|
|
Post by davidm on May 21, 2012 6:58:03 GMT 9.5
One way of looking at the topic is to see the modern industrial state of which nuclear is a part as the continuation of a long term pyramid scheme that is coming to an end. It is perhaps most visible to us in the form of an ultimately unsupportable interest rates above inflation, better known as usury, but carried inevitably into the biosphere. www.arbitragemagazine.com/features/all-the-world-is-a-cage/4/ |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 21, 2012 15:08:34 GMT 9.5
OK, managed to get the article to show up.
On point 1, Acid oceans: A problem and directly related to the global warming problem (thus the solutions will be the same). Exactly what will happen there is unknown though the demise of some coral in some oceans seems likely. From the point of view of our civilisation it probably isn't the limit (aquaculture should still work even then).
On point 2, Ozone depletion: Things are getting better (though there's some worry about the northern continents) so this isn't the limit.
On point 3, Fresh Water: Desalination is already sufficiently economical to do the job so we've got a solution pretty much ready and waiting to keep our use of river water low enough so this doesn't look like the limit.
On point 4, Biodiversity: It depends on which species we wipe out though for the most part the species which are most important in providing global ecosystem services probably aren't endangered (if there are so few of a species as to make it endangered there probably aren't enough of them around to do much of anything).
On point 5, Nitrogen and Phosphorus cycles: Putting the boundary based on how much is fixed instead of how much goes into the environment makes it look like a limit to population when it is really not. Capturing fertiliser run-off and only using fertiliser when it actually provides a benefit could help reduce the problems of run-off (we could also start getting some of our nitrogen from human sewage, though proper treatment would be needed to ensure human pathogens don't end up in fertiliser). We could also genetically modify foods to not need as much fertiliser (or even to fix their own nitrogen). Whilst I think we can overcome this limit it is the closest to a real limit identified so far.
On point 6, Land use: In the developed world we've been returning farm land to nature while also increasing food production so this looks like an issue which can be solved through the use of higher technology in the food production process (much of farming in the developing world is with low yield methods, a lot of it is slash and burn agriculture). Only a limit if you insist on 'organic' food.
On point 7, Climate change: We already have nuclear energy so we can provide all the energy our civilisation needs without emitting CO2 so this isn't a limit unless you insist on letting the anti-nuclear have their way.
On point 8, Aerosol loading: An area with a lot of unknowns, though the fact that most of them come from combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels means that switching primary energy to nuclear should fix most of the problem (and improved engines and fuels can also help where we must burn chemical fuels) so doesn't look like much of a limit.
On point 9, Chemical pollution: We're probably just going to have to go on monitoring ecosystems to see if any of the chemicals we use harm them and then figure out what to do then. Of course testing any chemicals we plan to use is a good idea and only applying as much pesticide as we need (along with using genetically modified crops which are pest resistant) can help. This is probably the least likely to actually be a limit. Though considering the idea that a genetic variation can be a pandemic caused by chemicals really doesn't speak highly of the credibility of the group.
MODERATOR
Anon - despite being asked several times to provide supporting references you continue to merely give your opinion.e.g.
That is a sweeping statement of opinion - where did you find the research to support that view? Please supply refs/links or expect your comments to be edited/deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 19, 2012 8:44:20 GMT 9.5
As far as the world growing out of its present fairly depressed condition there is a persuasive point of view that there is not much room for growth anymore, economic and probably population wise. There is this thing called limits. You can eat until you're full. Mother Earth appears to be saying I'm getting filled up with your growth. This guy is expressing himself along similar lines. |
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Jun 19, 2012 11:47:59 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 19, 2012 13:35:43 GMT 9.5
On point 4, Biodiversity: It depends on which species we wipe out though for the most part the species which are most important in providing global ecosystem services probably aren't endangered (if there are so few of a species as to make it endangered there probably aren't enough of them around to do much of anything). MODERATOR
Anon - despite being asked several times to provide supporting references you continue to merely give your opinion.
