Page 1 of 2
3000 AD: The Rise Of Polar Civilizations
Posted: 27 Oct 2011, 21:33
by Lord Beria3
http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2011/10/ ... lizations/
The river of time flows on, and empires crumble, leaving behind only legend that becomes myth, while new polities arise to take their place. This process of decay and creation is going to receive a boost from “peak energy” and, above all, climate change – which will redraw the maps of power to an extent unprecedented since the end of the last Ice Age. Throughout recorded history, the centers of advanced civilization have seesawed east and west, but remained constrained within a “band of habitability” that did not extend much further north than Oslo, St.-Petersburg, or Harbin. If the pessimistic scenarios of AGW come true, this band will become inverted: the tropics and mid-latitudes will become increasingly drought-stricken, desolate wastelands, perhaps even uninhabitable by 2300, while the Arctic regions, and a thawing Greenland and Antarctica, will become new centers of global civilization.
In this post, with the help of many maps, I will explore what this will mean in more detail than I believe has been done anywhere else on the Web. Needless to say, I am making the assumption that there will be no technological singularity, or other technological breakthrough, that will enable the continuation of modern high-energy civilization. But not will these be any all-out apocalypse. That part of the technological base that does not rely on high levels of energy inputs for its maintenance will survive, that is, railways, electricity generated by hydropower, radios, even elementary computing. So let us venture forth into the brave new world of 3000 AD!
Fascinating and thought provoking article
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 06:54
by 2 As and a B
About as useful as predicting the world of 2000 AD from 1000 AD.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 11:05
by UndercoverElephant
I've thought about this in the past, and the author of that piece of futurological fantasy has failed to account for the fact that the poles are plunged into three months of total darkness every winter. This raises certain problems the author has not considered.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 11:59
by DominicJ
Do they not have light bulbs in sussex?
I'd have though the three months of light would be harder to cope with.
Some sort of tethered blimps with massive lights could simulate daylight, sort of, simulating night time would be much harder.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 14:25
by 2 As and a B
What might those"certain problems" be, do you think Dom?
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 15:46
by UndercoverElephant
DominicJ wrote:
Some sort of tethered blimps with massive lights could simulate daylight...
That will consume vast amounts of energy, which is the main problem with this theory.
, sort of, simulating night time would be much harder.
Plants adapt well to 24 hour sunlight. Humans can just go into a dark room. But three months of cold blackness equals a large energy bill.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 16:53
by clv101
Interesting post. A few comments. The ‘lake’ in the middle of Greenland, is only there because of the weight of the overlying ice. Melt the ice and the elastic rebound with remove the lake. It’s also pretty unlikely for Greenland to be ice free by 3000AD. You also don’t mention the darkness that befalls the Arctic Circle. Continuous periods of darkness are very hard for plants to deal with (not to mention people). Plants continue to respire in the dark but because they can’t photosynthesis just run out of energy and die. The only way around this is to pull the temperatures down with the darkness.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 16:56
by clv101
DominicJ wrote:Some sort of tethered blimps with massive lights could simulate daylight, sort of, simulating night time would be much harder.
I don't follow - simulating 'night' is super easy (curtains, lack of windows, underground...). Simulating daytime, super hard (insane energy requirements ~hundreds of watts per square metre.
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 18:33
by Kieran
Dinosaurs managed to live in these environments, why not us?
http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1737.html
Posted: 28 Oct 2011, 22:37
by Standuble
I think the problem is the lack of useful resources. Apart from the ample water and extensive fish populations there is little to build a city or large settlement out of. I'm assuming the scenario envisions the poles mostly devoid of ice with an exposure to the underlying terrain; referring to the Antarctic landmass and for the north pole I assume it means areas like Siberia.)
There is very little native flora and fauna on that terrain, especially on the terrain which has been buried under an immense amount of ice. Just a landmass with no trees to build settlements, few to no native seeds to create agriculture and no animals to hunt or domesticate. I imagine it would be similar to tribesmen attempting to colonise the moon (with the exception of Earth gravity and a breathable atmosphere.)
Plus there's several months of night to get through.
Posted: 29 Oct 2011, 16:53
by vtsnowedin
double post
Posted: 29 Oct 2011, 16:56
by vtsnowedin
As the climate changes/warms the tree line will advance north all the way to the arctic coast and the region where crops can be successfully grown will expand to the north as well. The problem is for every square mile that becomes habitable in the north there will be several square miles in the south that will become uninhabitable due to desertification.
In a post peak population collapsed world the temperate regions may be a belt between 40 and 60 degrees north across Canada and Siberia. Room for a billion or so people perhaps
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
Posted: 29 Oct 2011, 17:55
by biffvernon
vtsnowedin wrote: As the climate changes/warms the tree line will advance north all the way to the arctic coast and the region where crops can be successfully grown will expand to the north as well.
Did you miss clv101's point about darkness through the winter? Perennial plants only survive the Arctic winter darkness by being deep-frozen. Annual plants, a lot of veg and salad crops, will be fine, but anything that takes more than six months to mature will be in trouble.
Posted: 29 Oct 2011, 19:30
by UndercoverElephant
Strangely enough, what is currently the rarest tree in the world (in the wild) wood naturally inherit Antarctica. That's where Wollemi Pines evolved in the first place, and they are perfectly capable of surviving three months of total darkness. They would be the natural choice for polar forests.
Posted: 29 Oct 2011, 20:13
by clv101
UndercoverElephant wrote:...they are perfectly capable of surviving three months of total darkness.
Only because the darkness is accompanied by very cold temperatures. In a dramatically warmer world, the poles could be both above freezing and dark - that's what plants can't cope with so you'd be limited to annual crops only.