Modeling the Post Apocalypse

[brainpanhandler]

Looking for sources.

It seems to me that enough is known about how it all might come crashing down that there must exist sophisticated models which can predict what is likely to happen post apocalypse given certain starting variables.

A few jumping off points:

http://www.centerforpostapocalypsestudies.com/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -no-return

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3

http://rs6.risingnet.net/~ddcc/wbi/WhatIf.html

[brekin]

This guy is on it.

Work in Progress forum user oimorrigan created 50 large buildings for a set of Apocalyptic Manhattan (in his apartment) for the tabletop strategy game Warhammer 40,000.

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/11/16/gam ... manhattan/

[Wombaticus Rex]

You'd dig "The Wizards of Armageddon" by Fred Kaplan.

[brainpanhandler]

This guy is on it.

Work in Progress forum user oimorrigan created 50 large buildings for a set of Apocalyptic Manhattan (in his apartment) for the tabletop strategy game Warhammer 40,000.

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/11/16/gam ... manhattan/

Heh. Yes, the search terms "model/ing apocalypse" returns some interesting results:






http://www.lorinix.net/

[brainpanhandler]

You'd dig "The Wizards of Armageddon" by Fred Kaplan.

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

[brainpanhandler]

The two horsemen of the apocalypse that already stalk humanity and seem inevitable to me are global climate disruption and peak oil. These are unavoidable at this point and by themselves have already and will continue to spark war and social collapse. Civilization will continue to boil in it's own juices. Could be the apocalypse happens in slow motion with no discernible triggering event suitable for hollywoodification. Of course there are lots of other factors that could speed up the collapse. But in any event the train were on is heading inexorably toward a cliff which is no longer so distant it's not worth sticking our heads outside and looking ahead.

And no doubt the ptb are and have been doing just that for quite some time. I assume nola post Katrina was closely scrutinized. And as variables and data become more certain and computing power continues to grow the models ought to become more and more accurate predictors.

Call it morbid curiosity on my part but somebody other than dystopian authors has to be thinking about this stuff. What happens when all of the systems we ("advanced" first worlders) rely on for survival no longer work? What does the world look like then? How does power factionalize? How many die? What cities burn to the ground? Where do populations migrate to?

Naturally we will not be privy to what the crystal ball gazers have seen in our future. We will be allowed to wallow in ignorance, filth and a seething low level anxiety, until we get close enough to hear the screams of our bretheren from the slaughterhouse. By then it will have been way too late for a long time.

The right tards are not wrong about everything, probably. Is the great collapse a sort of controlled demolition population culling? Are the ptb, in their hubris lihoping us all to hell, believing that they with their superior knowledge and vision can control the chaos and come out the other side the winners or at least the survivors?

[wintler2]

..And as variables and data become more certain and computing power continues to grow the models ought to become more and more accurate predictors.

'Ought to' according to who - the IBM salesman? and which variables are becoming more certain? how does more computing power help when calculating the unquantifiable? Forgive me for saying so BPH, but i think you've got a bad case of info tech cargo cultism. Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material. Modelling highly complex unique processes? not a chance. I'm sure theres rich planetfuckers paying war-corp frat buddies to smoke dope and prognosticate on TEOTWAWKI, but thats cos they believe each others hype, they didn't notice the collapse of the USSR remember.

I think TPTB exist, but they're a cat fight of competitively scheming sociopaths rather than any sort of coordinated organisation. We like to think they exist & are in control just like we like to believe in god - because the alternative, that this is a chaotic and ultimately meaningless shitstorm within which humans are just one mob of spectator/actors, is unacceptably hard on our ridiculously overblown ego's. In the post-collapse church of the Singularity, where visions are brought on by burning circuit boards, the TPTB will still be the default scapegoats.

Don't get me wrong, theres plenty to prosecute TPTB for, but they are not in overall control in any meaningful sense, otherwise why wouldn't they have forestalled runaway global warming, they live here too. I suspect the popularity of allpowerful TPTB (*which bph isn't posing here but many do elsewhere) is really due to the rationalisation they provide for apathy and collaboration. We are TPTB in our own lives, and that opportunity/responsibility terrifies many.

