posted
I sort of figured this topic would get a thread here, but it hasn't happened yet.
I've posted many times that overpopulation is the only real problem the human race has, since basically all of our other problems stem from it. But lately I've been thinking of some of the responses to that thought, and I thought I'd put forth some discussion fodder.
First, I need to make a distinction between actual people and theoretical people. This is in response to a number of comments from people with big families, such as "I've got 5 kids, which ones am I supposed to kill?"
Once a person is born, then they fall into the category of actual people. To me, the reason why we have to limit population growth is that it's morally imperative that we preserve enough resources to provide for actual people on a sustainable basis. The whole point is to provide for actual people, not to kill them. So the question of whether to kill people in order to acheive a sustainable population is ridiculous, because it's a contradiction in terms.
The other category of people I call "theoretical people." Think of "Every Sperm is Sacred" and you should get the point. We can't possibly sustain every theoretically possible combination of egg and sperm. I should hope that's obvious enough.
Theoretical people also fall into two categories: Those that are wanted (a twinkle in the eye, so to speak) and those that are unwanted. For anyone that wants children, there are theoretical children in their future whom they hope will become actual. And I think that's a subject in itself, so I'm just going to let it slide for a moment.
I hope to impress on people the fact that I view this as a moral issue. I'm reasonably certain that my lifespan will end before the problem of population makes life unbearable to me. But I'm also reasonably certain that population growth is going to have a dramatic affect on my children's lives, and my grandchildren, eventually leading to intolerable conditions for everybody, including YOUR children and grandchildren. And yes, I care about them even though I address them generically. I care about humanity. So this moral issue is not merely selfish (on behalf of my own children)
(Let me take an aside here. I've been looking for a bible quote, and I can't find it. New Testament, one of the Gospels, I think. Something to the extent that even evil people love their own children. Let me know if you recognize it.)
Everybody dies. You don't have to kill anyone on purpose to result in lowered population. But being born is a different story. We can control that, we're just not doing a very good job of it, in large part because there are oganizations that are promoting increased population. I was really incensed a few months ago when the Russian Government called for families to have more than two children, for economic reasons. (That's for one example designed to point out that the Roman Catholic Church isn't the only culprit). There are lots of reasons why people and groups of people are in favor of increased childbirth, from "life is sacred" to "we need a younger demographic for economic reasons" with lots of others not mentioned.
Neither of the two arguments I listed above holds any water, because neither is sustainable. If life is sacred then we should be working toward a sustainable population, because the alternative is the destruction of life, not preservation. Likewise, increased population consumes the very resources that economics depends on. It may create economic growth in the near term, but at what cost?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
They have negative population growth. It's not just for the purpose of economic growth, it's in the hope that their nation won't simply cease to exist due to lack of people. I read recently that the Ukraine is projected to lose 40% of their population through emigration and lack of births. Can you really blame people for wanting to insure the sustainability of their nation? To guarantee their right to exist?
I ask you though, why is Russia experiencing a negative population growth? If it is because the people can't afford to have more than one or two kids, then is it really unfair for the state to offer to subsidize the rearing of more kids? Why should only rich nations with excesses of food be allowed unfettered population growth?
I've no problem with the US hitting 300 million. I have no problem with the fact that many of those new millions are immigrants. My problem is that as the nation grows, as infrastructure gets older, as domestic problems are left unaddressed, we're creating a giant mess for our children. The question I want answered isn't "is 300 million too many?" it's "What are we doing to make sure the 350 millionth child is born into a healthy, stable America?"
300 million are here, are they aren't going anywhere. Let's work on making sure every kid from here on out is born into an America where their biggest fear will be deciding what they want to be when they grow up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to start sending out colony ships to other solar systems. Why haven't they invented near-lightspeed travel yet? And I've got a great idea for this device that allows for instant communication across any distance. I just can't think of a cool name for it.
.....
When peak oil hits, (see link for doomsday site with surprisingly good referencing and scientific support) the worldwide depression will result in another world war, probably involving nukes, (see current events in North Korea, Iran) which will result (sadly) in a drop in the worlwide population.
I do not see any feasible solution to the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: We need to start sending out colony ships to other solar systems. Why haven't they invented near-lightspeed travel yet? And I've got a great idea for this device that allows for instant communication across any distance. I just can't think of a cool name for it.
.....
When peak oil hits, (see link for doomsday site with surprisingly good referencing and scientific support) the worldwide depression will result in another world war, probably involving nukes, (see current events in North Korea, Iran) which will result (sadly) in a drop in the worlwide population.
