In a discussion here earlier it was suggested that Environmental issues such as Global Warming were not to be worried about. God would handle it.
At first I thought such arguments were the simple rationalization of the greedy or the needy. If you have millions invested in a power plant, or if you work for that power plant, or if you need the cheap energy that power plant produces, its easy to think "don't worry about its global warming problems. God wouldn't let us make such a mistake."
Listening to the discussion I realized that this argument goes deeper. The idea is that the world's ecosystem is something much to big for one person, or all persons to be able to effect. By its size, it is only changed by God on high. Whether we drive our oversized SUV to the mail box or we use super dim energy saving light bulbs really doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things.
Yesterday my mother reminded me of a little story.
Back in '93 there was a nice old man living along the river. He was a good Christian soul, with a long family history of good Christian prayer and works and thoughts. He feared God. He loved Jesus. He raised his family and his friends to do the same.
One spring day he sat in his old rocking chair, listening with interest as the weatherman came on TV. "Flood!" he said. "The river's coming up and we don't know when its gonna stop. The Governor is calling for an immiediate evacuation of everyone in the 100 year flood plain. Its a whopper folks. Get out. Now."
As the weatherman went on talking about the melting snows to the north and the storms coming from the west and the rain that came over the last two weeks, this old man looked around him. He looked at the mementos that filled the room. Pictures of his grown kids, two now with ministries of their own, and one serving in the Marines. He looked at the couch, covered with the afghan his late wife had made. He looked at the last 60 years of his life and the comfortable, prosperous home he had. Then her reached for his family bible, the one that had been in his family for going on 200 years, and he clutched it tight.
"Rufus" he called to his dog. "I am a good Christian. I have dedicated my life to God over 65 years ago, and I haven't turned back once. I place my faith in him. God won't turn his back on us. I'm staying."
And the water rose.
It rose over his family fields and into his families barn.
The chicken and the cows that didn't drown headed for the higher ground.
It rose over the car and over the tractors and over porch and through the house.
It washed away the corn and the wheat. It washed away the pictures and the memento's of a good life. It washed away the rocking chair and the TV and the weatherman's warning.
Up on the second floor, watching his world sink, the old man clung to Rufus and to his bible and prayed.
A boat pulled up. Two sherrif's deputies called out to him. "Come. Hurry. We can't keep this boat here long. You have to leave."
The old man looked at his house. He was on the second floor, the floor where he shared his bed with his wife for 40 years, until Jesus called her away. It was the floor where his children were born, and where they grew up and where they found Jesus. There was the sewing room, once belonging to the oldest boys, but his wife redecorated after they went away. He hadn't been in there since she passed on. It was all he knew.
He looked at the bible in his hand.
"Go Away!" he yelled to the deputies. "I am a good Christian. My faith is strong. God will not forsake me. He will not let me come to harm."
A wave came and washed the boat away, but not before Rufus jumped into it. Rufus looked back at his old master with sad and confused eyes.
And the water rose.
Higher it came, and higher still.
The water washed away the old oak tree that his grand kids play on when they come to visit, and that his kids played on when they were young, and that he had played on when he was young.
It washed away the marital bed and the sewing room, the children's rooms and the steps.
Desparatly the old man climbed up onto the roof. There, beneath the rain filled clouds the old man held his bible and prayed.
A bright light peirced the dark night and the sound of devilish laughter seemed to fill the air. Slowly it dawned on the old man that he was really seeing a helicopter cut through the storm. From the speakers on the copter a voice rang out, "We are here to save you. Grab the rope and we'll pull you up."
The old man looked at the roof of his house, and felt it shudder each time the current brought a tree or car or trash to crash into it. He thought of all he had lost, and all the river had washed away. It did not make him sad. It made him stubborn. He raised the family bible high. "I am a good Christian. Jesus loves me. He will not forsake me. He will not let drown. He will rescue me!"
Three more times the crew of the helicopter tried to convince the old man to grab the rope. Three more times the old man refused.
And the river rose.
With a loud groan the house rose from its foundations and was washed away.
With it went the family bible.
With it went the body of the dear old man.
Later, in heaven, the dear old man meets God.
"Why," he asks, "Why did you forsake me?"
"Forsake you?" asks God. "I did not forsake you. I sent you the weatherman, the deputy boat and the helicopter. You were just to stubborn to listen."
I wonder, how many of us are comfortable in our rocking chairs, looking at our things and our loved ones and comfort and ignoring those messages God sends that seem a bit inconvienent.
Especially if those messages come in the form of scientific reports on global warming.
If we so easilly ignore the weatherman, will we ignore the rescue boats? Will we refuse the helicopter?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is the best version of that story I've read. You just can't ignore things like tuns of people having asthma, cancer increasing, babies born without brains. But, what can you do? These people will not listen. Even if global warming doesn't exist, it still doesn't mean we should be dumping dangerous chemicals casually.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
more effieicnt industrial methods- solves industrial pollution
special C02 eating pollen- fixes ozoon layer
colonize mars- population problem
Fusion is still a few decades off, and it seems we need to fix the problem sooner than that.
Hydrogen cars at the moment don't make sense, since the process used to make the hyrdogen produces CO2.
Those efficient industrial methods will cost the economies of the world trillions of dollars, and will be hard in countries dominated by industry like the US and Japan.
Mars is obviously a century away, the population problem will get bigger and bigger sooner. I'd say colonize the moon first.
All in all, these are all going to help, but we need something faster sooner. Cars, more hybrids, ALL hybrids. That cuts the problem in half, which will keep us going until Hydrogen is feasible. Energy, invest more money in building clean power plants, we need to update the national power grid anyway, might as well put that money into clean power. Colonizing the moon isn't really that farfetched, we know that moon soil can be used to grow plants, and that there is a rare isotope there that can be used for mass amounts of energy, i don't remember how but they tell you at NASA (I was in Houston last month). One shuttle load of moon rock of the right isotope could power the US for a year.
My point is there are obviously tons of solutions out there. But it seems like no president will just sit down and FORM A PLAN, actually sit down and plan it out year by year, because there is so much information they feel daunted by it.
Also, whatever worldwide plan that is formed, it must include the developing world, or the US will never agree to it.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:nuclear fusion- solves energy requirments
more effieicnt industrial methods- solves industrial pollution
special C02 eating pollen- fixes ozoon layer
colonize mars- population problem
Fusion is still a few decades off, and it seems we need to fix the problem sooner than that.
Hydrogen cars at the moment don't make sense, since the process used to make the hyrdogen produces CO2.
Those efficient industrial methods will cost the economies of the world trillions of dollars, and will be hard in countries dominated by industry like the US and Japan.
Mars is obviously a century away, the population problem will get bigger and bigger sooner. I'd say colonize the moon first.
All in all, these are all going to help, but we need something faster sooner. Cars, more hybrids, ALL hybrids. That cuts the problem in half, which will keep us going until Hydrogen is feasible. Energy, invest more money in building clean power plants, we need to update the national power grid anyway, might as well put that money into clean power. Colonizing the moon isn't really that farfetched, we know that moon soil can be used to grow plants, and that there is a rare isotope there that can be used for mass amounts of energy, i don't remember how but they tell you at NASA (I was in Houston last month). One shuttle load of moon rock of the right isotope could power the US for a year.
