Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:40:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')You shower, cloth yourself, use a computer, eat cultivated food. How do you justify that?


Attacking me doesn't change the fact that we power our computers, eat cultivated food and shower with fossil fuels as the primary energy source.


I am not attacking you, I'm making a pretty clear point. We are part of the system. You say we need to be reasonable and I have never argued that. But then you bring links along with very flawed numbers to make a case against solar. You cited, 'The Solar Fraud' as a reference in that old thread. I found the guy to be a crank in short order.

There is a difference between critical thinking and having an agenda. How about some objectiveness and dig up some numbers that make sense. Without those numbers there is no way we can assess what is a reasonable limit.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:51:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')And again, I am not arguing there are limits. But you have been citing a paper with very flawed numbers. How can there be a reasonable assessment of what can be accomplished if the premise is just plain wrong?


How can you say there are limits and that that premise is just plain wrong in the same paragraph?

Just curious...that's how it reads.

Care to elaborate?

Flawed numbers don't negate the thesis of the paper.


Read my last two posts.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:55:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')I am not attacking you, I'm making a pretty clear point. We are part of the system.


That's just the point, we are not part of the natural system, we are a population in overshoot running out of the food/energy that sustains us.

Any other species would crash and die-off ( and we just may with renewables, as some other limiting factor will curtail us.)

But here we are out on a colonization quest of other living things and systems for our food/energy to support a population that has exceeded it's boundaries by billions.

We must tread lightly. We can't try to meet demand, "we must learn to live within carrying capacity without trying to enlarge it. We must rely on renewable resources consumed no faster than at sustained yield rates. "

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is a difference between critical thinking and having an agenda. How about some objectiveness and dig up some numbers that make sense. Without those numbers there is no way we can assess what is a reasonable limit.


I know of no long-term ecological assessments of renewables on a massive scale. We must error on the side of ecological modesty.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Narz » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:04:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')t's not about windmills per se, it's about the scale required. At what scale do they become a detriment? We need to consider this is all I am saying.

That depends entirely on how efficient they are.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell then we are part of that balance.


No, we are in overshoot from fossil fuels and now trying to make up the shortfall by the takeover method to fill it from other living things and systems. We already take 40%.

At any given point in time one species or another is bound to be in overshoot. If it is a natural process then by definition every part of it is part of it is natural.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e are not talking about a few, we are talking about thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. The ecosystem may adapt by pushing us off the planet. Die-off is the sequel to overshoot.

Better than coal plants.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')I ignore nothing,
You're only human Monte. ;)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')that's why I bring this up.

Doesn't matter how you live when you are billions beyond the capacity.
There is no set "the capacity". The capacity for people who live like modern day Americans is much lower than it would be for Indian peasants, wouldn't you agree?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Doesn't matter when you are billions beyond capacity. We could all live like peasants and we would still be in overshoot subject to a die-off. Carrying capacity isn't how many people you can feed, it 's about the ability of the environment to tolerate the load.
How can you be so sure what the environment will or won't handle?

And of course it matters where & how you live. Not everyone is going to die off. Some will survive. Those that do won't be living like everyone else.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d wager North America could maintain it's present population if people had vastly different lifestyles than they do today. Without change perhaps not even half.

You'd lose, I am afraid.

The sustainable population of the US is estimated at somewhere around 150 to 200 million. At current level using renewables, 50 million. Here's one paper from Pimentel.
Maybe I'd lose, maybe the other guy would lose. No one can predict the future.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'B')ecause we cannot support 6.7 billion people sustainably. We are on our way to 9.1 billion in 43 years before stabilization.
How do you know we're on our way to 9.1 billion? If human behavior changes perhaps we will stablize far below that point. I'm not saying I believe we will or I'd wager money on it but it is possible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')onnect the dots.

We reduce the population by design or by default to nature in a die-off.
If we don't change our lifestyles many more will have to die off.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')ake your choice, knowing the latter is the worse outcome.
Haha, it's not MY choice whether 3 billion women decide to have babies or not. I can only take care of myself.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et's not take this thread down the population debate track. There are numerous thread underway on it already. I know it's hard as population is tied to everything else.
Too late. ;)

Personally, there is little to nothing I can do about overpopulation of the planet. I just have to take care of myself & my loved ones. My point is merely that it is better to focus on individual solutions for those that recognize the problem rather than acting as if we can control population trends over all of humanity. I can't change what other people do. I just want to survive & thrive myself.

