Collapses of Civilizations

[Ronald Brak]

Incidentally the European preference for generating electricity from gas probably explains their impotence vs Russia.

Well, Russia could at any time cut off gas supplies and throw Europe into a recession. With the side effect of causing the Russian economy to implode. Not quite sure if that counts as impotent. Now that the price of oil and gas has drooped, Russia is caught between selling as much gas as it can and an expanding current account deficeit.

[spratleyj]

The point is the U.S (and the rest of the 1st world countries) could change their standards, in such a way to dramatically reduce harmful emissions (like Switzerland has done), however it's not going to be easy, especially politically speaking, as most people here don't regard global warming as the threat it really is.

[timb]

Well, Russia could at any time cut off gas supplies and throw Europe into a recession. With the side effect of causing the Russian economy to implode. Not quite sure if that counts as impotent. Now that the price of oil and gas has drooped, Russia is caught between selling as much gas as it can and an expanding current account deficeit.

The equation has changed over the last month or so, but evidence that Russia was afraid of a European boycott was scarce when they invaded Georgia.

[clint]

IMHO, this often cited 'mutual dependence' between Europe and Russia is very flattering for Europe.

Given their huge cash reserves, Russia could probably easily survive a couple of months of total energy boycott from Europe.
Europe, by contrast, would enter a severe crisis after a few weeks without Russian energy sources.

[HypothesisTesting]

Fossil fuels aren't the only available energy source. So this isn't a realistic argument.

I agree it is not realistic assuming that mankind actually will exploit these alternatives. Obviously, there are enough alternatives to last basically for ever. As Stephen Hawking has pointed out, mankind could even exploit the whole solar system and live forever, assuming they had the knowledge and will. I have my doubts about the population's wisdom in exploiting these plus the resistance of the big oil companies, which is why visions of "Flintstones" have been dancing in my head for about a decade.

[filrabat]

I think most Americans have accepted that global warming is real. While not trying to be political, I will say that a better sell to Americans still is "energy independence from unstable regions". Either way, anything to reduce CO2 Emissions in this country will help tremendously, especially because India and China could easily access such technology as well we can, once it's developed to a significant level.

[spratleyj]

I agree with filabat that "energy independence from unstable regions" sounds better to voters... but that a truly sorry state of affairs - when people don't even care enough to stop emitting "stuff" that could eventually "collapse" civilization as we know it. But as with many things most people are woefully greedy, and thus don't care about the future, after they are dead, instead they are afraid that it will cost them to much in taxes, lifestyle sacrifices, etc. I think something has to be done to address this, probably at an education level. One step in the right direction would be teaching about global warming and the dire consequences starting in elementary school and continuing through high school. But even then you wouldn't see the effects for another 12 years.

[Vallkynn]

"lifestyle sacrifices"

Maybe that's not your case, but for many millions, those sacrifices will mean that several million will lose jobs, for example the automobile industry. Small market disturbance have already a big impact on this industry. Try to convince people that have no money to eat and to pay their own bills that they must save fuels and uses expensive technologies they cannot pay to guarantee the future to someone, if they cannot guarantee the present for their own children!

[Hlafordlaes]

... Anyways, I wanted to ask what you'll thought about the state of our civilization, not just in the U.S but the world as a whole. Personally, I think we're at a crucial point in our history. As nations like India and China continue to industrialize the management and dispersion of natural resources (or the lack thereof) is becoming extraordinary important, as is the destruction of the environmental that comes from harvesting and burning fossil fuels....

My concern is a bit relative. Collapses back into earlier stages of development have accompanied every prior level of civilization, so is there something different about a collapse of our first truly global civilization (highly interlinked economies and knowledge networks worldwide), or is it just the way of things?

Since the human track record in recovery from past collapses includes surpassing the past, maybe this cycle is our healthy "two steps forward, one back" nature, the way we learn. Maybe it mostly indicates we find it hard to get things right the first time.

But the challenge faced by a global civilization may be different. Parochial tribalism may be a sort of immovable object that is going to be hit by an irresistable force in the form of fierce, globalized resource competition. Past empires, and just taking as an example the colonial ones in place before WWII, had each a fall-back source of resources in the form of extensive colonies (and the ones that went to war in the first place were the weakest in that regard).

