[DesuMaiden]

First of all, before we can talk about sustainability, let's define it for our society or the human species as a whole. If we define sustainability as the ability for the human species to persist forever, that is clearly unrealistic because all species eventually become extinct. Given that colonizing other planets (whether in this solar system or in others light years away) is impossible, the human race will definitely not survive the death of the entire Earth's biosphere, which will happen in a few billion years in the future due to the sun becoming too big and hot. Thus the sun, due to becoming too hot and big ( from becoming a red giant) vaporizes all life on Earth including humans.

Even if we talk about sustainability in a shorter term, we still find that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain it. Will our species survive for millions of years into the future? Who knows, but one thing is certain: industrial civilization is not sustainable and will collapse and disintegrate in the near future (within the 21st century). The reason behind this is simple: industrial civilization can only be sustained by the continuous exploitation of finite, nonrenewable and irreplaceable resources. Industrialized humans are completely and totally reliant on unsustainably exploiting nonrenewable, finite minerals, metals and other resources for which there is no replacements.

In order for humans to live relatively sustainably, if our species is to persistent for much longer, we need to become less reliant on nonrenewable resources. We need to depend on sustainably using renewable resources rather than unsustainably using nonrenewable resources.

Any other suggestions?

[Cog]

If you had unlimited energy through renewable sources you could basically create non-renewables out of atoms. Fusion would be that unlimited source but so far we can't seem to make that happen.

[DesuMaiden]

Industrial civilization can be sustained on renewables as well as nuclear power for quite a while actually. The major issue with sustainability is that we waste so much because it is so cheap, and because we don't price the future value of resources into the present price. Our economic systems are present orientated rather than future orientated.

Depends on what kind of renewable energy you are talking about. Contrary to popular belief, solar voltaic and wind turbines are not renewable because while sunshine and wind is renewable, the materials used to make solar panels and wind turbines are not renewable and are actually nonrenewable, finite and non-replaceable. Once solar panels and wind turbines break down, you need to replace them with newer ones, and the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines is entirely dependent on nonrenewable fossil fuel energy. Electricity from solar panels and wind turbines cannot meet current, let alone future, energy demand around the world. In a post fossil fuel world, the main sources of nonrenewable energy will be water and biomass (primarily in the form of wood but also to a lesser extent dung and other sources of current photosynthetic materials).

[onlooker]

Great post Desu, but you forgot to mention that continuous population is also not sustainable and we certainly seem to be overpopulated at this point.

[KaiserJeep]

Your education has failed you in a spectacular fashion.

First of all, the assertion that all species must become extinct is suspect. We have preserved ants in amber that do not differ in any way from species still living today, that predate the dinosaurs. Sharks exist in the fossil record that are 100+ million years old and appear identical to contemporary species. I see no reason that a species that has more or less adapted perfectly to it's environment should not persist, with no pressure to adapt or evolve. Humans in particular have evolved intelligence and even the ability to genetically engineer new species - or to adapt our own species to new environments like space or a planet such as our own with a damaged ecology. There is no reason whatsoever to think that humans cannot persist practically forever.

Secondly, there is no reason that humans cannot live in environments constructed in space. One Russian astronaut spent more than 22 months in space with no harm. When the Sun expands as you mentioned, it will not exceed the diameter of the Oort Cloud, there will still be inhabitable real estate in this solar system.

As for industrial civilization not being sustainable, that is laughable in the extreme. Our civilization, far from waning or slowing, is consuming natural resources at increasing rates, and recycling consumed resources at increasing rates. This was the topic of a recent thread, and there is no reason that the human population on this planet should not peak at 20-30 billion or even more.

IMHO, the sudden collapse scenario is the least likely, we have about 8500 years of recorded history and such has never happened yet. Most things happen gradually and as one aspect of human civilization wanes, another gradually replaces it.

