How Can The Earth Become A Lifeless Rock In Just 150 Years As The Movie Depicts?
 

In the movie the level of environmental damage is beyond insane to say the least. Needless to say not even the worst of the worst of supercomputer models places the planet in such dire circumstances just 150 years from now, so how does it get to that point in the first place? Just how does Earth gets to a level that rivals the permian extinction in which 99.9 of all life on Earth perished?

In Avatar's Earth life only exists in 2 forms Humans and Algae and not green algae either as there is no sunlight to photosynthesize anymore but a genetically engineered Chemosynthesic variety.

There are 2 schools of thought one that believes that a combination of very damaging wars, and both natural and man-made disasters of unimaginable scale wrecked the Earth.

Then there those that say that just population and greed does that kind of damage in 150 years time. Well hello Dolly hold the presses. We have been in an industrialized society for over 200 years now, if things got damaged at the rate we see in the movie we would already be wearing Exopacks to breathe in the streets right now. Damage like cause over just the use of resources would not turn the Earth bare and lifeless in 150 years it would take centuries for the atmosphere to become like in the movie unless the following things happened. And keep in mind that unlike the movie we are moving toward renewable resources and so on.

A. Starting from this date all humans became insane in the membrane and cut down all the trees in the planet, killed all it's domestic animals not for food but because they wanted em dead.

B. Humanity deliberately massively for no good reason poisons and nukes the oceans so no living creature is left alive. does any of this makes sense? It probably does to those that propose this school of thought whatever...

C. Humanity burns not uses just burns Saddam Hussein style all the oil, coal and fossil fuels the world over. Then it also burns down all it's cities and whatever woodland and grassland that might be left. Again does this makes sense? Apparently it does...


All of the above done continually for years or a decade etc might turn the planet into the toxic lifeless soup we see in just a 150 years time as in the movie.

This is just to illustrate that the timeline for that kind of damage is just way off the charts. Having said that we still need to take care of our planet but if anyone thinks we could be in that same situation 150 years from now this is the only 2 ways that could happen. Again which one makes the most sense to you...

Well, I think it is more to do with the story aspect than any true scientific research. There are several sci-fi stories, movies, etc that depict earth as a barren wasteland. I think that is what it is supposed to be. The worst case scenario or an exaggeration of a real problem. I don't think it is meant to be literal. It is almost symbolic of what could happen. Perhaps not on that scale but something similar. I figure that in the Avatar universe, planet earth is undergoing the typical sci-fi distopia complete with overly centralized government and corporations (especially RDA who practically runs the show), mind-numbing materialism, etc. From the pictures I saw in the Activist's survival guide, earth looked kinda like Wall-e in so far as there was nothing but urban environments with dozens of signs, etc, etc. It looks awful and that is probably the point.

Remember that Wall-e had a similar idea, at least when it came to the trash and the toxicity. The humans had to leave and continue their mind-numbing materialist lifestyle that inevitably made them babies. Totally and completely dependent on technology.

Could never happen in reality, but Cameron's vision was that we poisoned the earth ourselves. He's a pro-eco-terrorist and thinks we're the primary cause of global warming (which I don't believe's happening anyway), but you can also take the fact into account that most sci-fi films that depict the future always depict it as a horrible wasteland (as rapunzel already put it), usually destroyed by man one way or another (except "The Time Machine" as far as I know, both in the book and movies, where the ultimate end is destruction; not caused by man, just by evolution).

I don't think we could make the earth a lifeless rock if we tried. I really doubt that is how it will go down. The largest problem is the ever exponential increasing population. That is what is driving deforestation and most other environmental problems. The earth will loose diversity and will be degraded that is for sure as we already see it happening.

Something to consider. I live in California and we have many different type of environments. If you study them you find that diversity is at the maximum in some of the desert areas. Most would think that it would be in the forests up in the mountains, but that is not the case. Most deserts are not at risk of clearing for agriculture, or other uses. It should stay mostly safe. I understand that this only applies to temperate conifer forests and not the jungles (rain forests) where maximum diversity occurs and is most under threat.

