|
Post by jimthegeordie on Jun 12, 2012 16:07:41 GMT 9.5
We can support the predicted populations, but only if all nations accept a much simplified way of life. Writers such as Bill McKibben propose a return to the country with villages (supported by fast trains and broadband to decrease the sense of isolation) becoming largely self-sufficient in food production. I have proposed elsewhere that steel-framed houses would be a very good idea, because (a) the internals could be rearranged for different usages, (b) they could support rooftop gardens and greenhouses, (c) they are readily transportable and (d) they would give the local steel industry a boost. Dickson Despommier ("The Vertical Farm") has suggested that food can be grown in multi-storey buildings (steel again ?). If we used steel A-frames to support above-ground railways (cheaper than cuttings and embankments), we could glaze in the sides and use the underlying areas as even more greenhouses. Large tracts of country land outside villages should be dedicated to grains, pasture, forestry and biodiversity protection.
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on Jun 12, 2012 16:16:07 GMT 9.5
Just to inject some numbers into the debate, the estimates for Earth's sustainable carrying capacity range from less than 1 to more than 1000 billion humans. Two thirds of the estimates fall between 4 and 16 billion. Source: UN World Population Monitoring 2001, www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdfFigure IV.1 on page 31. So it's by no means self-evident that population is actually the #1 problem. EDIT: Fixed the link.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 18:46:31 GMT 9.5
We can support the predicted populations, but only if all nations accept a much simplified way of life. There is no evidence that we need to do that, at the very least we can supply everyone with the per capita energy usage of Qatar (highest in the world) for at least the next ten thousand years using breeder reactors and Uranium from sea water and we're already managing to make enough food for 7 billion people and genetic engineering should be able to give us improved crop yields (especially in marginal conditions) so food shouldn't be too much of a problem. What then is there to limit us? Writers such as Bill McKibben propose a return to the country with villages (supported by fast trains and broadband to decrease the sense of isolation) becoming largely self-sufficient in food production. Won't happen (if it came from Bill McKibben it's probably not something we should want), not that fast trains and broadband are bad ideas, but local food production is a bad idea (at the very least if you want something that isn't in season where you are you have to get it transported from somewhere else). Besides, reducing agricultural productivity to the point at which a mass return to the country makes sense would also mean a lot less people to do other things (a lot of human progress has come from reducing the percentage of our population which is farmers thereby allowing more people to do other things). Dickson Despommier ("The Vertical Farm") has suggested that food can be grown in multi-storey buildings (steel again ?). Vertical Farming would be very energy intensive since you'll need artificial lighting for all the plants. Still, if we get desperate enough to reduce our land usage we could trade energy usage in that manner (and there's nothing that would technically prohibit the idea, it just probably be able to compete with high yield agriculture on cheap (but fertile) land in the middle of nowhere). Large tracts of country land outside villages should be dedicated to grains, pasture, forestry and biodiversity protection. We already devote large tracts of country land to grains, pasture, forestry and biodiversity protection so you're not proposing anything different here (just that it not have any villages). Just to inject some numbers into the debate, the estimates for Earth's sustainable carrying capacity range from less than 1 to more than 1000 billion humans. Two thirds of the estimates fall between 4 and 16 billion. Source: www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf, Figure IV.1 on page 31. So it's by no means self-evident that population is actually the #1 problem. I got a file not found. But anyway, the population that can be supported depends on the technology you've got and I wouldn't be too surprised if the main difference between the estimates was the technologies assumed (nuclear and genetic engineering can support a lot more people than renewable energy and so-called 'organic' foods and when you get into transhumanism…).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 12, 2012 18:56:18 GMT 9.5
First a little note to JMK, I couldn't get your UN link to work. More generally the message I'm getting is don't worry about population, there is a techno-fix, life style change solution that's going to give us sustainability. You hope. As far as life style change it appears rich looks better to the poor. Nobody seems to want to be Huckleberry Finn except in a few rich folks nebulous dreams. As for techno fixes they might have their own limits. One guy wrote a book on the subject of technological limits. And he has some big names giving their amens. And then we have efficiency which in growth mode runs head on into Jevons Paradox.No major ecosystem hasn't gone negative since we intruded on it. The temporary enhancement of some human groups in a relatively short window of time at the expense of huge numbers of other species driven to extinction is hardly a recommendation. Are we seeing a sudden blossoming before our own demise? Population drop is most clearly the front runner leading us out of our dilemma, but I don't see anyone ready to sign on. So I guess we turn it over to Mother Nature.
