An economic futurist spoke of the looming, apocalyptic future for mankind and outlined the plan for humanity’s survival and enduring empathy during Monday night’s Distinguished Lecture Series.
Founder of the Foundation for Economic Trends Jeremy Rifkin pointed to the climbing unemployment rate in the United States, the dependence on finite fossil fuels for every facet of life and the threats of increases in global temperature as clear indicators of humanity’s imminent collapse.
“We are in the sunset of the great, short-lived energy revolutions in all of history. Sunsets take a long time. This is on your generation’s watch,” Rifkin said.
Rifkin said he predicts a 3 percent increase in the average temperature of the earth could bring about the end of mankind, because the weather would become more violent, and hurricanes and other weather patterns would become more intense. He said this increase is closer to being a reality than thought possible.
“Does anyone here think we can sustain our species?” Rifkin asked the audience.
No one in the audience answered.
Rifkin has worked in conjunction with the European Union to form a four-pillar plan that has already been implemented in some European countries. As part of the plan, he hopes to bring renewable fuels such as wind, solar and tidal to homes.
The plan renders every building its own power plant and uses hydrogen fuel cells to store the energy that it produces through the renewable resources.
The last part of the plan would use the same technology of the Internet to share not information but energy. The “intergrid,” as Rifkin called it, is connected by software similar to that of the Internet and would let everyone connected on the grid share power with each other.
“He talked about how the Obama administration isn’t up to speed on environmental policies,” said Max Love, a freshman at the University of Wisconsin.
Wikipedia was a prime example to show the “millennial” generation’s capacity to work together to achieve a powerful, collective, open source of information. He said this same attitude of sharing information on the Internet can be applied to the future of power.
Rifkin added the earth cannot be saved by technology alone, but also with a shift in consciousness. He blamed geopolitics and acting as though the earth was made up of disposable parts. Once man realizes his dependence on one another, he said, the species will conserve more.
“I grew up in a vegetarian family, and I wouldn’t mind cutting consumption. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to follow green trends,” UW junior David Nebel said.
Rifkin said he speaks of a near end to humanity not to entertain but to remind people of the severity of the issue. He placed the responsibility of a task no smaller than saving civilization as we know it in the hands of today’s youth.
“What your generation has to do is clear. You have to save the creatures on this world. Lay down the master plans. Don’t wait for the politicians, do it yourself. Get the job done. Change the human story,” Rifkin said.
IP hash: f9848dff
Most of America wants to know what Rush says about this.
IP hash: 2d2c7d5a
Rifkin posed some interesting, and albeit pretty outlandish claims, but I think his basic message is a good one. It can’t hurt to keep trying to implement an energy source switch.
IP hash: 42571c6e
Another Extinguished Lecturer, telling us the sky is falling and we are all “Doomed! Doomed, I tell you!”. If you continue to listen to this brand of Chicken Little, Sky Is Falling fear mongering, mankind is indeed doomed to die, from sheer stupidity.
Citing “the threats of increases in global temperature as clear indicators of humanity�s imminent collapse” is an appeal to baseless fears. Are there “threats”? Yes - baseless threats created by those who wish to drive you to conclusions that support their agendas. Recent “hacked” releases of emails, data, and computer climate model code from “researchers” at the East Anglia University’s (UK) Climate Research Unit have revealed just how far those researchers and key contributors to the UN-IPCC will go to create “evidence of manmade global warming”, when the real data shows only natural climate variability. Go to wattsupwiththat.com for additional information on the breaking fraud story now know as “ClimateGate”. A synopsis can be found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
The released emails and information indicate a web of alleged fraudulent activities, designed to 1) make unremarkable temperature data appear alarming, ala the discredited Al Gore Hockey Stick temperature vs CO2 graphs, 2) exclude access to data and computer codes essential for full disclosure and peer review, 3) thwart and deny Freedom Of Information Act requests for data and computer codes, and
4) instruct involved “researchers” to delete emails and data relating to the alleged fraud.
The Man Made Global Warming threat is just that: A man-made lie to threaten the gullible into supporting a fraudulent political agenda.