So I wonder if a global civilization won't always sort of bump up against a brick wall and fall back into regional alliances forever, never moving past our inability to solve a truly knotty problem, which is how to allocate resources in clean competition, but under scarcity.

It would seem that the enabling set of technologies to make it possible would be some sort of incredibly abundant and cheap enery resource, coupled with recycling skills advanced enough to significantly lower imported raw material needs. And that is still ignoring the problem of food and water resources.

So I sort of hope that one one of our "up" cycle iterations we hit some good answers, and on a "down" we do not, ever, go nuclear. There is plenty of time for mankind to doodle before the Sun goes into a red giant, but if we were ever to return Earth to a state of microbes-only, it would give a newly arising sapient species relatively a lot less time to get off the planet (Earth's longest long-run problem if She is to show up at the Galactic Dance).

[mugaliens]

Is modern civilization in danger of a collapse? No, I don't think so. Is our modern civilization in danger of doing huge amounts of damage to the natural environment and to itself to such an extent that large amounts of money will have to be spent on adaption and mitigation instead of on fun things like space exploration? Yes, I think so.

1) The main environmental problem as I see it is global warming.

I could not disagree more. Doomsayers are in abundant supply, yet the geological and scientific evidence is clear on three points:

1. Our Earth has experienced several cycles of global warming and global cooling since mankind began walking upright.

2. We're still here.

3. Our oceans have been absolutely decimated by overfishing and pollution. More than a third of the reefs that were alive in 1950 are now dead, and new ones haven't sprung up to replace them.

2) We're a long way down the wrong road. Global warming has so far contributed to droughts, beetle infestations, sea ice loss, reduction in snow melt, sea level rise and animal and plant extinctions. These problems will only get worse if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The problems are indicative of swift environmental change, as were vinyards in northern England during the last serious maximum. They're not permanent, and as the environment settles and the biology diversifies, things will reach a new equilibrium.

We may have lost some sea ice, but only a very small fraction of the amount lost every year due to the normal summer/winter cycles. Put things into perspective!

Animal and plant extinctions are constantly occurring, and have been doing so for billions of years. What's new about that? Animal and plant diversification has also been constantly occurring for billions of years, and that's nothing new, either.

3) The solution is to cut our CO2 emissions. A cut of 80% over the next 20 years could cause CO2 concentrations to stabilize below 0.045%, but any cut would reduce the damage caused by rapid climate change. Changing to low emission energy sources will have costs, but they are not large if done gradually and will be much less than the cost of dealing with further global warming.

For the first part, the solution is simple: 1) Nuclear to the maximum extent possible. 2) Green up, and begin by spending $50 caulking your house, rather than $30,000 on a green car. 3) There is nothing wrong with alternative sources of energy, but beware the hidden costs - one day we may be smacking our foreheads after learning that wind turbines changed the weather, increasing biological CO2 output and global warming far more than our own CO2 production (stranger things have happened).

For the second part, statements like "the cost of dealing with further global warming" are inflammatory. Tides in nearly all coastal areas are an order of magnitude larger than sea level rise predicted by global warming, even if left unchecked.

The good news is that other environmental problems, in the developed world at least, appear quite minor compared to global warming (thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of people). So if we can halt global warming we should have the ability to prevent further damage to the natural environment.

When in the world will we humans learn that change is normal, and that even rapid change is normal? Wildfires are raging throughout southern California and devestated a good deal of Yellowstone more than a decade ago because we fail to learn two things: 1) Change is normal; 2) Controlling nature, trying to keep it from changing, is about as fruitless as close all exits to a boiler.

Sooner or later, nature will explode. We levee the Mississippi's natural pressure relief for a thousand miles then stand in disbelief when it pushes it's way through into floodplains it's been flooding for millennia. We build homes that are way too expensive on shorelines which change regularly, then expect county taxes (and thousands of others) pay to keep the beachfront property in front of a few homes from eroding. We similarly expect insurance companies to pay out when the homes are destroyed due to hurricanes, while most people don't live in hurricane territory.

