Are we about to enter a new age?

We have this view of the world than advances happen in a fairly linear fashion. The world is becoming more and more advanced over time. History tells us that this is not always the case. The romans would have imagined their advances leading to a world getting progressively better, instead we had the dark ages.

Is it possible that the capitalist/inductrial age we are in now will not last. Will some catastrophic, or series of smaller, events lead to another "dark ages" where the world doesn't ädvance" and things go backwards. The event(s) would lead to a massive recession that the world wouldn't recover from. The endpoint would be a collapse similar to what happened in Russia, but on a global scale.

A few such possible triggers spring to mind. Firstly terrorist attacks that lead people to stop travelling/spending, businesses to lay off staff etc. This would have to be on a bigger scale than 9/11 such as a nuclear strike somewhere. A second could be major disruption to oil supply that sent fuel prices so high exports/imports became too expensive and many companies collapsed.

I don't think either are imminent, but the possibility does exist that we could end up going backwards rather than advancing. A british series from the 1970s called survivors was about the impact of a 95% reduction in population caused by a plague and the effects it had on life. After a while power was lost and people went back to a very basic existence. Could this really happen?

Theres a process in nature (i forget what its called) when a species population gets too large for its natural environment and there is a massive die off or something. This is to ensure that there is a natural equilibrum in the eco system.
Everyone knows that the earth is over populated with humans and theres a massive strain on the natural environment. A trigger which orginalated from a religous, politcal, or economical background might be enough to create this natural equilibrum between population and natural environment.
Or maybe we should expand into space...

I hope not

Also I doubt it, as long as democracies control the world we should be sweet from any man made extinction. Catastrophic events like comet strikes are another matter and could do it but they are extremely unlikely. Within a few hundred years man should easily be able to deal with such a threat anyway.

Anyways, look on the bright side

Are you thinking of the gaia hypothesis dman.

jah - if it happened, would it necessarily be such a bad thing ?
(the regression to a more simplistic living i mean, not the mass reduction in population).

The question I have is - were we in the atomic age, or the corporate age previously? Was there a definable age in between?

I think, given this trendy war thing blows over with the Bush II administration, the next wave will be about environment. Electric technologies, non-polluting technologies and so forth.
If this whole war thing doesn't blow over then we may well be carbon samples.

Cheer up lads and lasses :o)

Im not too sure what that theory was called, JAH.
If the Gaia Hypothesis fits my description, then it must be it.

the gaia hypothesis is that the earth is a self-regulating organism so I assume that is what you mean. The question is whether we have put the system out of balnce and it can't regulate itself any more.

phreak - a more simplistic life would not be a bad thing. The impact of a massive depression could well be though. For a start, look what happened at chernobyl and almost happened at many nuclear facilities in eastern europe when their economies collapsed.

There was a study done that found that in the event of a (limited strike) nuclear war NZ would likely become a major post-apocalypse economy.

Not too sure how realistic it was... the study took place before it became public knowledge that both USSR and USA had nuclear weapons targeted at NZ.

Targeted at NZ?? Geez that doesent sound good. You got a link Fraz?

Gaia hypothesis is a classic example of anthromorphism (in this case, about the earth) combined with new age bad science. Personally, I think the indications are humans will simply move to more technologically challenging and renewable energy sources.

Fossil fuels (including wood and coal as well as hydrocarbon based liquid fuels) powered the great industrial revolution of the last 200 years, but they are realtively crude sources of energy. Look out for terrestial and space based solar power, fuel cell technology and fusion power.

Its interesting that you post such a comment JAH, because to me it seems like a perfect statement of a philosophy that is a sort of Hobbesian Malthusian luddism - which is an arguement used normally by reactionary forces to justify the entrenchment of an elite. In that,

I think you've touched on the principal problem of being "left" these days - its capture by an urban liberal bourgeoise that is it fact deeply conservative, afraid and reactionary in its nature. That capture is manifested in the smug support of Saddam Hussein (since when did the left oppose overthrowing a totalitarian tyrant?) in an insistance on linking a liberal social agenda to a socialist economic program, a bourgeoise desire for ideological compromise (no, a true left winger cannot condone Muslim - or Christian for that matter - religious oppression of woman. The values of the left are universal!) and middle class capture of the state apparatus.

Change (political, economic and social) and technology are weapons of the left, not its enemies as you imply JAH. Let's be true hiers to Orwell - support the enlightened liberation of Afghanistan from feudal theocracy, support the defeat of tyrants everywhere from the Washington to Baghdad to Riyadh and lets use technology as a tool to liberate people everywhere!!

Why would the U.S.A. target Nuclear Weapons at New Zealand?

Shaolin, they wouldn't. Frazzle either made that up, or read something someone else made up...

Good points fishboy. I don't see a change like that as a bad thing at all, it would certainly be good in many ways such as the one you pointed out about the removal/lessening of the power of the elite. I also don't see religion/saddam etc as positives, although religion doesn't need to be a bad influence on the world, it just is in may cases.

Ussually people name an age long after it has passed, it is hard to see the effects of our current technology. I would think the age would be something to do with mass corporates tho, as it seems to be the defining aspect of our current world.

I saw it on the news years ago and its not something I would forget. Don't have a link but I might just go look for one....

When did I last make something up in Current Affairs?

if there was a major necluear exchange between the big boys, involving us or not, wouldn't we be wiped out anyway? i heard the combined power of all the superpowers weponds is enough to destroy the earth 10 fold or something like that. oh yay.

i recon it's disease thats gonna get us in the end... we have nearly run out of antibiotics that actually work against potentially fatal bacterial infections, and what if a virus like hiv became airborne? game over.

maby u should rename this the apocalypse thread

Names for this age?

digital would probably sum up the past 50 years maybe something to do with genetics now?

Yeah I'm thinking...

atomic age 40's-50's
space age 60's-70's
digital age 80's-90's
genetic age 00's +

The US would have had nuclear weapons pointed at us in the 80's because Lange embaressed them so with his stance on nuclear powered vessles and nuclear weapons in our waters. Heh heh heh... Lange was cool.

Even now, I don't think you could say anyone would be a major post-apocolyptic economy because with the number of nukes that would be used in such a conflict, we'd blow earth to bits... or at very least wipe out all the humans, other life etc...

People have less free time.
Stress related diseases are increasing.
Where there were once communities there are now collections of individuals. People seem to be more selfish, less tolerant, over worked and more stressed out. The quality of life in NZ seems to be decreasing for the average kiwi.

Is this really progress?