Doomsday Clock ticks one minute closer to annihilation
The boffins who run the Doomsday Clock – an estimate of how close humanity is to annihilation by climate change or nuclear war - have just moved the minute hand one minute closer to midnight. Invented by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) in 1947, the clock represents nuclear danger with midnight representing the end of …
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 16:52 GMT L.B.
I absolutely agree we need to start reducing the population...
...there are just too many of us for the world to sustain. This can only be done on a regional basis (country by country), but we (as a race) need to start somewhere. I would for a start stop all forms of child credits/support in this country with the proviso that: - Anyone who requests state help to bring up baby is admitting they have bread beyond their means. As such, both parents should have to "see the vet" before getting any money to assist looking after their current offspring. It's about time we got shot of the "I've got rights" crap, where every moron expects everyone else to pay for their "rights" to have babies, IVF and much, much more. Everyone needs to be forced to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. Some will undoubtedly say I'm just a cold heartless bar-steward (and they may be a little correct), but that's because I don't have problems with basic logic. That is why I will never give money to charities for "saving the starving babies". It's not because I don't care, it is because it solves nothing, every baby you save this year is just another mouth to feed next year, plus all the new babies. Any society that breeds beyond its means (1st or 3rd world) is doomed to reach a point were starvation and very low living standards become the norm. It is only about 100 year ago that in Britain the norm was to have 4 to 5 children, as 3 to 4 were expected to die due to disease and lack of food. better medicine and vastly improved agriculture made it possible to massively increase population since then, but the limits have been reached and exceeded. -
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 18:07 GMT Khaptain
@AC
>I'm sorry that you can't get a girlfriend. I really am.
>But people quite like having children, and it's none of your business to interfere with that. Keep >your human-hating fascist fantasies to yourself.
Some facts, I have been happily married for more than 18 years, I am well travelled and relatively well educated.
As I previously mentioned I find the world to be a wonderfull place, it is simply let down by some non thinking "Etres Humaines".
We are happier to take rather than to give, our selfishness leads to our destruction. And yet you don't have to be Einstein to realise that a limited population could survive endlessly on the available resources. I believe that some of the Amazon tribes actually do this very successfully.
I don't hate people and I am certainely not a fascist. What I do hate is the abuse, the waste and the wanton selfishness displayed by human kind.
We have the intelligence to have a peacefull world whereby all men live equally. We have the means to distribute and develop health and care for everyone.
But do we do this, of course we don't, not unless there is finacial gain behind it. We hide our heads in the sand whilst raping the earth of everything.
I merely presented my opinion which is about reducing the world population. I did not and will not advocate that someone should have the decision as to who lives or who dies. I beleive that as intelligent beings we can make that choice for ourselves.
Someone with 7 kids chooses that option just the same way that I choose to have none, there's nothing fascist or hateful about that. I don't wish to decide for others , I only wish that they would think rationally about what they are doing before doing it.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 20:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Blah blah blah....I did not and will not advocate that someone should have the decision as to who lives or who dies. I beleive that as intelligent beings we can make that choice for ourselves."
WTF?!?!
So are you going to be one of the people that chooses to die for the purposes of reducing the population or is this way of thinking just for the other people, sorry, I mean "intelligent beings", are they your followers or something, are you their Dear Leader?
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 21:14 GMT Khaptain
>So are you going to be one of the people that chooses to die for the purposes of reducing the> >population
By mentioning the choice as to who dies I was refering to "someone" elses remark concerning euthanasia which is not something I would choose to do. I would not take life away from anyone, it's not my choice to make..
By mention the choice as to who lives I was refering to my choice about not having children. This is my choice to make as it is for almost everyone.
>are they your followers or something, are you their Dear Leader?.
I have the right to my opinion how you treat that is up to you but I consider your kneejerk reaction quite unnecassary.
@Syldra
>I can respect your decision of not having children, even if I don't understand it
I on the other hand don't understand why everyone should have children. In the 1800s people often had children because they required extra hands around the farm, they were cheaper than hired hands.. Yes in those days the children did come in handy, we have the knoweldge and the information which should allow us to build our own barn nowadays.
When I talk about not having enough or having too much I am more concerned about inequality rather than social status. Why should a hard working man be paid so little and a banker paid so much. The banker would never be able to fend for his children with his bare hands whereas the worker probably could.
