Do you have (hold out hope for) faith that mankind will do OK?

[wolfen69]

I have my doubts. Without being political or religeous, I think someday we will be gone. Based on what I've seen, humans treat the planet as their own toilet and kill stuff.

[suprman2020]

We've been here this long despite everything that has happened so I believe that mankind will do ok.

[mmsmc]

in the long run, no. People do not have honor or respect, when two people do not have this they will undoubtedly fight, and with no end to fighting there will be no future. I would not expect everybody to respect everybody as i do not, but in recent times(local gangs, disrespectful people) people are picking fights with others for no reason, they call it territory, but i call it non-sense. this especially applies to countries, we can use the Jewish-Muslim dispute, its been going on for 1000 years now and there is still no stop to it

[wolfen69]

We've been here this long despite everything that has happened so I believe that mankind will do ok.

Ya never know.... I certainly don't have any answers

every 100,000 yrs or so an asteroid destroys the planet.........

[whatthefunk]

Nothing is forever.

[KiwiNZ]

With what I have witnessed first hand over the years in Banda Aceh, Samoa, Christchurch and others people are capable of great self sacrifice and love for others.

I am sure mankind will be here for a very very long time to come.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

With what I have witnessed over the years in Banda Aceh, Samoa, Christchurch and others people are capable of great self sacrifice and love for others.

I am sure mankind will be here for a very very long time to come.

This. Though I do expect us to thin our numbers down from time to time unfortunately.

[Lisimelis]

Being from a crisis stricken Greece i feel more depressed about the future of mankind every day. I turned to my family for feeling some hope rising inside me (plus the occasional Star Trek episodes i enjoy!!). Ah and Ubuntu makes me feel good too ;)

[Docaltmed]

We're just apes who are highly successful at manipulating our environment. I doubt that we possess any more altruism than any other species. We will continue to consume resources at an ever-increasing rate until they are gone, then fight brutally amongst ourselves for what remains.

In short, civilization is only four meals away from anarchy.

[YesWeCan]

Do you have (hold out hope for) faith that mankind will do OK?
Does it matter?

[Paqman]

I think someday we will be gone.

Of course we will, but it won't be any time soon. We've proven to be remarkably adept at surviving. We've made it through ice ages, we've inhabited every single ecosystem on land (a trick no other animal has managed) and we have a couple of massive evolutionary trump cards: we're not specialists, we can make tools, and we're very, very smart (compared to other animals).

We've got everything going for us really. There are some really big challenges facing us in the next 100 years. World population is expected to top out around 10 billion, and we need to find a way to get all those people food, water and energy in a sustainable way. That's a big job, but not an impossible one. Even if we fail at that, it's highly unlikely to mean extinction.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Hmmm...It's interesting reading everyone's different views on the subject.

Personally, I think mankind will not survive that long, not because we kill stuff, but because, all throughout history (the planet's history, not mankind's), almost nothing ever did. If there is one thing most species have had in common, ever since life appeared on Earth, is, they all evolved, multiplied, thrived, withered, and eventually went extinct.
And the few species that (so far) have managed to escape that destiny, show exactly the opposite traits we show: they are highly specialized, dumb creatures (crocodiles and sharks come to mind), that can only thrive in very specific ecosystems, and even the one species that is not limited by its habitat (it's not true we're the only species that managed to live everywhere in the World: mosquitoes also do, and they're, as a species, much older than us) shows those other traits.

It's important to understand we have managed to live everywhere in the planet, not because we're a naturally tough, adaptable species, but because of our reliance on technology. That same reliance on technology is bound to get us in trouble, in the not so far future. It's also important to realize that mankind is, by far, the worst pest this planet has ever seen, just by its sheer numbers, not to mention its capacity to damage the environment.

For all of that (and many other factors), I think the end is unavoidable. Whether it's near or not, I don't think anybody knows.

[hakermania]

Well, I think that if mankind was about to expire (lol) then this would have be done millions years ago.

It will do OK

[haqking]

as soon as my faith in mankind is restored, someone will always take it away from me on a daily basis ;-)

[kaldor]

as soon as my faith in manking is restored, someone will always take it away from me on a daily basis ;-)

^

[Gremlinzzz]

Don't Worry Be Happy :popcorn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU&ob=av3e

Bobby McFerrin :popcorn:

[fatality_uk]

What makes you think that man is the only animal that destroys it's own habitat?

Many species do. This idea that the "Natural World" lives in total harmony & balance with it's surroundings is nonsense. Many animals migrate because they overgraze an area then need to find new food. Many animals use their immediate proximity as a toilet.

Yes humans produce waste that has a longer decay cycle but humans are becoming more aware of these issues and are taking steps to address them. 30 years ago, if you recycled, you more than likely lived in a yurt and eat goats cheese while sitting on a bean bag drinking herbal tea. Now, it's almost becoming an accepted social norm.

Humans will be fine!

[realzippy]

Mankind as a whole ?
No.
A few will be fine,rest will suffer.

[PuddingKnife]

We've been here this long despite everything that has happened so I believe that mankind will do ok.

Yes, humanity has been around for a long time. And we were doing real well until the culture that took over around 10,000 years ago. Since then, well...thats a complex story.

Now we don't live according to biological laws. We have a puffed up population addicted to an energy source that's running out, with nothing on the horizon to replace it.



What makes you think that man is the only animal that destroys it's own habitat?

Many species do. This idea that the "Natural World" lives in total harmony & balance with it's surroundings is nonsense. Many animals migrate because they overgraze an area then need to find new food. Many animals use their immediate proximity as a toilet.

Yes humans produce waste that has a longer decay cycle but humans are becoming more aware of these issues and are taking steps to address them. 30 years ago, if you recycled, you more than likely lived in a yurt and eat goats cheese while sitting on a bean bag drinking herbal tea. Now, it's almost becoming an accepted social norm.

Humans will be fine!


To me this sounds like, 'Hey, all we did was hit a little ice berg. I'm going back to the bar for a drink,' ;)

[YesWeCan]

Mankind as a whole ?
No.
A few will be fine,rest will suffer.
Same old same old. :p

[BlinkinCat]

Little has changed for the starving millions in Africa since Band Aid in 1984 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5cX_ncZLls

It seems the cause is hopeless - the occasional donation to charities helps an individual feel a little better about the situation, but the sight of those poor starving children really pulls at the heartstrings.

