Red Giant Humans have evolved during a period of climate change and it hasn't slowed us down in the least, geologic climate change has a chance because it doesn't depend on idiot humans but only the frequency of geologic events, war is just the stupid mans excuse for doom because they don't understand the others, asteroids are only a small part of the cosmic reasons for end of humans, super volcanic is a geologic climate change argument primarily, and alien invasions are only for the really stupid doomers. That leaves the physics of the sun being the most reasonable, and certain.
Sun Going Red Giant I dont believe we will go extinct although most people will not survive so not until the sun size dictates.
Sun Going Red Giant I really have no idea.
Sun Going Red Giant Oh – it's hard to predict that one! Of course we can have asteroids or nuclear war… perhaps I still have too much hopium inside… in fact hoping that civilization collapses to where we can't launch the buggers anymore, and the nuclear power plants will only deaden the areas they are in…
Sun Going Red Giant The sun will go Red Giant eventually, and that is game over for all life on Earth. We're not going to the stars to live…at least not with our temporal bodies.
Sun Going Red Giant Unavoidable
Sun Going Red Giant We know the red giant outcome is a certainty; all of the other options are probabilities
Supervolcanic Eruption H bombs won't kill more than a couple billion. Sun at 500my is not red giant, but will remove liquid water. Disease could kill 30 – 90% any time
Supervolcanic Eruption H bombs won't kill more than a couple billion. Sun at 500my is not red giant, but will remove liquid water. Disease could kill 30 – 90% any time
Supervolcanic Eruption Human beings will continue to survive after any die-off in this century, so I think the most likely cause of human extinction will be either a random cataclysm or unwillingness to survive.
Supervolcanic Eruption The most likely scenario IMO is humanity emerging from the collapse of industrial civilization in a very primitive state from which it can never recover again due to lack of resources. But that state can persist for quite a long time, which will end either through some geologic catastrophe (most likely a giant eruption) or geological climate change,
Supervolcanic Eruption to be honest i think it is going to be from multiple factors such as a climate change, nuclear war and viruses. i cant see humanity being wiped out by one factor, i think it is in multiplicity where the answer lies.
Supervolcanic Eruption Volcanic eruption is more likely long term, thermonuclear short term. But I figure if it doesn't happen soon we probably won't let it happen. I guess it's possible
 
Impossible to speculate. Humans will certainly survive all of the above.
   
  Cultural implosion, and despair.
  Don't know.
  nobody knows, extinction is possible but not granted at this stage, atmosphere, biosphere, temperature modifications, asteroids, wars, volcanoes, plagues and diseases, all possible, what is granted is the collapse of the current civilization, unless some radical measures are taken
  none of the above peak cheap oil will get us and the accompanying economic collapse
  See above.
  The word "proximal" doesn't make sense in this context. Please explain, without making me read anything.
  The word "proximal" doesn't make sense in this context. Please explain, without making me read anything.
  Why not resource constraints ? (peak oil and other)
Will be the proximal cause for me, Anthropogenic climate change a major second

 

xxxx

The Human Extinction Survey: The RANT & Survey of Surveys

logopodcastSURVEY SUBMISSIONS TO DATE: 344

Audio Off the microphone of RE

Text Off the keyboard of RE and the Diners

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Aired on the Doomstead Diner on May 27, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

 

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

Things are perking up in The Human Extinction SurveyTM world. 😀

After inquiring why the Diner Survey on Human Extinction was not a WASTE OF TIME in the Collapse PunditTM Email stream, Dmitry Orlov of Club Orlov ripped off the idea and has now dropped his OWN survey onto his Blog!  LOL.

Here's some questions about Dmitry's survey which have popped up on the Diner, since Dmitry closed the commentary on his Blog for his survey:

From Palloy:(IT Professional)

Orlov's survey is even wierder than RE's.  "How comfortable are you with the idea that …?" – it gives me a very uncomfortable feeling, but it obviously needs to be confronted, so how do I answer

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

1. How comfortable are you with the idea that Homo Sapiens, just like every other species, is doomed to eventual extinction?

6 12 21 13 47

This was a calibration question, to get the dirt out of the data. People who are uncomfortable with the age and size of the universe, and our utter insignificance on the scale of things, aren't ready to discuss near-term human extinction. The 6 "Extremely uncomfortable" and the 12 "Somewhat uncomfortable" responses on the left are skewing the data. To adjust for this skew, I subtract 6 from the "Extremely uncomfortable" column, 12 from the "Somewhat uncomfortable," and add 18 to "Indifferent" (because indifference cuts both ways, you know).

You can't do that !!!  (Well, he can do what he likes with his data, but this is statistically appalling.)  There is a science to questionaires/surveys and their analysis.
 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

This has been most enlightening!

No it hasn't – it has been extremely mis-enlightening.

Google [human extinction survey] now.

From Eddie:(Dentist)

"How comfortable are you with the idea that …?" – it gives me a very uncomfortable feeling, but it obviously needs to be confronted, so how do I answer?

Exactly. That was my confusion.

From Uncle Bob (Professional Shrink):

"How comfortable are you with the idea that …?" – it gives me a very uncomfortable feeling, but it obviously needs to be confronted, so how do I answer?

Exactly. That was my confusion.

It is not obvious that it needs to be confronted at all. You will know who might believe these premises because they will be seasteading and toothsteading. Now take these learned men of letters and ask how comfortable they are that their great grandchildren will be illiterate and have an ever shrinking vocabulary. being comfortable with it might imply antiintellectualism instead of resignation to it, so even they will not claim to be comfortable. How comfortable are u with wiping your ass on grass or bathing in a river with 25ft crocs around Because thats the only primitive future according to orlov. "comfortable" is not a good way to convey the concept that it is possibly preferable only to extinction.

 

 

 

You will note above that I LINKED to Club Orlov in referencing Dmitry's COPYCAT survey.  Did Dmitry Link to the Diner Survey?  Nope.   Further than that, Jimbo Quinn on The Burning Platform published Dmitry's COPYCAT survey, but did he publish the ORIGINAL survey from the Diner?  Nope.

Anyhow, in order to further confuse this issue, I created a SURVEY OF HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEYSTM. 😀

You may take this survey below:

Besides the Survey of Human Extinction SurveysTM, I also RANTED on this little controversy/spat in the world of Collapse PunditsTM.  I actually recorded this rant BEFORE Dmitry published his COPYCAT survey.  lol.  The Rant follows below here.

I was going to publish results of Q3 along with this Rant, however I think this Blog is already (too) full of material to read and listen to, so you'll have to wait until later in the week for the answers to Q3.

The Human Extinction SurveyTM itself appears (again) below the Rant.  If you haven't yet taken it, the survey is still OPEN.  Now @ 344 Submissions. 🙂

Snippet:

…You gotta have a fucking Ph.D. and make your goddamn survey meet the criteria of the Journal of Psychology to jack it on the net and see what Kollapsnik Attitudes are? WTF? It's not like there aren't any Ph.Ds chatting this up either, Ugo has that Sheepskin and so does George! Everybody has to have a fucking Doctorate in order to drop on an internet survey or express an opinion? WTF? NONE of these folks know near as much about data collection and analysis as Doomer Support does, it's how he makes his fucking LIVING! LOL. Besides THAT, many if not most of the people writing on Collapse don't have the Big Kahuna Sheepskin. I'm pretty sure Dmitry is not a Ph.D, Gail Tverberg is not a Ph.D, Jim Kunstler doesn't have Dr. in front of his name and I bet you dollars to doughnuts none of the Tyler Durdens are Ph.Ds EITHER. LOL.

Now, besides Guy and a Professional Shrink criticizing the survey, over in the email stream amongst the pundits this survey inspired, Dmitry Orlov asks me wtf this survey is not a waste of time, since it's not scientifically or statistically valid? If you thought the survey was a waste of time Dmitry, then WTF did you waste your time TAKING IT? LOL…

For the rest, LISTEN TO THE RANT!!!

The Full Transcript of the Rant will appear HERE in a few days

You can still take The Human Extinction Survey and be Counted

The Human Extinction Survey: The 300

SURVEY SUBMISSIONS TO DATE: 300

Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 25, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

300 Kollapsniks have joined the Battle!

THE HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEYTM IS STILL OPEN!  JOIN THE 300! THE SURVEY APPEARS AGAIN AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE.

COMING WEDNESDAY TO A LAPTOP NEAR YOU: THE HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEY…THE RANT!

Prior Human Extinction Survey Articles & Results

300 movie image Gerard ButlerIn order to get the results of the survey out before I CROAK, I'm going to have to publish more often than my usual once a week text based Sunday Brunch article.  My current schedule is to do 1 Text article on Sundays and one Audio Rant on Wednesdays.

In reality, I did this sort of Question 2 @ 297 Respondents, in order to have it prepped and ready for publication when we hit the 300 mark. 🙂

Hopefully, we will get to 600 so I can use Alfred, Lord Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade for another post.  Just in case we don't get that many Doomer responses though, here it is:

The Charge of the Light Brigade

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

 

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

 

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

 

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

 

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

 

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Copied from Poems of Alfred Tennyson,
J. E. Tilton and Company, Boston, 1870

The numerical breakdown by category for Q2 goes like this:

survey-saysNone   52

<10,000   29

10K-100K   11

100K-1M   21

1M-100M   23

100M-1B   42

1B-3B   61

4B-6B   32

7B-10B   13

>10B   2

The text answer table is sorted by how many people the respondent thinks will still be walking the earth in 50 years time from present day.  There are 109 Respondents so far who provided a text explanation of their choice on Q2.

How many people will be left on Earth in 50 years? You may explain your reasons for this number here (optional)
<10,000 A few in the Amazon Forest, and a few in the hymalaias. Just like the little mamals survived the dinosaur extinction!!!
<10,000 Dithering a bit here between none and 10,000 ish, because we don't know exactly what provisions the major players have put in place for the long-term survival of "essential personnel".
<10,000 Hard to predict. Maybe none.
<10,000 I think it is possible that a few could survive underground for a while
<10,000 Some of the rats will find hidey-holes and exist underground, like the Morlocks, leaving us "excess" humans up top to crispy-fry in the toasty climate-to-be.
<10,000 The likelyhood of 'storage' for the Monarchical classes as I mentioned above…..the Unterteppich will have mostly died out by then.
<10,000 Those same super rich 1% hogging the food, water, and shelter left.
<10,000 Wishful thinking
100K-1M Again small pockets of people in sheltered spots.
100K-1M Elites plus a cadre of support staff.
100K-1M food shortages, anarchy, war, radiation poisoning
100K-1M If the extinction event happens as Guy McP suggests, it may take more than a few years before the last of us gets stamped out.
100K-1M If the Loch Ness Monster can have survived this long…
100K-1M Non industrial hunters, gatherers and small agrarian groups/societies.
100K-1M Once again, this is guesswork. But the evidence suggests to me that the decline in population that's on the horizon will be huge.
We're at 7 billion now. It would have to drop well below a billion . I said 100K to 1 million..this is predicated on the absolute failure of almost everyone now living to make any preparations for the hard times ahead. If people were getting ready, I'd up my estimates by perhaps a power of ten. But hardly anybody is….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But some people will be able to cope with some problems, and others will be able to cope with others. Indigenous people, like South American Indios who live outside the corporate dominated modern societies, will be better at surviving economic collapse. they won't even notice that one.