Look at Easter Island, now a bare rock that was once filled with trees. I bet the clans that lived there didn't believe things would turn out this way.

Even that took centuries not 150 years so your argument is moot because is not that it cannot possibly happen but that it cannot happen in the amount of time the movie presents get it? Capish? To produce a Permian like extinction would take what I described earlier now if you want to believe we will all go insane and do all that is your prerogative...

The questions posed are poorly constructed and explained. But I've gone with the second option nonetheless. Although I believe it would be more subtle than what you've described.

relax...I was talking to txen. You see how my post was right next to his? and I thought I didn't need to quote him. damn.

Really? Care to explain how can we get into a Permian like extinction without very damaging wars and natural and man made disasters?

With all due respect you did vote for option # 2 in the poll.

Yup, I would, hey, I did write a 2000 word blog on it. It doesn't state that it will lead us to a permian like extinction event, but the issues I highlight could cause devastation on a massive scale. Here is the link:

http://spakey.wordpress.com/2010/03/...n-of-humanity/

Umm. that's no good because what we see in the script, the survival guide etc. Rivals the Permian extinction and you have nothing that comes even close to that. Still funny article and right to the point. The OP of this thread is not that it cannot happen but that it cannot happen in the short amount of time depicted in the movie something that you or anyone has yet to prove it can without again very damaging wars and disasters both natural and manmade.

No. Nothing in the script relates to the permian extinction at all. And many of my points have the potential to unfold into a catastrophic event that could rival the permian extinction.

Actually it does, Earth in the movie is nothing more than a bare lifeless rock with nothing but 2 lifeforms Humans and Genetically engineered Chemosynthetic Algae. Both the script and the Survival guide make this abundantly crystal clear.

Not in 150 years which is the point of this thread. The damage we see on the movie would take centuries at best not just 150 years.

The Permian extinction wiped out everything over 1 foot tall. Clearly humans are alot taller. Choose your words wisely.

But it only took 150 years. And the issues I outlined in my blog toute the arrival of disaster to be "Imminent" within 100 years let alone 150.

i don´t think it is that unrealistic.

latest reports say that a big coral dying is upon us. just now a big coral bleaching took place on the Lord- How Islands, and only cause the temperature went up for about 2°C!!+

If we kill the coralreefs that would be very bad!!!!

Humans did not exist back then smart arse. At least for a while we would linger afterward unless all the oxygen is gone. Which in the movie is probably about too anyway as there is no more plant life producing oxygen anymore. The algae they consume uses Chemosynthesis as opposed to Photosynthesis because there is virtually no sunlight that reaches the planet's surface anymore.

If the rate was really that accelerated we would already have seen over half of all flora and fauna of the Earth gone and we would already be needing exopacks to just breathe, the sky would not even be blue anymore.

Nobody but nobody has come up with a feasible scientific proof that what we see in the movie could take in just 100 years or even less as you now claim. Again I am not saying that it cannot happen but that the rate you now claim which surpasses that of the movie is pretty skewed and has no scientific basis. And again keep in mind that unlike the movie people are switching to renewable resources and so on. As you well put it the third overpopulation is unsustainable of itself. Also when it comes to really dumb people even with all the advances we have they somehow always manage to kill themselves sooner or latter you really should check out the TV show 1000 ways to die from Spike.











:P

probably were both but i choose the irst one.

I came here to have fun so I just voted for the funnier option.

Once again, I was simply disagreeing to txen's first sentence - "I don't think we could make the earth a lifeless rock if we tried."

