Slashdot Mirror

https://overpopulationisamyth....

http://www.juliansimon.com/wri...

http://www.businessinsider.com... (see: "Part Two: Advanced Economies That Will Shrivel And Die")

While the Earth may have its limits for any specific combination of human culture and technology, there is room for quadrillions of humans in self-replicating space habitats throughout the solar system. Jeff Bezos' take on that:
https://www.space.com/37572-je...

And on current USA human culture and politics and economics:
https://www.westernwatersheds....
"By far the greatest impact on the American landscape comes not from urbanization but rather from agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farming and ranching are responsible for 68 percent of all species endangerment in the United States. Agriculture is the largest consumer of water, particularly in the West. Most water developments would not exist were it not for the demand created by irrigated agriculture. If ultimate causes and not proximate causes for species extinction are considered, agricultural impacts would even be higher. Yet scant attention is paid by academicians, environmentalists, recreationists and the general public to agriculture's role in habitat fragmentation, species endangerment and declining water quality. The ironic aspect of this head-in-the sand approach to land use is that most agriculture is completely unnecessary to feed the nation. The great bulk of agricultural production goes toward forage production used primarily by livestock. A small shift in our diet away from meat could have a tremendous impact on the ground in terms of freeing up lands for restoration and wildlife habitat. It would also reduce the poisoning of our streams and groundwater with pesticides and other residue of modern agricultural practices."

Consider, "Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?"
https://healthesolutions.com/s...
"Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac? In a classic case of contradictory government policy the pyramids in this graphic clearly show the inverse relationship between federal government agriculture subsidies and federal nutrition recommendations. The chart was put together by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, but its figures still, alas, look quite relevant. Thanks to lobbying, Congress chooses to subsidize foods that weâ(TM)re supposed to eat less of."

Respectfully, I suggest you research these issues further to avoid spreading confusion on them.

For example, while humans don't fix nitrogen, human waste contains a lot of nitrogen from food that is eaten. For example, by one calculation
http://www.agriculturesnetwork...
"Roughly estimated, at least 800 million kg nitrogen, 400 million kg phosphate and 500 million kg potash can be annually acquired from night soil produced in urban areas. This is equivalent to some 4 million tonnes of commercial fertiliser, which is about 4% of all commercial fertiliser used throughout the country."

Considering how much fertilizer is wasted in modern systems, you can see that this was a big deal in China as part of a closed cycle including other techniques to restore soil fertility. Granted there are other issues with pathogens and contamination from "night soil", but nonetheless, China is an example of doing wihout the Haber process for 4000 years and still supporting big populations by other means.

Historically, rotational field cropping has also been used to replenish the soil. Also, intercropping can boost nitrogen levels in intensive agriculture;
"Intercropping with nitrogen-fixing crops leads to increased maize yields, says study"
http://www.enn.com/agriculture...
"Results show that while mono cropping practices produce a high yield crop, it is not the sustainable solution in the long run. Instead, the research suggests that by strategically combining small doses of inorganic fertilizer through an intercropping system, maize yields will be more stable and will not only increase, but will lead to other ecosystem services like soil stability, water storage capacity and overall fertility. "

Integrated agricultural systems such as involving water from fish ponds and such can also increase nitrogen in agriculture..

I've cited sources for my points, including how excessive nitrogen fertilizer causes micronutrient loss. While nitrogen is often a limiting nutrient, the point is that it can displace other nutrients very easily, causing other issues. Beyond clay, organic matter also holds onto micronutrients. This is one reason "organic" farming focuses on building up the organic matter content of soils to increase nutrient holding capacity. "Feed the soil and keep it healthy for healthy plants" is the motto there. By contrast, conventional agriculture essentially uses the soil to prop up plants, and tends to produce lush green growth with excessive nitrogen, but the plants are otherwise weak and unhealthy and susceptible to disease. There are other broader problems from excess nitrogen too:
http://www.vision.org/visionme...

Please cite sources etc. substantiating your various points especially disagreeing with the loss of micronutrients (which is basic chemistry, if usually ignored in mainstream agriculture which tends to maximize empty calories) in order for this to be a more productive dialog.

Here's the bottom line on at least US agriculture. Almost everything grown just goes to feed animals, and eating too many animal products is bad for people's health, as is eating too many refined grains (another big part of the rest of US agriculture). So really, all this discussion about fertilizer in that sense is besides the point in many ways. See:
http://www.westernwatersheds.o...
"Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are prima

"Meat is often a cheaper source of your necessary nutrients than vegetables."