Some modern folks will cope with climate change better than others, at least for a while, because they've considered the possibilities of taking food production indoors, using whole systems approaches to agriculture, and making their own energy. Husbanding water.

Modern people with HG primitive living skills (only a few of these people are out there, as best I can tell) might fair better if war is what thins the herd.

People are resilient, and the ability to adapt depends a lot on the speed of onset of whatever catastrophe turns out to be the Big One. If we have an economic collapse first, and climate change turns out to be a slower process, then more people will survive for a longer time, at least.

100K-1M with BAU looks to me the most possible range between the numbers of the oil age back to the numbers of the primordial of agriculture, it could be anywhere in there depending upon the type and effects of collapse
100M-1B As above, especially nuclear radiation poisoning.
100M-1B Basically back to pre industrial revolution level, and then further down.
100M-1B Humans are survivors. No matter what, some people will find a way to live on a small fraction of the resources we have today.
100M-1B I believe somewhere around 500 million will survive the initial collapse and another 1 million or so will survive the next 100 years.
100M-1B It just depends if/when the worlds stockpile of nukes and things are used.
100M-1B It's sustainable as proven by history.
100M-1B Juat a guess.
100M-1B Just a guess. Viruses, mass extinction of other species and the disruption of our ecosystem will partially cull the herd before we all totally kick the bucket.
100M-1B Less than a billion, more than 100 million.
100M-1B Long term in human history, this has always been the number that allows for the creation of stable (small) cities and their ability to control and develop the catchment areas. My best guess is the 500,000,000 to 700,000,000 range.
100M-1B Maybe there is very little chance that some (un)lucky entities in area distant enough from Nuclear waste will survive. Even in that case – not for long.
100M-1B Might support that
100M-1B My Median Figure. A Georgia Guidestones Guess
100M-1B None
100M-1B Runaway Climate change
Resource depletion
War
Food crisis
Economic collapse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etc

100M-1B See above
100M-1B The population of the 1800… per-industrial population less the degradation to the arid producing land…
100M-1B This question I think is more relevant, I'm sure there will be a massive dieoff due to economic collapse, energy crisis, food production and climatechange. I think the population after the crash should be lower than preindustrial levels.
100M-1B This was the earths population prior yo the discovery of fossil fuels.
100M-1B We cannot possibly produce enough food without fossil fuels to sustain the current population. War and starvation will become the rule as cheap fossil fuels deplete.
100M-1B We're coming up on a major bottleneck, one that TPTB have known about and have been planning for all these many years while they keep BAU limping along. After the massive die off, they'll still be plenty of self-sufficient survivors and lots of people who the elites deem "not expendable". And they'll need plenty of manual labor even after the bottleneck, of which, there are sure to be plenty of stragglers to round up.
100M-1B wild-ass guess. 3 billion is still possible, tops. 1 million is centuries away. So, I chose the in-between.
100M-1B wild-ass guess. 3 billion is still possible, tops. 1 million is centuries away. So, I chose the in-between.
10K-100K aboriginal peoples (all around the world) may still have the knowledge to continue.
10K-100K People with extensive experience in FALLOUT games with survive without issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remote Island people may be spared from all the chaos and destruction, enjoys resort living post global apocalypse.

10K-100K technology
1B-3B 50 years is still in the early stage of the exponential die off. Could be still as many as 6B then, or as low as 100M.
1B-3B As natural resources become visibly more scarce, people will get scared and the ensuing conflicts will significantly reduce the population. Thank goodness.
1B-3B As natural resources become visibly more scarce, people will get scared and the ensuing conflicts will significantly reduce the population. Thank goodness.
1B-3B At this moment of time I do believe human populations are still rising so an event that causes this trend to reverse will be fairly dramatic. Furthermore a decline of over 50% population is quite dramatic when you put things into perspective. For example in the 20th century we had two world wars and a great depression (not to mention the influenza epidemic) yet the world population did not show any meaningful decline. Taking that into consideration you can see that an event that causes even a 50% drop in current populations will be an order of magnitude greater than the bigger disasters of the 20th century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In light of that I do feel that while it is easy to say populations will be a million or less you have to really consider the scale of this event needed to warrant such a reduction. Will death, pestilence, famine and war be 100 times greater than the century past? I think not but feel one order greater is possible so I go with a 50% drop. This is not to say global human populations will stabilise in 50 years time; I envision there will be further decreases when the effects of climate change and resource depletion are keenly felt due to a lack of cheap energy to mitigate those problems.

1B-3B Hard to say if it's 50 years, but whatever happens is going to wipe out a large number with a percentage of survivors.
1B-3B I agree that a massive die-off of human beings is in the cards. If we are lucky it will happen in time to prevent total ecological collapse.
1B-3B I am assuming a stock market crash or two, and some wars to reduce the population.
1B-3B I am assuming a stock market crash or two, and some wars to reduce the population.
1B-3B I think we may experience a die off in the next 50 years, and I think the odds of it happening in a century or less are high.
1B-3B I would guess it might be much less, but I am pretty much always wrong with predictions, so I am guessing a medium number.
1B-3B In fifty years the party will be in full swing. It is still 1B-3B but the number is dropping fast.
1B-3B It will take some time of the death rate exceeding the birth rate to drop the population by several billions. People can exist in considerable in quite large numbers for long periods of time.
1B-3B Now the peak oil energy descent is real and immediate and is staring us in the face. This is the unpinned grenade laying at my feet.
1B-3B Probably our numbers will stop decreasing around 2 billion people. I guessed that number because it's what the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth for humans is. It may dip below that number, however I feel that on the entire Earth 2 billion people will remain.
1B-3B Reduction of humankind goes quick, but maybe not that quick. My estimate is that earth has a carrying capacity of about 1B. In about 50 years we should be close to that number.
1B-3B Rough guess. If the number is really so low, the next 50 years will be hell beyond all imagining. Starvation, thirst, disease, war will take many, many lives. Humanity has put all its eggs in the fossil fuel basket which will fail us very soon.
1B-3B The chances of a pandemic and/or defunct antibiotics, combined with climate change, combined with resources wars, will likely create a sharp decline in civilization and take out a goodly number of humans, but not all.
1B-3B The population will be in continual decline during the migrations to more suitable habitat. There will be sufficient resources remaining to support the of population as they migrate through the ruins of industrialized society with those that survive being hyper efficient at reusing the few spoils of what was left behind to create smaller tribal groups capable of sustaining themselves.
1B-3B The world's population is commensurate with the fossil fuel endowment we were bestowed with and the expenditure thereof, so I reckon one or two billion sounds about right, as we rapidly draw down on our reserves.
1B-3B There is absolutely no rational way to predict this. Everyone knows there is going to be starvation and war, but HOW MUCH starvation and war? How long can current systems hold out or be jury-rigged? This is a decidedly local question and depends on the conditions in each area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, lacking any rational means of prediction, I have read several religious prophecies that say that the population will become 1/3 of what it was, so I put 1b-3b.

1B-3B Very specific Pentagon data. Agenda 21. Planned De-population continues into 2070. (Limited nuclear & Pandemic "event" Sept 2016 = 2B-)
1B-3B We have attained population overshoot. In the next fifty years there will be a dramatic reduction back to levels approaching a sustainable number.
1B-3B We're not all going to disappear everywhere all at once. Some spots on Earth will remain survivable.
1B-3B Who knows
1M-100M 99% die-off due to violence, starvation, food sustitution and dying from disease.
1M-100M Collapse of economy bought on by collapse of food supplies and widespread famine will result in absolute collapse of society. Initially it will be the wild west, followed by Mad Max, then "The Road".
Huge migrations will take place from areas worse affected to those not so bad resulting in wars, unrest, rioting and mayhem.
Europe, Asia and the Americas will be hardest and first hit due to land bridges from poorer areas to wealthy areas who will be able to afford food the longest allowing huge and unstopable migration. Isolated Islands such as Iceland, Hawai, Easter Island, NZ, Autralia, particularly Tasmania and other easily defended and distant places will be last to be overwhelmed with refugees.
1M-100M I dunno.
1M-100M It's starvation that's going to kill us.
1M-100M Like cockroaches we will have people that are survivors somewhere on the planet even if they are on a small island or deep in what reemains of the Amazon forrest or living wild in the sahara .
1M-100M Seems about right for preindustrial levels of population. From what I remember from limits to growth that's what we're in for 50 years hence. And minus a penalty for ruining the environment
1M-100M Tumor city for everyone….either the morons in charge (freemasons) will get nuclear with bombs, or the 400 nuclear power plants don't get shut down properly and go Fukashima when industry shuts down……or both.
4B-6B Billions won't start dying until the second half of the century, but we're not going to see much more continued population growth. We'll never reach 9 billion. Stagnation will occur before then. After that – billions die.
4B-6B Die off
4B-6B effects of resource depletion, financial collapse, global hothouse and other polution
4B-6B Heading down the Seneca cliff.
4B-6B I go for about 50% die off in 50 years. Disruption of farming due to oil depletion and warfare as all try to keep hold of what they had.
4B-6B i put 4 / 6 billion. although we will have far fewer resources by then and be in serious decline everywhere, i think a population as high as the human one today just has too much inertia to just disappear overnight. but i think the death rate will soon be over taking the birth rate because sanitation and medicines will be going away, not to mention fossil fueled green revolution agriculture declining rapidly too. so population will be generally dropping fast esp in the third world. i think this sort of medium pace collapse of pops is a realistic scenario, as long as we can avoid total collapse of industrial civilization and nuclear war. its not the worse case scenario by along way, but up to a 3 billion die off is still a pretty big die off.
4B-6B Just a guess.
4B-6B Seneca rules!
4B-6B The die off is going to take some time.
4B-6B The most certain limitation on human population is phosphate reserves, followed by precipitation/groundwater, and soil, but those don't begin to bite hard until later this century. There's a trememdous amount of waste in biofuels production and animal agriculture that offers some slack before famine is universal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sverdrup & Ragnarsdottir 2011 indicate phosphorous becomes limiting to human population around 2050, but that a population of around 5 billion can be supported by lower grade phosphate reserves and recycling for quite some time. However, with poor phosphorous recycling, sustainable population rapidly falls to 2 billion by the fouth millenium, and continues falling.

4B-6B The number is either 7-10 Billion or 4-6 billion. Outcome depends on how bad it gets.
4B-6B This was on is difficult to constrain so this is really just a guess.
4B-6B Widespread famine and cascading financial, political, economic and social collapses, first globally, then locally, will cause the first great die-off. But there are a lot of us widely dispersed across the globe and living in quite different ways. The collapse of Big Agri, organized food aid, and global commerce will probably not be as far reaching in their effects as is generally supposed. I expect no more than a 30 percent reduction in the world's population.
7B-10B
– Time frame is too narrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

– Question suggests a fundamental assumption (extrapolates).

– Nothing upon which to make an assumption except abstract trends.

– 500 years there are certain to be far fewer humans.