I think Earth will clean itself... the events just started to take place. :D

Not onlly that now there is an increasing number of glaciers that are now growing and not retreating

Source

Now does this mean Global warming is not happening? Not at all as I recall one of the theories about Global warming is that it could lead to global cooling at one point. But I think that what will happen is we will see very abrupt climate changes from real cold to real hot. Problem with climate changes that fast is that nearly no fauna or flora would be able to cope with such dramatic shifts from one to the next. So I guess this proves in good part my argument about natural disasters in combination with man-made ones and what they could lead too...

If you carry on like that you're going to end up in a little dark dungeon with bars. Whether humans existed or not is not the point I was making, I was merely drawing parallels, I assumed you were above pre-school intelligence, obviously not.

I don't know how you can assume that. The population of humanity has only reached critical levels in the past 50 years. So no, your assumption is incorrect.

Actually It does have a scientific basis, its merely without proof, which is fair as I've never known a movie to compell scientists to conduct extensive scientific reports on the future of humanity. Nonetheless, these issues are well known as certain threats to humanity, they just arne't out there which is why you've obviously ridiculed them as soon as they surface, like in my blog. To be honest, if you had one ounce of logic you could work this out yourself.

And I don't see millions of 'dumb' people killing themselves, but rather them becoming a liability that humanity won't be able to manage or sustain.

Shiver me timbers who is going to put me there you? Yeah right!
Parallels? No you were not you argued and I quote that the "Permian extinction killed everything over a foot tall and that humans are taller than that" that's not drawing a parallel but drawing upon semantics to try to obscure the argument which is the fact that what we see in the movie does rival the Permian extinction and in in an insanely short amount of time.


It's the logical curve given the rate of destruction you propose within 100 years or less.

Science requires proof or at least plausibility and your argument has neither when it comes to the kind of damage you propose taking place within 100 years or less.

Now we have millions? So what do you propose? Short of making IQ tests and establish death camps?

Well, it seems I am arguing with a pre-schooler, how guilty I feel. This is what I said:

"The Permian extinction wiped out everything over 1 foot tall. Clearly humans are alot taller."

Now, what I stated here was that the permian extinction event could not possibly be labeled as 2154 earth as seen in Avatar. Why? Because humans are still alive then. Humans are over 1 foot tall. As you can see, if you had actual intelligence, I was being factual and infact, I was drawing parallels.

No, that isn't logical. More emotional and rhetorical. Baseless even.

Actually it is extremely likely, not to mention logical as well. Ask any professional to read my blog and they would most likely see logic in its points.

I don't propose anything, we will merely witness the implications this will cause. There is little we can do to stop the tide.

Wow big difference between A foot and 1 foot in terms of using a foot or feet as a measuring unit! :grolleyes:

And mind you I said it rivals the Permian extinction but in fact it surpasses it by a magnitude of 100! As you well put many creatures less than 1 foot tall survived the Permian extinction in Avatar's 2150 Earth there is only 2 lifeforms remaining Humans and Genetically enhanced Chemosynthesic algae. And truth be told the one here drawing a fit and using ad-Hominem attacks here is you not me thus you are the one acting like a preschooler



Not really not when you take into consideration the insane level of damage you propose taking place in a 100 years or less without any horribly damaging war or humongous disaster to account for it.



Not in the time-frame you propose and most certainly not without some major catastrophic war or wars and disasters to account for it

Now the funny thing here is that is not we do not agree on whether or not this could happen but on the time it would take to happen without any major war(s) or disaster(s) to account for it, is ironic that you insist to act a like a pedantic child when refuted. Maybe you should change your username because you do not deserve the name Spock.




Never the less is the logical conclusion to your observations regarding dumb people.

Your blog is full of posts of people wishing that a mayor disaster comes and wipes most of humanity out so the problem is solved lickety split.

Well, its an emperical measurment unit, so what can I say. ;)

That was infact my argument all along. My blog details events that could end up being far more devastating than the permian extinction in itself. To be honest, you just pulled the permian extiction out of your arse, it is different to 2154 earth in so many ways.

