[MonteQuest]

In an economic downturn, do the birth rate drop and the death rate rise? I believe that is what happened during the Great Depression. People delayed marriage and put off having children. Poor living conditions lower lifespan for the average person. Even without a mass starvation/die off in the US, wouldn't the population decrease?

Here's the US Census Bureau historical figures. As you can see, even during the Great Depression, the population grew.
Date--------- Population------- Net growth --- % change
July 1, 1929—121,767,000—1,258,000—1.04%
July 1, 1930—123,076,741—1,309,741—1.07%
July 1, 1931—124,039,648—962,9070—.78%
July 1, 1932—124,840,471—800,8230—.64%
July 1, 1933—125,578,763—738,2920—.59%
July 1, 1934—126,373,773—795,0100—.63%

[MonteQuest]

As for entropy, the sun is what is growing in entropy to decrease the planet's entropy. Even our society reduces entropy at the expense of the sun, except for a little from nuclear power...either right now or a million centuries ago.

I'm not talking about the thermodynamic equilibrium of the closed system of earth and space. I'm talking about the balance between man and his environment. About our every day activities and energy use. The criteria is what entropy the earth systems can absorb, not the sun.

[Tyler_JC]

MQ, I wasn't trying to deny that we use 1/4 of the oil or at least 40% of the world's resources. However, I think 70% of the pollution is an overstatement. The US economy is 25% (ish) of the world economy. We use 25% of the energy. We are wasteful and use 40%+ of the resources.

But 70% of the pollution is a big jump from 40%+ of the resources. We do not use 70% of the world's products or control 70% of the world's industry. Are our industries (in this country or otherwise) that much less efficient than those controlled by Europe, Japan, and China?

They might be, and if that is the case, I'll shut up.

[tmazanec1]

How many gigawatts does human civilization produce? How many gigawatts does the Earth intercept from the sun?

[MonteQuest]

How many gigawatts does human civilization produce? How many gigawatts does the Earth intercept from the sun?

Your point? No matter how much energy you have, there is a limit to that which you can use on a sustainable basis to hold entropy at bay.

[tmazanec1]

My point is that the limit is when we are becoming a significant fraction of the Earth's energy balance. We are not there yet (global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, which we can sequester with nanotechnology the way plants do now). Even you admit that the population is on track to level off at 9 billion. With the greater efficiency of nanotechnology we can have a good standard of living for this many people and still have a sustainable level of impact on the biosphere. Yes, we must stop growing, and soon (Drexler admits this quite openly), but not necessarily by a hard landing.
The text of Engines of Creation is available for free online. Please let me know where you disagree with Drexler, perhaps that would help focus our debate.

[MonteQuest]

MQ, I wasn't trying to deny that we use 1/4 of the oil or at least 40% of the world's resources. However, I think 70% of the pollution is an overstatement. The US economy is 25% (ish) of the world economy. We use 25% of the energy. We are wasteful and use 40%+ of the resources.

But 70% of the pollution is a big jump from 40%+ of the resources. We do not use 70% of the world's products or control 70% of the world's industry. Are our industries (in this country or otherwise) that much less efficient than those controlled by Europe, Japan, and China?

They might be, and if that is the case, I'll shut up.

25% of the world’s CO2 alone comes from the US, not to mention the myriad of other pollutants. Look at the toxic wastes we ship to Taiwan. The US military (the world's single largest polluter) is responsible for 27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 current and former military properties, and generates more toxics annually than the top five chemical companies combined. The Department of Defense is the country's largest user of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE) and the ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), the largest purchaser of oil, paper, many precious metals, and a host of other resources. Even the Defense Department itself now acknowledges some of the environmental destruction wrought by the U.S. military world-wide. The Pentagon's own Inspector General documented, in a 1999 report, pollution at U.S.bases in Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Greenland, Iceland, Italy, Panama, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey. Again, since even U.S. military bases abroad are treated as U.S.territory, the installations typically remain exempt from the environmental authority of the host country. 70% may be a conservative figure.

[Ludi]

I'm sorry, I don't usually say things like this, but - this is one of the fucking stupidest things I've seen anyone say in a long time:

which we can sequester with nanotechnology the way plants do now

Why the heck would you use a fictional technology to do something plants do already with far more efficiency than anything we could invent?

[0mar]

My point is that the limit is when we are becoming a significant fraction of the Earth's energy balance. We are not there yet (global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, which we can sequester with nanotechnology the way plants do now). Even you admit that the population is on track to level off at 9 billion. With the greater efficiency of nanotechnology we can have a good standard of living for this many people and still have a sustainable level of impact on the biosphere. Yes, we must stop growing, and soon (Drexler admits this quite openly), but not necessarily by a hard landing.
The text of Engines of Creation is available for free online. Please let me know where you disagree with Drexler, perhaps that would help focus our debate.

Nanotechnology is at the same position biotechnology was 30-40 years ago. We could see glimmers of what might be possible, but the technical and practical applications are still a long ways off. There is still very fundemental research (analogous to the discovery of the gene in biology) in nanotechnology before we even to fully understand how it works. We have the technology for super-small machines, but we don't know how to make them work or what sort of power supply or how to distrubute them or how to manufacture them cost-effectively. On top of all that, the fundementals are not fully understood.

[MonteQuest]

My point is that the limit is when we are becoming a significant fraction of the Earth's energy balance. We are not there yet (global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, which we can sequester with nanotechnology the way plants do now). Even you admit that the population is on track to level off at 9 billion. With the greater efficiency of nanotechnology we can have a good standard of living for this many people and still have a sustainable level of impact on the biosphere. Yes, we must stop growing, and soon (Drexler admits this quite openly), but not necessarily by a hard landing.
The text of Engines of Creation is available for free online. Please let me know where you disagree with Drexler, perhaps that would help focus our debate.

I will check out Drexler's viewpoint. The population is projected to stabilize at around 9 billion if the current rate of decline in growth continues to zero. If not, then a 1.3% increase (current growth rate)produces 70/1.3=53.8 years to double the population. This works out to 13 billion in 2058. 6.5 billionx2=13 billion.

Again, I am not talking about the earth's energy balance. I'm talking about the balance within the systems of the earth. You and I are not on the same page and this debate may become fruitless. You must look at the big picture. You assume infinite limits that don't exist. Nanotechnology is decades away from having any significant impact, and even then, efficiency from nanotechnology comes at a price. The price is even more entropy and environmental degradation. The cannot create anything, you can only transform energy from one form to another, and then only at a loss. Heat only flows from hot to cold, nanotechnolgy notwithstanding. Nanotechnology will not helps us win, it will only assure that we lose even faster.

[tmazanec1]

Ludi:
You are calling Drexler this, not just me:
"Existing solar cells are already more efficient than plants."
Engines of Creation page 94.
"Like trees, solar-powered nanomachines will be able to extract carbon dioxide from the air and split off the oxygen. Unlike trees, they will be able to grow deep storage roots and place carbon back in the coal seams and oil fields from which it came." page 121.
What are your sources that plants are more efficient than anything we can hope to accomplish?
And all technologies are fictional before they are factual. Large amounts of effort has been devoted to assaulting the credibility of nanotechnology, so far every objection has been answered. It is as well proven as a technology can be without actually being done...now we have to do it, and do it responsibly, while there is still time. Every year that naysayers like you continue to argue against trying, it gets a tiny bit more likely that you have come up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[tmazanec1]

MonteQuest

I don't see where Drexler believes in infinities, just the opposite (see his Chapter 10). Of course energy flows from hot to cold, that is how the sun powers the Earth's biosphere. The goal you seem to wish to achieve is no change in the environment at all. If humanity becomes extinct, would this please you? We would still have beavers build dams, termites build mounds, corals build reefs, etc. Of course mankind alters the environment, he always has, at least since paleolithic times. I want a population stabilized at some level close to the present, with a standard of living for everyone at least as high as in, say Western Europe, and with the pollution and ecological destruction of our present age greatly reduced if not eliminated. Nanotechnology is a plausible tool for this. Yes, it is years away if we work hard at it, and maybe a few decades if we just coast along. I don't feel confident that we can just coast along much more, it is about time we start rolling up our sleeves and working. This is what our generation's Manhatten or Apollo project should be.

[MonteQuest]

MonteQuest

I don't see where Drexler believes in infinities, just the opposite (see his Chapter 10). Of course energy flows from hot to cold, that is how the sun powers the Earth's biosphere. The goal you seem to wish to achieve is no change in the environment at all. If humanity becomes extinct, would this please you? We would still have beavers build dams, termites build mounds, corals build reefs, etc. Of course mankind alters the environment, he always has, at least since paleolithic times. I want a population stabilized at some level close to the present, with a standard of living for everyone at least as high as in, say Western Europe, and with the pollution and ecological destruction of our present age greatly reduced if not eliminated. Nanotechnology is a plausible tool for this. Yes, it is years away if we work hard at it, and maybe a few decades if we just coast along. I don't feel confident that we can just coast along much more, it is about time we start rolling up our sleeves and working. This is what our generation's Manhatten or Apollo project should be.

No change in the environment? Humanity extinct? Where did you get such an idea? Surely from nothing I have ever written. Show me one plausible study that says the earth can support 6.5 billion people much less 2 billion. A standard of living for 6.5 billion equal to Western Europe? Get real! I have been studying this for over 30 years. You have no idea of the limits we have exceeded and the price we must pay to the piper. Continuing to go around the limits of the natural world just sets up the next generation for greater misery and less energy and resources. Have you thought what your descendants may say about such an attitude? Some things cannot be taught, they must be lived to be understood. I think you might have some living to do.

Drexler also doesn't believe that the 2nd law applies to human activities vs the environment. When I read this, all his credibility went out the window. Flat earth economists and he have a lot in common: they don't believe in the limits of a finite world.

[tmazanec1]

MonteQuest

I don't see where Drexler believes in infinities, just the opposite (see his Chapter 10). Of course energy flows from hot to cold, that is how the sun powers the Earth's biosphere. The goal you seem to wish to achieve is no change in the environment at all. If humanity becomes extinct, would this please you? We would still have beavers build dams, termites build mounds, corals build reefs, etc. Of course mankind alters the environment, he always has, at least since paleolithic times. I want a population stabilized at some level close to the present, with a standard of living for everyone at least as high as in, say Western Europe, and with the pollution and ecological destruction of our present age greatly reduced if not eliminated. Nanotechnology is a plausible tool for this. Yes, it is years away if we work hard at it, and maybe a few decades if we just coast along. I don't feel confident that we can just coast along much more, it is about time we start rolling up our sleeves and working. This is what our generation's Manhatten or Apollo project should be.

No change in the environment? Humanity extinct? Where did you get such an idea? Surely from nothing I have ever written. Show me one plausible study that says the earth can support 6.5 billion people much less 2 billion. A standard of living for 6.5 billion equal to Western Europe? Get real! I have been studying this for over 30 years. You have no idea of the limits we have exceeded and the price we must pay to the piper. Continuing to go around the limits of the natural world just sets up the next generation for greater misery and less energy and resources. Have you thought what your descendants may say about such an attitude? Some things cannot be taught, they must be lived to be understood. I think you might have some living to do.

Drexler also doesn't believe that the 2nd law applies to human activities vs the environment. When I read this, all his credibility went out the window. Flat earth economists and he have a lot in common: they don't believe in the limits of a finite world.

Engines of Cration page 160
"There is a genuine entropy law, the second llaw of thermodynamics. Unlike the bogus "fourth law", it is described in textbooks and used by engineers. It will indeed limit what we do. Human activity will generate heat, and Earth's limited ability to radiate heat will set a firm limit to the amount of Earth-baseed industrial activity."
Montquest, you have just flatly stated Drexler doesn't believe something which he clearly stated in his book. When I see such deception, all your credibility went out the window. If you will so misrepresent an author's views to debunk him if he disagrees with you, than you are on a par with creationists who distort what evolutionists write to make them look ridiculous. Maybe you do not want human extinction...I was simply carrying out what seemed your viewpoint to its logical conclusion. I would be interested in what kind of a world you would set up if you could.

[Tyler_JC]

Don't try to argue with MQ, he's basically always right .

[tmazanec1]

I once posted on a peakoil Yahoo group that we should use ICBW as an internet abbreviation..."I Could Be Wrong". A reply said that the lack of such thinking was what got us into our mess. Ironically, they were as dogmatic about the dieoff scenario as the most obtuse economist was in his growth scenario.
I once quoted to someone "it is very easy to make predictions, except about the future.' He replied "It is very easy to make predictions about the future, it is very hard to make ACCURATE predictions about the future."
MQ says he has been studying this for thirty years. Drexler has been studying technology for thirty years. They both seem very smart, and they disagree. I don't KNOW which one is right, I am in a gray area. I know that if we don't work on nanotechnology and other such technologies, it will get a darker gray. We are working some, I wish we would work more. But MQ said Drexler said the opposite of what he said, and unless MQ explains this, I cannot trust anything he posts.

[Ludi]

Every year that naysayers like you continue to argue against trying,

Go for it dude! Invent those nanites! In the meantime, I'll be planting trees. In five years, we can compare return on our investment. I'll bet the farm I have a better return on my time spent planting trees than you'll have on your time spent inventing nanites.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the problems of the energy involved in building nanites; others have pointed these issues out in their posts above.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

God, I am so glad I'm not the only over '30 something' that uses the word 'dude'! I'm with you, nanites or no, give me fruit trees. (they at least will keep me regular in 40 years when I need them!

[tmazanec1]

Ludi:
In five years, you will win. In twenty-five years, I will win.

[Tyler_JC]

In 100 years we are all long dead and forgotten. What's your point? How do you plan on living for the next 25 years while you're messing around with tiny robots instead of farming?