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on Jun 12, 2012 19:58:24 GMT 9.5
I fixed the link, it should work now. Anyway, it's the UN World Population Monitoring report from 2001.
If so few people are willing to sign on to required level of depopulation, as is evident from just about any relevant study or statistic, it's not a solution. It doesn't deliver results in a timeframe that is relevant to the questions of biosphere destruction and climate change.
More generally, any solution that is unreachable from our present position in a relevant timeframe is not a solution in any meaningful sense of the word. That is the entire problem here. That is why I'm arguing that depopulation is not a solution, hence population is not the most relevant problem.
Other non-solutions include drastic limits to standard of living, return to pre-industrial era, finding abundant clean energy sources, or finding new Earth-class planets to emigrate to. All these are "solutions" in a sense that they would solve the problem. But they are not solutions in any practical sense, because no one has the faintest idea how to actually make them happen.
I'm always willing to reconsider, but only after proposers of these non-solutions present some practical plans as to how to realize their ideas.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 21:07:05 GMT 9.5
More generally the message I'm getting is don't worry about population, there is a techno-fix, life style change solution that's going to give us sustainability. I'm not even sure if sustainability is really such a good thing, I mean if we don't constantly have problems to solve where's the motivation to work to improve things? You hope. As far as life style change it appears rich looks better to the poor. Yes, which is why we need to be basing our plans on increased per capita energy usage because that's going to happen whether we like it or not (and people will burn coal if that's what it takes to get that energy). As for techno fixes they might have their own limits. Yes, so we then come up with new technology which transcends those limits. From what I can tell just from looking at the contents that looks like an inaccurate book (problems from genetic engineering? we haven't caused any in the decades we've been using it). Then there are the people endorsing it, big names in being wrong (and I notice that Paul Ehrlich was involved in writing the Foreword). And then we have efficiency which in growth mode runs head on into Jevons Paradox.That just means that energy efficiency isn't the answer to our problems (and if the growth sets the stage to then transcend another limit (which so far has been what has tended to happen) it could hardly be called bad). No major ecosystem hasn't gone negative since we intruded on it. Though some have bounced back due to our intervention. The temporary enhancement of some human groups in a relatively short window of time at the expense of huge numbers of other species driven to extinction is hardly a recommendation. Are we seeing a sudden blossoming before our own demise? There were mass extinctions when humans first came out of Africa and hunted large game on the other continents to extinction. Population drop is most clearly the front runner leading us out of our dilemma, but I don't see anyone ready to sign on. So I guess we turn it over to Mother Nature. If you are right about the planet not being able to support our current population then any population drop will happen by mass starvation, not choice (and who would choose to die anyway?). I fixed the link, it should work now. Anyway, it's the UN World Population Monitoring report from 2001. Yes, the graph you referred to uses data from according to the references Cohen, J. (1995). How Many People Can the Earth Support? New York: W. W. Norton and Company. which should go into some more detail (though it actually seems to be more a book about our ignorance if the description I read online is anything to go by). More generally, any solution that is unreachable from our present position in a relevant timeframe is not a solution in any meaningful sense of the word. That is the entire problem here. That is why I'm arguing that depopulation is not a solution, hence population is not the most relevant problem. Other non-solutions include drastic limits to standard of living, return to pre-industrial era, finding abundant clean energy sources, or finding new Earth-class planets to emigrate to. All these are "solutions" in a sense that they would solve the problem. But they are not solutions in any practical sense, because no one has the faintest idea how to actually make them happen. I'm always willing to reconsider, but only after proposers of these non-solutions present some practical plans as to how to realize their ideas. Actually nuclear is abundant clean energy so that solution would be able to solve the problem if it were allowed to. In the longer term we'll probably get fusion and space solar worked out and maybe even get a Rube Goldberg like intermittent renewable dominated 'smart' grid to work (whether we'll want it will be another matter) as well as move most of our population into space (how anyone could think there are limits to growth in an infinite universe? I guess some people just can't think big).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 12, 2012 22:56:14 GMT 9.5
I fixed the link, it should work now. Anyway, it's the UN World Population Monitoring report from 2001. Interesting. This guy thinks around 600 million and makes a fairly cogent case. He does recognize that this is high for some folks like James Lovelock who thought by 2100 there would just be a few breeding pairs. There is this economist Milton Friedman who popularized a long held understanding that good solutions that are not tenable in normal times become incorporable during periods of crisis. Pearl Harbor comes to mind. I'd say proactive population reduction if properly developed and given the imprimatur of some wise widely respected folks might be injected into to the right sort of crisis. As for where it would stand on the ladder of doability? in a crisis, way above development of all out nuclear power I believe. Overpopulation = problems would be a pretty easy sell.If I were to imagine the most draconian application of such a population reduction solution it would be drawing straws with a decent compensation to the survivors. Compared to what human beings have done to each other in history for far less good reasons this would be wonderfully decent and fair. I'd certainly be ready to submit myself, unlike the military draft. Now to Anon: As to the techno-fix book and the quality of its endorsers, I notice the name of Ted Trainer in there. He is someone Barry Brook has spoken highly of and linked to. He makes a lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Jun 13, 2012 12:56:15 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 13, 2012 13:00:47 GMT 9.5