I do not see any feasible solution to the problem.
Doubtful. By the time this eventuality comes about, the western world, or more likely, all current first world powers won't be as heavily tied to oil. There are billions of gallons of oil out there, some in reserves yet to be tapped, some in reserves yet to be discovered. Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
This war won't be fought by North America, or Europe. This is a war that will be fought in Asia and Africa, because by the time we're really in a pickle, those are the nations that will be still be helplessly tied to oil, at a time when their only suppliers, the Middle East, will be running low. Most likely scenario, and even this is a wreckless guess: China invades Russia. Russia is on the decline no matter how you look at it, which is where their negative population growth comes into play. In maybe 30-50 years when oil scares start to play out, Russia will still have vast Siberian oil reserves, whose total isn't accurately guessed at.
When this comes about, empowered China will strike at weakened Russia, and the world will likely watch and do nothing to help them. Tom Clancy had no idea what he was talking about. One of these days Africa is going to pull itself out of the muck, by bits and pieces, and they'll modernize, and come to find a world that's left them behind, and with few table scraps for them remaining. They'll arm themselves, and Americans and Russians (if they are still around) will gleefully sell them weapons, and they'll march off to the Middle East for their spot in line for the spigot.
Absent altruistic charity from the west, there may be a war in the future. But it won't be nuclear, and likely, it won't even happen.
Edit to add: On further reflection (five minutes later), there IS a possibility that the US would intervene in defense of Europe. It depends on what happens economically and politically in the next five decades.
If Russia should join the EU, that would change things greatly. Quite frankly I think the EU, despite recent roadblocks, is headed for a more unified government. Unlike NATO's opt out clause, an attack on an EU membered Russia would be vigorously responded to.
But the larger issue would be, how important is China to the world economy? The problem I have always had with OSC's writings in the Shadow series about the future is the constant description of the US as China's lapdog. This assumes that the relationship between our nations will continue at the same pace for a cenetury or so, which I think is ridiculous to assume, and I think so for the following reasons:
1. India's population is growing faster than China's, and we have far, far better relations with India than China. We shift thousands more high tech jobs to India than China, there's no reason to assume India won't start trying to undercut China's low cost labor jobs as well.
2. Eventually the yuan is going to have to float, they'll succumb to WTO and US pressure and they'll crack down on patent theft and they'll agree to let their currency float. At that point, the trade deficit will implode and drop like a rock, as their goods will be nowhere near as cost effective to buy against a more evened dollar.
3. Southeast Asia/South America is onto the game. Businesses are already shifting more business to Vietnam, Laos, and the like, instead of China. Even more likely in the near future is the shifting of business to low cost labor in South America. Why? Because every time the price of oil spikes, the cost of transporting all those cheap goods from across the Pacific skyrockets as well. The end result is, it's far, far cheaper to transport goods from South America than from China, to say nothing of the fact that there aren't tariffs down there thanks to CAFTA. China right now I think has it almost as good as they are ever going to get it, which I think is part of why they are trying to milk it for all it's worth now, so that when it ends, they can try and stand with the big boys.
It's ironic too, that they are the ones driving the insatiable new growth in demand for oil, which spikes the price of oil, which raises transportation costs, which makes the cost of doing business with them for America much higher. Oh, and add to this the fact that at some point in the future Congress is going to (if they don't already, and if they do, it's going up) start making importers pay the cost of inspecting the cargo for smuggled materials. Less than 1% of incoming cargo is inspected, that's going to change, and the fee for doing it ISN'T coming out of the taxpayers' pockets, it will come out of the pockets of business (who will then pass the cost on to the customer). But that too works against China, though they may not see it. Overland transportation from South America (or, more closely watched regulatory control from a nation we are friendlier with, trust more, and have our teeth sunk into more) means less cost to businesses to work with them, which means even lower prices for customers, which hurts China again.
The future is hard to predict, but I think assuming that the USA and China are joined at the hip for life, and that it's China's game to call, is jumping the gun by a longshot.
quote:When this comes about, empowered China will strike at weakened Russia, and the world will likely watch and do nothing to help them. Tom Clancy had no idea what he was talking about. One of these days Africa is going to pull itself out of the muck, by bits and pieces, and they'll modernize, and come to find a world that's left them behind, and with few table scraps for them remaining. They'll arm themselves, and Americans and Russians (if they are still around) will gleefully sell them weapons, and they'll march off to the Middle East for their spot in line for the spigot.