7B-10B Because those who confuse a logarithmic growth function with an exponential one are common among the doomers of the world. When using a logarithmic, 7-10 is a reasonable number.
7B-10B If one option had been 6-9B, I would have selected that. I guess negative pop growth from about 2050, but by then the starting point could be near 9B. Again, no cataclysms by 2050
7B-10B We're over 7B now, since approximately March 2012. I figure that collapse will start happening at least in some places within 50 years but that any resultant deaths will be offset by births where the collapse impact is less.
None 300,000 tons of nuclear waste destroying viable DNA, and rapid climate change which even even clever humans will not be able to adapt to.
None "People" of today will no longer exist.
Massive transformation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a kind of Mad Max scenario in turmoil with computer-bots.
 

None Again, None if the worst happens. Best case <1B.
None Extinction means none. No-one. Nothing.
None Guy says so….
None i believe in Guy Mcpherson.
None I think humans will see a massive die-off within 20 years, and will be effectively extinct within 50 years. There may well be some surviving pockets where climate disturbance has had a lower impact (I don't think those places will be predictable, though, as instability increases).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There won't ever be a resurgence or retrenching of the human population, imo. Eventually, no matter where one is, warming and atmospheric changes will create such a breakdown and stress in plants that they will just shut down, even if they are generally able to procreate vegetatively.

Woz's clan might do ok in Tasmania 'cause he has the bucks to lay in 100 years' worth of food, seeds, and the kind of hydroponic gear many of the Diners like, with electronic heating and cooling.. but you know that plastic and electronic junk will degrade, and the seed germlines aren't gonna do so good especially living in plastic without diversity and revitalization. And then what? Technically a species isn't extinct if there are a few exemplars still left in zoos, I suppose. I don't know what his plans are.. it would be real interesting to know.

None If any humans survive, really, their existence will be damn hard. – I think that habitat loss, fresh water shortage, heat waves, ocean death, – all the so called 'civilized' human caused climate change that IS already happening, will be the death of most life on the Earth.
None Jumpin' Jack Flash It's a GAS GAS GAS
None Loss of habitat.
None Radioactivity…
None see above
None See Extinction choice explanation.
None War, starvation, disease will take it's toll.
  Don't know.
  I do not know
  no guess
  unknown

Just to be complete, here's the last 3 submissions that broke through the 300 Barrier

           
           

 

 

 

 

 
300

 

 

 

 

 
 
When the Sun Goes Red Giant   4B-6B   45 mins ago
Submitted

 

 

 

 

 
299

 

 

 

 

 
 
100 Years   1B-3B   54 mins ago
Submitted

 

 

 

 

 
298

 

 

 

 

 
 
When the Universe Ends   1B-3B   3 hours ago
Submitted

 

If you haven't yet taken The Human Extinction SurveyTM, you can still join the 300 and do Battle!

The Human Extinction Survey: Early Results

SURVEY SUBMISSIONS TO DATE: 290

Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 24, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

 

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

YOU MAY STILL JOIN THE HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEYTM AND BE COUNTED

(the survey is at the bottom of this very long page)

 

survey-says-2The Human Extinction SurveyTM has been a remarkable success in terms of collecting up data from the Doom Community. In under a week as of my last download, it has collected up 277 opinions on questions related to the Extinction of Homo Saps. When I dropped it on, I thought it would take a couple of weeks just to get a few regular Diners to take it!

As you might expect if you take a survey of people who read Collapse websites, the bias toward an early end to Homo Saps is quite evident.  It's also skewed heavily towards the Uber Doom scenario of Guy McPherson (e.g. Extinction by 2030), because I wrote a Plug Article for the survey on NBL, and many of the Batters took the survey, prior to Guy himself bashing the survey later on.  So even though Guy himself refused to take the survey, you get an understanding of what the Group Think on Nature Bats Last is by reading the explanations made by the Batters on NBL for why they believe Human Extinctinction will come to pass in VERY short order.

Do I agree with these rationales?  Some I do, some I do not, but I am not going to identify my own responses to the survey at this time. Nor will I pick out the responses from other Collapse PunditsTM such as Dmitry Orlov (Club Orlov), Albert Bates (Peak Surfer), Steve Ludlum (Economic Undertow) etc at this time. For this Early Results article, we will look at a table for the First Question sorted by Time to Extinction of ALL the responses so far which have some text explanations in them.  You the reader can make your own analysis after you read the responses.  The number of responses with text explanations is less than half the total number of survey submissions, most people just click the Radio Buttons with the Multiple Choices.  However, the distribution of these responses is not a lot different than the total responses made to the survey so far.

https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/cavalry_charge_1905.jpgFar as counting up all the numbers through the whole database and doing a data analysis, I'm not going to do that, our back end support The Database Cavalry from CaliforniaTM is going to do it, in his spare time which he doesn't have a lot of these days.  It will take a while for this to get done, because this is unformed data and requires the kind of tricks Google uses for text analysis to decide what Ads to drop on your screen while reading sites OTHER than the Diner which have Ads on them. STILL AD FREE ON THE DINER, DUE TO THE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS OF DINER READERS AND LISTENERS! 🙂  TDCFC will be using DeepSee for the Data Analysis.

Insofar as the structure of the survey is concerned, what questions and choices were included etc, I have received plenty-o-criticism of this already.  LOL.  I created the survey while I was testing out a new Plugin for WordPress.  I asked some Diners for suggestions of what to drop in there, but by no means is this a "scientifically" designed survey.  Since getting all that criticism as well as engaging in a very entertaining and informative email discussion with numerous other Collapse PunditsTM I have asked said critics to help me design a new and better Survey v2.0.  Has anybody stepped up to the plate on this?  Jason Heppenstall of 22 Billion Energy Slaves offered up one possible question with some Multiple Choice answers in the email stream, and HnH a Professional Psychologist who criticized the survey in the Blog commentariat came up with the suggestion that the v2.0 should have an Education question included.  THAT'S IT for suggestions on creating a better survey here.

Here for your entertainment are a few of my recent responses in The Human Extinction Survey: The Controversy article in the Commentariat.

RE says:

Let me begin with my latest response in the email stream amongst the Pundits:

The reason I dropped a text area after every question is because Multiple Choice never can give every possible answer every Tom, Ugo and Dmitry wants to give.
 
Insofar as what questions should have been asked, I put out a request for questions on the Diner, Joe D came back with one and then conversation led to a few more being added from what originally was just the first 3 questions while I was messing around playing with the new WordPress Plugin.
 
Are there many other questions that could have been asked?  Of course there are.  You got some suggestions Tom?  Dmitry?  You got some Multiple Choices to drop in there for answers?  Please, feel free to drop them on here in the email thread and I will create Survey Version 2.0.  Maybe with all the Pundits, Cassandras and Nostradamuses contributing questions the next survey won't be so STUPID. LOL.  Everybody's a critic, but when you ask for some constructive help you get the sound of one hand clapping.
 
The v2.0 Survey doesn't have to be focused on Extinction, because I agree, if we are going Extinct in the next 20 years and it is irrevocable, it's a rather pointless question to dwell on. The conclusion to that isn't very complicated, it's OVAH, the Fat Lady has Sung and nobody will be around to worry about it!  LOL.
 
So, perhaps we can call this one the Human Survival Survey and focus on the question of how Homo Saps might survive, whether we will turn Feral or adapt and evolve into a Eusapient creature, whether John Michael Greer's Crows or Raccoons will take over, yadda yadda.  I am open to suggestions here, we can go any way at all with this.
 
Anyhow, for a STUPID survey with STUPID questions, this one sure got plenty of responses, and I didn't even have to pay anyone to take the survey!  Up to 231 Respondents now and still climbing the charts.
Do I know this Survey isn't perfectly constructed?  OF COURSE I KNOW THAT!  Good Grief, I was just messing around with a new Plugin for WordPress and threw out a few questions to test it, and then the idea popped in my head to use it for grist for the mill, so to speak.
 
If some Professional Shrinks would like to drop in here and add questions they think will do a better job of  of surveying attitudes about Collapse & Extinction, please feel free and make your contribution!  I'd rather not write it myself, copy/pasting your stuff would be much easier!  LOL.
 
Far as the controversy it engendered with Guy and the crew of nihilists on NBL, that was to be expected.  If you don''t sing with the choir on NBL, you get Napalmed.  Always.  Fortunately, I find such things entertaining.
 
RE

 

RE says:

40 years as a professional shrink and the best you can do to make a new survey more valid is to add a question about education level?

Far as the names go, it's optional to drop in your identity.  Anyone who did drop their name in is willing to have their information attributed to them.  No emails will be published however.

I am not going to do the data analysis.  Doomer Support will do that utilizing DeepSee.  All I am doing is counting up some of the numbers and publishing some of the text responses.

Survey now at 234 Respondents.

RE

 

RE says:

Any survey dropped on a Collapse Blog is OBVIOUSLY only going to capture attitudes from people who actually read these things.  So you have to tailor your questions to what their concerns are if you expect any responses.  Considering I am a STUPID, non-Professional Survey Designer, I did pretty good with figuring out what kind of questions would get a response.  Honestly, I figured it would take a week AT LEAST just to get 10 Regular Diners to fill it out.  It's freaking LONG.  Instead, in UNDER ONE WEEK there are currently 256 Respondents to the Survey!  So clearly it touched a nerve in the readers of these Blogs.

What do I want to KNOW?  I want to know what people think about Collapse and where we are going and why we are going there and what they think the outcomes will be.  As a Professional Shrink, design me a survey that is Bulletproof and will gather that data correctly, and you can be damn sure I will publish it.

Everybody's a CRITIC.  When it comes to actually doing constructive work to make a dent here though, nobody steps up to the plate.

RE

 

It's very EZ to criticize, not so easy to constructively help in building understanding.  There will be a Survey v2.0 eventually, and it will be better than Survey v1.0, but I can pretty much guarantee I will have to construct it myself again, because the Critics aren't going to help.  If you're not going to help, then next time you got no right to criticize, because you were given the opportunity to improve it.

That issue now being addressed, time to get on to the Survey Answers themselves.  For readers who have not yet taken the Survey, it's included again at the bottom of this post, you can still take it.

Originally while I was testing the Plugin, the Survey just had the first 3 questions in it.  For this week, I'm just going to publish the Text answers that were given to the first question in the first 277 Submissions to the survey.  Publishing all 3 questions in one article is overkill, it's just way too much for just about any Blog Reader to wade through in one sitting. Even the first question by itself has more text in it than most people will read, but if I Edit it I will be accused of Cherry Picking my Data the way Guy McPherson Cherry Picks his.  So I will publish all of it, over time.   It's going to take a while to chew through everything that is in this database already, and it keeps accumulating more also.

The numerical distribution for the first question is

survey-says20 Years:  38

50 Years:  59

100 Years:  59

In the Year 2525: 23

In  1000 Years: 24

When the Sun Goes Red Giant: 33

When the Universe Ends:  9

Never:  14

Yes, there are people out there who believe Homo Sap can outlast the Universe itself.   To be fair however, these folks mostly look at the question in a more Spiritual manner, not in the corporeal sense of physical people.

This doesn't add upp to 277 because a few people answered with text but did not check one of the radio button choices.