If you were in a position of political power I'd probably support most of your policies. You'd definitely need a good PR man though. You probably understand by now, people simply can't handle being told what you're telling them in plain English.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:13:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')I am not attacking you, I'm making a pretty clear point. We are part of the system.


That's just the point, we are not part of the natural system, we are a population in overshoot running out of the food/energy that sustains us.


And again, that has nothing to do with where I started. And that you refuse to accept this means you are more interested in your adgenda than a critical honest assessment of solar.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 02:22:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'R')enewables 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.
I'm going to have to agree that the article seems way off in acreage figures given for powering the US with solar power. Also, the ecological damage it sites is very vague and not particularly alarming to me. Insects run into windmills? The desert is receiving too much shade? I think I'll take that over a coal power plant or a die off.

Another point, you assume that taking a large chunk of solar energy out of the planet's global system will be mostly negative consequences. Perhaps we will damage the local desert eco system, but what if taking a huge chunk of thermal energy out of the planet's system has a global cooling effect, such as what is happening with global dimming? We might just undo part of the mess we created with global warming, just as global dimming has done.

http://mmcconeghy.com/students/supcarryingcapacity.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen scientists say that the carrying capacity of the Earth is 2 billion, they are not forgetting that we have 6 billion already. What they are saying is, that if you add up all the supplies in the world, and divide them up according to the amount that a typical American uses, then there is only enough for 2 billion people.
When some scientists say that the carrying capacity of Earth is 40 billion, then they are saying that IF the rich people would give up all their luxuries such as cars, electricity, education, clean water, meat etc. then that would allow us to provide minimum amounts of supplies to a much larger number of people. In fact, they say, we could provide minimum supplies to 40 billion people IF no one lived a luxury modern life style like the average Americans of 2001.
I take it you disagree with these figures? I just found them with a quick google so I didn't dig too deep. But if the carrying capacity of the planet is 2 billion for an all American lifestyle, 40 billion for a dire poverty lifestyle, and 9.1 billion is the projected level at which the human population will level off at in about 43 years, perhaps we aren't headed for a nature forced die off after all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')avid Pimentel claims that population outcomes for the 22nd century range from 2 billion people (characterized as thriving in harmony with the environment), to 12 billion people (characterized as miserable and suffering difficult lives with limited resources and widespread famine)
Even going with Pimentel's figures, we are not talking about a dieoff at 9.1 billion, just a very miserable existence for the majority of mankind.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby lakeweb » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 03:41:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'R')enewables 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.
I'm going to have to agree that the article seems way off in acreage figures given for powering the US with solar power. Also, the ecological damage it sites is very vague and not particularly alarming to me. Insects run into windmills? The desert is receiving too much shade? I think I'll take that over a coal power plant or a die off.


The principle of Montie's posts are not necessarily wrong. This civilization is most certainly in overshoot, IMHO. As far as windmills go, domestic cats do far more damage. And that is what is missed by so many who carry a banner. (Have an agenda.) We are a part of the 'system', like it or not. To cry over the spilled milk we may have created is like pissing into the wind. What it does do is to distract attention from a reasonable assessment.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')nother point, you assume that taking a large chunk of solar energy out of the planet's global system will be mostly negative consequences. Perhaps we will damage the local desert eco system, but what if taking a huge chunk of thermal energy out of the planet's system has a global cooling effect, such as what is happening with global dimming? We might just undo part of the mess we created with global warming, just as global dimming has done.


Well, it doesn't work that way. To lower the albedo means an increase in global temperature. But the question is 'how much?'. The question is, do we shower and cloth? This thread has spiraled to a depth of belief that 'we' are not allowed to be part of the 'system'.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'P')imentel's figures, we are not talking about a dieoff at 9.1 billion, just a very miserable existence for the majority of mankind.


The Pimentels are cranks if they really wrote that stuff in Monte's link. So, the Pimentel's numbers have no premise to a critical evaluation of our condition. From what I have seen, all this screaming about 'carrying capacity' is just a lot of posturing about what we 'could'a shoud'a would'a'. We are here, now. It is as applicable as what we might do with solar.

All this is about whistling through the graveyard while we face the greatest challenge of all human history. You and Monte can keep whistling, I have work to do.

Bye, bye.....
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:17:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')t's not about windmills per se, it's about the scale required. At what scale do they become a detriment? We need to consider this is all I am saying.

That depends entirely on how efficient they are.


To some degree, but it isn't just about their use. It is also about the impact to just build them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t any given point in time one species or another is bound to be in overshoot. If it is a natural process then by definition every part of it is part of it is natural.