[brainpanhandler]

'Ought to' according to who - the IBM salesman?

Well, me. If it wasn't obvious I'll state it plainly: I am no statistician, nor do I know much of anything about computer modeling. But to take an example let's consider weather forecasting. From my own experience NOAA for instance can give me a pretty spot on forecast for weather conditions for the next 24 hours. The further into the future the forecast the less accurate it will likely be. This is because the climate system is incredibly complex. A one to one model would theoretically give you perfect prediction. But a one to one model has to be as complex as what it is modeling. Since we don't have complete data (we don't monitor the beats of butterfly wings) our variables and starting points are less certain and so accuracy into the future goes down. That is pretty simplistic I know. So feel free to tell me how stupid it is if that's what you think.

and which variables are becoming more certain?

The two horsemen of the apocalypse that already stalk humanity and seem inevitable to me are global climate disruption and peak oil.

Those are the two that I believe are becoming more certain. Perhaps I shouldn't refer to them as "variables".

how does more computing power help when calculating the unquantifiable?

What exactly do you think is unquantifiable? I think I am probably misunderstanding what you mean.

As analogy this is the sort of thing I mean:

Improvements in computer power
Climate modelling has always made use of the best computers, but has been limited by the available computer power.


Our model has begun to include some of the complexities of the Earth system
Enlarge In the 1970s, as well as including only limited science, the models included very little detail and could only be run for very short periods.

A typical model divided the world up in to boxes 600km across with five levels to represent all the vertical structure. They were used to predict changes on timescales of months up to a year or so.

They were mainly used to understand climate processes rather than to predict the future.

The latest Hadley Centre model, HadGEM2-ES (which is at the forefront of state-of-the-art Earth system models), uses 135km boxes with 38 levels in the vertical. Critically though, it is one of the first models to include those complexities the Earth system already mentioned above.

The massive increases in computer power since the 1970s are used in the following ways in the Met Office Hadley Centre:

Much higher resolution is used to give more regional detail. The changes between the 1970s and the present day outlined above required 256 times more computer power.

Representations of all the key processes identified as important for climate change are included in the latest version of the model.

Much longer predictions are run, typically reproducing the last 150 years and predicting the next 100 to 1,000 years.

Far more experiments are run with different versions of the models so that we can quantify the uncertainty in our predictions.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-cha ... /modelling

Forgive me for saying so BPH, but i think you've got a bad case of info tech cargo cultism.

How so? I'm not quite that primitive. I don't think I'm assigning any greater power or accuracy to any post apocalyptic scenarios than they deserve because I haven't seen any yet. That's why I asked for sources in the op. I'm not surprised there aren't many. I don't think it's because they don't exist. I think it's because they are not published for what seem to me obvious reasons. They ain't pretty.

Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material.

What do you mean by material?

Modelling highly complex unique processes? not a chance.

Well, depends on how you define unique. I mean does unique mean by definition unpredictable since there is no precedent? If it does then you're just saying the unpredictable is unpredictable. If by unquantifiable and unique you are referring to the profound effect a single individual can have and the inherent unpredictability of any individuals actions then you might have an argument. But modeling the apocalypse would largely be about groups of people. Group behaviour is much more predictable. Politicians, generals and advertsing agencies do it successfully all the time.

I don't really imagine that any models of the apocalypse/post apocalypse would ever be anything other than probabilities. I cannot imagine any model that could predict with 100% accuracy what the future will hold, even if the starting variables were very well known and complete. Humans are the wild card.

I'm sure there's rich planetfuckers paying war-corp frat buddies to smoke dope and prognosticate on TEOTWAWKI, but thats cos they believe each others hype,

No doubt.

they didn't notice the collapse of the USSR remember.

Didn't notice or didn't predict? If predict how do you know? If they had what makes you think that would have been made freely available information?

I think TPTB exist, but they're a cat fight of competitively scheming sociopaths rather than any sort of coordinated organisation.

That's probably a good guess/model.

We like to think they exist & are in control just like we like to believe in god - because the alternative, that this is a chaotic and ultimately meaningless shitstorm within which humans are just one mob of spectator/actors, is unacceptably hard on our ridiculously overblown ego's.