COMING NEXT WEEK IN THE HUMAN EXTINCTION SURVEYTM SOAP OPERA: THE EMAIL STREAM BETWEEN MYSELF, UGO BARDI, ALBERT BATES, GEORGE MOBUS, THOMAS LEWIS, JASON HEPPENSTALL, DOOMER SUPPORT, STEVE FROM VIRGINIA & LUCID DREAMS (Dmitry Orlov removed at his request)

Now, for you folks who got a lot of time on your hands to waste, here's the text answers to the First Question on the Survey, sorted by how much time left before Extinction the respondent believes is likely.  These are only the 128 responses that had a Text explanation, there are 277 records in the database  at this time.

Draw your own conclusions.

Homo Saps will go Extinct in: You can explain your reasons for your Extinction choice here (optional)
100 Years 20 years ago when studying overpopulation in college, I came to the conclusion that human beings would be extinct in my lifetime given the alarming data. Now that I realize how short a decade really is, I understand that "quickly" doesn't mean what I thought it meant when I was only 20. Things can happen "quickly" and still take 100 years.
100 Years 6 degree temp rise baked in to existing levels of methane and CO2. No humans lived on this planet at temps of 3.3 degrees above baseline which was earth temp at launch of so-called "enlightenment" industrial revolution. That is the end of the equation for me. Natural negative feedback loops to potentially remove carbon and methane do not have nearly enough energy or possible effectiveness to even slightly mitigate the effects of temperature rise. Nobody is coming to the rescue, and the autos, planes, trains, boats, hot showers, beef boigers and bideo games are here until they cannot be. Caput fino. Dinosaurs' revenge.
100 Years Abrupt climate change, resulting in loss of habitat, food shortages and meltdown of nuclear power plants
100 Years Appears we are not wise enough as a species/society to change course and I put it as a low probability. We may have already passed one or more tipping points. We definitely are in overshoot and will see population decline radically. But it's conceivable some people may survive. But I think Homo sapiens may be an evolutionary dead end. It's impossible to predict the timeline.
100 Years At least 100 years – unless the nuclear missiles leave their silos, in which case less than 2 weeks after launch. At least some people are bound to survive even a swift fall from the loss of fossil fuels and rapid climate change. The existence could be miserable, but what does Guy McPherson think would wipe out 7+ billion people, all over the globe, in 5 – 15 years? Remote communities still exist, not dependent on industrial products – Tierra del Fuego, New Guinea highlands, others I don't know about. Somebody is bound to carry on. He doesn't have any scientific legs to stand on.
100 Years Climate change alone will probably thin human numbers radically before the century is out. In addition, there are many other serious and steadily worsening problems that appear to be converging at a point slightly beyond the average human lifespan horizon. Barring a sudden climatic shift that prohibits the continued existence of large multicellular organisms, there will almost certainly be some humans 100 years hence.
100 Years Economic, ecological, resource collapse starting in the next 5 years. Industrial societies go fast.
100 Years Extinction of ALL humans (that what extinction is right) will take longer than most think.
There will be very small pockets of comments notices living in primitive ways for a long time.
100 Years Full Doomer: You believe Homo Saps will undergo a massive Population Knockdown but will not go Extinct in this century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly, most of the population is doomed but , like rats or cockroaches, pockets of stubbornly resilient people will survive. If the earth is lucky, they will be too few to fuck things up again on a global scale for a long, long time.,

100 Years Global warming leading to collapse of biodiversity and thus ecosystems and all major food supplies.
100 Years I don't believe natural resources will last that long. It maybe possible for some people to beat the odds, but they will be living at a subsistence level, and that is not my cup of tea.
100 Years I marked 100 years because I had to mark something. But the answer is none of the above. If the sapiens survive for another century (not granted at all), then they have the possibility to stick around for several hundred thousand years – perhaps a few million. In this period, they will probably speciate and create several new, different hominid species. They won't be "sapiens" any more (but they never were, anyway).
100 Years I think all the charts, graphs, reasons, etc are correct, except for the timeline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a problem with Prophecy, which is what this is.
One can look in the future and see a series of foothils to mountain peaks, each higher than the next.
And one can say "Look at all the stuff comming. Peak after Peak"
But what one can not see is the valleys between each hill and peak.
That there are gulfs of time before each peak, where things will settle back down.

Therefore all doom theories are correct, except that they will take much longer than predicted.

100 Years I think it will take a few generations for our actual culture to collapse. People need each other, no peoples exist without a culture. If the environment is hostile enough, culture will not survive…
100 Years I think they are making those underground bunkers to last a while. Who knows how much food they have there. If people can make it to the poles, they might survive a while.
100 Years I think we're all on shaky ground when we prognosticate along these lines. Although I can accept that there might be very significant reductions in population within the near term future, I just can't see 100% extinction within less than 100 years, because not all areas of the planet are going to be impacted the same, and I think it's logical to expect some locales to fair better than others as climate change takes its toll.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lets face it. We're talking about geologic time. In geologic time 20 years and 100 years are both infinitesimally short periods of time, and in the same range.

To me climate change is the most serious threat to Homo saps, and is the likeliest to result in NTE. Other existential threats such as war, economic collapse, loss of fossil fuel energy, and population overshoot, are all likely to result in population decline, but generally don't threaten mankind's continued existence.

So I said 100 years. I'd add that if we make it through the next hundred years, or perhaps two hundred, that would indicate we might hang on as a species for some additional millennia. Because it would mean that we've learned to cope, and found a more sustainable path. Or reduced our numbers to a level the planet can easily support, anyway.

100 Years I'm thinking the same way like Guy McPherson does, but with a longer timeframe for extinction. Climate Change and resource depletion will lead to a severe decline of human population and collapse of industrial civilisation within the next 30-50 years. It will end with a complete loss of habitat for humans some time later, I would say in about 100 years, when the effects of climate change are entirely felt, and thus lead to extinction. It might come a little earlier in case the global impact of the exposed nuclear fuel rods (after collapse) on human health will be too big to survive.
Still it could be that a few humans survive in very special communities that were able to adapt to the changing ecosystem and withstand the new conditions with the limited resources they still have, but only in case there is no radiation problem. This could then turn out to be a new "bottleneck" for human evolution with just a few thousand surviving globally and a slow recovery over thousands of years back to a level of a few million people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm not completely sure about the "100 years", but how could one be?
I would consider myself being 50:50 between either extinction in about 50-100 years or survival of a few thousand people followed by a slow recovery with humans then going extinct in a few million years when the earth gets wrecked by some astronomical event or very severe climate disruption.

100 Years If Kevin Anderson, head of the Tyndall Center says only 1 billion people will survive a 4C rise above 1980 temps, that means 6 billion humans – minimum, die off between now and a 4C rise. That much death and turmoil from climate change will trigger human frailties and propensities towards violence and hoarding that will knockout many more millions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 4C rise by 2080 seems quite probable when feedback loops and methane from thawing Siberia begin to ramp up. A Canfield ocean will be the coup de grace in 2115. Hydrogen sulfide will kill most plants and animals on land and in the sea. Permian Bye Bye Part II, coming soon to a theater near you.

100 Years Irreversible climate change and collapse will bring on the extinction of the human race before 2100
100 Years MIT nuclear radiation fallout maps = some survivors in Patagonia.
100 Years nice survey. thanks for running it RE. it was a toss up between 50 and 100 years for me, so i chose 100 years to be 'on the safe side' lol. resource depletion and climate change will have ushered in the four horsemen long before then, of course, ie before the year 2100, which still leaves a decade or so longer for a still exponentially warming world to wipe out any survivors of the main die off period that have managed to linger on somewhere. guy macs 20 year methane wipeout scenario is just too short a time frame for total extinction IMO, (as long as the FSOA can keep its itchy finger off the big red nuke button of course lol). although i expect things will be heating up tremendously in the old wicked problems department, saps will still have enough fossil energy to keep the industrial heat engine turning a while longer and mostly hide from natures fury. but its only a matter of time. it will just take climate change and peak oil collapse a bit longer to work their magic thats all haha. so although im not in the ultra doom camp, we definitely seem to be tracking the limits to growth business as usual projection quite well and i also think its highly likely that at least a limited nuclear exchange will happen at some point as a consequence of the USA (especially) wanting to control what is left of oil resources. so i doubt civilization (at least globally) will go on much longer than 2030. but i would not bet that humans will become actually extinct for collapse/climate reasons (we are pretty adaptable species, up to a point, living 'wild' as some people do in habitats as diverse as tropical rain forests to the arctic) but its theoretically very likely civilization, and hence at least 99% of the population dependent upon it will go away in the next 50 to 100 years. which is 'Armageddon' by any biblical standards considering we are taking about up to 7 billion human dieing in a short period (so actually far worse than any biblical scenario) lol.
100 Years Nope, can't explain it other than being as optimistic as i can!
100 Years Nuclear plant leakage will kill most , but in a few pockets of the world some will survive for awhile
100 Years nuke meltdowns and methane bomb
100 Years The current systems in place won't change.
100 Years The trees are dying, the bees are dying, the seas are dying…all large mammals are going away, we will too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can see it everywhere….the Everglades are drying up and have a plastic coating. Near Flagstaff, AZ the trees all have brown dry needles…same near Silverthorne, Colorado.

Hornets abound, but honeybees are very rare…….used to be the opposite.

100 Years There are too many Critical Menaces in separate areas (Oil, Climate Change, Nuclear, Financial System, Soil, etc…) that are attacking in parallel. Additionally there are probably bunch of Black Swans we even have no idea about behind the corner.
100 Years Too much stress, and too many breaking points will eventually walk us into an uninhabitable planet.
100 Years When the economy breaks and people that are dependent on for survival realize there is NO plan B. War will start because we have no alternative.
100 Years When the global atmospheric temperature increases by more than 5° C or so, extinction is likely due to lack of food.
20 Years As goes the arctic so goes the rest of the world. The arctic is going extinct before our very eyes. So goes the rest of the world.
20 Years Economic collapse followed by social net collapse, medical crisis followed by pandemics, collapse of food system due to transport, water and cost, bird flu equals no chicken or eggs, energy collapse and manufacturing collapse from loss of demand coupled with high EROEI, re-collapse of energy economy, termination of public traveling or roaming, global warming, release of clathrate methane, loss of New York, Boston, Florida, Panama, and resource competition will cause a nuclear war. And more. Checkmate. Without knowledge, without tools, we succumb to radiation and disease.
20 Years feedback loops now in play (CH4, Ice Cap Melt, etc)
20 Years Full blown collapse has already begun.
20 Years Guy Says so….
20 Years Humans have created 300,000 tons of nuclear waste with no way to keep it out of the environment. No viable solution has been proffered in the 58 years of commercial nuclear power. This in itself will cause genetic extinction of 9 million known species, since It will also complicate any power grid failure, war, social unrest, or any any natural disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global temperature rise is already causing accelerating release of methane from clathrates and permafrost melt, and sea ice and glaciers on land look exponentially worse with every satellite picture, survey or radar study. Radical climate change in a very short period of time is assured. Drought, violent weather, destruction of the ocean food chain, starvation and wars over remaining resources will ensue. Clandestine programs by world governments already have been taking place for 30 years; their <mad> scientists know the extent of the problem and are stabbing at poor solutions which are worsening the problem.