My point is there are obviously tons of solutions out there. But it seems like no president will just sit down and FORM A PLAN, actually sit down and plan it out year by year, because there is so much information they feel daunted by it.
Also, whatever worldwide plan that is formed, it must include the developing world, or the US will never agree to it.
I'm actually with Sid Meier on this one. Useful fusion isn't decades away. They actually broke even a while ago. Then funding got cut and they couldn't build the next reactor.
Hydrogen/Oxygen cars are not impractical. Hydrogen and Oxygen can be produced through electrolysis which requires only electricity which can be produced the same way it is now in cars. In short, with a little work we should be able to engineer a car that used water as its fuel. I think it may have already been done at one point actually.
Mars does not have to be a century away. We have the technology, its only the will and money that is lacking. The will in that NASA isn't even trying to set up any sort of colonization effort whatsoever. If they concentrated on it, they could probably acheive it with their current funds. It would require giving the entire space industry a bit of kick in the arse, since those comercial aerospace giants are quite happy with their current cost+ contracts to produce massively outdated and ABSURDLY over priced rockets.
What's the cost plus system you say? Its how the government currently pays its corporate contracts. It tells the company "tell us how much it will cost to do X and then tack on a y% profit and thats how much we'll give you". Whats the problem with this system? All the company has to do to raise its profit is to increase its costs. Perhaps Robert Zubrin explains it best:
quote: From "Entering Space" by Robert Zubrin
To see how this has worked, consider the case of the Lockheed Martin corporation, the largest aerospace contractor in the world. I was employed as a senior, and later staff, engineer at the prime facility of this company for seven years. Lockheed Martin almost never accepts hardware contracts on a fixed-cost basis. that is, the company rarely says to the U.S. governmen, "We will produce the ABC vehicle for you at a price of $X. If it costs us less than $X to make it, we'll make a profit. If it costs us more, we will take a loss." Instead, most important contracts are negotiated along the following lines: "We will produce the ABC vehicle for a cost of about $X. We will then add a 10 percent fee to whatever it actually costs us to produce to provide the company with a modest profit." In other words, the more the ABC vehicle costs to produce, the more money the company makes. Hence, in addition to the vast numbers of accounting personnel that the cost-plus contracting system necessarily entails, the company is saturated with "planners", "marketeers", and "matrix managers", amoung swarms of other overhead personnel. Of the 9000 people employed at teh Lockheed Martin main plant in Denver (where the Atlas and Titan launch vehicles are made) only about 1000 actually work in the factory. The fact that Lockheed Martin is keenly competitive with the other aerospace giants indicates that their overhead structures are similar.
Yeah, somewhat off topic. But that frustrates me. Its also the reason these companies aren't innovating at all. We made the jump from the first space launches to landing on the moon in about 9 years. The shuttle is now 20 years old. The space shuttle was designed almost 25 years ago. Those things are older than my car!! Lockheed Martin has a working prototype for a much cheaper and better luanch vehicle. They're sitting on the designs which are pattented and not doing anything with them. Its not in their interest to do anything with them.
So in short, given a little (gargantuan) kick in the butt the aerospace industry could shape up, produce much better, cheaper launch vehicles, and we could be to mars in no time flat. But it requires people to care and make the government give NASA and the industry that kick in the rear.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Just to brag, Robert Zubrin and I are buds. I lived across the street from him as a child and played with his son.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mars is millenia away. We could setup basic science colonies, but without supplies from earth, or harnessing comets/asteroids, to terraform the [EDIT: Mars] would take thousands of years to get it habitable. There's no known way to speed up the process (which makes sense, since it took millions of years to "terraform" earth to be hospitable). It'd be quicker to gain near-light speed travel and get to a planet like earth in another solar system.
Currently the most efficient system for extracting hydrogen is using fossil fuels. Oh metallic prosthetics! Electrolysis, like all methods, requires more energy to extract the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides. So how do we power the systems that do the electrolysis. Solar power/fusion, likely, but both would require significant changes to our society to have a chance to pull off.
-Bok, hybrid civic owner
[ March 03, 2005, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In short, with a little work we should be able to engineer a car that used water as its fuel.
Water isn't a fuel - it does not release energy. If the electricity is in the car, it would be far more efficient to simply drive the motor with the electricity, rather than using it to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen to burn to drive a motor.
Now, if we get to the point where electricity is cheap (through fusion, solar, or whatever), then electrolysis might be feasible as a means of producing hydrogen as a portable energy storage medium.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Mars is millenia away. We could setup basic science colonies, but without supplies from earth, or harnessing comets/asteroids, to terraform the [EDIT: Mars] would take thousands of years to get it habitable. There's no known way to speed up the process (which makes sense, since it took millions of years to "terraform" earth to be hospitable). It'd be quicker to gain near-light speed travel and get to a planet like earth in another solar system.
We could terraform it to the point where all you'd need are inflatable oxygen domes for a colony in under 50 years. There are large amounts CO2 trapped in the soil, frozen, all we'd have to do is get the temp up to the point where that starts to melt and it'll fuel itself. It would have a fairly warm, preassurized atmosphere in short order. The part that would take thousands of years is turning that CO2 atmosphere into an Earth like atmosphere. In the mean time, one could set up colonies easily enough. Also, even were this not true, it would be possible to set up more than just science stations that would be self sustating. It'd be hard work, but possible.
Back on the hydrogen cars, it could be done to make it take place with in the car itself. I don't know how, but I bet with some engineering its possible. The cars own movement would provide a great deal of that electricity, and it could be supplemented with solar power. It might even be possible to engineer it to use its own exhuast as fuel again.
quote:Just to brag, Robert Zubrin and I are buds. I lived across the street from him as a child and played with his son.
Thats really cool! Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
While it is lovely to talk about how future developments will solve all the world's problems, it is impossible to accurately predict the costs and side-effects of those developments. We can't really even predict whether some of them will really work at all the way we imagine.
Look back at the fifties, when they though our modern era would be a time of clean, cheap energy, high living standards across the world, and excessive leisure time. Instead, we're still burning through the same oil reserves, people are still starving to death, and we work more than we ever have.
I suspect that the predictions you all are making now will look just as silly in fifty years.
Imagining (or even developing) a technology does not automatically make it practical and feasible for solving the world's problems overnight.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Hydrogen/Oxygen cars are not impractical. Hydrogen and Oxygen can be produced through electrolysis which requires only electricity which can be produced the same way it is now in cars. In short, with a little work we should be able to engineer a car that used water as its fuel. I think it may have already been done at one point actually.
I'm getting really sick of people talking about hydrogen as though it's some sort of cure-all.
The problem with electrolysis is this: you have to put more energy into the system to make the hydrogen than you get out when you use the hydrogen. It's very inefficient.
The problem with hydrogen in general is that there is no distribution network for it, and in-situ generation and storage methods are inherently unsafe. You can't have a hydrogen fuelling station the same way you have gas stations, it's simply too much of a fire/explosion hazard.
Oh, yeah, and water is a greenhouse gas (and it comes out of your regular car's tailpipe, too). Hydrogen cars don't solve the greenhouse problem, though depending on emissions levels they might improve it.
