Printable View
You may slander me all you like about my main source of information.
The following is video 1 of 8 regarding one old mans "simple arithmetic."
I have to admit, I'm a sucker for catchy titles. I recommend watching more than just video 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2...eature=related
Discussions encouraged.
I've officially jumped from the "find alternate resources of energy" bandwagon, and onto the "adopt - not reproduce."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bartlett
Quote:
Albert A. Bartlett is an emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. Professor Bartlett has lectured over 1,500 times on Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.
Bartlett joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder in September 1950. His B.A. degree in physics is from Colgate University (1944) and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in physics are from Harvard University (1948), (1951). In 1978 he was national president of the American Association of Physics Teachers. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1969 and 1970 he served two terms as the elected Chair of the four-campus Faculty Council of the University of Colorado.
Bartlett is a modern-day Malthusian.
Professor Bartlett often explains how sustainable growth is an oxymoron. His view is based on the fact that a modest percentage growth can equate to huge escalations over short periods of time. He has famously stated that "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
He regards overpopulation as "The Greatest Challenge" facing humanity, and promotes sustainable living. Bartlett opposes the cornucopian school of thought (as advocated by people such as Julian Lincoln Simon), and refers to it as The New Flat Earth Society.
J. B. Calvert (1999) has proposed that Bartlett's Law will result in the exhaustion of petrochemical resources due to the exponential growth of the world population (as per the Malthusian Growth Model).
I have done a bit of study into Gerontology if if ever two things did meet at a head it is population growth + life expectancy.
Some people believe our generation will be the first generation were medical advancements will outrace death.
Now this may be hard to believe but just think about this, it took less 63 years to go from first flight to putting a man on the moon.
How long do you think it will take till every illness and disease (aging can be considered a disease) is cured.
So something has got to give, I predict within 100 years (if something else doesn't fuck us all over) death rate will decline drastically and people will have to cease having kids.
Sooooo eventually the decision will come to either living forever (pretty much) and not reproducing or puposefully stopping medical advancement so we can make offspring or 3rd option we colonize other planets. I am hoping for 3rd option so I can populze other planets and live forever and knock out some kids.
ps. I am inebriated
I want to be like Adam Monroe, AKA Takezo Kensei (剣聖 武蔵)
Until this day I thought the mathematician asked for grains of rice.
The statement "our need for electricity actually doubles every 10 or 12 years" is totally meaningless. Needs are always unlimited. If the consumtion of energy has doubled in any time period, it has happened only because our production of energy has doubled as well. It's our production that allows for our consumtion. So when he says that our need for electricity doubled, he is actually saying that we have become better at using availible resources in a beneficial way. We are simply more effective.
To think that we'll run out of resources soon is also completely wrong. The amount of resources in the world are almost endless. The biggest source of energy we have is the sun, and its depletion is something we won't have to worry about in the near future.
How can you make this sentence?Quote:
To think that we'll run out of resources soon is also completely wrong. The amount of resources in the world are almost endless.
all resources or just the sun? Cuz everything else is most assuredly limited. How many people do you think we need before we start consuming more oxygen than can be produced? How about water? Lumber? Copper? Oil? Come on, you can't really think these are all unlimited...Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
As long as there are enough snickers bars for everyone I'm happy.
The sun was just a fitting example since energy was the topic that's discussed. But lets look at some of the resources you mentioned. The entire earh is a gigantic ball of metals and minerals and we have merely scratched the surface of it. Also, these resources doesn't dissappear once we consume them. They simply shift from one form to another and they can be recycled and reused. Even if the amount of resources on the earth isn't infinite the economic value of them are. A tiny bit of cupper and silicon can be used as a razor or as parts in a CPU. The economic value of a finite amount of resources grow as we find better ways to use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Resources are matter. The amount of matter availible to us is pretty close to endless. The goal is to form this matter into things that are beneficial to us. This takes energy. As long as we have energy (and we will for a few million years at least), we'll be able to continously improve our standard of living.
Waaay too theoretical approach to the problem, in my opinion. Sure, I can believe everything you say but I still think you're way off.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
ROFL I'm in the same boat as you rilla. Just like wow, damn, I'm not even going to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
People have been predicting this shit for years.
The big problem is that they ignore market effects.
As the price of oil increases (even more than it already has currently), market forces will inevitably rush in to fill the need for cheaper energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Human innovation will prevail?
WHERE IS MY GODDAMNED COLD FUSION ALREADY!@??!@
His point about overpopulation is bang on though. Human innovation will and already has enabled us to comfortably support more and more people on this earth, but that can only go so far.
We have a finite amount of resources and a finite length to which we can stretch them. Eventually, something's gotta give.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWO4JxM3nDcQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
:?:
Nothing is almost endless. It's either finite or it's infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
Nothing is close to endless. It's either endless, or it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
Wrong. Theoretically, one day we will not have enough space on this planet for unlimited toasters.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
If you can provide evidence of mass produced transitional forms of fossil fuels that have been used and then re used, I'll give you some mad props. Add in re-usable electricity once my light bulb has been lit.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
How can something that is finite also have infinite value? This is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
If the resource was infinite, it would have no value. This is exactly why things that are finite have value attached to them - because they are finite!
