Are We On A Point Of No Return?
 

Everything is possible in theory, so even if we keep going this way for a few more decades we can still say we can go backwards on all the harm we've made to the environment. But it's easier said than done.

Taking in count our government's opinions, the current situation and demand of resources, global population,... is it viable (not possible) a way back? Or are we on a point of no return?

Depends. I'd say there could be a return from most things (even up to reintroducing extinct species from DNA), but the further we go, the harder the way back becomes.

I don't believe that the way our civilization is will last forever. It can't. The resources will run out and it doesn't take much to cripple the economy and the commercial flow of our civilization. Look at the volcano in Iceland. It erupted and guess what, it stopped air traffic for over two weeks. Sometimes there are blizzards here in the US that stop everything. Hurricanes do too. It happens all the time there is a natural disaster, even small ones. We are soooo dependent on an overspecialized and overcentralized economy that it will not take much to destroy it all. Are we at the point of no return? Its a very good question. I don't know if there is an answer to it. We live in a veneer world. It is so thin and can break so easily. The problem will be that it won't just bring down one country or a few others. No, due to the interconnected global economy, etc that we have, it will take down everyone and that won't be pretty.

Our current way of life is almost certainly at a point of no return. Either through our own actions, or those of nature, things are going to be much different in the not-too-distant future. Either we will finally realize we have to radically change how we are living, or some natural disaster, or several of them, will do it for us. Of course, the natural disasters may come no matter what, I don't think humans will ever be powerful enough to deal with massive earthquakes, volcanic events, or objects from space, etc.

Exactly right.

Yes - we certainly are beyond return. We have already contributed to the extinction of so many species that it cannot be undone. Species we did not even know existed. I am careful with the word "return" though as there has never ever been a case where nature or the way things went returned anywhere. It is always a development, but not necessarily always a positive one. In our times, the developments sees a mass extinction. Will nature survive it? I think yes, just like in the other MEEs, but what comes out of it may not be the world we know just like the dinos would not recognize our world as it has formed after their personal MEE 65 Mio years ago. Humans are incapable of reversing such damage as we do not even have the data to define the state we would have to reverse to. Maybe we can re-introduce "saved species" again, but still this would be a different world.
The key point is, what will happen to humans. Will humans build arcologies with skyscraper farms to keep them alive? Will we see what is happening and hit the brakes, change their ways? Or will we crash headon into something? And in the latter case what will the result be? I reckon, we may not run into an ecological catastrophe right away, but into an economical. The economy of the world (or more the economic system) is pretty unstable and susceptible to minute changes. Resource depletion, decrease in food production or simply random economic failures may cause disruptions. If the economy collapses, many things will happen and most are not good. One of them may be, that infrastructure suffers, logistic fails and another one may actually be ecological damage. Food could become scarce and the level of technology could drop. Maybe China will win in the situation, but they also depend on Exports. The only way nature could contribute to what happens next is by regular natural disasters just with the difference, that humans may not have the money or means to stand up against this. Resource depletion would also definitely lead to food scarcity, as our food production depends on cheap energy in many ways (machines, fertilizer production, pesticide production, processing, transport) and on scarce resources on the other hand (phosphorous, a main component of fertilizer is cheap only because it is actually mined for, soil itself is a commodity that is often lost with current farming technologies).

Well - here I go again doomsdaying ;) . But maybe the warning signs will be evident enough for people to see. Germany wants to built a Million electric cars in just a few years and probably subsidize this. Some oil companies want to build solar energy plants in northern Africa - I am not sure if they will get it soon enough, the speed we are going with is immense and the sight especially of politicians and CEOs is short (like 4 years to the next election or the next quarterly meeting of stockholders).

Re: Are we on a point of no return?
 

Nature is going to wtfpwn us

Two years ago it was said that we have 500 months until we pass the point of no return for the environment, that's 39 years from now.

Where did that number come from and what is meant in that case by point of no return? Total ecosystem collapse leading to a barren earth? Because when it comes to returning to how it was 10 or 20 years ago, we are contiously resching points of no return all the time. When it comes to total ecosystem destruction, I am not sure if we would manage to do that, but I hold it possible, if technology advances and we use it to push the limits even farther.

Im scouring the internet for where I saw it. I recall it was a GreenPeace stunt where they placed a banner on a building that said something like "500 months until it's too late". I'll let you know when I find it.

Greenpeace == instant discredit. They're just terrorists and opposed to just about every technological development (ironically, including ones that benefit the environment, such as nuclear replacing coal, oil and gas power).

Guess there's quite some bias and assumption when it comes to GreenPeace but 41 years isnt entirely a bad estimate. Sure it may be exaggerated by a decade or so but I saw a couple documentarys where they say in 50 years time Greenland's fresh water ice will have melted into the salt water Gulf Stream causing it too stop function and throwing Europe into an Ice Age.

I'm not giving up hope. We can either sit on our asses and fail or try to do something. We may fail, but we might not. As long as there is hope I'm not giving in.

Greenpeace is still one of the "better" large organizations when it comes to protection of the environment. Compared to lets say WWF, who already tend to bend their opinions to the money of "supporters" and accept building pipelines in the Amazon!

And I agree with them that nuclear power is about the stupidest thing one can do to replace coal and gas. It is an unsafe technology and no one knows yet where to put the waste. Also it is immensely expensive, just the costs do not show up because of subsidiaries (sp?) and mostly because the costs are in the disposal of waste, which is not happening (and not costing anything) yet. There is no reason why not invest the effort and money into solar power instead. It is a proven and safe technology, the power can be stored in various ways (pumping water or air in lake reservoirs or depleted gas reservoirs below ground).

I still wonder what the 500 months mean - I mean what do they say will happen at this point? It is quite a long way until then. 40 years - much can happen until then, so in PR terms this is a backlash, as if I would be a critic and read we still have 40 years, I'd say "oh, no worries then, we still have plenty of time to find some solution". Personally, I think 500 months may be the time when we are seriously doomed, but every year that passes now makes things worse. Did you hear the news, that this winter, the gulf stream already did change? Did you hear that studies show, that the gulf stream is already slowing down even now? Not in 40 years... People say "oh look, we had a cold winter this year, so global warming is a scam", but this is just the opposite - it is a result of global change and it is in tune with the Gaia Theory, that Earths systems have some regulatory mechanisms. Meaning if the gulf stream stops due to global warming, it may actually be good. Europe and Canada may freeze over, the snow cover reflects heat and the warming is slowed. Good for the Earth, not so good for the people living there....