[rwwff]

I'm sure it'll be a great comfort to us as we huddle over our bowls of Soylent Yellow to know that space tourists are flying overhead.

I want mine with barbecue sauce.

[TWilliam]

You know the funny thing about people among the general populace who cheerlead for space colonization? Even if we succeed, what makes you think that the great unwashed masses --those selfsame masses that are directly responsible for our need to move offplanet in the first place-- are going to be invited along?

[Graeme]

With all due respect, Heineken, the gloomy predictions of the future are not inevitable. We've had people throughout history who believed that the world was going to end. It never did. The future is determined by our collective efforts. There are a lot of injustices in the world. One fights for them on an individual basis daily. This Peak Oil group should be fighting for a better future. Instead many here a giving up as we face the enormous challenge of depleting oil reserves and environmental degradation. This doesn't mean that all is lost. I didn't say "belief in a population crash is decadent". I said the attitude towards this belief (your words) is decadent and defeatist. A population crash is not inevitable. This is an extreme view. Some argue that the world population will CREST (not crash) about the middle of this century before gradually declining. "Peaksters" must advocate the following"

new employment and economic enterprises, a healthier lifestyle, more neighborly communities, less environmental pollution, posterity for future generations. They must devise a message of hope and inclusion embodied in a clarion call for action in confronting the biggest challenge humanity has faced in its short history on Earth.

http://www.energybulletin.net/17609.html

[Graeme]

Here is another announcement about the NASA space program:

NASA looks beyond shuttle with Mars-bound capsule

The Discovery shuttle is due to take off Saturday in one of the 16 final missions to the International Space Station (ISS) for the 25-year-old fleet before its 2010 retirement amid ongoing concerns over its safety.

NASA will replace the shuttle, which was not designed for use beyond low Earth orbit, with the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to take astronauts back to the Moon by 2018 and eventually to Mars.

physorg

[Omnitir]

I'm sure it'll be a great comfort to us as we huddle over our bowls of Soylent Yellow to know that space tourists are flying overhead.

Do you think currently having the ISS and space shuttles and Soyuz craft flying overhead is much comfort to the millions of third-worlders that now have clean drinking water and irrigation systems thanks to these craft? They probably don’t care about the space craft, they just care that the spin off technology has greatly raised their standard of living. Just as most of us won’t care about the space tourists overhead, we will just care that we have a new aspect of the economy thriving, growing and expanding, just as other aspects of the economy go into decline with PO.

You know the funny thing about people among the general populace who cheerlead for space colonization? Even if we succeed what makes you think [we] are going to be invited along?

What’s funny (read sad) are those people that don’t see the point in anything that doesn’t directly involve them personally. It’s akin to arguing “let’s never develop any alternatives to oil because I’ve already lived most of my life and don’t care about the post oil era”. So what if we personally don’t ever go into space? Supporting space is for the benefit of the future of our species, not for the desire of some personal joy ride.

Supporting space is supporting the future of our species.


Graeme, just as a point of interest, the new launch system NASA is developing is actually a hybrid of old and new tech. They are planing on using parts of the shuttle system and related infrastructure (such as the solid rocket boosters) to essentially mimic the tried and tested methods developed during the Apollo era. Hence the term “Apollo on steroids”. It may not be sexy, but it’s a far more economic and effective approach.

[Graeme]

Omnitir, Thanks. I enjoy your posts.

Heineken, I just found some controversial evidence of the cause of a great dieoff some 250 million years ago when 90% of all terrestrial animal life was wiped off the face of the Earth. A geologist from Ohio State University thinks this was caused by a 30-mile wide meteor which hit the Earth and formed a 300-mile crater in Antarctica. The evidence at the moment is geophysical but the presence of the crater could be confirmed with ground surveys.

seedmagazine

Now that's what I call a dieoff!

[Heineken]

With all due respect, Heineken, the gloomy predictions of the future are not inevitable. We've had people throughout history who believed that the world was going to end. It never did. The future is determined by our collective efforts. There are a lot of injustices in the world. One fights for them on an individual basis daily. This Peak Oil group should be fighting for a better future. Instead many here a giving up as we face the enormous challenge of depleting oil reserves and environmental degradation. . . . A population crash is not inevitable. This is an extreme view. Some argue that the world population will CREST (not crash) about the middle of this century before gradually declining.