In my opinion, hybrids are the way to go for now. When we have some efficient, non-fossil means of generating electricity, we can transition to electric cars... provided we can somehow make batteries cleaner (don't forget that car batteries contain heavy metals).
Basically, "hydrogen is the answer" is a massive oversimplification, and overlooks some pretty fundamental problems with using hydrogen to run cars.
(This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, in case you couldn't tell.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Back on the hydrogen cars, it could be done to make it take place with in the car itself. I don't know how, but I bet with some engineering its possible. The cars own movement would provide a great deal of that electricity, and it could be supplemented with solar power. It might even be possible to engineer it to use its own exhuast as fuel again.
This violates the law of conservation of energy in so many ways I don't know where to begin.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
First, I'll address the "colonize mars" fallacy.
This goes back to a brain teaser I heard a long time ago. It goes like this:
If an amoeba replicates itself in 2 minutes, and from the time you put an amoeba into a jar it takes exactly one day for one amoeba to fill the jar; How long will it take to fill half the jar, starting with one amoeba?
The answer is 23 hours and 58 minutes.
Colonizing mars will not solve the population problem here on earth. That would require moving billions of people from here to Mars, which simply isn't going to happen, and the effort to do it would destroy earth in the process.
Essentially, all we could do would be to transport enough humans to provide genetic variability, and let Mars begin it's own population - like the one amoeba added to the glass. It won't represent a significant change in Earth's population. In the meantime, the earth is still within the last "two minutes" of reaching the population limit.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm not going to comment on the hydrogen car thing atm, becuase I think you guys might be right and I mis remembered the article I read on it. I'm looking for it now.
We could not fill up Mars at all fast enough for that ameoba analogy to apply. Earth has only a little space left. Mars has a lot. It has taken us a long time to get to this point on Earth, transport the population and we'll have a little more time. However, Mars alone is not the solution to the population problem, you are right in that. However, it is the first step. In colonizing Mars, we'll develope the infrastructure to colonize the rest of the solar system as well. We must develope that infrastructure before we can really consider mass colonization and exploration of the rest of the galaxy. But with it developed, when the solar system begins to fill up, we start spreading out into the galaxy. It builds upon itself. You have to start somewhere however, and if you sit back and say "we'll just fill it up too eventually" and don't do anything then we ARE going to fill up the Earth.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's easy! All we have to do is harness perpetual motion! Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: The problem with electrolysis is this: you have to put more energy into the system to make the hydrogen than you get out when you use the hydrogen. It's very inefficient.
True, that's why they don't make hydrogen with electrolysis. They use a catalytic steam/methane reformer.
The chemical equation is CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2
From the hydrogen in one methane molecule you wind up with twice the hydrogen, the other half coming from the water molecules. You do have to add some external heat, but the system uses highly efficient heat exchangers to keep most of the energy in the fuel. It's a pretty good system.
From what I understand, the improvement in emissions and economy is based on economy of scale (These reformers are huge) and the efficiency of the fuelcell and electric motor combination.
Making H2 to use as a combustion fuel only makes sense in terms of allowing cars to drive in congested areas without causing a pollution problem. It doesn't use less energy and might use more, but it's much cleaner energy.
Reformers can also convert methanol into H2, which moves the energy source from natural gas to corn, but even then, corn requires an enormous amount of petroleum based fertilizers as it's grown today.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Earth has only a little space left
On what are you basing this? How much space do you think one person needs?
*looks outside at her neighborhood where every lot is over 2 acres, and there are acres and acres of empty land surrounding the area*
I don't think we're anywhere close to using up all our land. Have you driven through the state of Mississippi?
quote:You have to start somewhere however, and if you sit back and say "we'll just fill it up too eventually" and don't do anything then we ARE going to fill up the Earth.
Not necessarily - there's plenty of room right now, and if birth rates fall to an average of two children per couple, then how is there a problem?
[ March 03, 2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: We could not fill up Mars at all fast enough for that ameoba analogy to apply.
Filling up Mars isn't the issue. Removing one amoeba from the jar two minutes from the time the jar is full won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things, the jar will still be full two minutes later.
Removing Mars colonists "Adam and Eve" from the Earth won't have any impact on the earth's population.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So it won't, but it might have an impact on the survival of the species. Populations that crash tend to crash hard. And our civilisation is not only fragile, it would be hard to rebuild; no more easily accessible resources.
As for hydrogen : Yes, you use more energy making it by electrolysis than you get out of burning it. That is totally irrelevant. Energy we have to burn; between nuclear fusion, hydropower, and sunlight, there is more than enough energy. The problem is that none of those will run a car - unless, of course, you package them in a more easily transportable form, like hydrogen.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Getting back to Dan's original statement...
God let humans kill his own son. If you go with Genesis, God didn't make it impossible for humans to take fruit from the tree of knowledge.
He put us on this world, we do with it as we will. But we have to eventually settle up with what we've done to it, either in the immediate here and now, or the hereafter.
Personally, I believe that God expects us to be good stewards of the planet. We are expected to make good use of the resources we have here, exploit it even if you will, but not to despoil it profoundly.
And we've done a real number on this planet. It may not be ruined, but we lurch more than inch closer to it every day.
But I just don't see God saying to us as individuals "Don't do this."
I do, however, see Him asking each of us, in our own turn, "Why did you do this?" for better or for worse.
This world is an incredible gift, but it is also a responsibility. That something that we Christians seem to forget now and then: that salvation and redemption do not absolve someone eternally of future responsibilities.
If anything, it should serve to remind us to be responsible.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Belle, I don't think the issue is that we'll use up all the physical space for human habitation. I think people are concerned that we'll have too large a population to support with our ever-diminishing supply of fertile, arable land.
There's a lot of room in west Texas, but nobody's using it for a reason Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Not necessarily - there's plenty of room right now, and if birth rates fall to an average of two children per couple, then how is there a problem?
Room isn't the issue. The issue is the environmental impact 6 billion people have on the earth.
The Earth is in the process of deforestation. Animal and plant species are disappearing at a rate that in itself is a major environmental disaster. The earth's oceans and atmosphere are taking on more energy and changing the climate.
Human habitation relies on the exploitation of millions of years worth of accumulated solar energy, in the form of fossil fuels, which is being depleted at a rate which is totally out of proportion to the rate of solar influx. Our food production relies on fossil fuels for fertilizer, so when we run out, we also run out of food.
Regardless whether it's tens of years, or hundreds of years, we will run out of fossil fuels.
Saying that we can support the current 6 billion people indefinitely is like saying that a car can drive indefinitely, just because it hasn't run out of gas yet.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, yeah, fossil fuels, too Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Of course, Belle, you also have to take into account the amount of land necessary to grow food to feed the people, and an ecosystem healthy enough to otherwise sustain them. There's more to maximum population density than how many people you can physically fit into a given area.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Eh, Glen beat me to it, and said it better than I did.
Edit--and he did it hours ago. How did I not see that post?
