I believe, historically, the 20th and 21st centuries are going to be a 'stand out' period, like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. Obviously, future historians are going to look back at this period and make some judgements on the decisions we make.
But will it only be historians?
On another thread, it was suggested that we users make sure our families know our user names and passwords, 'just in case'.
Out of idle curiosity, I checked the records OLO keeps of everyone's posts. My first post was in April, 2006 (and I misspelt Muslim). I wonder how long will OLO continue to keep these posts?
Unlike past history, which has been largely interested in Heads of State, and people of significance, in future it seems likely our descendants will be able to very easily and very quickly look up what we, as their personal ancestors, felt about about the issues of our day.
How are our great great grandchildren going to judge us, on issues like the use of non renewable resources?
More importantly, would awareness of personal accountability change anyone's mind?
My name is Peter William Grimley, and I would like to state for the record, that I believe the over use of any resource -living or dead- to the point of depletion or extinction, is
STUPID.
How about you?

Hey Grim,

My name is Julie and I am a foster parent on the Central Coast and I would like to say to the Australian state wards in NSW that are being, and will be, handed to non government organisations for profit; I am so sorry and I am not finished.

I think quite obviously this period (1900+) is probably the MOST significant part in human history. It will be that way until there's a major breakthrough in how we (as a species) conduct ourselves.

You've just got to look at the "breakthroughs" we've had since 1900 (and a little bit before). Evolution (that theory is only a hundred-ish years old), electricity, engines, industry, "advances" in warfare, flight, computers and associated tech, space observation and travel etc etc. The last hundred years has been HUGE for the species.

Most definitely we'll be looked at, and it's VERY possible someone will have a look at your opinion on things...depending if they know (like you say) all your pseudonyms.

stg<<..The last hundred years has been HUGE for the species.>>>and the unthinking confuse genus...with the evidence of speciation,..within the genus,....as proof of genus evolution...

oh well i have made my point...in other places...have still to validate the theory...as being,,,in any way a valid or true..science.yues science facts are claimed ...

but evolution remains a theory....a new belief system for the faithfull...led by faith..to faith in science,,,needing their god free...cause of causes...lol...

via natural buzzwords...little seeing god is reflected in his creation...ie nature....lol...who does the natural selection...who automates the autonimous response...how is the term natural/chance/survival of the fit/fat-test ..science?

Yes i agree . It doesn't matter what social environment or culture we come from or what area of expertise we are in- I am finding that most intelligent aware people can see that this is a period of immense realisation and change. The end of life as we know it and the beginning of an new epoch for humankind.

Some would even call a battle between good and evil.. Some scientists can tell us that we have been here many times in different civilisations before this one. Many concrete examples exist of this and yet it is not mainstream but relegated to myth.

I am not proposing that we will be annihilated this time with only few remaining to start all over. Yet i do believe this battle will be won by all that is good in humankind..

I think we, as a sapient species, take ourselves far too seriously. In the grand scheme of things nature doesn’t give a “rats”. We are one of 4.2 million biological variants on a small warm planet in an insignificant solar system, located in the outer suburbs of one spiral arm of our galaxy. The lifespan of our home planet is a mere blink in cosmic terms yet we have time to annihilate ourselves many times over before our Sun runs out of fuel.

We need to celebrate our arts, cultures, sciences, courage and compassion, to use them as the building blocks that can liberate us from the inhibitors of non productive emotions.

We need to accept the fact that regardless of what we might do to ourselves, Mother Nature is more than capable of delivering a wide variety of knockout blows. That accepted, we can then get on with developing into a benign species.

If you support evolution, this will be a natural process if we can survive long enough. If you are a creationist, God will just have to replace us with a better model.

under one god,

Don't be a troll thanks mate. I'm a Christian and your suspicious defensive narrow minded little head AUTOMATICALLY goes on the attack. People like you are why others are intolerant of religion. Instead of causing drama, act LIKE the Christian you profess to be. People like you make me just as angry as you make Atheists.

I offered no opinion of Darwinism but only inferred it's inception as part of social awareness in the last 100 years. Whether you like it or not it's part of our society and the people who prefer that train of thought should be as respected just as you expect to be. Without tolerance of each other beliefs we're screwed. And you, my friend, are just as much of a problem with intolerance and those who are driven by hate.

And honestly mate, you barely make sense.

Well Grim, to be brutally honest, once the worms move in to recycle
you, you won't be there to give a darn about what history thinks :)

Grim,

Interesting topic.

