Has the world (as we know it) ended?

245

Comments

  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    from what I gather from even the most pessimistic predictions, we won't see these dire consequences in our lifetime. Sure, we'll see increases in flooding and incelement weather and the like, but nothing "world ending" for a pretty long time. 

    which is part of the problem. people look at those predictions and don't care, because they can't relate to worrying about a 2 degree increase (they think that's insignificant when it's not) in the next 75 years* ("I'll be dead by then")

    *pulled that number out of my nether regions as an example 
    I think you are right on here.  And many of us in the global north won't be so averse to "building the wall" when things really start getting bad in order to protect our livable climate oases. Much comes down to the financial aspects of all of this.  If we weren't on a constant quest for greater "economic growth" and were instead focused on an economy based on something like stability a lot of problems could be solved easily.  It is hard to get people on board with cutting fossil fuels or shortening supply chains by revitalizing local farming economies and industries, if that means higher costs and lower return on investments and lower % of retirement returns.  On the other hand if we continue pushing the costs of our lifestyles onto the less developed countries while pilagiing their resources and subsidizing our low costs by underpaying workers that aren't provided the same protections that we are, it becomes easy to continue one click same day deliveries if we don't have to see those costs and the direct resuts of our societies consuming hunger are pushed further down the road.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790
    I think the rainforest areas will fair far better than other places....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    mickeyrat said:
    I think the rainforest areas will fair far better than other places....
    If they aren't cut down first.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    I don’t know how old anyone is on here but I think we will see and experience catastrophic disruption due to climate change in our lifetimes. I’m figuring in the next 25-30 years. It’ll be a combination of rising sea levels, lack of water, major agricultural failure and unlivable areas of the globe that drives mass population movements, leading to conflict and competition for limited resources, in both the US and globe.

    I think it was 3 trillion gallons of ice equivalent that melted in Greenland last weekend over 3 days, the Rio Grande dried up in Albuquerque, Lake Mead is but a former shadow of itself, ice and glacier avalanches in the Italian alps and way record heat in Europe, plus a few other climate catastrophes in China. Signs of things to come.

    If you’re in your 50s or younger, you’ll see it. This change doesn’t stop overnight, regardless of which actions are taken separately or together.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    "The rain forest is so-called because it’s such a wet place, where the trees pull up water from the earth that then gathers in the atmosphere to become rain. That balance is upended by deforestation, forest fires and global temperature rises. Experts warn that soon the water cycle will become irreversibly broken, locking in a trend of declining rainfall and longer dry seasons that began decades ago. At least half of the shrinking forest will give way to savanna. With as much as 17% of the forest lost already, scientists believe that the tipping point will be reached at 20% to 25% of deforestation even if climate change is tamed."

    https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/
    Scio me nihil scire
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    I don’t know how old anyone is on here but I think we will see and experience catastrophic disruption due to climate change in our lifetimes. I’m figuring in the next 25-30 years. It’ll be a combination of rising sea levels, lack of water, major agricultural failure and unlivable areas of the globe that drives mass population movements, leading to conflict and competition for limited resources, in both the US and globe.

    I think it was 3 trillion gallons of ice equivalent that melted in Greenland last weekend over 3 days, the Rio Grande dried up in Albuquerque, Lake Mead is but a former shadow of itself, ice and glacier avalanches in the Italian alps and way record heat in Europe, plus a few other climate catastrophes in China. Signs of things to come.

    If you’re in your 50s or younger, you’ll see it. This change doesn’t stop overnight, regardless of which actions are taken separately or together.
    We are seeing it now.  you are nice giving people 25-30 years.  I think it is gonna get bad in 5-10
    Scio me nihil scire
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    I don’t know how old anyone is on here but I think we will see and experience catastrophic disruption due to climate change in our lifetimes. I’m figuring in the next 25-30 years. It’ll be a combination of rising sea levels, lack of water, major agricultural failure and unlivable areas of the globe that drives mass population movements, leading to conflict and competition for limited resources, in both the US and globe.

    I think it was 3 trillion gallons of ice equivalent that melted in Greenland last weekend over 3 days, the Rio Grande dried up in Albuquerque, Lake Mead is but a former shadow of itself, ice and glacier avalanches in the Italian alps and way record heat in Europe, plus a few other climate catastrophes in China. Signs of things to come.

