Collapses of Civilizations

[Salty]

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?

Thank you, for your reply.

When I disclaimed religion from starting modern wars, the thought of the mediviel Crusades went through my mind. I decided to wait, until they were mentioned. Yes, for about 300 years, jihads and crusades swayed the middle east and southern and eastern Europe. No arguement, on that. However, every Muslim I talk to, today, say that it's politics, not religion, which motivates the current "jihad". I'm trying to think of the last religious war, prior to the late twentieth century. Just the troubles in Ireland, are all that come to mind; and those were as much political as religious.

Recently, since the end of the nineteenty century, science has taken a material bent. Because of this, science doesn't explain spiritual life and denies that there are spirits. Imho, that stands as a departure from an important and integral foundation of life. Since science has gone into cilinical denial about spirituality, I believe religion in matters spiritual.

I have no arguement with most of your third paragraph. However, I would like to address the last sentence. People have the hardwired desire to worship. I have seen secular types try to make a god out of a dead man (Darwin); out of science itself; out of money; be a god to themselves; and other such material and immaterial things. The saying, "Everybody preaches something", applies to aetheists and religious alike. Evolution is preached, football is preached, politics is preached, etc. So, highly educated people are not so immune to their relgious natures, after all; I submit that they put their relgious nature into what they value most. Imho.

I prefer to put mine to God and church and neighbor, as directed (Love God and love neighbor). A good love hurts no one.

[Tinaa]

BAUT is not the place to discuss religion and politics - especially together!

[spratleyj]

BAUT is not the place to discuss religion and politics - especially together!

Yep, I think Salty's post may have been out of line, but my original question is listed as one of the expections... that is relating science and religion...

[Neverfly]

I can see how it would be difficult to discuss civilizations and the trappings of such without clarifying the role of religion and politics.
It would be like trying to describe a flower without being allowed to talk about petals and stems.

However, the Moderator warning issued seems to apply to opinions about politics and religion being expressed, not their role in civilizations.

Salty, I, for one, take severe exception to your accusation of "clinical denial" as something out of line, unwarranted, unprovoked and most importantly of all- Highly Inaccurate.
For Example: If you want to believe in fairies and dragons- knock yourself out. But if I say there is no shred of evidence either exist or have ever existed- than you cannot accuse me of Clinical Denial.
No more than I can accuse you of clinical denial if you say the Moon Landings were not hoaxed. And if you think for half a moment that I am being silly- Research Chinese Beliefs on Dragons and check out just how very strongly the belief in dragons is maintained in that civilization- as per the example. A Chinese person could accuse you and I of Clinical Denial for not believing in something so real, true and obvious as dragons. (Trust me- my housemate is Chinese...)
Such opinions expressed can quite clearly lead to flame wars that are frankly, just not necessary.


I just wanted to step out on a limb here for the sake of clarity.

[Ozzy]

I dont think the world civilisation will collapse. People without the capacity to move will die from wars, starvation, storms, and sealevel rise. Wealthier people will die from pollution, obesity and diabetes related illness.

The rest of us will adapt and survive. Its what Homo sapiens does. Technology got us into this mess, and will probably get us out.

[Vallkynn]

I dont think the world civilisation will collapse. People without the capacity to move will die from wars, starvation, storms, and sealevel rise. Wealthier people will die from pollution, obesity and diabetes related illness.

The rest of us will adapt and survive. Its what Homo sapiens does. Technology got us into this mess, and will probably get us out.

What "rest of us"? Who's the group that can move and is not wealthier?

[Vallkynn]

BAUT is not the place to discuss religion and politics - especially together!

I would like to understand why

[Vallkynn]

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.

Well, Europe produces electricity from gas because gas supply is not so instable and also due to it's high efficiency.

[PraedSt]

I would like to understand why

It leads to war.

[Ozzy]

What "rest of us"? Who's the group that can move and is not wealthier?

Sorry if I wasnt clear. not all wealthy people are obese or will die from lifestyle related diseases. and some wealthy people will die from climate change related disasters.


By wealthier I was referring to people wealthier than the poor, not necesarily rich people.
I can pack up my car and move if i need to. I can get on a plane and fly to safety. The unfortunate civilians in the Congo dispute can only get as far as a nearby camp. many have risked death and gone home because food supplies cant make it through the war zone.