To learn about how the “little guy” lived in ancient times archaeologists now go through old garbage tips. In the distant future, someone could be reading OLO [Hi there!], by going through the common records of common persons.

One hopes students of history in 5,009 CE will be fortunate enough to have images and video of our era. Just think how history would be for us, if we had video of, the Battle of Waterloo or the trial Galileo. Yet, maybe, it is not all so straight forward. There is the issue of reproduction of material not on paper. Even today, the vinyl records and computer tapes of 1970s are obsolete. Historical records need to be played back.

Recording histories electronically is of a concern to some archivists. Paper is known to last centuries, in fact; but what of electronic data? It is unproven, in fact. Whay of, electromagnetic pulse from solar flares or nuclear wars?

With nuclear fission would electricity stay our main power medium? Will people in the fiftieth century even use electricity? Reflect, if someone suggested on 1809 CE, that the horse would no longer be a prime means a transport within two hundred years, they would have been laughed at.

One possible scenario in the near future is enormous computing and storage power being available in data clouds in cyber-space. Communication will be so quick a local tower and disk will not be required and the connection will be fully transparent. How would such an environment evolve? What would be our relationship to it? Rivers and port towns haveinfluenced the geophysicality of past civilizations. How will the information clouds effect the civilization on our horizon?

When people use the word judge, like in History will judge us - personally, who is the Judge you are referring to. History will see the period between 1871, and the restoration of as of right jury trials, as an aberrant period, when man became judge of man.

We all will face judgment if the truth is known. We face it every day. Like Bett Midler says in her song, God is watching you, God is watching you. The whole of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament is concerned with justice and poverty. Is History Almighty God. Looking back at the period between 1949 and 2009, a period of sixty years what has been the biggest feature of that period.

The fracture of the Commonwealth, the destruction of the Rule of Law, the institutionalization of poverty, the replacement of justice with Centrelink, all happened in the past sixty years. The compulsory redirection of national wealth from those working to those not working, will be examined, and the question will be asked, why has the burden been lumped on workers. Is it because money talks, and money has been given a voice in the past sixty years.

When we read all about the Wooly Mammoths and how they were made extinct in a day, some so quick frozen that they still had buttercups in their mouths, we should get things in perspective. This third rock from the sun, has had a turbulent and violent past. It may well have a further turbulent future, and we could all go the way of the Wooly Mammoth.

I sort of think we take ourselves too seriously. What real difference to the world will it make if we simply use what is given to us, for our own welfare? India will continue to pollute no matter what we do. So will China. If we cut off our nose to spite our face, will it make the world a better place?

When man becomes a Judge, the presumption is that man is greater than Almighty God. Judge not that ye be not judged

Thanks everyone, for some interesting observations. My specific concern was for the use or mis-use of non renewable resources. Why is it more acceptable to use a non renewable resource which won't run out for 100 years, than 20 years?
And would you change your mind about using such a resource, if you knew, without doubt, that your great, great grandchildren could look you up, and see how you voted on that question?
I really have no idea what my great great grandparents did or felt; but I definitely would not be happy if I were able to look up their discussions with just a click of a virtual mouse and find out they were slave owners, or advocated the genocide of aboriginals.
Do we have a responsibility to our descendants? Should we try to make them proud of us?
So far, I think Yabby is the only one to respond directly to that question.
He voted NO.

Grim,

According to Richard Leakey, of the famed family of anthropologists, humans consume forty percent of the Earth’s Gross Natural Production. If China and Indian, South Africa and South America aspire to Western standards of living , sorry to say it, but, there simply isn’t enough Earth, unless, there are changes in technology and consumption patterns. Earth cannot support seven billion peoples at the same quality of life, as the average citizen in Geneva.

Also, we need to be mindful of the second law of thermodynamics. Al Gore might say he can have a mansion because “he” was a negative footprint. Yet the guy who made the solar panels for his roof will spend and might buy an environmentally unfriendly product. Thus, the borders of the “closed system” (from the second law) need to be broader, essentially planetary.

Adam Smith recommended that the best economic system is one in which all individuals look-out for their own interests. It worked for Capitalism, for now. Yet, Capitalism (moderated by Unionism) forgets the Market is a limited human system, within a more power system. Herein, Earth's total ecology is our Sword of Damocles, which hangs overhead. Yet, if Smith's key point remains true, we must act in our interests, while recognizing John Nash, who holds best outcomes are achieved, when we act together for our individual benefit.