Interesting. This guy thinks around 600 million and makes a fairly cogent case. Not at all, his case is made assuming that nuclear power isn't available (i.e. that we have to use renewable enegy like we did before we started using fossil fuels), thus is almost certainly an underestimate. There is this economist Milton Friedman who popularized a long held understanding that good solutions that are not tenable in normal times become incorporable during periods of crisis. The problem for you here is that population reduction on the scale you say we need is not a good solution. Switching our electricity production from fossil fuels to nuclear in 10 years may not be tenable during normal times but we could probably do it if we had to (and it'd be easier to get public support for than mass murder). I'd say proactive population reduction if properly developed and given the imprimatur of some wise widely respected folks might be injected into to the right sort of crisis. All it would do is cause those widely respected folks to not be so widely respected. As for where it would stand on the ladder of doability? Very low. in a crisis, way above development of all out nuclear power I believe. Nuclear power is a technofix which wouldn't require any change from the general population, that's very different to wiping out most of their friends and family (this is the big advantage of technofixes, they don't require you to actually change people in ways they don't want to change). Except for the fact that all you'll do is convince people that people other than themselves need to die. Really the only thing limits to growth crap has done is caused people to become more selfish as they believe that if the third world improves its condition it'll be at their expense. If I were to imagine the most draconian application of such a population reduction solution it would be drawing straws with a decent compensation to the survivors. Compared to what human beings have done to each other in history for far less good reasons this would be wonderfully decent and fair. I'd certainly be ready to submit myself, unlike the military draft. You're not very good at coming up with draconian ideas, I can think of much worse ways to do it. Not that I'd expect even your idea to actually be fair (there will be a lot of incentive to game the system given the stakes). Not to mention that if you let people opt out that's exactly what they'll do (people went to a lot of effort to avoid the draft).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 13, 2012 14:12:20 GMT 9.5
Anon I get your point. Only techno-fixes ie nuclear power will work. Getting serious about overpopulation is a waste of time and immoral.
Maybe you're right.
But I don't think so.
MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 13, 2012 15:20:03 GMT 9.5
It would seem to me in the case of applied nitrogen you could in a way talk about it having a boundary or tipping point effect. 1. NO2 is the third biggest ghg. So along with CO2 and methane it could contribute to putting us over the edge. 2. Nitrogen fertilizer runoff is the main generator of dead zones. Dead zones extended too far have been implicated in past extinction events. nofishleft.wordpress.com/tag/marine-dead-zones/Edit. I went on google to learn more about The Breakthrough Institute and found some folks aren't great fans. They had some problems with their boundaries thesis plus their strong emphasis on techno-fix solutions. MODERATOR From the Environment Institute, Adelaide University, this quote: "Professor Brook has also been made a 2012 Senior Fellow at the California-based think tank, The Breakthrough Institute. The Institute is dedicated to “modernizing liberal thought for the 21st Century” and creating “secure, free, prosperous, and fulfilling lives on an ecologically vibrant planet”. More information here
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 21, 2012 1:56:08 GMT 9.5
That seems a little dense, sort of in the killing the goose that laid the golden eggs category. Common sense tells you you can keep robbing from your support base just so long before it ceases to support you. We've got ourselves an ecological Ponzi scheme going. Finally the base will not deliver. It is also interesting that the comments at the end of this BTI debunk kick the tar out of it.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 21, 2012 7:58:11 GMT 9.5
It is also interesting that the comments at the end of this BTI debunk kick the tar out of it. They only appear to do that if you already believe it's wrong (and it goes both ways, you can't just assume that human welfare is best obtained by being ecofriendly) and also haven't bothered to read the full report (which in many ways is just saying that the planetary boundaries people haven't actually got any evidence to back up their preference for the Holocene climate). Oh and the pdf has: This “environmentalist’s paradox” strongly warrants against generalizing assumptions about the relationship between environmental variables and human welfare. For a policy-oriented framework like planetary boundaries to be useful, it must offer a stronger account of the mechanisms and relative importance of the interlinkages between environmental quality and human welfare. which may well be a better way of stating it. Their point 5 (in the press release) is well worth reading: 5. The relationship between human material welfare and ecological systems is better explicated through trade-offs than boundaries.