    If you’re in your 50s or younger, you’ll see it. This change doesn’t stop overnight, regardless of which actions are taken separately or together.
    Most of these examples are over population rather than climate change. But I agree with that 25-30 year mark we will see significant changes.  I mentioned yesterday I believe population is our biggest threat. Bigger the population, the more resources we use. 
    The Colorado River has only made it to the ocean once in the last 20 or 30 years, and that was because they let it flow for maintenance. States and countries sue each other for water rights from it, and it’s drained completely. If our population keeps growing at the rate it always has, there won’t be enough resources, including water, to accommodate that increase. And it’s not just water, it’s everything. Wood, coal, oil, etc, gets consumed faster and faster. We don’t have enough water now to sustain what we have, what are we going to do in 25 years when there’s another 100 million people to worry about?
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Posts: 5,228
    I’m not going to comment environmentally but will comment on another way the world as we know it is shifting. I am fascinated with prolific hedge fund manager  Ray Dalio’s assessment that a shift is coming in the accepted world order. He has done some interesting work looking at human history and how the current and past world orders are created and how the change happens. Basically, history is bound to repeat itself. For example, the shift generally happens after conflict (WWII for example).  Basically, the US took over from the UK as the preeminent world power and the rest of the world was accepting of it. 

    The conflict in Ukraine could be the beginning of a shift in the world order. Strictly pontificating, China would come out the other end of conflict as the new preeminent world power and the rest of the world would accept this. A simple YouTube search and you can find his videos (short synopsis’ of his book which I am looking forward to reading). 

    His short and long term debt cycle videos on YouTube are also worth watching if you are interested in economics. He has an excellent way of explaining how it all works… and the timelines are very interesting 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    static111 said:
    I don’t know how old anyone is on here but I think we will see and experience catastrophic disruption due to climate change in our lifetimes. I’m figuring in the next 25-30 years. It’ll be a combination of rising sea levels, lack of water, major agricultural failure and unlivable areas of the globe that drives mass population movements, leading to conflict and competition for limited resources, in both the US and globe.

    I think it was 3 trillion gallons of ice equivalent that melted in Greenland last weekend over 3 days, the Rio Grande dried up in Albuquerque, Lake Mead is but a former shadow of itself, ice and glacier avalanches in the Italian alps and way record heat in Europe, plus a few other climate catastrophes in China. Signs of things to come.

    If you’re in your 50s or younger, you’ll see it. This change doesn’t stop overnight, regardless of which actions are taken separately or together.
    We are seeing it now.  you are nice giving people 25-30 years.  I think it is gonna get bad in 5-10
    I agree. I was trying to be generous with positivity.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    I’m not going to comment environmentally but will comment on another way the world as we know it is shifting. I am fascinated with prolific hedge fund manager  Ray Dalio’s assessment that a shift is coming in the accepted world order. He has done some interesting work looking at human history and how the current and past world orders are created and how the change happens. Basically, history is bound to repeat itself. For example, the shift generally happens after conflict (WWII for example).  Basically, the US took over from the UK as the preeminent world power and the rest of the world was accepting of it. 

    The conflict in Ukraine could be the beginning of a shift in the world order. Strictly pontificating, China would come out the other end of conflict as the new preeminent world power and the rest of the world would accept this. A simple YouTube search and you can find his videos (short synopsis’ of his book which I am looking forward to reading). 

    His short and long term debt cycle videos on YouTube are also worth watching if you are interested in economics. He has an excellent way of explaining how it all works… and the timelines are very interesting 

    Good point, 1T, in that political, international, and social issues are all part of the big shift going on in the world.  I get mixed messages about China becoming the next world power, but tend to think it is more likely than not.  The one think that might prevent that is the severity of their environmental issues.  They've really messed up their land base, and air pollution surely must be taking a toll on the people.  If they really want to take over the world, they need to clean up their mess while they're at it.
    ************************************
    Going back to environment for a minute, I saw this article last night and found it hugely concerning (but the last paragraph is also encouraging):

    Atlantic Ocean ‘pretty much dead’ says scientist as plankton wiped out

    Monday, July 18th, 2022

    An Edinburgh-based research team says plankton, the tiny organisms that sustain life in the seas, has all but been wiped out. The team’s spent two years collecting water samples from the Atlantic and in a dire warning says this means the Atlantic’s ‘pretty much dead’.

    At the bottom of the food chain, plankton is consumed by the krill which are fed on by the fish that, in turn, provide nutrition for terrestrial animals including billions of humans.