[realzippy]

Little has changed for the starving millions in Africa since Band Aid in 1984 -

Little?
Now there is also HIV...

[BlinkinCat]

Little?
Now there is also HIV...

You are so right - I overlooked that -

[Eiji Takanaka]

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } The Human rat-race

Why is the human race called the human race? Is life really a race? What are we racing towards so quickly? Getting old? Death? Seems a bit stupid to be racing towards death to me, for this reason i shall stubbornly consider "the human race" to be a wholly inappropriate name for our species, and as such shall endeavour to not title it so in future.

What makes a human being a human being? What is humanity? If you keep saying "human" a few times why does it not even sound like a word anymore?, it sounds almost Chinese in origin. I think there are a few distinct traits that make a human being a human being, and not a parasite (although parasites do share at least one good human trait, that i shall elaborate on further in these apparent ramblings).

So what (in my humble opinion) makes a "human being"?

Love - To love one another regardless of our differences, to try to understand the differences that each of us have, to help each other throughout life, rather than trip each other up, But most fundamentally i think to truly love is to put others in front of ourselves.

Compassion - To put ones self/mind in another fellow humans situation, to "feel what they feel" out of love and empathy. To share their pain and to help to ease their burden. To be compassionate towards others that are in pain/suffering or in a worse situation than ourselves, this i think is part of what it means to be human.

Respect - To show respect to our fellow human beings is an important thing, Respect i feel is born out of love and compassion, and i think it is the ability to consider others thoughts and feelings to be equal to our own, regardless of whether or not we agree with them ;) Too little respect can be a bad thing, but as can too much. Too much respect unduly awarded could be considered to overly inflate our fellow human's ego. And there is truly nothing uglier than an overinflated ego. *note - Perhaps though i am wrong about this,as maybe too much respect is never a bad thing, and to judge the respect that you show to others as 'over-inflating' their ego, could maybe considered somewhat judgemental, and thus un-cool/non-triumphant. =P

Humbleness - We are all equals in this world. The world wants you to think that this is not so, it wants to tempt you with power (Money, over-Inflated ego, E.t.c) and then try and get you to use that power over your fellow human beings (to further only yourself). I say to you rather than see whatever good things life awards you with, as "power" or an asset to only yourself, instead see them as a "responsibility to others".
If the wholy ;) righteous dude that is Jesus is willing to wash the smelly feet of his follower dudes, and if you consider Jesus to be son of God, (and even if you don't =) then be cool to each other as we are all equals and no man/woman should be considered above another. Treat your fellow human beings with the respect they deserve, whether they be a street urchin or the king/queen of England.

Faithfulness / Trust / Truth - Whether in terms of God or man/woman, faith and trust in God/each other, is i think, an extremely important asset to have.
When in a relationship it is important to know that your other half is faithful to you, as otherwise seeds of doubt are easily planted in your mind. And seeds of doubt when given a mild sprinkling of paranoia, quickly bloom into little tiny seedlings of uncertainty, these seedlings of uncertainty if not plucked out, will grow up into fully grown flowers of despair, whose cruel pollen will then breed more flowers of despair, and give rise to a whole field of nasty little evil flowers. And that is totally not cool.
Sooooo....
What plants seeds of doubt? Lies for one. However seemingly small or trivial will always plant seeds of doubt.
Par Exampler...
Well he/she lied about that, so maybe their lying about where they were, or who they were with e.t.c. And so i cannot stress the importance of trying (*trying at first, if you are prone to a bit of fiberaci ;) to tell the truth, at all times, even when it does not benefit yourself. Otherwise you are perhaps unwittingly planting little seeds of doubt into your loved ones sub-conscious, and this will just not do, if you love them and want to stay with them, which im sure you do. =P. These weeds of doubt when enough have been planted will try to undermine any tree of trust that is growing in your proverbial gardens. =P. Be aware of this.

Hope / Resilience - Resilience is, i think, "Hopes" tougher more bad-*** big brother. It could be said, in my humble opinion, that in its rawest form, it is the will to live. Perhaps "resilience" is the protector of its little brother "hope" =P.
Resilience is the fighting spirit that keeps us going no matter how tough the going gets, no matter how dark it gets, no matter how painful, with true resilience, you will keep fighting until your last breath. Parasites though also have resilience, so what sets us aside from parasites?
When you combine love with resilience you get something very special. You get the ability to withstand great oppression, to stand against your enemies even when your legs are all gnarly and broken and you are outnumbered 100 to 1. Why? To do what is right. To defend those that cannot defend themselves.
Add younger brother "hope" to this mix, and you will know, that you will not lose, even though it seems the odds are stacked 1,000,000 to 1 against you. Not only that but you will face your enemies with a smile on your face, a middle finger extended in their general direction and a glint in your eye.
Looking death straight in the eye and saying "that all you got?", to protect the innocent, to love each other, and to try to do what is right and just.

Human beings though are far from perfect. We are easily tempted by things. We make mistakes and take paths in life that are not cool. We can be envious or jealous of others. Negative traits can start to consume us if we are not careful, which lead to bad feelings, and these can spread to affect others also. To prevent this from happening - perhaps as Jesus generally said, *disclaimer* might not be his exact words though (dont wanna get smited or anything man;). More than anything love one another, as it covers over a multitude of sins. And to be fair the dude is kinda talking sense. =P.

You only really get stronger by swimming up a stream, its far easier to give up and go downstream with the current, but if your a koi carp and you happen to make it to the top of the stream, then apparently you become a dragon, which is kinda awesome. Haha and so ends pointless mini-fish story.

The only person your really competing with in life, is yourself, so hey dudes/dudettes, less of the human rat-race and more of the human-chilledness please. ;)

- End.

ObiDan Kinobi

[wolfen69]

We're just apes who are highly successful at manipulating our environment. I doubt that we possess any more altruism than any other species. We will continue to consume resources at an ever-increasing rate until they are gone, then fight brutally amongst ourselves for what remains.

In short, civilization is only four meals away from anarchy.

I'm kind of leaning towards this view.

[Paulgirardin]

So what (in my humble opinion) makes a "human being"?