The claim that the planetary boundaries represent "non-negotiable" limits upon human activities, development, or consumption that "exist irrespective of peoples' preferences, values, or compromises based on political and socioeconomic feasibility" is not supported by empirical evidence on either ecosystem functioning or the relationship between environmental change and human welfare. Instead, our review of the nine "planetary boundaries" suggests that there are multiple costs and benefits of human impacts on the environment, and that balancing these is an inherently political question -- not one that science alone can resolve. Suggesting otherwise may harm the policy process, as it precludes democratic and transparent resolution of these debates, and limits, rather than expands, the range of available choices. The important role of the earth sciences in informing management of environmental problems would be enhanced by shifting focus to identifying and explicating various possible courses of action and the trade-offs they entail, as well as exploring both negative and positive impacts of environmental change on human welfare.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 21, 2012 13:08:45 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by jasonk on Jun 26, 2012 14:31:37 GMT 9.5
More generally the message I'm getting is don't worry about population, there is a techno-fix, life style change solution that's going to give us sustainability. I'm not even sure if sustainability is really such a good thing, I mean if we don't constantly have problems to solve where's the motivation to work to improve things? Part 1: Entropy and You. Due to the second law of thermodynamic we are constantly increasing entropy. In order to stay at an equilibrium (sustainable, steady state, no growth whatever you call it) requires a continuous work input. Because of the way the universe was made you have to constantly solve problems just to stay even. In a sustainable steady state economy the motivation to do work and solve problems is to keep from becoming a negative or shrinking economy. If any readers have not heard of entropy then I'll explain. Entropy is what causes you to leave your clothes lying on the floor rather than putting them in the laundry basket. Don't feel bad if you have a messy house, the universe wants you to have a messy house. More entropy = more chaos. Less entropy = more order. Because of the second law everything wants to be messy rather than neat. It take work on the part of humans to put things back into order. Part 2. Entropy and Them. By now you should be asking. Well that all fine and good but how do we make things better if we are constantly working to keep them even? You do this by forcing part of your entropy loss onto someone else. Now, since you are loosing less entropy your constant work generates a large net benefit. Thus your life is improved more. More precisely your entropy is lessened. Or is it reduced less? I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it without a good visual aid. But what about poor Them who has to suffer more entropy because you wanted less? Well, if they are real people then they will be poorer. However if Them are inanimate objects like complex molecules, high temp hydrogen atoms or heavy orderly elements then its not so bad. In conclusion our standard of living is limited only by our ability to harness energy from matter conversions. Since the universe is infinite then our standard of living potential is infinite. Growth in our standard of living is potentially infinite. Part 3: What can I do? Transfer more of your entropy gain to rocks rather than to animals. Raise their standard of living too.
|
|
|
Post by jasonk on Jun 26, 2012 14:43:49 GMT 9.5
There is this economist Milton Friedman who popularized a long held understanding that good solutions that are not tenable in normal times become incorporable during periods of crisis. Pearl Harbor comes to mind. Could you please explain this better. I'm not sure what good solutions came out of Pearl Harbor? Nor what the problem that it solved was.