[ March 03, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still holding out hope that thermal depolymerization might wind up being a potential solution to the fossil fuels issue, along with renewable energy farms deployed en masse to produce hydrogen. Sadly, both technologies at the moment -- even with the latest technology -- still come down at around 130% the cost of an equivalent amount of oil energy. Until they get cheaper or oil gets harder to find, we're not going to transfer techs. And if we wait for the latter to happen, sadly, we'll be looking at a worldwide depression during the transition.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: There's a lot of room in west Texas, but nobody's using it for a reason
The Llano Estacado? I seem to remember reading that a branch of the Plains Indians figured out how to make the Staked Plains home . . . Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tom,
Is that the turkey guts thing? Or "Molten Metals Technology"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Turkey guts.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:Earth has only a little space left
On what are you basing this? How much space do you think one person needs?
Clarification: Compared to Mars when in discussion of overpopulation, how soon, and population dynamics.
That make more sense?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote: We could not fill up Mars at all fast enough for that ameoba analogy to apply.
Filling up Mars isn't the issue. Removing one amoeba from the jar two minutes from the time the jar is full won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things, the jar will still be full two minutes later.
Removing Mars colonists "Adam and Eve" from the Earth won't have any impact on the earth's population.
Ok, now that I understand your analogy I'll put my point into the context of that analogy: by colonizing Mars, you remove the cap which keeps the amoeba in the jar and allow them to spill out onto the table, then onto the floor and then out the door.
[ March 03, 2005, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But that doesn't help the amoeba's stewing in their own waste products in the original jar. Either way that mommy jar is screwed.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Perhaps, done inteligently you could probably get a good enough flow leaving the jar so that the jar never fills up. Requires will power though and would be work. With the cap gone, there's nothing preventing them from crawling up the sides and out over the lid before it fills up Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Alcon, unless you can instantly transport every new amoeba out of that jar you're never going to impact it's growth significantly. Sufficed to say, unless things within the jar change, they will literally die in a pool of their own wastes or simply starve. Whichever comes first.
Did your mommy and daddy ever teach not to say never? Well I'm saying never. You'll never significantly impact the growth rate on Earth by removing some of its members.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Actually, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if we mathmatically examined this, we could show that you COULD significantly impact the population of the Earth by removing its members. I just don't have the energy right now and am headed off to bed now for finals tomorrow, I'll run through the numbers tomorrow. In the mean time good night.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:True, that's why they don't make hydrogen with electrolysis. They use a catalytic steam/methane reformer.
Yes, I know. But actually, both are used, and both are inefficient. Not only that, reforming is a waste of perfectly good methane, which is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel in existence.
This is my field, so forgive me for being a bit touchy when people go off making grandiose claims that it can all be solved with "a bit of engineering."
Edit: Ethanol/methanol reforming is also inefficient.
[ March 04, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I spent 9 years working in the industrial gases/combustion field (Praxair Applications Research and Development), so it is my field as well.
As far as whether problems can be solved with "a bit of engineering" I'm 100% with you, which is why I get on my soapbox about population.
I also drive a Prius, and I stopped at 2 kids.
But there is a big difference between the efficiency of electrolysis and reforming. Reforming is more efficient than electrolysis.
Use of the word "inefficient" without a basis for comparison is problematic. If you noticed my post earlier, I said that the improved efficiency comes from the fuel cell and electric motor, in combination with hydrogen, not by using H2 as a motor fuel. Each combination has a different efficency, and they need to be appropriately compared. Using CH4 as a motor fuel is undoubtedly more efficient than using H2 as a motor fuel, but is it more efficent than the fuel cell?
I don't have enough actual data to apply numbers to each of these possibilities, and I suspect that those who are actually doing the development work are using speculative data. But from what I've heard and read, the hydrogen fuel cell does represent a legitimate step forward. I'm willing to give it that much.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Actually, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if we mathmatically examined this, we could show that you COULD significantly impact the population of the Earth by removing its members.
Depends on how you remove it's members. By rocket, you'd use a huge amount of energy to remove each person. That energy could be put to much better use than that.
Space elevator? Big step. Sounds good, but it's awfully problematic. I'd say it's worth trying maybe, but I wouldn't hold much hope for it.
Of course, Earth's population has members removed on a regular basis, by death. But that subject is really emotional, so it's hard to make arguments from that perspective.
The only real argument that can be made is for reducing birthrate. But China has done that and we often claim their policy is a "human rights violation."
George Carlin may have the only sane viewpoint: We are destroying ourselves through our own stupidity, and he thinks it's funny, because in the grand scheme of things, human life is insignificant anyway.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: So it won't, but it might have an impact on the survival of the species. Populations that crash tend to crash hard. And our civilisation is not only fragile, it would be hard to rebuild; no more easily accessible resources.
I agree that the purpose of colonization is to put some of your eggs in a different basket.
However, we have more easily accessible resources than ever. We have vast fields of assorted, pre-refined metals, bio-mass, even petrolium products... all set aside for our future post-apocolypse descendants to find and use to rebuild civilization.
They're called Landfills.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But China has done that and we often claim their policy is a "human rights violation."
That doesn't need to be scare-quoted. It is a human rights violation.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: That doesn't need to be scare-quoted. It is a human rights violation.
The quotes imply that the term is subjective. Which it is.
And I disagree with your opinion. A policy of reduced childbirth is absolutely necessary in order to provide for the possibility of continued human life on this planet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Remind me never to vote for you for any public office.
There's nothing subjective about that, unless you call all designations of human rights subjective. What do we do to violators? Throw them in jail? Use forced abortions? Or punish the kids by denying government services?
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Those are just details.
And a policy isn't the same thing as a law. You of all people should know that.
Childbirth must be reduced. The question is how to do it.
The most likely model comes from observations from industrialized countries whose birth rates have fallen below replacement:
Availability of birth control allows people to choose on their own to have fewer children.
Low mortality rate increases confidence that offspring will survive. So people don't have extra children just in case some of them die. Some irony there: Lower mortality rate reduces population.
Popular opinion changes. Cultures that have historically had large families don't necessarily stay that way. If public opinion looks unfavorably on large families, people's choices will be affected.
Of course, if these things fail, population will likely fall off naturally, through starvation, war, general mayhem. China's way of carrying out it's policy may violate human rights, but given the conditions that necessitated the policy in the first place, what would you have done?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:If public opinion looks unfavorably on large families, people's choices will be affected.
Not very pleasant for the people with the large families ...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Actually, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if we mathmatically examined this, we could show that you COULD significantly impact the population of the Earth by removing its members.
I thought that's what wars were for.
And nuclear and biological accidents.
And natural disasters.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:There's a lot of room in west Texas, but nobody's using it for a reason
Yes, but I think making good arable farmland out of West Texas is a lot more plausible than making good, arable farm land out of Mars.
There is plenty of un-farmed land on this planet, and there is plenty of food being produced from the farmland we have now.
I know people with thousands of acres of farmland they allow to go fallow because they are being subsidized NOT to grow certain crops.
We have friends who own a farm in Washington state, and only need to produce crops every third year or so - not because the land is in need of fallow cycles, but because they have no need to farm most of their land year to year becuase there would no place to sell it anyway.
We are nowhere near using all our capacity to produce food on this planet.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: quote:If public opinion looks unfavorably on large families, people's choices will be affected.
Not very pleasant for the people with the large families ...
If they made the choice to have large families in the face of unfavorable public opinion, then they must have weighed their desire to have a large family versus having to live with people's opinion of them.
