Look. Population grows to the point where current technology can sustain it. It does not grow further, nor faster. Why? Because once population growth goes higher than that, <i>people start dying faster than they are replaced, right back down to the level that technology can support them again</i>.
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fieari+Apr 27 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fieari @ Apr 27 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look. Population grows to the point where current technology can sustain it. It does not grow further, nor faster. Why? Because once population growth goes higher than that, <i>people start dying faster than they are replaced, right back down to the level that technology can support them again</i>.
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, that's what we all want; people dying because of <b>starvation</b>? Why not prevent the problem: prevent people from having so many children. Then we won't need to have people dying (more than usual). I'd rather not be born than live struggling for a piece of food. I'm pretty sure this view is shared by most of the world.
If we made better use of our resources, we'd have fewer of both strarving and hideously overweight people. Obviously, it's not possible to have everyone on the planet drive an SUV (not that I'd encourage that), but the entire world's population can have the quality of life that every single human deserves at a minimum.
Sustainability and global well-being should be our goals (and they are certainly achievable), not escaping the planet.
/socialist
edit: two letters make a big difference in meaning.
The thing is, that people in MORE educated parts of the world are having LESS children, and people in the LESS educated parts of the world are having MORE children. Surely you can see the inherant flaw in this situation... if technology sustains our current population, and intellegence produces more technology, then the brighter, richer countries SHOULD start breeding more, in order to benefit all.
Additionally, the rest of the world should be encouraged to grow up out of the dark ages as well...
But honestly, we're stewards of our own little peice of the world, and really, we should be most concerned about what concerns us. We have a job to do here, and more hands to do it can only be better. The problem elsewhere in the world is tragic, this is true, but stifling US won't actually help THEM!
If you want to help the rest of the world, this is great... but you don't do it by enacting change here. You do it by going to the rest of the world. What's that you say? That's hard, sweaty, dirty, not satisfactorily recompenced, and in fact DANGEROUS? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Either care enough to do something about it there, or don't. But this caring only enough to try changing things that won't help... well, doesn't help any. Really.
I know it's popular now a days to think in terms of a global community, and in terms of a small world... but the world is actually VERY LARGE, compared to us, and any individual can only work with what's given to him or her right there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fieari+Apr 27 2004, 08:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fieari @ Apr 27 2004, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The thing is, that people in MORE educated parts of the world are having LESS children, and people in the LESS educated parts of the world are having MORE children. Surely you can see the inherant flaw in this situation... if technology sustains our current population, and intellegence produces more technology, then the brighter, richer countries SHOULD start breeding more, in order to benefit all.
Additionally, the rest of the world should be encouraged to grow up out of the dark ages as well...
But honestly, we're stewards of our own little peice of the world, and really, we should be most concerned about what concerns us. We have a job to do here, and more hands to do it can only be better. The problem elsewhere in the world is tragic, this is true, but stifling US won't actually help THEM!
If you want to help the rest of the world, this is great... but you don't do it by enacting change here. You do it by going to the rest of the world. What's that you say? That's hard, sweaty, dirty, not satisfactorily recompenced, and in fact DANGEROUS? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Either care enough to do something about it there, or don't. But this caring only enough to try changing things that won't help... well, doesn't help any. Really.
I know it's popular now a days to think in terms of a global community, and in terms of a small world... but the world is actually VERY LARGE, compared to us, and any individual can only work with what's given to him or her right there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Winnar.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Apr 28 2004, 12:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Apr 28 2004, 12:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we didn't have planes or rail roads or cars etc., then we wouldn't have spread so quickly to the americas. If that were true, by now, we'd only now be taming the wild west by traveling via horse and covered wagon. There would still be plenty of natural resources. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Americas were discovered and colonised before the train, car, aeroplane etc. were invented.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fieari+Apr 27 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fieari @ Apr 27 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look. Population grows to the point where current technology can sustain it. It does not grow further, nor faster. Why? Because once population growth goes higher than that, <i>people start dying faster than they are replaced, right back down to the level that technology can support them again</i>.