Brad Goodman: We have to change from Human beings, to human doing's, what's next?
Bart: A human going!

[Khakilang]

Human is smart and resourceful so it is unlikely we be will wipe off on the face of the earth. We look at news about natural disaster that kill so much of people. But we haven't look at how many people were born. Take for example like China that gone through centuries of war and natural disaster and yet there is more than 1 billion population in China not to mention Chinese around the world.

[WinterMadness]

I believe man has become far more moral than he used to be, I dont think youll ever see anymore genocidal maniacs like Hitler or Cromwell(at least not on that scale...). However, due to the fact that theres a lot of really nasty rivalries still going on, the more civilized cultures must leave earth, and allow the more primitive ones to evolve and mature. Were getting distracted by all the silly nonsense. We wouldnt get involved in some tribal war in the amazon, but we get involved in other things based on stone age conflicts...

[Thewhistlingwind]

well, my view could be handily summed up as Stockdales paradox.

On the one hand: I have great faith that we will eventually become what we idealize ourselves to be.

On the other: When you listen to something like The kingston trio's "The merry minuet" (A tune from 1958) and it feels like the lyrics could have been written yesterday, you realize that while it feels like were getting closer. Theres still a very long road ahead of us.

[YesWeCan]

Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

[mips]

The Man Comes Around by Johnny Cash would make good background music to this thread :biggrin:

[drawkcab]

We will continue to consume resources at an ever-increasing rate until they are gone, then fight brutally amongst ourselves for what remains.

In short, civilization is only four meals away from anarchy.

This is the correct assessment. The writing is on the wall for industrial civilization which appears poised for a slow catabolic collapse over the next two centuries.

Our population will continue to grow for the next 40 years despite the fact that we're crossing over into an era defined by peak oil, peak water and, hence, peak food. Meanwhile we're also at the point where climate change may become irreversible. Eventually, however, the bill is going to come due for the oil/pollution party that we've been throwing for the last 150 yrs.

The earth can maybe support 1-1.5 billion human beings sustainably. So much the worse for us given the fact that the future earth will be far less capable of supporting complex civilizations than the current earth.

In short, yes, human beings will continue to exist on a planet that looks nothing like the one human beings evolved on--a planet where the material basis for complex industrial societies capable of supporting high-density urban populations via surplus agriculture no longer exists.

Remember when Roman citizens naively believed their civilization was eternal? It's arguable that after the collapse of Rome, it took European civilization 1000 years to recover.

[forrestcupp]

Putting my religious beliefs to the side, I think if we keep to the current course, the earth will eventually get crowded out and mankind will kill themselves off. But it will be a very, very long time before we get to that point. Things have a way of balancing out, and it takes a lot of cycles before the balance finally gets tipped.

Of course, I don't really believe that's how things will end up going down, though.

[Paqman]

The earth can maybe support 1-1.5 billion human beings sustainably.

Hmm, depends what you call "sustainable". Many of the technologies pre-industrial civilisations used weren't sustainable, and we certainly haven't sussed it out yet. So what technologies are you basing this number on? I'd suggest that you've gone for this number because it's low enough that one could use past and current unsustainable systems with relatively manageable impact on the planet. That's not a good solution IMO.

It's entirely possible that future generations will develop technologies that will allow us to live sustainably with much greater numbers. Personally I think the ever-increasing pressure to do so will make that highly likely to happen.

The theoretical potential levels of renewable energy (for example) are enormous, it's just the technical and practical limits that restrict us. Those aren't hard limits, new technologies can and will change them.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Not really.

Mankind, unlike many of the other life that has existed on this planet, is capable of looking into their potential future and assess the possible results of their actions. Can mankind agree on what the future looks like? From what I have seen, no. Can mankind agree on what should be done to correct the results of their actions? From what I have seen, no.

I know people that are concerned about their future, and that of their children and grandchildren; however, that is only 3 generations. I don't know people that are personally concerned about 20 generations from now. I note that 20 generations is only about 500 years.

I really don't think mankind (those currently living) has as much control as it would like to think it has when the time-frame is expanded to thousands of years. So, no, I don't have faith that mankind will do OK.

That doesn't mean that we should give up and stop trying to prevent a disastrous outcome.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

The earth can maybe support 1-1.5 billion human beings sustainably.

Yes, 1.5 billion humans living as paleolithic hunter-gatherers with zero technology. With our technology, we're raised the carrying capacity well past the population growth curve. I suspect that even with current tech alone, we could easily support around 15 billion people, if we cared to optimise agriculture and distribute the produce fairly. In any case, all of the "worst-case" projections show the population levelling off long before we reach that.

To summarise my opinion, this thread is absolute nonsense. People have been predicting the end of mankind for as long as we have recorded history, and likely long before that even. We're here, we'll change the planet and the universe to suit us so we can stay here, and that's that. We'll boil the oceans for drinking water, optimise the biosphere to a single species of food and oxygen producing bacteria, colonise the solar system and put a giant sun shade in front of the Earth before we let ourselves go extinct. Survival is the most deeply ingrained instinct we have, deep down everyone is a radical humanist. I've absolutely zero fear for the future of mankind. I'm far more concerned for anything that gets in our way.

[wolfen69]

To summarise my opinion, this thread is absolute nonsense.

You hurt my feelings.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Deleted by original poster.

:lolflag:

[Gremlinzzz]

End of the World :popcorn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UhvN0k74w

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

End of the World :popcorn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UhvN0k74w

Bravo!

:lolflag:

I'm glad to see some humor in this thread. I don't like depressing and argumentative threads in the Community Cafe.

[sffvba[e0rt]

I'm glad to see some humor in this thread. I don't like depressing and argumentative threads.

http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/internet-serious-business-cat-thumb.jpg

We should be OK...


404

[IWantFroyo]

Mankind definitely won't survive forever. The question is, what will come after?

[nrundy]

I have my doubts. Without being political or religeous, I think someday we will be gone. Based on what I've seen, humans treat the planet as their own toilet and kill stuff.

dude, in all seriousness, we are doomed.