Perhaps a better word than we. For me a lack of controlling/ordering force does not equal chaotic meaningless shitstorm.

In the post-collapse church of the Singularity, where visions are brought on by burning circuit boards, the TPTB will still be the default scapegoats.

The "competitively scheming sociopaths" are not scapegoats though. Scapegoats by defintion do not merit blame.

Don't get me wrong, theres plenty to prosecute TPTB for

Ok then. They're not scapegoats. Don't get me wrong though. That doesn't mean we're all innocent.

they are not in overall control in any meaningful sense

I believe that's true. But I think it's worth considering that within their various territories/areas of influence they probably do have a great deal of control. And at some level while there is a lot of competitive scheming I think it's probably also true that there is a level of cooperation as well. Same as it ever was, except that I think there are fewer of them and power is becoming ever more concentrated.

otherwise why wouldn't they have forestalled runaway global warming, they live here too.

I sometimes wonder about that (whether they live here too), but yes, that's a puzzle. Not only that, they have children. Perhaps Freud was right and there really is a death instinct in us.

I suspect the popularity of all powerful TPTB (*which bph isn't posing here but many do elsewhere) is really due to the rationalisation they provide for apathy and collaboration. We are TPTB in our own lives, and that opportunity/responsibility terrifies many.

Would those "many" be easier to predict?

[General Patton]

Vinay Gupta's experience was that no one in the Pentagon or other government agencies had bothered in planning out many different serious kinds of disasters. There may be a working paper here or there, but for the most part no one cares.

Paul Fernhout has a good letter on this:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/09/paul ... ncy-iarpa/

Simpler models are best for predicting when you have limited data. The more details you put into a model the more time and data it requires to become stable. Otherwise when outliers appear it will destroy the predicting capability of a complex model.

See:

Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material

Molecular biologists, statisticians, engineers... you realize that we design and test the structural integrity of buildings, aircraft and biological structures using computers? We design 3d models and then create prototypes of them using CNC mills or 3d printers. We model behavior during fire evacuations to build safer designs for theaters that encourage calm evacuation. We use computers for MRI's to look into the human body to see what's inside, rather than just cutting them open and digging through by hand. Where don't we use them?

[wintler2]

@ bph - thanks for your thoughtful reply to my illtempered rant. Yes you're right that it must be possible to quantitatively model the large scale elements that comprise this civilisation, no sorry i'm aware of no other than Limits to Growth & its update.

I'm personally dismissive of the endevour for several reasons that selfindulgence forces me to share. 1. because it looks alot like 'how long will this dying horse carry us?'. The point is to learn how to walk again, not theorise about how long the horse has got. 2. any model is made of relationships between variables (easy to spot) in the context of assumptions (supposedly fixed and sometimes invisible). Blindness to wrong assumptions is what does models in, see GFC, US ethanol industry, # of mortgagees 'underwater' on loans. Relying on the assumptions of SAIC or MIT is not something i'd dream of doing, i hopefully share none of their priorities.
..more later..

[wintler2]

Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material.

What do you mean by material?

Computers don't *make* anything. They control machines and people that make, enable much better information about and coordination of materials and their transformation, more effic processes etc, but they're not productive of themselves. And they rely on a massive infrastructure, demand endless assumption making, and have been used to systematise alot of things that would better have been left bespoke.

That applies to work flow/production, but also entertainment/personal/educational use - all of those are, on computers, an increasingly multichoice experience (compared to endlessly detailed and context-specific reality), and are symbolic rather than material experiences, happening on screen & in our heads rather than IRL.

This isnt the Matrix however and i don't think uploading/playing kungfu master, or modelling refugee flow patterns, will provide me with personal safety. For that, i'm going to have to go through the "me no fight you; you no fight me?" rituals with enough of the neighbours often enough. As it happens, my relative computer literacy is handy in that, as a favour to offer, facilitating other peoples consumption of the symbolic relief offered by hollywood. but nobody counts any number of free movies as worth a trailer load of firewood.

