|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 23, 2012 3:18:00 GMT 9.5
They missed on some short term predictions but does that mean the principle of expanding to beyond a sustainable limit was wrong and/or there was some hidden misanthropic agenda? This article explores these matters and gives these guys a pass. Most of the following comments seem to agree. I thought this was an interesting take on greed meets limits. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 23, 2012 17:37:22 GMT 9.5
So far I can not seem to find a significant difference between the predictions of Malthusians and various (religious and new age mostly) (groups) (come to think of it Malthus and Ehrlich belong on that site). (Pejorative deleted) I do also find it interesting that the author of that hasn't bothered to note that we're managing to make enough food to feed everyone (the problem is in getting it to those who need it) and that as a percentage of total population we've got less starving people than in the past (and in fact have been able to increase our food production faster than our population and still have significant room to increase it even further). Besides, the burden of proof on anyone claiming we're coming up on a limit is on the person who claims the limit exists, not on those who claim it doesn't and so far they haven't provided a very convincing case. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 24, 2012 7:02:48 GMT 9.5
This thing called science has come up with a history of past extinction events which we seem to be headed toward due to man's intervention. Science has also put Malthusian thinking as the driver of biological evolution which has population growth bumping up against environmental limits. I'd say it is a bit much to equate this with Genesis. We're not despite all our technology and expertise. The surpluses in grain we use to enjoy are vastly diminished. You can keep expanding until you reach the bottom of the trough and then things can turn around very quickly. Check back in 10 or 20 years. The burden rests on proving biological science is wrong. The only real issue is the correct timeline, not the matter of limits. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 24, 2012 16:01:55 GMT 9.5
This thing called science has come up with a history of past extinction events which we seem to be headed toward due to man's intervention. Yet we don't actually seem to be heading for another one (it's worth noting that most recent extinctions have been on islands). The breakthrough institute's report goes into quite a bit of detail about just how long it'd take for a mass extinction to happen at current rates and it does appear we have quite a bit of time before we encountered any problems from biodiversity loss (and even then it's doubtful it would cause us problems). Science has also put Malthusian thinking as the driver of biological evolution which has population growth bumping up against environmental limits. For non-human species, humans don't seem to follow the same rules (if we did why has almost every Malthusian prediction been wrong?). Any hypothesis which consistently gets the wrong answers in science gets discarded. I'd say it is a bit much to equate this with Genesis. Not just Genesis. We're not despite all our technology and expertise. The surpluses in grain we use to enjoy are vastly diminished. Yet we still have surpluses. Exactly how large a surplus we need is debatable and really depends on what kind of variation we can expect from agriculture (if we aren't throwing food out then we aren't producing enough to survive a drought or something else). You can keep expanding until you reach the bottom of the trough and then things can turn around very quickly. Check back in 10 or 20 years. Yes, if we check back in 10 or 20 years we'll probably find that we're still mananging to feed everyone on the planet while using less land for agriculture. Really, much of the developing world is just not using modern technology and so producing less food than they could at higher environmental impact, meanwhile the developed world has been reducing the amount of land used for food production. The burden rests on proving biological science is wrong. The only real issue is the correct timeline, not the matter of limits. The best science we have indicates that we can support 10 billion people at a western standard of living on this planet. Now the number of people the planet can hold is limited, but whatever the limit is we aren't close to reaching it (by the time we are we'll probably be a space based civilisation with only a few people living on Earth which as a tourist destination gets taken care of). |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 24, 2012 21:34:00 GMT 9.5
I don't buy the BTI report on biodiversity loss and apparently they don't necessarily either. Here is another piece from BTI that focuses on conservation and energy in which Barry Brook is prominent. A looming extinction event is definitely mentioned. What is featured is the important roll of technology coordinated with conservation, with of course nuclear power playing the star. It kind of makes sense as far as it goes but of course it doesn't really address the overall practicality and whether it would simply become an add on rather than substitute a la Jevon. What screams to be addressed is population, but I guess that's the radioactive elephant in the room that no one wants to get near. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 25, 2012 17:47:56 GMT 9.5