What Dagonee assumed it that a policy of reduced childbirth implies that there must be legal repercussions. That isn't the case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What Dagonee assumed it that a policy of reduced childbirth implies that there must be legal repercussions.
No I didn't. We were specifically discussing China's policy, which uses the law to compel compliance. The variations I discussed were of the means of compulsion.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: We are nowhere near using all our capacity to produce food on this planet.
Again, this goes back to the current dependence on fossil fuels, from which we make fertilizer. We are only able to grow food at the current rates as long as fossil fuels are available.
We *will* run out.
Then there's the rate at which we are destroying arable land, in terms of erosion, pollution, and land development.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Again, this goes back to the current dependence on fossil fuels, from which we make fertilizer. We are only able to grow food at the current rates as long as fossil fuels are available.
Where do you get the idea we're using fossil fuels to make all/most of our fertilizer?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The Bible says we have too many cars and other moving vehicles:
quote:Isaiah 2:7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:
God's solution to the problem:
quote:Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;
Okay, I cheated; that second one's from the Book of Mormon.
[ March 04, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Where do you get the idea we're using fossil fuels to make all/most of our fertilizer
It goes back to the earlier discussion on hydrogen production. Hydrogen is taken from methane and water, and combined with nitrogen to produce ammonia. This is then converted to ammonium nitrate. When you hear people talking about "nitrogen" fertilizers, that's what we're talking about.
In addition to the methane feedstock, there is also a very large energy requirement in order to cause the reaction. All that takes fuel.
I had an incidental relationship with this process by way of my former employer, so I've got some familiarity with it from there. I also took a college course in the economy of energy that gave me a pretty good feel for how much petroleum goes into agricultural production.
To the best of my recollection:
It takes 1 calorie of petroleum energy to make 2 calories of corn.
It takes 1 calorie of petroleum energy to make 1 calorie of wheat.
It takes 2 calories of petroleum energy to make 1 calories of chicken.
It takes 4 calories of petroleum energy to make 1 calorie of pork.
It takes 40 calories of petroleum energy to make 1 calorie of beef.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Glenn, does that include petroleum for operating the machines for sowing/reaping?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Methane is produced all around us every day. By Decomposing plants and animals and by the digestion process. In fact, Methane is a green house gas. People are trying to stop it's production.
We're not running out.
That's like saying we're running out of Manure. We'll never run out of Manure. (In fact, you can use Manure as a substitute for the nitrogen fertilizer you're so worried about.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The best way to reduce population is to empower women: to educate them, give them basic sex education and birth control, give them choices in life outside the home, and not make them slaves to the hearth whose only option in life is to pop out babies. Sure, you'll still have people that want to have large families, but they are going to be few and far between and won't matter if overall people are having less. You don't have to use the stick when the carrot is sometimes much more effective. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I started to make a post just like that Storm, but you said it better =)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Bible's solution for dealing with human waste and fertilizing the soil found in Deuteronomy, chapter 23:
quote: 10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:
11 But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.
12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I wasn't refering to HUMAN waste. eww.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Glenn, does that include petroleum for operating the machines for sowing/reaping?
Yes, I believe it does.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Storm Saxon,
Your post mirrors my feelings exactly.
And I don't understand why it is such a common situation that women don't have power over their own reproductive freedom. It doesn't make sense to me, for example, that the Catholic Church doesn't encourage the availability of birth control, when they are so vehemently against abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So we'd have to be able to convert corn to ethanol needing less than 1 calorie per calorie of ethanol created to come out ahead. Did I calculate that right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It doesn't make sense to me, for example, that the Catholic Church doesn't encourage the availability of birth control, when they are so vehemently against abortion.
Because they believe birth control is wrong. You may not understand that particular belief, but their opinion on abortion doesn't enter into it.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Methane is produced all around us every day. By Decomposing plants and animals and by the digestion process. In fact, Methane is a green house gas. People are trying to stop it's production.
Sigh. It's hard to paint an accurate picture of the whole situation in a thread like this. A swamp produces mathane, but it's hard to recover for our use, without destroying the swamp.
I did a lot of work in sewage treatment, and there they use digesters to convert sewage into methane. But the amount of methane produced isn't enough to run the rest of the sewage treatment operation. They still have to buy some. The process I developed might help (to my knowledge no one currently has plans to commercialize it, even though it works).
Apparently someone has calculated how much cow farts figure into the greenhouse gas problem. but you can't go around harvesting cow farts.
The whole scale of the thing is very different. Natural gas wells contain stored methane that was produced by the decomposition of biomass over millions of years. It's a densely packed, available energy source. That makes it worthwhile to exploit it and use it.
Think of it like this: If $10,000 dollars worth of pennies were mixed with topsoil, and distributed in a layer 1 foot deep, over 5 acres, would it be worth it to try to find all of those pennies? The cost of excavation and separation alone would probably cost $10,000, so even though you know exactly where it is, and how to get it, it doesn't make sense to try.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Intellectually I understand it Dag. I just have to accept their word for it that that's what they believe.
What doesn't make sense to me is why they believe it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Think of it like this: If $10,000 dollars worth of pennies were mixed with topsoil, and distributed in a layer 1 foot deep, over 5 acres, would it be worth it to try to find all of those pennies? The cost of excavation and separation alone would probably cost $10,000, so even though you know exactly where it is, and how to get it, it doesn't make sense to try.
That's a very good way to explain it.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:there they use digesters to convert sewage into methane
Yeah, I did some automated controls for a couple of wastewater plants in Orange County, CA. One plant had a methane cogeneration facility; the other just flared it off. Cogeneration makes the green crowd happy, but the equipment and upkeep is probably more expensive than the value of the energy generated.
There's a landfill in the middle of Orange County that is pretty much a mountain. They're extracting methane from that and generating enough power to run the dump: lighting for the offices and power to open and close the automatic entrance gate. A wastewater plant takes a lot more juice than that.
[ March 04, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: So we'd have to be able to convert corn to ethanol needing less than 1 calorie per calorie of ethanol created to come out ahead. Did I calculate that right?
I think you have the right idea. You'd have to get into counting molecules of hydrogen in methanol, and figure the amount of energy available to convert the methanol back into ammonia.
The sun would be the source of energy for the whole equation, so it's not a perpetual motion cycle, but the margins are going to be awfully close, if it's doable at all.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Belle asks, "On what are you basing this? How much space do you think one person needs?
*looks outside at her neighborhood where every lot is over 2 acres, and there are acres and acres of empty land surrounding the area*
I don't think we're anywhere close to using up all our land. Have you driven through the state of Mississippi?"
You must also take into consideration that not all of the land is suitable for humans to live on/in, farmland (as has been brought up), AND the idea that we must have some "wild" places that produce our oxygen and control our climate and break down pollution. Mississippi is an area of floodplains. As one who lives on the border of a floodplain, I can tell you that man was not meant to live where the water periodically rises. Floodplains serve crucial natural functions that are drastically hampered when people move into them, build levees, and remove the wetlands. And we could cut down forests in order to make more fields, but they also have their important functions.
I, personally, think we have reached human carrying capacity. We are space and convenience hogs here in the blessed USA, while many folks in other places are packed into areas of poor sanitation and ill nutrition. Distribute things more evenly, and I'm still not sure humanity would be in very good shape.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:The sun would be the source of energy for the whole equation
It all goes back to the sun. Even our radioactive fuels come from heavier atoms that were created by solar fusion in the core of a star in the distant past.
