basic problem is there's 2 effing many people
- Thread starter goundra
- Start date
You just started 2 threads on the same topic.
First, I'll respond by saying to you what I say to all the promoters of the idea of "overpopulation." If you think there are too many people, do something about it. Kill yourself now. Every second you delay is more proof of your hypocrisy.
Second, there's already a thread in The Mature Man forum about Is it sexist to blame women for the demographic demise? Or, you could just click on UN Probabilistic Population Projections
that show sharply declining fertility all over the world. But then, anyone who is so interested in population already knows this. You already know the rate of increase is slowing. There is no "overpopulation problem" waiting to crash upon the heads of our grandchildren.
Third, get in your car and take a long drive. You'll see for yourself that most land has virtually no inhabitants. There's no reason for the agricultural areas to be depopulated. Manual labor could perform what is now done with fuel and machinery, pesticides, and fertilizers. For sure, the current agribusiness model will disappear when fossil fuels are used up. So all that's needed is to put the people back on the land where they can support themselves. But then, anyone who's so interested in provisioning already knows that intensive gardening is as productive per acre as mass-scale mechanized farming. Especially when so much farm production is wasted on government-subsidized maize and soybeans. There is no "food crisis" waiting to crash upon the heads of our grandchildren.
First, I'll respond by saying to you what I say to all the promoters of the idea of "overpopulation." If you think there are too many people, do something about it. Kill yourself now. Every second you delay is more proof of your hypocrisy.
Second, there's already a thread in The Mature Man forum about Is it sexist to blame women for the demographic demise? Or, you could just click on UN Probabilistic Population Projections
that show sharply declining fertility all over the world. But then, anyone who is so interested in population already knows this. You already know the rate of increase is slowing. There is no "overpopulation problem" waiting to crash upon the heads of our grandchildren.
Third, get in your car and take a long drive. You'll see for yourself that most land has virtually no inhabitants. There's no reason for the agricultural areas to be depopulated. Manual labor could perform what is now done with fuel and machinery, pesticides, and fertilizers. For sure, the current agribusiness model will disappear when fossil fuels are used up. So all that's needed is to put the people back on the land where they can support themselves. But then, anyone who's so interested in provisioning already knows that intensive gardening is as productive per acre as mass-scale mechanized farming. Especially when so much farm production is wasted on government-subsidized maize and soybeans. There is no "food crisis" waiting to crash upon the heads of our grandchildren.
taiyuu_otoko
Master Don Juan
While oil is incredibly vital for maximizing land use, it's nowhere near depletion levels.Down Low said:
The meme of "Peak Oil" has been around for years, and with every technological advance, there's more and more recoverable oil found.
I also agree with you that overpopulation is another "myth" created by those either ignorant or with some kind agenda.
PRMoon
Master Don Juan
Fun fact. If you took all the people on earth and stood them shoulder to shoulder they would take up as much space as the city of LA.
To me personally, I don't care if the oil will last ten more years or a thousand. I'm sick to death of the consumer society already. I was just making the point that the oil will run out someday. When it does, many people will return to something like subsistence agriculture.
Having said this . . .
I really hate it when CNBC or some politician starts talking about "Peak Oil." I know they're going to hype the shock value and mangle the concept.
There are two basic ideas behind "Peak Oil."
First, the rate of increase in comsumption is greater than the rate of increase in production. As production slows from the massive finds of the past, the inadequate increase in new production constrains worldwide economic growth. Production is increasing, yet it's still insufficient. There are no shortages, but rather, fuel price increases that discourage investment in the industries that use fuel. No serious geologist expects a new Ghawar to be found every few years.
Second, the basic problem in mining is not that there isn't still recoverable mineral in the ground. It's that it costs more and more to extract, transport, and refine the lower- and lower-quality ore. Whether we're talking about petroleum, gas, oil sands, or coal, the principle is the same. Even if we could reach theoretical maximum efficiency at laying pipelines, drilling insertion wells, pumping water, heating it to steam, and refining the ever-more-viscous remaining crude, it's just a matter of time until each field reaches the point where the energy it takes to get the oil is greater than the energy released by burning it. It's simple physical science. It doesn't matter how much petroleum is left in the ground. Some fields must be abandoned even though they still contain hundreds of millions of barrels of crude.
Having said this . . .
I really hate it when CNBC or some politician starts talking about "Peak Oil." I know they're going to hype the shock value and mangle the concept.
There are two basic ideas behind "Peak Oil."
First, the rate of increase in comsumption is greater than the rate of increase in production. As production slows from the massive finds of the past, the inadequate increase in new production constrains worldwide economic growth. Production is increasing, yet it's still insufficient. There are no shortages, but rather, fuel price increases that discourage investment in the industries that use fuel. No serious geologist expects a new Ghawar to be found every few years.
Second, the basic problem in mining is not that there isn't still recoverable mineral in the ground. It's that it costs more and more to extract, transport, and refine the lower- and lower-quality ore. Whether we're talking about petroleum, gas, oil sands, or coal, the principle is the same. Even if we could reach theoretical maximum efficiency at laying pipelines, drilling insertion wells, pumping water, heating it to steam, and refining the ever-more-viscous remaining crude, it's just a matter of time until each field reaches the point where the energy it takes to get the oil is greater than the energy released by burning it. It's simple physical science. It doesn't matter how much petroleum is left in the ground. Some fields must be abandoned even though they still contain hundreds of millions of barrels of crude.
Bible_Belt
Master Don Juan
The problem is not the number of people so much as it is the lifestyle that those people lead. Right now almost all of the effects of climate change can be blamed on a minority of the world's people. China and India are just getting started and are nowhere near their planet-wrecking potential. As those people move closer to an American lifestyle, the ecological future of the planet becomes so impossibly bleak that there's no point worrying about it. We're all fvcked.
@Down Low
Do you believe that research into high efficiency solar, panels etc is being artificially constrained by big oil..in subtle ways through the university grant system, suppression of patents, buying out of scientists, discovery and suppression through lab sponsorship and patent ownership given what truly efficient solar would mean for the hegemony of big oil?
Do you believe that research into high efficiency solar, panels etc is being artificially constrained by big oil..in subtle ways through the university grant system, suppression of patents, buying out of scientists, discovery and suppression through lab sponsorship and patent ownership given what truly efficient solar would mean for the hegemony of big oil?
The whole field of photonics seems to be progressing at a snail's pace.Burroughs said:
Since the sun delivers little energy per square meter to the Earths' surface, efficiency is of paramount importance. Today's houses are very poorly situated and constucted even just for keeping cool in summer and warm in winter, much less for placement of solar panels. It's also insane to use deadly high voltage -- especially since there's so much loss in transformers. But then, high voltage is less lossy for the power company's transmission over the many miles from the power plant. Once the power gets to the meter, they're perfectly happy for most of it to be wasted through inefficiencies on the customers' end.
Whether or not I believe that solar power is being suppressed -- is not necessary to understanding that the typical American family is screwed a thousand ways when it comes to energy costs.
So we agreeDown Low said:
And yes the citizens of the modern world are wastrels of the highest order...
But technology companies don't seem to be blazing a trail in photonics as they *should* given the potential profit...Oil companies are the wealthiest companies on Earth any advances in photonics would hurt them directly.
Poonani Maker
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 929
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OB8hTU01S8
Well I believe, that, you'll see a halfening of the "world" population either due to the debt bubble exploding or This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OB8hTU01S8
Sure would like to bang one of them chicks on the way out.
Well I believe, that, you'll see a halfening of the "world" population either due to the debt bubble exploding or This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OB8hTU01S8
Sure would like to bang one of them chicks on the way out.