    The research has been conducted by GOES (Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation) using its yacht Copepod which has collected samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean. From Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic and is currently in Colombia, before setting sail for Panama.

    GOES has also provided monitoring equipment to other sailing boat crews so that they can perform the same trawls and report back with their results.

    “Given that plankton is the life-support system for the planet and humanity cannot survive without it, the result is disturbing,” says marine biologist and former Scottish Government adviser Dr Howard Dryden. “It will be gone in around 25 years. Our results confirmed a 90% reduction in primary productivity in the Atlantic. Effectively, the Atlantic Ocean is now pretty much dead.”

    According to the Sunday Post, the research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished.

    ‘An environmental catastrophe is unfolding,’ says the report. ‘We believe humanity could adapt to global warming and extreme weather changes. It is our view that humanity will not survive the extinction of most marine plants and animals.’

    That threat is deemed as ‘a few years’ away before the consequences of plankton loss become catastrophically clear when fish, whales and dolphins become extinct.

    The team has compiled and analysed information from 13 vessels and more than 500 data points.

    The researchers expected to find up to five visible pieces of plankton in every 10 litres of water – but found an average of less than one. Conversely, they’d expected to discover 20 microscopic specks of toxic particles per litre of Atlantic water – but actually counted between 100 and 1,000.

    The discovery suggests that plankton faces complete wipe-out sooner than was expected.

    Plankton needs the right conditions to thrive, and perform its other role of helping oceans absorb carbon dioxide and giving off the chemical dimethyl sulphide, which assists in creating clouds. Where it thrives in slightly alkaline waters, the oceans are slowly turning more acidic.

    An overload of CO2, says the Sunday Post, along with a deluge of lethal manmade chemicals in cosmetics, plastics, sunscreen, drugs and fertilisers, is inundating the marine environment. It’s all toxic to underwater life and once the water reaches a tipping point of acidity, vast amounts of plankton will simply dissolve.

    ‘If we destroy plankton, the planet will become more humid, accelerate climate change, and with no clouds it will also become arid and wind velocities will be extreme,’ says the report.

    ‘Yes, of course, we need to continue to reduce CO2 emissions but even if we were carbon-neutral, it will not stop ocean acidification – it will not stop the loss of all the seals, whales, marine birds, fish and food supply for two billion people.

    ‘CO2 reduction won’t even stop climate change; indeed, we will have catastrophic climate change because we have not fixed the primary root cause – the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals and substances such as plastic.

    “Based on our observations, plankton numbers have already crashed and are now at the levels that I predicted would not happen for another quarter of a century,” Dryden told the Sunday Post.

    “We surveyed the Caribbean from St Lucia to Grenada. Now the only fish available in restaurants there is imported farmed Atlantic salmon.

    “It had been reported that 50% of the coral was gone; our observations were that the coral is 100% gone in many locations and 90% gone in all locations.

    “We cannot stop climate change by simply reducing CO2 emissions. However, we can clean up our pollution to give us clean air and clear rivers and bring life back to the oceans. We could potentially live with climate change, but we will not survive the destruction of nature. If we can bring back nature, though, we also solve climate change.”

    He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered.

    “People cause pollution, and in most of the world there is no effluent treatment. Covid has shown us that if we eliminate pollution then ecosystems have high capacity to spring back.

    Scotland could set an example to the rest of the world and declare the country a non-toxic environment. Currently, we have a combined storm water and sewer system, so when it rains the municipal treatment systems are by-passed.

    “This means we may only be treating as little as a quarter of our waste water.

    “We will not stop making plastic but the new forms should be non-toxic and biodegradable.

    “We need to turn to regenerative agriculture. We have already wiped out 80% of all insects and 100% will be gone in 20 years, then agriculture collapses because there is no pollination.”

    In a recent report, UK NGO Environment Investigation Agency says that marine plastics will have outweighed the total mass of fish in the world’s oceans by 2050, and the production of plastic pollution constitutes a planetary emergency. 

    While many organisations are working on cleaning the oceans after the water is polluted, Ocean Cleanup has begun work on intercepting plastic pollution in what it thinks is the heaviest polluting river in the world by making a fence which stops rubbish getting into the sea.












    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    jesus. that's just a tad concerning. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Posts: 5,228
    Frightening. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 32,645
    Those numbers I don't agree with.  They still catch tuna, mahi, flying fish and barracuda in the Caribbean and sell it on the menus...

