This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

[Toro]

Global warming I have some sympathy for.

However, resource depletion?

There are roughly a trillion barrels of conventional oil reserves that we know about in the world today that we know of.

Include the tar sands, add another 400 billion barrels, even though that is probably underestimating it.

Then add the heavy oil deposits in Venezuela. That's another 300 billion barrels.

Now add the Green River shale deposits in the US, which are estimated to have 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

So, between those three - count 'em, one, two, three - those three nonconventional sources, that's 1.5 trillion barrels.

We are consuming about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. We have about 30 years of conventional oil that we know of left. Those three unconventioanal sources alone account for over 60 years of supply.

That doesn't include natural gas, of which there are over a hundred years of deposits around the globe - and I'm being conservative - which is used in fuel switching for a good chunk of the inputs we use in the economy.

The age of oil is 130 years old.

There's lots of energy in the world (let's not forget nuclear). However, there isn't much cheap energy anymore.

Technology will find alternative sources of power as the price continues to rise because it becomes more economic to do so. That's how its supposed to work.

As one energy expert whose name I cannot remember right at this moment said "the age of oil will end long before we run out oil".

 

[dekhqonbacha]

Have any of you ever asked yourself about the goal of space exploration?
It is not just to figure out the past of the Earth and the Big Bang, it also consists of exhausting the resourses of other planets.
In the future when the naturel resourses of the Earth are unsufficiant (it's not supposed to happen though) for human needs, the resourses of Mars, Venus, Moon or other planets of extrasolar system will substitute them. Otherwise now NASA, Roscosmos, ESA, Japanese wouldn't be spending so huge amount of money for space explorations.
Once, the living conditions similar to the Earth is found in the extrasolar system some of us will "move" there and the population of the Earth will be splited and will diminish

 

[dekhqonbacha]

quinton and the caracal kid you guys emphasize on the population to be the problem. My apologies if I am wrong. I continue my point assuming I didn't misunderstand you.

There is a natural solution for the population growth. It is expanding as an exponential function. However, the fact should be consider that nothing is infinite, so is population growth.

Now, it's true that it is growing rapidly but at a given time in the future it will reach it's maximum and then will decline as in parabola.

Here is my point: now the population of US, Canada, Europe and Japan is declining, while the population in african and asian subcontinent is growing. What is the difference between these two group of countries?

ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!

The poor family will have many kids, hoping that one of them will survive and will bring the happiness to the parents. The rich family has only one or no kid at all, because they have already the happiness. But, many of those kids who were created just as a "test" will survive and create a famine.


So, once the poor country gets richer, their population will grow slower and later will drop. Then they will depend on immigration

 

[quinton]

I think not:

So are you saying the earth is not subject to the limitation of finite resources thanks to technology?

You can't be serious.

dekhqonbacha:

I wish you were right when you said:

"now the population of US, Canada, Europe and Japan is declining"

Unfortunately you need to get your facts straight because all of those countries, even Japan have growing NOT declining populations.

If your belief that high GDP per capita would stop population growth was true those countries shouldn't be growing, and yet they're all growing:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/

The earth cannot support every country having as high of a GDP as the Western world.

There wouldn't be enough resources and we'd extinct all forest life and marine life.

Technology will not save us.

All the best inventions have already been created. What lies ahead is predominantly consumer junk.

Even if technology finds ways to more efficiently extract resources, the resources of the earth are still finite.

Furthermore, it is immoral in my opinion for humans to extinct all species that they don't see a present need for just in order to support a ridiculous number of human beings.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

I think not:

So are you saying the earth is not subject to the limitation of finite resources thanks to technology?

You can't be serious.

What I am trying to say, is that who knows what tomorrows technology has in store for us. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. New technologies are created every day, space travel is on the rise. If we would stop technological advances and remain stagnant then I would agree with your reasoning, but human beings do not remain stagnant, haven't you noticed?

 

[nelk]

Thanks for this thread quinton

It is always easy to find many angles to discuss a (uncomfortable)
topic to death and leave many even more confused then before.

Some just can't stand it,to look the problem into its face and recognise potential danger; never mind being shocked into the "take note and act" mode.
Some of the denials on this and other relevant topic is mindboggling.

Of course our planet is overpoulated bigtime and for a long time allready.
If on the otherhand someone is happy with "standingroom" only ,this world has still "potential"!

So who is driving this growth?
Or rephrase, who is benefitting from growth even for the next little while ?

Western societies by an large have been enjoying a period of prosperty compared to rest of the global population.

The number of parents who delayed and/or minimized the number of offspring has increased wherever this prosperity manifests itself.