"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, while expecting different results."

The insanity won't stop until we realize we're just as much a part of nature as any other creature on the planet. We do have a responsibility to balance our existence with our impact. We should not, however, spend billions trying to change certain things when a few short and simple rules of thumb is a better approach:

1. Don't build on a flood plain (If you must build on a flood plain, build on stilts)

2. Don't build in a hurricane/tornado/earthquake zone (if you must build there, ensure your house is built stronger so as to survive with only minor damage).

3. Don't build your house in the middle of scrubbrush which erupts into flames on an annual basis.

4. Don't continue using fuel which is both highly polluting and rapidly being exhausted when you can use fuel which is clean and if the litigation can be avoided, is cheaper.

I will quickly mention that a lack of energy is not something that is likely to cause our civilization to collapse there are many energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and even nuclear that can be used instead of fossil fuels.

Yep!

[Ronald Brak]

1. Our Earth has experienced several cycles of global warming and global cooling since mankind began walking upright.

Do you think the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity is not sufficient to account for the warming the earth has experienced over the past 100 years? If not, why not?

[korjik]

Do you think the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity is not sufficient to account for the warming the earth has experienced over the past 100 years? If not, why not?

because there is no solid linkage between CO2 levels and Temp. That leads to no solid linkage between the current temp and current CO2 levels.

[lomiller1]

because there is no solid linkage between CO2 levels and Temp. That leads to no solid linkage between the current temp and current CO2 levels.

CO2’s impact on temperature falls directly out of the first law of thermodynamics. The ability of CO2 to allow visible light to pass through but prevent the resulting long wave IR from existing is exceeding well documented.

Both simple mathematical calculations, and complex computer models agree on how much the warming effect is, and this is confirmed by palo-climate evidence from past warming. Finally, warming of this magnitude is sufficient to explain otherwise inexplicable warming/cooling in the earths history. This is why there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that accept CO2 warms the planet and non that dispute it, and perhaps 5-10 that dispute the magnitude.

[lomiller1]

1. Our Earth has experienced several cycles of global warming and global cooling since mankind began walking upright.

2. We're still here.

Just barely. Human population dropped to just a few thousand individuals ~60 000 years ago following the rapid cooling that occurred after the Toba eruption. That we are the only surviving member of our genes probably says something as well.

The problems are indicative of swift environmental change, as were vinyards in northern England during the last serious maximum.

There is little of no record of significant wine production beyond central England until recent years, were it has spread almost to Scotland.

We may have lost some sea ice, but only a very small fraction of the amount lost every year due to the normal summer/winter cycles.

What matters is the loss in summer sea ice, because it changes the earths albedo and enhances warming, and Artic summer sea ice has decreased significantly.

Animal and plant extinctions are constantly occurring, and have been doing so for billions of years. What's new about that? Animal and plant diversification has also been constantly occurring for billions of years, and that's nothing new, either.

Mass extinctions on the scale the earth is currently experiencing have only happened a half dozen times. we are witness to a 100million year event.

[timb]

I could not disagree more. Doomsayers are in abundant supply, yet the geological and scientific evidence is clear on three points:

1. Our Earth has experienced several cycles of global warming and global cooling since mankind began walking upright.

2. We're still here.

This is a fact but it seems to be used in an irrational argument. Compare with, for example, "Mankind has been through many plagues and famines, yet we're still here". True, but does it support the conclusion that expenditure on medical and agricultural research is a waste of money?

[spratleyj]

I could not disagree more. Doomsayers are in abundant supply, yet the geological and scientific evidence is clear on three points:

1. Our Earth has experienced several cycles of global warming and global cooling since mankind began walking upright.

2. We're still here.

3. Our oceans have been absolutely decimated by overfishing and pollution. More than a third of the reefs that were alive in 1950 are now dead, and new ones haven't sprung up to replace them.





Yep!

I think you're missing a key point. Global Warming (via increased emissions) isn't natural, it's man-made. So it's not reasonable to say that's it's just a cycle - while the earth does cool/warm up/down over time, it has never had man to further increase the warming effect and thus the results will probably be worst than before (when humans nearly became exitent during the ice age).