Look at the history of the earth. the vast majority of species have gone extinct. It's statistaclly improbable to expect humans to be any different. I think the most successful species ever was the dinosaurs. Morally it's disgusting because, like you said, humans treat the planet like its a toilet. making money and raising corporate stock price is more important to business people than clean air & water. But human extinction in the end may have nothing to do with human habitation; it may come from an asteroid hitting the planet or something. who knows? I don't see any hope to avoid extinction unless humans find a new planet to inhabit. but extinction is statistically a long long ways off.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Mankind definitely won't survive forever. The question is, what will come after?

Maybe Giant Isopods...

http://www.treehugger.com/giant-isopod-photo-02.jpg
link (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/cthulhu-pet-giant-isopod-photos-sea-monster-reddit-attached-underwater-robot.php)

Not that bad looking compared to some Engineers I have worked with.

:lolflag:

[YesWeCan]

Mankind definitely won't survive forever. The question is, what will come after?
The Dinosauroids will take over.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Mankind definitely won't survive forever. The question is, what will come after?

About the only thing I see killing us off is superior extraterrestrial intelligence or badly-programmed superhuman AI. In either case, we'd be replaced by something far better than us, so no big loss - to the universe, that is.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

About the only thing I see killing us off is superior extraterrestrial intelligence or badly-programmed superhuman AI. In either case, we'd be replaced by something far better than us, so no big loss - to the universe, that is.


You REALLY need to lay off the SciFi channel.
Who said that, because we go extinct, "something" has to come after us? Did anything come after the thousands of species that had already gone into extinction? And why would anything that came after us have to be smarter, or better in any way, than us? The fact that another species might replace us could be just due to that species being better adapted to different living conditions, which has nothing to do with how smart, or "good" that species may be. But then again, there's no law saying that when a species goes extinct, another one has to take its place.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

You REALLY need to lay off the SciFi channel.
Who said that, because we go extinct, "something" has to come after us? Did anything come after the thousands of species that had already gone into extinction? And why would anything that came after us have to be smarter, or better in any way, than us? The fact that another species might replace us could be just due to that species being better adapted to different living conditions, which has nothing to do with how smart, or "good" that species may be. But then again, there's no law saying that when a species goes extinct, another one has to take its place.

I'm not saying it's a law. I'm saying I assign a very high probability to whatever manages to make us extinct being far more intelligent we are, based on the fact that we've beaten every species we've met so far that has been less intelligent than us. And I've already explained why I think we won't go extinct from a natural process.

I know this statement isn't biologically correct, but, put simply, Humans Aren't Animals. You simply can't assume a species that went from discovering organised agriculture to discovering planets around other stars in less than 10000 years will follow the same pattern of evolution and extinction as species that aren't capable of abstract thought.

[thatguruguy]

A virus could do a pretty good job of wiping out a lot of us, without being in any way intelligent or self-aware.

A good-sized asteroid could turn this planet into a winter wonderland, which would destroy most if not all of mankind once the food chain breaks down.

All kinds of bad things could happen, without the intervention of aliens or evil robots.

[cgroza]

Luckily all these apocalyptic scenarios are more or less fairy tales, so I don't have to freak out just yet.

[Frogs Hair]

It's ourselves and natural disasters that are the greatest threat . We may be able resolve our conflicts , but there is not much we can do if a volcano like Yellowstone blows its top or there is a major impact from an object from space .

[JDShu]

In the long run we are all dead.


Oh, there's also a super volcano ready to blow over in Yellowstone :P

[thatguruguy]

Luckily all these apocalyptic scenarios are more or less fairy tales, so I don't have to freak out just yet.

Are you stating that a sizeable asteroid will never hit the planet again?

[Inodoro Pereyra]

I'm not saying it's a law. I'm saying I assign a very high probability to whatever manages to make us extinct being far more intelligent we are, based on the fact that we've beaten every species we've met so far that has been less intelligent than us.

On the contrary: some of the dumbest species on the planet have been here thousand of years before us, and are bound to remain here for thousands of years after we're gone. As per "whatever manages to make us extinct", like it's been said, a virus could wipe us out in a heartbeat. Other than that, if we ignore viruses and other "lesser life forms", I'd say the best candidate to make us extinct would be ourselves. Hardly a smart species.


I know this statement isn't biologically correct, but, put simply, Humans Aren't Animals. You simply can't assume a species that went from discovering organised agriculture to discovering planets around other stars in less than 10000 years will follow the same pattern of evolution and extinction as species that aren't capable of abstract thought.

I wouldn't say that statement isn't biologically correct. I'd think "utter nonsense" would be a lot more accurate.
Humans HAVE followed the same pattern of evolution (that is, a "random" pattern), as any other living being on Earth, and there's no real reason to think we won't follow the same patterns of extinction. Abstract thought may make you feel very smart, but there are circumstances that are just insurmountable, no matter how much you think about them.

[cgroza]

Are you stating that a sizeable asteroid will never hit the planet again?
No. I just say that our extinction is not imminent and it is way too soon to worry about it.
Sci-Fi ahead:
Who knows, by the time earth is destroyed or we are put in peril, we may have already colonized a few planets already.

I am sure if something will destroy us, it will be big enough for us to be unable to control it or do anything about it, so worry is pointless.

[HuaiDan]

We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should.

I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it’s a very poor scheme for survival.


The good Earth - we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.

~Kurt Vonnegut

In fact, I would just go ahead and post everything Kurt Vonnegut's ever said, but that would be time consuming beyond what time I have.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Deleted by original poster...

[Inodoro Pereyra]

No. I just say that our extinction is not imminent and it is way too soon to worry about it.

Of course it is. We have until next year...

[73ckn797]

We're just apes who are highly successful at manipulating our environment. I doubt that we possess any more altruism than any other species. We will continue to consume resources at an ever-increasing rate until they are gone, then fight brutally amongst ourselves for what remains.

In short, civilization is only four meals away from anarchy.
If man evolved from animals, no wonder we act like beasts. I understand we have a higher purpose as to our existence but I probably cannot speak to that in these forums.

[HuaiDan]

If man evolved from animals, no wonder we act like beasts. I understand we have a higher purpose as to our existence but I probably cannot speak to that in these forums.

We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on.

Kurt Vonnegut

[drawkcab]

The level of denial amongst intelligent individuals in this thread is enough to solidify my pessimism.