Ignoring how meat does not have essential phytonutrients in it (as you mention), consider the political reason of why that is the case as far as "calories":
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has posted an easy-to-understand visual on its site that shows which foods U.S. tax dollars go to support under the nation's farm bill. It's titled "Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?" and depicts two pyramids -- subsidized foods and the old recommended food pyramid. It's interesting to note that the two are almost inversely proportional to each other."

Also, consider how externalities of meat production such as destroying marine ecosystems from overfishing, manure runoff polluting fresh water supplies, and the destruction of so many forests and other land ecosystems to produce cattle feed:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

On your other points, most vegetarians' diets probably aren't very good. They may have too many refined sugars and too few vegetables, too little variety, and too little of things like iodine. It takes a lot of learning and opportunity and time to eat well as a vegetarian. But what is important to acknowledge is that there are plant-based diet styles that will reverse heart disease. So that 32% figure might be some kind of average, but it does not reflect the best possible outcome for someone who is really trying to reverse or prevent heart disease. See my other post here for links, or see as one example, Dr. Esselstyn' work:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/

I'd agree though that some small amount of free-range organic grass-fed meat or other similar animal products can potentially be part of a reasonably healthy diet -- other ethical and financial and scalability and externality questions aside. Even Dr. Fuhrman agrees on that part as far as the research -- that if you get 10% or less of your calories from animal products, you are doing pretty well.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article5.aspx
"Therefore I encourage consumption of a carefully planned vegetarian diet or one that includes a small amount of animal products, perhaps 10% of total calories or less, rather than 40 -60 % that children eat today. An animal-product-rich omnivorous diet cannot be considered nutritious food or called healthful."

High fat diets of animal products laced with growth hormones and such are probably bad for children in general. And also, there are few to no purely vegan diets in history. Even gorillas get some small percentage of their calories from termites and other insects they eat incidentally. B12 is another nutrient than can be an issue, usually provided by animal products, and some say can be supplied from dirty vegetables. Our food supply is in that sense too "clean" to be a pure vegan in (without special effort and selected supplements, if that). Vegans who are also neat freaks may be setting themselves up for disaster in that sense; yet on the other hand, since much "organic" food is grown using animal manure from livestock operations, not washing your vegetables well is a health risk too from E.coli contamination.

It does not take much animal products though to provide some essentials. Related example:
http://drbass.com/generations.html
"This text is still extremely important, since similar mistakes are still being made today, typically by aspiring vegans and vegan raw-foodists. Deficiencies th

... which meat of any sort does not have: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

Phytonutrients act in part as dailyanti-cancer chemotherapy for your cells, and are vital building blocks like for the pigments in your eyes, and are essential for the immune system to work well, and on and on. When you eat a lot of meat, which generally has a lot of fat these days, or eat a lot of other animal products, you crowd essential phytonutrients out of your diet. Still, it is true that animal products can concentrate other vital nutrients, like iodine, that may otherwise be hard to come by in vegetables grown on depleted soils (unless you eat sea vegetables with a lot of iodine).

Here is how to recalibrate your taste buds for healthy eating:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

That said, perhaps this in vitro meat can be engineered to have a large amount of phytonutrients as well as things like omega-3s (also originally from plants ingested by animals)?

But we don't need many animal products of any sort to be healthy or happy, as above. But we do need to learn a lot about nutrition. Starch-focused vegan diets, for example, tend to be very unhealthy, compared to vegetable-focused vegan diets.

But at least in vitro meat would be an improvement over the current situation:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/links.html

And another innovation in this area would include producing oranges without the tree, or orange juice without the orange, perhaps in indoor farms (with LED lights maybe powered by hot or cold fusion energy someday).

Even for in vitro meat, in vitro meat broth might be easier, an idea I can thank Bryan Bishop for suggesting.

It's true that people take up space and use up resources. But they also create spaces worth being in and produce resources. Also, the more people we have, the more innovation we have. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource

Most of the USA's land and about half its water goes to livestock agriculture. The livestock runoff then pollutes most of the other half. See:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/

While a small amount of clean organic naturally-fed unprocessed meat (especially fish before mercury and dioxin polluted them) may be healthy in a diet, the quantities and types of animal product most US Americans are eating are part of why US health is so poor.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

On Earth, we could reduce water consumption by growing vegetables indoors. But in any case, we can always condense fresh water out of the air or distill it from the oceans if we have cheap energy, which we will get soon from cheap solar panels (and maybe cheap hot or cold fusion soon). The more people, the sooner we will get those innovation breakthroughs.