Excuse me, what? I wasn't having a fit, I was merely stating how you consistently misenterpreted what I had said. Leading me to believe that your intelligence well, you know. My use of ad-hominem was justified.

World wide war would not bring destruction on a global scale. However, the disasters I outlined in my blog are well worthy of bringing global disaster within 100 years, hey, they're especially bad when you put them all togethor.

Wars could not rought destruction on that scale, at least not enough to wipe out humanity. I've detailed scientifically viable disasters in my blog that could threaten humanity though, why should I have to repeat myself?

There would be disasters to account for it. I outlined quite a few in my blog. One or two of which had the potential to be far more devastating to humanity than any other extinction event in the past. I have also explained why I feel that the timeframe for such events will be within 100 years, its seems to me that you just don't want to face the possibility of it happening.

At no point have I acted like a pedantic child. I have merely exposed flaws within you, and your argument.

No... its not.

Come again please, this is most enjoyable.

That you argued over nothing when it came to it, that's what...

I never said it wasn't noticed I said it rivals not that it is the same as. And I used the Permian extinction as an example of just how bad things are being depicted in the movie.

No it wasn't again where we strongly disagree is the timeframe not whether or not the things you mentioned in your Blog could happen or not at all, they very well can and could just not in the timeframe you present.



All you say is that third world overpopulation will lead to the kind of world we see in the movie in 100 years or less.

And a world war in which Nukes and other WMDs are used would wreak havoc in an unimaginable scale. It would not bring about the kind of world we see in the movie but would accelerate the damage to put the world well on it's way there.

Again wars in nukes and WMDs are used in combination with both man made and natural disasters woulb be about the only thing that could accelerate damage to the extent we see in the movie.

The only factor that you place in your blog for all this happen is third world overpopulation. I counter that it would take more than that to bring about such an end.

I didn't argue over the unit of measurement.

Well, its a poor comparison as the situation in the movie is alot worse.

I'm sorry, but they could happen within that timeframe, logic leads me to believe that it will. Why don't you consider the facts instead of posting subjective rebuttals all the time.

No I didn't, I said that when our resources run dry, the current population of the planet won't be able to be supported, therefore it would be seen as overpopulation.

Again, subjective. Please explain to me your 'logic' for thinking this.

Take wars out of the equation please, you are overestimating the effect WMD's and wars have on the planets biosphere. Human induced and naturally occuring disaster, such as a basalt rift, are potentially alot more destructive.

You are forgetting the effect global warming will have on the planet, once the ocean conveyor stops, we'll be back to having 100m of ice over our heads at every point on the planet. Overpopulation will only start to present a problem when our 'finite' resources run out, which is another big problem, as humanity's economy runs on entirely finite resources.

Right!
Behold the power of... Cheese?

Considering that it is the largest mass extinction on record NO it is isn't.





Overpopulation of the third world alone? No sorry...


You are not taking into consideration the fact humanity is switching to renewable rather than finite resources



Read earlier post



Because WMDs would have a pretty big impact like it or not.



Oh wait a minute so now you are willing to allow possible natural disasters into your equation? At first you were not and in fact your Blog points exclusively to 3rd world overpopulation and the disappearance of finite resources. It does not take into account that we are switching to renewable rather than finite resources.

Thankyou for conceding this point.

....

Obviously not big enough, therefore it still isn't a good comparison.

No, there are other factors at work too.

No, this is just a ploy by the corporate sector to gain trust and popularity. The switch to renewable resources will come too late, thats of course if it even comes.

Well, you've got your scaling incorrect, WMDs would only have a minor effect.

Actually no they wouldn't. The biggest nuclear weapon ever detonated only wiped out 100km2.

You have obviously only read a small section of my blog. Overpopulation is one of my points among many others, others that include natural disasters.

This has been fun, but I can see your argument falling apart. Do you want to call it a day and avoid further shame?