I don't buy the BTI report on biodiversity loss and apparently they don't necessarily either. Here is another piece from BTI that focuses on conservation and energy in which Barry Brook is prominent. A looming extinction event is definitely mentioned. Look at the timestamp. Though even so, how to prevent the loss of species and what effect any loss of species will have are two different things and that is looking at the former. What screams to be addressed is population, but I guess that's the radioactive elephant in the room that no one wants to get near. The planet can support 10 billion people if we are willing to use nuclear power and genetic engineering and it doesn't look like population will end up growing much beyond that so it doesn't really look like something we're going to need to bother with (and I'd much rather we try out the technofixes first before demanding sacrifice). |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 26, 2012 0:52:01 GMT 9.5
The planet can support 10 billion people if we are willing to use nuclear power and genetic engineering Anon simply asserting that over and over doesn't make it true or more than simply offering a sentiment. I don't see any broad long term environmental indices that aren't getting worse. And I don't see any serious improvement coming that doesn't make a reduced population central to the solution. 7 billion + people with 200,000 new folks a day with all the challenges that entails and inherent flaws in this big brained ape called homo sapien will do that to you. The nuclear mantra isn't enough. There is a core simplicity to where we need to go. I like to call it: MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE! |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 26, 2012 6:28:23 GMT 9.5
Anon simply asserting that over and over doesn't make it true or more than simply offering a sentiment. It has already been shown that nuclear fission can provide the energy we need to support 10 billion people (more than we need in fact) for a long time and we know that we can feed > 7 billion people with current technology (and with that technology not used as widely as it could be) so scaling up another 30% or so shouldn't be too much of a issue (at worst we use a bit more land for agriculture than we'd really like). I don't see any broad long term environmental indices that aren't getting worse. So you've never heard of the ozone hole? Air and water quality in the developed world is a lot better than it once was. And I don't see any serious improvement coming that doesn't make a reduced population central to the solution. That is pretty much the one thing which people won't agree to (oh sure, they might agree that other people need to die, but not them or their friends and family). Not to mention that your solution is worse than the problem it is claimed to solve. The nuclear mantra isn't enough. No it's not, genetic engineering is likely to be needed if we're to continue to reduce land usage and the other various environmental problems agriculture causes. There is a core simplicity to where we need to go. I like to call it: MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE! You'll find that we'll chop down every tree on the planet before we let the less people part happen. The constraint we're working under is that people don't put the environment as a high priority for its own sake. |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 26, 2012 8:28:51 GMT 9.5
Anon simply asserting that over and over doesn't make it true or more than simply offering a sentiment. It hasn't been shown that it will significantly change fossil fuel use or you can ever get the public behind such a nuclear commitment. I'm not even mentioning unforeseen problems like sabotage, technological incompetence, or natural disasters. Again I feel nuclear is part of a longer term solution but not if we don't get a handle on our population level. Well into the future? we don't know any such thing. A patch-up of a human caused problem and the jury is still out. It's nice to know that the ghg problem has diminished along with the acid ocean problem and the dead zone problem and the rising sea problem and we can export a lot of our problems by outsourcing them to the 3rd world and call it their problem Sorry that you can only see perpetual growth leading to ultimate suicide as our alternative and call any attempt at a rational solution as murder. The Japanese for instance are showing that growth in population is not inevitable. My wise persons solution beats your suicide solution any day.  It doesn't ultimately deal with the limits problem. Then again maybe we can engineer a silicon based economy or as you like to imagine become Star Trek space colonists, with earth as a tourist stop off. ;D You'd never guess that we had a national park and wilderness system or anybody ever created Planned Parenthood. In addition war tells us that when people are forced into survivalist mode they are prepared to make all sorts of sacrifices. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 26, 2012 21:31:49 GMT 9.5