|
|
|
Post by jasonk on Jun 26, 2012 14:59:47 GMT 9.5
Anon I get your point. Only techno-fixes ie nuclear power will work. Getting serious about overpopulation is a waste of time and immoral. Maybe you're right. But I don't think so. MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE! David, I have a serious question for you but not sure how to ask it without being sarcastic, or appearing to be sarcastic. Do you believe nuclear power kills lots of people or very little? Depending upon your answer you could have the answer to your problem. One way to reduce population silently is to keep the most dangerous power-plants, cars, foods, etc. on the market. Its just an idea. I don't support it. Interested on your take of it?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 26, 2012 15:37:23 GMT 9.5
In conclusion our standard of living is limited only by our ability to harness energy from matter conversions. Since the universe is infinite then our standard of living potential is infinite. Growth in our standard of living is potentially infinite. I get the pronuke drift. More energy from uranium = better standard of living. You have to believe the process of getting that energy doesn't have serious down stream consequences that might not be soluble by a simple increase in nuclear energy, that it really will seriously substitute for fossil fuel unlike any expert projection I've read going up to 2050 and if you are buying anon's view that crowding more and more people together is not a problem as long as the corresponding nuclear energy increase is along for the ride then you have to know a lot more about other resources and their limits and crowd psychology than I do. Strange that after 60 years of nuclear power so many folks just won't get on board. For myself selling it as fossil fuel substitute stop gap while we get more appropriate localized solutions in place is the better way to go.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 26, 2012 15:45:04 GMT 9.5
There is this economist Milton Friedman who popularized a long held understanding that good solutions that are not tenable in normal times become incorporable during periods of crisis. Pearl Harbor comes to mind. Could you please explain this better. I'm not sure what good solutions came out of Pearl Harbor? Nor what the problem that it solved was.Pretty simple; Americans didn't want to go to war. Pearl Harbor changed their mind. I was using that as an analogy to people not wanting to get proactive about dealing with population reduction short of some serious population-environmental crisis.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 26, 2012 16:04:47 GMT 9.5
Anon I get your point. Only techno-fixes ie nuclear power will work. Getting serious about overpopulation is a waste of time and immoral.
Maybe you're right.
But I don't think so.
MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE! David, I have a serious question for you but not sure how to ask it without being sarcastic, or appearing to be sarcastic.
Do you believe nuclear power kills lots of people or very little? Depending upon your answer you could have the answer to your problem.
One way to reduce population silently is to keep the most dangerous power-plants, cars, foods, etc. on the market.
Its just an idea. I don't support it. Interested on your take of it?Definitely sarcastic but we can both acknowledge that you are coming from a superior place. I think nuclear power is better than fossil fuel so I support it for now. However I don't think it is a long term solution. I think less people living simpler lives in self-sufficient communities with technologies appropriate to those communities is. My guess is since we are coming from the habits of technologically complex mega state my view of a rational world of sustainable communities will only happen after events lead to a massive die-off. I would hope otherwise but I don't see the seriousness about overpopulation that would be the center piece of a proactive solution.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 26, 2012 22:26:48 GMT 9.5
Don't feel bad if you have a messy house, the universe wants you to have a messy house. LOL. There is this economist Milton Friedman who popularized a long held understanding that good solutions that are not tenable in normal times become incorporable during periods of crisis. Pearl Harbor comes to mind. Could you please explain this better. I'm not sure what good solutions came out of Pearl Harbor? Nor what the problem that it solved was. In war they tended to do things quickly (much faster than what happens in peacetime). David, I have a serious question for you but not sure how to ask it without being sarcastic, or appearing to be sarcastic. Do you believe nuclear power kills lots of people or very little? Depending upon your answer you could have the answer to your problem. One way to reduce population silently is to keep the most dangerous power-plants, cars, foods, etc. on the market. Its just an idea. I don't support it. Interested on your take of it? The biggest issue I can see here is that fertility depends on death rate, if parents expect most of the kids they have to die before reaching adulthood then they are going to pump out more babies (and so encouraging danger is more likely to increase population growth than reduce population as people have more kids to ensure that at least one survives). Though it does look like a lot of people in the green movement are actually trying to do exactly that. I suspect if you wanted to reduce population silently that the best bet would be to make first contact with the Aschen or if they turn out to be fictional just follow their tactics. I get the pronuke drift. More energy from uranium = better standard of living. You have to believe the process of getting that energy doesn't have serious down stream consequences that might not be soluble by a simple increase in nuclear energy, Which ones do you foresee? that it really will seriously substitute for fossil fuel unlike any expert projection