And why would I blame that.
It is a smart response.

What has not happened is the development of an appropriate leadership forseeing demografics and providing the guiding hand
to come up with working solutions to care for society and this new reality.

Globally shifting peoples, to fill perceived voids, with little regard on the outcome and the wishes of the receiving nations is not driven by caring for humans of both receiving or source countries.

Camouflaging this migration as "multikulti" is just one of the many ways to make it palatable. And it is not the fault of the individual immigrant.

I remember Canada with less millions inhabitants; and yes it was a better place. In many ways.
Ok Internet was lacking, but gas was by the gallon for half what you pay now per liter.

Now ask questions like:

Why do we need more Billions on this earth?
How will this benefit you and me?
Would it be wise to even have children (one ore two)?
Who are the most prolific peoples to reproduce and why?
What is the benefit to dig out and consume the last bit of resources on this earth?
Does the world have lifeboats so we can float off to some other universe?

Or should we stick our heads in the sand, each one in his own political direction????
:idea: :roll: :?:

 

[dekhqonbacha]

quinton, the population of western world is increasing thanks to immigration.

Canada recieve 10% of it's current population? I have read somewhere, unfortunatly I don't have it with me as a proof.

US, illigal immigration maybe exceed legal immigration (I am exagerating of course).

Western Europe also welcome many immigrants. How many arabs are in France? (Islamic Republic of France, recently shooted someone in his trail, before deportation), how many turks live in Germany? And how many much more are coming?

Of course these immigrants now will have more babies. By doing so the population of the mentioned countries are increasing, and there is a suplementary new immigrants are comming every day, every hour, every min, and every second.

 

[jimmoyer]

Thanks for pointing that out to Quinton, dekhqonbacha.

In fact each poster who has decided to have no
children corresponds to a demographic profile, that
of a Westerner, White, reasonably financially secure.

This trend is by individual choice throughout the
Western White world who have achieved some stability
in their personal lives.

Unfortunately it is these people who CAN have babies
and raise them right with opportunity available.

Thanks for re-raising the demographics issue
of declining populations in parts of the world.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

Forum Addict says:
"I remember Canada with less millions inhabitants; and yes it was a better place. In many ways.
Ok Internet was lacking, but gas was by the gallon for half what you pay now per liter.

Now ask questions like:

Why do we need more Billions on this earth?
How will this benefit you and me?
Would it be wise to even have children (one ore two)?
Who are the most prolific peoples to reproduce and why?
What is the benefit to dig out and consume the last bit of resources on this earth?
Does the world have lifeboats so we can float off to some other universe? "

if you are talking about gas price (and all prices in general) in period when Canada had less then a million inhabitants "but gas was by the gallon for half what you pay now per liter."

2 years ago I was paying 70 cents for gas, now I am paying 120 cents per littlre. So, the inflation does not have much to do with population.

1) I don't know how benefits from billions of population, but one cannot kill half of them, and live happily every after. In the WWII almost half billion people were killed, but today the Earths is still "overpopulated".

ECONOMIC GROWTH will decrease the will of families to have less babies, or no baby at all.

2) ...

3) For you it would be wise if you don't have a kid, because you would have more money to spend with you wife (husband), and more spare time to enjoy. For someone else (in western world and Japan) 1 would be enough. But for someone in african and asian continent at least 4 is good. Because if 3 of they dies one will feed the family in the future. But that one is still the threat for parents, because he/she might get killed in conflicts.

4) poor people, as I just said above.

5) ....

6) Imagine Europe in 15 century. They though there was no way to India by West. Now we know that it's was wrong. May be now in the universe or in milky was, or even in solar system there is a planet or something like that which has life conditions as in the Earth but it remains unnoticed until now

 

[Toro]

Quinton

The argument that is being contested isn't that if we continue to use materials at the same rate of economic growth we'll eventually run out. The argument is that we'll continue to use materials at the same rate of economic growth

I've posted this before, but I'll post this again to make a point. The amount of GDP per energy BTU has been falling for decades, and will continue to fall in the future.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

All the best inventions have already been created. What lies ahead is predominantly consumer junk.

This is an unusual statement.

The very best is ahead of us in the fields of genomics and biotechnology.

 

[quinton]

Toro of course, because there is less resources per capita.

Look at Netherlands, they are trading flower exports not millions of board feet of timber like Canada, because they have long ago exhausted their forest resources.

They cannot even feed themselves and they rely on ingenuity of services and high level goods to export in order to earn enough real life sustaining resources from other countries.

nelk, you made very good points.