With equal respect, Graeme, I would respond that your position is mostly wishful thinking. There's nothing wrong with that per se, of course, except to the degree that it blunts urgent action. A few specific reactions:

1. You state that "we've had people throughout history who believed that the world was going to end." Well, I don't maintain that the world is going to end, just that the human population is going to fall rather quickly to a much more modest level. Also, those "people throughout history" lived in a world with far fewer people and seemingly unlimited virgin resources. Their world wasn't even vulnerable to a dieoff (except through epidemics). Our world is exquisitely vulnerable.

2. Belief in the inevitability of a dieoff cannot necessarily be equated with "giving up." Quite the contrary. It could be a spur to real action, as opposed to the cosmetic and "lifestyle" measures currently being applied. However, human behavior and cultural institutions being what they are, it's unlikely any strong medicine will be taken until it's too late.

3. IMO, world population cannot simply "crest" and then hang there indefinitely or gently decline, because the resource base will have been too badly drained and poisoned; this is really the crux of the whole argument. PO will of course only accelerate and steepen the population crash. We can't indefinitely maintain the current population, much less the 9 billion that we may, if we're "lucky," reach by 2050.

4. Living in a nice place like New Zealand may distort one's Weltanschauung. I wonder if you've feel as optimistic about the demographic future if you lived in Nigeria or Pakistan.

[Zardoz]

...what was my original point?

Welcome to Doomer Central. You've found a new home-away-from-home.

Roll up another spiff and keep surfing the threads. You'll soon be fully aware of how bad things are really getting.

[Zardoz]

...world population cannot simply "crest" and then hang there indefinitely or gently decline, because the resource base will have been too badly drained and poisoned; this is really the crux of the whole argument. PO will of course only accelerate and steepen the population crash. We can't indefinitely maintain the current population, much less the 9 billion that we may, if we're "lucky," reach by 2050...

Exactly.

Graeme, you need to look at the population catastrophe from a long-term perspective. The numbers we are supporting at the moment are unnatural, and utterly unsustainable. I've posted this graphic many times, but in case you've missed it, here it is again:

Solutions: Population Reduction

Look what has happened to the population of the world since the onset of the industrial/oil age. This is absolutely insane, and we simply are not going to get away with it.

We've already virtually fished out the seas of the world, grain stocks are beginning to run low, vast areas of arable land are being lost to desertification, urbanization, pollution, and drought, and we haven't even begun to run short of oil yet!

When the oil runs out, we are going to be in for decades of unrelieved horror as billions of people starve to death. There is no way out of this mess, Graeme, because there's no substitute for the energy in crude oil that we've converted to food energy.

The basic laws of thermodynamics are going to catch up with us, and kill us by the billions. I'm sorry, but that is the future we face.

[Heineken]

Also, nature has shown over and over again that overshot populations tend to fall precipitously, not gradually. That's what happens with butterflies and ungulates---why not humans? Unless, of course, you believe in techno-miracles or the magical exclusion of people from the power of natural laws.

[Omnitir]

4. Living in a nice place like New Zealand may distort one's Weltanschauung. I wonder if you've feel as optimistic about the demographic future if you lived in Nigeria or Pakistan.

On the other hand Heineken, do you think you would feel as pessimistic if you weren’t living in the U.S. in it’s current situation?

Zardoz, I’ve seen you posting that graph several times, and almost every time you indicate a belief in its ability to predict the future. Why are you so absolutely certain that the future population will so closely follow the available fossil fuels? Are you even prepared to consider that such predictions fail to take in all off the considerably complex variables?

The rise in population over the industrial age corresponds to the rise in fossil fuels usage. By no means does this mean that the fall in fossil fuels usage will correspond with a similar fall in population.

I’m sorry, but I don’t look at that simplistic graph and see the future so absolutely laid out before us. FF’s are only one part of the highly complex equation, not the entire story as you seem to believe.

there's no substitute for the energy in crude oil that we've converted to food energy..