@Everyone
Today, I have the impression that there are many people who have children for all the wrong reasons, peer pressure, boredom relief or because that is what they were told they should do. I seldom hear anyone mentioning a good reason for having children other than for personal satisfaction, for example when was the last time that you heard someone say "I love my spouse so much that I want to have a child to him/her". There are a few exceptions but I believe that they are rare.
So what exactly are the reasons for having children, personal happiness. I don't know you tell me.
It appears that rational decison is a rare thing when it comes to having children. Don't you find that strange for "Intelligent Beings."
Nature has an amazing capacity to decide on birth, death and the survival of a species. When a species becomes to abundant for example : nature finds a method of diminishing one of the essential resources that the species needs, hence culling the species and restablishing balance.
In we do nothing, nature will run it's course and re-establish a balance but probably a lot more brutaly than we would choose to do ourselves. All we have to do is limit new birth, no one gets hurt, no one dies.. Whats so damned difficult to understand.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Khaptain
You are a strange one, that's for sure.
I don't think you've not had kids because you believe it will make any difference to the worlds population and resources, because it won't, and I don't think you're doing it to set an example to the rest of us, because it won't.
So you're either doing it because you don't know the value of children, or because you haven't managed to have any.
In this childless life, of which you are such an advocate, what will happen when you grow old, who will you have around you?
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
"I think it's a simple fear of responsibility"
To me, that comes under - Don't know the value of children, because if he did, he would overcome that fear.
Although, we are likely giving it too much thought. He might just say these things because he lives in an over populated area and wants everyone to stop having kids because he thinks that will make life more comfortable for himself.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:09 GMT Khaptain
@ac
Nope, I currently work in the city and live in the country. In a sense I have the best of both worlds.
I do not live a luxury life but I do live a comfortable life.
There's no point in reading behind the lines, you will not find much. I have stated my thoughts and opinions and it really is all very simple. Not everyone has the same ideas and needs, these are just mine. Although I do firmly believe that most people have no idea at all as to what they want and that is "sad".
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:36 GMT Khaptain
No I do not think that everyone should stop having children but I do believe that people should seriously think about why they are having children and also to consider what future they will be bringing them into.
7 Billion people, how many more do we need, why can't we reduce the numbers and try harder to give everyone a reasonable life instead of giving everyone a mediocre life. We have the capacity and the intelligence to it, we just don't want to........
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
We have the capacity and the intelligence to it, we just don't want to........
No, in the blink of an eye, people would rather forgo all that to have kids. So it seems that you really don't know the value of children,
Besides, who's to say what the future holds, what discoveries and technological advancements will be made in the face of diminishing resources. Why prevent those opportunities?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 11:05 GMT Khaptain
No, in the blink of an eye, people would rather forgo all that to have kids.
Et voila, the perfect example of our intelligence. Forego the well being of all for some personal satisfaction.
What the future holds is determined today, not tommorrow, having children or not , will not change that fact.
>Why prevent those opportunities?
Evolution won't stop if we are 1 Million, 7 Billion or 25 Trillion, so if the opportunites are to arise they will anyway..
Have you also considered the option that it might just be your child that invents the Doomsday machine, pushes the big red button, instegates the next world war. Mines won't thats for sure, lol.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 12:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
You claim to be unaware as to why people feel the need to have kids and at the same time claim wholesale that they do it simply for their own selfish needs. You are wrong, you don't know why people have kids (you said that yourself), you only know why YOU don't. So you can't use it to support your argument, not that it does.
"Forego the well being of all for some personal satisfaction." Well being as defined by who exactly? You? For most people, having kids and grandkids counts enormously towards their well being. Your logic supersedes their need for children does it? Now who is forgoing the well being of others?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 14:43 GMT Evil Auditor
@Khaptain & others re not having children
Khaptain, thank you for your comments. I think I understand you very well, no need having a beer together ;-)
@Others: I wonder how short-witted one can be. Do you think just one reason exists for not having kids? Rest assured, there are many of which a few are: do not feel the need, regard it as too expensive, do not like them, want to live an independent life, do not want to interfere with a perfect relationship, not wanting to bear the responsibility, do not want to wipe arses, cannot stand the noise etc.
