by rogerhb » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 18:37:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cyrus', 'B')ecause "infinite clean energy" is not possible, I'm not voting.
Unlimited does not equal infinite.
Unlimited does mean infinite, what unlimited means is there are no limits, hence it is infinite.
You can have a resource that you can use "forever" if you do not use it more than it's sustainable regeneration rate. If you use it more, you deplete it.
by Antimatter » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 03:43:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', 'I')n many of the "doom" replies there is the implication that more energy will make our population grow exponentially until we hit some other limit...don't the figures show that more energy (indirectly) slows/eliminates population growth?
As for water, with unlimited energy we can desalinate.
The slowdown in population growth mentioned is just evidence that the system which sustains us is under stress. One way this is manifested is that worldwide per capita energy usage has been in decline for over a generation now. As with all species in overshoot once the abundant supply of energy/nutrients/resources that it has relied on starts to exhaust itself then population growth begins to contract - the prelude to collapse and die-off. The development/discovery of any new exuberant sources of energy would simply see the re-commencement of the pre-exisitng trend towards overshoot for mankind but from a terrifiying new level.
I've heard the argument that population slowdown is the prelude to collapse - lots over at dieoff.org - but why do the countries with the most access to the energy/nutrients/resources show low or no population growth? (Europe, US, Japan) Per capita energy use has also increased in these areas in general but has declined wordwide with the addition of large numbers of poor people. If there was enough (clean) energy for the rest of the world to industrialise, won't their population stabilise too?
by peripato » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 05:16:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', 'I')n many of the "doom" replies there is the implication that more energy will make our population grow exponentially until we hit some other limit...don't the figures show that more energy (indirectly) slows/eliminates population growth?
As for water, with unlimited energy we can desalinate.
The slowdown in population growth mentioned is just evidence that the system which sustains us is under stress. One way this is manifested is that worldwide per capita energy usage has been in decline for over a generation now. As with all species in overshoot once the abundant supply of energy/nutrients/resources that it has relied on starts to exhaust itself then population growth begins to contract - the prelude to collapse and die-off. The development/discovery of any new exuberant sources of energy would simply see the re-commencement of the pre-exisitng trend towards overshoot for mankind but from a terrifiying new level.
I've heard the argument that population slowdown is the prelude to collapse - lots over at dieoff.org - but why do the countries with the most access to the energy/nutrients/resources show low or no population growth? (Europe, US, Japan) Per capita energy use has also increased in these areas in general but has declined wordwide with the addition of large numbers of poor people. If there was enough (clean) energy for the rest of the world to industrialise, won't their population stabilise too?
Since the cost of energy has soared over the past generation the days when people in the west could afford all the good things in life plus large families have passed. Before 1970 the average breadwinner could support a family of four or more and buy a house, a car, go on a holiday on a single wage but no more - now less than 2 children per family is the norm as is the two income household. In the face of growing energy costs we in the west when faced with the choice between acquring the good life or having children more and more are deciding not to reproduce. This decline in population is now a serious issue for western countries which have come to rely on population growth to fuel their economic growth now that the age of exuberance which was the post-war expansion and fuelled by extrememy cheap oil is over. Western countires have attempted to shore up declining native numbers through immigration.
On the global level issues of international political economy have been the reason why the overshoot crisis has so far been averted (collapse and die-off) simply becasue we have not allowed or encouraged the third world to industrialise. To do so would mean in the face of dwindling energy resources accepting a decline in western standards of living. Something to which most members of these societies would not accept. However the rapid and recent growth in the economies of China and India with their formidable populations has contributed to the tensions in the world economy we now see - as a result we have largely demand driven price rises in energy and commodities accross the board putting pressure on per capita energy usage here in the west which threaten to expose our countries to recession. In the developing world this is helping to increase their populations even more because they are further behind the west in their demographic cycle (more youngsters under reproductive age than adults).
Add the possiblity of an imminent peak of world oil supply to the mix and this population contraction in the west and population explosion in the third world ultimately becomes a brake on global economic growth because of an absolute decline in world energy usage and not just a relative one. Under such circumstances the weak and weak countries will succumb to the strong in the battle to secure access to ever dwindling supplies of energy. This must (see Zimbabwe) result in die-off. How far this will go remains to be seen.
New sources of energy would address these problems but only temporarily until we ran smack into the face of another reosurce shortfall or we irreperably damage the biosphere and our ability to to live in it.
by johnmarkos » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 13:07:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cyrus', 'B')ecause "infinite clean energy" is not possible, I'm not voting.
Unlimited does not equal infinite.
Unlimited does mean infinite, what unlimited means is there are no limits, hence it is infinite.
You can have a resource that you can use "forever" if you do not use it more than it's sustainable regeneration rate. If you use it more, you deplete it.
Well, there you go. I didn't mean unlimited in the sense of infinite. I meant unlimited in the sense of always meeting (or exceeding) humanity's needs.
Imagine a planet inhabited by 10,000 humans with forest cover of 4 billion hectares. The humans wield nothing more destructive than hand axes. As far as they are concerned, forest is unlimited. However, the forest is nonetheless finite. That is the kind of unlimited I'm talking about.
by MonteQuest » Thu 08 Sep 2005, 21:02:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', ' ')Conversely, the doomer point of view arises from a deep-seated belief that humanity will self-destruct irrespective of resource availability. Because of this, doomers believe that we would destroy ourselves even if the Earth's sources and sinks could expand without limit.
Give me a break.
Perhaps there are some who believe mankind will inherently self-destruct, but I believe most so called "doomers' realize that the earth's resources and environmental sinks
cannot ever expand without limit.
Why do you believe there is this deep-seated notion of doom without
reason?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Thu 08 Sep 2005, 21:10:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', 'I')n many of the "doom" replies there is the implication that more energy will make our population grow exponentially until we hit some other limit...don't the figures show that more energy (indirectly) slows/eliminates population growth?
As for water, with unlimited energy we can desalinate.
The population does not have to grow to push limits, merely our level of consumption does. And as we know, as the standard of living rises, consumption follows in it's footsteps.
Ok, we desalinate water. At what cost? What's next? Food? How much inorganic nitrogen can we introduce into the environment without affecting the nitrogen cycle?
Folks, there are
always limits. Even with unlimited energy, the population
has to come down. We are in "overshoot."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by sjn » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 04:13:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'G')ive me a break.
Perhaps there are some who believe mankind will inherently self-destruct, but I believe most so called "doomers' realize that the earth's resources and environmental sinks
cannot ever expand without limit.
Why do you believe there is this deep-seated notion of doom without
reason?
I don't believe it is a notion of doom without reason. I think there are some who believe that, as you suggested, humankind will inherently self-destruct. Even if the Earth's sources and sinks could expand without limit (and I'm not saying they can), people who believe this think that humanity (or organisms in general) are prone to overshoot and collapse irrespective of resource constraints. It's just human nature, or the nature of life, they would say.
Isn't this idea implicit in the notion that an unlimited supply of energy would doom us?
It is
the nature of life, but that doesn't make it inevitable, it just means we need to
willfully avoid overshoot or accept that nature will take care of it for us.