So, party hardy to the end? Rather short-sighted and sellfish, don't you think?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')etter than coal plants.


Not on the scale required they may not be. That is a false assumption which I am trying to point out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no set "the capacity". The capacity for people who live like modern day Americans is much lower than it would be for Indian peasants, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but we cannot support 6.7 billion Indian peasants on their way to 9.1 billion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow can you be so sure what the environment will or won't handle?

For one, I rely on the studies of the people who job is it to try and estimate it. Second, look around you. You think we aren't in overshoot?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd of course it matters where & how you live. Not everyone is going to die off. Some will survive. Those that do won't be living like everyone else.

An assumption on your part. Often species overshoot so far they become extinct. 99% of all life that has ever existed has gone extinct.

Even if the estimates of 2 to 3 billion are way off. Double it and we are still beyond it. Triple it and we will exceed it in 43 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe I'd lose, maybe the other guy would lose. No one can predict the future.

We had better learn, then.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow do you know we're on our way to 9.1 billion? If human behavior changes perhaps we will stablize far below that point. I'm not saying I believe we will or I'd wager money on it but it is possible.

The median projection is 9.1 billion by 2050. This assumes a conitinued rise in the standard of living to bring about the Demographic Transition in the developing countries that leads to a reduced fertility rate.

Post peak, that is very unlikely to happen.

Otherwise, at the current growth rate, we will double to 13.7 billion by 2065.

Unless we instituted a less than one child per family policy we would not see the kind of reduction you wish for through birth control, due to population demographics. 47% of the popualtion in the developing world is under 15 years of age. 70% of Pakistan for example is under 16. There will be a net growth for decades even with replacement (2 children per family)

Few people understand this.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f we don't change our lifestyles many more will have to die off.

That's the Paradox and dilemma we face. Changing our lifestyle without reducing our numbers makes the die-off worse because it kicks it down the road while the overshoot continues to devastate the environment.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')aha, it's not MY choice whether 3 billion women decide to have babies or not. I can only take care of myself.

That isn't the choice we are facing. It's populatin reducitonm by design or by default at the hands of nature. the latter is the worse choice.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') just want to survive & thrive myself.

The Tragedy of the Commons.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you were in a position of political power I'd probably support most of your policies. You'd definitely need a good PR man though. You probably understand by now, people simply can't handle being told what you're telling them in plain English.

Guess we will have to wait for the wrath of nature to tell them.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:19:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')nd again, that has nothing to do with where I started. And that you refuse to accept this means you are more interested in your adgenda than a critical honest assessment of solar.


Nonsense. Try again.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:34:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')Also, the ecological damage it sites is very vague and not particularly alarming to me. Insects run into windmills? The desert is receiving too much shade? I think I'll take that over a coal power plant or a die off.


Still stuck in a Newtonian Mechanical worldview, I see? Come over from the dark side to an ecological paradigm.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother point, you assume that taking a large chunk of solar energy out of the planet's global system will be mostly negative consequences. Perhaps we will damage the local desert eco system, but what if taking a huge chunk of thermal energy out of the planet's system has a global cooling effect, such as what is happening with global dimming? We might just undo part of the mess we created with global warming, just as global dimming has done.


I won't even respond that that spurious thinking. :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen scientists say that the carrying capacity of the Earth is 2 billion, they are not forgetting that we have 6 billion already. What they are saying is, that if you add up all the supplies in the world, and divide them up according to the amount that a typical American uses, then there is only enough for 2 billion people.


Nonsense. I know of no study to support that.

Here's what 17 of the leading commentators said in a peer review of a paper suggesting 2 to 3 billion with an adequate lifestlyle.

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen some scientists say that the carrying capacity of Earth is 40 billion, then they are saying that IF the rich people would give up all their luxuries such as cars, electricity, education, clean water, meat etc. then that would allow us to provide minimum amounts of supplies to a much larger number of people. In fact, they say, we could provide minimum supplies to 40 billion people IF no one lived a luxury modern life style like the average Americans of 2001.[/


Utter poppy-cock! Cite a study that says this.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I take it you disagree with these figures? I just found them with a quick google so I didn't dig too deep. But if the carrying capacity of the planet is 2 billion for an all American lifestyle, 40 billion for a dire poverty lifestyle, and 9.1 billion is the projected level at which the human population will level off at in about 43 years, perhaps we aren't headed for a nature forced die off after all?

Look around you, we aren't in overshoot now? The sequel to overshoot is always a dieoff.