*He voted NO.*

Grim, let me elaborate on that. I personally don't care what they
think of me, as I won't be around.

Yet since the early 70s, when I was living in Paris as a young student, we'd sit around with people from all over the world,
discussing these things, my point has always been much the same.

Population was around 3.5 billion and rapidly rising, I'd raise it
as an issue and people would think it crazy. The West was going
on the pill (whew that made life fun :) ), yet in the third world
they were popping em out like rabbits, due to the political
influence of the Catholic Church.

Not much has changed, IMHO eventually the whole system will crash,
nature will sort it out, as she does with other species. We are
not above nature. As a species we are seemingly smart enough to
invent new things, but too stupid to sort this one out long term.

So be it. Whether we use a few more or less resources right now is
hardly going to matter, if you look at the big picture here.

But I certainly don't care what future generations think of me,
I have long ago stopped worrying about the things that I cannot
change. Best to enjoy life, every day is a gift!

Hey Oliver. I think the tragic irony is we are only just starting to develop the wisdom to learn from our mistakes, at a time when such wisdom is most useless to us.
The value of learning from the mistakes of history is determined by how much the future is going to resemble the past.
Currently, the answer to that question looks like being: “not much”.
Adam Smith justified his creed of self interest by claiming that ultimately, it benefited everyone. At a time when the world's horizons seemed limitless, and resources inexhaustible, a philosophy of rapid and unrestrained growth seemed quite reasonable.
Today, we desperately need a new awareness. We have to start thinking of our world as a very small island, on a wide empty ocean, with strictly limited and fast diminishing resources.
Imagine living on a very small island, with no means of getting off. What would happen if a handful of individuals (say 5%) tried to monopolise 50% of the island's resources, and allowed the other 95% of islanders, to share the rest?

'What would happen if a handful of individuals (say 5%) tried to monopolise 50% of the island's resources, and allowed the other 95% of islanders, to share the rest?'

Not much if they had big enough guns.

Delusions of grandeur. Every generation thinks they are living in the most 'stand out' period. The tide will wash your sand castles away like all those before you.

Oh, and my name is Barbara, and I'm a recovering drug addict and stripper.

Hi Grim,

"What would happen if a handful of individuals (say 5%) tried to monopolise 50% of the island's resources, and allowed the other 95% of islanders, to share the rest?"

On a global scale, it might look at bit like this:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6571/

I think population is the biggest core problem. Take care of population and climate and related issues will take of themselves. Given inaction last century, perhaps the horse has bolted.

Our planet, and everything on it, are totally inconsequential. If we took care of the planet and it survived for another 20 million years, or if we blow it up tomorrow, the universe will continue on regardless. Nothing we do, or don't do, has a bearing on the overall health or survival of the universe. We are THAT small, THAT insignificant. We are not the least bit important. To the universe we are for all eternity less important than one drop of water in all the oceans multiplied by a trillion trillion. No matter what happens to us, or our planet, the universe will continue on. We are important in only ONE way ......... to ourselves. Yet there's millions upon millions of people who think our existence is at the centre of the meaning of the universe.... tiny minds, befitting a tiny existence. Everyone on the planet, including the planet itself, is a part of that very, very, very tiny existence.

I'm sorry, MaryE, the point of your post is, what?
Since nothing we do will in any way affect a neutron star in the Pegasus galaxy, it doesn't matter if we let 30,000 children starve to death every day.
Since nothing I do will in any way affect the dark matter and energy which makes up maybe 90% of the mass of the universe, it really doesn't matter if I beat up my wife, and rape my daughters.
Strangely enough, I find yours a rather empty philosophy.
Oliver, thanks for the link. My analogy was 3% out.

Grim, your answers have all pretty well been figured out by
evolutionary psychology.

At the end of the day, you will act in the self interest of
you and your family. Whilst resources are plentiful, you won't
mind sharing them, but if the crunch comes, and it is you
and your family or them, you will choose your family.

Ummm Grim, I could not possibly think of a more twisted, invalid, inaccurate reading of a post than your reading of my post. You seem to strangely "imply" that because I realise we are inconsequential to the totality of the universe, that it therefore follows that I don't care if "30,000 children starve to death every day" or if you "beat up your wife or rape your daughters". That implication is soooooooooo utterly offensive and ignorant that I won't give it the worth of a detailed reply ....... because it doesn't deserve it.

The philosophy you mentioned is not 'philosophy', it's FACT. Please look up the two words in a dictionary, it might help you.