At the base of all civilizations one finds a paradigm that the civilization at large is unable to recognize let alone criticize, challenge or reconstruct. When the paradigm is no longer viable the civilization inevitably fails. This has happened over and over again in history.

The only difference now is that 1) industrial civilization is global and 2) that since it has risen to such great heights the eventual collapse will be all the more devastating.

To be clear, I'm not talking about a whirlwind collapse that some alarmists predict (though the longer we remain in denial the more likely that scenerio becomes) but a slow collapse over the next 150-200 years or so. If we do not learn how to conserve, employ renewable energies and curb climate change--if we do not radically shift the paradigm at the center of our civlization--the thermodynamic base of civilization (fossil fuels, especially oil) will slowly dwindle leading to increased mortality rates and decomplexification as resources in general become more scarce.

The truth is that we should have been retooling our civilization for the past 30 years because the longer we wait, the harder it is going to be to do so. Most of the other countries in the world have a head start on the U.S.

[earthpigg]

We can either reduce our population to one billion or so, spread our seed beyond this one rock (and quickly), or we can die.

Preferably, we do some combination of the first and second: 1-1.5 biological child per couple, on average, for 3-4 generations ought to take care of the first. The majority of humanity will not understand the necessity ("derp derp what does proportionate relationship mean? Oh, OK. I understand now. Well, I'll teach my children to plant trees and use solar panels and ride a bike, and thus he will be carbon neutral" <--- yes, people actually believe that.), so we we need to modify the various religions around the world so that having zero or one child is divine, two is a minor sin, and having three children makes you a horrible person.

Buddhism would probably be the easiest to make this modification to, but I'm sure we could get the other mainstream systems on board with the appropriate methods.

[Thewhistlingwind]

We can either reduce our population to one billion or so, spread our seed beyond this one rock (and quickly), or we can die.

[A lot of ideas easier said than done.]

So in the absence of a real Illuminati, we create one ourselves?

That's an..interesting..approach.

[drawkcab]

Hmm, depends what you call "sustainable". Many of the technologies pre-industrial civilisations used weren't sustainable, and we certainly haven't sussed it out yet. So what technologies are you basing this number on? I'd suggest that you've gone for this number because it's low enough that one could use past and current unsustainable systems with relatively manageable impact on the planet. That's not a good solution IMO.

First, I'm not offering a solution. Second, what I mean by sustainable is the carrying capacity of the land insofar as fossil fuels, petrochemicals and other forms of production that require fossil fuels are left out of the equation. This number appears in the literature--Lester Brown and Bill McKibben most recently but is as old as Catton's 1982 book.


It's entirely possible that future generations will develop technologies that will allow us to live sustainably with much greater numbers. Personally I think the ever-increasing pressure to do so will make that highly likely to happen.

The theoretical potential levels of renewable energy (for example) are enormous, it's just the technical and practical limits that restrict us. Those aren't hard limits, new technologies can and will change them.

The problem isn't new technologies. The fact is that many of the needed technologies exist and are adequate if we couple them with relatively intensive conservation. On the other hand all of these renewable technologies have an abysmal energy investment/return ratio in comparison to fossil fuels--hence the need for intensive conservation.

The real problem is two-fold: 1) we are in denial and lack awareness of the urgency of the problem so that 2) we lack the social and political willingness to make the sacrifices necessary to adjust and downscale accordingly. Hence the problem is not technical and practical so much as it is epistemological and political.

Citizens of developed nations are so alienated that it is impossible for them to even think about the relationship between their civilization and its thermodynamic and ecological bases. They uncritically suppose that economic reality is more fundamental than nature itself. Let's face it, they have to maintain this belief at all costs because otherwise they would have to face the logical conclusion, that the context in which their lives have meaning, however shallow, is itself meaningless. Hence denial.

This is why it is political suicide for politicians to run on a platform which implies undergoing economic hardship in order to realign civilization with its natural limits. No one wants to do anything about it because no one wants to believe its true in the first place. Folks want to believe what Bush Sr said, "The U.S. way of life is non-negotiable" even if the party we are now negotiating with is nature herself. The result is that all the developed nations of the world are playing a game of chicken as none of them wants to downscale their economies which would, in turn, allow another nation to continue to upscale its consumption of resources and gain an advantage.

I just want to suggest that the "new technologies" solution is an example of a civilization that is in denial and unable to reconstruct its fundamental paradigm. The reason industrial civilization is in trouble is because of the paradigmatic belief that the solution to every problem involves technologically enabling new forms of consumption. Hence it is both ironic and all too predictable that industrial civilization's proposed solution to technologically-enabled consumption itself is--you guessed it--even more technologically-enabled consumption. This paradigm allows us to ignore/conceal the problem and, if we're lucky, pass the buck to future generations.

Do not bequeath a shamble!

[earthpigg]

So in the absence of a real Illuminati, we create one ourselves?

That's an..interesting..approach.

I wish I had a better solution that was humane and potentially even non-violent.

Folks in countries with high HDI tend to reproduce less, and the higher that HDI the less reproduction tends to occur. In those First World areas that don't follow this pattern because of culture, the culture must be altered in a subtle and non-violent way.

In low HDI countries, more kids = more household income. Those folks must be convinced to act against their own rational self interest. There is approximately one tried and true method of accomplishing that that I am aware of - alter the belief system.

[Drenriza]

I have my doubts. Without being political or religeous, I think someday we will be gone. Based on what I've seen, humans treat the planet as their own toilet and kill stuff.

Will all survive? Probably not. Will all perish? Probably not.
It will rather be groups who will continue, if anything.

[Paqman]

The problem isn't new technologies. The fact is that many of the needed technologies exist and are adequate if we couple them with relatively intensive conservation.


Indeed we do, and some countries have made excellent progress in improving their situation. Denmark was able to actually reduce it's total energy use since the 80's, while GDP grew substantially and consumption went up. Simple measures like CHP for district heating and switching fuels make a big difference, and are doable now.



On the other hand all of these renewable technologies have an abysmal energy investment/return ratio in comparison to fossil fuels--hence the need for intensive conservation.


Er, no they don't. The worst renewable for energy payback is biofuels (around 5:1), followed by PV (9:1). Fossil fuels all suck for energy payback (eg: coal 5:1, gas 5:1). Nuclear is a bit better at 16:1, wind power much better at 80: and hydro trumps them all at over 200:1. I've not seen data on tidal or oil.