And as I have pointed out hundreds of times and everyone ignores, the population is projected to stabilze at 9.1 billion by 2050, only and only if the standard of living continues to rise like it has over the last forty years for the developing countries.

Not likely to happen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')avid Pimentel claims that population outcomes for the 22nd century range from 2 billion people (characterized as thriving in harmony with the environment), to 12 billion people (characterized as miserable and suffering difficult lives with limited resources and widespread famine) Even going with Pimentel's figures, we are not talking about a dieoff at 9.1 billion, just a very miserable existence for the majority of mankind.[/quote]

Sounds lovely. Have at it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:41:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')...

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

....


Monte why are you mostly quoting http://eco.gn.apc.org/?
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:44:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ') As far as windmills go, domestic cats do far more damage. And that is what is missed by so many who carry a banner. (Have an agenda.) We are a part of the 'system', like it or not. To cry over the spilled milk we may have created is like pissing into the wind. What it does do is to distract attention from a reasonable assessment.


Agenda? Give me a fuckin' break.

Reasonable assessment? To ignore the fact that we are in overshoot and have already approppriated 40% of NPP to human use does not make you pause in a desire to take more?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his thread has spiraled to a depth of belief that 'we' are not allowed to be part of the 'system'.


If we die-off to 3 billion then we are part of the system. Otherwise we are a unsustainable drain on it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom what I have seen, all this screaming about 'carrying capacity' is just a lot of posturing about what we 'could'a shoud'a would'a'.


That's an outright denial of reality.

Good luck with that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll this is about whistling through the graveyard while we face the greatest challenge of all human history. You and Monte can keep whistling, I have work to do.


Still stuck in the Mechanical world view, I see.

Have at it. Bye.

Next?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:47:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Monte why are you mostly quoting http://eco.gn.apc.org/?


They are many of the leading experts in carrying capacity and population. From the reviews you can see it is balanced with many criticisms, but not on the numbers. Some say they are optimistic.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:48:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')till stuck in a Newtonian Mechanical worldview, I see? Come over from the dark side to an ecological paradigm.
Actually, I pulled those comments directly out of table 2 of the paper you linked to in your first post. Under the section "Ecosystem effects"
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 05:04:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')till stuck in a Newtonian Mechanical worldview, I see? Come over from the dark side to an ecological paradigm.
Actually, I pulled those comments directly out of table 2 of the paper you linked to in your first post. Under the section "Ecosystem effects"


It was your dismissive reaction that I was referring to.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 05:06:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Monte why are you mostly quoting http://eco.gn.apc.org/?


They are many of the leading experts in carrying capacity and population. From the reviews you can see it is balanced with many criticisms, but not on the numbers. Some say they are optimistic.


As you know I agree with you on everything but the numbers and that pherology is a recognised science.

Lets assume for a moment that your 2 - 3 billion are right.

What do I use this knowledge for? What are the right steps I have to make next?
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Narz » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 05:09:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')To some degree, but it isn't just about their use. It is also about the impact to just build them.

Of course.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, party hardy to the end? Rather short-sighted and sellfish, don't you think?

Yes. I never suggested that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot on the scale required they may not be. That is a false assumption which I am trying to point out.

Not all energy capturing techniques are created equally. Surely you are not making that argument, are you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, but we cannot support 6.7 billion Indian peasants on their way to 9.1 billion.

And I wouldn't want to. I never suggested we should allow growth to continue without limit or consequence.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or one, I rely on the studies of the people who job is it to try and estimate it. Second, look around you. You think we aren't in overshoot?
I think we are as a whole. Certain geographic area, probably not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n assumption on your part. Often species overshoot so far they become extinct. 99% of all life that has ever existed has gone extinct.
Well, I'm going to do the best I can to stay alive, Monte. And I hope you do too. You may value yourself as just another parasitic human but I don't see you that way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e had better learn, then.
I hope so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he median projection is 9.1 billion by 2050. This assumes a conitinued rise in the standard of living to bring about the Demographic Transition in the developing countries that leads to a reduced fertility rate.

Post peak, that is very unlikely to happen.

Otherwise, at the current growth rate, we will double to 13.7 billion by 2065.