[wintler2]

Computers are neat toys, perfect for entrancing droids and channeling hate with symbols, but pretty crap at anything material

Molecular biologists, statisticians, engineers... you realize that we design and test the structural integrity of buildings, aircraft and biological structures using computers? We design 3d models and then create prototypes of them using CNC mills or 3d printers. We model behavior during fire evacuations to build safer designs for theaters that encourage calm evacuation. We use computers for MRI's to look into the human body to see what's inside, rather than just cutting them open and digging through by hand. Where don't we use them?

There have been great gains from computers, such as the diverse information processing applications you list. I am not denying they exist or saying they have no value, just pointing out something about their nature. Greater dexterity and faster processing of more symbols is still just symbols. Have the symbolic fruits changed what is done in the material world? sure, in places; but not significantly, anywhere that i'm aware of. We've got better gadgets, worse power relations, and declining life support.. computers? pfft.

[brainpanhandler]

Relying on the assumptions of SAIC or MIT is not something i'd dream of doing

Indeed. But I'd be curious to know what their assumptions are, faulty or not.

I assume the ptb realize that major malfunctions to the fragile systems the useless eaters rely on for survival are inevitable as a result of the end of cheap fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate disruption. I assume they realize this will mean that globally hundreds of millions of people will die as a result. And I assume they know what it means when we all realize we're on our own. I also assume that they believe they can ride out the storm and hold onto power. Those are some of my assumptions, although that last I am not very certain of at all. As sociopaths it's hard to fathom what their thoughts might be on the future. But I assume they are trying every method they can to see into the future so that they can play the odds.

Little to nothing is being done societally to prepare for $200/barrel oil and desertification of America's bread basket as examples. What does that tell me about the intentions of the ptb? Anything? Does it tell me they're simply ignorant? Does it tell me they could give two shits about future generations. That'll be their problem? Does it tell me they have a population reduction lihop strategy for putting the brakes on biosphere destruction?

[wintler2]

Little to nothing is being done societally to prepare for $200/barrel oil and desertification of America's bread basket as examples.

Show me an election or revolution where the majority chose less jam tomorrow. There has never been one, but less (as most ppl consider value) is all that is on offer. So long as our symbolic delusions persist (free energy, star trek singularity destiny, etc), democracy can't solve this.
Incidentally, oil may never hit $200 again - $150 was enough to break the economy in 07-08, theres good reason to think the next limit/step down will be lower, cos we're already poorer.

What does that tell me about the intentions of the ptb? Anything?

That they're divided and suicidally shortsighted, insufficiently capable of coherent collective action, just like us.

Does it tell me they're simply ignorant? Does it tell me they could give two shits about future generations. That'll be their problem? Does it tell me they have a population reduction lihop strategy for putting the brakes on biosphere destruction?

If you assume they have that power and are that coordinated then that is what your model may output. I do not believe they do or are because there is bugger all evidence for it, and i'm appalled by our willingness to deify them. Really our TPTB problems arise not solely or even especially from TPTB themselves, but from our habit of abdicating all of our power to them.

[brainpanhandler]

What does that tell me about the intentions of the ptb? Anything?

That they're divided and suicidally shortsighted, insufficiently capable of coherent collective action, just like us.

I agree that's the most likely answer. But it's not the only possible answer.

Does it tell me they're simply ignorant? Does it tell me they could give two shits about future generations. That'll be their problem? Does it tell me they have a population reduction lihop strategy for putting the brakes on biosphere destruction?

If you assume they have that power and are that coordinated then that is what your model may output. I do not believe they do or are because there is bugger all evidence for it, and i'm appalled by our willingness to deify them.

I evidence is that we are doing way too little way too late to switch from fossil fuels to renewables. The evidence is that the banksters are not all sitting in jail cells. The evidence is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the US supreme court.

The evidence is:



The 1% are winning man. In spite of the efforts of millions and the wishes of 100's of millions.

Again, I agree that the scheming sociopaths are not globe spanning and they are factionalized. This is not to say they do not coordinate when that seems mutually advantageous. I assume that these are networks of people at the top. They know each other. They intermarry. They share philosphies and world views.

Really our TPTB problems arise not solely or even especially from TPTB themselves, but from our habit of abdicating all of our power to them

Straight question: Why do you think we do that?