Since the Solar System could support quadrillions of people living in style in space habitats, even if one was to argue the Earth was overpopulated, even limited agricultural land is no reason to limit human population growth any time soon, even if one might suggest an aesthetic limit on the Earth perhaps, like putting an occupancy limit on a restaurant in a city.

The repentant anti-GMO activist is wrong on the need for GMOs, because GMOs (even if safe) are solving the wrong problem. To begin with, people starve or are malnourished for economic reasons that could be solved with a global "basic income". The market does not hear the needs of people without money, so the simplest solution to malnutrition is to give people money so the market will listen to their needs. Yes, this requires some level of social consensus leading to enforced redistribution of resources. Frances Moore Lappe and others explains why less people does not mean less starvation.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it
http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/dagrossa-p/articles/WhyCantPeopleFeedThemselves.pdf
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

Although a semi-rebuttal to Lappe that ignores distribution issues:
http://www.hoodrivernews.com/news/2002/sep/18/lappe-response-think-locally-starve-globally/

Agricultural robotics (including for the home gardener) and solar panels are going to change the face of agriculture over the next twenty years to produce lots of food for all, if we want that future:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

We do not need GMO crops to feed the planet. What we need is to do things like grind up rocks to make cheap organic fertilizer:
http://remineralize.org/

And then we need a space program. And we need to be better stewards of the oceans (rather than overfish because our economic systems are broken in that sense).

The current focus on plant breeding, whether GMO or conventional, has produced monocultures of crops that are dependent on s

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
"Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock. The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres. ... Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed. ... The real message here is that we can afford to restore hundreds of millions of acres in the U.S. if we simply shift our diets away from meat. ..."

See also:
http://www.ravediet.com/links.html

And how to grown lots of vegetables on little land, which could be roboticized no doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_foot_gardening

"Without technology providing additional food, or transport from farms to tables, I believe the balance point for hunter-gatherers or subsistence agriculture has already been exceeded."

I agree that human population now likely exceeds the capacity for traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyles (maybe by several times). Increasing population density leading to more structured bureaucratic militarized societies is probably a big reason most hunter/gatherer societies were lost (attacked or assimilated or pushed away onto marginal lands to fade away). But that does not invalidate the truths that according to Marshall Sahlins hunter/gatherers had *more* free time than most of us today, and what work they did was very self-directed, often more like professional work of today.

Most (95%?) of the labor hours expended today in the USA tend to be about guarding, engaging in non-productive make-work, or is just destructive or competitively wasteful, or is trying to compensate for the other ills of the society from the previous problems. For example, most heart surgery is apparently worse than useless according to Dr. Joel Fuhrman:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
Most schooling is harming kids according to John Taylor Gatto:
http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
Most farming (mainly for animal product production) is killing us and destroying our land:
http://www.ravediet.com/reviews.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Much policing related to drug laws is destroying our communities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Most of US military use is making us less safe:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/torture-on-tv/less-safe/
http://www.cato.org/store/books/power-problem-how-american-military-dominance-makes-us-less-safe-less-prosperous-less-free-har
Most computer software development is unneeded; for example IBM had a perfectly good in-house Forth they could have used as a command line interpreter rather than pay Bill Gated for MS-DOS which he bought from someone else. Most Wall Street computerized trading is of little-to-negative social value (just high stakes zero-sum horse racing and putting the whole unregulated derivatives system at risk of systemic collapse).
Most college degrees are not worth it either economically or educationally:
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/why-college-may-not-worth-133900551.html
I could go on... And on.. And on...
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/AchievingAStarTrekSociety.html

So, figure out a way that we can stop doing all that 95%+ of excess wasteful labor, and we then would indeed have free time, and our collective standard of living would go up. But then how would people be able to afford to buy food and pay rent? (Thus a basic income or other alternatives become needed...)

My point is not that hunter/gather low-tech is better than high-tech. It is that both our current high-tech existence and our historical low-tech existence have different good and bad points. There are many forms of technology, too, (e.e.g the "appropriate technology" idea) so even high-tech and low-tech is a crude distinction when we are talking about com

You make some good points, but why are so few people aware that solar energy from solar PV panels is exponentially becoming cheaper than power from coal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

Consider that about half the land in the USA is used for raising grain to feed to livestock in factory farms (where eating that sort of meat may be shortening our lives):
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

Consider that it would take about 1% of the USA's land area to produce all the energy it currently needs for all purpposes via solar PV at 10% efficiency, or about the amount of land currently devoted to either mining or roads directly or indirectly. If we cut back on meat consumption by 2%, that is enough land for PV panels to power the USA.