Thanks for providing some support for my ideas. I really believe you are right that "I think not" is in denial.

He still thinks that technology can change the fact that the earth's resources are finite.

I think not: technological advances are not reducing the amount of space and resources occupied and consumed by humans.

Furthermore, these resources of the earth (timber,minerals, soil, water, fossil fuels, vegetation) are all finite. So to use your own words, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

He is dead wrong on that.

 

[quinton]

Toro how will advances in "biotechnology and genomics" help reduce resource depletion and loss of biodiversity?

In essence how will these advances stop the degradation of all of the earth's natural wealth?

 

[I think not]

I'm in denial. :lol:

What am I in denial about exactly?

 

[nelk]

Toro ; thanks for digging up this chart BTU /GDP over time.

There seems to be one problem with it though; the data is not inflation adjusted. What this chart looks like is the inflation devaluated Dollar over that period..

If the data would be corrected for inflation, your curve would be closer to a bottom of parabel but quite flat for that. Almost a constant, meaning a flat horizintal line.

If you had chance to learn about the function of economic activity input versus output function, one of the classic charts to graphically demonstrate reality in economics 1.01 you may remember that most naturally occuring growth and events closely resemble this basic S shaped curve.

Once the apex of that curve (growth event etc) has been reached,
the degress starts of course, but more important a sharp drop occurs sudden. This section of course can not be predicted mathematically and its further down move tends to be chaotic.

Every tree growing follows that curve, even our own lifecycle.

All these smart ideas menkind has used to change this planet, have not added too much positive.

While you can zoom for example to some nice tropical Island in the middle of the most devoid human space on earth, let say near Hawai in no time, you will find pristine beaches on some small uninhabitated place littered with thousands of tons of floating plastic litter.
Take icesamples from Antarctica anf find ugly proof of our collective
disregard to our own lifespace.

Who thinks more humans can be helpful and even be sustained?

Watch the price of crude ; for ages around $4.00 since 73 steadily
moving upwards. Now around $75.00 and very soon over $100.00 .

Response from GMC >>>the"Hummer" ; are they braindead?

Locally, Parents insisting that there offspring should and can ride ATV's; just hope there is enough gasoline left if you and I need an ambulance or something real important.

Enjoy the rest the weekend UUghhhh

 

[Toro]

RE: This is what I've bee

The GDP data is inflation adjusted.

Published and quoted GDP data is usually in real terms.

Energy intensity in the economy has been declining over time. It was something like 15-20% of GDP three or four decades ago. Today its 4-5%.

Demand for energy in the US as a percentage of total demand has been steadily falling. That's not new news.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

Toro of course, because there is less resources per capita.

It isn't "of course" because there are less resources per person. It's "of course" because of technological application. That's my point.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

Toro how will advances in "biotechnology and genomics" help reduce resource depletion and loss of biodiversity?

In essence how will these advances stop the degradation of all of the earth's natural wealth?

Who said it was?

This is what you said.

All the best inventions have already been created. What lies ahead is predominantly consumer junk.

Surely you realize the folly of this statement.

How can you possibly know this?

 

[nelk]

Toro, you said chart is inflation adjusted, can't prove or disprove that.
Assuming it is, than GDP may be obtained for wee bit less energy as we move along in time.
But data can and will not follow a linear relationship but rather asymptotically move close to a minimum level of that BTU/GDP ratio.

While advances can theoretically move this level lower; I would venture to say that it won’t be easy and not significant.

But look at the GDP qualitative.
How much BS activity and service products >>>> "services" are included in those figures. The Service sector compared to real tangible goods has steadily increased shifting the ratio.
Of course even "service" requires certain amount energy.
Adjusting will skewer the chart for sure.

Your chart indicators in regards to hard goods production sector has not come down as you may try to tell.
We will still need to bake bread, produce essential items in the affected future, for that the energy required its not being any thing less.
But if we dare to foresee an energy crunch, I can not image that for example call centers, advertising and many other non-productive services much energy resources can be found.

All together not a pretty picture.

PS I take it your Global signature is to provocate, not to signal agreement!

 

[quinton]

I think not:

I'll show you what you're in denial about.

Answer this question:

Does the earth have infinite resources?

If you answer "Yes" then you are in denial.

You seem to be answering "Yes" since you've said technology may solve the problem of an ever increasing number of humans chasing an ever decreasing amount of resources.

Ultimately people like Toro and I_think_not probably don't know the names of different birds and fish let alone trees and plants.

Their ignorance of the earth's crisis which was brought on by human growth is a testament to their lack of appreciation of nature.