Let me salute you, when I went to Australia I was amazed about all the European stuff I could get there. Your country has to be the most global place on earth, I was able to buy my favourite Ritter Sport, some asian woman asked me if I had ever been to Asia and it wouldn't have been a long trip, and somebody else complained about the russian mafia. I mean this was like home plus the other end of the world.
The US on the other hand was staunchly national compared to that.
Well once you start looking at net energy the picture becomes bleaker. To sad that all the theory is so squishy around it, i.e. where do you draw boundaries when looking at EROI.
Very nice! Some might find this hard to understand though, they threw out intellectual honesty or the idea that you are responsible for your own world view a long time ago. Set theory is something only specialized people can afford who have enough spare time and resources to attend math courses for 17 years.
2075 is probably too late for some resources, phosphates come to mind. I'm still not sure about your centuries, but let me grant you the demographics argument.
Knowing that solitude causes depression, I have to wonder what would happen to you guys if you would actually get what you wanted.
To make a point I will use the spare time I currently have, to take erotic massage lessons. This is entirely legal where I live, so don't bother worrying about or copying this.
I know that guys won't easily get a job in this profession, so this will be the hobby to counterbalance the idiocy we are subjecting ourselfs to.
You are a great straight man. Basically I agree but I still need to joke about this foolish notion that scientists should just live in homeless shelters.
No we don't have a plan either, we just behave like the whales. But I wanted to make a joke out of retroactively justifying our ill thought out behaviour.
Well sometimes like during the cuban missile crisis, it could have all been over at 7 minutes to midnight.
I liked their reasons much better:
"It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007."
At some time in the future the world might look like as if we don't have much to lose through nuclear war. Do people have given up caring about that possibility all of a sudden?
"You want believable? Put first colony in the solar system at least a hundred years in the future to avoid being alive and mocked when the proposed date has passed and all we have are 30-foot wide cars, 30 angstrom thick phones, 30 inch long penises..."
So his Story should start like, "After an international fusion energy consortium (probably not ITER) of the western/eastern block (assume more fractured blocks the further you go into an energy poor future) barely saved mankind in the 2040s from descending into stoneage 2.0, with the decline in net energy that made itself felt since at least 2006, it became possible to carry on with more sensible resource management to solve the most pressing of mankinds problems like preventing massive epidemics among earths starving people, and repairing much needed infrastructure. Once stable conditions prevailed, mankind used this final wakeup call to decide to expand into space, applying the precautionary principle religiously now since it had so long been neglected."
"In terms of energy the population drop will come about 100 years too late, so we will have a crunch there, but less than people think. Right now we waste so much of it that it wouldn't be hard to drop our consumption to half without any true economic sacrifices."
I mainly agree, the west can easily reduce energy consumption, I'm not sure how people with higher fertility rates will fare. India is using green revolution based farming, to give an example, and many Asian countries used their food production to make new people. There is room for conflict there. Just imagine what a deglobalization would mean for the west in terms of resource availability, nowadays you would think that would mainly matter to China anyways, but it would hurt the industries we still have.
Beyond that you might be taking resource problems too lightly, Recycling doesn't work as well as we would like, substitution might easily reduce energy efficiency. Also my main worry isn't about Iron but Copper and similar metals like Tin and Zinc.
"More the other way around: which ones are you talking about? Almost all serious economist are non-Malthusian,"
This is a fair question, even though you shouldn't appeal to authority. Also Malthus made some mistakes. Personally I feel that mainstream economists don't allow themselfs a close enough connection to reality.
Here is a non-economist who had a much more believable view of the world:
I don't even have to feel like an early adopter on this one, the seventies already saw an energy crisis and we can just look at the work of Georgescu-Roegen to find that energy is the main thing to look at.
To sum it up, the UN report is mainly based on demographics and assumptions about fertility and other parameters. If the guys above are any good you should see a stronger decline following energy availability.
At 50%-75% recycling rate for some metals you won't make society last for some centuries. Also think about the parents statement about energy, it takes energy to collect the resources we spread out from a mine over the countryside. To make you think a little, let me ask how much gold in Fort Knox dates back to the Roman empire, and how much Roman gold is still out there? Can you answer that question? If not then let this be a reminder of how badly we remember where we put stuff and deal with our most precious resources.
"Trying to mine low-density resources requires greater energy inputs for the results obtained, and eventually that stalls out."
To put it differently, your civilization runs out of net energy. Also you can't go back since you have turned those low entropy resources into thinly spread out high entropy ones.
This all opens up interesting questions like, what stellar/planetary conditions lead to highly enriched resources like on earth, water and volcanism seem to help, but what other mechanisms could there be. Another question could be, how many people do you need at which time instant to come up with space technologies and for how long could you stretch the resources out, not that we would, but what if?
Also, we probably wouldn't be able to build the ship without better energy sources anyway, since it could easily be a century long project, running into the limits you mentioned. I wonder why they even started a similar project (http://www.100yss.org/agenda.html).