 

20 Years HUmans need water at least every three days and food at least every week or so. People can survive after rapid temperature increases but getting those two items will not be possible. Methane also kills immediately when breathed in and if there is a methane burp or it continues to go exponentially it will cover the Northern Hemisphere and most of Southern hemisphere in rapid order. Geoengineering is also affecting the health and brain capacity of all living organisms including humans and this will affect the decision making and survival skills of any humans that do "survive" in a negative way
20 Years i believe in Guy Mcpherson and Dennis Meadows.
20 Years I think humans in civilization will go extinct, and it may appear all humans are gone in 20 years, but who can say for sure
20 Years May of course be lots sooner than 20 years, or might be 30 to 50 years for the remnants of what will probably be at least a massive die-back of population. I have found basically nothing that contravenes Guy McPherson's collected data and conclusions. If abrupt climate change itself does not bring about our own extinction, then our own hardwired firmware in our hunter gatherer brains will insure that we finish ourselves off. The reason being is that of all the major players on the planet, i.e. the US, Russia, China etc. The military's of each probably have a very good idea of the implications of abrupt climate change and I've already constructed a scenario to attempt to ensure that each ones populations are the last to go. It is been said quite famously that no military has ever failed to use its arsenals. If I left anything out I'm quite sure you can fill in the blanks yourself.
20 Years Maybe sooner. Too much severe negative stuff going on.
20 Years Oh, let's see now. Scenarios. Methane bomb = any day now, hence no breathable atmosphere within the course of year. Antarctic melt = sea level rise = Washington DC is history, hence world disintegration. Global financial disaster = civilization crumbles, hence nuclear energy meltdowns on the order of 300+ Fukushimas.
20 Years once the bubble bursts and society breaks down due to not enough food. water or the comfortable lifestyle we took for granted warring tribes will replace families, cannibilism, raping,pillaging and kill or be killed mentaliiy & suicides will be the order of the day. A 99% die- off is on the cards. The bubble is in the house,commodities,wages,food products it will no longer be produced think capex.
20 Years Tend to agree with McPherson, but "extinction" is an absolute. It may "merely" be a population decimation event. I simply can't imagine that all pockets of habitat will disappear.
20 Years The climate will change exponentially as global warming increasingly sets off positive feedback loops. (Arctic methane will be the biggest kicker!) Because there is a time delay of the greenhouse gas effects, it's already too late to slow down this run-away train. Besides that, the monsters that run the world (the wealthiest of all) won't allow it any way.
It will be impossible to produce enough food, and eventually any food at all.
The final blow will come from the 430 nuclear power plants that all blow up because nobody can keep them going.
20 Years We can't even get along now with ability to have 24/7 McBullshit availability.
When the 96 hour foodchain eggtimer runs out of clicks & ticks, all hell brakes
loose & the 1st responders head home to be with their loved ones. Game over.
Methane fueled fireballs WILL rain down on us regularly by 2020 for the finale.
50 Years 1.) I believe changes in the atmosphere and soil (not just warming) are killing off creatures we can't see and that we take for granted. It is not just soils that are over-tilled and over-drenched with chemicals which are losing fertility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.) Exponential loss of sea ice and glaciers => exponential ocean temp. rise (plus a lot of other bad things). Exponential tree-cover loss => exponential land-temp. rise (plus a lot of other bad things). There's no way around this. People seem not to grasp the implications of the exponential.

50 Years A combination of resource depletion (fresh water,oil,coal) and climate change (no food) will create a competitive situation so intense, mankind will wipe itself out in large-scale murder. It's inevitable.We are not able to cooperate on a planet-wide,or even continent-wide scale. Not without huge energy surpluses.Either someone's gonna hit the red button or we will go tribal and the tribes will battle to the death. Let's not forget about the 400 + nuclear power plants falling into neglect either…..
50 Years After arctic ice loss and a blue ocean event, a methane burst will rapidly warm the planet and cause mass crop failures in the northern hemisphere. Society will collapse and 90% of the population will succumb to either violence or starvation with a year of the crop failures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After the initial methane burst, more will follow, making high yielding agriculture impossible. The remaining population will continue to decline a further 90% in the second year after.

In 10 years, 99.9% of humans will be dead due to lack of food. The remaining 0.1% will trudge on for some years in tiny groups in hardy places, but as run away climate change proceeds, even these places will invariably turn into desolate lands that can bear no food for the time being, and eventually, I think within 50 years of now, humans will have gone extinct, or will be on the unavoidable verge of it.

50 Years Arctic/tundra methane bursts leading to accelerated warming
50 Years Die-off (net world population reduction) within 10 years, accelerating until most people dead within 20 years, after 50 years the final bunker-dwellers who were positive that their preparations would be good for centuries dying as their spare parts are exhausted and the technicians needed to repair things are already dead.
50 Years From all the data/info I've read, and from my own observations, I can only conclude that 'things' are moving rapidly towards the loss of all life on Earth. Whether this takes place within 20 – 50 years, no one really knows for sure but as said, things are not looking well for all life – not just humans.
50 Years I believe that some super rich people will find a way to survive must longer than the middle and lower classes.
50 Years I wish you could have broken this down in "between" increments. I think humans will go extinct between 2040 and 2050…so that puts it around 35 years from now, give or take. I think 20 years is a bit too soon. Hence, I chose 50 years.
50 Years If I could select a range of 20 to 50 years, that would be preferred. Cause of extinction: 1) abrupt climate change due to methane release from permafrost, 2) thermonuclear war bringing about a nuclear winter lasting several growing seasons culling back most of the population, 3) nuclear fall out from burning nuclear power plants (Dr. Helen Caldicott estimates a 1 in 3 death rate from cancer by 2036 due to Fukashima , 4) depletion of top soil and fresh water, 5) resource depletion, 6) destruction of ecosystems and 7) population overshoot.
50 Years It's complicated.
50 Years maybe 30…..all the feedback loops point to sooner than later
50 Years Methane, Nukes, Ignorance
50 Years Nuclear war
Ebola airborne edition
Antibiotic immune pathogens
Skynet for realz
Global Religious war
Global Racial war
Global Currency war
50 Years Oil & Grain Consumption
50 Years overshoot
50 Years Probably enough inertia in the system for the Hitlery Clinton's of the world to continue to eat long after the proletariat have died out due to starvation, disease, local turf wars, and suicide. They will be able to rely on compounds built for that purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would expect climate change to render agriculture more or less (more) impossible within half a century, and the survivors that make it to my 50 year timeline will be the ones surviving on food/energy/medicine storage. When that runs out, it is unlikely that any of those functions (eg; modern chemistry required for pharmaceuticals, etc.) can be maintained. It seems that we have evolved in the last century for a soft life of cheetos, shitbook, and twerkfests.

Generation twerkbook cannot produce hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, and sodium carbonate today, let alone in the future. Hygene will quickly resort back to pre Lister times, and coupled with water shortages (such as playing out in Sao Paolo and Calif. today), I expect much of the congeries to be wiped out by disease alone. Childbirth will revert back to the days of Puerperal Fever. Of course, right before collapse, with no contraceptives avalible, Climate Change dictating the crops, and lots of folks waiting on Jeebus to save them, we can expect a massive increase in starving babies. We won't have to send Sally Struthers over to Ethopia to get a picture of little Damiani ("It may Already be too late") with flies crawling in and out of his mouth, we will be able to see it right here on our own cracked pavement.

Silly assed considerations such as Carz, the Economy, and Electricity will be non-starters, of course. The requirement of more than 12 calories of fossil fueled thermal energy inputs just to get 1 calorie of foon on the table in Murica would be a major bottleneck in my opinion.

Small flowers crack concrete.

50 Years Uh duh!
50 Years We'll lose civilization within 10 years, but it will take awhile for the isolated settlements to fail.
50 Years We'll lose civilization within 10 years, but it will take awhile for the isolated settlements to fail.
50 Years When everything crashes, people will quickly learn that we can't just have jettisoned 6000 years of culturally handed down technical knowledge, and then pick it up again at will like a piece of Chinese junk at WalMart. It's irrevocably gone, and will have to be re-discovered on a planet that's been thoroughly plundered of all easily accessible resources. A surviving culture based on wood and glass is possible — but not in any numbers. Are there any more Melks in our future? — Melk and honey? — I really, really doubt it. By extinct, I mean worth living, not just biologically alive.
50 Years Within the next 10 years the global economy will collapse and that will lead to widespread grid failure and the uncontrolled meltdowns of all nuclear reactors. Grid failure alone will lead to the immediate deaths of most humans who are highly dependent on electricity for their survival. It will also cause food production to plummet. Nuclear war is also highly likely. While most humans will die within 20 years it may take 50 years for total extinction from all the radiation, catastrophic climate change, war and disease.
In 1000 Years Actually, I think from 1000 to a 100.000 years, the catastrophic methane release feedback spiral is probably not gonna happen, so
we will muddle through – for a while (geologically speaking)
In 1000 Years Although I don't feel 1000 years is accurate, the supernova option is too far off. I believe that many people (1 million to 500 million perhaps) will survive the collapse of the habitat. I think we have ample evidence this has occurred at least once in history. I guess I am Full Doomer.
In 1000 Years Degradation of planetary biosphere due to massive nuclear and chemical and GMO pollution leads to extinction of many vertebrates, including humans.
In 1000 Years Even when most resources are gone and the climate changes, I think there will be small pockets of people surviving on, say, rat stew? But the carrying capacity of earth will go way down I think and it will not be life as we know it today. I think more than 1000 years but before the sun goes red giant
In 1000 Years Fukushima is fairly localized, so nukes won't be a global problem. Yes, I know, I know, meltdowns will be a lot LESS localized after industrial collapse, but still not global, even in aggragate. There WILL be safe zones big enough for even nuke-ignorant posthistoric cavemen to maintain breeding populations. The strays might die, but not the stay-at-homes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McPherson's so-called "clathrate gun" is a crock of malarky. Hydrates can't melt faster than methane's short atmosphearic half-life.

I say the only human-caused threat of total extinction results from extincting everything else, surviving on rats, cockroaches, and each other, and speciating into a new improved windigo.

In 1000 Years Fukushima is fairly localized, so nukes won't be a global problem. Yes, I know, I know, meltdowns will be a lot LESS localized after industrial collapse, but still not global, even in aggragate. There WILL be safe zones big enough for even nuke-ignorant posthistoric cavemen to maintain breeding populations. The strays might die, but not the stay-at-homes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McPherson's so-called "clathrate gun" is a crock of malarky. Hydrates can't melt faster than methane's short atmosphearic half-life.

I say the only human-caused threat of total extinction results from extincting everything else, surviving on rats, cockroaches, and each other, and speciating into a new improved windigo.

