Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Carbocene; How could life be like 30 million years in the future after a K-T sized extinction (caused by man and atomic wars) .
Topic Started: Oct 11 2013, 04:11 PM (1,009 Views)
martiitram
Member Avatar
Very Active Member
[ *  *  * ]
The non polluting electricity sources are not that much used and for them to get better it would need some time.Also , as I said earlier , as much as we want to save Earth , we also want electricity , TV , internet and other stuff like that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citrakayah
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Right now, Western Society, the primary polluters, is primarily composed of corporatist governments that tell people what they want to hear about the evil of big corporations while they bail these corporations out on the taxpayers' tab or sign legislation into law that protects them. The United States is ripe with examples of this, but so too is Europe. It's the primary reason that new ideas and technologies are getting squelched right now, because there exists no free market for these ideas to come to fruit. Aquaponics farming is a wonderful example of something that could change how we humans interact with our environment entirely. But, because there are already huge farming corporations in place who are in bed with the government at every level, it is all but impossible at the moment for it to have its full effect.


I would personally argue that the free market will innately favor short-term profits over long-term stability. Then again, I'm a democratic socialist, so that probably isn't surprising.

Anyway. At a certain point, people have to recognize how much they're screwing things up. What you're talking about would require, for humans to retain a decent quality of life, to live in giant arcological cities, feats of mega-architecture that are substantially beyond our current capabilities. When people saw rivers on fire, activists came together and got laws passed to ban the problematic behaviors. Currently the main extinction related problems aren't as obvious in First World countries, though, or can be covered by statistical noise. Global warming? People think it's just the weather. Habitat destruction? People don't see the damage in person.

What you're talking about are implied to be global problems. In which case Americans see their entire lawn dying because of acid rain. That is substantially different. Because we can get electricity via other methods, it's just that it's generally more difficult, or expensive, or not what we're currently doing so we'd have to rearrange some things.
Edited by Citrakayah, Oct 23 2013, 10:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dragontunders
Member Avatar
Beginner
[ * ]
I think this project is due to restart, because it is not well-defined mass extinction happens. we have:
-atomic holocaust (as mentioned the subtheme)
-polution uncontrolled
-the fall of the oxygen in the atmosphere

everything has said at random and has no order. is also the fact that we wants to compare the K / T event, which is completely different in many ways
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zirojtan
Active Member
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
I would personally argue that the free market will innately favor short-term profits over long-term stability. Then again, I'm a democratic socialist, so that probably isn't surprising.



That's exactly why it would be better for developing long-term stability. Ideology is not enough to drive innovation or changes in technology. People need a real incentive, and short-term profits for those who invent a product as well as for those who will be utilizing it are exactly that incentive. Most people scoff at hippies living in communes breaking their backs to rotate their crops the old fashioned way for a reason. Society is not move backwards because the government and some scientists say that we have "tough decisions to make". Society is only going to move forward, and if the government is standing in the way, then it will almost certainly be removed. Aquaponics farming is not on the rise in some areas of the world because it is "better for the environment". While this might be one of the smaller incentives, the real incentive driving this technology is that it's efficient in both feeding people AND producing revenue, i.e. money for the farmers. By and large, the only people opening farms and saying "I'm farming this way because it's the right way to do it, because I don't have to destroy forests, or huge plains/savanna ecosystems or drain wetlands to do it" are the aforementioned hippies in communes. People open these farms because you can grow produce at up to 20 times the normal weight (depending on the vegetable in question) and sometimes up to ten times as fast, ALL YEAR ROUND, which they can then sell, and rake in the cash. Is the farmer's financial stability long-term in terms of global history? Hell no it's not. The financial stability that a single person or a group of people will enjoy in their lifetime is about as short-term in the broader perspective of life as it gets. But the consequences of the shift in technology from doing what we do NOW (i.e. turning 80% of the Great Plains into corn and wheat fields) to doing THIS have long-term consequences that are monumental for how we as humans interact with the environments of our planet.