I thought that the closer you could get your energy supply to the source (the sun), the more efficient you'd be. That would mean solar cells and perhaps wind and wave energy. But that all takes up precious Texas Caprock real estate.
Actually, the manufacture of solar cells is a pretty nasty business where the environment is concerned.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Belle how much room do we use before we realize we've industrialized the entire surface of the earth! Yes theirs room left but shouldn't we keep some of it for nature? When do we realize that we've spread to far when the earth looks like cuaracant (incorect spelling) from starwars, where the entire planet is one big city! I love nature and if sending people to mars or making population laws is the way to insure its survival then I say bring em on!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That would mean solar cells and perhaps wind and wave energy.
Eventually we have to move to these forms of energy, and any others that make immediate use of the solar radiation, because any other source obtained simply from earth will eventually run out.
We can't fuse all our hydrogen into helium if we want to have water to drink. Although I'm betting that's a long way off, it still needs consideration.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:that's a long way off
By then we may be crushing up entire planets and building Dyson spheres.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The Bible's policy on population control found in Genesis, Chapter 1:
quote:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Granted, that may not mean to fill up the earth with people, like the command for the fishes to fill the waters:
quote:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
"Replenish" is an interesting word choice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ever wonder how many Dyson spheres are out there? We'd have a very hard time detecting one, wouldn't we?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:"Replenish" is an interesting word choice.
Yes, it at least means for Adam and Eve to reproduce one man and one woman to replace themselves. There is the implied command to make sure there is always a reproducing pair of humans to inherit the earth. Edit: (and enough to spare in a natural disaster or two)
[ March 04, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:We'd have a very hard time detecting one
Hopefully they're not trapping gamma rays and X-rays and such in there.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
If my internet hadn't been out for a day, I'd have jumped in earlier and done this in smaller bits...sorry!
Okay, first, I just want to point out that Catholics' views on abortion and birth-control *are* exactly related, as they're both technically forms of birth control, one just a little earlier than the other, that's all.
As well, no one seems to have mentioned (perhaps it's just too obvious) that another reason we have all this wild and agricultural land is not only because it's not arable, but because there's so many people in cities that the fields *have* to remain empty to grow enough food to import to the city-folk. Sure, parts of the USA and heck, nearly all of Canada is vastly underpopulated, but go take a walk in Tokyo.
The world as a whole is without scientific question getting relatively close to carrying capacity. Once that happens, whether things get evened out by people pushing hard enough for population control -- through policy or through a combination of education, promotion of birth control, better third-world health care (lower IMR), change in mental attitudes due to awareness of consequences etc. -- or whether they get evened out by the diseases and natural means of population control which will take effect as cities get more and more crowded and unhealthy, or whether we keep pushing until we cause our own natural disasters, somehow it *WILL* get evened out.
So I do agree with Glenn on the fact that we ought to try to limit incoming population as of about now. We can try to minimize the human deathtoll of this eventual inevitable return to ecological balance (I use the term loosely) by minimizing the amount of people alive to start with, but we have to do it in a way that will continue its effects after Round One. So introducing sudden laws prohibiting children won't work. There are other measures such as education of the public on the state of the earth, working towards instilling a priority of preserving the immortality of the species rather than the immortality of preserving our own genetic line, which could be a tough thing to change. Improving life quality for those already stuck in crowded, unhealthy areas where overpopulation is already killing people is another good way to start. I don't think transplanting some folk to Mars will work. Taking 20 amoebas from that small jar and putting them on Mars won't stop the other 80 left from creating another 20 pretty darn fast to face fatal overpopulation again. But this has been covered above.
And of course, all of this depends on whether we really want humans to survive the overpopulation crisis. Heck, our generations will all be dead, so *do* we actually have a moral obligation to care? Taking religion out of the mix, do we have any other reason besides nostalgia to try and preserve the future of our species? Isn't this how evolution works? Should we try to stop evolution? If we do cause overpopulation to slow, are we only going to face it again in the next era when it wipes us out *after* we've made the world in even worse shape thereby killing the whole she-bang instead of just our species? Do we have an obligation to the rest of nature to *not* try to preserve humans so they can do more damage? These are all fairly controversial questions but something to think about...
And now I actually have to run so I can't stick around for any replies, but I'll be back later...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay, first, I just want to point out that Catholics' views on abortion and birth-control *are* exactly related, as they're both technically forms of birth control, one just a little earlier than the other, that's all.
No. The Catholic position on abortion is that it is murder. This position includes birth control that prevents post-conception implantation.
The Catholic position on other birth control is that it it's use is sinful, but that it is not murder.
This has very important implications, especially when deciding what should be banned by governments and what shouldn't.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It seems to me that the Catholic position on abortion and birth control must be related in some way. Whether they are *Exactly* related is a rather subtle distinction.
As I said earlier, I can only accept someone's stated opinion, even if I don't understand it.
Dag, are you Catholic? I don't know that I've ever heard your particular affiliation before.
My wife is Catholic, but I know that more strict Catholics wouldn't agree, because she's also pro-choice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Methane is produced all around us every day. By Decomposing plants and animals and by the digestion process. In fact, Methane is a green house gas. People are trying to stop it's production.
We're not running out.
That's like saying we're running out of Manure. We'll never run out of Manure. (In fact, you can use Manure as a substitute for the nitrogen fertilizer you're so worried about.)
Although methane is produced by bacteria, the methane produced this way nearly always escapes into the atmosphere as rapidly as it is produced. No one has devised an economical way to collect this methane. Biogenic methane (the methane produced by bacteria), is one of the synthetic fuels that is being explored as a future option and there are some small scale facilities at land fills that are producing methane this way.
It should how ever be recognized, that Biogenic methane is currently only a miniscule fraction of the methane that is being used to produce energy and chemical products. It is unclear whether we will ever have technology to produce large amounts of biogenic methane economically. Currently, virtually all the methane used comes from fossil fuel reserves and these are indeed running out.
Although there are natural fertilizers, like manure, there is not enough of these available to replace the nitrogen fertilizers that are currently available. It has been estimated that without the nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, and pumped water that are made possible by fossil fuels, agricultural production per acre would drop to about 1/4 of its current levels.
Do the research Pixiest.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The word "replenish" may be taken as a mandate that we not destroy ourselves.
If there isn't a God that cares that we not destroy ourselves, I'd say go ahead people; do your worst. After all, without God, we're just so many amoebas, and this planet is just another rock. Nothing special going on here.
Maybe eating and having sex is such a fantastic experience that we get excited about making sure that future biological entities will also have the opportunity to eat and have sex.
Or are we arrogant enough to think as Mr. Sagan did that humanity is somehow unique and special in all the universe and therefore, worth preserving? Look, the amoeba wrote a book! Now it's learning to add numbers! Holy cow, the little varmint invented religion! Now he's rallying to protect his environment!
Who cares? Our sun will explode, or our universe will collapse in the big crunch; all the books will burn; the crosses will all melt; the amoebas will amount to nothing, having never existed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Or are we arrogant enough to think as Mr. Sagan did that humanity is somehow unique and special in all the universe and therefore, worth preserving?