Uh. While I don't think it's unlikely we'll see Chinese expansion over the next century -- particularly with 60 million extra men -- who in Africa, exactly, do you think is going to work up the political influence, military strength, and national unity to have a sustainable nation? Much less a conquering one?
Africa's worst times are yet to come. Increasing drought and disease and population, particularly when combined with a disappearing over-30 population, is going to lead to a very bad future for the continent.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Doubtful. By the time this eventuality comes about, the western world, or more likely, all current first world powers won't be as heavily tied to oil. There are billions of gallons of oil out there, some in reserves yet to be tapped, some in reserves yet to be discovered. Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
We might be fine for energy, but what about plastic?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why should only rich nations with excesses of food be allowed unfettered population growth?
I think this is an odd statement. The countries experiencing significant population growth are not rich. In fact population growth correlates negatively with a country's wealth. Europe (West and East), the U.S., Japan, Australia and New Zealand are all experiencing significantly lower population growth than Africa, India, and (I believe) SE Asia.
The reason people aren't having large families is not because they can't afford to; it's because they don't want to. Living in industrialized nations where they aren't dependant on offspring for farm labor and have relatively easy access to birth control, they have a choice. And since life's easier without children and other dependants, most people are choosing to have fewer and fewer children.
<edit>Here's a wiki on world population growth.</edit>
Who knows what will happen in the next fifty years? Much of Subsaharan Africa is starting to achieve one of the key ingredients to a stable nation capable of building on its resources, and that is a stable democracy. Once stable democracies flourish in subsaharan Africa, they'll be rewarded with debt forgiveness from the west, followed by another round of loans. A smart World Bank and US would tie this to an increase in microloans, and would force them to use the money for infrastructure improvements.
Remember just fifty years ago, much of Africa was still fighting off the vestiges of colonialism, who's to say that in the next fifty they won't be successful nation states? Despite the drought, there is a wealth of resources in Africa, which can be capitalized on, and used to drag themselves out of the perpetual state of poverty and internal war. They are the last continent that is primarily third world. That puts them last in line for resources used in the advanced world, other than what they have at their own disposal. In fifty-sixty years, they are going to emerge as more developed nations, what I guess you'd call second world countries, and they'll want their go at the world's share of resources, and I think that will mean war in the future. I don't think I'll be around to see it, but I think it's likely.
They DO have hard times ahead, but they are in a much better position now than they were a couple decades ago to handle it. The African Union is starting to maintain some semblence of continental cohesion, they're working together. They are combining military and economic assets. Infrastructure and education will solve half their problems, and once they have that, and some political stability (which I think is VASTLY underappreciated across the continent), the money WILL flow into those nations from the first world, who is always eager to cash in on new investment opportunities.
twinky -
Domestic supply, to say nothing of Canada and Mexico, will take care of that. Like I said, by the time we're near a crunch, we'll have invented our way out of the issue. But that still leaves a fair amount of domestic supply to handle our needs for plastic. I wouldn't be surprised to see synthetic oil cover that need, or oil made from coal (odd as that sounds). But wells in Texas and California still produce oil, just vastly smaller amounts of it. We have deep sea wells, and if push comes to shove some day, ANWR will be tapped for it, if global warming hasn't melted the permafrost, making a pipeline unsustainable. How much oil is tied up in shale and tar sands? The higher the price of oil goes, the more cost effective all that hard to get to oil becomes. The goal is to have cars that use zero gasoline, and I think that is greatly possible in a half century to 75 years. Once we do that, oil will almost be entirely used for commercial and not consumer needs.
Senoj -
Yeah I knew that as I was typing it. Rich nations ARE having less kids. But the main point of that sentence was to parry what Glenn said about Russia's incentives for children plan. Fact is that they aren't having kids because they can't afford it. Russia isn't America, and there isn't the same myriad array of personal choices that we have here when it comes to our personal lives. If the people want kids, and the government wants to oblige them, who are we to tell them no? We certainly don't tell rich nations they have to have less kids, it's personal choice, and we have it here, they don't there.
It won't be easy, but we'll have enough.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one don't believe overpopulation is the problem. I think misuse of Earth's resources and poorly run or corrupt governments are the cause of lack of resources. Part of this belief comes from my religious beliefs as an LDS person, as reflected in this scripture:
"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment (Doctrine & Covenants 104:17,18)"
Of course, if you're not LDS, then that scripture won't mean much to you. I don't include this to start a religious argument, just to make a point about why I think we have resource problems. Limiting populations is like using aspirin to ease symptoms of a larger problem. It may help reduce resource problems, but it's not the cause.