Right now, the governments in both the United States AND Europe are choking new technologies and small businesses with crippling regulations that only established large corporations can afford to handle. And farming is a perfect example of this. The hassle of becoming a "certified organic farmer" is enough to drive most farmers away from more eco-friendly farming methods, because in order to practice, they have to be certified, which costs a lot of money and can take a lot of time. Another fine example would be how we manage our water resources in the United States. In almost any municipality the country over, it is actually illegal for you to set up a catchment system on your property. You are required to purchase your water from the city or the county. In a city like Atlanta, Georgia, which gets more rain a year than Seattle, this is simply insane, because the city is pulling its water from local river systems, thereby degrading the environment and also drying out the entire state to quench Atlanta's thirst. And composting toilet systems? Also illegal in the majority of municipalities because the municipality requires that you be hooked up to local sewage system. The fees that home builders have to pay municipalities to connect houses to local sewage and water systems are enormous, and a huge source of revenue for local governments, as are the bills that you will pay in almost any municipality for your water. This creates jobs for the private companies that handle water treatment and sewage for the city as well as the unionized plumbers who may be contracted out to a municipalities to handle plumbing/sewage problems.


Again, in Western Society, governments are essentially gigantic corporate money pumps for gigantic corporations, and when I say "free market" I mean a market in which the government and corporations operate separately. How we get there is an entirely different discussion that is off topic. The point is, we are at a turning point in our history as a species where we are beginning to learn very efficient and eco-friendly ways of maximizing our lifestyles, and my problem with the premiss of this project is that it assumes, in my opinion very unrealistically, that humanity is just going to pollute itself into extinction without taking any of these things into consideration.


We already have some very good options before us that would require some well established corporations to move aside, and those corporations have very large and very powerful lobbies in governments around the world. But that doesn't mean that these good options are not in our future. In fact, I'm positive that they are, but how we get there is another matter, but whether or not we get there I don't think is much of a question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
martiitram
Member Avatar
Very Active Member
[ *  *  * ]
dragontunders
Oct 23 2013, 11:24 PM
I think this project is due to restart, because it is not well-defined mass extinction happens. we have:
-atomic holocaust (as mentioned the subtheme)
-polution uncontrolled
-the fall of the oxygen in the atmosphere

everything has said at random and has no order. is also the fact that we wants to compare the K / T event, which is completely different in many ways
Then we can make the mass extinction get caused by the Eros asteroid (an asteroid the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs and one of the best candidates to hit earth).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
martiitram
Member Avatar
Very Active Member
[ *  *  * ]
or , better not cause then I would have to keep the muntjacs and goats in the mainland or I would have to completely make them extinct.The reason why the extinction happened was pollution , over-hunting , habitat destruction and stuff like that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zirojtan
Active Member
[ *  * ]
You need to specifically describe your extinction event for every body to adequately begin speculating. Like Citrakayah said, your extinction patterns via pollution (which of course is unlikely in and of itself) don't really fit what we know about the effects that something like that would have. The asteroid may be a better idea, but working it doesn't do to just say: "The reason why the extinction happened was pollution , over-hunting , habitat destruction and stuff like that."


Try reading my proposed guide on writing speculative evolution projects in the announcements subforum. In it I cover this kind of stuff. A story needs a setting, and right now for this project, we don't really have a decent setting. We have a bunch of characters, yes, but no true setting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dragontunders
Member Avatar
Beginner
[ * ]
after establishing extinction, can establish the species may have survived the cataclysm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
martiitram
Member Avatar
Very Active Member
[ *  *  * ]
I'll think about that Zirojtan and dragontunders.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JaggerTheDog
Member Avatar
Beginner
[ * ]
You copied "Future of The World." About that northern muntjacs, it's in my project, and it's the first one that proposed it, so that means you basically copied the "Future of The World."
Isn't the humans wouldn't be complete monsters and would save the environment? Also, you made too much animals become extinct. I'm not trying to be blunt, but I could help you with this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Future Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Black Water created by tiptopolive of the Zetaboards Theme Zone