It's the closest thing one can compare it too, end of story...



Which you fail to mention.



OH really now? so what Hybrid cars and windmills and solar power are just ploys and none of this things really generate anything at all? You are sounding like a conspiracy nut right about now.



[ I think you are underestimating the effects a nuclear exchange would have. We are not just talking about the immediate area of the blast but radiation that would also be carried downwind.



Again you are discounting radiation or radioactive particles that would linger int eh atmosphere for quite a while and travel with the world wind currents. Not to mention that we are not talking about one or 2 nukes but at the very least a few hundred.

Don't compare, describe instead.

Clearly you didn't read the full extent of my blog then.

No no. Just read between the lines, examine the documents, look at both sides of the story and you'll soon see.

The nuclear arsenal is tiny compared to soviet times. Another thing you are discounting is the unlikelyhood of nuclear exchange, humanity knows the damage that it could do to infrastructure and will not go there.

You mean gamma rays? They travel in a straight line but can be blocked out by a few metres of dirt. Again, I think your exagerating the number of large nuclear weapons we possess. ICBM's these days are only a few megaton, nothing compared to the Czar bomb of the 1950's. Plus the megatonnage of the arsenal has been drastically reduced to a point where the effects of nuclear war would be negligable compared to a similar war 40 years ago.

No and No actually you should really read ab it more:
Link here

Subjective, get out if your going to argue like that.

This proves nothing, the effects that this article describes would be negligable when compared with what I came up with.

Well, I declare you officially defeated. It was fun.

My vote goes for Spock's opinion. Very good blogpost btw.

Earth's ecosystem can easily be crashed by humans before 2154..

Thankyou. And what you say is entirely accurate.

Not really the timeline you describe for such an event seems way off and if there is the onset of another ice age that would put a damper on your predictions as nearly all human population centers would become uninhabitable not too mention it would cause famine in unimaginable scales. My point is that such a disaster would probably offset your predictions by a far margin as the population would decrease dramatically riots and wars and nuclear exchanges would also come into effect as a result as the nations fight over whatever little is left that would also decrease the populous even more, diseases would run more rampant than ever before as there no longer medical services to take care of even the most common ones. I predict humanity would be long gone before we get to such a point as we see in the movie.

Again the irony of all this is that all we disagree on is how it could take place in that short amount of time without wars, natural and man made disasters as a catalyst and that humanity would still even exist by then given the circumstances.

But then again not so surprising considering you are an avid Marxist and as such sees freedom and Capitalism as the root of the problem and that only through a blessed restoration of world wide soviet union the world is somehow saved. except that the soviet Union and communist China did far more damage than the Capitalist countries ever could.

My predictions were an 'educated' guess. I don't see you claiming to have any expertise in the field of biology at all. All of my points are have a logical argument behind them.

I have outlined natural and man made disasters in my blog. They all have the potential to bring about devastation that could indeed wipe humanity out.

The USSR and China arne't true communist countries in my eyes, in some senses they are, but if you read through Karl Marxe's manifesto, you'll notice that communism has more conscience behind it than what most people are led to believe, the communist bloc of the 20th century is a poor example of communism.

In theory it looks great in practice it has never worked and it never will. Be it past examples like USSR and China or present Day Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. Those are the facts as is a fact that you placed blame in your blog article squarely on Capitalism which is wrong since as I've explained the communist countries have experienced far more devastating ecological damage.

True communism has never been put into practice, perhaps briefly after the March, 1917 revolution, but thats it. And the second part is an assumption so I cannot take it as anything more than such.

Those were never true communist countries, actually Cuba is. Cuba is a wondeful place to live, it has the top ranked healthcare system in the world too.

No, I said Capitalism won't be able to deal with the impending crisis. To me, it matters not whether Communist countries deal more damage to the environment, its the fact that they are so persevering, they would rectify any damage done, before it hits them in the arse so to speak. To me, thats what matters most.