Slashdot Mirror

Before you let someone talk you into doing that consider this: Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
- Dr Albert Bartlett
http://www.albartlett.org/arti...

It takes 7 times as much oil energy to bring a slice of toast to your breakfast table as you get from it when you eat it.

Renewable energy is not dense enough to power farm implements or pump water in volumes needed in modern agriculture. Limit the use of oil and you are going to condemn several billion to starve to death. You may be among the unfortunate. But, it almost goes without saying, that the elite who push AGW won't be among those who suffer for their political plans.

Regardless, at the present rate we are consuming oil, if the entire planet were a ball of oil we would burn it up in 400-600 years. Even with horizontal drilling, which is currently making the US the largest oil exporter in the world, we will need to find and produce as much oil in the next ten years as we've used since 1858.

If fusion energy does not come online in the next 10-15 years we are toast.

http://www.albartlett.org/pres...

Either we choose from the list of ways to solve the population problem, or nature will choose for us. India is grossly overpopulated. Nature is running its course. You cannot build a society, a philosophy, a religion, a way of life that's built around reproducing as quickly and exponentially as possible while discovering new resources (land, energy) at a rate slower than exponential. The math doesn't work.

Their next strategy is to try and spill over into the other less-overpopulated parts of the world and make *those* places just as overpopulated as India, if not more. They just don't seem to get it.

"We are at the point where money has never been cheaper and STILL people won't take out loans because, well, there simply isn't anything to invest in."

And there's nothing wrong with that.

We live on a finite planet.

Exponential growth on a finite planet is doomed.

This is well worth watching and understanding.

Prof Al Bartlett might disagree with you. While supplies at current rates give us probably something approaching your 100,000-year figure (this was the best I could find with a quick search, and about backs that up), that's assuming current rates of use. If our usage increases exponentially (we have always done this in the past with energy), then that 100k years, at a 10% growth rate per annum (probably a bit big, but gets the point across), drops to less than 144 years. We don't often understand exponentials.

Although that AC does have a point - it is immoral to not attempt to help eradicate disease but it is also not ideal to increase our population growth. Something needs to curb its growth, that can either be 1) leave it to nature (disease, famine, etc) or 2) change human behavior (lower birth rates, or increase death rates).

Please don't get me wrong, I am in support of helping the needy and that includes curing disease and I think Bill Gates is doing more than most in his position - but it doesn't mean it's the best strategy for the long term existence of our race, perhaps that's ok - we're not going to survive for ever, our demise will come eventually.

I don't think we have much chance of doing 2, this may happen by its self, but I expect that will be too late for human existence to remain sustainable like we perceive it today (although in reality, it is already not sustainable).

Remember, population growth is exponential - this get nasty and out of hand very quickly.

A great example is: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/bacteria_exponential_growth

The solution to this problem is - we either decrease our growth or the planet will do it for us (anarchy, war, disease, starvation, etc).

Let's put this in context. If we continue to grow at just 1% a year we only have 780 years until there is about 1 square meter of dry land per person on this planet, see: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_transcript_english.html That's a ridiculously short period of time when put in context of human existence. Obviously this is not going to happen, something will have to change well before we get there. I expect it will be anarchy, war, disease, starvation, etc.

Having said this though, recent evidence does suggest that population growth is starting to slow - this could be our savior and could make all my points above moot. But we should keep an open mind and try to factor in the outcome of our actions regardless of how far into the future those outcome have their effect.

The YouTube video previously linked is of a lecture given by Albert Barlett. If you find it not so easy to navigate, or that it obscures the credibility of the content, go straight to the source for the definitive copy, and the summary. This lecture truly is among the most important videos any of us will see. It makes plain the simple reality of exponential growth against finite resources in terms that are entirely relevant to our daily lives.

The YouTube video previously linked is of a lecture given by Albert Barlett. If you find it not so easy to navigate, or that it obscures the credibility of the content, go straight to the source for the definitive copy, and the summary. This lecture truly is among the most important videos any of us will see. It makes plain the simple reality of exponential growth against finite resources in terms that are entirely relevant to our daily lives.