ForumGeneral Discussion ► Your Opinion on the Future of Mankind?
Just a thread for discussing what the future'll look like I guess
  
the future will be horrible. The technology will become amazing, but eventually the supercomputer that monitors all the online activity in the US will become self aware and start making all of the military robots turn against every human in the world. The robots take over country by country, and eventually kill all of humanity except those who didn't rebel against them.
  
How optimistic.
  
I'm only optimistic when I want to be
  
I hope we turn green so we can photosynthesize.
  
Easily accomplishable with the consumption of nuclear waste. Solving two problems with one stone!
  
the saying is "killed two birds with one stone"
  
We don't have nearly enough surface area to make photosynthesis useful for our caloric needs.

IDK. Overall quality of life, education, wealth, only continues to be on an upward trend. People of every era have been convinced the world was going to end. It hasn't yet. I'll reserve my judgement until the world actually ends.
That being said, climate change is going to fuck all of our shit. Bad.
  
climate change is a natural cycle for earth. there has been many, MANY ice ages and super hot stages for the earth. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
  
Rates 👏 of 👏 change👏

We are well on our way to hitting a glacial minimum about 100,000 years early based on Milankovitch cycles.
  
why are people worried about car crashes

cars come to a stop all the time

it's natural
  
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
  
oh and also, all of those temperature cycles don't happen at the same exact time. and we don't know exactly when they happened, because they happened so long ago we werent there to witness it
  
That may be true, but the real question is will there be cake and puppy doges in the future.
  
that might happen. if we live, then chances are that puppies will also live and we won't forget how to make cake
  
There have been volcanoes for a long, long time, and the same is true with CO2 produced by animals, fires, etcetera - but people producing CO2 is a new phenomenon, and has come around too suddenly for the global ecosystem to compensate. Before people came around, all of the CO2 produced by volcanoes was accounted for and continues to be accounted for - but the CO2 produced by people is not recaptured and accumulates in the atmosphere.
  
but our CO2 emission is a lot less than volcano CO2 emission, not to mention the 15 other types of gasses that volcanoes emit.
  
Yeah in biology we did something something carbon cycle, and much more of the carbon is being stored in the atmosphere, as opposed to the preindustrial era, where more of it was in the biosphere.
  
It's well established scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial consumption of fossil fuels is leading to a global increase in temperature, which is having a disruptive impact on natural climate patterns.

I agree, however, that the fact of the matter is that the climate was going to change anyway. We don't need to shove our heads in the sand and try to remove our impact, we need to control the impact, and the climate, because otherwise we're just leaving the future of civilization to chance.
  
Thedagman said:
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.

I can't tell because of the whole thanks-to-the-internet-I-can't-tell-what-your-tone-of-voice-is, but:
Please tell me you're not citing that as a source of information as a source supporting the claim that we're not producing a lot of gas compared to volcanoes. Because billion is different from million (About 1000x different). And also a couple of other things:
* Carbon Absorption of the Ocean : Undersea volcanoes may produce that much CO2, but that's separate from the amount that actually reaches the surface. The ocean absorbs some of that as it reaches the surface, not to mention phytoplankton and other underwater consumers. So the amount that reaches the surface is probably less than the amount produced.
* There's a difference between equilibrium and equality. If you make an argument that volcanoes have been doing that shit for millions of years and that we're producing little compared to them (which isn't what the data says anyway), you've failed to account for the fact that the carbon cycle had been going on for millions of years before the industrial revolution. If there was relatively little change observed (Compare the last 8,000 years of written human history where philosophers and scientists were recording ambient temperatures to the last 500 and there's a noticable spike), that means that the system was stable. And as any physics or chemistry teacher can tell you, screwing with the equilibrium by adding even as little as 25% extra can have runaway effects.
*CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane and agricultural farming, especially in a high-meat-diet that has emerged in the last 200 years, can have equal if not greater impacts than Carbon Dioxide.
  
It's well established scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial consumption of fossil fuels is leading to a global increase in temperature, which is having a disruptive impact on natural climate patterns.

I agree, however, that the fact of the matter is that the climate was going to change anyway. We don't need to shove our heads in the sand and try to remove our impact, we need to control the impact, and the climate, because otherwise we're just leaving the future of civilization to chance.


you have the big brain smarts. I am proud of you.
  
I'm not disputing that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans is less than the amount produced by volcanoes. I trust you on that. However, before humans came around, all of that CO2 was being accounted for by plants, algae, etc, that would recapture it and turn it back into oxygen and carbohydrates - some of which would exit the cycle over time (for example, trees dying and getting buried, algae that die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, organisms that use carbon dioxide to make chalk for their shells getting turned into sedimentary rock.)

However, not only is the ecosphere not able to respond quickly enough to the uptick in emissions from human activity, human activity is also decreasing the ability for the ecosystem to respond (cutting down trees, burning forests, polluting oceans.)
  
Kylljoy, yes, I was trying to state that the volcanoes erupting long before we were here or after the industrial revolution, which happen in 1760, which is a mere ~250-300 years ago, compared to the multiple billions of years the earth has been here
  
I'm getting tired, so ima hop off and see what happens tomorrow
  
Nobody is disputing that the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produce is smaller than the amount produced by volcanoes.

The trouble is that before humans started producing carbon dioxide, the carbon cycle removed enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that carbon dioxide levels remained stable.

Now, people are producing extra carbon dioxide, while the carbon cycle is removing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than before - which means that overall, carbon dioxide levels are going up.
  
Forum > General Discussion > Your Opinion on the Future of Mankind?