I suggest you quit obsessing about the fate of human civilization - something you have no control over anyway - and instead concentrate on your own life, and making it sustainable and low impact. Then see about having some kids and teach them to be even better than yourself. Then promote this idea to others. Working togather, we can mitigate the impact of the overshoot population peak, survive it, and make quality of life enhancements forever after that. Problem solved.

[DesuMaiden]

I'm only going to address KaiserJeep in this post.

Your education has failed you in a spectacular fashion.

First of all, the assertion that all species must become extinct is suspect. We have preserved ants in amber that do not differ in any way from species still living today, that predate the dinosaurs. Sharks exist in the fossil record that are 100+ million years old and appear identical to contemporary species. I see no reason that a species that has more or less adapted perfectly to it's environment should not persist, with no pressure to adapt or evolve. Humans in particular have evolved intelligence and even the ability to genetically engineer new species - or to adapt our own species to new environments like space or a planet such as our own with a damaged ecology. There is no reason whatsoever to think that humans cannot persist practically forever.

Doesn't change the fact that modern civilization is toast once the nonrenewable stocks of fossil fuels, mineral resources and high-grade metalliac ores are gone. There are simply ZERO substitutes to the various nonrenewable stocks of resources that industrial civilization must need to survive.

If there are humans millions of years from now, they will, at best, be living like Stone Age people, like the Olduvai Theory states.

Secondly, there is no reason that humans cannot live in environments constructed in space. One Russian astronaut spent more than 22 months in space with no harm. When the Sun expands as you mentioned, it will not exceed the diameter of the Oort Cloud, there will still be inhabitable real estate in this solar system.

There isn't any habitable real estate outside of the Oort Cloud or anywhere in the Solar System outside of the planet Earth. Plus, there is no way we even send more than a handful of people onto the Moon, which is hundreds if not thousands of times closer to the Earth than even the nearest other planets in the Solar System. So how do you expecting humans to ever colonize planets light years or trillions or more kilometers away from Earth?

It is simply not possible given the laws of physics. Unless you watch too much science fiction movies, it is OBVIOUS, humans will never be able colonize any planet outside of Earth. The only way we could is if we invented light-speed or faster-than-light-speed space travel in order to tranverse inter-stellar distances, but that is only theoretically possible, and nobody has demonstrated it to be actually possible.

Sorry, Earth is the only planet humans got as a place to live. There is no planet B. Once the sun dies, humanity dies along with it.

As for industrial civilization not being sustainable, that is laughable in the extreme. Our civilization, far from waning or slowing, is consuming natural resources at increasing rates, and recycling consumed resources at increasing rates. This was the topic of a recent thread, and there is no reason that the human population on this planet should not peak at 20-30 billion or even more.

Clearly, you have your head buried in the dirt, and you are ignoring the obvious evidence of industrial civilization already being unsustainable at less than 10 billion people. Sure we are producing more and more junk at an ever-increasing pace, but that is meaningless because nonrenewable resources are typically not only nonrenewable but also non-recyclable.

For example, the minerals and metallic alloys used to construct the very computers we are using for this exchange of information are not recyclable because there are way too many different materials used and mixed together to be recycled. It is not like people don't want to recycle nonrenewable resources...it is simply because it can't be done because of the laws of thermodynamics and other physical laws.

And even in cases when you could recycle something like steel or paper, the recycled by-product is of much lower quality ALL the time because of this process called DOWNCYCLYING. You can only recycle the same thing once or twice at best before it becomes totally unusuable.

The nonrenewable resources industrial civilization depends on (which also happen to be nonrecyclable) are being depleted at an incredible pace by the exponentially-increasing and already-overpopulated human race, and most of them willl be gone by the end of this century, thus making it impossible for any future humans to have any advanced civilization such as ours.

IMHO, the sudden collapse scenario is the least likely, we have about 8500 years of recorded history and such has never happened yet. Most things happen gradually and as one aspect of human civilization wanes, another gradually replaces it.

Even if industrial civilization doesn't suddenly collapse, it will definitely slowly decay over the next couple of decades in this century because the resources it depends on are finite and can only be used once. [/quote]
Besides, you are completely wrong about things being recycled at an ever-increasing rate. Things are being thrown-away and wasted at an ever-increasing rate because the human population continues to grow unsustainably, yet the resources on this planet continue to shrink. The only resources that are recyclable are renewable resources, but even many of them are being exploited at a rate that's greater than their rate of natural replenishment, and are thus also being depleted.

I suggest you quit obsessing about the fate of human civilization - something you have no control over anyway - and instead concentrate on your own life, and making it sustainable and low impact. Then see about having some kids and teach them to be even better than yourself. Then promote this idea to others. Working togather, we can mitigate the impact of the overshoot population peak, survive it, and make quality of life enhancements forever after that. Problem solved.

I am not obsessing about the fate of the human race. I'm just stating the truth...the Olduvai Theory is correct. Advanced, hi-tech industrial civilization is just a one-shot affair, and once the nonrenewable, finite and non-recyclable resources used to sustain it are gone, it goes away too, and we willl progressively enter the Post-Industrial Stone Age.

Just cherish the most out of modern civilization because our descendents will never have the luxury we now enjoy. They will be living like people did during the Stone Age or Neolithic at best.

[Cog]

The degree to which you are sustainable depends upon where you live.

[onlooker]

I am afraid that under no conditions can we sustain for much longer 7 or more billion people. Especially given the fact that our Industrial civilization cannot last but a short time longer and given the degraded state now of our planet. So I it is no longer a question of if but when will mass die off begin. Then with a much lower population and more benign, modest energy sources we may reintegrate in more sustainable societies

[Cog]

I'm fine with less crowds at my favorite restaurant.

[onlooker]

I'm fine with less crowds at my favorite restaurant.

How about at your favorite watering hole?

[peripato]

Your education has failed you in a spectacular fashion.

First of all, the assertion that all species must become extinct is suspect. We have preserved ants in amber that do not differ in any way from species still living today, that predate the dinosaurs. Sharks exist in the fossil record that are 100+ million years old and appear identical to contemporary species. I see no reason that a species that has more or less adapted perfectly to it's environment should not persist, with no pressure to adapt or evolve. Humans in particular have evolved intelligence and even the ability to genetically engineer new species - or to adapt our own species to new environments like space or a planet such as our own with a damaged ecology. There is no reason whatsoever to think that humans cannot persist practically forever.

Secondly, there is no reason that humans cannot live in environments constructed in space. One Russian astronaut spent more than 22 months in space with no harm. When the Sun expands as you mentioned, it will not exceed the diameter of the Oort Cloud, there will still be inhabitable real estate in this solar system.

As for industrial civilization not being sustainable, that is laughable in the extreme. Our civilization, far from waning or slowing, is consuming natural resources at increasing rates, and recycling consumed resources at increasing rates. This was the topic of a recent thread, and there is no reason that the human population on this planet should not peak at 20-30 billion or even more.

IMHO, the sudden collapse scenario is the least likely, we have about 8500 years of recorded history and such has never happened yet. Most things happen gradually and as one aspect of human civilization wanes, another gradually replaces it.

I suggest you quit obsessing about the fate of human civilization - something you have no control over anyway - and instead concentrate on your own life, and making it sustainable and low impact. Then see about having some kids and teach them to be even better than yourself. Then promote this idea to others. Working togather, we can mitigate the impact of the overshoot population peak, survive it, and make quality of life enhancements forever after that. Problem solved.

1. All species are destined for extinction. 5 billion extinct species (99% of all species that ever lived) can't be wrong.
2. Humans are severely degraded, physically and mentally, by prolonged exposure to outer space.
3. Critical finite resources are being depleted, while renewable ones are not being replenished fast enough. The climate is being destabilised and the environment destroyed by industrialism in the process.
4. Civilisations frequently crash, leaving behind "dark ages".
5. You're a sanctimonious know-nothing. 20-30 billion people!? Lol...

[onlooker]

Stupendous reply P