Unless we instituted a less than one child per family policy we would not see the kind of reduction you wish for through birth control, due to population demographics. 47% of the popualtion in the developing world is under 15 years of age. 70% of Pakistan for example is under 16. There will be a net growth for decades even with replacement (2 children per family)

Few people understand this.
Well, won't times of extreme scarcity lead to mass starvation and ultimately reduced fertility. As oil declines I don't see how places like the Middle East can support even a tenth of current population levels.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's the Paradox and dilemma we face. Changing our lifestyle without reducing our numbers makes the die-off worse because it kicks it down the road while the overshoot continues to devastate the environment.
Sounds like quite a paradox indeed. What's your take? Should we all drive SUV's to hasten the dieoff then? Won't lifestyle change & lower birthrates (and perhaps higher suicide rates :() go hand in hand?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That isn't the choice we are facing. It's populatin reducitonm by design or by default at the hands of nature. the latter is the worse choice.
What I'm saying is that I can only indirectly effect the reproductive actions of other people.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') just want to survive & thrive myself.

The Tragedy of the Commons.
I should not have used the word "just". Nevertheless, I am the only person I have direct control over and like I said, I'm going to do the best I can to thrive. It's not my fault this world I was born into and I think I can do more good for it alive then dead. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm better off dead (and we'll all get there soon enough) but I don't think so and I will do my best to earn my keep.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Guess we will have to wait for the wrath of nature to tell them.
Probably. Hopefully nature will give us (the 1st world) some more heavy hits to wake us up. Maybe it still won't work. Maybe it's too late. But here I am, alive now, so such thinking does me no good.

Whatever happens will happen. I refuse to let myself get too scared or despairing. Those states aren't conducive to good decisions (let alone enjoying life, which doesn't have to go hand in hand w/ wanton waste & destruction).
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 18:05:11

It doesn't change Monte's point significantly but it is worth noting:

The median age of Pakistan is 21, meaning that MQ's assertion of 70% of the population under 16 is impossible.

Global Health Facts says that 40% of Pakistan's population is under 15, not 70%.

47% of the developing world's population cannot be under 15 because Uganda is the only country in the world with a median age under 15.

Most of the developing world has numbers in the 20s.

Nigeria: 18.7
Egypt: 24.2
India: 24.8
Mexico: 25.6
Iran: 25.8
Indonesia: 26.9
Brazil: 28.6
China: 33.2

Compare that to:

United States: 36.6
France: 39
Canada: 39.1
Spain: 40.3
Japan: 43.5

In addition, Monte often uses old data with regards to fertility rates.

Here's a sampling of fertility rates among large developing nations and large developed countries:

Nigeria: 5.45
Pakistan: 3.71
India: 2.81
Egypt: 2.77
Mexico: 2.39
Indonesia: 2.38
United States: 2.09
Brazil: 1.88
Algeria: 1.86
China: 1.75
Iran: 1.71
Canada: 1.61
Spain: 1.29
Japan: 1.23

I want to draw attention to the two countries I put in bold.

How many of you would have believed that Iran, a poor third world countries with massive gender inequality and a median age of only 25.8...has a fertility rate FAR below replacement and significantly below a rich first world country with a high median age and a high degree of gender equality like the United States?

Interactive Map of Global Fertility Rate
Interactive Map of Median Age

I feel the need to bring up these numbers because the question of scalable alternatives relies on the assumption of either:
A. Runaway population growth
B. A rapidly falling population growth rate

If, as Monte asserts, A is the global population situation, then it will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for alternatives to work.

If, as others in this thread belief, B is the global population situation, then there is a greater possibility for alternative energy sources to work.

I look at Eastern Europe as an example of what the transition from a rich world to a poor world will look like.

Under the Soviet Union, people in Russia, Ukraine, and Poland enjoyed a relatively high standard of living.

The fall of the USSR led to a dramatically reduced standard of living (consumption level).

Result: Dramatically lower fertility rates and higher death rates.

Eastern Europe is experiencing a huge dieoff right now.

But would anyone classify this dieoff as Malthusian or Mad Max-esque?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 18:12:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')As you know I agree with you on everything but the numbers and that pherology is a recognised science.


Then give us a peer-reviewed study that counters these numbers. You can disagree until the cows come home. And I know of no one who claimed that pherology is a recognized science. It is a name coined to apply to people whose job it is to study carrying capacity.

Give that red herring up.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ets assume for a moment that your 2 - 3 billion are right.

What do I use this knowledge for? What are the right steps I have to make next?


Powerdown.

Powerdown: The Solution to Peak Oil
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 02 Dec 2007, 19:09:11, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 18:17:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'W')hat I'm saying is that I can only indirectly effect the reproductive actions of other people.


Not reproduction, Narz, population reduction. Increase the death rate.

By design or by default. Default is the worse outcome.

Such a dilemma.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests