In reply to KyAllroad
Any other species that overruns the planet in known as an infestation. I had the plague thought just yesterday. We can only pee in the pool for so long.
In reply to KyAllroad
Any other species that overruns the planet in known as an infestation. I had the plague thought just yesterday. We can only pee in the pool for so long.
KYAllroad... Yup... It is an awful thing to say, but China had the right idea with their attempted population control.
Also a small part of why my fiance and I are debating between 1 and 2 children when we get there. I think that we would both like 3 or 4, but financially and geographically it doesn't make sense.
KyAllroad wrote: Am I the only one who sees a good plague (50% die off) as the only way out of our spiral into crushing pollution and food/water shortages?
There are other options to plague - famine, nuclear winter, genocide... don't limit yourself.
In reply to KyAllroad:
Sounds awful but I tend to agree. At minimum, let's cap the child tax credit at 2-3 children. I don't think we should stop people from having 10 kids if they want to (even though that sounds like an awful idea) but we definitely shouldn't be rewarding that kind of behavior.
If you look at predictions for economic growth, a lot of it seems tied to population growth. Now, it seems to me this should all more accurately be discussed on a per-capita basis. If your economy outputs $1000 worth of stuff and has 100 people, and next year it outputs $1100 worth of stuff and there's 110 people, real growth was 0% per capita. Growth through birth seems about as logical as companies that grow through acquisition. Sure, short term it works great, but what happens when we run out of resources?
If everyone on this planet consumed at the same rate as the average in this country, that would last about 10 years. Then we'd be in real trouble. Enjoy a bit of camping?
In reply to mtn: I have 2 though with the joy of divorce I only have them with me every other weekend. My GF has 2 full time. So every other weekend we go from a 2 child family to a 4 child family (hence the suburban). I recommend fewer, much fewer. YMMV
Trust me, we get too bad, the earth will self correct. Anything we can throw at it the earth can and does counter-act. Now... the consequences may be too catastrophic for the human race, but that's not the earth's problem now is it?
How self important we as a race have become to think that we can destroy something like the entire planet. It'll be here until the Sun supernova's, enveloping it in a wrath of heat and fire. whether we as a species are still around is as yet to be determined.
I have no doubts it will self correct, I'm just tired of having to deal with the things I love being slowly destroyed prior to the auto correction. Let's get it over with already!
Bobzilla wrote: Trust me, we get too bad, the earth will self correct. Anything we can throw at it the earth can and does counter-act. Now... the consequences may be too catastrophic for the human race, but that's not the earth's problem now is it? How self important we as a race have become to think that we can destroy something like the entire planet. It'll be here until the Sun supernova's, enveloping it in a wrath of heat and fire. whether we as a species are still around is as yet to be determined.
In reply to Enyar:
Putin is working on that.....
how about kudzu based bio fuels? gotta be useful for something...
I say we bring back the coal burning steam locomotives. Every house should have an oil burner for a furnace too.
In reply to madmallard:
You could probably run all the lights in Georgia just with what they have to trim in a year down there.....
bentwrench wrote: The back side of the issue is that the carbon footprint lifeline to produce corn alcohol is greater than what was assumed to be saved by using it in fuel. Now it has been shown that the end cycle is even worse than was believed. AAAAaaaaaaaahhhhh! The sky is falling even faster now!
I agree completely. Ethanol is not the way to go.
Making Ethanol from any of our best crops is basically a net loss. If you think about it, the most possible raw ethanol we could get from fermenting biomass is about 13-14%. Once brewed and distilled, the remaining beer has very little nutritional value. That is to say, almost zero market value and would likely be composted or burned.
Making biodiesel, however, is a much wiser choice. Up to 40% of the biomass can be extracted from algae crops that use a tiny fraction of land compared to corn or soy. They need no fertilization, have no runoff, and once the fats are extracted, the remaining algae still has an insanely high nutritional value.
But, sadly, the math doesn't work. We have millions of soccer moms who insist on commuting in Tahoes, QX45s, and Excursions.... and of course, people hate diesels because of that one time they smelled some black exhaust from a Mercedes and cursed both the smell and the fact that they couldn't afford a Mercedes. At the very best, a biodiesel infrastructure that is honed and tuned (and without big oil companies attempting to kill things) we could probably support about 15% of our current energy consumption with biofuels.
If you want sources, I can find them, but its from reading a few dozen biofuel books in the last few years.
yamaha wrote:The0retical wrote: For those with a short attention span, a bio reactor with the surface size of Maryland would provide enough bio fuel for the worlds aviation fleet in 2006 - 2007. That's before the advent of the newer super high efficiency engines.So, 12,407 square miles of surface space........BRILLIANT. I don't dispute its worth looking into, but until it gets metric E36 M3loads smaller, it is a completely impractical dream.
Not to be a dick but if you think oil fields add up to less than that you're lying to yourself. The Athabasca oil sands alone are are 54000 square miles roughly four times the proposed sie.
It isn't like anyone said it has to be in one place either. No matter what the tech is still nascent. Unless a lot of money, not tax breaks, flows into it you're right it is a pipe dream.
In reply to The0retical:
Oh no, I know about the oil fields, and the wording of your post didn't mention smaller ones distributed around.
I still think we need to figure out fusion instead of all this other crap.
yamaha wrote: In reply to The0retical: Oh no, I know about the oil fields, and the wording of your post didn't mention smaller ones distributed around. I still think we need to figure out fusion instead of all this other crap.
I'm a huge proponent of nuclear solutions. The problem is the general public.
Not committed to any particular solution, though I thought the study was interesting. I just think that someone without an agenda should be the one making the choices.
We'll just agree that nuclear would be ideal and I apologize for the vague wording.
KyAllroad wrote: Am I the only one who sees a good plague (50% die off) as the only way out of our spiral into crushing pollution and food/water shortages? Think about it for a minute, every single one of our problems in the world today can be tied to overpopulation and limited resources. We can't make the planet bigger or increase the resources, so......... (Edit: I'm personally hoping for zombies, but that's just me)
As with most things, the heart of the problem is us...
In reply to curtis73:
A friend of mine is doing research in the algae biofuel area. It sounds like it does have excellent potential. Turbo algae burners!
The0retical wrote: I'm a huge proponent of nuclear solutions. The problem is the general public. Not committed to any particular solution, though I thought the study was interesting. I just think that someone without an agenda should be the one making the choices. We'll just agree that nuclear would be ideal and I apologize for the vague wording.
The problem isnt so much the general public, it's Daddy Warbucks always wanting more from less. Do that with a nuke it goes boom, and it's bad. And Daddy Warbucks puts his fat wallet in his pocket and walks away and leaves US footing the bill.
In reply to bentwrench:
I'm confused by your statement.
yamaha wrote: In reply to bentwrench: I'm confused by your statement.
Ditto.
I'm saying I don't trust big corps to run a nuke plant. They are top heavy and always need to make more for less.
Maybe OK if it was operated as a non-profit public trust, designed and ran as a shining example of how it should be done. (no shortcuts)
yamaha wrote: In reply to bentwrench: I'm confused by your statement.
Perhaps you don't know who Daddy Warbucks is /was.
Hint: Little Orphan Annie.
bentwrench wrote: I'm saying I don't trust big corps to run a nuke plant. They are top heavy and always need to make more for less. Maybe OK if it was operated as a non-profit public trust, designed and ran as a shining example of how it should be done. (no shortcuts)
Wait, how would a nonprofit equal no shortcuts.........seriously, I'd be more worried about a nonprofit running one.
You'll need to log in to post.