Beyond that, there are many exotic types of energy under investigation from thorium power to hot and cold fusion.

And that is not even thinking about what we could do in space, like with huge solar mirrors.

So, why the doom and gloom about energy?

Citation needed. If people believed as you did, there would never be any innovation...

Also, you raise a false dillemma. Vast amounts of financial capital in our society have tied themselves up into energy sources they can more easily control. It's a mindset that won't invest much in alternatives, and will invest in politics to keep their control in place (like preventing laws regulating coal pollution).

Actually, I live in a fairly energy efficient house (partially passive solar), so I am practicing that I preach to some extent (not perfectly). The state of the art in home construction these days in cold climates is to have lots of efficiency and no furnace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1
"DARMSTADT, Germany â" From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace."

I also eat pretty low on the food chain, that saves lots of energy and water and medical costs and pollution and animal suffering and so on.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

I provided lots of links to people putting time and money into alternatives, and they just continue to improve. The fact that GE is predicting solar will be cheaper that coal in five years despite how coal is subsidized so much (including by not having to pay for the health costs or environment destruction costs) just shows how good renewables are.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Coal did not pay its true cost in 1993:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/4566/

Coal does not pay its true cost now (perhaps half a trillion dollars a year):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/true-cost-coal-half-trillion-dollars-year

And that is what makes it so hard "economically" to sell alternatives.

So, it is indeed hard to compete against such a tilted playing field, true. That is a missing issue in your comment about "so you do it", unpaid externalities.

In fact, if you reread my comment, you will see I said "No one said it was going to be easy"... That is why it is now a socio-economic issue more than a technical issue. We have plenty of technology if we wanted to use it. And it would overall be cheaper to use it overall across our society, and then alternatives would be adopted faster when gasoline was $20 a gallon with externalities priced in (we'd all drive electric cars pretty fast) or when coal electricity was $0.50 a kilowatt-hour (we'd all switch to wind and other renewables plus energy efficiency real fast). But that does not happen because we don't pay up front. Instead we pay on our health insurance bills, or in national debt to fund a war machine, or future environmental destruction that needs to be fixed, and so on...

No, we don't 75% or more is for livestock, and eating too much factory farmed meat is killing us.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?"

Also, eating factory farmed meat in general is killing us and destroying our environment:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

So, maybe we'd be better off if the predators got rid of the cows instead of the rustlers?

Right now about 50% of US land goes to produce animal products which are overall killing us with bad fats:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-debate-does-the-total-fat-in-your-diet-matter.html
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(11)00291-4/fulltext
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/

And we can always grow food indoors using cheap energy and rock dust:
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR06.txt
"Why is the Food Outlook Made to Seem Gloomy?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-power-wind.php

In general, people living longer is not going to have as much effect on the population as how many kids people have -- and that amount is falling with industrialization; in Italy, every woman has about 1.2 kids but would need to have 2.1 kids to keep the population from declining. The entire industrialized world has this problem (but not as bad as Italy in most places).

Just think of all the people around to pass on wisdom to the next generation.

Straightforward solutions to employment issues exist, like a "basic income"; see my website: http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Anyway, solutions exist if we really want them.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

"There could be a breakthrough that causes one of both to improve significantly, but there is no reason to expect either, only hope that it will happen."

Have you actually looked at the chart here?
http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices

How do you explain the price of PV/watt dropping in half over the last couple of years?

Also, when you account for externalities like pollution, risk, health, and defense, renewables (plus energy efficiency like passive solar) have been cheaper since the 1970s, so the current mix is what is "insane" from a capitalist perspective, but is profitable for some who can privatize gains but socialize costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current. [2]"

You are making broad sweeping generalizations, but not providing details. For example, you say solar takes a lot of land but you don't cite how much land coal mining takes,

Why can't we just make hydrogen from wind farms and burn it in turbines when the wind is not blowing to even the load? Or store it in metal hydrides and use it in fuel cells? How much more expensive is it really in current dollars? And how much cheaper is it given you don't have all the health costs of coal burning? Example:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/
"This study lays out in detail the costs the coal industry is NOT PAYING and what everyone else IS PAYING! The paper details all the factors that are not quantifiable, like lost work time when a mother has to take her child to the doctor for an asthma attack or the cost to a family for the loss of a loved one or wage earner. ... Each stage in the life cycle of coalâ"extraction, transport, processing, and combustionâ"generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and thus are often considered as âoeexternalities.â We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world."