Once a father of three accused me of being extremely selfish for not having kids because, as others here also pointed out, kids will be paying for my pension etc. I could have argued with economics and rising national deficit which would imply that, on average, each individual is costing the state more than it contributes. But before I could answer he added that, when we are getting old and becoming in need of care, he will be the one with kids looking after him. I came across this argument in this forum as well. Now tell me, who is selfish if this is a reason for producing offsprings... (My not so serious answer was: I can save all the money he is spending for his kids and when I'm old, I will be able to pay for lots of young ladies to look after me. That silenced him instantly.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:45 GMT Khaptain
@AC
LOL, you really would need to come and have a beer with me, you would understand a hell of a lot afterwards.
The main reason that I do not want to have kids is very simple. I do not feel the need nor the desire to have any.
Am I setting an example, of course I am to myself, I choose to not have any and I am not having any, its very simple really.. If it also sets an example to others then fine if not it won't matter to me.
>So you're either doing it because you don't know the value of children, or because you haven't >managed to have any.
I neither love nor hate children, I am indifferent to them. The value of children is a concept that depends upon a multitude of parameters and context.
Without going into the gory details, yes I can definately confirm that I am capable of producing children.
>In this childless life, of which you are such an advocate, what will happen when you grow old, >who will you have around you?
Probably just as many people as you will, except that it won't be my children. When I can no longer fend for myself I see no purpose in continuing to live, I do not want to become a burden to myself or to others. At the end of my life I will die just as everyone else does, whether or not I am surrounded by my children will make no difference whatsover.
I lead a very healthy and very active life, I make my own choices where I can, I have a great wife and own a nice home in the country. I am happy with what I have and I feel no need whastover to have children , why is that such a hard concept to grasp.
The populace have a tendancy to think along only one very narrow path, I do not wish to travel down that same path, it makes me feel useless as a human being.
The planet won't care if I don't have children, I certainly don't care. The planet needs to breath, if by not having children it helps the planet and everyone then I am happy with my choice.
Children( human beings) are only a very small part of a very large picture. The extinction of the human race from the planet earth will probaby have "Zero" consequences in relation to the earths existence, well except for the polution that is.. No one will ever know we even existed.
The doomsday machine will not be an external device or catastrophe, it will be mankind itself.
.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
"The main reason that I do not want to have kids is very simple. I do not feel the need nor the desire to have any.
I neither love nor hate children, I am indifferent to them
whether or not I am surrounded by my children will make no difference whatsover.
The planet won't care if I don't have children, I certainly don't care."
You say the above, which to me indicates an extremely existential nihilistic view point and at the same time profess to have great concern to the welfare of mankind. You simply don't add up, you're in denial about something.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:31 GMT Khaptain
<quote>You say the above, which to me indicates an extremely existential nihilistic view point and at the same time profess to have great concern to the welfare of mankind. You simply don't add up, you're in denial about something.
</quote>
Yes I admit to having an "existential nihilistic " approach, I do not believe that we serve any real purpose. After all we are just a bunch of atoms floating about in space.
But the fact of this matter is that I do exist, I do have feelings and I do care about the welfare of mankind.
Am I in denial, I do not believe so. I believe that mankind could do so much better but unfortunately I do not posses the solution. Ayn Rand summed up a lot about our current society in Atlas Shrugged, unfortunately those colonies at the end of the book dont exist.
.
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 23:15 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
"The extinction of the human race from the planet earth will probaby have "Zero" consequences in relation to the earths existence, well except for the polution that is."
It will just mean the complete failure of this planet to produce life capable of competing even on intrasystem scale, let alone on galactic or universal scale. Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results. Other that that - no consequences at all...
-
Friday 13th January 2012 08:01 GMT Khaptain
@Vlad
<quote>It will just mean the complete failure of this planet to produce life capable of competing even on intrasystem scale, let alone on galactic or universal scale. Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results. Other that that - no consequences at all...</quote>
Competing against who and competing for what exactlly ?
<quote>Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results</quote>
There was no effort involved really, we are merely the product of a complex evolutionary process. So we certainly can't claim any credit for that.
Since we know of no other intelligent lifeform anywhere other than our own planet why would our disappearance matter. If we do survive for any futher future length of time, I presume that we would probably travel to other planets, consume all of the available resources and then move on, history has a tendancy to repeat itself. We would probably become responsable for the largest trail of pollution/destruction since time began.