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I missed this earlier, so I'll comment now:
Population actually goes way above the sustainable level, and then <i>crashes</i> down to considerably below it. It does not stop growing when there is no food. It crashes even worse when the sustainable level drops (climate change, peak oil, etc.). There is widespread death among animals, but imagine how bad it could be with <i>humans</i>? We hoard things with a rediculous level of efficiency, and are perfectly willing to kill each other over a loaf of bread (or a bomb shelter) when it comes down to it. There is no riding out the storm together, waiting for technology or luck to save us. The scientists will be in hiding as well, concerned with the more immediate tasks of not dying today over inventing things that can't even be produced, because the manufacturing system has gone down the hole as well.
2 of 8 brought a similar point up on the first page, but I thought it needed to be reinforced.
Errr... you ARE aware that we have more than enough food, right? That we, in fact, have an overabundance? That if every man woman and child on the planet had access to the global storehouse or whatever, and ate until they could not physically stuff more into their mouths, that there would STILL be food left over?
Right?
And that there is no shortage of land either, because it is true, we could fit into texas if we all wanted to live in the same city.
I love how people think that technology will just fix everything, when in fact the people who create this technology are the ones who are actually concerned about our future food consumption etc.
Big cities like New York City consume far more land for food consumption than the actual area of New York City, as you can imagine. New York City, as well as every other city on this planet are growing too, and the amount of land needed to support them is expanding.
The population is only getting bigger.
Something has got to give. Either:
A) 3rd world countries suffer the worst and get entirely wiped out from starvation.
B) Technology postpones this problem a little while longer.
C) The price of food goes up, and only the middle-class and high class get to eat.
B would be the best option, but even then, it is only a postponement. It isn't a solution. Which begs the question, what is a solution?
<!--QuoteBegin-Fieari+Apr 28 2004, 11:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fieari @ Apr 28 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Errr... you ARE aware that we have more than enough food, right? That we, in fact, have an overabundance? That if every man woman and child on the planet had access to the global storehouse or whatever, and ate until they could not physically stuff more into their mouths, that there would STILL be food left over?
Right?
And that there is no shortage of land either, because it is true, we could fit into texas if we all wanted to live in the same city. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Food and land are not the only resources that we use. Even simply running out of oil would be catastrophic, as then we would immediately be unable to make most of that food. We wouldn't be able to ship it, either. There is also a limited amount of sustainable (in the loosest sense) wood, coal, oxygen, <i>drinkable water</i>, medication, etc.
There can only be as many people supported as the scarcest resource can handle.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Apr 28 2004, 05:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Apr 28 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Food and land are not the only resources that we use. Even simply running out of oil would be catastrophic, as then we would immediately be unable to make most of that food. We wouldn't be able to ship it, either. There is also a limited amount of sustainable (in the loosest sense) wood, coal, oxygen, <i>drinkable water</i>, medication, etc.
There can only be as many people supported as the scarcest resource can handle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wood: each <i>second</i>, 1.5 hectares of forest are cut down. coal: if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C oxygen: levels of CO2 in the air have multiplied about 30-fold in the past 300 years. As you know, ozone holes are growing over many parts of this world. Acid rain is also a problem, which pollutes -> drinkable water: no comment? oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.
[sarcasm]Nice facts, eh? I think technology will solve it all![/sarcasm]
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
2 of 8 i'll reply to your post, because i can rebutt most of your points ^_^
wood : the amount of forestry cut down will diminish as we find less and less uses for it, surely we will still log, but at a diminished need, as well restrictions are in place to replant trees cut, (of course not everyone is going to listen, buit most are)
coal : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, i doubt that we will continue using coal at the current pace in the next 20 years let alone 100, i dont know where coal is being used right now, i know it is probobly being used in power plants.. to heat old houses...or...? i just dont know, besides alternative power sources will surely bring the coal demand down very rapidly, (i thought coal went out with the 1950's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) oxygen : an interesting point, oxygen consumption will increase as the population increases and so will carbon dioxide emmisions, however i cannot fathom actually running out of oxygen as long as we keep the population below...say 15 billion. and if it ever became a problem, surely a solution could be found, thats what i love about humanity, drinkable water : it is a problem i agree, water is a very valuable resource, and we do have a limited supply, however, as someone has already said creating water is a 'rather simple' problem to solve by bonding hydrogen with oxygen. but besides that fact, salt-water can be de-salted at de-salinization plants which already exist mind you, and we have Plenty of salt-water. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, indeed i agree that is a problem, albiet with a very easy solution, alternative sources of energy, i really dont understand what america's obsession with oil is, its a horrid substance, inifficient, polluting, cause of two large...difficulties with the middle east. Iceland will be Oil free in the next 20 years, it is initiating a plan which will reduce its dependance on fossil fuels completely, powering the country purely by geothermal energy, hydro-electric and various other 'clean' fuels. so oil is certainly not a problem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-Technology will solve the problems of Technology-
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+Apr 29 2004, 09:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ Apr 29 2004, 09:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well, indeed i agree that is a problem, albiet with a very easy solution, alternative sources of energy, i really dont understand what america's obsession with oil is, its a horrid substance, inifficient, polluting, cause of two large...difficulties with the middle east. Iceland will be Oil free in the next 20 years, it is initiating a plan which will reduce its dependance on fossil fuels completely, powering the country purely by geothermal energy, hydro-electric and various other 'clean' fuels. so oil is certainly not a problem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It powers their wangmobiles.
But really, the problem is that it's one of the few sources we have to REALISTICALLY meet the needs of our current energy consumption. Sources like solar and wind energy are EXTREMELY hit and miss (cloudy day? NO POWER FOR YOU!). Hydroelectricity can only really be put into certain places. Research into experimental methods of providing what we need aren't being exploited to their fullest (like cold fusion, for example.) Whether or not you believe it to be true or feasible is irrelevant, we NEED alternate power sources, and we need them pretty badly.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
im not going to deny that Hydrogen power is one of those "its this or no power buddy" kinds of things, but hey, its the same for oil right now pretty much,.
solar power and wind power are indeed 'fickle but what about hydroelectric dams? i know they cant be used everywhere, geographical problems, but where they can be placed, they work very very well, non-pulluting relativly cheap energy, costs very little to produce (aside from construction costs) and its never-ending. just wanted to promote hydro-electrcity for a bit there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
cold-fusion is an 'experimental' feild... they have succesfully created the fusion effect, but not at an effective cost ratio yet, it takes more power to make it work then it produces, so until that little problem is fixed, no fusion for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
on a side note, nuclear power is an effective source of energy, and containment is no longer much of an issue, however disposing of the rather extensive waste created is the main problem keeping nuclear power from ever becoming the best power source we have.
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+Apr 29 2004, 11:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ Apr 29 2004, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> im not going to deny that Hydrogen power is one of those "its this or no power buddy" kinds of things, but hey, its the same for oil right now pretty much,.
solar power and wind power are indeed 'fickle but what about hydroelectric dams? i know they cant be used everywhere, geographical problems, but where they can be placed, they work very very well, non-pulluting relativly cheap energy, costs very little to produce (aside from construction costs) and its never-ending. just wanted to promote hydro-electrcity for a bit there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
cold-fusion is an 'experimental' feild... they have succesfully created the fusion effect, but not at an effective cost ratio yet, it takes more power to make it work then it produces, so until that little problem is fixed, no fusion for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
on a side note, nuclear power is an effective source of energy, and containment is no longer much of an issue, however disposing of the rather extensive waste created is the main problem keeping nuclear power from ever becoming the best power source we have. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not doubting how useful hydroelectricity is. I know it's EXTREMELY good when and where it can be used. But unless we start channeling the planet's surface to create hydro plants everywhere they're needed, It's not really the solution. Something to help allieviate the strain on the oil supply, of course. But not a real fix.
There's a huge stigma on nuclear fission plants now because of all the terrorism hype. Transporting the materials to and from the plant is now seen as a huge drawback due to it, not to mention the plant being a glaring target for any terrorist strikes, so they say. Public support for nuclear power has never been terribly high, and due to all the current fiasco, it's probably waning even further, which is a huge shame due to it being one of the best alternate sources we have thus far, minus the drawbacks.
I'm also aware that cold fusion is still experimental. But we should still be funding projects that are dealing with alternate sources for power. I know I'd much rather support providing funding and resources to something like that than a lot of other projects that aren't dealing with the furthering of our very existance (ie. medical research like cancer treatment, stem cell research, etc. I will agree with, whereas research into whether or not neanderthals were fully matured by the age of 10 or whatever I will not), due to this being a pretty damn big issue that we're kinda running out of time on.
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+Apr 29 2004, 05:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ Apr 29 2004, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2 of 8 i'll reply to your post, because i can rebutt most of your points ^_^
wood : the amount of forestry cut down will diminish as we find less and less uses for it, surely we will still log, but at a diminished need, as well restrictions are in place to replant trees cut, (of course not everyone is going to listen, buit most are)
coal : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, i doubt that we will continue using coal at the current pace in the next 20 years let alone 100, i dont know where coal is being used right now, i know it is probobly being used in power plants.. to heat old houses...or...? i just dont know, besides alternative power sources will surely bring the coal demand down very rapidly, (i thought coal went out with the 1950's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) oxygen : an interesting point, oxygen consumption will increase as the population increases and so will carbon dioxide emmisions, however i cannot fathom actually running out of oxygen as long as we keep the population below...say 15 billion. and if it ever became a problem, surely a solution could be found, thats what i love about humanity, drinkable water : it is a problem i agree, water is a very valuable resource, and we do have a limited supply, however, as someone has already said creating water is a 'rather simple' problem to solve by bonding hydrogen with oxygen. but besides that fact, salt-water can be de-salted at de-salinization plants which already exist mind you, and we have Plenty of salt-water. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, indeed i agree that is a problem, albiet with a very easy solution, alternative sources of energy, i really dont understand what america's obsession with oil is, its a horrid substance, inifficient, polluting, cause of two large...difficulties with the middle east. Iceland will be Oil free in the next 20 years, it is initiating a plan which will reduce its dependance on fossil fuels completely, powering the country purely by geothermal energy, hydro-electric and various other 'clean' fuels. so oil is certainly not a problem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-Technology will solve the problems of Technology- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are all so optimistic. "We will find a way! Humanity will adapt!". Come on. I won't spend days rebutting all those point with hard data. I'll just give you a nice link; <a href='http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/' target='_blank'>this one</a>. We'll see how optimistic you are after you read all the info there.
That particular site/book 2 of 8 linked to is a mix of truth and exaggeration, but not by a whole lot. There's definately some salemanship going on there. For a more down to earth and realisitic look at the problem, there are plenty of sites you can compare it to, some of which aren't trying to sell anything.
By all means, the problem is real, but that page is <i>lawyery</i> (written by a law student/grad/whatever, no less). Heck, I started a <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62422&hl=peak%20oil' target='_blank'>discussion</a> on peak oil not too far back, which would be a good read. I link the same article in my first post (first one I came across), but there are better nuggets of information popping up through the discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Apr 30 2004, 08:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Apr 30 2004, 08:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heck, I started a <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62422&hl=peak%20oil' target='_blank'>discussion</a> on peak oil not too far back, which would be a good read. I link the same article in my first post (first one I came across), but there are better nuggets of information popping up through the discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's how I found out about peak oil and the site <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sure, some of it may be exaggerated. But the problem is still real. Fine, oil may not end in 20 years. It'll end in 30 or 40. The problem is still there; we *know* it will happen. It's just a matter of time... and in this case, time will not be the solution.
Comments
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem.
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, that's what we all want; people dying because of <b>starvation</b>?
Why not prevent the problem: prevent people from having so many children. Then we won't need to have people dying (more than usual).