That is odd, the people I have the most persistent email exchange with are the ones whose ideas are the most different from my own. I just love the challenge. Also they can put up with some partial disagreement from my side.
I have other friends that I don't need to talk to because we don't have much to fight about. I suppose I'm different.
The problem is how long can they stay in the bunker and how long will global warming last.
You may want to ponder what energy sources they will use to power their bunker, and for how long that is possible. Also notice that there is the usual decay of mechanical systems through friction and other problems, so you need certain resources to maintain the bunker, also recycling isn't perfect, so after all you may need more energy/resources than you think.
Over all I might agree with you, they won't need to stay in the bunker that long, 100 years might be enough to get past the die off phase where the 7 billion are reduced by an order of magnitude.
Personally, I'm more interested in getting society ready to deal with the coming mess and getting it through with population control and whatever necessary, just because we don't do things because they are easy but because they are hard.
Also you should ponder the situation of the buried, they went under ground because of some silly asteroid or terrorist threat and will find out that the forest area they saw last has become some sort of desert, and then they will have to walk a few hundred kilometers north or south, until they find the next oasis. Dealing with that lie will suck! All the other lies will pale in comparison though.
Just to top it off, I read a book some time ago printed in 1936 in Germany called "Gloria", it also dealt with asteroids but was a preparation for the autarchy that WW2 required.
Well the bunker seems useful. But why didn't they come up with something like a new energy source that has pleasantly high energy return on investment, that is probably too hard, I wonder what they will power their lifeboat with though, probably its oil, gas or nukes for the next 100000 years.
The other stuff is irrelevant, apart maybe from the Bioshield.
Oh, here is a trick question - is it "sustainable"?
Yes, it is still on a Plateau. Technically if you want zero growth you need increasing energy input to an economy, but your explanation is probably more fitting for now.
Once it goes down everyone will scramble to blame it on peak oil I would bet.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me salute you, when I went to Australia I was amazed about all the European stuff I could get there. Your country has to be the most global place on earth, I was able to buy my favourite Ritter Sport, some asian woman asked me if I had ever been to Asia and it wouldn't have been a long trip, and somebody else complained about the russian mafia. I mean this was like home plus the other end of the world.
The US on the other hand was staunchly national compared to that.
Well once you start looking at net energy the picture becomes bleaker. To sad that all the theory is so squishy around it, i.e. where do you draw boundaries when looking at EROI.
Very nice! Some might find this hard to understand though, they threw out intellectual honesty or the idea that you are responsible for your own world view a long time ago. Set theory is something only specialized people can afford who have enough spare time and resources to attend math courses for 17 years.
2075 is probably too late for some resources, phosphates come to mind. I'm still not sure about your centuries, but let me grant you the demographics argument.
Your fossil fuel supplies aren't up against the pressure of exponential growth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Most other resources aren't either.
Some take the middle road, this is the sane thing to do.
Knowing that solitude causes depression, I have to wonder what would happen to you guys if you would actually get what you wanted.
To make a point I will use the spare time I currently have, to take erotic massage lessons. This is entirely legal where I live, so don't bother worrying about or copying this.
I know that guys won't easily get a job in this profession, so this will be the hobby to counterbalance the idiocy we are subjecting ourselfs to.
I'll let you know how it goes.
You are a great straight man. Basically I agree but I still need to joke about this foolish notion that scientists should just live in homeless shelters.
You guys over there need more homeless people.
No we don't have a plan either, we just behave like the whales.
But I wanted to make a joke out of retroactively justifying our ill thought out behaviour.
Well sometimes like during the cuban missile crisis, it could have all been over at 7 minutes to midnight.
I liked their reasons much better:
"It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007."
At some time in the future the world might look like as if we don't have much to lose through nuclear war. Do people have given up caring about that possibility all of a sudden?
Since we know about CO2 being a greenhouse gas since the 19th century, industrialization was just planned to prevent the ice age.
I enjoyed the ride so far, the problem is how long can it last.
Maybe a channel through the UAE could help, would be around 50-100km long.
This is only a part of why, and the shit will probably only get deeper.
"You want believable? Put first colony in the solar system at least a hundred years in the future to avoid being alive and mocked when the proposed date has passed and all we have are 30-foot wide cars, 30 angstrom thick phones, 30 inch long penises..."
Yeah this is what it look s like.
It's much worse though:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/pmofld1a.htm\
So his Story should start like, "After an international fusion energy consortium (probably not ITER) of the western/eastern block (assume more fractured blocks the further you go into an energy poor future) barely saved mankind in the 2040s from descending into stoneage 2.0, with the decline in net energy that made itself felt since at least 2006, it became possible to carry on with more sensible resource management to solve the most pressing of mankinds problems like preventing massive epidemics among earths starving people, and repairing much needed infrastructure.