Grim, I don’t think our great great grandchildren will have any more of an issue with us than we had with ours. We can look harshly at almost every nation over the past 3,000 years of written history, and we can be critical from modern perspectives. In the end we must accept that good, bad and indifferent things were done through every period in our history, with the 20-20 hindsight of course.

IMO, the problems we have today are less to do with the word “problem” and more to do with “quantified”.

I use your case as an example. The case you make is basically that the depletion of non-renewables will leave future generations without them, and the lack of focus on non-renewables will leave us exposed to criticism by future generations. I agree it is both a problem and a concern, the question is, how big a concern.

As history shows, it is quantifiable risk that forces us to “engineer” the problem away. We might not know precisely what those solutions might be, but they will be developed long before we exhaust natural resources.

We do not even know that future generations (100 to 200 years out) will need fossil fuels, they may well criticize us for using them, most likely will laugh at us the same way we laugh at our forebears’ wooden ships and steam trains.

As for renewable power generation? I think this is a very dangerous distraction from the real energy solution. In a UK study on this subject, the maximum feasible contribution from “all” renewable resources is 12kw per person per day. The baseline requirement is 127 kw p.p/day. Less then 10% renewable contribution, so why do I suggest it is a dangerous distraction? Because in Australia we are about to legislate 20% in the MRET, totally unrealistic but is makes us “feel good”. If we allow the feel good to stop us developing a realistic low carbon future, then that really is something we will be held accountable for

This Article Is A Topic That Relates To The Forgotten Australians

as This Is A Part Of Our History That The Goverment Has Finally Come To Acknowledge,

Mr Rudd Yesterday 30th August Through Jenny Macklin On Sky News And In The News Papers ,Said Mr Rudd Will Apologize To The Forgotten Australians

Victims Who Were Abused And Suffered Some Of The Most Horriffisc Crimes Against Children While In The States And Territories Institutions,Of Australia ,

These Are Orphanages ,Girls Homes , Boys Homes , Remand Centres , State Ward Homes , Foster Homes , Out Of Home Care, Holding Cells , State Church Run Homes ,Of Which We Are Still Waiting For The Catholic Church And The Uniting Church And The Church Of England To acknowledge us Victims ,

So Mr Rudd Should Be Putting The Pressure Now On The Churches To Apologize To The Forgotten Australians

We Are Real Victims Of The System That Abused Us We Will No Longer Be forgotten Anymore

Our Apology Has Been Noted And Will Be Given Sometime Soon

By Our Prime Minister

Houellebecq“'What would happen if a handful of individuals (say 5%) tried to monopolise 50% of the island's resources, and allowed the other 95% of islanders, to share the rest?'

Not much if they had big enough guns.

Delusions of grandeur. Every generation thinks they are living in the most 'stand out' period. The tide will wash your sand castles away like all those before you.”

Ha ha (Barbara - have I seen your show?) you crack me up.. and you are getting better at it LOL… I have been particularly heartened and agree with many of your recent posts.

Of course it was Lenin who wrote
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. “

That is the politics which Grim espouses…. Deny the natural processes of libertarian capitalism, replace them with the oppressive yoke of collectivism, by whatever name it is called.

What Grims theories deny is: the planning and initiative exercised by the 5% is what feeds the 95% in the first place, collectivism will see the 95% kill the 5% and proceed to starve one another to death helped by politicians like Lenin and the other putrid swill…

It is all in the history books, look up: Lenin, Kulaks and mass starvation, Russia 1920’s
http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/his1g.htm

Of course, Lenin is also quoted as inventing the phrase
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

The objective of collectivism, socialism or communism (call it what you will) is the oppression of the individual for the benefit of the state and through that process they reduce life to mere existence, innovation to indolence and human progress thrown into regression.

Just look at Cambodia, destroy the educated, turn off the clock and pretend nothing existed before the Khymer Rouge because any comparison would reveal them as despicable murderers.

And we have Grim complaining about his lot in the land of “Cornucopia”.

As to the future’s take on 20th Century… just as we remember the late 18th century as a time of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, far from remembering whole social groups, we remember individuals, like Mozart (good guy), Robespierre (bad guy) and Benjamin Franklin (good guy).

History is remembered as the individuals who excelled and contributed to human development or those who damaged it (Robespierre and latterly Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot), not the collectivism or collective processes.

So I guess, say, Grim might be remembered to the end of whoever reads his eulogy but not much longer after that

Someone who died recently said where they wanted to be buried and then instructed nearest and dearest that they must visit the grave often. I can’t comprehend it, I spent a while trying to just to be fair but it is beyond me completely and I refuse to be a part of it.