There are a thousand different ways our resources can be used better, from waste in wealthy countries, the incomprehensible amount of resources spent on non-nutritious things such as tobacco, alcohol (the amount of grain used just in the US on beer is staggering), greedy wealthy individuals, corrupt governments, oppression, etc. There is no easy solution, but I don't think overpopulation is the problem. The earth has a tremendous amount of resources, they are just being used incorrectly.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can MAKE oil out of our waste. And it will soon be economically feasible. (we've had multiple threads on this.)
That being said, we're not going to be dependant on it much longer as more and more environmentalists come to realize that Nuclear is the best and cleanest we've got. We'll bury the spent fuel for now till we come up with a way to squeeze more engery out of it. And we will. Electric cars are just around the corner and they will take advantage of this. (we've had a thread on this as well)
Rich nations are shrinking in population. The US is the third most populous nation in the world, yet we have vast empty spaces in the land betwee the coasts. Our native population is shrinking slightly and we are being overwhelmed with immigration. I don't have a problem with the immigration, I have a problem with the natives not boinking. If you're preggers and don't want to be, choose adoption. There are plenty of straight and gay couples who would want your baby.
Japan is shrinking, Russia is shrinking, Europe is shrinking.
Population isn't the boogyman you think it is. In fact, caucasians and japanese need to worry about their own extinction.
posted
The US has stable and sustainable population growth, a little less than 1 percent a year--that is not worrisome at all.
If US corporations had ONLY 1 percent of growth a year there'd be mass layoffs and restructurings and major CEO payhikes. Sustainability is anathema to the current drive for higher margins, We've already seen the boom bust curve in action with the major bankruptcies of the past few years. More are on their way, it's inevitable, and more worrisome to me than a steady growth rate over the last ninety years
In the immediate timeframe, what's most annoying to me is the vile fearmongering the media is promoting with this landmark. Om CNN (AC360) last night they were calling it (in scare tactic fashion), "300,000,000: Melting pot or Meltdown!?" The melting pot being the classic positive view of American heritage of heterogeneity and the Meltdown meaning "THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!"
Though the program did offer one truly terrific laugh, the head of the racist "English First" movement is so repulsive to look at I doubt anyone could take him seriously as he promoted nonsense statistics.
As for population in the rest of the world, don't we need wars so that we can plant new forests and interbreed properly to maintain a healthy genepool?
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never worry about overpopulation. The concern about it was triggered by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb in 1968. He famously wrote, "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Obviously, that did not happen, nor did almost every prediction he made in his book. For decades, he predicted massive world famine, massive shortages in resources, and a sharp decline in the average life expectancy, among other things. None of those predictions have come true.
He famously put his money where his mouth was and bet the economist Julian Simon that the market prices of 5 metals (picked by Ehrlich himself, a biologist) would skyrocket because they would become so scarce. Ehrlich was so wrong that he would have lost even if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation.
Simon was inspired to propose the bet when Ehrlich wrote, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Whoops.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine got mad when I said I didn't want more than 1 or 2 kids. She said us Caucasians are facing extinction. I said, "who cares". Its called the Human race for a reason. At least the immigrants aren't killing us with war and disease like what we did to the real native population.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
We as currently constituted Americans are staying the same.
We as caucasions (I've assumed, possibly fallaciously, that you're white like me, to crib from John Howard Griffin) are declining.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: A friend of mine got mad when I said I didn't want more than 1 or 2 kids. She said us Caucasians are facing extinction. I said, "who cares". Its called the Human race for a reason. At least the immigrants aren't killing us with war and disease like what we did to the real native population.
I read an article with a similar tenor recently, although it focused on the Muslim-Judeo/Christian divide. It's point was that if the Islamic subcultures in Sudan, Yemen, UAE, Pakistan and India continue producing children at more than twice the rate of Western Europe and the US, we (meaning proponents of Western-style liberalism) will lose the war of ideas to orthodox Muslim fundamentalism. Also, that the birth rates of Muslim immigrants in many Western European countries is high enough that they will constitute significant voting blocs in in France, Germany and England within 25 years; voting blocs which will likely push for acceptance of government mandated shar'ia rather than traditional liberal government. I think the argument is flawed inasmuch as ideas are not genetically encoded into who we are, but the trend still makes me uneasy.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Catholic priests, who are required to stay celibate, must surely have died out a thousand years ago, then. Are ideas genetic, now? If Western liberalism is a good idea, people will embrace it independently of their skin colour.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: That depends on who you mean by "we."
We as a human race are increasing.
We as currently constituted Americans are staying the same.
We as caucasions (I've assumed, possibly fallaciously, that you're white like me, to crib from John Howard Griffin) are declining.
We as Americans are steadily increasing, hence the point of this thread. Immigration I count as increasing, once they have kids, those kids are usually more American than anything else, thanks in part to those schools that Irami likes to throw verbal stones at.
What is the American birth rate of Caucasians, independent of other races?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Population growth is one of many things that worries me about the next 50 years. Too many people + not enough resources == recipe for disaster.
Aren't wars the typical method that humans use to thin the herd?
Naw there are plenty of other methods. Famine, disease, natural disasters.
I really think its more question of agricultural progression. I can't believe that Utah grows as much as it does. With innovation and hard work you can grow food just about ANYWHERE. Theres so much space in the world that is pretty much just ignored because there is not the neccesity to try and farm it.
If we put as much effort into developing farming techniques as we do on weaponry we would be able to grow so much more on barren soil. The world is not a crowded place IMO. War is just a much quicker solution then developing more effective agricultural techniques.
When the entire world is packed like India or China THEN I will concede that population control needs to be implemented.
The US is FAR from reaching this point right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So Catholic priests, who are required to stay celibate, must surely have died out a thousand years ago, then. Are ideas genetic, now?
Hunh, seems like I already said that.
quote:I think the argument is flawed inasmuch as ideas are not genetically encoded into who we are
...and they're ALL driving down the I-95 at 6pm...
More like heading south bound on I-15 at 5:00. They also ALL slow down to see a police car with their lights on for ANY reason thus making the slowage worse.
I going to have to endure it again in just 30 minutes. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
As I said, I picked that example rather than, say, the Roman Catholic Church or, as has also been mentioned, The Church of JCoLDS. Or Islam, or just about any other religion.
The point was merely that there are organizations that promote increased childbirth.
quote:Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
I regard this as unjustified optimism. We have show repeatedly that we respond too late, rather than being proactive. The demand for oil is higher than it's ever been, despite warnings of peak oil for over 30 years. We haven't invented our way out of it due to a lack of will. And we won't invent or conserve our way out of it unless something truly horrific snaps us out of our torpor.
quote:Aren't wars the typical method that humans use to thin the herd?
Naw there are plenty of other methods. Famine, disease, natural disasters.
Unfortumately, all of those mentioned tend to have the effect of increasing population in the long run. There was a baby boom after the Irish famine, WWII, etc.
quote:With innovation and hard work you can grow food just about ANYWHERE. Theres so much space in the world that is pretty much just ignored because there is not the neccesity to try and farm it.
Not true at all. With fertilizer (which is primarily from natural gas and oil) you can grow food in places where you can pump water. That's a house of cards waiting to collapse when the fuel runs out. As for space in the world that's ignored, well, that's not true either. Look at the destruction of the rainforest, and farming in deserts, primarily because farmland is being destroyed to create housing. For each acre destroyed, a greater number has to be converted to farmland, since the land is less fertile.
quote:For decades, he (Erlich) predicted massive world famine, massive shortages in resources, and a sharp decline in the average life expectancy, among other things. None of those predictions have come true.
The time scale is obviously off, but the prediction is inevitable. You simply cannot support an infinite number of people in a finite world.
Also, Erlich's predictions were instrumental in the making birth control more widely available (especially oral contraception). All the countries that now promote childbirth for economic reasons would still be experiencing unmanageable growth if birth control were not available. All that demonstrates is that "doomsday" predictions are about the only way we can convince people to make the necessary changes, without actually experiencing a major catastrophe.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
And then people argue that the world population growth isn't actually happening, or that it's not a problem if it is.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The book Collapse by Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs, and Steel fame deals with overpopulation quite a bit. It's a fascinating read.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Launchy, it always has worked out, largely due to new technologies. So many doomsayers have been proven wrong thoughly and empirically--Thomas Malthus, Paul Erlich, the Club of Rome. The main flaw these 3 futurists have in common is their fundamental underestimation of the rate of technological change.
I used to be a bit of a Malthusian pessimist when I was younger, but now I lean toward becoming a Cornucopian in the long term, if 2 assumptions prove true:
1)More fairness and equitable sharing of income in the future, rather than the concentrations of wealth that, like the weather, everyone comments on but no one does anything about. 2)That humans manage to get off of Earth and establish viable colonies elsewhere.
quote: I regard this as unjustified optimism. We have show repeatedly that we respond too late, rather than being proactive. The demand for oil is higher than it's ever been, despite warnings of peak oil for over 30 years. We haven't invented our way out of it due to a lack of will. And we won't invent or conserve our way out of it unless something truly horrific snaps us out of our torpor.
What do you think this past summer was, and last summer? Oil trading within a stone's throw of $100 a barrel? It's scaring the hell out of a lot of people, and that fear, combined with government subsidies is causing BILLIONS of dollars not of government money, but venture capitalist and the typical money changers to become involved in the process of looking towards what's next. To be sure, there is money to be made in oil, but the oil market is excedingly volatile. Just as many people made a fortune as lost one when oil ballooned then flopped back down to just under $60 a barrel recently.
That point you're talking about is NOW, I believe. It's a softer version of what everyone has assumed we'd need, but it's here. Billions are being spent on renewable energies, car companies are investing billions in hybrids, plug in hybrids, electric cars, new battery capacities and Hydrogen, and other people are working on better ways to turn hydrogen into a liquid form more efficiently.
New nuclear plant designs are all ready to go, that drastically cut the half life of spent fuel (Talk to Tatiana about it, she's very knowledgable). New designs for wind powered plants are coming around, that are both more efficient, and leave a much smaller environmental (and visual) footprint. PVCs are gaining in efficiency, and are getting both smaller, and are capturing more energy at the same time, to say nothing of how advances in nanotechnology could solve a host of problems we have when it comes to waste and energy.
I think it is VERY justified optimism. I don't think we're there yet, but we're getting damned closer every day, and what matters most is that people are paying attention, people want to solve the problem, people realize that there is money to be made in it, so they are investing the seed money NOW, so they can get their results soon.
You want a good bet on commodities, is Silicon traded on the open market like gold and silver? If it is, buy as much as you can. Between the next generation of processors (until we switch over to synthetic diamonds) and photovoltaic cells, silicon is going to be in such demand that it could command the types of prices that much more rare natural resources do.
All the pieces are coming into place. The people have to want to buy it, and I think it's been proven over the last couple years, between the problems in the Middle East and the price of gas, the scare over potentially running out, and the damage to the environment that people WANT to buy something else, they just can't necessarily afford it. With that in place, business realizes that oil isn't eternal, and that the market it volatile, and there is a place in the economy for alternative energies and the first ones there are going to make money, so they are investing the money. The government (state and federal both) sees both of those things and fronts public money to both subsidize the creation of these business ventures and the purchasing power of the public.
Now they need time. Time to research, to bring down costs, to train people, to get the message out, for the next big breakthrough, for all those things that have to happen before a fundamental shift in the infrastructure of a nation can take place.
I don't think it is at all unfounded optimism, I think you're a victim of unjustified pessimism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Equilibrium isn't just a market term. Unsustainable systems will, by nature, inexorably be corrected.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
And then people argue that the world population growth isn't actually happening, or that it's not a problem if it is.
To echo Morbo, we DO in fact usuall invent our way out of problems. It tends to be that those same inventions cause a whole new host of problems, but to date, we've figured those out too. Everyone knows the population of the planet is getting bigger. And I really don't agree that it is a problem at the moment. I think that by the time our population hits the point where population controls are SERIOUSLY discussed, we'll have implemented ways to reduce our ecological footprint, and we'll have found ways to get ourselves off planet Earth. Problem with that is, short of biodomes all over Mars, we'd need to start terraforming the planet sooner rather than later. NASA has plans on the books (not anything they hold a press conference over, but they've thought of it). But I agree we're far too shortsighted to start something THAT far in advance.
Here's a question though. It IS a fact that industrialized nations produce far fewer children than developing nations, and that the birth (and death rate) in those developing nations is higher. So why isn't it assumed (or discussed) that when the entire world becomes industrialized in a couple centuries that everyone will start having 2.1 kids or so, and our population will just plain level off? The first world is there.
And I have a question about China and India's birthrates. Firstly, China's one child policy can't be working obviously, or their population would be projected to shrink, not grow. Where are the people having all the kids? Are they professional workers in their massive cities? or are they laborers out in the farm towns? Same question for India. Are the computer programmers and accountants and whatever other professional jobs in India having all the kids, or is it in poor villages?
If wealth brings lower fertility rates, shouldn't our focus NOT be on forcing nations to adopt population restrictions, but rather on making sure everyone has access to good infrastructure, food, healthcare and jobs? Isn't that better for the world anyway? For mankind?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chilling report. I found it amusing that the author stated the "first oil war is already underway" which I assume he is referring to the war in Iraq.
Exactly how much extra oil have we gotten out of the deal? How much free oil? I don't think there is enough oil in Iraq to repay all that we've spent thus far, and will spend in the future on this war, to say nothing of the millions of gallons of fuel that have been used during it's prosecution. Saying this is a war for oil shows a lack of understanding of the situation, and common sense. Were we to undertake such a venture, I would have been much more approving of a plan to allocate half a trillion dollars for the purchasing of oil. Hell, Russia would probably sell us half of Siberia for that (considering what we paid for Alaska ).
I also like what he has to say about rail systems and the transport of food. Those are things I haven't considered yet, because I doubt they will be a problem in my lifetime, but they should be addressed, and soon.
The report is alarmist, it's bleak, it's scary...but I think that you could make a dozen arguments other than "we're all going to die someday!" that relate to the here and now, rather than some sci-fi movie future (which isn't to say I don't buy the idea on its merits, but others won't).
I wish that sort of call to action would be taken to heart in my own country.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That technology looks amazing. Quite frankly though, I think it's more important as a waste disposal and recycling plant (no pollution! gets rid of waste products! Hooray!) than as a source of oil. The commercial sized plant in Carthage will produce 500 barrels of oil per day.
That's a drop, a very, very tiny drop, in the proverbial bucket. It IS still a limited resource. Short of these type of plants dotting the landscape all over the world, thermal depolymerization is one of a dozen or more things that will all have to be done in concert to make a heavily reduced oil economy work. That will never suffice if we still use as much as we do today, but it will make sure that commercial applications survive and flourish, while at the same time will help to clean up our world. The government should invest more in helping companies build more of these plants, and in making sure they continue to run, though it looks like the plants might break even, but it looks like the make or break factor is what they have to pay for the things they are converting. These are waste materials, and they'll be big business in the future, but sewage shouldn't cost money, and the turkey waste products shouldn't be used for livestock feed (as in Europe). But this is a new technology, I'd like to see it explored more, and I'd like to see the market for waste products to become a multi-billion dollar industry.
posted
Lyrhawn, you might be interested in a book called The Ingenuity Gap, if you haven't already read it. Its thesis is that the problems facing humanity have been growing in complexity faster than humans have been getting smarter.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: That's the point though. This is new technology. It WILL get better, and, hopefully, instead of a municpal sewer facility and land fill, every town, city and metropolis will be turning their waste into oil. What gets buried will be a tiny fraction of what's produced.
Heck, we produce SO MUCH waste that there might come a time when we make so much oil we are investigating re-filling the oil fields instead of tapping them.
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: [QB] I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
Well is was for those reasons that the conclusion of The Population Bomb turned out to be completely incorrect. It was advancement in agricultural technology that prevented it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So stop talking about it as though it's a limited resource.
Again I point out that oil represents the storage of hundreds of millions of years of solar energy. We are burning through something like a million years worth of energy every year. There's no way that we can produce oil as fast as the current rate we use it, because the sun doesn't deliver energy any faster than it does.
And since our agriculture depends on both energy and molecules from petroleum in order to work, we can't even produce food without the oil stores that we are using up.
Whether it's the number of people using oil, or the amount of oil each person uses, the overall use keeps going up even as we invent more efficient ways to use it. We've been using oil for about 150 years, but most of it has been used up in the last 30 years or so, since after we started hearing reports about peak oil. (Although back then they said (we will begin running out of oil in 30 to 50 years) Guess what? They were right.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no way that we can produce oil as fast as the current rate we use it, because the sun doesn't deliver energy any faster than it does.
You are, I think, ignoring the efficiency factor. Conversion of solar energy to oil by natural processes is highly inefficient. Conversion by human technology could conceivably go a lot faster. (I'm not saying it does right at this moment, just that it's not impossible.) So while we can't get a million years of energy in one year, we might be able to get a million years of oil production in one year, depending on the conversion factor.
Please note : I do not think this is likely.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Glenn, please wash off those numbers before you show them to us.
But before that he said:
quote:Heck, we produce SO MUCH waste that there might come a time when we make so much oil we are investigating re-filling the oil fields instead of tapping them.
Then KoM said:
quote:You are, I think, ignoring the efficiency factor.
