NASA funded study says human civilization will collapse

[Tystick]

Our industrial civilization faces the same threats of collapse that earlier versions such as the Mayans experienced, a study to be published in Ecological Economics has warned. The idea is far from new, but the authors have put new rigor to the study of how so many previous societies collapsed, and why ours could follow.

Lead author Mr Safa Motesharrei is no wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Motesharrei is a graduate student in mathematics at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, a National Science Foundation-supported institution, and the research was done with funding from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

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

Two key social features are identified that contributed to the collapse of every civilization studied: “The stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity," and "The economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]".

If these look familiar, so do the factors that make up the resource side of the equation, with climatic change, and scarcity of water and energy key among them, although for others climate variation was a matter of bad luck, rather than their own actions.

The model Motesharrei used, Human And Nature Dynamics (HANDY), explores the relationship between population and resources, drawing heavily on predator-prey models used by ecologists. Four key factors were included in the model: Elites, Commoners, nature and wealth. Equations of how these interact were created with varying inputs. The outcomes were not pretty. The timing and shape of collapses varied, but the societies that most closely resembled our own doomed themselves, through overuse of resources exacerbated by economic stratification.

In one scenario many commoners do make it into the elite population at year 750, but the “scarcity of workers” caused a collapse by year 1000. In another so many of the Earth's resources are consumed that society, and the ecology of the planet, are doomed by the year 500.

“It is important to note that in both of these scenarios, the Elites — due to their wealth — do not suffer the detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners,” the paper notes.

If those year numbers seem comfortingly far off, be aware that the year zero in these models is well behind us. Nevertheless, contrary to much of the reporting, the model does not provide a useful timeline for when we can expect to see the world we live in turn into something that resembles a post-apocalyptic nightmare, although studies of the convergence of climate and resource challenges suggest we may witness drastic food crises within a little over a decade.

In every economic bubble people looking back to past crashes are told “this time it is different”. Certainly some things have changed for modern civilization compared to the others Motesharrei has looked at. Technological developments that provide access to greater resources is the most frequently mentioned difference. Motesharrei responds, “Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

One advantage we do have, however, is much greater knowledge of what has gone wrong in the past, and therefore the capacity to build models like HANDY. In a presentation of an earlier draft of this work in 2012 Motesharrei noted, “Simple models provide a great intuition and can teach us invaluable points. It is crucial to have a measure that can give us an early warning of collapse. Carrying Capacity tells us when overshoot happens, and this can be defined by noticing the decline in wealth.”

Some coverage of the announcement has described disaster as inevitable, but that is not the paper's conclusion at all. “Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion,” it argues.

Although the study has reportedly passed peer review it is yet to be published. It received global attention after a pre-release version was provided to The Guardian.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/according-nasa-funded-study-were-pretty-much-screwed

Interesting article

I think we can all agree this is pretty much going to happen eventually.

So I'm curious to see what people think should be done.

What solutions do you think will reverse this process?

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

I wasn't aware NASA still had funding.

[morrissex95]

ZOMG PANIC!!!!

[î мцšт вяздк чфµ]

[Canuck Man]

Go green, and by that I don't mean reduce, reuse, recycle, I mean go back to the days when they didn't wear clothes, climbed trees for food, etc., or we could give more to the poor and focus more on recovery and stuff since I don't see what I just said before happening now...

[Canuck Man]

Go green, and by that I don't mean reduce, reuse, recycle, I mean go back to the days when they didn't wear clothes, climbed trees for food, etc., or we could give more to the poor and focus more on recovery and stuff since I don't see what I just said before happening now...

lol never mind, it'll get too cold, but maybe try to cut back and give more out to society?

[I.Am.Ironman]

There has got to be some pretty drastic changes to the current system. The superpowers (China, Russia, USA) have a significant portion of their populace living in poverty. The problem is capitalism, you can not have 1% of the population owning 50% of the wealth, people are much too greedy for that system to work without any sort of cap or restriction.

I think there should be made a cap of income per annum, with graded tax brackets leading up to the cap. Just to throw a number out there lets say the cap is at 15 million per annum. All the income made above that is put toward environmental restoration and to those making under a certain amount (lets say 40k/annum). This will increase the equality, decrease the poverty, and better the environmental (potential) crisis on the hands of our children.

Problem #1: Not enough people in power are willing to take action in consideration of 100 years down the line, for whatever reason. And the people willing to makes such changes aren't in a position of power.

Problem #2: For the very select few making over 15 million currently are not going to give up millions that they believe they are entitled due (which to a degree is understandable).. but it comes back to human greed.

Problem #3: The rich have a say on politics and would surely mettle in such a radicle decision. Basically the system is filled with corruption and private agendas.

[Warhippy]

I loved listening to Mr Diamonds lectures.

if this interests you check him out

Jared Diamond essential reading

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/1100290895?ean=9780393317558

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/collapse-jared-diamond/1102810948?ean=9780143117001

[Nas19]

IMO it's pretty obvious that this is going to happen eventually. Sad thing is nothing will be done to prevent this from happening until it's too late. People are way too greedy. They won't do anything until it impacts them directly.

Greed will be the downfall of our species.

[Langdon Algur]

Not surprised. After reading James Howard Kunstlers The Long Emergency, I've pretty much accepted we are about to enter another dark ages. Societys have high times and low times thoughtout history, are current high times are based on unsustainable resources like oil, when those run out we are in for hard times.