The starving poor people in Haiti forced to eat mud, cant afford to move to another country with more food.

I dont think World Civilization will collapse. Some cultures may suffer, only to survive in immigrant populations.

[spratleyj]

I would like to understand why

The rules make that pretty clear people get unnecessarily emotional with such topics, which of course hinders all logic useless, thus leading to "wars".

[transreality]

During the initial outbreak of bird flu, leading epidemologists were making estimations that 50% of humans could contract it, and of those 50% would die. Such a threat may not distinguish between the rich and the poor, if the hospital system breaks down under the workload. If 25% of humanity dies within several months, maybe civilisation would collapse... for a while...

[Vallkynn]

During the initial outbreak of bird flu, leading epidemologists were making estimations that 50% of humans could contract it, and of those 50% would die. Such a threat may not distinguish between the rich and the poor, if the hospital system breaks down under the workload. If 25% of humanity dies within several months, maybe civilisation would collapse... for a while...

Have you ever noticed that hospital systems are always working at it's limits?

[Vallkynn]

The rules make that pretty clear people get unnecessarily emotional with such topics, which of course hinders all logic useless, thus leading to "wars".

Yes, but I wanted to understand why such rules were created.
Do you think that only a "Vulcan" mind is able to give unbiased opinions?
I don't agree. You don't have to include politics or religion to have emotional behaviour. All human behaviour is somewhat emotional and usually science related people is neutral to politics and religion.

[Neverfly]

Yes, but I wanted to understand why such rules were created.
Do you think that only a "Vulcan" mind is able to give unbiased opinions?
I don't agree. You don't have to include politics or religion to have emotional behaviour. All human behaviour is somewhat emotional and usually science related people is neutral to politics and religion.

I think you don't understand just how quickly and how heated things can get with those two topics

Should we be able to discuss them? Yes.
Are you capable of discussing them? Nope.

[Salty]

Without even trying or meaning to, just expressing my opinion, I managed to bring down a moderator on our discussion and irratate Neverfly.

Vallkynn,this is how flame wars start, and it was my fault, although not my intention.

That's why I'm leaving off this discussion here.

Mr. Spratley, I enjoyed the discussion and apologize for getting sarcastic.

Apologies to Tinaa.

Neverfly, I like the way you closed, with your Chinese live-in might claim we were in clinical denial about the existance of dragons. I'll leave this, at that.

[Argos]

You don't have to include politics or religion to have emotional behaviour.

Some of the comments ealier in this thread imply that people with a materialist mindset are incapable of moral values. In fact I felt touched by them, and actually reported them.

[Salty]

I think the collapse of other civilizations has happened more often, than we think. From Sutras English translations and talking with a Hindu woman at one job, I opine that a high-tech civilization in the Indus valley collapsed from high-tech war, over 5,000 years ago.

We know of collapse of Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires, from history. Wars were involved in most of these, and land grabs were the motive for most of those wars, if I remember history.

In our Era, I was born during the collapse of the Japanese Empire and of the Third Reick, by war.
Since then, the British Empire has shrunk during my lifetime.

Empires have collapsed, less than a hundred years ago.

So, collapse of civilization may not actually act as mere rhetoric, especially considering our present economic crisis, world wide. I say this because: if jump starting the present American deflating economy results in hyper-inflation; and if hyper-inflation raises fuel prices to where American truckers cannot afford to run their rigs; then, foods, commodoties, medicines, clothes, vehicle repair parts and anything else you can think of, will go without civilian deliveries.
Grocery stores in these parts carry only three days of food supplies. Yep, three days. Then the neighborhood is out of fresh food, except for what each household may have stored away for an emergency. Then, civilization in these parts cascades to a collapse, in short order.

When America crashes, civilization in other parts commences a cascade of those civilizations' economic infrastructures, I think.

Just my opinion. So, high technology will not rescue us from an economic collapse, if there's no affordable fuel, to run that technology. This planet's global economy is skating on thin economic ice, imho.

[Ara Pacis]

I agree with Heinlein: A high price for hamburger is only an inconvenience as long as there is plenty of hamburger to go around. There are more efficient topologies for logistics and distribution than are presently used, since the current topologies need to account for unnecessary variables. However, in a crisis, the fat can be trimmed away to make it leaner and more efficient and effective. The real question is whether the transition from the current system to another system will happen smoothly or if there will be casualties due to localized isolations from the system during the transition phase.

