Paradigm Shifts in History - Page 5

On July 31 2013 23:27 GreenGringo wrote:
Peak oil won't be a paradigm shift. There's already electric cars that are just as good as petroleum-powered alternative. Virtually all our energy comes from the Sun and it's a pretty natural course of events that we'll have to start using it.

Global warming may well result in a major paradigm shift, as we might have to adjust the way we live our lives, and whole parts of the world might become unliveable.

On August 01 2013 00:22 Oshuy wrote:
Peak oil / Global warming are two elements of the same event: humain society resource needs outgrow what our home planet currently offers. We have the same problems regarding water, rare earth, farmable land, ... the limiting factor in our development is no longer the technology to achieve a goal, but the material impossibility to do everything our technology could offer.

On July 31 2013 02:57 Dryzt wrote:


according to Tesla, he could achieve this, but the oil bankers wanted nothing of it once they caught wind of the full scope and it was fully suppressed, we may never know as those in power now are the same families from then still living off the profits of oil and banking. free energy removes the need for both.

On July 31 2013 06:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Meant solar system wise but even so such efforts would surely deliver dividends not only economically but in leaps and bounds in computer, engineering, software and even the material sciences. As for war seems a bit of a stretch as when governments, or even a world government, claims something they make sure they receive incentives and will easily place muscle to make sure it is delivered just look at colonization and conquest throughout history.

On August 01 2013 01:05 GreenGringo wrote:
Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries.

On August 01 2013 01:05 GreenGringo wrote:
Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries.

On August 01 2013 00:58 never_Nal wrote:
You guys are really pessimistic about this, it's funny how movies give the strangest ideas to people, and even make a wrong conception about effort and time, Movies= Terrible things always happen in the future, and little effort=great rewards.

It's all wrong, I don't think we will have a nuclear war, powerful countries know this is stupidity, what's the point in a nuke war?, after you get nuked you won't be a "strong" country for years. To me a nuke war is just self destruct for the world, so it's highly unlikely anyone will allow this.

What's the point of finding a new "world"? We can't even take care of ours as it is we would just destroy another planet...Honestly, isn't it better to find new/creative solutions for the place we already live in?

I'm not saying it's all bad, of course we want scientific breakthroughs and all that cool stuff, but really, why not focus on our current status and home. I don't think we will have some sort of "oblivion(movie)" world or some post-apocalyptic setting. I think humanity will have some hard years until we start to really focus on the problems at hand

On August 01 2013 03:22 DDie wrote:



That has nothing to do with movies, never in the human history there was a period of absolute peace, the last ''terrible'' thing wasn't WW2, we had vietnan, korea, iraq (1 & 2), we have the pakistani-india border, and i'm not even going to mention palestine-Israel.


''War'' is in the nature of man, and any of the conflits that we currently have today can escalate out of control in an instant. Most the shifts people said in this thread are several decades away, it's just logical to assume that before that we will have another armed conflict.


To be honest, i dont even consider space exploration a thing because that would require the entire world's mutual cooperation and that's never going to happen (if anything, history again teaches us that people only trully unite in the face of extinction, so an event of that sorts would have to happen before)

On August 01 2013 03:26 packrat386 wrote:

Space exploration and colonization doesn't require the cooperation of everyone. For example, if the US were to say that they would recognize any land claims made on the moon based on use and occupation (you have to be there using it to get the land) then there would be a large incentive for private companies to go up there and begin minign, colonizing, etc. Yes if your idea of space exploration involves the peoples of the world holding hands on the ISS then its going to take a while, but all it takes to get people into space is to declare it open for business.

On August 01 2013 03:36 DDie wrote:



Then China would do the same, then Russia, India and every other Nation, it would basically be the new Age of Discovery, a race, and that leads to what? War, that's why the world cooperation is needed.


In any case, even with private funding that's several decades away, and moon exploration is not even scratching the surface.

On August 01 2013 03:40 packrat386 wrote:

Private funding isn't the issue, the problem is that the Outer Space Treaty is usually interpreted to make the holding of any property on celestial bodies to be illegal. Also there is no need for it to lead to war as long as countries recognize other companies claims to land. You should note, the proposal is not for the US to claim land on the moon, but to say that it will recognize the claims of private entities that do, regardless of where they are from. There are several authors that support this idea, and if you want I can PM you some of their works.