PeakOil is You
Nuclear or Renewables?
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Doly » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 05:13:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')'m off topic with continuing the theme about population but there is an interesting new post on this website that makes a start at correlating global population growth with the effects of peak oil if anyone is interested: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12 ... /0641#more
Interesting. I find particularly interesting the graph of fertility vs GDP, particularly the countries that are far from the line. It supports the theory that I've heard before that fertility is correlated more with the level of education of women than GDP (GDP and education is usually correlated, anyway). The countries with high GDP and high fertility are Muslim countries where women are often kept illiterate. The countries with low GDP and relatively low fertility are places such as Cuba and India.
-
Doly - Expert
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Daryl » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 08:22:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '[') But we need a cultural shift to allow these solutions to fully get the priority that this emergency requires. My main interest is focussing on the catalysts that can speed up cultural change toward a sustainable paradigm. Events that can speed up a collective understanding. The faster we get economic disruption the better in my opinion. The quicker we see more severe effects of global warming the better. The quicker we start on the decline of our oil reserves the better. We need catalysts to get the process moving.
We're in complete agreement then. There is no doubt that substantial movement toward the needed adjustments can't take place until a crisis scares the public into acquiesence. Unfortunately, public resistance to sacrifice isn't the only mountain to climb. Beyond that there is the political question ie. will fixed interests cause the irrational decisions to be made? This is especially important because we may not have the time to survive a major mistake. Finally, there is a significant financial issue ie can we fund such huge changes to our infrastructure?
Responsible citizens of this country should be looking to support and join advocacy groups promoting "energy security". This will be the core propaganda used to the scare the average voter into submission. The politicians have already started the drumbeat. At a minimum, we should be pushing Washington to raise the gas tax, a no brainer that would have multiple positive effects pre-peak.
It's not responsible to promote the idea that nothing can be done. It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom. Even Kunstler ends some of his speeches with an exhortation to rebuild the countries railroads. Doomers can argue until they are blue in the face that a solution isn't impossible. But is giving up ethical?
-
Daryl - Tar Sands
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:25:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I')t's not responsible to promote the idea that nothing can be done. It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom. Even Kunstler ends some of his speeches with an exhortation to rebuild the countries railroads. Doomers can argue until they are blue in the face that a solution isn't impossible. But is giving up ethical?
I haven't seen very many advocate "giving up." I don't advocate "giving up" except in my darker moments, otherwise, I am full of enthusiasm for solutions which can be implemented immediately.
- Ludi
Re: Yes to both
by DoctorDoom » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:28:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.
')You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. I am thinking 18th century technology levels, without modern sanitation, hi-tech health care, etc. Life was hard, and short.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')If we are in overshoot, which all the signs and studies says we are, then the population will crash. If not now, then later. If later, then it will be worse. Energy alone cannot expand carrying capacity in a world governed by the "law of the minimum." It tells us that the carrying capacity for any given species is set by the necessity in least supply.
So if that necessity is not energy, but something else, then you're right. Well, except that the something else has to be something you can't get more of with more energy. As for "crash", it depends on your definition. Hitting an energy wall could result in a hard crash with lots of people dying to reduce the population over a very short time period. I'd rather delay such an event if possible; given a few hundred years the population could be managed down to something sustainable. So even a temporary energy fix of sufficient longevity could avoid what I would consider a crash.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Can we manage a fully artifical environment? That is awfully thin ice.
Anything not prohibited by the laws of physics is possible. That said, we have a long way to go before we can presume to know as much about nano-scale processes and life processes as mother nature; I sure wouldn't want to bet the ranch on this. Plus, it doesn't sound desirable. The Earth is beautiful - I like her the way she is.
You're right, we'll all easily cut 2/3 of our consumption without any problems or negative consequences. My bad, how silly of me.