The problem with the new energy systems (excluding fusion) isn't about energy payback ratios, it's about costs, integration and technological maturity. With fusion it's totally about energy payback.

Energy conservation is a tough sell, people won't change their behaviour unless they feel it benefits them to do so. Reducing consumption through efficiency improvements also tends to be of fairly limited effectiveness, as you get a rebound effect where people use more energy because you've made it cheaper. I'm of the opinion that there are much larger gains to be made much more easily by improving the supply side than the demand side.

[Khakilang]

I believe the faith of mankind will be ok. Since we are highly motivated to reproduce.

[ice60]

if we can go galactic i think we'll be alright :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmXJyZoaz20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[PuddingKnife]

I think mankind will do ok in the long term. In the short term, peak oil will have some very interesting effects on population, methinks.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

The problem isn't new technologies. The fact is that many of the needed technologies exist and are adequate if we couple them with relatively intensive conservation. On the other hand all of these renewable technologies have an abysmal energy investment/return ratio in comparison to fossil fuels--hence the need for intensive conservation.


Indeed we do, and some countries have made excellent progress in improving their situation. Denmark was able to actually reduce it's total energy use since the 80's, while GDP grew substantially and consumption went up. Simple measures like CHP for district heating and switching fuels make a big difference, and are doable now.

I agree. The problem, as I see it, is in the implementation of those technologies. Having been, for a long time, deeply involved in sustainability , and, especially, in anything related with renewable fuels, I've been arguing for years that renewable fuels would be a lot more interesting, economically speaking, if people took the time to implement a SMART way to produce them.
Take, for example, the good ol' corn ethanol controversy. You can repeat, until you're blue on the face (I did), that ethanol can be obtained from other, much better feedstocks than corn. I can guarantee you nobody will listen. But, let's suppose the ONLY available feedstock in your area is corn. Today, ethanol producers just take the corn, grind it, ferment it, distill it, and sell the spent grain as animal feed. If you do the math, you will see the cost of producing ethanol that way is just too high (when I did the math, a couple of years ago, it came down to $3.73/gal).
Yet people choose to ignore that about 3% of the weight of corn is oil, and that oil can be extracted, either for human consumption, or for biodiesel production, and, either way, it would greatly lower the production costs for the fuel. Same with the spent grains: sure, you can use them as animal feed. But you can also produce biomethane from it.


Er, no they don't. The worst renewable for energy payback is biofuels (around 5:1), followed by PV (9:1). Fossil fuels all suck for energy payback (eg: coal 5:1, gas 5:1). Nuclear is a bit better at 16:1, wind power much better at 80: and hydro trumps them all at over 200:1. I've not seen data on tidal or oil.

The problem with the new energy systems (excluding fusion) isn't about energy payback ratios, it's about costs, integration and technological maturity. With fusion it's totally about energy payback.

Energy conservation is a tough sell, people won't change their behaviour unless they feel it benefits them to do so. Reducing consumption through efficiency improvements also tends to be of fairly limited effectiveness, as you get a rebound effect where people use more energy because you've made it cheaper. I'm of the opinion that there are much larger gains to be made much more easily by improving the supply side than the demand side.

I'm guessing by "energy payback" you mean EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested).
Here, the problems are several:

1. Those numbers are, as I said before, based mostly on horribly inefficient production methods, and, in the best of cases, on partial information. Take the case of nuclear power, for example: sure, it's cheap, and clean. But that's not considering the cost and difficulty of dealing with the nuclear waste. Now, as an Argentinian, and having seen my government repeatedly reject the US lobbying to establish a nuclear waste repository in my country for the last 3 decades (or maybe more, I don't know), I'm painfully aware of that problem. That will not show on any EROEI calculation.

2. You are comparing technologies that are in very different stages of development. While technologies like coal and hydroelectric have been around for a long time, and are highly evolved, biofuel production is still in its infancy, and even photovoltaics was a pipe dream, not long ago, and still is, to a point.

3. On how long a production period are those numbers based, and what scale? Energy sources like biofuels, for example, require a fairly low initial investment, while the cost of production itself is relatively high, while other technologies, like hydro, nuclear, and PV, can have huge initial investments, but, afterwards, production is virtually free.

But, I think, the most important problem is, precisely, that people consider EROEI to be the ONLY important factor when talking about energy, which is not. Besides what I said before about nuclear, take, for example, hydroelectric. Sure, energy production is very cheap, but the environmental impact of building a hydro dam is huge. Now, unfortunately, I also happen to have first hand knowledge of this problem. In the '80s, my country, together with Paraguay, started construction of the Yacyreta-Apipe complex (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Yacyret%C3%A1_Dam). From the moment they started excavations for the dam (using, of course, plenty of explosives), the environmental impact became immediately visible, from flash floods in pretty much every city downstream of the dam, to dozens of animal species just being wiped out of the face of the planet. Those are things that won't show on any EROEI assessment, but they do exist.

Same with the consumption problem. It's not true you can't solve that problem attacking the demand end.
The US is notorious for its population wasting enormous amounts of energy, and that's due to a very simple factor: energy here is ridiculously cheap, and, in some cases, the price differences between different energy sources are disproportionate.
You want people to use less electricity? Here in Miami, right after Wilma hit, in 2005, Florida Power and Light got authorization to raise their prices 18%. Immediately, people started consuming less electricity. So, don't raise tyhe price 18%: triple it!. Let's see if consumption goes down or not. Same with gasoline.

Finally, another completely different problem is, as it's been said before, population. Sure, changing people's beliefs is very nice, and all, but, in the best of cases, it takes an awfully long time, and its effects are partial at best. A system that has been proven to work much faster, and to be far more effective, is the Chinese model: economics.
Governments need to stop subsidizing reproduction, and start discouraging it, especially the US. I'm personally sick of seeing fully able, young, single women, having 6, 7, 10 children, just so they can live off the government. I understand single mothers deserve help, but there's a difference between a woman who made a mistake and had a child, and one who keeps giving birth as an investment. Same with families: instead of increasing the payoff the more children they have, pay benefits only for the first child. You will see, as it already happened in China, an immediate drop on birth numbers.