I don't quite know how to take this. I guess I fall into the arrogant category, since I don't believe in God, but I think humanity is worth preserving. I also believe in morality and general civility.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Interesting thread. I was too tired to post coherently on it last night.
Belle, you've taken a lot of jabs on that quote where you look out your back window and see empty land.
One problem is extreme inequalities of land, water and other natural resouces. China, for example is farming nearly 100% of it's arable land. While the US has lots of empty land. But I suspect you and your neighbors wouldn't be happy if 10 million Chinese (or anybody else) moved in next door and started farming.
Also, most people would rather live in cities, which are increasingly overcrowded. This might change if the internet and other technologies make rural life more appealing, I guess.
I think water wars will become widespread in the 21st century if cheap desalinization is not available on a massive scale.
quote: The world as a whole is without scientific question getting relatively close to carrying capacity. Once that happens, whether things get evened out by people pushing hard enough for population control -- through policy or through a combination of education, promotion of birth control, better third-world health care (lower IMR), change in mental attitudes due to awareness of consequences etc. -- or whether they get evened out by the diseases and natural means of population control which will take effect as cities get more and more crowded and unhealthy, or whether we keep pushing until we cause our own natural disasters, somehow it *WILL* get evened out
I agree with most of this--but I believe Malthus will have the last laugh, people won't cut the birth rate enough to make a difference, and war and disease will do it for us. Morbo
[ March 04, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:I don't believe in God, but I think humanity is worth preserving
That's nice, but the other side of the same coin says that it's all going to end sooner or later.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So what? Many things are worthwhile even if they don't last forever.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Is anything that an amoeba experiences "worthwhile?" Only the amoeba knows for sure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
True. What was your point?
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
quote:No. The Catholic position on abortion is that it is murder. This position includes birth control that prevents post-conception implantation.
The Catholic position on other birth control is that it it's use is sinful, but that it is not murder.
Apologies, Dags, and thanks for the correction. That's interesting; I didn't know that distinction. I meant abortion and birth control issues are just obviously related as both causing potential children not to be born (but yes, I should have looked into it more before adding that "Catholics'").
quote:Who cares? Our sun will explode, or our universe will collapse in the big crunch; all the books will burn; the crosses will all melt; the amoebas will amount to nothing, having never existed.
Well, yes. But that may be the most perfectly plausible reason yet to argue *for* trying to save ourselves for as long as we can. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: I can tell you that man was not meant to live where the water periodically rises.
Maybe not, Jenny...but that's where the best farmland is. Living on top of it isn't helpful, but you need to be close enough to use it efficiently.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But there is a big difference between the efficiency of electrolysis and reforming. Reforming is more efficient than electrolysis.
Absolutely, but you'll note that in my inital post I was responding to someone who was going on about the many virtues of electrolysis.
quote:Use of the word "inefficient" without a basis for comparison is problematic. If you noticed my post earlier, I said that the improved efficiency comes from the fuel cell and electric motor, in combination with hydrogen, not by using H2 as a motor fuel. Each combination has a different efficency, and they need to be appropriately compared. Using CH4 as a motor fuel is undoubtedly more efficient than using H2 as a motor fuel, but is it more efficent than the fuel cell?
Even if it isn't, H2 generation processes are so energy-inefficient (and, since reforming processes all use clean-burning hydrocarbon sources like methanol, ethanol and methane, wasteful) that when you consider the whole picture -- that is to say, generation, distribution, and use -- hydrogen isn't worth considering for use in cars, at least not the way we use cars now.
Distribution in particular is a massive problem that fuel cell advocates and apologists usually just don't address. It's easy to wave your hand and say "oh, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it," but the reality is that these things need to be considered before hydrogen can really even be in the running as a useful alternative to gasoline.
quote:I don't have enough actual data to apply numbers to each of these possibilities, and I suspect that those who are actually doing the development work are using speculative data.
I might be able to get this kind of data, but unfortunately I'm moving two thousand kilometres on Sunday and will be without internet for a while. I'll try to remember to look into it further when I'm all set up in my new digs, though.
In my last year of university I helped design a control system for a fuel cell of the type used in automotive applications [Edit: I'm a chemical engineer. Most of my work experience is in polymers and petrochemicals, but I'm about to start working for a synthetic rubber manufacturer.]. With a bit of work I ought to be able to get my hands on energy efficiency data. Because my university actually has a couple of ethanol-powered vehicles as well, we might be able to do a comparison. I can't promise anything, though.
quote: But from what I've heard and read, the hydrogen fuel cell does represent a legitimate step forward. I'm willing to give it that much.
I think fuel cells are all well and good, but what's really needed is a change in how people view transportation. This "one car for everyone" business is going to have to change, regardless of whether those cars are powered by gasoline, batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells.
The solution to the fuel problem won't be purely technological. Developing alternative technologies -- fuel cells, sea wind farms, more efficient and clean solar cells -- is great and we need to do it, but it's important to remember (as you do, obviously, given your most agreeable choice of automobile ) that an attitude adjustment toward energy and fuel has to be the biggest component of any solution.
[ March 04, 2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Nobody outside of the amoeba's frame of reference cares what the amoeba may consider to be worthwhile. For that matter, one amoeba probably doesn't care what is worthwhile to another amoeba, and probably doesn't care whether his neighbor stumbles into a petri dish full of rubbing alcohol.
After the inevitable big crunch or big nova there will be no human frame of reference or human definition of what was worthwhile, and there won't be sentient survivors to care anyway. Nobody left to care about the electrical impulses and chemical reactions that took place within those biological entities.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So there won't, but, again, so what? At this moment, in this place, people care. And here the amoeba analogy breaks down, for people do care about each other. My grandmother is dead, and I will never see her again; was her love for me not useless, then, because it is ended?
Surely it is childish to believe that a small piece of chocolate is no good, because larger ones can be imagined.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Why do we persist in assigning value and meaning to electrical impulses and chemical reactions? We only do so because the collective experience of the last 10,000 years suggests that embracing these values is the best way to get food and to reproduce.
10,000 years is a drop in the bucket in the cosmic scheme of things.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
To an outside observer, a grandmother's love is only valuable if it somehow benefits your offspring, and then only if it benefits your offspring to the extent that somehow down the road your offspring achieve immortality for their race.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, but there is no outside observer. There's only us. Why do you insist on arguing in terms of these hypotheticals?
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Yes, it is a drop in the bucket. But that's the whole point you're missing. Values and meanings are an important side effect of our chemical impulses and the things that make us up. You've got them too, you know. They mayn't have much meaning on a cosmic scale but nothing much does. They have immense meaning on a smaller scale, which is the only one we can conceivably work with.
Whether or not human value and meaning have any cosmic meaning, their meaning has to be taken into account in our choices affecting ourselves within our existant time frame. To do otherwise is like a politician saying no god has been proven to exist, so religion needn't be considered when making any decision affecting religious people. (I'm sure there's better examples but I'm tired).
Edit: Incidentally, there's been value and meaning postulated as far as 50-60,000 years ago through some (potentially controversial) evidence of Neandertal burials.