I'd rather not be born than live struggling for a piece of food. I'm pretty sure this view is shared by most of the world.
Sustainability and global well-being should be our goals (and they are certainly achievable), not escaping the planet.
/socialist
edit: two letters make a big difference in meaning.
Additionally, the rest of the world should be encouraged to grow up out of the dark ages as well...
But honestly, we're stewards of our own little peice of the world, and really, we should be most concerned about what concerns us. We have a job to do here, and more hands to do it can only be better. The problem elsewhere in the world is tragic, this is true, but stifling US won't actually help THEM!
If you want to help the rest of the world, this is great... but you don't do it by enacting change here. You do it by going to the rest of the world. What's that you say? That's hard, sweaty, dirty, not satisfactorily recompenced, and in fact DANGEROUS? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Either care enough to do something about it there, or don't. But this caring only enough to try changing things that won't help... well, doesn't help any. Really.
I know it's popular now a days to think in terms of a global community, and in terms of a small world... but the world is actually VERY LARGE, compared to us, and any individual can only work with what's given to him or her right there.
Time to repopulate this planet with smart people. *nods*
Give me a keg of beer, barry white CD, and a hot chick....
I'm going in.
Additionally, the rest of the world should be encouraged to grow up out of the dark ages as well...
But honestly, we're stewards of our own little peice of the world, and really, we should be most concerned about what concerns us. We have a job to do here, and more hands to do it can only be better. The problem elsewhere in the world is tragic, this is true, but stifling US won't actually help THEM!
If you want to help the rest of the world, this is great... but you don't do it by enacting change here. You do it by going to the rest of the world. What's that you say? That's hard, sweaty, dirty, not satisfactorily recompenced, and in fact DANGEROUS? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Either care enough to do something about it there, or don't. But this caring only enough to try changing things that won't help... well, doesn't help any. Really.
I know it's popular now a days to think in terms of a global community, and in terms of a small world... but the world is actually VERY LARGE, compared to us, and any individual can only work with what's given to him or her right there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Winnar.
The Americas were discovered and colonised before the train, car, aeroplane etc. were invented.
You're assuming that population growth is fixed independant of the variables. This is incorrect. Why was population growth so low in the middle ages? Because more than every other child died! The technology couldn't support the population! Either there wasn't enough food, or people were ignorant of hygiene and got sick... whatever.
If our population expands to the point where we have overcrouding, either technology will be created to support such crouding, OR people will die, removing the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I missed this earlier, so I'll comment now:
Population actually goes way above the sustainable level, and then <i>crashes</i> down to considerably below it. It does not stop growing when there is no food. It crashes even worse when the sustainable level drops (climate change, peak oil, etc.). There is widespread death among animals, but imagine how bad it could be with <i>humans</i>? We hoard things with a rediculous level of efficiency, and are perfectly willing to kill each other over a loaf of bread (or a bomb shelter) when it comes down to it. There is no riding out the storm together, waiting for technology or luck to save us. The scientists will be in hiding as well, concerned with the more immediate tasks of not dying today over inventing things that can't even be produced, because the manufacturing system has gone down the hole as well.
2 of 8 brought a similar point up on the first page, but I thought it needed to be reinforced.
Right?
And that there is no shortage of land either, because it is true, we could fit into texas if we all wanted to live in the same city.
Big cities like New York City consume far more land for food consumption than the actual area of New York City, as you can imagine. New York City, as well as every other city on this planet are growing too, and the amount of land needed to support them is expanding.
The population is only getting bigger.
Something has got to give. Either:
A) 3rd world countries suffer the worst and get entirely wiped out from starvation.
B) Technology postpones this problem a little while longer.
C) The price of food goes up, and only the middle-class and high class get to eat.
B would be the best option, but even then, it is only a postponement. It isn't a solution. Which begs the question, what is a solution?
Right?