[Salty]

I agree with Heinlein: A high price for hamburger is only an inconvenience as long as there is plenty of hamburger to go around. There are more efficient topologies for logistics and distribution than are presently used, since the current topologies need to account for unnecessary variables. However, in a crisis, the fat can be trimmed away to make it leaner and more efficient and effective. The real question is whether the transition from the current system to another system will happen smoothly or if there will be casualties due to localized isolations from the system during the transition phase.

Imo, it's going to become a long, drawn out and bumpy transition. At least, here in the States. We need more nuclear reactors; we need geothermal power R&D; we need more hybrid cars; and we need to phase our oil usage to lubricants and synthetics only, in due time. I think we have the technology to develop good electric cars. More people need to use bicycles for travel in a 5mi (8km) radius.

When I was a little boy here, in Ft Worth, my mother would take me and my twin brother with her, to shop. This would be the late '40's or early '50's. I remember we rode an electric trolley, that had an overhead powerline and rolled on railroad tracks. This city needs to redevelop that kind of trolley for public transport. At present, the bus service in this town suck. I can say that, it's about my hometown.

[Ara Pacis]

I agree about more mass transit, like trolleys. And I do think it will be more drawn out here in the US, but a collapse may be more immediate in the developing world, but they may be more used to surviving on the minimum. Of course, those parts of the developing world that rely on US food aid may be hit hardest when US food surplusage disappears for one reason or another.

As for petroleum, the problem with "only" using petroleum for lube is that you still have all the remaining distillates leftover. From a global warming perspective, that might be okay, but from a oil scarcity point of view, it's like "only" killing elephants for the ivory but leaving the meat alone... you're still using up elephants. But, I'm just repeating what I heard as I'm not sure how easy it is to convert polymers between one type and another.

[astromark]

Hmmm... to come into this and not get myself into trouble.... Hmmm...

So then my view of this subject is as always just a little different than those I have been reading here. Normally I would like to be thought of as positive and generally optimistic., but on this topic... This subject has worried me for many years and my view of humanities chances are discolored by its appalling record of inhuman activity. What a sad greedy bunch of selfish... you get the idea. Both arrogance and ignorance are rife across the so called advanced societies of the civilized world, and yes I too will admit to being part of this. Guilty as charged, thats me.
I am not part of the ' Its all our fault ' set of thinkers. No I am not yet convinced that its not/is even happening. Could all be part of the 'Normal' cycle of events. Extreme weather, global warming, Al Gore or David Balamy... and no, I will not explain. I do not feel obliged to. Moving on to., Are we going down the wrong road,? No. only some of us. Can it be fixed,? yes we can adapt. That is the single most important Fact here. ( for me ). The enduring survival of the human race is linked to our ability to change and adapt. Look at our history. Its full of it. So a super volcano goes off... An asteroid impacts, A super bug pandamic... I may not, you may not., but humanity will prevail. I will bet on it. Relax and drink more.... coffee. Mark.

[Salty]

I agree about more mass transit, like trolleys. And I do think it will be more drawn out here in the US, but a collapse may be more immediate in the developing world, but they may be more used to surviving on the minimum. Of course, those parts of the developing world that rely on US food aid may be hit hardest when US food surplusage disappears for one reason or another.

As for petroleum, the problem with "only" using petroleum for lube is that you still have all the remaining distillates leftover. From a global warming perspective, that might be okay, but from a oil scarcity point of view, it's like "only" killing elephants for the ivory but leaving the meat alone... you're still using up elephants. But, I'm just repeating what I heard as I'm not sure how easy it is to convert polymers between one type and another.

I wonder if you misread me? When I said oil only for lubricants and synthetics, that's shooting the elephant for the ivory, meat, skin, feet and guts. Eat the meat, make shelter and clothing out of the skin, more sythetics out of the feet and string and rope and bottles out of the guts. Use the whole thing.

At present, only about 17% of a barrel of crude oil refined for synthetics like plastics, rayons, nylons, dacrons and other synthetics, if I remember right. I forget what percentage goes for lubricants and solvents and other industrial chemicals.

I do remember being told, when I worked at a Chevron Oil refinery '69 and '70, that over 1,200 synthetic products were produced at that refinery.

Crude oil also produces asphalt and tars.

[Ara Pacis]

I wonder if you misread me? When I said oil only for lubricants and synthetics, that's shooting the elephant for the ivory, meat, skin, feet and guts. Eat the meat, make shelter and clothing out of the skin, more sythetics out of the feet and string and rope and bottles out of the guts. Use the whole thing.

At present, only about 17% of a barrel of crude oil refined for synthetics like plastics, rayons, nylons, dacrons and other synthetics, if I remember right. I forget what percentage goes for lubricants and solvents and other industrial chemicals.

I do remember being told, when I worked at a Chevron Oil refinery '69 and '70, that over 1,200 synthetic products were produced at that refinery.

Crude oil also produces asphalt and tars.

Possibly, I misread you. So, is that 17% due to economic or physical constraints? In other words, is the percentage limited to 17% because the other 83% of a barrel isn't suitable for production of those petrochemicals?

If it's due to a physical constraint, then from an petroleum scarcity point of view, only using 17% of a barrel to make synthetics still requires a 100% barrel from which to take it. Even if we stop burning the other 83%, in order to reduce civilization-ending concerns like global warming, it may just end up sitting in a tank somewhere, unused. If the civilization-ending concern is petroleum scarecity, then "only" using a smaller fraction of a barrel doesn't actually reduce the total number of whole barrels needed, nor the potential impact to that specific sector of the economy if there is a shock.

[spratleyj]

Hmmm... to come into this and not get myself into trouble.... Hmmm...

So then my view of this subject is as always just a little different than those I have been reading here. Normally I would like to be thought of as positive and generally optimistic., but on this topic... This subject has worried me for many years and my view of humanities chances are discolored by its appalling record of inhuman activity. What a sad greedy bunch of selfish... you get the idea. Both arrogance and ignorance are rife across the so called advanced societies of the civilized world, and yes I too will admit to being part of this. Guilty as charged, thats me.
I am not part of the ' Its all our fault ' set of thinkers. No I am not yet convinced that its not/is even happening. Could all be part of the 'Normal' cycle of events. Extreme weather, global warming, Al Gore or David Balamy... and no, I will not explain. I do not feel obliged to. Moving on to., Are we going down the wrong road,? No. only some of us. Can it be fixed,? yes we can adapt. That is the single most important Fact here. ( for me ). The enduring survival of the human race is linked to our ability to change and adapt. Look at our history. Its full of it. So a super volcano goes off... An asteroid impacts, A super bug pandamic... I may not, you may not., but humanity will prevail. I will bet on it. Relax and drink more.... coffee. Mark.

Well first, I think that people have done a excellent of job of showing that the cause (or at least part of the cause) of global warming is the human effect. However, disregarding that I don't see how it matters one way or another. Global warming is happening there is no disputing that, whether it's being cause or enhanced by human activity is really a trivial point. Do we really want to go through another ice age? Of course not, and global warming is the same thing, in that it is on the extreme side (of warmness). If global warming counties as predicted, the world's population will be dramatically reduced, and many of the world's greatest cities will be under water. So we must do something to stop this. As far as the short term is concerned we need to cut way back on our emissions, in the long term we need to reduce human population/life style. Of course there are many ways to accomplish those things, and I think that's where most of the disagreement is. Anyways, I'd like to know if anybody disagrees with the synopsis.

[Salty]

Possibly, I misread you. So, is that 17% due to economic or physical constraints? In other words, is the percentage limited to 17% because the other 83% of a barrel isn't suitable for production of those petrochemicals?

If it's due to a physical constraint, then from an petroleum scarcity point of view, only using 17% of a barrel to make synthetics still requires a 100% barrel from which to take it. Even if we stop burning the other 83%, in order to reduce civilization-ending concerns like global warming, it may just end up sitting in a tank somewhere, unused. If the civilization-ending concern is petroleum scarecity, then "only" using a smaller fraction of a barrel doesn't actually reduce the total number of whole barrels needed, nor the potential impact to that specific sector of the economy if there is a shock.

I really don't know enough to accurately answer your question, but I can give you my best guess. And, that's that demand of different products causes the different percentages of different products from one barrel of crude oil.

Anyway, imho, I think we're going to have refineries producing different oil products, for the next 100yrs, at least.