Pix is ignoring a lot more than I am.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I haven't read it, but I'm glad you mentioned it to me, as I think I'll take a look at it. I don't buy the thesis at face value (but I'm always willing to be convinced). Problems facing humanity these days are, on the whole, self created. We tend to fix past problems with solutions that have built in new problems. Long term solutions need to be either problem free or with easily solvable new problems, otherwise there just might come a time when our own created problems become too large for us to solve in the time allotted.
Pix -
I don't think there will ever come a time when we produce enough waste to refill oil fields with oil. Why? Because the level of waste increases as we multiply, but as we multiply, our demand for oil skyrockets. The articles you linked above are impressive, but a LOT of work has to be done before this can be a proven viable alternative. Oil IS a finite resource. What if the reports from Carthage of odor issues are true of all those plants? What city will want one anywhere NEAR population centers? It'd cause housing values to nosedive. So they'd have to group them all some place out of the view or noses of humans, and who knows what sorts of environmental problems that might cause? I certainly don't. Regardless, the US produces 12 BILLION TONS of waste every year between commercial and private sources. The Carthage plant can take in about 300 tons of stuff a day. If all plants were like that, and they ran 365 days a year, it would still take 109,000 processing plants to take care of all the US waste, and the yields of oil depend entirely on what is being put into them (sewer sludge being the least efficient). Even if we increase efficiency half again as much as it is, that is still an unbelievable amount of processing plants to build. At 20 Million a pop, it'd cost like 2 trillion dollars to build all those plants.
I think it's an amazing technology, but I think it's reckless to say it's our salvation. I love the idea of having one of these in every city instead of landfills. But I don't think we'll EVER have enough of them to get rid of all the waste, or to create enough oil to meet current demand. But I'm not knocking by any means the technology, I think it is fantastic, but I'm always skeptical of one ultimate solution (look at fusion power). And I wonder about where these facilities would go, and how willing we'd be to put up with their drawbacks. Things to consider.
Icarus -
Yep, little grains of gold. In all seriousness, I'd say to invest in publicly traded companies that refine raw silicon (fine, SAND) into pure silicon for commercial use. Between solar cells and a resurgence in chipmaking (in the US I mean), silicon has already doubled (or tripled, can't remember) in price since 2000. It is in high demand, and the people who make it are in an excellent position to demand steadily increasing prices for their ever in demand commodities. Invest where the money is, and right now, there's plenty of money in sand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
China's One Child policy in recent years is being loosened to fix the problem of having an over abundance of males, in conjuntion of family planning to encourage a greater number of female ospring.
However due to the decentralized rather then centralized nature of the CPC, the policy isn't carried out veyr strongly in the countryside.
Also there are legal exceptions to the rule as well, if you and your spouse were single children then you can have more then one child.
If you live in SEZ's you can have more then one.
If you are a ehtnic minority (Tibetan, Uiglar, Turkish, Manchurian, Korean, Vietnamese etc) you can have more then 2.
If you are a foreigner lving in China say Canadian and marry in China you are also exempt from the one Child Policy.
This alone considering the size of China should garantee a steady growth rate.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an article from Reason about the 300 mil landmark. They pooh-pooh the population alarmists.
I find myself pretty divided. On the one hand I'm strongly anti-consumerism; I feel unfettered consumption of resources is dangerous, destructive and, um, deleterious. On the other, I have no qualms about having a big family, and feel that instead of wringing our hands and saying "No more growth" we should be focusing instead on programs that will decrease resource consumption in order to support continued growth. Just as a mathematical abstraction, if we continue to grow as a race, but at a rate smaller than that of decreased consumption, we can support growth indefinitely.
Admittedly, there are some resources which we will not be able to use arbitrarily efficiently. For instance, there is only so much space, and we can't decrease the amount of space humans take up indefinitely. But I don't think those hard limits will need to be faced anytime soon (as in, for the next several hundred or thousand years). I think there's a lot of slack in our resource consumption currently that should be taken out before we even start discussing population controls.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Pix is ignoring a lot more than I am.
Which is, indeed, precisely the reason I utterly ignored his post: There was nothing of interest in it. Yours, on the other hand, I found interesting enough to reply to. If you find my argument bad, or the subject suddenly uninteresting, please say so; but to cover yourself with the fig leaf of what Pix is doing is just rhetoric.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: The technology is new. It will get better, more efficent and will be able to take in a lot more waste in the future and churn out a lot more oil.
Still, I think our future lies in nuclear power, as I said above. We'll still need oil, but we'll make all we need.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Confused]](confused.gif)