Show me numerical proof that we will have energy for a few millions years at least, using any one of the major resources: Fossil fuels, coal, lumber, etc. Sunlight yes, but we do not have the mass production available to us yet, and we will not harness the sun to our full potential so long as other resources are more commonly used and widespread.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
Secondly, we will only be able to continue to improve our standard of living if one day we have ceased to increase in population.
Consider population. One day, the human species will not be able to increase their population size. This is because the surface area of the earth in not infinite. Even if you believe that "resources are almost endless" (oxymoron), surface area is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
I wrote a big long winded rant explaining all the reasons why this makes no sense whatsoever, but realized it would take way too long to finish. I suggest looking up things about the earth's mantle, how far we can drill into the earth, how far we can mine, the feasibility of solar energy, the current major supply of energy, how oil is used up, how recycling works, how available the materials we have are, and ecoomic value of recycled materials.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
OVERPOPULASHUN WILL KEEP BEAN PROBLEM 4 AS LONG AS WOMEN KEEP BECOMIN HOTTR AN HOTTRQuote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
2_thumbs_up, I can't agree with you, since you seem to be on third level thinking and i'm on first.
however, you maybe on to something there, for if we can arguable find a way to convert matter into what we need it to be, or more effective recycling without too much of it going for waste, we may have almost (!) infinite resources.
but as it is right now, immediate (except solar rays, and maybe hydrogen) resources are finite. that shit will run out and there will be trying times ahead.
I don't understand, are these the market effects that say your country can't continually run a deeper and deeper deficit while consuming more and more resources and energy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
I'll ask you a question. Besides, oil and maybe a few other limited energy resources, what do you think we'll run out of in the near future?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Bad choice of words I guess. According to some recent cosmological theories though, the amount of resources are most likely infinite. It's just up to us to aquire as much of them as we can. But note that we still don't need get more and more of them in order to experience economic growth. By using the same amount of resources in a more beneficial way we'd experience the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I think you missed my point. That statement seem to imply that we consumed more energy because all of the sudden we needed more energy. This is simply wrong. The reason we used more energy is because we managed to produce more energy. We consume whatever we manage to produce. It's our production that will limit our consumption, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I was referring to the resources I mentioned in the sentence before the one you quoted. We will run out of fossil fuels but they are replacable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Because value is subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Resources are not merely valued by their quantity. They are also valued by the amount of work that has been put into them. For example, I value a house higher than I value a bunch of trees, even if it's the same amount of wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Where do you think the energy in those comes from? It's all originating from the sun. So is the energy that plants extract through photosynthesis. So is the energy in the food you eat. Fossil fuels are simply one of the many ways that nature has managed to extract and store energy from the sun. I see no reason what so ever why we won't be able to extract the same amount of energy in other ways. As long as the sun burns, we'll have energy. And as long as we have energy we will use it to improve stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I think we will though. Just look at the west. Our population growth has basically stagnated as our standard of living has increased to todays level. As the rest of the world catches up they'll probably experience similar effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
But this has noting to do with depletion of resources. I'ts just the same amount of resources being split between an increasing amount of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
To quote my lover fatb:
LOL WAT A MORAN
Ad hominem
uranium. Besides this and oil/fossil fuels, the rest are far too inefficient. Theoretically, we can simply put a huge Windmill every square foot and produce energy, but this is way too costly to do and would require constant maintaince that would far outweigh the benefit. Hydroelectric depends on our amount of rivers and the speed at which they flow as well as the volume. This is also severly limited. Solar power is as of yet sooo inefficent that filling every square acre of the state of arizona (us) would not be enough to power the entire country and would cost an outrageous amount of money, additionally, it would require flat land which isnt exactly available in 1000 square acre fields. Again, the maintanince required is huge, and eventually would need to be entierly replaced. I cant think of much else at the moment but this should be a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
no, its our consumption that limits our production. Lets say you eat 1-2 donuts a day and are the only customer at krispy cream donuts. Lets say that donuts go bad and become hazardous to our health after 5 days. Then, since you only consume 2-1 a day, it would be ridiculous to for krispy cream to produce more than 10 donuts in a single day, since there is no chance of them being eaten and would then become unedible and useless. Therefore, your consumption has just limited krispy cream's production.Quote:
Bad choice of words I guess. According to some recent cosmological theories though, the amount of resources are most likely infinite. It's just up to us to aquire as much of them as we can. But note that we still don't need get more and more of them in order to experience economic growth. By using the same amount of resources in a more beneficial way we'd experience the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I think you missed my point. That statement seem to imply that we consumed more energy because all of the sudden we needed more energy. This is simply wrong. The reason we used more energy is because we managed to produce more energy. We consume whatever we manage to produce. It's our production that will limit our consumption, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Easier example. The playstation 3 came out a while ago, and were mass produced. Consumers however, only bought half of them. Should sony continue making playstation 3's for the fun of it? No, because the consumption of them is too low. consumption of ps3s just limited the production of them. This is simple supply and demand and is true for most things.