Are you saying there is no substitute for the energy we get from oil? Because that is obviously wrong, there are dozens of substitutes.

nature has shown over and over again that overshot populations tend to fall precipitously, not gradually. That's what happens with butterflies and ungulates---why not humans?

Nature has also shown that when faced with situations that would result in the demise of other species, humans have a unique ability to adapt. That’s what’s happened throughout our history – why not post peak?

[Heineken]

4. Living in a nice place like New Zealand may distort one's Weltanschauung. I wonder if you've feel as optimistic about the demographic future if you lived in Nigeria or Pakistan.

On the other hand Heineken, do you think you would feel as pessimistic if you weren’t living in the U.S. in it’s current situation?

Zardoz, I’ve seen you posting that graph several times, and almost every time you indicate a belief in its ability to predict the future. Why are you so absolutely certain that the future population will so closely follow the available fossil fuels? Are you even prepared to consider that such predictions fail to take in all off the considerably complex variables?

The rise in population over the industrial age corresponds to the rise in fossil fuels usage. By no means does this mean that the fall in fossil fuels usage will correspond with a similar fall in population.

I’m sorry, but I don’t look at that simplistic graph and see the future so absolutely laid out before us. FF’s are only one part of the highly complex equation, not the entire story as you seem to believe.

there's no substitute for the energy in crude oil that we've converted to food energy..

Are you saying there is no substitute for the energy we get from oil? Because that is obviously wrong, there are dozens of substitutes.

nature has shown over and over again that overshot populations tend to fall precipitously, not gradually. That's what happens with butterflies and ungulates---why not humans?

Nature has also shown that when faced with situations that would result in the demise of other species, humans have a unique ability to adapt. That’s what’s happened throughout our history – why not post peak?

Omnitir:

1. The US perspective is far more relevant than the New Zealand one, since New Zealand is a small country with a tiny population.

2. A branch of PO theory holds that since fossil fuels enabled the huge expansion in the human population of the past 100 years, peaking and decline of fossil fuels will undermine the population (such as by seriously harming industrial agriculture). If you don't agree with that, there's nothing more I can say. There are substitutes for fossil fuels, but costs will be much higher and supplies will be much lower. So you have a change in scale.

3. The current human population is unprecedented; so too the current strain on natural resources. Therefore we've never been tested by nature in this situation before. It's uncharted territory.

4. Yes, humans can adapt. The way we will adapt is by shrinking our numbers, and it won't be pretty.

[Zardoz]

...there's no substitute for the energy in crude oil that we've converted to food energy...

Are you saying there is no substitute for the energy we get from oil? Because that is obviously wrong, there are dozens of substitutes.

All of those substitutes combined do not even come close to equalling what we get from 84 million barrels of black gold per day. That harsh fact has been proven on this forum countless times in many discussion threads. It is the very heart of the problem we face.

[DefiledEngine]

Are you saying there is no substitute for the energy we get from oil? Because that is obviously wrong, there are dozens of substitutes.

Really? Even for plastics, pesticides and several other industrial processes?

[Heineken]

There are substitutes for oil in many cases, but they tend to cost much more and may simply not be scaleable to current giant consumption patterns.

The end of cheap oil will force massive changes that even the most pessimistic among us can't fully imagine.

[Graeme]

FF utilization is not going to end tomorrow. We will be using them for decades to come. Yes oil then gas and hopefully coal consumption will decline but this will be offset by increasing use of alternatives. Scaling up of alternatives will take time, which we have plenty of. The costs of alternatives have been coming down, and the investment in these has been going up. You are focusing on only one side of this energy transition.

[Heineken]

Scaling up of alternatives will take time, which we have plenty of.

Whether we have plenty of time is highly debatable.

[Graeme]

To some extent, I agree with you. If everybody cooperated over the use of energy resources, we could make the transition easily. But there is a very real potential for conflict over the reamining petroleum and gas resources which is going to test the diplomatic skills of the major powers to the limit.

[TWilliam]

diplomatic skills

Now there's an oxymoron...

How's it go again? "People who can't work, teach. People who can't teach, teach gym. The rest become politicians and diplomats."

[Heineken]

Yeah; if our survival depends on diplomacy, I'm gloomier than ever about our prospects.