I suppose we are a little like the Death Star, it's a good thing though that we don't posses one of those damned superlasers.
Can you think of any other species capable of so much destruction just for personal satisfaction.
-
Friday 13th January 2012 13:28 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
"There was no effort involved really, we are merely the product of a complex evolutionary process."
How can there be a complex evolutionary process without effort? Dinosaurs and prehistoric forests toiling for 100s of millions of years, storing sunlight energy inside their bodies, plants making oxygene so that Khaptain could breathe, animals storing nutrients so that Khaptain could eat, bacteria breaking down Khaptain's waste products so that he would not sink in his own shit...
"Since we know of no other intelligent lifeform anywhere other than our own planet"
Not knowing about them is not a proof of their absence.
"Can you think of any other species capable of so much destruction just for personal satisfaction."
I know that each species acts for its personal satisfaction, because that's how evolution feedback works - If a wolf will ignore its hunger it will die and so will its species. If a chicken who outgrew the egg will not act for his satisfaction and hatch it will die and so will its species.
Now, you accept that humans are a product of the evolution. However, somehow all other species produced by the same evolution have turned out to be beautiful, peace-loving cuties who poop rainbows on regular basis but we, the ugly humans, producing hairless, crying, crawling, revolting babies who grow into greedy, promiscuous, regularly drunk monsters are the one exception?
Isn't it more logical to assume that the humankind, with its thirst for resources and inability to live "sustainably" was produced by that same evolutionary process specifically to be thirsty for resources and not being able to live "sustainably"?
Has it ever occurred to you that the evolution, having moved from pre-cellular to single-cell to multi-cell organisms to plants to animals to Khaptain, must not necessarily stop at the latter?
And if the evolution is to continue then, eventually, whether Khaptain or a post-Khaptain will run out of resources on this particular planet?
And when that happens, who will take the process of evolution beyond the planet?
Hint: that will be Khaptain's job.
But how will Khaptain know what he is supposed to do? There are no evolutionary manuals and leaflets printed in stone, lying on top of a mountain, as far as we know, at least.
That is actually simple - he will do things to achieve personal satisfaction and they will guide him to do the right thing even if he himself will not be capable of understanding why or what for.
-
Friday 13th January 2012 21:10 GMT Khaptain
Vlad, the evolutionary comedian
Effort always involves Energy but Energy does not involve effort.
Effort I believe is a concious decision that will require a certain amount of energy to perform.
Evolution did not require effort, but I agree that it did require energy.
Evolution is a hap hazard process that is constantly "evolving" in relation to the environment , the varying amount of elements, heat and light etc . These conditions do not require effort as effort implies intention. Evolution has no guide lines or path to follow, this is what gives the universe an infinite number of possibilities over which we, as human beings, have absolutely no absolute control.
>Has it ever occurred to you that the evolution, having moved from pre-cellular to single-cell to multi-cell organisms to plants to animals to Khaptain, must not necessarily stop at the latter?
Of course evolution will not stop but Human Beings will. Evolution brought forth and also removed the dinosaurs, why do you believe that Human Beings would escape the process. We are after all finite.
Personal satisfaction should not be confused with instinct. Instincts are inbuilt mechanisms that allow all of the animals to survive. Hunger is a signal to eat in order that we can restore energy, pain is a signal that we are causing damage to the systrem etc etc. The wolf is not eating for his pleasure , he is eating for his survival.
Personal satisfaction has no relevance to survival, it is something that we do for our pleasure, this is where we see the major difference between ourselves and most of the animals.
If the Khaptain were to survive, what we he do, he would try and develop any and all of the survival skills that he could. Personal satisfaction would not keep him fed or watered although instinct might.
>Not knowing about them is not a proof of their absence.
That sounds a lot like a Sky Fairy theory.............
Doomsday for the Human Being is merely a small part of a eternal evolutionary process, it is important not to confuse eternal evolution with eternal existance.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:04 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
@Khaptain
You were right about one thing - I was joking. But only really half-joking.
"Personal satisfaction should not be confused with instinct. Instincts are inbuilt mechanisms that allow all of the animals to survive. Hunger is a signal to eat in order that we can restore energy, pain is a signal that we are causing damage to the system etc etc. The wolf is not eating for his pleasure , he is eating for his survival."