[Paqman]

1. Those numbers are, as I said before, based mostly on horribly inefficient production methods, and, in the best of cases, on partial information. Take the case of nuclear power, for example: sure, it's cheap, and clean. But that's not considering the cost and difficulty of dealing with the nuclear waste. Now, as an Argentinian, and having seen my government repeatedly reject the US lobbying to establish a nuclear waste repository in my country for the last 3 decades (or maybe more, I don't know), I'm painfully aware of that problem. That will not show on any EROEI calculation.

Totally, external costs tend to get completely glossed over in any assessment. If you factor in the external costs coal is actually the most expensive type of energy to produce, not the cheapest. The trouble is that the emitter isn't traditionally made to pay those costs, and it's left to others to pick up the pieces. Governments have been starting to redress that with carbon levies, but IMO they should be much harsher and there should be NOX, SO2, dioxin, particulate and nuclear waste levies too.



3. On how long a production period are those numbers based, and what scale? Energy sources like biofuels, for example, require a fairly low initial investment, while the cost of production itself is relatively high, while other technologies, like hydro, nuclear, and PV, can have huge initial investments, but, afterwards, production is virtually free.

Indeed, and therein lies the problem for a lot of renewables. Standard financial assessments using discounting favour projects with low capital costs, even if they have high running costs for fuel. That means established fossil fuel technologies with cheap plant and a fuel price that goes up and up look like a better investment than new renewables with relatively high capital costs even if they're dirt cheap to run. Likewise decommissioning and waste management costs for nuclear look very affordable if you punt them 100 years into the future and discount at 10% per annum!


It's not true you can't solve that problem attacking the demand end.
The US is notorious for its population wasting enormous amounts of energy, and that's due to a very simple factor: energy here is ridiculously cheap, and, in some cases, the price differences between different energy sources are disproportionate.
You want people to use less electricity? Here in Miami, right after Wilma hit, in 2005, Florida Power and Light got authorization to raise their prices 18%. Immediately, people started consuming less electricity. So, don't raise tyhe price 18%: triple it!. Let's see if consumption goes down or not. Same with gasoline.

I agree. I don't think that you can't make any changes on the demand side, I just think there's a limit to how much you can expect people to change their behaviour. Like you say, money is about the only thing that's sure to motivate the masses.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

I agree. There's also a limit to how much you can push people, before you have a big problem on your hands.
But steering people towards better alternatives is surprisingly easy.
For example: in my country, gas is, and has always been expensive. However, Diesel fuel, has traditionally been between 25 and 30% the cost of gas. That automatically means all big rigs will have Diesel engines.
But then, in the '80s, the government announced they were gonna establish a network of compressed natural gas (GNC, per its initials in Spanish) stations. That is NOT propane power, but mostly methane, compressed to 200 bar (about 2900 psi). Being that most of the population is of Spanish or Italian origin (therefore, you could accurately say it's a country full of race car driver wannabes ;)), everybody said GNC would not be accepted, as it produced an approx. 30% loss of power on the engines.
But, guess what? Once the technology was implemented, people realized filling up your tank with GNC was about $2.50, and gave you about 150 miles city on a medium size car (a "compact", for US standards), while getting the same autonomy on gas was about $30. Now, most cars in my country are GNC powered.

That same principle has worked pretty much around the World. There's no reason to think it wouldn't work here...

[fixerdave]

Humanity, in some form, will survive for quite some time. The current human societies won't. They will change, many will disappear, and new ones will take their place. That said, well, it doesn't say much ;)

How about this: We are now on the cusp of changing from biological evolution to synthetic (directed) evolution. We are also rapidly (in biological terms) heading towards what has been called "the singularity." This is where computers get smarter than humans and start designing their own successors. Getting dumb humans out of the computer design loop will greatly speed up computer evolution.

In short, we will speciate. Biological humans will continue, though more as interesting and pampered samples than anything useful. Our descendants, the computers, will evolve into what mere humans of today would consider gods. These gods will populate the universe. So, yeah, in the end there will be a universe of gods that were created by evolved monkeys.

As for the immediate term, I'll make that another post :) 'gotta get that count up so I can get me one of those avatars :)

[fixerdave]

Short-term, there are competing threads hanging over humanity.

Pro's:

* The Baby Boomers went to sleep wondering if a global thermonuclear war would wipe out humanity overnight. Their children go to sleep wondering if global warming will raise sea levels in 100 years. I call that progress.

* In the developed world, pollution is significantly down, and dropping. It stands to reason that wealth allows people to consider the environment and, as the world is actually getting wealthier (or at least more and more of the desperately poor are less so), the Earth's environment will improve, at least for us.

* Human population is projected to peak at about 9 billion now, significantly down from the old 12 billion estimate. Why? Cities. As humans congregate in cities, we have less children and we are, oddly enough, less environmentally destructive. Who would have thought cities would help save the environment? They do.

Cons:

* We are on a technological curve where the number of humans that any given single human (or small group) can kill is increasing. When you're running around with a sword or club, there's only so much damage you can do. More so with an assault rifle, more so with chemical or biological weapons. The end of this curve is where any individual human has the power to kill everyone. I'm not hopeful that we will reach a utopian paradise where everyone is content before we reach the point where some maladjusted individual wipes us all out.

* and, lastly, we have the computers. Will they save us, wipe us out, or just ignore us? I suspect it will be mostly "ignore." Why would they bother with Earth? Once a sufficiently advanced AI evolves, why would it stay on Earth rather than launching itself into space. Space has everything: free energy, raw materials. To that AI, the Earth is just a corrosive little cesspool at the bottom of a gravity well, with a particularly nasty bio-film on its surface.

As the dominant species to fill the "intelligence" niche, humans will be on earth for a long, long time. If our descendant computers help us deal with our self-made problems, then it will be rather park-like. Left to our own devices, it might get quite nasty, or maybe not. Too many variables to really know for sure.

[e79]

I'm kind of leaning towards this view.

So am I...we are self-destructive and irrational animals and basically the 'cancer of the earth'. 99.9999 % of us doesn't deserve to live anyway...including myself of course...most probably...

Pessimistic I am... but one just has to open his eye and look around....