I do agree that there will be winners because of global warming, such as Russia, Scandinavia, etc however the "losers" or cost will be much greater. I don't see how you can just past global warming off as "normal" event, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. If global warming counties at the current rate most all models agree that many (most?) coastal cities will be under water either completely, or enough to severally reduce population. And it just so happens that a lot of (I'm not sure of the exact number, but I would guess 50%+) the world's population lives in coastal cities that would become uninhabitable, thus forcing the "collapse" of civilization.


Just for the record, you're not questioning the predicts/evidence of global warming by the mainstream are you?

[spratleyj]

This is a fact but it seems to be used in an irrational argument. Compare with, for example, "Mankind has been through many plagues and famines, yet we're still here". True, but does it support the conclusion that expenditure on medical and agricultural research is a waste of money?

I was about to make that point myself (along with the point that global warming is now human "enhanced"), but you said it well.

[ArgoNavis]

CO2’s impact on temperature falls directly out of the first law of thermodynamics. The ability of CO2 to allow visible light to pass through but prevent the resulting long wave IR from existing is exceeding well documented.

Both simple mathematical calculations, and complex computer models agree on how much the warming effect is, and this is confirmed by palo-climate evidence from past warming. Finally, warming of this magnitude is sufficient to explain otherwise inexplicable warming/cooling in the earths history. This is why there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that accept CO2 warms the planet and non that dispute it, and perhaps 5-10 that dispute the magnitude.

It is true that there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that accept CO2 warms the planet, but none that really prove it. They all accept AGW a priori. Only three papers actually attempt to to do, and 2 of those start from the proposition that CO2 causes warming.


Science tells us that if you doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, the increase in temperatures would be 0.17 deg C. IPCC models all rely on positive feedbacks, none of which have been proven. In fact, looking at the data, they are wrong.

[lomiller1]

It is true that there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that accept CO2 warms the planet, but none that really prove it. They all accept AGW a priori. Only three papers actually attempt to to do, and 2 of those start from the proposition that CO2 causes warming.

Since never proves anything absolutely, it proves it to the point where it can be used as a basis for further research. In the case of climate science that’s exactly what’s happened, so if you want to deny CO2’s warming effect you are faced with the nearly impossible task of not only explain why CO2 wouldn’t warm the planet you must also come up with an alternate explanation for all the things explained by the warming effect of CO2.

The warming effect of CO2 can be shown deductively from it’s physical properties by applying well understood physics. In the absence of some totally unknown mechanism CO2 not warming the planet would violate conservation of energy. In the 100+ years since the warming effect of CO2 was discovered no one has proposed a plausible mechanism by which it’s warming effect would be countered.

Science tells us that if you doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, the increase in temperatures would be 0.17 deg C. IPCC models all rely on positive feedbacks, none of which have been proven. In fact, looking at the data, they are wrong.

By “science” don’t you mean some blog written by someone who has never published a paper relevant to the subject.

The non-feedback warming effect of CO2 is fairly well established at 1.1-1.5 deg C per doubling of CO2. That this is enhanced by feedback is also the product of deductive logic, so if you want to discount them you need to come up with a mechanism that counteracts the positive feedback. To make the task more difficult that mechanism still has to explain why the earth reacts to changes in the suns energy output that are too small to be noticed in the absence of positive feedback.

[antoniseb]

This is a thread about the collapse of civilizations. I am asking participants to avoid anything that reads like a fire-fight over Global Warming.

[HypothesisTesting]

Do you think the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity is not sufficient to account for the warming the earth has experienced over the past 100 years? If not, why not?

The IPCC report says that human activity is responsible for the warming.

[spratleyj]

This is a thread about the collapse of civilizations. I am asking participants to avoid anything that reads like a fire-fight over Global Warming.

Yep, I guess you could short of treat it like the Q & A section, in that I'm not really interested with any ATM ideas... I've been super busy recently, but I'll try to come back on this weekend, and reply to some of the recent posts.

[Salty]

I just started reading Jared Diamond's book Collapse and have found it to be a very fascinating book, on a very fascinating subject. I also found his Pulitzer Prize winning Germs, Guns & Steel to be a excellent book.

Anyways, I wanted to ask what you'll thought about the state of our civilization, not just in the U.S but the world as a whole. Personally, I think we're at a crucial point in our history. As nations like India and China continue to industrialize the management and dispersion of natural resources (or the lack thereof) is becoming extraordinary important, as is the destruction of the environmental that comes from harvesting and burning fossil fuels. It's important that we don't cross the "event horizon" a point of no return where we do so much damage to the environment that we can't fix it. I think we're pretty close to that with Global Warming... anyways as Diamond points out the destruction of the environment isn't the only thing that causes civilizations to fall, economics and war often do as well.

Anyways I would like to get you'lls thoughts about:

1) What are the main problems?
2) How far down the wrong road are we?
3) What are the solutions?

Or anything else relating...

(NOTE: THIS POST ISN'T MEANT FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS, KEEP YOUR PARISIAN POLITICS TO YOURSELF - AS THE RECENT SITUATION HAS HIGHLIGHTED SUCH POLITICAL POSTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED SO DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DON'T POST SUCH COMMENTS)

With Regards,

1. What are the main problems?
A. Deforestation. This is done by lumber companies; locals buring forest for agriculture; building roads and other structures.
B. Misidentifying CO2 as a problem. CO2 inhaled by flora, which then exhale oxygen. We need CO2, so plants can produce the oxygen we breathe. C02 increase follows temperature rise, not vice versa.
C. Misidentifying GW as a problem. Sun's cycle predominant in planetary cooling and warming. Human input negligelble to GW. Sun cycles warm planet, the CO2 increases from that.
D. Artificial economic constructions, rather than an unregulated free market,
E. Political globalization, instead of a gathering of sovereign nations.
F. Water shortage looming as a problem.

2. How far down the wrong road are we?
I think:
A. Until freedom of religion granted to all religions, we're too far down that road.
B. Until religion bashing stops, too far down that road.
C. Until religion and science make peace, because both are essential to development of rational civilization, too far down that road.
D. We are too far along the weaponization of nuclear power.
Other than that, I don't know.

What are the solutions?
A. See 2, A, B and C.
B. Cease political globalization, so as to nuture peace in the world.
C. Keep nuclear power, fossil fuels, solar energy and geothermal energy as alternative power sources for research and development.
Nuclear power cleaner now, and will be needed to power locations on Moon, Mars, and other places in solar system.
Fossil fuels are where it's at, for the foreseeable future. Gasification of coal a good rememdy; refining of oil can be made cleaner; air (giant windmills) costs more than energy obtained; solar energy costs more than energy gained; need more research into geothermal power.
D. Muslim world need to rein in their killer fanatics.
E. Need to bring all nations on planet up to First worlder level.
F. Need to recognize and address causes of present economic crisis.
G. Recognize that civilization as we know it has ended with 9/11 and present economic crisis.
H. Resume global disarming of nuclear weapons.
I. Planetary open economic markets among all nations.
J. Oranize nations to distribute available fresh water to all people.

[Ilya]

If global warming counties at the current rate most all models agree that many (most?) coastal cities will be under water either completely, or enough to severally reduce population. And it just so happens that a lot of (I'm not sure of the exact number, but I would guess 50%+) the world's population lives in coastal cities that would become uninhabitable, thus forcing the "collapse" of civilization.

Well, what IS the rate? If it takes 100 years to flood the coastal cities, it is hardly "collapse of civilization" -- on that time scale most people move to new locations anyway. If it takes 10 years, then it is a different story. If 40 years, than a major problem, but not exactly collapse.

[timb]

1. What are the main problems?
A. Deforestation. This is done by lumber companies; locals buring forest for agriculture; building roads and other structures.
B. Misidentifying CO2 as a problem. CO2 inhaled by fauna, which then exhale oxygen.

Fauna?