    Here in the Atlantic we have had an uptick in fish in our area.  Tuna is being caught off the shore in 50' of water.  The bait fish bunker/menhaden are in abundance since up north put a quota on catching them.

    We have whales coming to eat the bunker.  We have sharks and dolphins a plenty off our shores here in NY.

    I am not sure what kind of numbers these are because if they were true I think we would all be dead because there wouldn't be a way to sustain ourselves.  I hope they and I are wrong about this because when the ocean dies, we die.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790
    Those numbers I don't agree with.  They still catch tuna, mahi, flying fish and barracuda in the Caribbean and sell it on the menus...

    Here in the Atlantic we have had an uptick in fish in our area.  Tuna is being caught off the shore in 50' of water.  The bait fish bunker/menhaden are in abundance since up north put a quota on catching them.

    We have whales coming to eat the bunker.  We have sharks and dolphins a plenty off our shores here in NY.

    I am not sure what kind of numbers these are because if they were true I think we would all be dead because there wouldn't be a way to sustain ourselves.  I hope they and I are wrong about this because when the ocean dies, we die.

    so when did this recovery in numbers begin?

    from the article above....

    He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered.


    saw evidence of this all over...

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    Those numbers I don't agree with.  They still catch tuna, mahi, flying fish and barracuda in the Caribbean and sell it on the menus...

    Here in the Atlantic we have had an uptick in fish in our area.  Tuna is being caught off the shore in 50' of water.  The bait fish bunker/menhaden are in abundance since up north put a quota on catching them.

    We have whales coming to eat the bunker.  We have sharks and dolphins a plenty off our shores here in NY.

    I am not sure what kind of numbers these are because if they were true I think we would all be dead because there wouldn't be a way to sustain ourselves.  I hope they and I are wrong about this because when the ocean dies, we die.
    Perhaps the increase in fish is less to do with a higher fish population and more to do with finding the last remaining sources of food in the waters that aren't yet spoiled.  ie just because you are seeing more fish in the NY area doesn't mean the population is growing, it could be that the resources the fish need to eat are becoming smaller and more localized and those populations are following the food.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 32,645
    static111 said:
    Those numbers I don't agree with.  They still catch tuna, mahi, flying fish and barracuda in the Caribbean and sell it on the menus...

    Here in the Atlantic we have had an uptick in fish in our area.  Tuna is being caught off the shore in 50' of water.  The bait fish bunker/menhaden are in abundance since up north put a quota on catching them.

    We have whales coming to eat the bunker.  We have sharks and dolphins a plenty off our shores here in NY.

    I am not sure what kind of numbers these are because if they were true I think we would all be dead because there wouldn't be a way to sustain ourselves.  I hope they and I are wrong about this because when the ocean dies, we die.
    Perhaps the increase in fish is less to do with a higher fish population and more to do with finding the last remaining sources of food in the waters that aren't yet spoiled.  ie just because you are seeing more fish in the NY area doesn't mean the population is growing, it could be that the resources the fish need to eat are becoming smaller and more localized and those populations are following the food.
    I thought about that but these same fish have ties to the bunker fish.  All the above mentioned feed off them and their numbers have grown since the quotas began up north.  It is something I have an interest and followed for years.

    mickeyrat said:
    Those numbers I don't agree with.  They still catch tuna, mahi, flying fish and barracuda in the Caribbean and sell it on the menus...

    Here in the Atlantic we have had an uptick in fish in our area.  Tuna is being caught off the shore in 50' of water.  The bait fish bunker/menhaden are in abundance since up north put a quota on catching them.

    We have whales coming to eat the bunker.  We have sharks and dolphins a plenty off our shores here in NY.

    I am not sure what kind of numbers these are because if they were true I think we would all be dead because there wouldn't be a way to sustain ourselves.  I hope they and I are wrong about this because when the ocean dies, we die.

    so when did this recovery in numbers begin?

    from the article above....

    He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered.


    saw evidence of this all over...

    He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered.

    I can appreciate that because it is very much true.  I have also been following the way bait fish have been growing even before the pandemic.

    With the help of drones, reporting and my own eyes you can see the bunker in more abundance.

    Something i have noticed a decline in our areas is a blue claw crab.  Since the pandemic I have noticed a decline in them.  That is weird to me for the areas I crab in.

