Okay okay. I put the exact quote (which I made up) as a joke. The real point is that rich countries are no longer adding people to the world. Their populations are growing only through immigration. All countries become rich, then growth stops. Simple as that.
Well the developed world leads the world in two bad things: CO2 and fossil fuel use. Everything else is worse in the developing world. The reason is obvious, because when you are rich you use fossil fuels. The solution is obvious, renewable energy. I'm dedicating my life to that.
Another appeal to emotion. State your evidence. And yes that is the solution to population growth, which is one of the two main problems: CO2 and population growth. Consumerism is the solution to population growth. Alternative energy is the solution to CO2. I work to create both.
Your first point is actually a good one. The question is how many will be left and is it one or two generations or is it 1000 generations. That remains to be seen.
Your second point, however is not right. The technology exists to solve the oil problem - nuclear, and nuclear gasoline synthesis. Greenpeace has essentially banned it in my country. The idea that we have burned millions of years of stored energy in decades is true but it is a fallacy. That energy was stored in an incredibly inefficient manner. I have not yet calculated it but my guess is that it was stored at less than 1 billionth of a percent efficient. The reality is that the earth gets more solar energy in an hour then we use in a year. If you could harness that energy at even %1 efficiency (try for higher anyway), you'd solve the problem. Thus, we have not made any irrevocable decisions in burning the oil. If we enact social change (I.E., fix our nuclear policy), we can solve the problem with currently existing technology. If we aren't allowed to use existing technologies, we'll have to invent new ones. I'm working on that. And in every shortage in history, be it of wood, whale oil, ammonia (one of my favorites) or of food, the technologists have found a solution. Will they again? We won't know, but we can be somewhat confident that they will.
Okay, I'll agree that there's no such thing as a mine that doesn't harm the environment. There's no such thing as a person who doesn't harm the environment. But eventually, you start debating what the definition of "harm the environment " is. Humans are natural, and thus part of the environment. Does a bear harm the environment when it eats the last member of a soon to be extinct species? If the answer is "no" then does a human who cuts up a rock to get some iron "harm the environment". In the end, the environment is only worth what people think it's worth, in dollars.
1) I don't have an SUV because I can't afford one
2) I'm really glad I live there, and wish everyone had the opportunity to live like that
3) Environmental destruction has not actually happened here because of environmental regulations, which means it is an abstract concept. I wish it was for the rest of the world to
4) I don't read commercially sponsored news. I extract numbers from scientific reports, personal experiments, as well as commercial facts (I.E. the price of iron), etc. Then I calculate the total effect of 15 billion people living "wastefully". The results have so far shown it not to be a problem with existing or near future technology. Stop with condescending BS that's all to typical of the left
I may visit a developing country some time. Hopefully I will leave it a more developed place. Which one did you visit?
1) And why is land scarce? Oh, because dictators own it all. Then you realise that everyone could fit in the southern USA at Los Angles pop densities. And yes, I do realise that they will need more land to provide all the stuff they are using
2) Because there are no emissions control systems on the cars
3) Environmental destruction may be permanent in some instances. That's why we need to help developing countries move beyond that phase of construction
4) Because they can't afford to.
I don't drink bottled water. I love cars and I love SUVs. And I don't have any values outside of my belief in leaving people alone. I don't believe that it would be good policy for everyone to live like me. Instead, I want to change the way I'm living by inventing new technologies, while improving other people's lives. If everyone drives a solar powered SUV, then that's good. And that can happen. We have to stop the people (on the left and right) who want to stop that.
Because of the evidence. The energy efficiency of transport is about the same as the energy efficiency of cars of the same type. Electric transport == electric cars. Diesel transport == diesel cars. The article's numbers are taken from a department of energy report, and made into nice bar graphs for readers. The DOE report (a humongous document) is linked in the article. It's counter-intuitive and seemingly illogical at first, but definitely worth a read. The greenest mode of transport is an electric motorbike.
Of course, we need to send the oil co's the bill for the wars. Then they'll pass it on to consumers.
Prices won't go to infinity. Investors give the market system foresight. Investors predict that the price will go up, and the investors build stuff before the prices go up suddenly. Look at all the investors in alternative energy, although it makes up a tiny amount of the total energy production. Look at the work on water. People plan ahead for these things and take a shot at it. I agree that the oil situation could be painful. That's why I'm studying to be one of those entrepreneurs who deals with it.
Of course. It doesn't guarantee that it will be clean. All that matters is that there are ways of mining that don't hurt the environment and that more are in use.
We'll build those transmission lines, don't worry. When environmentalists can't drive their SUV's to the farmers market anymore, they'll have to allow the transmission lines (because they suddenly stopped causing cancer). Or we will have to not build transmission lines at all, and instead ship synthetic gasoline around. We have more than enough energy and resources to keep driving (which is actually one of the most efficient methods of transportation - higher than public transit in most instances) and building, we just have to build to use them. If the government and environmentalists don't let us build, then China will build and eclipse us (they are now a larger automotive market than the US). But in reality, I don't think the "shortages" will effect us all that much.
Actually, I have a really really good solution to this problem. There could be resource tokens, made of cheap materials, like paper. You could trade them for metal, oil, land, etc. You could also trade them for people's time and skills. Scarcer resources could be worth more resource tokens. If you dump acid overboard, you have to pay resource tokens. Maybe these tokens could have pictures of presidents on them or some- oh wait. Money. It will manage those resources for us.
but just keep ignoring the fish stock depletions, the aquifer depletions, the increased consumption of oil that just gets deeper to dig up, the slowly rising thermostat
Trust me, many, many people (including me) are aware. They are searching for solutions, like solar arrays, desal plants, government-free recycling, etc. The public will not notice the change. Some people will get rich (hopefully me) and we and the planet will be okay. If not, the prices will force people to cut back and we'll be safe.
The best way to reduce mineral scarcity, eliminate the psychopaths who consume resources beyond all reason, no more mega yachts, mansions, private jets et al. the planet can no longer cope with them.
Wrong. The best way is to develop the world as fast as humanly possible. Why? Because the more resources people consume, the less children they have. If population growth is our enemy, then our friend is economic growth. This is happening in a big way in places like India, which previously was a huge pop growth center. It is still growing, but it is down from 6 births per woman to 2.75 per woman. Why? not because of environmentalism, government or anything. It is because of consumerism and capitalism. Why? because women decided that they'd rather have cars then kids. What this means is that if we build, build, build, we end up with less people total. If we conserve and become poorer, more people will be born, and we will end up with a overpopulation catastrophe. Oh, and the mega yachts etc. of the ultra rich aren't the main resource users. It's average people in developed countries. It doesn't really matter though, because we haven't used all that much of the earth's metals.
not only from mining but also from refining (which becomes much worse as you deal with less viable mining resources).
Wrong again, rtb61. A mine in a poorer country that dumps toxic waste into a river is bad news. A modern mine, with all it's emission controls and neutralization processes is not. You really have to understand the difference between an open coal fire and highly emissions controlled one.
The world contains more than enough metal for all the stuff the enviros love to hate. More energy then we could ever find a way to use hits the earth from the sun. However, we need to actually use it. Then all 15 billion of us can live in mansions, and drive flying SUVs. The real psychopaths are people like you who wish to deny people the right to live their lives to fullest. The best way to reduce mineral scarcity (and this is proven over and over) is to allow entrepreneurs and capitalists to find new methods of mining, recycling, and substitution of materials, and sue them if they dump acid down the drain.
Where did the GP mention socialism? Since everything is socialism, your mention of socialism without it previously being mentioned means you are a socialist!:).
The republicans and democrats are both the same. The republicans say they want to take your freedom to protect "the children" and religious morality. The democrats say they want to take your freedom to protect your health and the environment. In the end, however, the goal is simply to increase the power of the government and its owners. The children, the morals, the environment, and now health are just lies they tell to promote this. The goals of the government are two fold. The first is to track your every move. The second is to make sure you have no time outside of work and government mandated activity. The government mandated exercise will slowly take up more and more of your time until you have no free time. To "protect the environment" your car will be tracked, and cars will eventually banned to force everyone to take public transit, so they can be tracked - in the name of the environment. Then you will only be allowed to eat approved food, in the name of your health. Your electricity will be monitored in the name of the environment (another reason to oppose the smart grid). The goal of these regulations is not to do what they say they do but to increase the power of the government. To allow the government to arrest, fine, and detain anyone at any time. Anyone they don't like will be hit with lifestyle violations, energy violations, excessive car use violations, etc. Who do we vote for?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think there could be a real boom in hydrogen blimps as a result of this shortage.
Okay okay. I put the exact quote (which I made up) as a joke. The real point is that rich countries are no longer adding people to the world. Their populations are growing only through immigration. All countries become rich, then growth stops. Simple as that.
Well the developed world leads the world in two bad things: CO2 and fossil fuel use. Everything else is worse in the developing world. The reason is obvious, because when you are rich you use fossil fuels. The solution is obvious, renewable energy. I'm dedicating my life to that.
You can if you want. I like driving, and so do many. But you'll be paying a lot if you want to walk to the store and have a big house.
Another appeal to emotion. State your evidence. And yes that is the solution to population growth, which is one of the two main problems: CO2 and population growth. Consumerism is the solution to population growth. Alternative energy is the solution to CO2. I work to create both.
solar and alternative energies will never provide more than 10-20% of world consumption.
Why?
Whoops. Thanks for the corrections.
Your first point is actually a good one. The question is how many will be left and is it one or two generations or is it 1000 generations. That remains to be seen.
Your second point, however is not right. The technology exists to solve the oil problem - nuclear, and nuclear gasoline synthesis. Greenpeace has essentially banned it in my country. The idea that we have burned millions of years of stored energy in decades is true but it is a fallacy. That energy was stored in an incredibly inefficient manner. I have not yet calculated it but my guess is that it was stored at less than 1 billionth of a percent efficient. The reality is that the earth gets more solar energy in an hour then we use in a year. If you could harness that energy at even %1 efficiency (try for higher anyway), you'd solve the problem. Thus, we have not made any irrevocable decisions in burning the oil. If we enact social change (I.E., fix our nuclear policy), we can solve the problem with currently existing technology. If we aren't allowed to use existing technologies, we'll have to invent new ones. I'm working on that. And in every shortage in history, be it of wood, whale oil, ammonia (one of my favorites) or of food, the technologists have found a solution. Will they again? We won't know, but we can be somewhat confident that they will.
Okay, I'll agree that there's no such thing as a mine that doesn't harm the environment. There's no such thing as a person who doesn't harm the environment. But eventually, you start debating what the definition of "harm the environment " is. Humans are natural, and thus part of the environment. Does a bear harm the environment when it eats the last member of a soon to be extinct species? If the answer is "no" then does a human who cuts up a rock to get some iron "harm the environment". In the end, the environment is only worth what people think it's worth, in dollars.
1) I don't have an SUV because I can't afford one
2) I'm really glad I live there, and wish everyone had the opportunity to live like that
3) Environmental destruction has not actually happened here because of environmental regulations, which means it is an abstract concept. I wish it was for the rest of the world to
4) I don't read commercially sponsored news. I extract numbers from scientific reports, personal experiments, as well as commercial facts (I.E. the price of iron), etc. Then I calculate the total effect of 15 billion people living "wastefully". The results have so far shown it not to be a problem with existing or near future technology. Stop with condescending BS that's all to typical of the left
I may visit a developing country some time. Hopefully I will leave it a more developed place. Which one did you visit?
1) And why is land scarce? Oh, because dictators own it all. Then you realise that everyone could fit in the southern USA at Los Angles pop densities. And yes, I do realise that they will need more land to provide all the stuff they are using
2) Because there are no emissions control systems on the cars
3) Environmental destruction may be permanent in some instances. That's why we need to help developing countries move beyond that phase of construction
4) Because they can't afford to.
I don't drink bottled water. I love cars and I love SUVs. And I don't have any values outside of my belief in leaving people alone. I don't believe that it would be good policy for everyone to live like me. Instead, I want to change the way I'm living by inventing new technologies, while improving other people's lives. If everyone drives a solar powered SUV, then that's good. And that can happen. We have to stop the people (on the left and right) who want to stop that.
Oh, I'm sure it would be nasty. That's why I'm hoping for liquid nitrogen cooled HTSC MRI before then.
Because of the evidence. The energy efficiency of transport is about the same as the energy efficiency of cars of the same type. Electric transport == electric cars. Diesel transport == diesel cars. The article's numbers are taken from a department of energy report, and made into nice bar graphs for readers. The DOE report (a humongous document) is linked in the article. It's counter-intuitive and seemingly illogical at first, but definitely worth a read. The greenest mode of transport is an electric motorbike.
Of course, we need to send the oil co's the bill for the wars. Then they'll pass it on to consumers.
Prices won't go to infinity. Investors give the market system foresight. Investors predict that the price will go up, and the investors build stuff before the prices go up suddenly. Look at all the investors in alternative energy, although it makes up a tiny amount of the total energy production. Look at the work on water. People plan ahead for these things and take a shot at it. I agree that the oil situation could be painful. That's why I'm studying to be one of those entrepreneurs who deals with it.
Well, there's a known decline in birth rate in richer countries. I'm guessing there is a woman who said that exactly, the exact quote is just me trying to make the post a bit funny.
China can build a 1.1 gigawatt nuke plant for $6 billion. Who knows what they can do in mass production.
Of course. It doesn't guarantee that it will be clean. All that matters is that there are ways of mining that don't hurt the environment and that more are in use.
Ironically, it is due to environmentalism.
We'll build those transmission lines, don't worry. When environmentalists can't drive their SUV's to the farmers market anymore, they'll have to allow the transmission lines (because they suddenly stopped causing cancer). Or we will have to not build transmission lines at all, and instead ship synthetic gasoline around. We have more than enough energy and resources to keep driving (which is actually one of the most efficient methods of transportation - higher than public transit in most instances) and building, we just have to build to use them. If the government and environmentalists don't let us build, then China will build and eclipse us (they are now a larger automotive market than the US). But in reality, I don't think the "shortages" will effect us all that much.
but just keep ignoring the fish stock depletions, the aquifer depletions, the increased consumption of oil that just gets deeper to dig up, the slowly rising thermostat
Trust me, many, many people (including me) are aware. They are searching for solutions, like solar arrays, desal plants, government-free recycling, etc. The public will not notice the change. Some people will get rich (hopefully me) and we and the planet will be okay. If not, the prices will force people to cut back and we'll be safe.
Newer ones are being based on MgB2 and liquid hydrogen.
Or 3) allow the price to rise, causing entrepreneurs to search for solutions.
The best way to reduce mineral scarcity, eliminate the psychopaths who consume resources beyond all reason, no more mega yachts, mansions, private jets et al. the planet can no longer cope with them.
Wrong. The best way is to develop the world as fast as humanly possible. Why? Because the more resources people consume, the less children they have. If population growth is our enemy, then our friend is economic growth. This is happening in a big way in places like India, which previously was a huge pop growth center. It is still growing, but it is down from 6 births per woman to 2.75 per woman. Why? not because of environmentalism, government or anything. It is because of consumerism and capitalism. Why? because women decided that they'd rather have cars then kids. What this means is that if we build, build, build, we end up with less people total. If we conserve and become poorer, more people will be born, and we will end up with a overpopulation catastrophe. Oh, and the mega yachts etc. of the ultra rich aren't the main resource users. It's average people in developed countries. It doesn't really matter though, because we haven't used all that much of the earth's metals.
not only from mining but also from refining (which becomes much worse as you deal with less viable mining resources).
Wrong again, rtb61. A mine in a poorer country that dumps toxic waste into a river is bad news. A modern mine, with all it's emission controls and neutralization processes is not. You really have to understand the difference between an open coal fire and highly emissions controlled one.
The world contains more than enough metal for all the stuff the enviros love to hate. More energy then we could ever find a way to use hits the earth from the sun. However, we need to actually use it. Then all 15 billion of us can live in mansions, and drive flying SUVs. The real psychopaths are people like you who wish to deny people the right to live their lives to fullest. The best way to reduce mineral scarcity (and this is proven over and over) is to allow entrepreneurs and capitalists to find new methods of mining, recycling, and substitution of materials, and sue them if they dump acid down the drain.
Where did the GP mention socialism? Since everything is socialism, your mention of socialism without it previously being mentioned means you are a socialist! :).
The republicans and democrats are both the same. The republicans say they want to take your freedom to protect "the children" and religious morality. The democrats say they want to take your freedom to protect your health and the environment. In the end, however, the goal is simply to increase the power of the government and its owners. The children, the morals, the environment, and now health are just lies they tell to promote this. The goals of the government are two fold. The first is to track your every move. The second is to make sure you have no time outside of work and government mandated activity. The government mandated exercise will slowly take up more and more of your time until you have no free time. To "protect the environment" your car will be tracked, and cars will eventually banned to force everyone to take public transit, so they can be tracked - in the name of the environment. Then you will only be allowed to eat approved food, in the name of your health. Your electricity will be monitored in the name of the environment (another reason to oppose the smart grid). The goal of these regulations is not to do what they say they do but to increase the power of the government. To allow the government to arrest, fine, and detain anyone at any time. Anyone they don't like will be hit with lifestyle violations, energy violations, excessive car use violations, etc. Who do we vote for?
That's eKnuth.