And that there is no shortage of land either, because it is true, we could fit into texas if we all wanted to live in the same city. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Food and land are not the only resources that we use. Even simply running out of oil would be catastrophic, as then we would immediately be unable to make most of that food. We wouldn't be able to ship it, either. There is also a limited amount of sustainable (in the loosest sense) wood, coal, oxygen, <i>drinkable water</i>, medication, etc.
There can only be as many people supported as the scarcest resource can handle.
There can only be as many people supported as the scarcest resource can handle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
wood: each <i>second</i>, 1.5 hectares of forest are cut down.
coal: if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C
oxygen: levels of CO2 in the air have multiplied about 30-fold in the past 300 years. As you know, ozone holes are growing over many parts of this world. Acid rain is also a problem, which pollutes ->
drinkable water: no comment?
oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.
[sarcasm]Nice facts, eh? I think technology will solve it all![/sarcasm]
wood : the amount of forestry cut down will diminish as we find less and less uses for it, surely we will still log, but at a diminished need, as well restrictions are in place to replant trees cut, (of course not everyone is going to listen, buit most are)
coal : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, i doubt that we will continue using coal at the current pace in the next 20 years let alone 100, i dont know where coal is being used right now, i know it is probobly being used in power plants.. to heat old houses...or...? i just dont know, besides alternative power sources will surely bring the coal demand down very rapidly, (i thought coal went out with the 1950's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
oxygen : an interesting point, oxygen consumption will increase as the population increases and so will carbon dioxide emmisions, however i cannot fathom actually running out of oxygen as long as we keep the population below...say 15 billion. and if it ever became a problem, surely a solution could be found, thats what i love about humanity,
drinkable water : it is a problem i agree, water is a very valuable resource, and we do have a limited supply, however, as someone has already said creating water is a 'rather simple' problem to solve by bonding hydrogen with oxygen. but besides that fact, salt-water can be de-salted at de-salinization plants which already exist mind you, and we have Plenty of salt-water. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, indeed i agree that is a problem, albiet with a very easy solution, alternative sources of energy, i really dont understand what america's obsession with oil is, its a horrid substance, inifficient, polluting, cause of two large...difficulties with the middle east. Iceland will be Oil free in the next 20 years, it is initiating a plan which will reduce its dependance on fossil fuels completely, powering the country purely by geothermal energy, hydro-electric and various other 'clean' fuels. so oil is certainly not a problem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-Technology will solve the problems of Technology-
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It powers their wangmobiles.
But really, the problem is that it's one of the few sources we have to REALISTICALLY meet the needs of our current energy consumption. Sources like solar and wind energy are EXTREMELY hit and miss (cloudy day? NO POWER FOR YOU!). Hydroelectricity can only really be put into certain places. Research into experimental methods of providing what we need aren't being exploited to their fullest (like cold fusion, for example.) Whether or not you believe it to be true or feasible is irrelevant, we NEED alternate power sources, and we need them pretty badly.
solar power and wind power are indeed 'fickle but what about hydroelectric dams? i know they cant be used everywhere, geographical problems, but where they can be placed, they work very very well, non-pulluting relativly cheap energy, costs very little to produce (aside from construction costs) and its never-ending. just wanted to promote hydro-electrcity for a bit there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
cold-fusion is an 'experimental' feild... they have succesfully created the fusion effect, but not at an effective cost ratio yet, it takes more power to make it work then it produces, so until that little problem is fixed, no fusion for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
on a side note, nuclear power is an effective source of energy, and containment is no longer much of an issue, however disposing of the rather extensive waste created is the main problem keeping nuclear power from ever becoming the best power source we have.
solar power and wind power are indeed 'fickle but what about hydroelectric dams? i know they cant be used everywhere, geographical problems, but where they can be placed, they work very very well, non-pulluting relativly cheap energy, costs very little to produce (aside from construction costs) and its never-ending. just wanted to promote hydro-electrcity for a bit there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
cold-fusion is an 'experimental' feild... they have succesfully created the fusion effect, but not at an effective cost ratio yet, it takes more power to make it work then it produces, so until that little problem is fixed, no fusion for you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
on a side note, nuclear power is an effective source of energy, and containment is no longer much of an issue, however disposing of the rather extensive waste created is the main problem keeping nuclear power from ever becoming the best power source we have. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not doubting how useful hydroelectricity is. I know it's EXTREMELY good when and where it can be used. But unless we start channeling the planet's surface to create hydro plants everywhere they're needed, It's not really the solution. Something to help allieviate the strain on the oil supply, of course. But not a real fix.