[spratleyj]

1. What are the main problems?
A. Deforestation. This is done by lumber companies; locals buring forest for agriculture; building roads and other structures.
B. Misidentifying CO2 as a problem. CO2 inhaled by fauna, which then exhale oxygen. We need CO2, so plants can produce the oxygen we breathe. C02 increase follows temperature rise, not vice versa.
C. Misidentifying GW as a problem. Sun's cycle predominant in planetary cooling and warming. Human input negligelble to GW. Sun cycles warm planet, the CO2 increases from that.
D. Artificial economic constructions, rather than an unregulated free market,
E. Political globalization, instead of a gathering of sovereign nations.

2. How far down the wrong road are we?
I think:
A. Until freedom of religion granted to all religions, we're too far down that road.
B. Until religion bashing stops, too far down that road.
C. Until religion and science make peace, because both are essential to development of rational civilization, too far down that road.
D. We are too far along the weaponization of nuclear power.
Other than that, I don't know.

What are the solutions?
A. See 2, A, B and C.
B. Cease political globalization, so as to nuture peace in the world.
C. Keep nuclear power, fossil fuels, solar energy and geothermal energy as alternative power sources for research and development.
Nuclear power cleaner now, and will be needed to power locations on Moon, Mars, and other places in solar system.
Fossil fuels are where it's at, for the foreseeable future. Gasification of coal a good rememdy; refining of oil can be made cleaner; air (giant windmills) costs more than energy obtained; solar energy costs more than energy gained; need more research into geothermal power.
D. Muslim world need to rein in their killer fanatics.
E. Need to bring all nations on planet up to First worlder level.
F. Need to recognize and address causes of present economic crisis.
G. Recognize that civilization as we know it has ended with 9/11 and present economic crisis.
H. Resume global disarming of nuclear weapons.
I. Planetary open economic markets among all nations.

Perhaps, you didn't read the last couple of posts... I/we don't really what this to become a discussion of global warming - you could just pretend it's Q & A and so we're trying to stick to mainstream ideas here.

Anyways, I would be interested to learn more about why you think religion or the lack thereof could cause the collapse of civilization[s]. I think the lack of religion would actually be a step forward, for several reasons. One being that many wars are fought over religion, and with modern technology such wars could be extreme costly.

[Salty]

Fauna?

Thanks,Timb, I meant "flora". I'll go change that, right now.

[Salty]

Perhaps, you didn't read the last couple of posts... I/we don't really what this to become a discussion of global warming - you could just pretend it's Q & A and so we're trying to stick to mainstream ideas here.

Anyways, I would be interested to learn more about why you think religion or the lack thereof could cause the collapse of civilization[s]. I think the lack of religion would actually be a step forward, for several reasons. One being that many wars are fought over religion, and with modern technology such wars could be extreme costly.

When I mentioned GW in passing, I should have qualified it with an agree to disagree, to avoid a flame war. Thank you, for bringing that to my attention.

Now, to religion. I think that people have a hardwired desire to worship. I think that worshiping things perverts that desire. I also think that religion brings our concept of a God closer to us. About 95% of the world's population does believe in God, a god or in gods.

Also, I think we should respect our elders. At one time, even BCE and since, religion was the cradle of science in many civilizations. Greek culture an exception. Much education in CE has been in synagouges, churches and temples. Much culture of each civilization has been in the context of relgion.
Organized religion has been around much longer than organized science, and science types should respect that cultural elder.

I think science types are just as wrong to bash the idea of God or religion, as the science types know it's wrong to bash science. That's why I wrote the that science and religion should make peace and stop bashing each other.

In closing, it's technology, not religion, which makes wars so horrible. Also, I think blaming religion for war is short sighted. People wage war for water, food, land area and then about ideas. Our Cold War was ideaological. The entire planet was held in nuclear thrall, because of Communism vs western culture, not religion.

That update to ideaology from religion may surprise you. Religion is no worse for starting wars than is technology. And, technology came from unorganized science and comes now from science.

Imo, the worse of WWII happened in prison camps, for the sake of medical technology, not religion.