really? with what?Quote:
I was referring to the resources I mentioned in the sentence before the one you quoted. We will run out of fossil fuels but they are replacable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Yes but how do we do this? If you know a way, would you mind pm-ing me so i can patent the idea and become obscenly rich by solving our energy crisis?Quote:
Because value is subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Resources are not merely valued by their quantity. They are also valued by the amount of work that has been put into them. For example, I value a house higher than I value a bunch of trees, even if it's the same amount of wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Where do you think the energy in those comes from? It's all originating from the sun. So is the energy that plants extract through photosynthesis. So is the energy in the food you eat. Fossil fuels are simply one of the many ways that nature has managed to extract and store energy from the sun. I see no reason what so ever why we won't be able to extract the same amount of energy in other ways. As long as the sun burns, we'll have energy. And as long as we have energy we will use it to improve stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
isnt the point of this topic that our population growth has reached an alltime high? (im assuming west means usa)Quote:
I think we will though. Just look at the west. Our population growth has basically stagnated as our standard of living has increased to todays level. As the rest of the world catches up they'll probably experience similar effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
which is obviously a problem since we have a limited number of resources that are readily usable and obtainable. Name two resources that are unlimited and i will show you a minimum of 4 websites each that prove they are in fact limited, at least in what we can feasibly obtain and use.Quote:
But this has noting to do with depletion of resources. I'ts just the same amount of resources being split between an increasing amount of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
We'll have uranium for quite a while though, but yeah someday well run out of that too. Someday we'll have to rely entirely on renewable energy sources. There's no reason to think the technology for doing this wont improve though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I was asking about non-energy resources though. Maybe it was a bit unclear.
You cannot use prices as an argument because you cant look at them in isolation. It's only costly relative to other energy sources. If there were no fossil fuels, it would not be costly at all. In fact, it would be extremely profitable right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
If you think about it a little you'll realize that our needs are endless. Our ability to produce however, isn't. The fact that production precedes consumption is something that can't be stressed enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Every single PS3 that was produced will get consumed. If it becomes unprofitable to make PS3's, it means that the labour and energy that is put into making PS3's are better used at producing something else.
Our consumption does not limit how much that will be produced. It does however determine what will be produced. In this case, consumers prefer other stuff over PS3's.
The energy in fossil fuels have been extracted from the sun by nature. What makes you think we won't be able to extract the same amount of energy from the sun in other ways? We may not have the technology right now. But do you have any evidence that suggests we have reached the peak of what's possible. I think we're far from it. Nanotechnology is one thing I believe will prove to be very beneficial to solar plants.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I think the fact that nature is still way more efficient in extracting solar energy than we are, is enough proof that there's huge potential. Note that i'm also talking about secondary solar energy such as winds, rivers and thermal heat.
I'm not saying there's an instant solution. I'm saying there's lots of potential in some renewable energy sources that's barely used today. Also, I won't solve any coming energy crisis, the market will. The biggest problem we have right now is that governments categorically forbid people to increase the supply of energy. The incentives and profits to do something about it are there. You're just not allowed to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
By west I meant USA and western europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Throughout history the human poplulation has experienced continuos growth (with some exceptions). Despite that, we have also expereinced a continuos increase in our standard of living. The world population will probably continue to grow for quite a while. The general standard of living will probably continue to rise as well. I don't see why 6 billion people is the limit. At some point in time though, the growth will have to decrease, and one way or another, it eventually will.
Assumptions make an ass out of U and Mptions! or something like that...Quote:
There's no reason to think the technology for doing this wont improve though.
The solution to all of our energy problems is so obvious: we'll come up with solutions.
:D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
LDO
we are smart and stuff mmmMK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Just think of the amount of solar energy that is turned into biomass through photosynthesis. That is many times higher than global energy consumption. My point is that energy is not something that we'll somehow run out off. There is huge amounts of energy all around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
Think about all the energy produced through digestion of food. Or the energy released in a supernova or in colliding stars. Or the intense light given off by pulsars!Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up
No shit, we won't run out of energy. But how are we going to make any of that help us? You say, "we will!" We say, "What if we don't?"
I'll admit it's possible we'll innovate and the energy crisis will disappear, if you admit it's at least just as likely we won't.
problem is, we have no freakin clue on how any of this can help us. Sure, plants do that great and stuff...but he have no clue how to reproduce it. It doesnt matter that the sun is constantly releasing energy in the form of light and heat, what matters is if we can convert this energy into something we can use. Right now we can't, and the ways we know of converting energy are dying. Hence, we have a problem.
"But there's energy all around us! This planet will never cease to have energy!"Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
i hate you :PQuote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew