[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')We need to change the way we live, in order to live within the carrying capacity of the planet.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'W')e need population reduction and an end to exponential economic growth.

[inculcated]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'T')he transfer of nearly all transport systems to electrically based ones doesn't require a 20% increase in generating capacity, and it certainly doesn't require that increase to be based at the end of a power line. Slap panels on the roof and make your own!!

[KillTheHumans]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('inculcated', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'T')he transfer of nearly all transport systems to electrically based ones doesn't require a 20% increase in generating capacity, and it certainly doesn't require that increase to be based at the end of a power line. Slap panels on the roof and make your own!!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')We need to change the way we live, in order to live within the carrying capacity of the planet.

[MonteQuest]

Let's try to focus on the scale of the change needed. As Ludi often remarks, we just aren't doing much of anything on the scale required.

#1 reason to be a doomer.

Lack of any action on a scale the would make a discernible difference.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')urrently, we do not have ready-to-scale alternatives with oil's energy density, portability and high EROEI.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Ok, replacement ( two children per couple) would take 50 to 70 years to reach ZPG. Due to demographics you would not achieve stabilization or no net gain for that period of time.

If we were in overshoot in 1980 at 4 billion, according to
Catton, isn't the 9 billion before stabilization more than 2 times overshoot?

A one child policy would take 25 years. Isn't 7.5 billion almost twice overshoot?

How long would it take to reach 2 to 3 billion after stabilization at 7.5 to 9 billion in order to live within the carrying capacity?

Decades? While the environment continues to degrade?

Populations don't stay in that degree of overshoot for that long.

They die-off.

[SchroedingersCat]

Once upon a time there was this single point. No time, no space, just a point. Something happened to excite this point. It expanded. The big bang. Energy was now dispersed in uneven clumps throughout the universe. Nature doesn't like that. Ever since, nature has been trying to return those clumps of energy to the same level. When it succeeds, everything in the universe will be at the same level of energy. The heat death of the universe.

We have been helping nature along by digging up clumps of energy and liberating them so they can return to the background of the universe. This is getting harder and harder to do, as the good stuff is gone.

Complexity vs entropy. Entropy wins. Every time. No matter how many humans we produce, we cannot compete with the flow of energy from the complex to the simple. Entropy happens.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')What I find interesting in reading your posts, is your tendancy to demonstrate how any proffered solutions or mitigations are inadequate. The current reply to my suggestion for population decrease is a good case in point.

I agree that we need to reduce population, and offer what I consider to be an ethical route to that goal, and your reply suggests, essentially, that it's too little, too late, and that we'll suffer horrendous environmental degradation before an inevitable die off.

What I would like to know is this...

Do you consider die off to be the only way to achieve a stable and sustainable population?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')What I find interesting in reading your posts, is your tendancy to demonstrate how any proffered solutions or mitigations are inadequate.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..
Renewables are not “green” on the scale required. To reach the scale at which they would contribute significantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, would cause serious environmental harm.
...

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')o reach the scale at which they would contribute significantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, would cause serious environmental harm. Look at the havoc biofools are creating. The energy produced by the sun and the wind is already being used by other systems. It’s not going to waste. It’s like tapping into a river. You can only divert so much without negative consequences.

[Doly]

Welcome back, John Denver! You've always been my favorite Devil's Advocate! You can really get people thinking.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')You're looking at it the wrong way. Consider a simple example:
Like most people in Japan, I generally dry my laundry by hanging it out the window.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')My calculations say it would take 47,788 5M windmills for the USA to become 20% dependent on wind power. There is no rational person who can look at that and say that's "green". Actually come to think of it ("green" or NOT) no rational person can seriously think we have the capability of putting up 47,788 of these things.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'W')elcome back, John Denver! You've always been my favorite Devil's Advocate! You can really get people thinking.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')You're looking at it the wrong way. Consider a simple example:
Like most people in Japan, I generally dry my laundry by hanging it out the window.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')imic nature and start the die-off first.

[inculcated]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '
')Relative inefficiencies.

[lakeweb]

This is a somewhat interesting thread. Monte is right about scalability especially if the rate of mitigation necessary to fix this is considered. KillTheHumans is typical of someone just finding out about peak oil. He has the attitude that 'we can just fix this'. I would recommend he read The Hirsch Report. Here, I have a copy.

The Hirsch Report

As for that 4%, it would mean 7 quads of mitigation just next year, 7.25 the following year. Like whistling through the graveyard.

As for solar, here I don't agree with Monte unless he can provide a study that shows the balance of solar energy on the planet would suffer some detrimental effect from it. Here is the equivalent area for all the U.S. energy demands. Fully packed heliocentric and EV transportation.



The problem with solar is cost. And because of the cost it will not be a viable option concerning our present condition.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')My calculations say it would take 47,788 5M windmills for the USA to become 20% dependent on wind power. There is no rational person who can look at that and say that's "green". Actually come to think of it ("green" or NOT) no rational person can seriously think we have the capability of putting up 47,788 of these things.