As NASA's dwindling funding inhibits the space program across the board, they have paid for a study that may prove that civilization (as we know it today) is a mere few decades from total worldwide collapse. Commissioning mathematician Safa Motesharri to write a report on his findings, the results show we are on a trajectory toward the end of the world as we know it.
In the report based on his “Human And Nature Dynamical” model, the applied mathematician Motesharri wrote: “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history”.
His research, carried out with the help of a team of natural and social scientists and with funding from Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has been accepted for publication in the Ecological Economics journal.
Motesharri attributes the issue to be a combination of unsustainable resource exploitation, unequal wealth distribution and over-consumption. While we may have the resources now to deal with these issues and stop what is described as an "irreversible" outcome, historically the elite and ruling class does not have the will to change the status quo, thus preventing any actions in time to stop the process. Sound familiar?
The study avoids any solutions and merely points to conditions that presently exist. But if any combination overall were to overlap (which is possible given the parameters) it would certainly speed up even the most conservative estimates as to how much time is left (per the models conclusions).
In lieu of the dire and negative outlook of the report Nasa has decided to distance itself from any endorsement or direct commissioning of the study. Nasa clarified in a recent statement: "Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."
On the one hand it makes you wonder how efficient Nasa is with their funding, or if in fact the conclusions were too scary for Nasa's usual "anything is possible when you reach for the stars" branding. Whoever directly commissioned the report is inconsequential if the study proves unchallenged. Ironically an outfit like Nasa would be a "go to" for solutions outside of the current box. One might even think the inevitability would generate more funding from what Motesharri would refer to as the ruling "Elite". As for the masses (most of us) who would be effectively wiped out? It is just another benchmark in how little power we hold over civilization's path.
His research, carried out with the help of a team of natural and social scientists and with funding from Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has been accepted for publication in the Ecological Economics journal.
Motesharri attributes the issue to be a combination of unsustainable resource exploitation, unequal wealth distribution and over-consumption. While we may have the resources now to deal with these issues and stop what is described as an "irreversible" outcome, historically the elite and ruling class does not have the will to change the status quo, thus preventing any actions in time to stop the process. Sound familiar?
The study avoids any solutions and merely points to conditions that presently exist. But if any combination overall were to overlap (which is possible given the parameters) it would certainly speed up even the most conservative estimates as to how much time is left (per the models conclusions).
In lieu of the dire and negative outlook of the report Nasa has decided to distance itself from any endorsement or direct commissioning of the study. Nasa clarified in a recent statement: "Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."
On the one hand it makes you wonder how efficient Nasa is with their funding, or if in fact the conclusions were too scary for Nasa's usual "anything is possible when you reach for the stars" branding. Whoever directly commissioned the report is inconsequential if the study proves unchallenged. Ironically an outfit like Nasa would be a "go to" for solutions outside of the current box. One might even think the inevitability would generate more funding from what Motesharri would refer to as the ruling "Elite". As for the masses (most of us) who would be effectively wiped out? It is just another benchmark in how little power we hold over civilization's path.