In 1000 Years Human beings are extremely resilient. There are enough of us that we will be able to survive in a hot world, a polluted world, a radioactive world. An enormous die-off in this century does not mean extinction. Furthermore, we are a thinking species. We know how to dig our way out of holes. We have all sorts of reasons to live and survive and are not limited by the failing technological dreams of today. I think 1000 years is actually pessimistic. I would put human survival at another 5,000-100,000 years, however long it takes for people to consider all future activities futile or get knocked out by a random natural event. We will definitely not survive until the end of the planet.
In 1000 Years Humans are incredibly resilient. Even with war, famine and plague there will be pockets around the world that are isolated enough or tough enough to survive. Extreme climate may change that eventually.
In 1000 Years I think if we can manage to survive the next century (die off due to overpopulation, climate change, economic collapse), we will probably keep truckin' for a good long time. However I don't think we will last 5 billion years until the sun goes red, and if we do, we may not be "homo sapiens" any more.
In 1000 Years IMHO Civilization will go extinct in 50 years or so. Pockets of human beings will continue in isolation for quite a while.
In 1000 Years In a few thousand years, the environment will have markedly changed from the present, with a temperature profile mimicking the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum with 6 °C (11 °F) temperatures increases. Present temperate climates will become desert (most below 40° latitude), coastal plains flooded (Greenland + West Antarctica = 12 m = 40 ft) and portions of continental interiors will become uninhabitable above ground due to summer heat waves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surviving human settlements with a few tens of millions will be distributed around Arctic and Antarctic shorelines, mostly as hunting/fishing settlements, as boreal forests and permafrost leave very poor soil.

Thats a small enough, and widely enough distributed population for natural selection to take hold. Some isolated groups will speciate, and will outcompete H. sapiens, as we outcompeted H. Neanderthalensis. So some descendants will survive. They probably won't have another chance at an industrial revolution, as our generations burnt all the fossil fuels.

In 1000 Years maybe not 1000 maybe 5000 or 10000 or 100000, but evolution guarantees our current iteration will have lost out to a "better" homo, or what George Mobus at Question Everything terms "Homo eusapiens" (to quote from his October 05, 2013 post "I don't write this stuff to point out what the problems are and thereby find solutions anymore. I have long ago realized that the system simply is what it is and it will continue in a dynamic that was set in motion by the evolution of Homo callidus and will lead to, I think, the evolution of Homo eusapiens in the distant future. You and I and our whole human-culture system are just milestones along the path. We can't be saved, preserved forever. We should not be saved in the sense of preserving the population and going on with business as usual. The essence of humanness, the sapient, abstract symbol processing, tool making, creatures that evolved on this planet does not depend on the current species existing forever. But that essence needs to be saved (if we can). Some of our kind need to succeed in persisting beyond what will surely be a massive population bottleneck event so that the seed of a new, emergent species will be available when the time is right."
In 1000 Years Most likely measured in hundreds of thousands of years.
In 1000 Years There will be a period of upheaval where large numbers of humans will die off leaving a few billion or so to fight over the scraps. However, because of the collapse of "industrialized" society there will be a rapid decline in aerosol pollution leading to an immediate uptick in human caused heat forcing driving temperatures in the arctic up further speeding methane release creating a Permian style atmosphere in very short order. There will be large droughts and storms that will decimate agriculture, while productive lands capable of supporting agriculture will be inundated by rapid sea-level rise. Those who are not able to migrate by foot to more suitable climate zones will perish. Eventually there will be so few humans left that we may as well be extinct.
In 1000 Years There will be a serious knockdown of the human population within 100 years. That is baked in the cake Already due simply to climate change factors alone. pockets of humanity, particularly those living more sustainably and primitively will survive the first onslaughts, but will themselves also be knocked down as climate continues to change and habitats disappear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you go with the evidence takes you, the scorecard shows that humanity is well behind.

A significant number of animals have become extinct or had their populations knockdown in the last 60 years. Along with 40% of the oceans plankton. Currently, Humans and livestock are 97% of earth's land vertebrate biomass; 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were a mere 0.01% of land vertebrate biomass. To that add the fact that 1,000,000 humans (net) are added to earth every 4½ days. How long can that go on on a finite planet?

The Diner Forum includes some people who cultivate land, and who worry about an unseen menace, the depletion of tillable soils. Even the most optimistic assessments for human survival depend on no worse than status quo agricultural production. Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years, we are told, and if current rates of degradation continue all of the world's top soil could be gone within 60 years.

Yet the real driver for doom may well be peak water. Drinkable water shortages in California and around the world are already well-known, and will continue to get worse. We make a bad situation worse due to the fact that we do not avoid polluting our own scarce water sources. Locally, we've seen the effects of drought and limited snowpack, and the resulting water shortages in California and Washington state; imagine the dislocations that will ensue when, in the fullness of time, rivers long fed by glacial melt go dry. As mountains lose glaciers, people will lose their water supplies. The entire Indian subcontinent will be fighting for survival. Water shortages and famine will be the result, destabilising an entire region including India, Nepal or Bangladesh, and nuclear-armed Pakistan. Thirsty people will go in search of water; en masse if necessary. Or take it from their neighbors. The citizens of São Paulo Brazil are actually pretty polite compared to what will happen when the Ganges runs dry.

Likewise coastal flooding is bacon the cake, as is a 1 to 2° rising global temperatures. As we have seen, Greenland is warming much faster than the rest of the world — 2.2 times the global average. One glacier has thinned by 15 meters every year since 1997, and its speed of flow has doubled. we've already seen the effects that Greenland's freshwater melt has had on the Gulf Stream and weather patterns. investors to northern hemisphere; the Antarctic is also experiencing catastrophic glacier melt. The best case scenario for all this melting the resultant rise in sea levels will be extensive coastal flooding, and probably half of humanity having to move to higher ground. A higher ground already occupied by the other half of humanity, who will not be expected to receive them with open arms.

An interesting set of graphs tracking the great acceleration of climate change and human-induced toxicity:
http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/IGBPSecretariat/great-acceleration-2015/2

And to climate change and loss of biodiversity, add the usual list of self inflicted wounds, such the policy of the FSoA to foment wars all over the world, the provocation of russia, the Fukushima existential debacle… colony collapse disorder among honeybees, the threat of pandemic from newly loosed pathogens, Biological /Nuclear Terrorism, earth changes and volcanism, the rise of self-aware machines… the hits just keep on coming.

In 1000 Years There's no multiple-choice answer that's between 1000 years and red giant. I really think in between, but closer to the 1000 years than to the red giant.
In 1000 Years time delays
In the Year 2525 100 years is too short to get them all, although 500 years is probably too long.
In the Year 2525 Althoug we have many problems which assure a large population knockdown, EXTINCTION of every last Homo Sap will take a while.
In the Year 2525 climate change combined with overpopulation combined with habitate distruction & possibly a nuclear exchange.
In the Year 2525 Host humans have already been dust across desolate empty plains for hundreds of years now but a remnant had survived. In their native highlands aboriginal New Guineans had survived a long time while the climate of the coastal plains climbed the hillside over the years. Now with the mountaintops sometimes too hot even for scorpions they too are all gone.
In the Year 2525 I like that song
In the Year 2525 I think that there will be small pockets of populations remaining…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should have put a line for "to many variables"……

In the Year 2525 If we fail as a technological society our half life time is commensurable with other species, counted in megayears.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we recover after the population bottleneck in this century as a technological society we will go extinct or amalgamate with machines as Anthropocene transitions to Mechanocene.

In the Year 2525 It will take quite along time for the biosphere to simplify to the point where human life is unsupportable everywhere.
In the Year 2525 My assumption is that 4C of global warming is unavoidable this century, which means higher temperatures are reasonably unavoidable given potential climate feedbacks. It should be easy to reason why this amount of increase will kill billions. This climate won't be stable enough to allow much technological infrastructure, and access to technology sustaining resources will be greatly reduced in any case. Our chances of fighting disease will be compromised, and new diseases will be rampant given the ever-changing ecological niches a harsh, unstable climate will rapidly cycle around. Humans will not be able to cope with living in a disease-evolving blast furnace. Within 5 centuries, we will be extinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we should leave stone plaques around the world with the names of those who are most responsible for killing us, along with pictures of their mansions.

In the Year 2525 Not every last sustainable clan of humans will disappear everywhere on Earth in the case of a semi-global catastrophe such as crop failure (Guy's scenario). But eventually, because humanity failed to be clever enough to get off this planet, and ELE sized asteroid will hit, a major volcanic event will occur, the last of the fish will have been baited hooked and eaten and our species will go the way of the dinosaurs.
In the Year 2525 That was an arbitrary choice in the distant future.
In the Year 2525 While I recognise there are some scenarios such as large scale ocean acidification and the release of methane that could result in a near-term human extinction I believe the odds of such events being of sufficient magnitude to kill mankind is less likely. The fact there are so many humans today and they occupy almost every part of the globe means it is likely some community somewhere will survive. This diversity in location means it will take a very dramatic event to kill all of mankind in the near-term future and this event will only be bigger if you account for human extinction events occurring in the 21st century (nevermind 2030). With that said, you can never say never, so there is a possibility this could transpire but I think the probability is low say 10-20%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. I choose 2525 because it is a random number and it always good to be a little wacky and random. XD

Never I chose "never" because I don't know the answer. Whatever is going to happen will.
Never I don't believe in human extinction. Our souls are immortal and will go on in some form in some way. As far as this world is concerned the population will be much reduced; probably 70 to 80 percent, but will go on, living a more rural and live a life more simply based on local agriculture.
Never If one means completely extinct, never. Collapse will happen soon enough to save the remaining few. If you mean a 90% population reduction (to 700 million or fewer), then it will happen within one hundred years.
Never It is not a single answer it is a distribution of probabilities. I go with 10% chance extinct by 2100, 30% chance extinct by 3000, 90% chance extinct by universe ends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a strong bioweapon to kill all humans by 2100. I am not as frightened by nukes in all their forms as some. We must get of the earth for long terms survival as many have said.

Never Most will die but some will leave forever.
Never Never is a long time, but you haven't really provided me with an option that meets my criteria. First of all, who knows…? I expect some serious shit will happen, within 100 years or less, but whether all homo saps will disappear in that time frame…who knows? On the other hand, even more serious shit has happened, over the course of the 5 billion years or so that life has existed on this planet, and the likelihood that homo sap will survive "forever" is pretty low. If you had 100,000 years as an option, I'd have taken that one. Not that "civilization" would survive that long…but we lived in the trees long before we built cities.
Never Petri dish scenario. The future is strife but out of strife will come some smart tough fellows. They will be standing on a mountain of dead and walk toward the future in a whole new world. I used to think the aristocracy were breeding to quality because they intermarry and the offspring breed within their social circles. But it taint so… They are the modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Totally wicked and corrupt. They will be devouring each other like no animal that exists. Except.maybe some insect. The first hint of trouble and the pack will full weak ones and then divide against it self til the destruction and losses devour their wealth,family and homes. Good riddence to modern humanity. Did you ever watch a documentary on Eskimos hunting whale. Those dudes are some tough people and they work together then share the wealth. We are divided and the wealth is given to foreigners and deadbeat scum. Starving the productive class is fine til you need produce.
Never Physical reality is a creation of human beings (and other conscious entities), so the question is: when will humans no longer see a need for creating physical reality.
Never Some will survive and continue in harmony with nature as in a modern caveman existence if we have a global disaster.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Extinction means no humans left; I think there will be pockets of humans for a very long while. I honestly don't think we have the ability to predict accurately past about a thousand years, since so many black swans await, but the world is large, with many micro climates – I think some humans will survive. Civilization? Nope.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Homo Sapiens has been so capable of adapting to extreme conditions, from the Artic to the Sahara, that a few will be able to survive the coming collapse. Whether a tribe in the Amazon forest, or a couple in the high Hymalaias, there will be a few survivors who will be able to use flintstone again…
When the Sun Goes Red Giant How about a nice "don't know" answer. IE, nobody knows what is going to happen. Nobody!
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Humans are survivors. I can see an epic die-off, but one way or another I believe small groups of scrappy humans will find a way to survive no matter what, even if it means morphing into subterranean bug and slime eaters who go ten thousand years before re-emerging into the sun. By then, will they still be "human"? Good question.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Humans have become weak due to climate control and iphones, but we still have the genetics to survive in nature, and many of us still possess the skills necessary to survive without petroleum energy.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant I think that our civilization as we know it is due to end in less than 50 years. And I know the data on nuclear plants, etc, but I think it's possible that small numbers of humans will survive in remote places. It's happened before – there may have been as few as 5,000 humans at one point in pre-history. So it can happen again.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Likely sometime before, but certainly beyond 1000 years.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Most people gonna die but not all. A lot depends on whethet tactical or full strike nukes go off as to how many do survive. Rural and remote Subsistence communities will carry on when their overall numbers have have lowered to what the livestock and land can sustain. Urban areas are going to be nothing but salvage scrap sources.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant My choice here represents my opinion that humanity will go extinct due to a cosmic calamity of some sort in the (hopefully very distant) future.
When the Sun Goes Red Giant Obviously, nobody has a crystal ball, so what we have are only tentative feelings, best guesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth I don't think that humans will go extinct anytime soon. Barring some cataclysmic turn of events that would make all vertebrate life impossible (such as a lack of oxygen) I would place my bets on pockets of humans hanging on around the globe in various ecological niches. We are a tough and adaptive species, and once the pressure valves of overpopulation and resource over-exploitation have been released then it will free up a lot of natural capital for the 'survivors'.

