[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat I don't understand is why we need MORE power plants. When those of us in the First World already use 5 or so Earth's worth of resources, why do we need to produce MORE energy? What is it FOR? Pardon my allcaps, but I'm just not understanding this. Why, when we're using far more than our share of Earth's energy, do we need to produce MORE ENERGY? When will we say "enough?" How many nuke/coal, whatever plants do we need to build before we say "Stop"?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') find Monte's scenario (if I've described it somewhat accurately) entirely plausible. However, there are other viable scenarios. Nuclear and renewables could extend the growth phase indefinitey.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'N')ot a surprise is it, but if you build 20 new nuke plants you stop emmiting all those fossil fuel green house gasses into the air. You also stop digging up mountains of coal 15% of which is ash left over from combustion which is toxic and has to be dealt with. You save all the natural gas now used for power production to be used for plastic manufacturing, home heat supplies and so on and in the process cut use substantially which lower the price for home users.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', ' ') The nuclear advocates on the board are arguing that it has the ability to prevent collapse and die-off, unlike say solar and wind power.

[Ludi]

Don't they require a lot of water?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'N')ot a surprise is it, but if you build 20 new nuke plants you stop emmiting all those fossil fuel green house gasses into the air. You also stop digging up mountains of coal 15% of which is ash left over from combustion which is toxic and has to be dealt with. You save all the natural gas now used for power production to be used for plastic manufacturing, home heat supplies and so on and in the process cut use substantially which lower the price for home users.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', ' ') The nuclear advocates on the board are arguing that it has the ability to prevent collapse and die-off, unlike say solar and wind power.

[Ludi]

Tanada, what will remain of the Earth's ecosystems in 100 years?

What would cause the continuing decline in birth rates?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.

Does anyone disagree that Problem #1 is surviving the transition?

[Ludi]

Do you think the ecological paradigm is preferred by the population at large?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', ' ')My definition is anyone who openly welcomes, in fact encourages, a rapid decline in the population of the planet.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'M')onte, what about the idea that we'll just use the nuke energy to transition to a sustainable way of life?

This seems to be what some are proposing, that it's just a bridge or stopgap to a sustainable way of life based on solar energy.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', ' ')The correction is unavoidible Monte, World pop is schedualed to max out around 9 Billion in 2050. After that due to declining world wide birthrates you will get your correction, over about 100 years the world population will fall to about 4.5Billion.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'D')o you think the ecological paradigm is preferred by the population at large?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', ' ')The correction is unavoidible Monte, World pop is schedualed to max out around 9 Billion in 2050. After that due to declining world wide birthrates you will get your correction, over about 100 years the world population will fall to about 4.5Billion.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')It has never happen this way before. Historically, the earth's population has grown at about 2% a year, doubling every 35 years.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e need a transition from a Newtonian Mechanics World Paradigm to an Ecological World Paradigm.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', ' ')The correction is unavoidible Monte, World pop is schedualed to max out around 9 Billion in 2050. After that due to declining world wide birthrates you will get your correction, over about 100 years the world population will fall to about 4.5Billion.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')The population bloom did not come from cheap oil per se, it came from pesticides and fertilizers made on an industrial scale. Both of those catagories of chemilcals can be made from electricity and raw materials, it just cost a lot more than using cheap oil to do it.

[Ludi]

Population growth rate decline is typically explained by the fact that those countries which experience a drop in birth rate are those which have the highest standard of living; developing countries typically have a higher birthrate. Third World countries typically have the highest birthrate. Affluence is both a cause and an affect of declining birth rates, but affluence causes an even greater degree of environmental harm. Estimates are that it would take 5 or more Earths to support the current population at a First World level. Clearly, without more Earths, we can't raise the entire population to this degree of affluence, though many are trying. Many even claim that raising affluence will cause environmental destruction to slow, because of erroneous belief that affluence causes less environmental damage.

Agreeing on a baseline standard of living which does not require additional Earths and aiming for that, along with education and empowerment of women, may be the best bets for stabilizing the population in a way which will allow the life systems which sustain us to continue to function properly.