Let me make an example. You have a rowdy student in your class, and during class he beats up the guy in the seat in front of him. I could say, it's your fault, because it's in your class. A lot of people blame God or a god for what other people do. It's in His universe, it's His fault. Is it? So, the campus police come, and carry the bully away and the ambulance comes and carries away the student who was beaten. It's the university's fault, it happened on their campus. That's like blaming the religion for what people in it do. It's not fair, to blame the Professor or God for what another person does; and it's not right to blame a religion for what its fanatic followers do. Do you see my point?

[showboat]

I got my doubts on my personal survival.

But a funny comment on the thread was 'I read THE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE', I could survive that.

But a total infrastructure brake down thats not clear as to causes or predictability is not much I can manage.

I get all my food from the can tree, opening cans.

I can't even see without 1/4 inch of plastic
in front of my eyes.

But I don't think survivalists are going to be prepared for the conditions they will face.

Guns aren't going to be much good, if no game to hunt or hostile humans too shoot.

Maybe tunnels or lava tube caves is something to check out.

But I think theres going to be time intervals between catastrophes.

So just when one thinks ones over one another one happens.

In different ways.

Always can check out tribulations [the bible]
not so easy to figure out, but will be figured out the hard way.

A daunting process to survive even if one knew with complete clearity.

But I am just the simple christian fundamentalist,
what do I know compared the great physicists and admirers of astronomy.

Outerspace is their domain to wave a wand about conjuring theorys.

Doesn't matter that the theorys change about every month.

Just keep them coming.

Remind me of medieval doctors that said a stomach ache was a toad living in the stomach, or that bleeding a patient was good for fevers as it relaxed a patient.

[spratleyj]

When I mentioned GW in passing, I should have qualified it with an agree to disagree, to avoid a flame war. Thank you, for bringing that to my attention.

Now, to religion. I think that people have a hardwired desire to worship. I think that worshiping things perverts that desire. I also think that religion brings our concept of a God closer to us. About 95% of the world's population does believe in God, a god or in gods.

Also, I think we should respect our elders. At one time, even BCE and since, religion was the cradle of science in many civilizations. Greek culture an exception. Much education in CE has been in synagouges, churches and temples. Much culture of each civilization has been in the context of relgion.
Organized religion has been around much longer than organized science, and science types should respect that cultural elder.

I think science types are just as wrong to bash the idea of God or religion, as the science types know it's wrong to bash science. That's why I wrote the that science and religion should make peace and stop bashing each other.

In closing, it's technology, not religion, which makes wars so horrible. Also, I think blaming religion for war is short sighted. People wage war for water, food, land area and then about ideas. Our Cold War was ideaological. The entire planet was held in nuclear thrall, because of Communism vs western culture, not religion.

That update to ideaology from religion may surprise you. Religion is no worse for starting wars than is technology. And, technology came from unorganized science and comes now from science.

Imo, the worse of WWII happened in prison camps, for the sake of medical technology, not religion.

Let me make an example. You have a rowdy student in your class, and during class he beats up the guy in the seat in front of him. I could say, it's your fault, because it's in your class. A lot of people blame God or a god for what other people do. It's in His universe, it's His fault. Is it? So, the campus police come, and carry the bully away and the ambulance comes and carries away the student who was beaten. It's the university's fault, it happened on their campus. That's like blaming the religion for what people in it do. It's not fair, to blame the Professor or God for what another person does; and it's not right to blame a religion for what its fanatic followers do. Do you see my point?

Of course religion doesn't start all wars... but it would disingenuous to say that it hasn't been the main cause of many many wars. And it's not just the radicals you have to be aware of, there have been several instances in which the mainstream "religious" people have actually supported wars fought because of belief.

Next, I don't think bashing religion is appropriate, however I think science has come a long way in showing that there are reasons for natural phoneme other than a supernatural being. Also science has discovered many things that contradict religion - which are you going to believe?

Lastly, religion can be useful as a means of control. There are some people whom would lose most if not all their morality if it wasn't for religion. But I don't think science "needs" religion in order to advance. Today most scientists are much more "secular" than their progeny. Lastly, (and this is to call religious people stupid) but why do you think that the "smarter" or more "highly educated" people are more often atheist than others?