It hasn't been shown that it will significantly change fossil fuel use or you can ever get the public behind such a nuclear commitment. So it didn't significantly change how much oil France used for electricity production? Besides, what else has even done half as well? Getting the public behind nuclear power may be hard, but it isn't as hard as convincing them that most of them need to die. At the very least nuclear power won't require lifestyle changes from the majority nor any sacrifice (of course those who profit from fossil fuels won't like it). I'm not even mentioning unforeseen problems like sabotage, technological incompetence, or natural disasters. The evidence is that nuclear is no worse than other technologies (and appears to actually be quite a bit better). Again I feel nuclear is part of a longer term solution but not if we don't get a handle on our population level. The problem is that it's basically impossible to prevent population from coming close to 10 billion without massive human rights violations. A patch-up of a human caused problem and the jury is still out. Though it is generally accepted that we've done what we needed to do to solve it (we just have to wait for nature to get better). Besides, basically everything good we can do for the environment would be classifiable as "a patch-up of a human caused problem" It's nice to know that the ghg problem has diminished along with the acid ocean problem and the dead zone problem and the rising sea problem and we can export a lot of our problems by outsourcing them to the 3rd world and call it their problem You really should remember to use the [sarcasm] tag. Sorry that you can only see perpetual growth leading to ultimate suicide as our alternative and call any attempt at a rational solution as murder. An economy which isn't growing is one in which things are not getting better and if things aren't getting better (and have no hope of getting better) then what's the point of living? You also haven't demonstrated how you could solve the problem without mass murder (or at the very least a lot of forced sterilisations). The Japanese for instance are showing that growth in population is not inevitable. They also have a high standard of living. Now it's quite possible that population growth will reverse but it won't happen fast enough to be any help to the environment. My wise persons solution beats your suicide solution any day. Aside from your wise person solution being about as workable as communism. Oh and what you call my suicide solution isn't something I'm proposing we do, merely what we'd do if you were right about the Earth not actually being able to support everyone (I happen to think it's better to develop the technology to support everyone on this planet how they want to live). It doesn't ultimately deal with the limits problem. Then again maybe we can engineer a silicon based economy or as you like to imagine become Star Trek space colonists, with earth as a tourist stop off. ;D Those are possible long term solutions (in fact they'll probably happen). Personally I'd be happy with being able to last the next hundred years and then let the smarter, wealthier people of next century deal with any problems we've left them. You'd never guess that we had a national park and wilderness system I didn't say that people don't care for the environment, just that it isn't a high priority for most people. Still, if a society can afford it (or it brings in tourist dollars) people usually aren't going to be opposed to having national parks (in fact are likely to support them), just that they aren't going to make major sacrifices. or anybody ever created Planned Parenthood. That was created for human rights reasons, not environmental reasons (the overpopulation myth actually seems to hurting the cause of family planning in the developing world). In addition war tells us that when people are forced into survivalist mode they are prepared to make all sorts of sacrifices. They also try to get out of them as well. You only need to look at black markets (when rationing is done) and draft dodging for proof of that. |
|
|
|
Post by moguitar7 on Sept 9, 2012 1:05:53 GMT 9.5
The "Horsemen" of the Apocalypse:
1.) Aquifer depletion leading to loss of main water supplies for irrigation and drinking, leading to vast crop yield reductions with forced transition back to 'dry'(rainwater only, down to 17% or minus 83%) farming. 2.) Soil depletion by not adding organics/composts(1/3 without any organics now, when soil should be 10-20%), salinization by over-irrigation with river waters high in salts, citification by uncontrolled population growth and sprawl, sterilization by herbicides and insecticides, heavy metal contamination from years of using non-USP grade petro chemicals, and by not fallowing the land, leading to significant food reduction by 2040(10 to 30% losses). 3.) Oil depletion burned many thousands of times faster than it forms, leading to significant food reduction from lack of cheap fertilizers(lowering yields 35%), transportation(distribution), and mechanized farming(lowering production 35%). 4.) AGW from burning oil, burning coal, slash and burn agriculture, cutting down their forests leading to significant and deadly crop and water losses(-33%). 5.) World fisheries collapse, and 3 billion people who get 60% of their protein from fish/seafood(-10-30%). 6.) Surface water pollution/depletion over-use and pollution with everything from agricultural chemicals, industrial waste, excrement, and pharmaceuticals.
By 2050 the world will be able to produce half the food it did in 1993 when the average was 1600 calories per day per person (World Food and You), and the population will be over 50% larger. The distribution will be sporadic and uneven. Migrations to where there is food and/or water will lead to warfare and the spread of poverty. Malnutrition will increase diseases. Lack of food will cause starvation while lack of water also kills those who drink pollution or nothing. People in desperation will turn cannibals, thieves, and outlaws.
They all add up to more than 50% because they do not all act in every area and the 50% is a world average, and only an approximation, which will be widely variable regionally. The actual crash will begin with higher death rates and lower birth rates by 2030, reach a peak in the 2040s then rapidly decline to 5-10% survivors in remote areas by 2080 or before, leveling off as CAGW gets worse, then declining to 0 sometime after thermal maximum in as little as 300 years to a maximum of 1500 years from now. Rosey UN forecasts have us at 9-10 billion somehow surviving in 2100, when this is clearly impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 10, 2012 5:35:55 GMT 9.5
The "Horsemen" of the Apocalypse: 1.) Aquifer depletion leading to loss of main water supplies for irrigation and drinking, leading to vast crop yield reductions with forced transition back to 'dry'(rainwater only, down to 17% or minus 83%) farming. Desalination is a proven technology and carbon neutral when using nuclear heat. We could also switch farming to hyrdoponics which use water more efficiently or genetically modify our crops to tolerate salt water or conditions of low water. 2.) Soil depletion by not adding organics/composts(1/3 without any organics now, when soil should be 10-20%), What? Competent farmers carefully manage their soil and will add what is needed, then there's no-till farming which is very good at not destroying soil. salinization by over-irrigation with river waters high in salts, River water is usually fresh-water (though with genetic engineering technology we can make crops with higher tolerance to salt water). citification by uncontrolled population growth and sprawl, Never mind that cities cover very little land compared to agriculture. Nor that it is through cities that we control population growth (which is never really uncontrolled with humans, a large part of why Malthus is wrong). sterilization by herbicides and insecticides, What are you talking about? heavy metal contamination from years of using non-USP grade petro chemicals, and by not fallowing the land, leading to significant food reduction by 2040(10 to 30% losses). This also needs explanation. 3.) Oil depletion burned many thousands of times faster than it forms, leading to significant food reduction from lack of cheap fertilizers(lowering yields 35%), Never mind that we can make fertilisers without oil at low enough prices. It's been done before using hydroelectricity. Read depletedcranium.com/once-again-fertilizer-is-not-petroleum-based/transportation(distribution), and mechanized farming(lowering production 35%). Electric trains and nuclear powered shipping can take care of food transport (at least for long range bulk transport) with electric or synfuel trucks handling the last kilometre to the supermarket. Oh and where do you get your yield reduction figures from? Because as far as I can tell you're just making them up. 4.) AGW from burning oil, burning coal, slash and burn agriculture, cutting down their forests leading to significant and deadly crop and water losses(-33%). We don't actually know exactly what will happen there, for all we know the higher temperatures will improve productivity (if you look back at history biomass did tend to higher when the temperature was higher, of course the places which can get the best productivity will likely change). 5.) World fisheries collapse, and 3 billion people who get 60% of their protein from fish/seafood(-10-30%). Will switch to aquaculture, hopefully before we send those fish species extinct. 6.) Surface water pollution/depletion over-use and pollution with everything from agricultural chemicals, industrial waste, excrement, and pharmaceuticals. Isn't that what water treatment plants are for? By 2050 the world will be able to produce half the food it did in 1993 when the average was 1600 calories per day per person (World Food and You), Has that analysis factored in the improvements we could get out of genetic engineering? Aquaculture? Widespread use of desalination? and the population will be over 50% larger. So? Crop yields will probably be 100% times larger (at least, considering what the developing world is doing). Historically food production has tended to increase faster than population growth (i.e. as a percentage of human population there are less people starving than there used to be). The actual crash will begin with higher death rates and lower birth rates by 2030, reach a peak in the 2040s then rapidly decline to 5-10% survivors in remote areas by 2080 or before, leveling off as CAGW gets worse, then declining to 0 sometime after thermal maximum in as little as 300 years to a maximum of 1500 years from now. That isn't how it'd happen, the birth rate in the third world won't go down until you first lower the death rate. Rosey UN forecasts have us at 9-10 billion somehow surviving in 2100, when this is clearly impossible. It's only impossible if you refuse to use the best technology we've got (the Earth could likely support more than 15 billion humans at a western standard of living with acceptable environmental impact for thousands of years). |
|
|
|
Post by moguitar7 on Sept 17, 2012 1:25:37 GMT 9.5
Yes, I took into account increases in food and water from GM crops and increased desalination plants, and then went to the conservative end of the probabilities. The world average is getting poorer and less able to afford technical miracles, and much of technology has reached plateaus and dead ends.
