[Dezakin]

And yes, I feel larger populations with hierarchical structure in which people are forced to work much harder and suffer from widescale warfare, disease, famine and pestilence are "evil."

These ills you complain of weren't exactly absent when populations were smaller. Larger populations have led to more rapid advancement into mitigations of these evils.

I fail to see how you think we can replicate the Earth's weather system or other life systems.

I fail to see why we need to. We only need to replicate systems that we rely on: crops for growing food and the dependancies upon growing these crops.

The critique of ad-hominems is that they serve no purpose and merely damage the credibility of the argument while generally undermining civility alltogether.

No matter how much we study the butterfly, it's flight pattern, it's biology, it's reproductive process, it's life cycle... no matter how much scientific study we throw at the butterfly, we will never be able to make a butterfly.

Wonderful analogy. Why would we want to make something as novel and useless as a butterfly from scratch. I dont think you understand what I'm suggesting at all.

Dezakin--Are you serious in all that you're saying?! If so, the fact that you see every resource and life on this planet as something to be conquered and exploited leaves me with a strong sense of anger and disgust. You've got to be kidding, or satirizing, or something; otherwise you seem like nothing better than the old slavers of the South, the Indian killers, or the wolf hunters.

Of course I'm serious and your visceral reaction illustrates my point: People here largely wont see the world as it is because it goes against a pseudo-religous vision of how the world should be. But of course everything exploitable on earth will be exploited and processed in time. It doesnt matter if its good or bad, but it will happen.

[Doly]

Theres no natural cycle that we can't replicate in an engineered fasion to more appropriately suit our needs, and thats been demonstrated from the sealed jars with algae and shrimp to ridiculous projects such as biosphere 2.

Not quite. The famous jars with shrimp last about 1-2 years. Biosphere 2 was working for less than a year. If you are thinking future generations, you have to be more careful than that. I don't think we know enough about ecosystems yet to be certain that we're doing things right.

katkinkate:

Its mostly the trees that make the rain once you're more than about 50 kilometres inland from the ocean.

You don't think just maybe the rain makes the trees instead?

It's both, Dezakin. Rain certainly helps trees grow, but a forest keeps humidity in the area and increases chances of rain. When a forest is cut down, the climate in the area becomes drier. This is a well-known effect.

It's very easy to trust blindly in a science when you don't know much about it. For example, you can't say that the doctor will make you well unless you know enough medicine to diagnose yourself and know that the disease is easily treatable. The same, you can't say the scientists will get us out of this unless you know enough about the nuts and bolts of how they will do it. Anything else is just hoping.

[Ebyss]

Wonderful analogy. Why would we want to make something as novel and useless as a butterfly from scratch. I dont think you understand what I'm suggesting at all.

Ok, so you got the fact that it is an analogy, and yet you failed to make the leap from "butterfly" to "wheat" or "apples" or "meat" or any food that you rely on to live. I don't think you understand what you are suggesting.

My point is that we have nowhere near got "control" of nature. We have learned how to manipulate a few growing conditions and re-route a river. Big deal. The minute the Earth decides to pop a super volcano, we're all screwed, and no amount of technology will save us.

[holmes]

wow this thread has now been transformed into a "Magic" one. So now we ned to miraculaousy become magicians. creating artifical ecosystems that support ever increasing population densities. LOL. this is INSANE! So we are now at the point in creating sysnthetic ecosystems and farmlands. Ok we need to be lichen and moss on steroids now. shoot i never knew humans could be every level of the ecological chain. Hell lets jsut evapaorate the planet, hjang suspended in space and start form scratch. We could use our highly advanced space ships that blow up regualry to do this. we could piece together the columbia and those other highly advanced rigs and get on it. Hit it. Ill watch and get evaporated. abra cadabra. viola!

[JoeW]

An excellent solution was offered some months ago.

Jupiter has lots of methane. All we need to do is send spaceships to Jupiter, skim off methane, and come back to Earth. The elegance of the idea lies within its simplicity.