[Blömqvist]

I wasn't aware NASA still had funding.

They'll always have funding for research projects, but not necessarily space exploration missions.

I don't think we can "reverse" the process. Eventually overpopulation will lead to the scarcity of resources. If we were to decrease the world's birth rate to match the death rate then we'll be at a state of equilibrium (hopefully with our resources as well), but I do not see that happening. IMO even a strict one child policy won't work as I doubt people will obey it and I question the ability to enforce such a policy.

[BanTSN]

Shouldn't Nasa be funding research on solutions rather than problems?

[timberz21]

Nuclear WWIII will probably happen before that anyways.

[terrible.dee]

There has got to be some pretty drastic changes to the current system. The superpowers (China, Russia, USA) have a significant portion of their populace living in poverty. The problem is capitalism, you can not have 1% of the population owning 50% of the wealth, people are much too greedy for that system to work without any sort of cap or restriction.

I think there should be made a cap of income per annum, with graded tax brackets leading up to the cap. Just to throw a number out there lets say the cap is at 15 million per annum. All the income made above that is put toward environmental restoration and to those making under a certain amount (lets say 40k/annum). This will increase the equality, decrease the poverty, and better the environmental (potential) crisis on the hands of our children.

Problem #1: Not enough people in power are willing to take action in consideration of 100 years down the line, for whatever reason. And the people willing to makes such changes aren't in a position of power.

Problem #2: For the very select few making over 15 million currently are not going to give up millions that they believe they are entitled due (which to a degree is understandable).. but it comes back to human greed.

Problem #3: The rich have a say on politics and would surely mettle in such a radicle decision. Basically the system is filled with corruption and private agendas.

That system doesn't work, the Soviet Union is a testament to that.

Besides, you could take all the money rich people have give it to the poor and in 5 years the formerly rich people would have made it back.

Wealth is in the heart not the bank statement.

Increase your own economic strength and generously help others increase theirs, not so much through charity but by helping people learn to acquire wealth on their own

[BanTSN]

"Hey, did you hear? Wealth is in the heart not the bank statement.

Now that you know, go and acquire wealth of your own."

[CatsPajamas]

Shouldn't Nasa be funding research on solutions rather than problems?

Seriously? You can't solve anything if you don't find problems.

[canuckster19]

The problem is we let the idiots run society. Every time some pissant minority with a problem goes to the media we coddle them and their ilk and apologize for being the way we are...

I'm sorry the west is not the cure for all the worlds ills, the hipster morons who for some reason have all of you afraid of them need to be silenced, their quasi-communism is what is wrong with our society. I am by no means a believer in the total free market, I believe their needs to be improved taxation measures, but what I am not for is being guilted into believing I am part of the cause of the worlds problems. Generations past of our ancestors gave their blood sweat and tears so we could live in western society and I'll be damned if I dishonour my forefathers by crapping on what they built.

When you see those arses in downtown Vancouver rioting after the Stanley Cup win or lose, that's the problem with the world. Coddled spoiled little pieces of turd who think the world owes them a favour. I'll give you a favour, get a job, any f-ing job you lazy slime ball. There are lots of jobs, you may not like them, but this is the price our generation is paying because our greedy parents didn't prepare us properly for the brave new world they created, so look in the mirror, shut your mouth and contribute to society because it's the only one we have right now. Our generation is f-ed but it sure as hell doesn't mean the next one needs to be, so stop sulking and bring some of your own blood sweat and tears to the table, because the world owes you nothing!

[Lancaster]

Would be more effective if this was before December 21, 2012, lol.

The most important point I derived from the article from just skimming it is that all civilization rises and collapses.... and rises to even greater heights than previously.

Everything is cyclical. Weather, economics, politics, populations, etc. Nothing really groundbreaking IMO.

[GLASSJAW]

The problem is we let the idiots run society. Every time some pissant minority with a problem goes to the media we coddle them and their ilk and apologize for being the way we are...

I'm sorry the west is not the cure for all the worlds ills, the hipster morons who for some reason have all of you afraid of them need to be silenced, their quasi-communism is what is wrong with our society. I am by no means a believer in the total free market, I believe their needs to be improved taxation measures, but what I am not for is being guilted into believing I am part of the cause of the worlds problems. Generations past of our ancestors gave their blood sweat and tears so we could live in western society and I'll be damned if I dishonour my forefathers by crapping on what they built.

When you see those arses in downtown Vancouver rioting after the Stanley Cup win or lose, that's the problem with the world. Coddled spoiled little pieces of turd who think the world owes them a favour. I'll give you a favour, get a job, any f-ing job you lazy slime ball. There are lots of jobs, you may not like them, but this is the price our generation is paying because our greedy parents didn't prepare us properly for the brave new world they created, so look in the mirror, shut your mouth and contribute to society because it's the only one we have right now. Our generation is f-ed but it sure as hell doesn't mean the next one needs to be, so stop sulking and bring some of your own blood sweat and tears to the table, because the world owes you nothing!

are you serious or is this satire or something?

[I.Am.Ironman]

I wasn't aware NASA still had funding.

I think NASA funding equates to like 1.5% of the military funding.. talk about ridiculousness. Not sure of the exact figure but something like that