I first started population science back in 1967. Ehrlich made the mistake of just completing the initial hyperbolic without looking at actual mammal population data from field and lab studies. Malthus was wrong in not seeing that fossil fuels and technology could make food supply go geometric, temporarily.
Peak grain was in 1986, and peak food close to peak oil in 2006. This year's crop failures from very widespread drought beyond historic are from AGW.
Soil sterilization by insecticides and herbicides, along with heavy metal poisoning from non-USP grade fertilizers and coal plant fallout is a reality along with total organics loss of soils in the US, China, and India.
Soil science requires 10 to 20% organics, no harmful metals or chemicals, live active fungi, bacterias, and worms. Soil can be rebuilt with enough effort(massive composting of human waste), unless it is too poisoned and there is not enough fresh water to clear out salts, harmful chemicals and metals.
Not only is half the surface water polluted, but major aquifers that are known, such as our Ogllala will be depleted like clockwork by 2040, and others before. Crop yields with irrigation are six times higher, so losing that water is major.
Farm machinery like one tractor replaces the work of 40 people, so farming will have to be much more labor intensive and localized to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 17, 2012 5:35:08 GMT 9.5
Yes, I took into account increases in food and water from GM crops and increased desalination plants, I find that hard to believe. The world average is getting poorer and less able to afford technical miracles, You'd do better if you don't contradict reality so blatantly (China and India, the countries with the largest populations are getting richer). and much of technology has reached plateaus and dead ends. So? We could support more than 10 billion people with current technology (i.e. no need for anything new) and the UN aren't projecting population to grow beyond that. Ehrlich made the mistake of just completing the initial hyperbolic without looking at actual mammal population data from field and lab studies. A bigger mistake would be assuming it was hyperbolic. Malthus was wrong in not seeing that fossil fuels and technology could make food supply go geometric, temporarily. Actually he was wrong in a more general way, i.e. he didn't realise that technology could keep up with what we need (they say that necessity is the mother of invention, looks like they may have been right). Peak grain was in 1986, and peak food close to peak oil in 2006. This year's crop failures from very widespread drought beyond historic are from AGW. Evidence? Admittedly I'm having a bit of trouble actually finding information that confirms what you say but what I have found (if I understand it) seems to indicate that 2011 was a record year for grain production (which is not what one would expect if 1986 was the peak). Crop yields from what I can tell do fluctuate about a bit from year to year but the overall trend is up. Not only is half the surface water polluted, but major aquifers that are known, such as our Ogllala will be depleted like clockwork by 2040, and others before. Crop yields with irrigation are six times higher, so losing that water is major. So we switch to desalination or change to crops that don't need as much water. We have a technofix lined up and pretty much ready to go for when that happens (really all we need is the political will, the developing countries may need some foreign aid as well). Farm machinery like one tractor replaces the work of 40 people, so farming will have to be much more labor intensive and localized to help. Synthetic fuels or electric tractors would work even better than wasting labour. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Nov 11, 2012 16:20:08 GMT 9.5
There is a factor that is not often considered in these debates.