So, how does the wolf decide that he needs to eat to survive? Does he think "well, I need about 12000 calories to get me through the end of the month, should I go look for a Bambi or maybe visit the nearby farm and get me a goat"?
Of course, he feels hunger, he eats, he feels satisfied, for now. Satisfaction and pleasure is just the brain's interpretation of when things go right. Just like pain is an alarm signal that something is wrong. Both are instinctive and are a product of evolution.
Now, the main problem:
"Evolution is a hap hazard process that is constantly "evolving" in relation to the environment , the varying amount of elements, heat and light etc . These conditions do not require effort as effort implies intention. Evolution has no guide lines or path to follow, this is what gives the universe an infinite number of possibilities over which we, as human beings, have absolutely no absolute control."
The suggestion that evolution is some kind of random, haphazard process requires a leap of faith much greater than even belief in a bearded old man living on a cloud, who passes the time by throwing banana skins under our feet and enjoying the commotion that follows...
It is clear that the evolution goes along a certain path, from simple to ever more complex organisation of matter. From higher to lower entropy, if you please. So, if we have evolved as a product of that process it is logical to suppose that we are an "intended" part of it and there are evolutionary reasons for our traits and behaviour.
We may only begin to guess what those reasons are as we do not yet know the exact driving force and agents of actual evolution (as opposed to the natural selection, which is just one small part of the process). However, it seems obvious that if the evolving environment were to progress along its evolutionary path it needs to consume energy and resources and, therefore, expand its realm.
Nature, however, cannot expand beyond the boundary of one planet using solely "natural" means. Or if it can, it has found an easier solution - to evolve a walking computer with a pair of dexterous manipulators, also known as Homo sapiens, to do the job for it.
Again, obviously, a Homo Sapiens which will be content just to live in harmony with the environment would be useless for those evolutionary purposes. What you really need is a human which will constantly corner himself into necessity to invent, innovate and search for more resources. That way he will finally force himself off the planet to continue that same evolutionary expansion.
Before you complain again that all this requires constant intervention of an "intelligent designer" of some sort or other - it does not. It can just as easily be predetermined by the combination of the natural laws into which this universe has settled during or after the Big Bang.
Regarding your question: "Evolution brought forth and also removed the dinosaurs, why do you believe that Human Beings would escape the process."?
I do not necessarily say we will. But if that happens it will mean either of the two things:
a) We have served our purpose (like the dinosaurs, gracefully retired as birds after having built the sufficient oil and gas reserves) and have been replaced by our evolutionary successors, whoever that may be or
b) We have failed and, as the consequence, the evolutionary line developing on Earth has failed and the future of the universe will be in the hands of another line - sturdier, smarter or more cunning the us.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 21:08 GMT Khaptain
@Vlad the Wolf in sheeps clothes
Hi Vlad
I began to write yet another reponse but unfortunately I must concentrate on some personal work. I enjoyed reading your last reponse and I would like to concluce my saying that we should agree to disagree.
I do have an existential nihilistic approach, the futility of mankind for me is all to evident. Whereas you appear to have a more extropianistic approach.
Regardless of whos approach is correct, nature will continue its path, evolution will continue to produce new species but mankind has absolutely no garauntee to be within that future. He might , he might not.
In any event in order to leave this planet I think that evolution would require the production of another species that is capable of surviving within space itself. Obviously human beings have a long way to go before arriving at that point.
In order to return to the initial subject , one minute closer to doomsday. Since the day we left the oceans and for as long as we remain, we will always be neighbours with Doomsday. As powerfull as we think we are, there are far too many elements capable of wiping us out very quickly that we will always remain on the knifes edge..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:58 GMT Simon Neill
I agree that they are separate issues and should be treated as such. However, I would add that the entire thing is in fact bollocks and needless. I would disagree that a nice fast death to a nuke is scarier than watching the entire world slowly go to shit as crops die and everyone starves. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:33 GMT Ben Tasker
Unfortunately as logical as your argument, it'd fail through the lack of logic a lot of religious types show. I can see it now You: We're banning all religion and educating kids properly Them: What! Why? You: Because Humanity is doomed, and we think religion is part of the issue Them: We will pray for salvation, and encourage others to the same
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
