Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The End Is Near?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    no
    No, you do not understand? Or, no, you did not mean to say that your science fiction writing illustrates a too idealistic view of the coming new age or new world?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #47
      I would like to introduce one of the modern methods that goes into the development of predictive models such as these. It is fractal chaos math. It is currently very successful in contemporary predictive weather models. It is also used in climate prediction models, and the models such as the subject of this thread. Of course, one of the problems with models using fractal chaos math is that the more you extend the model into the future the more possible outcomes there can be. The way researchers improve their modeling is to repeat the computer modeling many times and vary the models to compare results.

      In nature, chaos is good, the more variables and diversity in natural environments there are the healthier the environment or ecosystem is. If you reduce the number of variables and diversity in a ecosystem there is the more fragile the ecosystem and subject to collapse or catastrophic failure. In geologic history the classic catastrophic events that literally almost wiped the slate clean, such as the Permian extinction event where the diversity of life and the ecosystem was almost flat lined resulting in an earth that was mostly either glacial or desert. It took millions of years for the climatic and ecosystems to return. This is an extreme example, but a real one that demonstrates what could happen if the diversity and variables are reduced to the point that an ecosystem could catastrophically collapse. Our current decline in the diversity of species of life on earth approaches that of previous catastrophic events. In the math models as the number of variables decreases the model to approach a linear model, which for an ecosystem is potentially disastrous. In environments such as deserts, and glacial arctic environments the diversity of life and environmental factors is greatly diminished. For example: At present the amount of arid regions of the world is increasing creating a more fragile ecosystem. This is only one of the many factors in the different predictive models of our future. There are other factors of our human and natural ecosystems where the number of variables is decreasing creating a fragile system subject to a potential collapse. Other examples fragile ecosystems that may contribute to a collapse are: (1) The extensive clearing of rainforests for agriculture. (2) The wide spread pollution of ground and surface waters. (3) The over fishing of oceans. (4) The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. (5) The heavy emphasis on monoculture in agriculture. (6) The overuse of pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics in agriculture.

      The example I gave before of the progressive aridification of agriculture regions of the world bordering deserts is a very important factor in these models. It depicts two ecosystems with limited diversity covering a significant larger area of the earth then in the past. You have increasing deserts bordering monoculture relying on heavy technology to maintain an increasing yields to feed a world on diminishing acreage of total agricultural land,
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2014, 08:34 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        No, you do not understand? Or, no, you did not mean to say that your science fiction writing illustrates a too idealistic view of the coming new age or new world?
        My science fiction writing, nor does the Baha'i view propose an overtly idealistic new age nor new world. In both, the world does change to a very human new age, where the fallible nature of humanity remains, but many old archaic views of the ancient religions of the old world no longer dominate humanity.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          My science fiction writing, nor does the Baha'i view propose an overtly idealistic new age nor new world. In both, the world does change to a very human new age, where the fallible nature of humanity remains, but many old archaic views of the ancient religions of the old world no longer dominate humanity.
          Thanks. What I am still trying to understand, then, is what you meant above by 'too idealistic' in response to my question:

          robrecht: Does your science fiction writing illustrate your view of the coming new age or new world?

          shunyadragon: In some ways yes, but a too idealistic view.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Thanks. What I am still trying to understand, then, is what you meant above by 'too idealistic' in response to my question:

            robrecht: Does your science fiction writing illustrate your view of the coming new age or new world?

            shunyadragon: In some ways yes, but a too idealistic view.
            My writing only explores the possible alternatives of what the future may be. I do not put a great deal of emphasis on my writing or other scifi writings other then the enjoyment of reading and writing 'fiction.' I am personally and religiously optimistic as to the future of humanity, but not idealistic as to an idealic 'Garden of Eden' future in any form.

            I put more emphasis on the science issues as in my previous post in terms of How these models are developed concerning the possibility of a catastrophic collapse of our civilization, which based on the evidence is possible.

            I do not consider my view that humanity will 'survive' in a new age after a catastrophic collapse as 'idealistic.'
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2014, 08:39 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              My writing only explores the possible alternatives of what the future may be. I do not put a great deal of emphasis on my writing or other scifi writings other then the enjoyment of reading and writing 'fiction.' I am personally and religiously optimistic as to the future of humanity, but not idealistic as to an idealic 'Garden of Eden' future in any form.

              I put more emphasis on the science issues as in my previous post in terms of How these models are developed concerning the possibility of a catastrophic collapse of our civilization, which based on the evidence is possible.
              So when you say that your science fiction writing is 'too idealistic', how is it different from Star Trek being 'too idealistic'? Is it perhaps a matter of degree, ie, your science fiction is 'a little too idealistic', whereas Star Trek is 'way too idealistic'?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I don't understand this line of logic. Actually being 'realistic' in terms of modern scifi and fantasy writers has nothing to do with 'neither of us would have had ancestors living long enough to generate the progeny necessary for us to now be having this discussion.'

                The role of scifi in terms of whether there will be a future catastrophe that devastates our civilization is little more then a sideshow as to whether there will be future united world beyond the catastrophe, or maybe the human world will end. This represents scifi conjecture and little else.

                The best discussion is 'What is basis fo studies like this to conclude that there possibly will be such collapse of our civilization, or possible a global catastrophe that would cripple our technological world?

                Simple - the 'dark world, gritty as heck' supposed 'realism' isn't actually realistic. Writers in a variety of media tend to over emphasize violence/apathy/cruelty to the point that it distorts rather than portraying reality. Were the world really that nasty, humanity would long ago have done itself in.

                There's plenty wrong with the world and humans in particular - but there's also a good bit of good in the world (from the Christian POV this is a result of God's continuing action in creation and in my opinion is the best argument against deism). Humans are capable of charity, compassion, mercy and love - if we weren't or if we never did those things there's no way society could have survived - or developed for that matter.

                I actually agree with you partially about Star Trek - Roddenbery's 'they cured poverty and moved on' thesis leaves a LOT to be desired and frankly is contradicted every time a plot involves Federation intrigue/internal conflict. But if I can put up with transporters, I can put up with insane economic theory.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  So when you say that your science fiction writing is 'too idealistic', how is it different from Star Trek being 'too idealistic'? Is it perhaps a matter of degree, ie, your science fiction is 'a little too idealistic', whereas Star Trek is 'way too idealistic'?
                  I never intended to say my scifi writing was idealistic. If I left that impression it is a 'failure to communicate.'
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2014, 01:25 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I'm just trying to make sure I understand correctly what you yourself said:

                    shunyadragon: I love science fiction, but I never have been a fan of Star Trek. Far too simplistic, idealistic and two dimensional.

                    robrecht: Does your science fiction writing illustrate your view of the coming new age or new world?

                    shunyadragon: In some ways yes, but a too idealistic view.

                    robrecht: So that particular critique of yours of Star Trek, ie, that it is too idealistic, also seems to apply to your own science fiction writing, yes?

                    Capisci?
                    I see the error and it is mine, 'In some ways yes, but a too idealistic view.' This response is in error. Sorry for the confusion.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I see the error and it is mine, 'In some ways yes, but a too idealistic view.' This response is in error. Sorry for the confusion.
                      Maybe there is hope for humanity yet.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Maybe there is hope for humanity yet.
                        I am always an optimist to the end that there is hope for humanity, but yes, there are signs of a very trying time ahead. I will review some more of the basis for these studies in later posts.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I am always an optimist to the end that there is hope for humanity, but yes, there are signs of a very trying time ahead. I will review some more of the basis for these studies in later posts.
                          I just meant that there is hope because you admitted your error.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X