Once stable conditions prevailed, mankind used this final wakeup call to decide to expand into space, applying the precautionary principle religiously now since it had so long been neglected."
Sorry for the long sentences.
"In terms of energy the population drop will come about 100 years too late, so we will have a crunch there, but less than people think. Right now we waste so much of it that it wouldn't be hard to drop our consumption to half without any true economic sacrifices."
I mainly agree, the west can easily reduce energy consumption, I'm not sure how people with higher fertility rates will fare. India is using green revolution based farming, to give an example, and many Asian countries used their food production to make new people. There is room for conflict there. Just imagine what a deglobalization would mean for the west in terms of resource availability, nowadays you would think that would mainly matter to China anyways, but it would hurt the industries we still have.
Beyond that you might be taking resource problems too lightly, Recycling doesn't work as well as we would like, substitution might easily reduce energy efficiency. Also my main worry isn't about Iron but Copper and similar metals like Tin and Zinc.
"More the other way around: which ones are you talking about? Almost all serious economist are non-Malthusian,"
This is a fair question, even though you shouldn't appeal to authority. Also Malthus made some mistakes.
Personally I feel that mainstream economists don't allow themselfs a close enough connection to reality.
Here is a non-economist who had a much more believable view of the world:
http://bartlett.house.gov/uploadedfiles/DODRickover1957SpeechAcknowledgement.pdf
Also the NYT had an article about a different school of economics:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/23/23greenwire-new-school-of-thought-brings-energy-to-the-dis-63367.html?pagewanted=2
I don't even have to feel like an early adopter on this one, the seventies already saw an energy crisis and we can just look at the work of Georgescu-Roegen to find that energy is the main thing to look at.
To sum it up, the UN report is mainly based on demographics and assumptions about fertility and other parameters. If the guys above are any good you should see a stronger decline following energy availability.
If you are fast enough to keep the metals from oxidizing, you might.
I'm still wondering how you think we manage that rapid population decline. Also which economists are you exactly talking about.
At 50%-75% recycling rate for some metals you won't make society last for some centuries. Also think about the parents statement about energy, it takes energy to collect the resources we spread out from a mine over the countryside. To make you think a little, let me ask how much gold in Fort Knox dates back to the Roman empire, and how much Roman gold is still out there? Can you answer that question? If not then let this be a reminder of how badly we remember where we put stuff and deal with our most precious resources.
"Trying to mine low-density resources requires greater energy inputs for the results obtained, and eventually that stalls out."
To put it differently, your civilization runs out of net energy. Also you can't go back since you have turned those low entropy resources into thinly spread out high entropy ones.
This all opens up interesting questions like, what stellar/planetary conditions lead to highly enriched resources like on earth, water and volcanism seem to help, but what other mechanisms could there be.
Another question could be, how many people do you need at which time instant to come up with space technologies and for how long could you stretch the resources out, not that we would, but what if?
Also, we probably wouldn't be able to build the ship without better energy sources anyway, since it could easily be a century long project, running into the limits you mentioned. I wonder why they even started a similar project (http://www.100yss.org/agenda.html).
That is odd, the people I have the most persistent email exchange with are the ones whose ideas are the most different from my own. I just love the challenge. Also they can put up with some partial disagreement from my side.
I have other friends that I don't need to talk to because we don't have much to fight about. I suppose I'm different.
The problem is how long can they stay in the bunker and how long will global warming last.
You may want to ponder what energy sources they will use to power their bunker, and for how long that is possible. Also notice that there is the usual decay of mechanical systems through friction and other problems, so you need certain resources to maintain the bunker, also recycling isn't perfect, so after all you may need more energy/resources than you think.
Over all I might agree with you, they won't need to stay in the bunker that long, 100 years might be enough to get past the die off phase where the 7 billion are reduced by an order of magnitude.
Personally, I'm more interested in getting society ready to deal with the coming mess and getting it through with population control and whatever necessary, just because we don't do things because they are easy but because they are hard.
Also you should ponder the situation of the buried, they went under ground because of some silly asteroid or terrorist threat and will find out that the forest area they saw last has become some sort of desert, and then they will have to walk a few hundred kilometers north or south, until they find the next oasis. Dealing with that lie will suck!
All the other lies will pale in comparison though.
Just to top it off, I read a book some time ago printed in 1936 in Germany called "Gloria", it also dealt with asteroids but was a preparation for the autarchy that WW2 required.
Well the bunker seems useful. But why didn't they come up with something like a new energy source that has pleasantly high energy return on investment, that is probably too hard, I wonder what they will power their lifeboat with though, probably its oil, gas or nukes for the next 100000 years.
The other stuff is irrelevant, apart maybe from the Bioshield.
Oh, here is a trick question - is it "sustainable"?
Yes, it is still on a Plateau. Technically if you want zero growth you need increasing energy input to an economy, but your explanation is probably more fitting for now.
Once it goes down everyone will scramble to blame it on peak oil I would bet.