IP hash: 9e7b6174
I’m not well informed enough to know if any side can predict the future. I do know that artic polar bear are drowning instead of walking on multiyear ice to get to feeding areas. Glaciers are retreating at an increasing pace as is the Antarctic ice cap. Ocean levels and temperatures are rising. These are indisputable facts. This may, as one side says, just be a natural phenomenon, or, as the other side says, a phenomenon that man is pushing out of control. HOWEVER, I’m not gutsy enough to treat this as a crap game. I have a loving, full of life granddaughter who I never want to have to look in the eye and say, “I took a chance, sorry, there’s nothing left.”
IP hash: d832b245
You’re right - you are not well enough informed. Polar bears are not ‘drowning’ because of low ice pack. Their populations are stable to moderately increasing. The Antarctic ice cap is not retreating at an increasing pace. The ice on the antarctic penninsula is declining but the ice on the main continent is increasing at faster rates. Total antarctic ice has increased, not decreased. It is natural variation.
See the email above yours for links to aid your education. Your grand daughter will thank you!
IP hash: 99f31c3f
I saw the talk and I appreciated his comments. True or not, threats like these are the only thing that MIGHT get the generally complacent and lazy people of earth to do something, anything, to cut down on the kinds of consumptions that are screwing our future whether the earth’s getting warmer or not. I think (hope) speakers like Rifkin can get people to at least think about something other than sports and celebrities, and create their own thoughts on important subjects instead of just repeating what they hear on talk radio, like our previous commenter.
IP hash: 5deef9fb
All this talk about global warming misses the point. The problem is that society needs to shift its mindset toward the goal of reaching some sort of progressive equilibrium with the environment rather than just progressing on its own. It’s the fundamental nature of the universe that we live with access to a finite amount of resources, but little has been done to educate the public about basic environmental economics (how to allocate our limited resources on a global scale). Our society is predicated on perpetual growth, this is plainly an impossibility unless our technologies increase at a rate that gives us access to new resources outpacing our use of those resources; this is not happening. How do we fix this problem? 1.) Focus on limiting consumption. 2.) Focus on proliferation of technologies that most efficiently increase our access to new resources (energy and mass). This should eventually include new ways to recycle without significantly sacrificing other environmental resources. Extreme optimists claim that this will happen naturally due to current economic models. Most pessimists claim that we have already well overshot the equilibrium point and are already doomed to failure because we simply cannot correct the problem fast enough. I would argue that no one seems to know for certain. I’ve personally read claims that Earth’s carrying capacity is between 2 and 15 billion people (That’s a HUGE range). So what is the reality and how do we make everyday decisions based on insufficient evidence. It seems most advisable to err on the side of caution: consume minimally and invest heavily in renewable energy resources. The easiest way to reduce consumption on a meaningful scale is to reduce global population. This is outright objectionable to most conventional economists since in a consumer society, growth of profit margins must be filled by an ever growing population (or at least a more wasteful one). But, why is economic growth the pinnacle of success as a society? Presumably IT ISN’T!!! Instead, I feel that humanity should set goals to increase individual opportunity.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Global warming MIGHT be a problem for Wisconsin - might be a good thing too.
But global cooling would be the death of billions and see Wisconsin mostly under a huge sheet of ice.
Which way is the biggest worry? Watch the sun - it’s much more important than CO2.
IP hash: 01eedbd2
I hope my tuition didn’t pay for this clown to come and talk. global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever, im glad people are starting to realize that.
besides, you’re a hater if you don’t want longer summers
IP hash: 99f31c3f
“Global warming” is a catch-phrase that gets people’s attention, and getting their attention is the hardest part. Just telling people that we pollute too much, consume too much, procreate too much, etc… isn’t enough. If you could get the majority of people to ponder these things without the threat of imminent death, that would be wonderful. But most people are too concerned with big screen tvs or following Shaq’s tweets or just staring blankly into their iphone while crossing University Avenue.
IP hash: 5730b0bc
No educated person disputes global warming. It is a fact. Rifkin may have been alarmist in his introduction, but the man is clearly intelligent, informed, and experienced. The European Union isn’t asking any of us to advise them, and they are clearly farther along the greening path than we are. What else needs to be said.
IP hash: 5730b0bc
No educated person disputes global warming. It is a fact. Rifkin may have been alarmist in his introduction, but the man is clearly intelligent, informed, and experienced. The European Union isn’t asking any of us to advise them, and they are clearly farther along the greening path than we are. What else needs to be said.
IP hash: d0ca982a
Hard to dispute warming, except that it’s been getting cooler for the last ten years - if you use actual data instead of hiding the decline.