The amount of land needed to go all solar in the USA is less than 1% -- compare it to, say, animal product production which is what about half the land area in the USA is used for (mostly for animal fodder) where eating too many animal products is overall shortening US life expectancies.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.ht

On agriculture using about 50% of the land in the USA (mostly to grow fodder to grow too much factory-farmed animal products that are killing us with health problems especially when combined with too much sugar and refined grains):
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Note also how much land already goes to roads and mining. But agriculture is the biggest user.

Here are pictures of the area needed for off-shore wind and solar:
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequiredWindOnly.jpg
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

Current renewables like well-sited wind and solar PV have energy payback ranging from around three to six months for wind:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php

Solar estimates seem to range around one to four years:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/economics.php
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_payback_time#Sustainables

That last one is citing 2 to 4 years for PV, but it is out of date for thin film solar (if it was accurate back then).

Basically, the power to put in more renewables can come from other renewables in a bootstrapping way. Still, I'd agree that in practice a lot of the energy to make a lot of wind and PV systems quickly is coming from fossil fuels and nuclear. In many way, older nuclear power plants represent embodied fossil fuels used in their construction to pour concrete and mine fuel, too.

These pictures shows how little land or ocean surface is required to power the world entirely from wind or solar:
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequiredWindOnly.jpg
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

Something like 1% of the USA's surface area is already devoted to things like power line rights of ways, or areas around fossil fuel mining, or roadways, etc..

Something like about 50% of the land in the USA is devoted to animal product production (meat, dairy, etc.) one way or another (mostly growing fodder for animals), and the animal products are actually mostly harming US Americans, so there is plenty of room for renewables from that angle, too: :-)
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Also, a lot of land can be dual use, like farming under windmills, or PV used on roofs.

So, the amount of land being talked about to be fully renewable is not disproportionate to other activities like the US interstate highway system or especially agriculture.

I'm not saying nuclear does not have interesting applications following the Hyperion approach or similar designs like the Toshiba S4. But to flat out say renewables are not going to work is just not accurate.

Well said!

See also:

Plans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

Cars:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

Agriculture:
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

But, with all that said, the same sorts of reasons solar energy is getting better (better materials, better designs, better discussions, better insights into physics) is the same reason small scale nuclear is getting better (even as I would agree solar is safer and more decentralized than conventional nuclear). And example of small nuclear:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Related case for nuclear power:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Let's say, in a moderate worse case in Japan that 100,000 people die from some nuclear radiation accident and the clean up cost a couple trillion dollars. Nuclear power still might have been cheaper in Japan, all things considered, than coal which causes a lot of pollution and related illness.

Would it have been cheaper in that sense than solar and wind? Probably not...

Still, given this is the worst quake to have hit Japan in a century, and the nuclear plants are not being talked about as having total meltdowns, this event itself might prove how safe they can be in some situations.

Of course, dealing with direct terrorism intended to cause them to malfunction may be a different issue, but many major industrial facilities, like at Bhopal, have that risk. And ideas like Hyperion help reduce that risk. Ultimately, if we try harder to make our global economy work for everyone, we might have less fears that people will commit terrorism because the hate us because we support their oppressors for various reasons...

On economic transformation, see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

BTW, an example of perhaps cold fusion (still needs more confirmation):
http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

Personally, I want to be able to print solar panels in a solar-powered 3D printer. :-)

http://remineralize.org/

And such fertilizer produces healthier plants that need less pesticides.

"Biodegradable plastic made from plants, not oil, is emerging"
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2008-12-25-biodegradable-plastic_N.htm

"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

"More energy goes into making gasoline from electricity and natural gas than it would take to make electric cars go the same distance"
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current. [2]"

Other approaches to all renewables:
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Given the exponetial growth of renewable energy, and how PV solar panels are about to reach grid parity and the prices will continue to drop, I think we will be all renewables by about 2030 from market forces alone at this point. (Unless cold fusion pans out, or if small scale nuclear like Hyperion gets popular.)