[BeRoot ReBoot]

So am I...we are self-destructive and irrational animals and basically the 'cancer of the earth'. 99.9999 % of us doesn't deserve to live anyway...including myself of course...most probably...

Pessimistic I am... but one just has to open his eye and look around....

If you truly believe you don't deserve to live, why are you still alive? My point stands, at some level, every human is a radical humanist. No matter how much your belief system claims we "deserve to live" or not, in the end we'll do whatever it takes to survive, and if we can't, we're dragging the rest of the world with us.

[e79]

If you truly believe you don't deserve to live, why are you still alive?

Because I haven't found the guts to terminate meself ? Which proves your statement :


No matter how much your belief system claims we "deserve to live" or not, in the end we'll do whatever it takes to survive, and if we can't, we're dragging the rest of the world with us.

That's why the slope is inevitable.....

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Yes, but that's a good thing. That's why we've survived so far. Evolution selects for individuals that want to live and procreate. In the end, intelligence is the only notable product of nature, and it should be preserved above all others, and, if necessary, at the expense of all the others.

[Pujims]

Mankind or at least the remnants of it will survive for a bit. I believe science (not on purpose) will kill most of us before too long. There is way too much "can we do this" and not enough "should we do this".

The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates

[haqking]

Mankind or at least the remnants of it will survive for a bit. I believe science (not on purpose) will kill most of us before too long. There is way too much "can we do this" and not enough "should we do this".

The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates

I drank what ?

The immortal words of socrates ;-)

[BeRoot ReBoot]

Mankind or at least the remnants of it will survive for a bit. I believe science (not on purpose) will kill most of us before too long. There is way too much "can we do this" and not enough "should we do this".

"Can we do this" sounds more like engineering to me. Then again, that's the way forward. The only people I see screaming "We shouldn't do this!" is uneducated people, frightened into submission by authority figures and resisting progress out of principles that aren't even their own.

By the way, I can't name a single scientific discovery that proved detrimental to humanity as a whole. Can you? Science has always benefited mankind, and I don't see that stopping. And in case something goes wrong in a lab somewhere, you can always fix it with more science. Less progress is never the answer.

[lightwarrior]

I don't know about mankind... but I think for sure that the end of our world (as we know it) happens when one dies.

[KiwiNZ]

By the way, I can't name a single scientific discovery that proved detrimental to humanity as a whole. Can you? Science has always benefited mankind, and I don't see that stopping. And in case something goes wrong in a lab somewhere, you can always fix it with more science. Less progress is never the answer.

The A Bomb
Nerve Gas
Reality TV

[Inodoro Pereyra]

The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates

Sorry, you got the wrong quote. Socrates is attributed (by Crito) to have said "all I know is that I know nothing", and that was regarding to justice, not knowledge in general.
The full phrase is: "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing, for when I don't know what justice is, I'll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy. "




By the way, I can't name a single scientific discovery that proved detrimental to humanity as a whole. Can you? Science has always benefited mankind, and I don't see that stopping. And in case something goes wrong in a lab somewhere, you can always fix it with more science. Less progress is never the answer.

The A Bomb
Nerve Gas
Reality TV

Not to mention:

Drugs.
Biological warfare.
Any and all torture devices.

And, I'm sure, many, many others.

To imply that any scientific discovery is inherently good is as ignorant and irresponsible as to say science is the source of all evil. Science is a tool, and, like any other tool, is up to the user to decide what to use it for.

[realzippy]

And in case something goes wrong in a lab somewhere, you can always fix it with more science.
Eg Fukushima,Tshernobyl...

[BeRoot ReBoot]

The A Bomb
Nerve Gas
Reality TV

Nuclear weapons ended the second world war and prevented the cold war from starting a conflict even more devastating. I don't see what "nerve gas" and "reality TV" have to do with science, these are clearly feats of engineering, not scientific advancements by themselves.

I'm not claiming every piece of technology ever invented was 100% good. What I said that science, progressing as a whole, has benefited humanity, as a whole. And you can't put limits on science. If we listened to people who scream "you shouldn't be doing this!", we'd still be living on trees.


Eg Fukushima,Tshernobyl...

Both preventable if up-to-date reactor designs were used and proper security procedures were followed. Furthermore, the only hope of cleaning the exclusion zones around them is by inventing something that soaks up radiation, not by shrieking away from progress.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Nuclear weapons ended the second world war and prevented the cold war from starting a conflict even more devastating.

And that's what happens when you mix politics with science.
WW2 would've ended anyway, with or without the A bomb. At the time of the bombs' releases, Japan just couldn't afford to keep fighting. Actually, there's plenty of documentation that suggests admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who was killed almost 2 years earlier by American fighters, was actually trying to find a way to negotiate an armistice, at the time of his death.
Finally, Nuclear weapons actually CREATED the cold war. What prevented the cold war from escalating is what ultimately brought down the communist block: simple economics.


I don't see what "nerve gas" and "reality TV" have to do with science, these are clearly feats of engineering, not scientific advancements by themselves.

Nerve gas was discovered in Germany by Dr. Gerhard Schrader, a CHEMIST, ergo, a SCIENTIST, not an engineer.


I'm not claiming every piece of technology ever invented was 100% good.

Yes, you are. You actually CHALLENGED another member to "name a single scientific discovery that proved detrimental to humanity as a whole", as per your own words.

[Pujims]

First of all I am not against science or the advancement of it. That being said, I also do not look down or think less of folks who do not share my views or opinions. Many inventions and discoveries have their share of pros and cons (nuclear science has some good examples, as does the invention of gunpowder). The problems lie in if said invention/discovery should be used this way or that. The question was about faith or hope for mankind, and yes I feel a small amount will endure, but feel most will have perished long before the earth has an end.

[cecilpierce]

It might reverse if we would turn it over to womankind ):P

[Dyzphagia]

If you mean accidents like the recent nuclear meltdown or Cherynobl, then I have faith. We will keep learning from mistakes and persist safely. If you mean in society and modern times of culture? Yes. There's still too much racism, bigotry, hatred to go around, but with every small act of kindess, you create another act of kindess which extends to another act and so on. Though that just might be me wishing for too much. I tend to watch this video or listen to the song whenever I start to feel as if my hope/faith starts to crumble. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DPR0Si24Q