That is a sweeping statement of opinion - where did you find the research to support that view? Please supply refs/links or expect your comments to be edited/deleted.I thought it was the null hypothesis which those who wish to say that loss of biodiversity threatens us on a global scale need to disprove (all I'm asking is for some evidence that there is an endangered species whose absence would hurt us at more than an aesthetic level). As far as the world growing out of its present fairly depressed condition there is a persuasive point of view that there is not much room for growth anymore, economic and probably population wise. There is this thing called limits. People have been saying there are limits since Malthus (and probably long before), they don't have a very good track record in their predictions (and most of the limits they postulate are unconvincing, often based on assuming we can't improve our technology from the present or even that we must go backwards). You can eat until you're full. Mother Earth appears to be saying I'm getting filled up with your growth. More likely getting fed up with the insistence of some people to not use the best available technology to meet our needs with less impact on the environment. Besides, we currently lack the technology to destroy the Earth and I highly doubt if we could even permanently sterilise it so that life never evolves again with current technology. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 20, 2012 12:09:09 GMT 9.5
Anon, if you are driving on a road that is headed toward a cliff and as you drive on that road people tell you that there is a cliff up ahead with varying estimates of where it is, saying that you haven't driven off the cliff yet or the estimates haven't been accurate isn't a very compelling argument against there being a cliff at the end of the road.  |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 20, 2012 12:54:28 GMT 9.5
The BTI article mentions 9 limits, the one Nature article I found, an editorial, had 7. I couldn't get access to the original article, it appears to be pay to play, but I did get a listing of the 7. Lets for example take fresh water that apparently is not perceived as having a natural world wide boundary because water scarcity is a local phenomenon. I think that is becoming less and less so as the land that produces the food that water generates is more and more becoming an international commodity. Either people move to where the water production is or it is commodified internationally as farm land or simply exportable food. In that sense, unlike the BTI folks, I'd say fresh water is a world wide necessary resource with natural limits. Even if you include desalination plants the principle remains the same. After all virtually all fresh water is a gift of the sun's natural desalination process.  |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 20, 2012 14:54:27 GMT 9.5
Anon, if you on a road that is headed toward a cliff and as you drive on that road people tell you that there is a cliff up ahead with varying estimates of where it is, saying that you haven't driven off the cliff yet or the estimates haven't been accurate isn't a very compelling argument against there being a cliff at the end of the road. Of course for it to be an accurate analogy you'd have to add that I can see more than the braking distance of my car ahead. Yes, it is possible that Malthus will turn out to be right but it just doesn't look very likely (and even if it does happen it won't be a soft landing, those other animals which keep their population stable do so through starvation and predation). The BTI article mentions 9 limits, the one Nature article I found, an editorial, had 7. I couldn't get access to the original article, it appears to be pay to play, but I did get a listing of the 7. they go beyond the conceptual to suggest numerical boundaries for seven parameters: climate change, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, biodiversity, freshwater use, the global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and change in land use. [/size][/blockquote][/quote]That looks like a subset of the nine. Lets for example take fresh water that apparently is not perceived as having a natural world wide boundary because water scarcity is a local phenomenon. I think that is becoming less and less so as the land that produces the food that water generates is more and more becoming an international commodity. Either people move to where the water production is or it is commodified internationally as farm land or simply exportable food. Yes, areas where using water will cause problems can get their food from areas which won't have problems if they use water but either way, this is about how much water can be obtained from a given river or aquifer and that very much is a case of multiple regional limits and really needs to be treated at a regional level. In that sense, unlike the BTI folks, I'd say fresh water is a world wide necessary resource with natural limits. Even if you include desalination plants the principle remains the same. After all virtually all fresh water is a gift of the sun's natural desalination process. Desalination plants don't take any water from rivers or aquifers so the limits of those aren't relevant to them. Of course once you add up all the regional limits you will get a figure which could be interpreted as a global limit, but setting a global limit instead of using the regional limits isn't really a good way to do things. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 23, 2012 12:37:15 GMT 9.5
BTI takes the position that dealing with the newly created Anthropocene era is not necessarily a much greater problem than the past Holocene(#4 heading). That does not make sense to me. One we have had 1000s of years to adapt to and now a new climate era without precedent for us humans is coming fast and hard at us with little time to adapt. David Roberts of Grist I think makes an important point here. Presently we can focus more on mitigation which is an investment in the future, like new energy systems. But as things heat up our use of resources will have to be directed principally toward adaptation to keep up with the changes, which is simply maintenance of what we already have. Not much room for improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 23, 2012 17:25:40 GMT 9.5
Technological progress is a lot faster now than it was back then (and we also have a larger population, thus more scientists and engineers) so we'll likely be able to adapt our civilisation much quicker than they could.
Though the biggest problem with predicting the future is that we don't actually know what will change so all our adaptations are going to have to be reactive. I also don't think that anyone knows enough (either about what will change or how our technology will develop) to be able to make the argument that all we'll be doing is keeping up with changes instead of improving things.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 24, 2012 12:17:32 GMT 9.5
I throw this in not because it is particularly new or original but because it comes from a pronuclear hero, George Monbiot.As I read it, Monbiot is taking a no growth position. If like Monbiot other pronuclear folks also got on board it might allay the suspicion that they are just trying to find another way of conducting business as usual ie endless economic growth, ending one limit, carbon gas, and smashing us into a whole bunch more. Monbiot still has a way to go. He seems to have a problem dealing with overpopulation which he sees as the rich blaming the poor. It doesn't have to be and in my view until he gets squared away there he won't be offering a vision of a future that has full integrity. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 1, 2012 2:22:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
