What's the over/under on civilization?

Quote: Dalex64

I think the most likely cause of our doom are viruses and disease.

Since the invention of antibiotics, we have accelerated their evolution into heartier, more resistant, and more deadly forms.

See, that's the problem right there: antibiotics have no effect at all, either positive or negative, on viruses.

And that's one reason why we have antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Lots of people take antibiotics when they have a viral infection, such as the common cold or influenza. This exposes a lot of bacteria in their system, benign and otherwise, to antibiotics. This helps bacterial populations to acquire resistance to antibiotics.

There are numerous other factors, such as not finishing an antibiotic course of treatment for a bacterial infection, feeding cattle antibiotics to increase yield, etc. But the misuse of antibiotics is among the top three.

Back on topic, it's doubtful a disease could wipe out humanity or even cause civilization to collapse. It wouldn't be good at all, of course, and could constitute an epic disaster. but consider that with almost zero medical knowledge in the middle ages, a very aggressive strain of plague failed to topple Europe's civilization. A similar major outbreak today in an advanced country would be terrible, but there are other means now besides antibiotics to deal with infection. The don't work as well and the death toll would be huge, but it wouldn't cause a collapse. In a third world country, though, it might.

You know what worries me more during outbreaks of deadly, contagious diseases? That people fail to take even basic precautions and view sound advice with suspicion.

Quote: Dalex64

I think the most likely cause of our doom are viruses and disease.

Since the invention of antibiotics, we have accelerated their evolution into heartier, more resistant, and more deadly forms.

There is always some percentage of the population that has enough immunity to not be killed by any one virus. A virus might cut down a very large percentage of humans but millions will still survive.

Quote: Nareed

That's hardly the only danger.

Oh, for sure there's stuff much more catastrophic. But the CME strikes me as being, well, pretty much harmless in a natural sense. With your examples, there is ruination everywhere. Raining hellfire and brimstone. Little ice ages. Mass extinctions. Fires. Freezes. It'd be crazy.

With the CME, nothing changes. The sun still shines, the Earth is still solid, the air is still fresh, the water still runs. No animals will die, no botanical disaster would occur. The only thing that would change is that this funny little construct we have made will fail. That's it.

It strikes me as bizarre and weird. I mean, who even thinks of electricity unless A) it stops, or B) you catch an unintended dose of it? It's so under appreciated and taken for granted. But if stops... ho boy. We'd be in the s#$%. The world would be complete as it ever was, and we'd die by the tens of millions anyways. It's a wild thought.

Quote: Face

We'd be in the s#$%. The world would be complete as it ever was, and we'd die by the tens of millions anyways. It's a wild thought.

But that was just as true in 1950 as
it is now. We were just as dependent
on electric then as we are now. In
fact, in the movie The Day the Earth
Stood Still, they stop the electric in
the world for an hour and civilization
comes to a standstill.

Quote: kenarman

There is always some percentage of the population that has enough immunity to not be killed by any one virus. A virus might cut down a very large percentage of humans but millions will still survive.

They will survive for sure, but they may hit a point of terminal decline. Human beings are by far the most social of the higher-order animals and mammals. Individually a human being generally will not survive even medium-term. Then disease does not knock out evenly across the population. The young and elderly typically get hit hardest. Lose the elderly and in a way it could be an asset, less unproductive folk to care for. But at the same time there goes lots of know-how. Lose the young and you start to die out. Lose more women than men and you start to lose your reproductive capacity. Lose too many men and there goes a lot of your backbone and productivity (sorry, feminists, this is the case.)

The question is at what point does a society get so damaged that it dies out. A 10% loss would be sad but probably not cause lasting harm. At 20% the damage is more economic, we would survive but the economy starts to hurt. At 50% the economy would probably collapse and loss of services would cripple the survivors. Above that who knows? The Black Death wiped out villages but later the survivors did well as they could then own their own land and not have all the lots locked up being subdivided each generation.

Today land in free nations is not an issue. The issue is working it. Farmers are an old lot. If a disease hit the older set harder you could lose your farming ability. Then the second wave of struggle begins.

If the "tribes" in Mad Max count as "civilization" then I think we could be a long time, even with a huge loss of the global population.

I think it is possible for us to "unlearn" things quite quickly. So much of what we know is online, and not widespread in hard copy, that we could easily return to a pre-industrial revolution state within three generations if the world suffered a sudden catastrophe.

However, I think we forget how big the world really is. The oceans are massive, and while we wring our hands over the loss of a few whales or a reef here or there, I think they have the capacity to absorb just about everything we might throw at it... literally.

Sure there are some fish you might not want to eat if they are caught just off the coast, but even dumping radioactive isotopes directly into the ocean won't ruin the whole thing. This "buffer" of water, food, raw materials and energy, will keep alot of us alive for a long time, even if all we have to eat is seaweed. I think civilization could go into the 100's of thousands of years.

If we really wanted to, we could colonize the Moon and probably Mars within our lifetime. It's not a question of "could we?", it's all about spending priorities. After all, we saved Matt Damon in "The Martian" didn't we?

Gee, no one mentioned that one huge underground fungus in Oregon that is miles in size and growing.

Quote: Face

Oh, for sure there's stuff much more catastrophic. But the CME strikes me as being, well, pretty much harmless in a natural sense. With your examples, there is ruination everywhere. Raining hellfire and brimstone. Little ice ages. Mass extinctions. Fires. Freezes. It'd be crazy.

At the risk of spoiling a story by recommending it, I recommend Larry Niven's "Inconstant Moon."

Quote:

With the CME, nothing changes. The sun still shines, the Earth is still solid, the air is still fresh, the water still runs. No animals will die, no botanical disaster would occur. The only thing that would change is that this funny little construct we have made will fail. That's it.

Yes, but consider that "fail" does not mean "destroyed." Much could be repaired or replaced, albeit at great cost. And no question it would be catastrophic to leave the world without electrical power for a few days, never mind months. But it would not be the end of civilization.


One thing to keep in mind is inertia, for lack of a better word. Human civilization is huge and powerful. It can't be stopped easily. There was a generalized failure of civilization across much of the world in the late bronze age, known as the "bronze age collapse." In some places it was so bad that entire cultures just vanished. Greece, or rather the Greek Cities, entered a dark age where even writing was forgotten. The Mid East, then the power center of world politics, was rearranged as a result (Assyria made a comeback, Egypt decayed further, Babylon became a dominion of Assyria, etc.) But Civilization kept on going afterwards.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I think it is possible for us to "unlearn" things quite quickly. So much of what we know is online, and not widespread in hard copy, that we could easily return to a pre-industrial revolution state within three generations if the world suffered a sudden catastrophe.

However, I think we forget how big the world really is. The oceans are massive, and while we wring our hands over the loss of a few whales or a reef here or there, I think they have the capacity to absorb just about everything we might throw at it... literally.

I agree on the return to pre-industrial times. We are already losing basic skills. It might not take the hugest of catastrophes. My saying is that 80 years ago a poor family went to the food bank and was given flour, salt, sugar, and yeast and she made bread for a week. Today a woman gets those items and says, "what the hell am I supposed to do with THIS?!"

Even a small breakdown in services would cause riots. Cities would become unlivable and fast. Life expectancy would drop to probably 45-50.

Quote: AZDuffman

Even a small breakdown in services would cause riots. Cities would become unlivable and fast. Life expectancy would drop to probably 45-50.

Prognostications like this are extremely easy
and unproductive to come up with. Much
harder to figure is where we go from here,
into the future. That's where we'll all be
living.