Three quarters of US agricultural production also just goes to produce livestock, and the health consequences of too much animal products are harming people's health, too, so we really don't need most of the fertilizer we produce.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

How to deal with the economic consequences of all this increased efficiency:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=6#comment-20270
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/more-on-the-future-implications-ibm-watson-technology/#comment-534

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
"The great bulk of agricultural production goes toward forage production used primarily by livestock. A small shift in our diet away from meat could have a tremendous impact on the ground in terms of freeing up lands for restoration and wildlife habitat. It would also reduce the poisoning of our streams and groundwater with pesticides and other residue of modern agricultural practices. ... The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres. ... About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock. The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres. ... Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed. ... Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population. ... "

Similar to suggested above, when you include grain production for animal feed to grazing land, literally half the land in the USA is devoted to animal product production, according to the movie this is a preview of:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html

Note that, overall, people in the USA would be healthier if they ate a lot less animal products and processed foods (including sugar and refined grains) and a lot more vegetables, fruits, and beans (and some nuts, seeds, and whole grains, and a few key supplements like vitamin D, B12, iodine, etc.). But the agricultural subsidies are the opposite of what we need for good health in the USA.

See also:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

A basic income would eliminate poverty (and was endorsed by Nobel Prize winners):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.usbig.net/
http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html
The right amount of vitamin D would reduce sick care costs by maybe a third in industrialized countries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
A good diet, occasional fasting, and moderate exercise would reduce another third or so of sick care expenses by helping people break out of a pleasure trap from supernormal stimuli:
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
Single payer health care in the USA would reduce expenses (for paperwork) by a third as well (these are not all additive, of course):
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Reinstating regulation on children's TV might help prevent damage to kids:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X
http://www.amazon.com/So-Sexy-Soon-Sexualized-Childhood/dp/0345505077
A more vegetarian diet would also free up three-quarters of agricultural lands in the USA:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Renewable energy has been cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear, when you factor in the externalities, like pollution, defense spending, and risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
Switching to electric cars would probably reduce our electricity use, and eliminate the need for much oil (since it takes more electricity to refine the oil into gas than it would to run electric cars the same distance as a gallon of gas in an ICE car):
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
We can develop the technology of being able to produce almost anything from commonly found raw materials:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
We know how to make healthier communities:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
Nuclear weapons and military robots are ironic because the same technology could produce abundanc

You're right, it is a good idea to separate those things, digital from physical right now.

I'd go a step further and suggest a big problem these days is that people lump under "capital" both imaginary fiat dollars (ration units) and physical things like cement plants. As suggested by another poster, if we want a new cement plant, it takes time to build one. But an endless supply of fiat dollars can be created by the stroke of a pen in Congress. Digitally, there is so much capacity now relative to basic needs like surfing the web that, compared to when one hand to spend a lot of money to buy a few IBM mainframe computing cycles, most computer and network access costs now are too cheap to matter much.

But, still, for a post-scarcity future, consider the resources you mentioned.

* Water. We have oceans full of it. With enough energy (like from wind and solar), it is easy to desalinate it. There are desalinization breakthroughs mentioned on slashdot quite frequently.

* Food. The USA alone can produce enough food to feed something like three billion people. Unfortunately, much of it goes to animal feed:
"The Truth About Land Use in the United States"
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
We've plenty of food for a mostly vegetarian diet for a much bigger population than we have now. And that's even without effectively farming the oceans or people moving off-planet to space habitats.

* Land. See the above link on how much land there is in the USA. We can also build seasteads. And eventually we'll be building space habitats. We can build thousands, even millions, of Earths worth of surface area for materials in the solar system, like Princeton Physicist Gerard K. O'Neill showed how to do.

* Megan Fox. Sure, human relationships will always have a scarcity aspect. Still, digitally there is a vast quantity of Megan Fox around:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Megan+Fox&btnG=Search+images
We'll no doubt see virtual actors soon -- there are already all sorts of interactive games with virtual people. And look where this sort of robotic technology is going:
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2188
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/14/aiko-fembot-robot
Also, no doubt there are millions of women who look a lot like Megan Fox, or act like her. So, I question just how scarce Megan Fox as a concept is. But yes, sure, if you want to point to specific people or rocks in the world, yes, there is a scarcity there of that one person or thing. But, then think how scarce and precious everyone on the planet is. Maybe they all deserve a basic income as a human right, to have some claim on the fruits of an abundant industrial commons? Even Megan Fox? Maybe if she had had a guaranteed basic income every year to meet her living expenses for life, she might have had a happier life? And maybe all the people around her would not have been so eager to exploit her, and she could have had a more authentic life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Even millionaires like (likely) Megan Fox may be better off with a universal basic income:
"[p2p-research] Basic income from a millionaire's perspective?"
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-August/003949.html

Consider:
"Megan Fox Opens Up About Weight Loss, Depression: "Transformers"