Mary, you’re nuts. Yes I looked the word up. Yes you are. You are too. Are so. Fully. Crackers. Shuddup. Nine year olds ponder being insignificant soon after they try and figure out what infinite means. It is a fun exercise if trying to understand the depressed. GET OFF THE DRUGS MARY.

You’re a harsh man Col. No that isn’t necessarily a criticism so don’t tell me off. If Mary is going to have a go at me I’ve decided that upsetting one person a day is plenty and I’m going to pace myself from now on unless in a particularly brave mood or Mary has shared some of her stash.

I can’t escape that Barbara line going around in my head… can you imagine if something disintergrated planet Earth and all that was found eons later was Houel’s one tiny message on a little piece of silicon floating somewhere in space?

Mary, if you found my debating style overly confrontational, I apologise. These things happen when I post at 8.30 on a Friday night: well after beer o'clock.
I also will accept your rebuke about my reference to your philosophy. I probably should have written: IF that is your philosophy, I find it an empty one.
Having read your post again, I still think my question is valid, however. Acknowledging the relative size of the Earth -or the Human race- and the Universe, had should that affect the way we treat each other?
You stress that we are very, very tiny, and insignificant. Another way of looking at it, is that we appear to be very, very rare.
Perhaps our globe is a rare, verdant and precious jewel. Do we, who have been around for such a very short time, have the right to trash it?
Col Rouge, as usual you completely miss the point. It is not about Capitalism, or Socialism, or Communism. It's about Democracy.
Do you believe every one of the six billion odd human beings on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?
PP, always a pleasure.

MaryE,

1. Does the universe have any innate qualities? If intelligent life did not exist anywhere in the universe,in what sense could there be a measure, against which, an other measure could be said to be insignificant?

2. How much of the universe is made up of Organic material? Recall most matter will be light gases such as Helium and Hydrogen.

3. Given our present knowledge, I don't see organic chemistry inconsequencial. Life is remarkable not only by our standards by the standards of physical chemistry.

4. With regard to the theme of this thread, it is not that we are inconsequential, rather Life is tenuous and the universe is quite capable of snuffing us out in a quick order.

5. We are capable of changing the environment to such an extent that we might have an ecology which will not allow to sustain our level of progress for "all" humans.

6. We might be able to sustain one or two billion peoples for a few centuries centuries, while the rest of the planet starves. What we don't have are the renewable resources to sustain a planet with our current population.

7. We have often been able to use technology to keep ahead of demons: e.g., reducing CFCs ans somewhat more furel efficient cars; yet, the technology genie might notgrant of infinite wishes.

8. An armchair solution to our position? Nuclear fusion and a world population of two billions and moderation.

TPP “You’re a harsh man Col.”

Only on a Wednesday. Friday and Sunday we dance, so by Wednesday am a little deficient in the benevolence engendered from my rhythmic escapades.

After Sunday I am back to being a “libertarian realist”….

Grim “Col Rouge, as usual you completely miss the point. It is not about Capitalism, or Socialism, or Communism. It's about Democracy.”

“Democracy” would suggest a process of appointment of government, not the process of regulatory control.

In short, democracy gives each person a say in the election, not equal say in, say, the distribution of wealth.

Communism pretends to impose equality through the reduction of everyone into a state of equal poverty and depravation.

Libertarian capitalism infers all people are democratically free to acquire whatever they wish through legal process, as they individually feel suits themselves, without hindrance or restriction by government or the feelings of others.

Indeed, if the wealth of a nation were equally dispersed across all the population, within 7 years the previously wealthy would be wealthy again and the destitute again impoverished.

It is very simple, just as some can play the piano and others are musically challenged; the ability to acquire or maintain wealth is not equally distributed. Some folk can see and make wise economic decisions, whilst others are either economically incompetent or completely disinterested, seeing their lives as a day-by-day exercise instead of a process of development.

My future wife chooses to study for her degree in natural therapies, despite having a medical doctorate and a fist full of beauty therapy qualifications. She sees her “personal growth” in the accumulation and application of personal knowledge.

She also acknowledges a secondary ability to remain financially “independent” through accumulated material wealth in her licenses to trade on those acquired skills.

Conversely other folk think that a basic trade skill is too hard and they would rather remain unskilled (and lower paid)…

It all comes down to people making choices for themselves, and accepting the rewards and consequences of those choices