There's a huge stigma on nuclear fission plants now because of all the terrorism hype. Transporting the materials to and from the plant is now seen as a huge drawback due to it, not to mention the plant being a glaring target for any terrorist strikes, so they say. Public support for nuclear power has never been terribly high, and due to all the current fiasco, it's probably waning even further, which is a huge shame due to it being one of the best alternate sources we have thus far, minus the drawbacks.
I'm also aware that cold fusion is still experimental. But we should still be funding projects that are dealing with alternate sources for power. I know I'd much rather support providing funding and resources to something like that than a lot of other projects that aren't dealing with the furthering of our very existance (ie. medical research like cancer treatment, stem cell research, etc. I will agree with, whereas research into whether or not neanderthals were fully matured by the age of 10 or whatever I will not), due to this being a pretty damn big issue that we're kinda running out of time on.
wood : the amount of forestry cut down will diminish as we find less and less uses for it, surely we will still log, but at a diminished need, as well restrictions are in place to replant trees cut, (of course not everyone is going to listen, buit most are)
coal : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if we continue using it at the rate that we're using it now for the next 100 years, the world's temperature (from the coal alone) will rise by ~5 degrees C<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, i doubt that we will continue using coal at the current pace in the next 20 years let alone 100, i dont know where coal is being used right now, i know it is probobly being used in power plants.. to heat old houses...or...? i just dont know, besides alternative power sources will surely bring the coal demand down very rapidly, (i thought coal went out with the 1950's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
oxygen : an interesting point, oxygen consumption will increase as the population increases and so will carbon dioxide emmisions, however i cannot fathom actually running out of oxygen as long as we keep the population below...say 15 billion. and if it ever became a problem, surely a solution could be found, thats what i love about humanity,
drinkable water : it is a problem i agree, water is a very valuable resource, and we do have a limited supply, however, as someone has already said creating water is a 'rather simple' problem to solve by bonding hydrogen with oxygen. but besides that fact, salt-water can be de-salted at de-salinization plants which already exist mind you, and we have Plenty of salt-water. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil: if we continue using it a the rate that we're using it now for the next 20 years, most of the world's known (and reach...able?) oil fields will run out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, indeed i agree that is a problem, albiet with a very easy solution, alternative sources of energy, i really dont understand what america's obsession with oil is, its a horrid substance, inifficient, polluting, cause of two large...difficulties with the middle east. Iceland will be Oil free in the next 20 years, it is initiating a plan which will reduce its dependance on fossil fuels completely, powering the country purely by geothermal energy, hydro-electric and various other 'clean' fuels. so oil is certainly not a problem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-Technology will solve the problems of Technology- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are all so optimistic. "We will find a way! Humanity will adapt!". Come on.
I won't spend days rebutting all those point with hard data. I'll just give you a nice link; <a href='http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/' target='_blank'>this one</a>. We'll see how optimistic you are after you read all the info there.
By all means, the problem is real, but that page is <i>lawyery</i> (written by a law student/grad/whatever, no less). Heck, I started a <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62422&hl=peak%20oil' target='_blank'>discussion</a> on peak oil not too far back, which would be a good read. I link the same article in my first post (first one I came across), but there are better nuggets of information popping up through the discussion.
That's how I found out about peak oil and the site <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sure, some of it may be exaggerated. But the problem is still real. Fine, oil may not end in 20 years. It'll end in 30 or 40.
The problem is still there; we *know* it will happen. It's just a matter of time... and in this case, time will not be the solution.
very easy book to read and very interesting aspects(aside from <i>first 2 chapters</i>) about humankind, along with ideas about human population.