I feel like our management and coordination needs to improve by an order of magnitude to survive. As it is, we may nuke ourselves out of a planet before the decade is out.
Ironically these adaptions to the great loop, a endless cycle of strife will be pretty universal. The physics of the situation, produce pretty reliable the same outcome on every planet.
Im rather convinced that only radical self-altering and supressing of these "urges" will produce a stable society. We might not recognize those who will outlive us, as humans. More like pill-peacefull borgdrones, not even phased when whole citys disappear into the abyss of time.
Also in defense of our current management. Once they grasped the situation, they shoved incredible amounts of resources into "scenario-tree-root" hardening, aka giving the survivors resilient technology, knowledge reservoirs and the ability to restructure society into something that prevents totalitarian abuses (self-surveilance, unsecure software). Within the constraints given, they (whoever they are) moved decisevly and with very good parallel execution of the various plans.
While politics might have failed, those who prepared the world for the worst, did the best they could - though without great fanfare. Lets also not forget, that they prevented further technological acceleration into fields that might proof catastrophic in a collapse scenario.
We could all have a flying fusion bomb in the garage or nano-tech-drone factories in our attics when worse comes to worst. The move to solar alone, away from warlords having nulcear toys might save billions in the worst cases.
> Once they grasped the situation, they shoved incredible amounts of resources into "scenario-tree-root" hardening
The paper explains that, by adopting a systems analysis, it is possible to see how “the crossing of one planetary boundary systematically results in the crossing of others”. They are crucial to providing a ‘safe operating space’ for human societies to develop within a stable earth system, “with the passing of these boundaries subsequently, and most likely resulting in societal destabilisation and potential GCR events”.
Global Catastrophic Risk (GCR) events are defined as those leading to more than 10 million fatalities or greater than $10 trillion in damages."
We should stop being in denial about this and think about adaptation strategies and, of course, force the industry to change.
It seems like the Fermi paradox has a reason, after all.
> While land system change and climate change are in a zone of “uncertainty with increasing risk” of overstepping the safe operating space, the report says, biochemical flows and ‘novel entities’ (“new engineered chemicals, materials or organisms and natural elements mobilised by human activity such as heavy metals”) have “far exceeded” that space.