That said, it may FEEL like we have gone extinct, by today's standards of modern communications. Certainly the genus of (HT to Mike Ruppert) Petroleum Man will go extinct, right alongside with Gadget Man and a few others. Eventually, of course, we'll all go – probably due to a super volcano or something similar. Near term, though? I doubt it.

When the Sun Goes Red Giant The collapse and the following extinction event will mercilessly cut down a huge number of humankind. Nevertheless, we are far too many and, with or brain, far too well adapted to go completely extinct. Until a better predator comes along. That will not happen anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the collapse, the whole climate change enchilada will be´come a non-issue.

When the Universe Ends I wish you had an answer of "WHO Knows"? We may make it through the mess we have created. If fact I believe this is the curial turning point for all industrial Civilizations. I wonder if any make it through it with some tech in place to move them along.
Anything could happen but I have the terrible feeling Guy is right.
Thank you for the survey and listing to me
Cheers Anthony
When the Universe Ends In response to impending doom, elites will send out ships to colonize other planets (probably mars first) and the rest of us peons will struggle to survive on a crippled planet.
When the Universe Ends In response to impending doom, elites will send out ships to colonize other planets (probably mars first) and the rest of us peons will struggle to survive on a crippled planet.
 
We don't know enough about extinction to make judgments, what we do is apply religious thinking and hope nobody notices. (If we have eternal life then nothing goes extinct.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other side of extinction is speciation, we don't know anything about that, either.

Humans have been around for +5 million years and are likely to be around another 5 million years, after all, we have been busy creating a world just for us.

  don't know , human going extinct would mean very serious climate doom, and I'm not an expert there
  Don't know.
  Hard to know, depends on how abrupt climate change and nuclear plants meltdowns happens.
  I cannot possibly give a date, but extinction has always operated and 99% of life's creatures have gone extinct. Previous to homo sapiens all our predecessors have gone extinct. We will go extinct but it may not be for centuries as some survivors will escape the main extinction and be able to survive in a future more hostile world. The best option is that some of the "first peoples" retain survival skills. But recovering anything like the energy based societies we have seen will be next to impossible, at least for the next 200 million years which it will take for the planet to heal
  Indeterminate.
  nobody knows, extinction is possible in near term, but not likely even if probable, in this century, after tioba 3k to 10k people left, humans made it to our days
  unknown. not really important because i'll be gone

For those of you who have not yet taken The Human Extinction SurveyTM, here it is again.

 

The Human Extinction Survey

SURVEY SUBMISSIONS TO DATE: 277

Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 17. 2015

extinction-button

05-24-human-extinction

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

Discuss this Survey at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

human-extinctionEarly on when I began my journey into the World of Collapse, probably the biggest and most contentious issue that got kicked around on the Collapse forums and blogs was whether the monetary system would collapse in Hyperinflation or Deflation.  In fact here on the Diner itself this remains one of the most popular threads, with more than 30 pages of posts at this point.

Lately however, the Doom community has become more Doomerish, and what is being kicked around now is whether Homo Saps are bound for Extinction, not in some long distant future but in the Near Term.  In fact, some folks like Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last are predicting this Extinction Level Event will occur as early as 2030, only 15 years down the line from present day.  Obviously, if you are in the process of going Extinct, the monetary issues pale before that one!  LOL.  For the purposes of this survey though, we will consider anything under a Century as "Near Term".

In an effort to get a better clue on what people think will occur here (and WHEN!?) as we move along the Collapse Highway, I worked up a little Survey utilizing yet another of the numerous Plugins I have installed lately to spruce up the Diner before I Buy My Ticket to the Great Beyond TM. 🙂

Before you take the Main Survey, if you haven't done so already here on the Diner, you may want to place yourself in on our Taxonomy of Doomer Types Survey.  If you have already done this survey before, don't do it again, it will skew the results.  I haven't got a way yet to stop Duplicates out by User.  I don't want to require email addys or any identification for these polls, as I think that would discourage readers from responding to them.

I came up with this taxonomy back in my days Blogging on The Burning Platform with Jim Quinn.  I had just 2 categories for it back then, now I am up to 4 with it.  Here's the old table though for some descriptions.  This goes back to 2011 BTW.

Topic

Doom Lite

Full Doom

 Dollar & Monetary System  We can fix the monetary system and rehabilitate the Dollar if we STOP PRINTING, feed Helicopter Ben to the Lions, Slash Spending, allow TBTF Banks to FAIL, Incarcerate the Criminal Banksters and use Precious Metals to underpin the currency.  The monetary system cannot be rehabilitated by any means, there will be a complete collapse of ALL Fiat money and financial instruments and commerce will for quite some time be mainly Barter.  PMs will only retain value in areas where there is a surplus of basic commodities.
Inflation, Hyper-Inflation, Deflation, Stagflation, DICK UP YOUR ASSFLATION WTF CARES ANYMORE?  WE ARE TOAST NO MATTER HOW IT COLLAPSES. WTF CARES ANYMORE?  WE ARE TOAST NO MATTER HOW IT COLLAPSES.
Energy To resolve our Energy problems, we must IMMEDIATELY begin building more Nukes, Drill Baby Drill for more Local Oil and build more Hydro Plants and Wind Farms, and eventually pick up the slack from lost energy from Imported Oil sources. Lost Energy from depleted Oil is Irreplaceable and it is far too late to stop an extensive Power Down throughout society which will halt most of our Transportation methods and bring down the Electrical Grid.  Our only choice is to prepare for a Low Energy footprint in the future.
 Goobermint  We can fix Da Goobermint if we Vote Out all the scumbag CONgress Critters and replace them with Honest Politicians who cannot be Bought who all demonstrate the Wisdom of the Founding Fathers and abide by the Constitution.  Said new Goobermint will be made much smaller with fewer Regulations and less Taxation, allowing Commerce to revive as the Free Market takes over.  Da Goobermint is inherently unfixable and corrupt and cannot be rehabilitated via the Ballot Box.  Only a Revolution can remove the current power structure, and the results of a Revolution will likely bring a new Goobermint as bad or WORSE than the current one.  The failure of the monetary sytem and energy systems will eventually render all large scale Goobermints unable to function, with the power vacuum filled by local Warlords and Dictators in most places.
Jobs We must stop the offshoring of Productive Jobs and rebuild our Manufacturing Base in order to build an export based Mercantilist economy with a Trade Surplus. The Industrial Model is FINISHED, even if we could rebuild Factories here in the FSofA, we wouldn’t have the Oil to run them anyhow, and there won’t be anyone here or abroad who could afford the products we build with them anyhow, because of the upward spiraling cost of energy measured in EROEI.
 Immigration  We must Seal the Borders and deport all Illegal Aliens and get FSofA Citizens to work at all the scut jobs at below Minimum Wage they currently fill to reduce Unemployment and reduce the liabilities of Aliens who are soaking up free Medical Care in the Emergency Rooms of our Hospitals.  We can TRY to seal the borders and deport the Illegal Aliens, but they will just be replaced by more home grown Citizens who are falling off the economic cliff and will be just as big a drain on the Medical System.  Besides that, at least on the Border with Mejico,  it will likely create an ever growing Shooting War with a Tsunami of Wetbacks seeking to escape an even worse situation in Mejico.
 Imperialism & Foreign Wars  We must STOP trying to be the World’s Policeman, bring all our Boys & Girls HOME and reduce the outrageous COST of maintaining the Big Ass Military.  As soon as we STOP running all our Imperialist adventures, we will basically be CUT OFF from the Foreign Oil still making its way across the Sea Lanes to our Refineries.  We also will crash just about the only type of “productive” thing we build here anymore, which are the Weapons of War and we will bring back a whole new crew of people to put on the Unemployment line.
 Free Shit Army & 30 Blocks of Squalor  We must end all transfer payments, all Welfare, Social Security and Medicaire which are all unfunded Liabilities we cannot afford.  Former Welfare recipients will be FORCED to go back to work and become Productive Citizens rather than Useless Eaters.  Old Folks will rely on their Savings and their Extended Families to take care of them in their dotage.  The minute we knock down all these social support mechanisms is the minute we turn into Egypt or Libya or all the rest of the 3rd World countries where the people with Nothing Left to Lose go BERSERK.  We don’t HAVE jobs these people could do, even if they were qualified to do any job, which they are not for the most part.  Most Old Folks have no savings, and the Extended Family died back in the 1950s for the most part.  The Medical Industry as a whole would COLLAPSE without Goobermint input, putting the Doctors, Nurses and Medical Records folks on the UE lines also.

China

 China will succeed long term because they are net creditors, have most of the Industrial infrastructure and have more Science and Math geniuses studying at Elite Universities.  China is TOAST because of outrageous Population Overshoot, a depleted Water Supply, insufficient arable land and insufficient local supplies of remaining Fossil Fuel energy.

 

FINAL

SOLUTIONS

 Boomers should be EXTERMINATED  Pigmen should be EXTERMINATED

 

The latest Compact Description of each of the new categories is below, and you can go HERE to take that Survey if you have not done so already.  However, don't navigate away from this page until you take the Survey below, which is much more comprehensive.

Tell Us How you Categorize Yourself

Cornucopian: You believe current problems are temporary and Homo Saps will eventually go Star Trekking
Doomer Lite: You believe we will have a Greater Depression, but eventually rebound from it
Full Doomer: You believe Homo Saps will undergo a massive Population Knockdown but will not go Extinct in this century
Uber Doomer: You believe Homo Saps will be extinct by the end of this century
 
Now, onto the Main Extinction Survey itself!
 
survey-saysAll questions in the Surveyl are Optional to answer, in fact even taking the Poll is Optional!  You're not required to leave any identifying information if you don't want to.
 
It may not appear to you that the form submission worked, because I haven't got the feedback page working yet.  However, trust me it does work! I tested it. I'll publish the Survey results after I get enough reasonably literate responses to it.  If you choose to write a really LONG answer to any question, I highly recommend that you compose it in a Text Editor on your own computer and Save It there before copy/pasting it into the Submit Box and hitting the Submit Button!  Just In Case.
 
There are Text Areas for each question, if you wish to explain your reasoning for your choice.  You are also encouraged to join us in the Diner Forum for discussion of these choices.  You can also use the Blog Commentary below for further discussion and explanation, although that will not go into the Published Survey Results.
 

the-apocalypse11

RE

Collapse of Industrial Civilization Survey- Early Results

Off the keyboards of the Diner Readers

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 13, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

survey-says-2

Discuss this article at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

Tell Us How you Categorize Yourself

Cornucopian: You believe current problems are temporary and Homo Saps will eventually go Star Trekking
Doomer Lite: You believe we will have a Greater Depression, but eventually rebound from it
Full Doomer: You believe Homo Saps will undergo a massive Population Knockdown but will not go Extinct in this century
Uber Doomer: You believe Homo Saps will be extinct by the end of this century
 

As you might expect, the Diner Readers have come down OVERWHELMINGLY in support of the idea Industrial Civilization will Collapse/ is Collapsing.  I'm not going to bother sorting for the exact numbers, but it's in the neighborhood of 50:1

Below here though are a few of the descriptive quotes dropped on the Survey Form, in Chronological Order when they came in,

Let's define that. I would say the energy used per capita per annum will decrease by 50% over 20-30 years. Why? It's all about the net energy or lack thereof.
man, the signs are everywhere.
See Thelma and Louise. The "cliff" is behind us. The cause was widespread dirty energy use. Collapse is the biosphere math effect.
Painfully Obvious and Disheartening
South African electricity system is collapsing
Your milage may vary but folks we are running on empty.
Absurdist Delusions Abound
We are in the beginning stages of collapse
Anglo Saxon contemplating Roman British ruins poem // ridden and shod an Arab recently? // The Atomic Age is elemental, brother! The UPPU club meets Hg and Li and what does life do?
with a bang and a whimper.
Accidentally cut myself off – from stagflation and "malaise" briefly almost cured by North Slope and North Sea oil right up to perma-recession hotly denied by all official entities (TPTB).
The numbers are incontrovertible
Obviously
It's the age-old problem of out-growing our resource base.


This First Survey from the Diner is very rudimentary and has a lot of problems that I am well aware of.  This is not an EZ Plugin to work with by any means.  I only installed the thing a few days ago and getting up to speed on it while I can't remember where I put my keys or parked my car is not fucking EZ!  LOL

However, the UPCOMING SURVEY on Human Extinction is a whole lot better in terms of structure and organization.

COMING SUNDAY TO A LAPTOP NEAR YOU!

RE

Diner Survey of Opinions on the Collapse of Industrial Civilization

Off the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on May 9, 2015

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere

http://www.jolynneshane.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/survey-says.jpg

Discuss this Survey at the Kitchen Sink inside the Diner

 

Your Contributions and Opinions will be published after we have collected up enough of them and weeded out the stupid ones. 🙂

I believe Industrial Civilization is Collapsing.

Check the Box if you agree (you may add your reasons in the text box below)


I believe Industrial Civilization is NOT Collapsing.

Check the Box if you agree (you may add your reasons in the text box below)

Knarf plays the Doomer Blues

https://image.freepik.com/free-icon/musical-notes-symbols_318-29778.jpg

Support the Diner

Search the Diner

Surveys & Podcasts

NEW SURVEY

Renewable Energy

VISIT AND FOLLOW US ON DINER SOUNDCLOUD

" As a daily reader of all of the doomsday blogs, e.g. the Diner, Nature Bats Last, Zerohedge, Scribbler, etc… I must say that I most look forward to your “off the microphone” rants. Your analysis, insights, and conclusions are always logical, well supported, and clearly articulated – a trifecta not frequently achieved."- Joe D

Archives

Global Diners

View Full Diner Stats

Global Population Stats

Enter a Country Name for full Population & Demographic Statistics

Lake Mead Watch

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BX686_LakeMe_G_20130816175615.jpg

loading

Inside the Diner

https://www.abc.net.au/news/emergency/plan-for-an-emergency/heatwave/Its coming. Lack of belief wont stop it.How does the saying go.... You can ignore reality for as lon...

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/nsw/2019/12/14/nsw-bushfire-conditions-to-worsen/Yah....JOW

I saw thousands of these on Drakes Beach on Dec. 6, after the recent storm. What happened? -David FordYou could be forgi...

MADRID (Reuters) - Major economies resisted calls for bolder climate commitments as a U.N. summit in Madrid limped toward a delayed conclusion on Saturday, dimming hopes that nations will act in time to stop rising temperatures devastating people and t...

So haven't heard a peep in more mainstream circles about peak oil.  My hunch a while ago was that fracking was a QE coordinated op to maintain marginal barrell pricing control and would crash and burn in the 2020's.  This interview is first thing i've ...

Recent Facebook Posts

No recent Facebook posts to show

Diner Twitter feed

Knarf’s Knewz

Quote from: knarf on December 13, 2019, 08:14:36 P [...]

Greta is definitely out-Trolling Trumpovetsky!  RE [...]

Diner Newz Feeds

  • Surly
  • Agelbert
  • Knarf
  • Golden Oxen
  • Frostbite Falls

Doomstead Diner Daily December 14The Diner Daily i [...]

This is How a Society DiesAmerica and Britain are [...]

Florida man died from meth overdose before h... [...]

Doomstead Diner Daily December 13The Diner Daily i [...]

Interesting article I found, which is good about t [...]

Quote from: UnhingedBecauseLucid on March 18, 2019 [...]

CleanTechnicaSupport CleanTechnica’s work via dona [...]

QuoteThe FACT that the current incredibly STUPID e [...]

Quote from: knarf on December 13, 2019, 08:14:36 P [...]

Greta is definitely out-Trolling Trumpovetsky!  RE [...]

Scientists have unlocked the power of gold atoms b [...]

Quote from: azozeo on August 14, 2019, 10:41:33 AM [...]

Wisconsin Bill Would Remove Barrier to Using Gold, [...]

Under extreme conditions, gold rearranges its atom [...]

The cost of gold futures on the Comex exchange inc [...]

OK, I gave it to myself.    Guaranteed FREE Shippi [...]

The remission is OVAH!  The Cancer is BACK!  I got [...]

1 week, even 2 here in Alaska is total BULLSHIT! Y [...]

Now UP on GEI!  REposted on 01 December 2019A Worl [...]

Alternate Perspectives

  • Two Ice Floes
  • Jumping Jack Flash
  • From Filmers to Farmers

Missing In Action By Cognitive Dissonance     As a very young pup, whenever I was overdue and not ho [...]

Politicians’ Privilege By Cognitive Dissonance     Imagine for a moment you work for a small or medi [...]

Shaking the August Stick By Cognitive Dissonance     Sometime towards the end of the third or fourth [...]

Empire in Decline - Propaganda and the American Myth By Cognitive Dissonance     “Oh, what a tangled [...]

Meanderings By Cognitive Dissonance     Tis the Season Silly season is upon us. And I, for one, welc [...]

Event Update For 2019-12-12http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2019-12-11http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2019-12-10http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2019-12-09http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2019-12-08http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

With fusion energy perpetually 20 years away we now also perpetually have [fill in the blank] years [...]

My mea culpa for having inadvertently neglected FF2F for so long, and an update on the upcoming post [...]

NYC plans to undertake the swindle of the civilisation by suing the companies that have enabled it t [...]

MbS, the personification of the age-old pre-revolutionary scenario in which an expiring regime attem [...]

Daily Doom Photo

man-watching-tv

Sustainability

  • Peak Surfer
  • SUN
  • Transition Voice

First cut of the Madrid climate summit"“Buying an offset to fly here is absurd. It takes decades for a tree to grow enough to recoup [...]

"The drift towards near-term human extinction must be averted at all costs."I confess. I a [...]

"Since 2005, winters in Mexico have been my Hemingway Machine."  As winter descends upon m [...]

Waterboarding Flounder"Serious oxygen loss between 100 and 600-meter depths is expected to cover 59–80% of the ocean [...]

Of Warnings and their Ripple Effects"We need wooden ships, char-crete buildings, bamboo bicycles, moringa furniture, and hemp cloth [...]

The folks at Windward have been doing great work at living sustainably for many years now.  Part of [...]

 The Daily SUN☼ Building a Better Tomorrow by Sustaining Universal Needs April 3, 2017 Powering Down [...]

Off the keyboard of Bob Montgomery Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666 Friend us on Facebook Publishe [...]

Visit SUN on Facebook Here [...]

What extinction crisis? Believe it or not, there are still climate science deniers out there. And th [...]

My new book, Abolish Oil Now, will talk about why the climate movement has failed and what we can do [...]

A new climate protest movement out of the UK has taken Europe by storm and made governments sit down [...]

The success of Apollo 11 flipped the American public from skeptics to fans. The climate movement nee [...]

Today's movement to abolish fossil fuels can learn from two different paths that the British an [...]

Top Commentariats

  • Our Finite World
  • Economic Undertow

It depends on how much effort was required to source animal food, and how often it could be accessed [...]

I, too, am a light-skinned person with blue eyes. Vitamin D levels can be a problem for us too, part [...]

This part sounds like a fairy tale to me: Walburga Hemetsberger, CEO of SPE, said: “Solar in the Eur [...]

Optimal Foraging Strategy tells me most hunter gatherers were eating meat and tubers/root vegetables [...]

Interesting that spain breaks the exponential growth until saturation, then only trickle. On the oth [...]

Trump was born in 1946 so he's another stinkin' Boomer. Bernie and Biden were born during [...]

The millennial consensus is that Boomer is more a state of mind than an age. A lot of older millenni [...]

Bill Clinton was first boomer president, followed by Bush, Obama, and Trump. True, neither candidate [...]

Biden and Bernie are members of the Silent Generation. Neither one is a boomer. I think Trump is on [...]

RE Economics

Going Cashless

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Simplifying the Final Countdown

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Bond Market Collapse and the Banning of Cash

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?

Discuss this article @ the ECONOMICS TABLE inside the...

Singularity of the Dollar

Off the Keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Kurrency Kollapse: To Print or Not To Print?

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

SWISSIE CAPITULATION!

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Merry Doomy Christmas

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Peak Customers: The Final Liquidation Sale

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Collapse Fiction

Useful Links

Technical Journals

Thermal environmental design in an outdoor space is discussed by focusing on the proper selection an [...]

The present work shows the experimental evidence carried out on a pilot scale and demonstrating the [...]

Climate change is expected to affect the occurrence of forest pests. This study depicts a method to [...]

The grapevine (Vitis vinifera, L.) has been long since recognized as an ozone-sensitive plant. Ozone [...]

Climate change imposes great challenges on the built heritage sector by increasing the risks of ener [...]