One of the primary concerns with fish and livestock farming is supplying sufficient high quality protein, with most of it being provided by animal products like fishmeal or by things like soybeans which are relatively inefficient in terms of energy fixed per hectare.
However there an alternative.
It looks like coelectrolysis of carbon dioxide and steam using solid oxide electrolysis cells may permit competitive production of petroleum products via syngas and either FT or the MTO process when using off peak electricity.
If the syngas can be produced affordably this means methanol can be, at which point we can make Single Celled Protein from bacteria like Methylophilus methylotrophus in large fermenters (such a process was briefly commercialised as "Pruteen" but suffered from major increases in methanol prices compared to that of soybeans in the 80s).
This means off peak electricity is now animal feed.
If you are allowed GM I am pretty sure you could make a GM strain of Fusarium Venetatum that can munch methanol or something similarly simple to manufacture, which means you can then make Quorn from electricity.
This changes the calculations on carrying capacity in a rather major way.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Nov 12, 2012 11:50:57 GMT 9.5
There is a factor that is not often considered in these debates. One of the primary concerns with fish and livestock farming is supplying sufficient high quality protein, with most of it being provided by animal products like fishmeal or by things like soybeans which are relatively inefficient in terms of energy fixed per hectare. Even then proteins are just collections of amino acids and get broken down into same in the digestive process so just making the amino acids synthetically would work (though biological methods are probably the way to go, especially if you want them handed). If the syngas can be produced affordably this means methanol can be, at which point we can make Single Celled Protein from bacteria like Methylophilus methylotrophus in large fermenters (such a process was briefly commercialised as "Pruteen" but suffered from major increases in methanol prices compared to that of soybeans in the 80s). The biggest worry I'd have about using methanol in such a process is making sure no methanol gets into the food humans eat. But it seems that can be dealt with (if it's been done before they must have found some way). |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Nov 12, 2012 15:22:45 GMT 9.5
There is a factor that is not often considered in these debates. One of the primary concerns with fish and livestock farming is supplying sufficient high quality protein, with most of it being provided by animal products like fishmeal or by things like soybeans which are relatively inefficient in terms of energy fixed per hectare. Even then proteins are just collections of amino acids and get broken down into same in the digestive process so just making the amino acids synthetically would work (though biological methods are probably the way to go, especially if you want them handed). Indeed, I've been thinking about 'synthetic food' for a long time, and the yields are just too low if you are attempting to manufacture chiral products with the corrrect chirality. This is why I was rather happy when I found out that there are bacteria that produce high quality protein that can be fed on a rather simple non chiral molecule. (In this case methanol). If the syngas can be produced affordably this means methanol can be, at which point we can make Single Celled Protein from bacteria like Methylophilus methylotrophus in large fermenters (such a process was briefly commercialised as "Pruteen" but suffered from major increases in methanol prices compared to that of soybeans in the 80s). The biggest worry I'd have about using methanol in such a process is making sure no methanol gets into the food humans eat. But it seems that can be dealt with (if it's been done before they must have found some way). Several SCP plants have indeed been shut down due to problems with substrate contaminating the product, but these were primarily yeast based SCP plants running on n-paraffins. Methanol has the advantage that it is fully miscible with water so can be removed from the product by simple repeated washing whereas the paraffin requires more.... drastic measures. It turns out the Soviets were very big on SCP, far greater than anyone in the west, possibly because they needed ever more animal feed to support the "Meat plan" which led to them importing ever greater amounts of grain from the West. They also had access to huge amounts of relatively low price oil in the early 80s. (Contrary to popular belief Soviet grain production actually exploded during the 80s, the imports were a result of meat production growing even faster). So what effect on carrying capacity does it have if almost all the arable land used for soybeans (leaving only production for direct human consumption) and similar crops can be replaced with a few chemical works and about a sixth as much land devoted to oil palms (to replace soy oil)? |
|