[ March 04, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Astaril ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think fuel cells are all well and good, but what's really needed is a change in how people view transportation. This "one car for everyone" business is going to have to change, regardless of whether those cars are powered by gasoline, batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells.
I love good mass transit. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: but it's important to remember (as you do, obviously, given your most agreeable choice of automobile [Big Grin] ) that an attitude adjustment toward energy and fuel has to be the biggest component of any solution.
Agreed. And the attitude adjustment goes beyond transportation.
Home heating is a huge component of our energy usage, which is why I had my furnace and the furnace in my mother in law's house this past year.
Anyone whose furnace is over twenty years old should replace theirs, even if it works fine, because efficiency has improved so much since then. It will repay itself within three years, usually. Also, get a programmable thermostat. If you have hot water heat, get an outdoor reset control (adjusts water temperature based on the outside temperature, so the house doesn't overheat every time the radiators heat up).
And get used to living at 69 degrees in the winter, and 78 degrees in the summer. I don't air condition at all, and there are only a few days a year where I think it's really necessary. But people who have it in the house tend to use it as soon as the temperature gets a little uncomfortable. Then they never get used to the annual increase in temperature, and just keep using it.
Of course there's insulation, and tightening up air infiltration. I built a counterflow heat exchanger for the makeup air inlet in my basement. It's not as efficient as a commercial model, but better than nothing.
And we've got to stop the sprawl. This goes back to transportation. In the past 20 years (iirc) the average commute has gone from about 7 miles each way to about 20 miles each way, simply because everybody wants a house in the country, but the jobs are still in the city. I read the other day that more homes being sold today are actually second homes. Now people are heating two houses that they only live in part time. What a waste.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Why do you insist on arguing in terms of these hypotheticals?
The absence or non-existence of a god is also a persistent hypothetical in many arguments.
quote:There's only us.
And according to some knowledgeable folks there isn't even that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The government here in Canada has a program whereby you can get a government grant if you make improvements to your home's energy efficiency. I think these kinds of incentives are a really good idea. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: And get used to living at ...78 degrees in the summer.
I wish I could. If the temperature gets that high, I remain awake until I pass out from exhaustion. That said, there are other ways to cool off so I can sleep than to adjust the thermostat, but all of them use some energy.
Twinky, I agree. But for some reason American liberals don't seem willing to pay people for what "you're supposed to be doing anyway". They'd rather use coercion, apparently.
[ March 04, 2005, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Whether or not human value and meaning have any cosmic meaning, their meaning has to be taken into account in our choices affecting ourselves within our existant time frame
Millions of homeless people living in tin shacks on the beaches of Sumatra and Sri Lanka just demonstrated that we have no real choices. Just keep sweating, eating, and reproducing.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
We have no choices? What? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point exactly... (I don't mean that in a criticizing way - I'm just an I-need-things-to-be-obvious person).
This whole thread is about the environmental impact our culture produces and the choices we need to make to try and slow or reverse those effects. Incidentally, to break into the 'other half' of the discussions here, I think that grant programme is a fabulous idea! I had no idea it existed; I'll have to start mentioning it to interested people.
And skil, to use your example, yes, these things happen but the millions of people supporting relief efforts prove value and meaning have veritable effects on the world too. Giving to charity can be (not always but sometimes) evidence of altruism. Altruism is all values and meaning, which are a part of survival as well. You watch my back, I'll watch yours. Etcetera. These environmental issues are tied in with that. Each person's choice to live in an environmentally friendly way contributes to the survival of others including people being very comfortable and wasteful at the cost of that sacrificing person's comfort.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I love good mass transit.
At this point, we'd need to redesign some of our cities from the ground up in order to make mass transit actually WORK.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Some of us maintain that there is a god and that god cares how we treat our planet, but that god won't step in and save us from ourselves. Also, if god had anything to do with the Bible, we might find some clues in there as to how to care for our planet.
Some of us claim that there is no god, and the Bible can be no more than the collective wisdom of the ages, written by a man.
I say if there is no god, then it doesn't matter how we behave in relation to our environment. Personally, I'm going to tear down a few mountains looking for gold, and don't try to stop me. Why should I care if you once liked my mountain?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because we have the power to retaliate against things you care about. And, by the way, the Bible is nowise the wisdom of the ages, it is the wisdom of a small, very parochial desert tribe living three thousand years ago, and it is badly out of date.
Why do you believe that we need an outside force to make things important? Why this desperate desire to have your particular values live forever? Can you not take delight in the moment of life that you have?
Men die, and nations die. But before they die, they live.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
You ought to care for a variety of reasons. Say, because that mountain may have been home to traditions dating back thousands of years for an indigenous culture, and they'll probably get together and assassinate you in the night for doing it, because the values and traditions you destroyed and disrespected of theirs have real, tangible meaning to them and you've threatened them by that. Not to mention you destroy a lot of trees, probably ruin some precious fresh-water, throw some stock market somewhere into ruin... oh, I don't know, the list goes on.
Perhaps you're arguing now that from a purely evolutionary standpoint, things that help our physical survival are the only things worth preserving. You have to remember that values and meanings play *real* roles in survival. Maybe not outside the human sphere, but humans are plenty capable of killing each other, as well as other species, because of values. There are social factors in natural selection. The social factors in environmental choices will play a real role in how long our planet lasts.
Unless your point was to still argue that none of this matters on the cosmic scale, in which case this entire argument is and has been totally pointless.
KoM - I really like that last line... Is it from something, or did you make it up?
[ March 04, 2005, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Astaril ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Alas, no, that's Poul Anderson, back when he wasn't writing the same book ten times in a row. A short story, but I can't remember the name.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It'll come back to bite ya in the end, skill. Somewhere along the line we forgot the age old wisdom of "don't crap in your drinking water." Theists and non Theists alike ought to be able to agree on that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: At this point, we'd need to redesign some of our cities from the ground up in order to make mass transit actually WORK.
I'm not sure in what way. I loved Atlanta's MARTA and the ubahn of Nurnberg. Both of those cities are several hundred years old and I didn't notice any kind of major retooling of either city.
Slap down a rail system to take people quickly from a central location north, south, east and west. Have stops at various intelligent locations on the line--malls, high density areas. Have bus systems and park 'n' ride at the locations. 'Easy'. The benefits of reduced energy consumption from fewer people having to drive cars out of necessity are obvious, but what's great is that people end up saving time quite often, too, in today's gridlock, not to mention a lot of cash from not having to pay for gas and auto insurance. PLUS, you don't have to worry about drivers under the influence. Part of the reason why there are so many DUIs is because there often aren't any cheap alternatives to driving home. Keep in mind, too, that good mass transit allows poor people, the 'handicapped', and the elderly increased mobility and freedom that they otherwise wouldn't have.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, are you Catholic? I don't know that I've ever heard your particular affiliation before.
My wife is Catholic, but I know that more strict Catholics wouldn't agree, because she's also pro-choice.
Yes, I'm Catholic. When I used "Catholic position" I meant the official doctrine - I wasn't trying to speak for individual Catholics. Abortion is one of the areas where it's very easy to find an "official" position in the Catholic Church.
And I hate it when people say "X isn't really Catholic because they don't believe Y." There's really only two people authorized to say that for any given person (their Bishop and the Pope), and there's a reason they don't do it very often.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)