I've read going up to 2050 Those expert predictions are based on what is happening, not necessarily what we could do if we wanted to (nuclear has already demonstrated the ability to replace fossil fuels for electricity production when that is actually wanted). and if you are buying anon's view that crowding more and more people together is not a problem as long as the corresponding nuclear energy increase is along for the ride then you have to know a lot more about other resources and their limits and crowd psychology than I do. The dominant land use of our civilisation is agriculture, not housing (and we could give everyone a suburban home if we wanted to, I get 6.8% of the planet's land covered with housing for 10 billion people living on 0.1011714106 hectare blocks of land (quite large)). Strange that after 60 years of nuclear power so many folks just won't get on board. There has been a very well funded PR campaign against nuclear power. For myself selling it as fossil fuel substitute stop gap while we get more appropriate localized solutions in place is the better way to go. If it gets the reactors installed then it would at least have some good come from it but I suspect you'll find that you won't get those localised solutions as they just won't be as appropriate. Besides, what do you expect to end up replacing nuclear? I think nuclear power is better than fossil fuel so I support it for now. However I don't think it is a long term solution. I think less people living simpler lives in self-sufficient communities with technologies appropriate to those communities is. If people wanted to live simpler lives they'd be doing it already. My guess is since we are coming from the habits of technologically complex mega state my view of a rational world of sustainable communities will only happen after events lead to a massive die-off. I would hope otherwise but I don't see the seriousness about overpopulation that would be the center piece of a proactive solution. It just so happens that people do indeed prefer the industrial mega-state, even if they may state a preference for a simpler life.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Aug 21, 2012 19:30:53 GMT 9.5
I might add as I've indicated before that the cause of nuclear power is better served by getting serious about overpopulation. Without getting a handle on population nuclear advocates will never achieve their goal of fossil fuel replacement. And given that obvious fact folks on the fence will just say who cares. This is a point I'd like to amplify a bit. Can a "nuclear solution" be taken seriously by informed rational people if it doesn't include a proactive commitment to population reduction? In this article the writer takes on James Hansen, a premier climate expert and strong NPP advocate who I very much admire, and his book Storms of My Grandchildren, for making his critique of AGW less serious by refusing to address the issue of overpopulation. I have one additional thought on this. I wonder if scientists just have a distaste for addressing issues that don't fall strictly within the realm of science and technology. Overpopulation would certainly fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 21, 2012 20:04:21 GMT 9.5
The problem with dealing with any overpopulation idea is that to actually solve it in the timeframe we'd need to the degree the people who think the problem is too many think we'd need to (which is usually stated to be somewhat less than a billion) would be far worse than pretty much any realistic negative consequences of global warming (which will not kill the majority of people on the planet, it probably won't even kill all that many not in the third world and even there it could be argued that poverty is the real killer).
Besides, nuclear can supply enough energy (and drinking water) for more than 10 billion people at a first world standard of living so why would we need to reduce the population?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Aug 21, 2012 20:32:21 GMT 9.5
nuclear can supply enough energy (and drinking water) for more than 10 billion people at a first world standard of living so why would we need to reduce the population? I'd classify that as a faith statement.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 21, 2012 21:08:35 GMT 9.5
nuclear can supply enough energy (and drinking water) for more than 10 billion people at a first world standard of living so why would we need to reduce the population? I'd classify that as a faith statement. A bit of time ago around here I did the numbers to see how long Uranium from the ocean would last at a very high per capita energy usage (namely I took the highest of any country in the world (which should be enough to cover desal, the countries with the highest per capita energy consumption do tend to use it a lot), then assumed that it'd be 25% efficient at converting energy from the Uranium into energy people can use) and got a figure of about ten thousand years for 10 billion people.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Aug 21, 2012 23:43:19 GMT 9.5
I'd classify that as a faith statement. A bit of time ago around here I did the numbers to see how long Uranium from the ocean would last at a very high per capita energy usage (namely I took the highest of any country in the world (which should be enough to cover desal, the countries with the highest per capita energy consumption do tend to use it a lot), then assumed that it'd be 25% efficient at converting energy from the Uranium into energy people can use) and got a figure of about ten thousand years for 10 billion people. Particularly with the demands of agriculture I just don't see desalination having that major an impact and until nuclear was seriously ramped up the increase in desal plants would be primarily fossil fuel generated, accelerating global warming with all its downsides including pushing increasing amounts of sea water from rising oceans into coastal wells which would then need to be desalinated. How's that for running-in-place? ;D
|
|