    Certain things they tend to exaggerate about.  I read articles that if there is too much fresh water in the Atlantic then the plankton and water movement stops the normal cycle of things which is odd that no mention of the melting of ice and more fresh water in the ocean was mentioned about any of it having an effect.

    Do I think the numbers are off?  Yes.  Do I think Plankton is dying off, yes, very plausible as just like the coral, it is a bad sign.
  • StoveStove Posts: 195
    brianlux said:
    I’m not going to comment environmentally but will comment on another way the world as we know it is shifting. I am fascinated with prolific hedge fund manager  Ray Dalio’s assessment that a shift is coming in the accepted world order. He has done some interesting work looking at human history and how the current and past world orders are created and how the change happens. Basically, history is bound to repeat itself. For example, the shift generally happens after conflict (WWII for example).  Basically, the US took over from the UK as the preeminent world power and the rest of the world was accepting of it. 

    The conflict in Ukraine could be the beginning of a shift in the world order. Strictly pontificating, China would come out the other end of conflict as the new preeminent world power and the rest of the world would accept this. A simple YouTube search and you can find his videos (short synopsis’ of his book which I am looking forward to reading). 

    His short and long term debt cycle videos on YouTube are also worth watching if you are interested in economics. He has an excellent way of explaining how it all works… and the timelines are very interesting 

    Good point, 1T, in that political, international, and social issues are all part of the big shift going on in the world.  I get mixed messages about China becoming the next world power, but tend to think it is more likely than not.  The one think that might prevent that is the severity of their environmental issues.  They've really messed up their land base, and air pollution surely must be taking a toll on the people.  If they really want to take over the world, they need to clean up their mess while they're at it.
    ************************************
    Going back to environment for a minute, I saw this article last night and found it hugely concerning (but the last paragraph is also encouraging):

    Atlantic Ocean ‘pretty much dead’ says scientist as plankton wiped out

    Monday, July 18th, 2022

    An Edinburgh-based research team says plankton, the tiny organisms that sustain life in the seas, has all but been wiped out. The team’s spent two years collecting water samples from the Atlantic and in a dire warning says this means the Atlantic’s ‘pretty much dead’.

    At the bottom of the food chain, plankton is consumed by the krill which are fed on by the fish that, in turn, provide nutrition for terrestrial animals including billions of humans.

    The research has been conducted by GOES (Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation) using its yacht Copepod which has collected samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean. From Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic and is currently in Colombia, before setting sail for Panama.

    GOES has also provided monitoring equipment to other sailing boat crews so that they can perform the same trawls and report back with their results.

    “Given that plankton is the life-support system for the planet and humanity cannot survive without it, the result is disturbing,” says marine biologist and former Scottish Government adviser Dr Howard Dryden. “It will be gone in around 25 years. Our results confirmed a 90% reduction in primary productivity in the Atlantic. Effectively, the Atlantic Ocean is now pretty much dead.”

    According to the Sunday Post, the research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished.

    ‘An environmental catastrophe is unfolding,’ says the report. ‘We believe humanity could adapt to global warming and extreme weather changes. It is our view that humanity will not survive the extinction of most marine plants and animals.’

    That threat is deemed as ‘a few years’ away before the consequences of plankton loss become catastrophically clear when fish, whales and dolphins become extinct.

    The team has compiled and analysed information from 13 vessels and more than 500 data points.

    The researchers expected to find up to five visible pieces of plankton in every 10 litres of water – but found an average of less than one. Conversely, they’d expected to discover 20 microscopic specks of toxic particles per litre of Atlantic water – but actually counted between 100 and 1,000.

    The discovery suggests that plankton faces complete wipe-out sooner than was expected.

    Plankton needs the right conditions to thrive, and perform its other role of helping oceans absorb carbon dioxide and giving off the chemical dimethyl sulphide, which assists in creating clouds. Where it thrives in slightly alkaline waters, the oceans are slowly turning more acidic.

    An overload of CO2, says the Sunday Post, along with a deluge of lethal manmade chemicals in cosmetics, plastics, sunscreen, drugs and fertilisers, is inundating the marine environment. It’s all toxic to underwater life and once the water reaches a tipping point of acidity, vast amounts of plankton will simply dissolve.

    ‘If we destroy plankton, the planet will become more humid, accelerate climate change, and with no clouds it will also become arid and wind velocities will be extreme,’ says the report.

    ‘Yes, of course, we need to continue to reduce CO2 emissions but even if we were carbon-neutral, it will not stop ocean acidification – it will not stop the loss of all the seals, whales, marine birds, fish and food supply for two billion people.

    ‘CO2 reduction won’t even stop climate change; indeed, we will have catastrophic climate change because we have not fixed the primary root cause – the destruction of nature by toxic chemicals and substances such as plastic.

    “Based on our observations, plankton numbers have already crashed and are now at the levels that I predicted would not happen for another quarter of a century,” Dryden told the Sunday Post.

    “We surveyed the Caribbean from St Lucia to Grenada. Now the only fish available in restaurants there is imported farmed Atlantic salmon.

    “It had been reported that 50% of the coral was gone; our observations were that the coral is 100% gone in many locations and 90% gone in all locations.

    “We cannot stop climate change by simply reducing CO2 emissions. However, we can clean up our pollution to give us clean air and clear rivers and bring life back to the oceans. We could potentially live with climate change, but we will not survive the destruction of nature. If we can bring back nature, though, we also solve climate change.”

    He said that during the pandemic, because of the lack of tourism, ecosystems had started to recover. Fish have returned and coral reefs have recovered.

    “People cause pollution, and in most of the world there is no effluent treatment. Covid has shown us that if we eliminate pollution then ecosystems have high capacity to spring back.

    Scotland could set an example to the rest of the world and declare the country a non-toxic environment. Currently, we have a combined storm water and sewer system, so when it rains the municipal treatment systems are by-passed.

    “This means we may only be treating as little as a quarter of our waste water.

    “We will not stop making plastic but the new forms should be non-toxic and biodegradable.

    “We need to turn to regenerative agriculture. We have already wiped out 80% of all insects and 100% will be gone in 20 years, then agriculture collapses because there is no pollination.”

    In a recent report, UK NGO Environment Investigation Agency says that marine plastics will have outweighed the total mass of fish in the world’s oceans by 2050, and the production of plastic pollution constitutes a planetary emergency. 

    While many organisations are working on cleaning the oceans after the water is polluted, Ocean Cleanup has begun work on intercepting plastic pollution in what it thinks is the heaviest polluting river in the world by making a fence which stops rubbish getting into the sea.












    People are the problem...continuing this thread that I like of....the world will continue on with or without us. I find solace in that how ever dreary that is for the rest of us around for it.
    SSH
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    part of me hopes my kids don't have kids. I'd love to eventually have grandkids, and for them to experience the same joy of being a parent that I do, but man...I can't imagine how awful it would be to bring kids into this world in 20 years or so. Those kids could potentially see catastrophic change and hardship. Even my kids could. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • StoveStove Posts: 195
    part of me hopes my kids don't have kids. I'd love to eventually have grandkids, and for them to experience the same joy of being a parent that I do, but man...I can't imagine how awful it would be to bring kids into this world in 20 years or so. Those kids could potentially see catastrophic change and hardship. Even my kids could. 
    And there in lies the issue as well, we keep producing and taking up space and resources....
    SSH
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    Stove said:
    part of me hopes my kids don't have kids. I'd love to eventually have grandkids, and for them to experience the same joy of being a parent that I do, but man...I can't imagine how awful it would be to bring kids into this world in 20 years or so. Those kids could potentially see catastrophic change and hardship. Even my kids could. 
    And there in lies the issue as well, we keep producing and taking up space and resources....
    as long as we keep it a ratio of 1 : 1, (which we did), or 1 : 0.5 we'd be ok. It's the ratios of 1 : 1.5 or 2 or more that is the problem (in my opinion). 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • StoveStove Posts: 195
    Stove said:
    part of me hopes my kids don't have kids. I'd love to eventually have grandkids, and for them to experience the same joy of being a parent that I do, but man...I can't imagine how awful it would be to bring kids into this world in 20 years or so. Those kids could potentially see catastrophic change and hardship. Even my kids could. 
    And there in lies the issue as well, we keep producing and taking up space and resources....
    as long as we keep it a ratio of 1 : 1, (which we did), or 1 : 0.5 we'd be ok. It's the ratios of 1 : 1.5 or 2 or more that is the problem (in my opinion). 
    That's one child? I am not a parent...
    SSH
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    two parents with two kids is a ratio of 1:1. we'd probably be better off to lessen our population, but currently, I've read, it's still sustainable at the current level (the amount of food american throws out could feed the planet, for example). it's just not sustainable at the current rate of population growth. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790
    two parents with two kids is a ratio of 1:1. we'd probably be better off to lessen our population, but currently, I've read, it's still sustainable at the current level (the amount of food american throws out could feed the planet, for example). it's just not sustainable at the current rate of population growth. 

    I did my part.

    No kids.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • jpgoegeljpgoegel Posts: 321
    that plankton article has received a lot of negative attention due no peer reviews and such.   it sounds bad but it doesnt seem as dire (yet) as the author makes it seem

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    two parents with two kids is a ratio of 1:1. we'd probably be better off to lessen our population, but currently, I've read, it's still sustainable at the current level (the amount of food american throws out could feed the planet, for example). it's just not sustainable at the current rate of population growth. 
    I know we are wasteful with food, but no way can the food we throw out feed the planet. We’re only 1/20th of the planet. We don’t throw out enough to feed 20 times our population. I’d believe we throw out enough to feed all the homeless and those without here, but not the world.
    I agree with the 1:1 ratio. Problem is I don’t think we could enforce anything like that. I remember growing up as a kid and all the negative talk towards China for doing it. It wouldn’t fly here until it was already too late.
  • StoveStove Posts: 195
    mace1229 said:
    two parents with two kids is a ratio of 1:1. we'd probably be better off to lessen our population, but currently, I've read, it's still sustainable at the current level (the amount of food american throws out could feed the planet, for example). it's just not sustainable at the current rate of population growth. 
    I know we are wasteful with food, but no way can the food we throw out feed the planet. We’re only 1/20th of the planet. We don’t throw out enough to feed 20 times our population. I’d believe we throw out enough to feed all the homeless and those without here, but not the world.
    I agree with the 1:1 ratio. Problem is I don’t think we could enforce anything like that. I remember growing up as a kid and all the negative talk towards China for doing it. It wouldn’t fly here until it was already too late.
    And they won't have a choice in some states thanks to SCOTUS....
    SSH
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    part of me hopes my kids don't have kids. I'd love to eventually have grandkids, and for them to experience the same joy of being a parent that I do, but man...I can't imagine how awful it would be to bring kids into this world in 20 years or so. Those kids could potentially see catastrophic change and hardship. Even my kids could. 

    People do and will continue to have kids.  This is an easy one for me in that I never had kids and never looked back.  I got to help raise a couple of my nephews, I have three godchildren, taught in schools for a number of years, but had no kids of my own.  But for a lot of folks, I guess it is a lot more difficult.  Biologically, it makes sense to want to reproduce.  But I wish more younger people would consider adopting or working with kids instead of bring their own into the current world.  At this point, I have a hard time not saying that is selfish.  I might be too "nice" this way.  Part of me wants to scream, "You want to do WHAT?"
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 32,645
    jpgoegel said:
    that plankton article has received a lot of negative attention due no peer reviews and such.   it sounds bad but it doesnt seem as dire (yet) as the author makes it seem

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/
    Thank you for this.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    mace1229 said:
    two parents with two kids is a ratio of 1:1. we'd probably be better off to lessen our population, but currently, I've read, it's still sustainable at the current level (the amount of food american throws out could feed the planet, for example). it's just not sustainable at the current rate of population growth. 
    I know we are wasteful with food, but no way can the food we throw out feed the planet. We’re only 1/20th of the planet. We don’t throw out enough to feed 20 times our population. I’d believe we throw out enough to feed all the homeless and those without here, but not the world.
    I agree with the 1:1 ratio. Problem is I don’t think we could enforce anything like that. I remember growing up as a kid and all the negative talk towards China for doing it. It wouldn’t fly here until it was already too late.
    correct, it was an exaggeration and I should have qualified it as such. the real number is just as disturbing: 

    According to the U.N. Environment Programme, industrialized countries in North America, Europe and Asia collectively waste 222 million tons of food each year. In contrast, countries in sub-Saharan Africa produce 230 million tons of food each year. That means sub-Saharan Africa’s food output is practically equal to the amount of food wasted by the world’s richest countries. 

    source: https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/8-facts-to-know-about-food-waste-and-hunger/#:~:text=3) 30-40% of,food is damaged or spoiled
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    and I also agree with the 1 kid thing. I also remember thinking how draconian that was in china. it needs to be a cultural shift, but in america, HAHAHAHAHA. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


Sign In or Register to comment.