After giving the "extraterrestrial energy" matter some thought, I'm not sure that it's even necessary to go as far as Jupiter. Unlike other rocky planets, the earth has a magnetic field which protects us from powerful radiation emitted by the sun. Far enough away from the surface of the earth, this radiation is fairly potent, so much so that many saw it as the biggest challenge in getting a man to the moon. Could a human being survive the intense radiation?
In any event, this radiation surely represents a great quantity of energy--solar energy--that is not available to us on the surface of the earth. But could it be harnessed in space?
Or could we find a way to open up a portion of the earth to allow some of this intense radiation to hit the surface, and harness its energy here?

[arocoun]

Dezakin--Or maybe you just choose to see the world as a place where only a strong and brutal minority can be happy? Your probably one of those Darwinists who, while never actually seeing or experiencing nature outside of your brutal and disgusting society, just assumes that the whole world is a battle arena for the strong to conquer and exploit the weak.

Well, from experience, I can tell you without hesitation that most Darwinists entirely overestimate the role of competition and exploitation, and underestimate the role of harmony and equilibrium, in the natural order of things. It will never be perfect, but the world doesn't have to be nearly as brutal as you want it to be, unless you make it so. Indeed, humanity itself could prove to be much less brutal if it wasn't taken over by the very few societies that wished to grow, like cancer, at the expense of their own happiness and others'.



entropyfails--Interesting. I've never thought of agricultural society in the way you described it. It would be a much better world (especially in places like Africa and India) if we went back to K-selection.

[Dezakin]

Ok, so you got the fact that it is an analogy, and yet you failed to make the leap from "butterfly" to "wheat" or "apples" or "meat" or any food that you rely on to live. I don't think you understand what you are suggesting.

But we don't have to create wheat from scratch, or apples or meat or any other food. We allready have it. And we can engineer it to better suit our diet and taste. We've done that for generations with selective breeding and are beginning to do it with direct genetic engineering.

My point is that we have nowhere near got "control" of nature. We have learned how to manipulate a few growing conditions and re-route a river. Big deal.

It is a big deal. We can make giant greenhouses to grow wheat in the arctic with giant hydroponic systems if we had to. I'm not suggesting that we do have to now or anytime in the near future, just that humanity is capable of engineering our food supply independant of the 'natural' environment.

The minute the Earth decides to pop a super volcano, we're all screwed, and no amount of technology will save us.

Sure. And if a big asteroid hits earth in the next 50 years we're all even more dead.

But the nature of economic growth, espescially exponential economic growth driven by technology, means that we nearly allways overestimate our capabilities in the short run and underestimate our long term capabilities.

wow this thread has now been transformed into a "Magic" one.

Sorry, I've been using projections based entirely on ordinary economic growth and modern technology for the sake of being conservative.

The real world fifty or one hundred years from now will look like magic; though for many ecologists, dystopian, engineered and entirely unromantic.

[bobcousins]

After giving the "extraterrestrial energy" matter some thought, ... In any event, this radiation surely represents a great quantity of energy--solar energy--that is not available to us on the surface of the earth. But could it be harnessed in space?
Or could we find a way to open up a portion of the earth to allow some of this intense radiation to hit the surface, and harness its energy here?

If by "could be" you mean economically, then no. Doing anything in space is vastly expensive. Launching 1lb into a low orbit costs around $10,000.

Anyway we already have huge amounts of solar energy falling on the Earth, one minutes worth is the amount of energy we use in a year, so if we can't exploit that then going into space is pointless.

[Ludi]

The real world fifty or one hundred years from now will look like magic; though for many ecologists, dystopian, engineered and entirely unromantic.

So you're completely not believing in this little Peak Oil problem we've been discussing on this board for so long, either that, or you're not understanding it.

But you're a dumbass, so that's not surprising! <----Ad hominem.

[clv101]

No time for a full response... but here are some ideas:

Peak Oil 'To Do' List: Why We Should Do These Things Anyway
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/20 ... ld-do.html

[Ludi]

That's a great list, civ101!

[Ludi]

There is no "proof" but there are indications. GWB was able to get people behind the idea of war mainly because most people didn't need to change even the littlest aspect of their life in order to support it. They didn't need to do anything but stand by and watch it happen. There was no "mobilization" to speak of. Combating the PO problem will need to be very different from that, don't you think?

[reggieUK]

- Building a huge mirror in space to stop lighting cities the whole night and improve photosynthesis.
- Contacting E.T. and asking for help.
- Human engineering to improve our intelligence to find a solution to peak oil.
- Building a tractor beam to extract directly hydrogen from the sun.
- Picking up a black hole to get back in 1970 to change our way of life.

Love it!

[bobcousins]

There is no "proof" but there are indications. GWB was able to get people behind the idea of war mainly because most people didn't need to change even the littlest aspect of their life in order to support it. They didn't need to do anything but stand by and watch it happen. There was no "mobilization" to speak of. Combating the PO problem will need to be very different from that, don't you think?

With 5000 people killed in WTC and 120000 troops sent to Iraq I would argue that is not standing by and not mobilising.

But I take your point, perhaps WWII is a better example. If people at home start dying, then gub'mint will be expected to step in and do something. Tainter argues that social complexity is a problem solving mechanism. Resource depletion clearly presents a big problem to any society. How that society responds to a challenge depends on the nature of the society - its technology, principle of organisation, awareness of the threat. Germany is now phasing out its nuclear power and aims to be 50% renewables by 2050. European countries generally are more mindful of climate change, and more likely to accept "socialist" policies. We pay a 75% tax on fuel for example. The US, having nailed its differing ideology to the mast, will no doubt handle things differently. In excellent evolutonary style, we have variation and natural selection will weed out the least suited.

Tainter also argues that collapse will only occur in certain circumstances, and only if a simpler organisation provides a more effective alternative. We have seen the USSR revert to a number of nation states, for example. He also illustrates how societies will bend over backwards to try to maintain their current habits. If a tribal society is the alternative, I can think of no one who would be prepared to adopt that lifestyle.

So given that there are still avenues of energy resource available, even though they may be expensive, and might have to be rationed either by market forces or government direction, then people will be willing to put up with quite a lot of hardship in order to retain as much as possible of their current lifestyle.

We now have the most complex civilisation ever seen. I would therefore expect it to be able to take on all but the most extreme challenges to its existence, whether those challenges are environmental, internal or external.

[Z]

[...] people will be willing to put up with quite a lot of hardship in order to retain as much as possible of their current lifestyle.

We now have the most complex civilisation ever seen. I would therefore expect it to be able to take on all but the most extreme challenges to its existence, whether those challenges are environmental, internal or external.

I find these statements contradictory. If our consumerist lifestyle is what got us into trouble in the first place, how retaining it 'as much as possible' may allow us to adapt to changes ? You seem to equate complexity to adaptability, and I just can't agree with that. For example, if your statement was valid, all economists would ask for lots of regulations on world markets. In my experience, increased complexity leads to increased specialization which in turn leads to increased power, yes, but also increased fragility. Complex systems are more prone to chaotic behaviors than simpler ones.

[clv101]

Agriculture is going to be under great pressure in the future, with water being one of the limiting factors. We need to improve the water productivity of farming irrigation should be via drip irrigation rather than surface canals or sprinklers, this can lead to a water productivity gain of over 100% in many crops. Shifting crops from rice to wheat also improves water productivity. Protein efficiency should also be raised by reducing meat consumption and then meat is consumed it should be fish or poultry which are more than twice as efficient at producing meat as cattle.

Energy productivity can be increased. Just looking at the US, improving energy efficiency standards for house hold appliances, more stringent air-co efficiency standards, using tax credits and energy codes to improve the efficiency of new buildings, raising the efficiency of existing buildings.

Banning the sale and manufacturing of incandescent light bulbs could be complete is three years and reduce energy consumption without reducing productivity by at least 10%.

Banning non-refillable drinks containers, a reused able glass bottle takes about 10% the energy per use as an aluminium can (even when the can is recycled). The fuel efficiency of vehicles could be increased, doubled in the US over a decade or so.

Wind energy, in densely populated Europe off-shore wind farms could produce the majority of energy required, no only is wind clean with few of the externalities that bug fossil fuels it’s also cheap. Also photovoltaics. Over since 1995, wind and PV energy use has increased at around 30% per year.

Geothermal, globally there is now 8GW of geothermal capacity, a 37% increase over the 5.8GW present in 1990. The direct use of geothermal for heat is worth another 12GW electrical equivalent. Geothermal is also ideal for heating greenhouses to extend the growing season, increases agriculture productivity.

How fast can we build a new technology solution? It took 12 years for cell phones to dominate the market, rising from 11m compared to 519m land lines in 1990 to 1.2 billion compared to 1.1 billion land lines in 2002. The cell phone market grew 50% per year from 1990, wind energy has been growing at 30% per year since 1995.

If the US doubled wind capacity each year for 7 years wind would be the number one source of energy, this is possible. 2001 saw a 67% increase. Total cost of such a build would be around $640bn, $90bn a year (compared with the $200bn Americans spend on gasoline each year).

US wartime mobilisation suggests this is possible. Between 1942 and 1944 the US produced 229,600 aircraft. In 1942 the manufacture of cars (previously 3-4m a year) was banned along with driving for pleasure. In 1941 the US produced almost 4 million cars, in 1942 24,000 tanks and 17,000 panes were manufactured. In 1940 the US produced 4,000 aircraft, in 1942 48,000 were produced. 1942 also saw an outright ban on the sale of private cars and some rationing of tires, fuel, sugar etc

This speed to transition is stunning – we need to harness this kind of power to stop making SVUs and start making hybrids and renewable energy technology infrastructure.

Population growth is an important area – women need access to family planning services. History says population growth can be stopped quickly. Throughout the 1980’s Iran’s population growth rate was 4.4% almost the biological maximum today the growth rate is around 1%. A programme of education, broadcasts, family planning health houses, religious leaders preaching for smaller families, contraceptive measures and a requirement to take a class in contraception before receiving a marriage licence.

“Let no man say it cannot be done” – President Roosevelt

Much of the above was paraphrased from the 2nd half of Lester R. Brown’s excellent book: Plan B – Rescuing a Planet under stress and a Civilization in Trouble.

[Ludi]

2001 saw a 67% increase.

Every year alternative energy technologies experience remarkable growth, usually over 25%, but still alternative energy only accounts for about .8% of energy production worldwide. When will we see alternative energy become a significant portion of energy produced? I base my relative pessimism on the evidence, which is that alternative energy is not producing a significant portion of energy production worldwide. It just isn't. Is it possible for it to do so? Sure, I guess so, but the fact is - it isn't.

[clv101]

2001 saw a 67% increase.

Every year alternative energy technologies experience remarkable growth, usually over 25%, but still alternative energy only accounts for about .8% of energy production worldwide. When will we see alternative energy become a significant portion of energy produced? I base my relative pessimism on the evidence, which is that alternative energy is not producing a significant portion of energy production worldwide. It just isn't. Is it possible for it to do so? Sure, I guess so, but the fact is - it isn't.

Exponential growth is slow to start with but soon accelerates, 7 years of doubling of wind in the US would make wind the most significent source of power - looking at the millitary production the US acheived in the early 1940's I think it's posiable. It just needs the will.

[Ludi]

7 years of doubling of wind in the US would make wind the most significent source of power -

Worldwide, wind power has been doubling annually since the 1970s. Still, accounting for only a portion of that .8%.

[clv101]

7 years of doubling of wind in the US would make wind the most significent source of power -

Worldwide, wind power has been doubling annually since the 1970s. Still, accounting for only a portion of that .8%.

No is hasn't - if it had, 1 turbine in the 1970s would now be over a billion turbines! 30 years of doubling ever year = 2^30 = 1,073,741,824