First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A brief history of mankind and his likely future.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/1/15 , edited 2/1/15

serifsansserif wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:
I never said to kill off entire family lines. I just said to reduce the fertility rate of people which is entirely voluntarily and painless. Nobody needs to force people to not reproduce. What I'm proposing is this. Just everyone realizes that further population growth is no longer possible. And then everyone reduces the fertility rate to below replacement level. Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If everyone decided to have just one or two children, then the fertility rate will naturally decrease, and the population will naturally decrease overtime.

You can do that. Or you can keep on increasing population until disease, famine and war reduces the population. I would rather have people voluntarily decide to have fewer children to decrease population than people being forced to reduce population through war, famine and disease. That's the issue we are facing. Imagine how painful a population reduction through war, famine and disease would be.

Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If people voluntarily chose to not have more than one or two kids, then the world population will naturally reduce over a few centuries, and the world would be a much better place as a result.

Realistically that's unlikely, and more realistically the population will probably only decrease as a result of war, famine and disease. Overshoot and die-off seems to be the only option for the population to be reduced back down to a level the Earth can handle. That's far worse than voluntarily choosing to only have 1 or 2 children and voluntarily decreasing the population through responsible reproduction. Rather than recklessly reproducing, continually increasing population, until the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, and then the population experiences a die-off.


Seriously.. cut down on your quotes...

Anyway, if you're in front of a computer, chances are you aren't part of the problem. Birth rates aren't high in the developed world, and, in fact, are equal to or less than what you're proposing.

So........

Most of the population growth is in the developing world. You proposed earlier that we should industrialize all of the developing world. That might sound like a good idea on paper, but it faces serious problems. Industrialization means more resource consumption per capita for the developing world. But there isn't enough resources on this planet for the entire developing world to industrialize. How do I know this? It is estimated that we need another 2 to 3 earths worth of resources for the entire world's population to have the same life style as a North American. There is no way we can obtain another 2 to 3 Earth's worth of resources. People in the industrialized world live a life that's too lavished and comfortable to be emulated around the entire world. There is no way everyone on Earth will have the luxuries that North Americas have like cars, computers, plenty of food and flat-screen TVs.

There is only one Earth. And that Earth is finite. You can't double population without expecting a drop in the quality of life, because you have twice as many people to share the resources with. You can't increase the amount of resources on this Earth, so every time you increase the population, you end up with less resources for everyone. The only way the developing world can increase standards of living is to stop population growth because the more people there are, the less everyone gets.

Nigeria, for example, has 180 million people. By 2050, the population of Nigeria is expected to reach 400 million. By 2100, the population of Nigeria is expected to reach 900 million at the current rate of growth. That's not sustainable. And of course, I have little hope for the endangered species on this planet, because as population growth continues, they will have less and less room as humans continue to encroach on their living space. Say bye bye to gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, giraffes, lions, hippos, rhinos, crocodiles and other exotic animals in Africa as their population goes from 1 to 4 billion people.

Africa is the only place on Earth where there are still decent populations of exotic animals. They have been exterminated throughout the rest of the world already by humans. And with the population of Africa rapidly growing in this century, it is unlikely all of those exotic animals will survive. I doubt all of the other exotic species on this planet will survive until the end of this century. I doubt tigers and snow leopards will exist in the future no matter how much we protect them. The moment the population increases no other species on this planet have any chance of surviving.

Most species on this planet are expected to become extinct by the end of this century because of further population increases. That's a fact. Biologists, ecologists, sociologists and other scientists know this, but the general public is ignorant of this fact. And the population continues to increase making this biologically impoverished world more of a reality with every passing day.

About 80% of the species on this planet will likely become extinct by the end of this century if the human population continues to increase. There isn't any population on Earth that needs a population culling more than the human race. And the human race will receive that population culling as a natural response from the Earth, as the Earth gets rid of the human plague. Humanity is really just a plague. We destroy everything we touch. This is a fact. Starvation, famine, war and disease will naturally remove the excess in human population. When nature receives an excess of any species, it will deal with it in the most brutal and heartless ways. Nature doesn't care about human suffering. When there is more humans than the Earth can support, the Earth will get rid of us like trash. The same way we killed off every other species on this planet.
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/1/15
Like on the other thread, my answer will be the same.

Let's kill DesuMaiden.

We're doing his theory and we're doing him a favor. =D
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/1/15
Second verse, same as the first.

4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

onibrotonel wrote:

Like on the other thread, my answer will be the same.

Let's kill DesuMaiden.

We're doing his theory and we're doing him a favor. =D


Ignoring reality will not make a difference. You are ignoring reality and living in some fantasy of infinite growth. Infinite growth is not possible. It is abundantly clear to me that the current way of life is not possible. It is not sustainable. Everyone in the peak oil and sustainability movement is saying this. Yet the population remains oblivious to this.

You can't ignore reality and make it go away. That's the main problem with religion and why religion is bullshit. Religion is a abject denial of reality with wishful thinking mixed in. To believe that alternative/renewable energies are the silver bullet that will save humanity is wishful thinking, and nothing will reverse the decline and collapse of industrial civilization.

The future is certainly going to be characterized by less energy and less resources. The earth is not infinitely abundant. There can't be infinite population growth. Like I mentioned many times, it is completely unfeasible to travel to other planets because the technology will never exist. Colonizing other planets to solve the population growth problem is laughable. Unless mankind realizes that the Earth is the only planet he has, he is doomed as a species. And colonizing other planets, even if it was possible, makes no difference. If human beings can't live on one planet peacefully and in harmony, what makes you think he will be able to survive and thrive on other planets?

No one was able to refute my point that populations that experience unnaturally high growth always experience a crash down. Michael Ruppert said this. Whatever goes up has to come down. Just like the stock exchange which goes up and always comes down. Just like a population of bacteria in a petri dish and caribou on an Arctic island, when population goes up with unnaturally high growth, the population must come down. The population since 1900 has been growing with unnaturally high growth. So it is only axiomatic the population must go away when the oil goes away because all of these people exist on this planet only because of oil. That's it.

The problem right now is the Earth is out of balance. There are far too many humans on this planet, which causes all of the other biological systems on this planet to go out of sync. The planet is dying under the burden of 7 billion plus people. The planet will only continue to die as the population continues to increase.

You are a coward who is unable to face reality. You are unable to accept the grim reality that faces humanity if business as usual continues, so you ignore it and live in a cocoon of wishful thinking and denial of reality. You are living in the denial phrase because what I say is to difficult for most people to accept. But denial of reality doesn't make a difference.
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


onibrotonel wrote:

Like on the other thread, my answer will be the same.

Let's kill DesuMaiden.

We're doing his theory and we're doing him a favor. =D


Ignoring reality will not make a difference. You are ignoring reality and living in some fantasy of infinite growth. Infinite growth is not possible. It is abundantly clear to me that the current way of life is not possible. It is not sustainable. Everyone in the peak oil and sustainability movement is saying this. Yet the population remains oblivious to this.

You can't ignore reality and make it go away. That's the main problem with religion and why religion is bullshit. Religion is a abject denial of reality with wishful thinking mixed in. To believe that alternative/renewable energies are the silver bullet that will save humanity is wishful thinking, and nothing will reverse the decline and collapse of industrial civilization.

The future is certainly going to be characterized by less energy and less resources. The earth is not infinitely abundant. There can't be infinite population growth. Like I mentioned many times, it is completely unfeasible to travel to other planets because the technology will never exist. Colonizing other planets to solve the population growth problem is laughable. Unless mankind realizes that the Earth is the only planet he has, he is doomed as a species. And colonizing other planets, even if it was possible, makes no difference. If human beings can't live on one planet peacefully and in harmony, what makes you think he will be able to survive and thrive on other planets?

No one was able to refute my point that populations that experience unnaturally high growth always experience a crash down. Michael Ruppert said this. Whatever goes up has to come down. Just like the stock exchange which goes up and always comes down. Just like a population of bacteria in a petri dish and caribou on an Arctic island, when population goes up with unnaturally high growth, the population must come down. The population since 1900 has been growing with unnaturally high growth. So it is only axiomatic the population must go away when the oil goes away because all of these people exist on this planet only because of oil. That's it.

The problem right now is the Earth is out of balance. There are far too many humans on this planet, which causes all of the other biological systems on this planet to go out of sync. The planet is dying under the burden of 7 billion plus people. The planet will only continue to die as the population continues to increase.

You are a coward who is unable to face reality. You are unable to accept the grim reality that faces humanity if business as usual continues, so you ignore it and live in a cocoon of wishful thinking and denial of reality. You are living in the denial phrase because what I say is to difficult for most people to accept. But denial of reality doesn't make a difference.

I don't have to read this to verify yourself that you're smarter than the rest.

Minus one of you actually contributes to your theory. We're reducing the population and consumption starting from you.

We'll branded it as the sacrifice of a martyr and a scholar.
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
So far, what have you contributed to this theory, besides writing a lot?

When did you start?

How dedicated are you?

What do you do everyday that reflects to your theory?
16282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
Since mankind's past is basically drenched in blood, I believe that our future will be, too. Which will inevitably lead to our demise. There is a possibility of saving, after all, nothing is concrete.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

BlueOniwrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:

The world consumes 90 million barrels of oil every day. There are about 1.2 trillion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil left in the ground. Doing the math, divide 1.2 trillion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil by 90 million barrels every day and you get about 40 years max at the present rate of usage of oil. But world oil production will soon decline because the easy-to-reach oil is depleted and has peaked, so oil consumption will decline in the following decades from now because of oil supply shortages (not because of new technologies that replace oil). So the reminding 1.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil might last for another century or so because of reduced demand caused by the decline of world oil production (due to passing peak oil and entering the decline phrase of Hubbert's Curve). But by the end of this century, virtually all of the world's oil would be gone. Meaning the end of the oil age will be by the end of this century.


There are an awful lot of assumptions you're not stating here. You're assuming that no policies will ever be enacted to control consumption, that the efficiency of homes/vehicles/industrial machines/logistics/power grids/power generation/materials science/computing/I could go on will stay constant, that no further proven oil reserves will emerge, that oil/natural gas extraction and discovery technology will not advance, and that alternative materials/fuels don't offer any options.

The dig with increasing efficiency is that it tends to drive consumption up such that the benefits of the increased efficiency are undone, but that's what things like price controls and subsidies are for.


I already mentioned that 95% of all of all oil there ever is has already been discovered. We already know how much oil there is on this planet. During the past 140 years, the planet has been thoroughly explored for oil. There are very few new oil fields to discover. And whatever new oil fields that are discovered are always smaller and harder to extract than the older oil fields we discovered in the early to mid 20th century. World oil discoveries for oil fields peaked in 1964, and has been on an irreversible decline ever since.

Also it is a proven fact that oil consumption is on the rise and not on a decline. We are consuming more and more oil every year, as the human population continues to increase. Also the developed nations China and India are consuming more oil per capita as they continue to industrialize. But the supply of oil is decreasing everyday from further consumption. And more importantly, nobody has been able to come up with alternatives that can truly replace oil in its entirety. Yes there are alternatives to oil, but nothing can completely replace oil. Oil is, by far, the most convenient and powerful resource mankind has ever discovered. And it is most likely we will never discover a resource that is more powerful and convenient than it.


BlueOni

The end of the oil age means the collapse of industrial civilization because industrial civilization is dependent on oil. Nothing in any combination, anywhere can replace the edifice built by fossil fuels. Nothing. A post oil age would mean a localized economy. Globalization--the large scale importation of goods from China by the USA and other developed countries--will be OVER in another couple of decades because of peak oil. This is because globalization is reliant on cheap oil to move goods around the world. Without cheap oil, this becomes impossible.


Nuclear propulsion of merchant fleets is but one potential alternative avenue (though it's not currently ready for implementation), and it is possible to manufacture non-petroleum based lubricants for motors, industrial machinery, and so on. Global distribution is not intrinsically dependent upon oil. It's just heavily dependent on oil right now.

Nuclear energy is not renewable. Nuclear energy is based on uranium, which is also a nonrenewable resource. We are running out of uranium, and we are likely to soon peak in uranium too. Also, nuclear fuel is very radioactive, and to dispose of nuclear waste is a huge problem. The radioactivity of nuclear fuel is dangerously high for many centuries.


BlueOni

The peak in USA oil production is a fact. It has been proven time and time again that the USA's oil production peaked and declined since the early 1970s. No amount of technology and innovation can change a geological imperative. Peak oil has already happened in the USA. The USA is producing much less oil than it did during the 1970s. The USA used to be the number one exporter of oil back in the 1950s and earlier. For the past three to four decades, the USA has become the number one importer of oil. The USA imports about 2/3 of its oil. Also, the USA uses more oil per capita than any country in the world. It is very unlikely the USA will reduce oil consumption unless oil imports drop because of the lack of supply.

Let me show you a graph of USA oil production.



The USA oil production did indeed peak in 1970/1971.


Right, the US is not producing what it did prior to 1970. I never said it was. I said that, contrary to what your documentary had claimed, the US did not enter a period of irreversible decline in oil production (and it didn't since the decline substantially reversed however temporarily). I said that more discoveries had been made, and they have. I said that US production is currently as high as it was in the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s, and it is. I said that US oil production was not conforming to the shape of a bell curve anymore, and it's not. I at no point said that the US wasn't a net oil importer, that its production hadn't peaked, or that oil is an infinite resource. My points were that the documentary misrepresented production data and that recent discovery and production in the US have extended the window for action (something the graph you just pointed to shows in its projections).

Yes there is an increase in oil production by the USA. We can both agree with this point. I agree with you on this point.


BlueOni

By the way, the USA peaked in oil discoveries back in the 1930s. The shale oil boom is only a temporary blip. It only marginally increased USA oil production and only temporarily. The USA will NEVER produce as much oil as it did during the early 1970s. It has been over 40 years since the peak of USA oil production, and the USA will never become an oil exporting nation again. The USA, like I mentioned, imports 2/3 of the oil it uses (which is 20 million barrels a day). The USA produced 9.6 million barrels a day at its peak of oil production. Even if the USA could produce as much oil as it did in 1971, they can domestically only produce half as much oil as they currently need.


Marginally increased production? Are you kidding me? A marginal increase would be if that arrow pointing at 2011 represented the peak in a tiny bump in the curve which went back down and returned to the original course after about a decade. You are looking at a projection stating that US oil production will rival production in 1990 for about 20 straight years, after which a shallow decline is projected. Maybe the production is marginal compared to US consumption, but that's not a tiny bump up in projected US production rates.

My point about discovery was one about the documentary's misrepresentation of the data. They were claiming that no discoveries had been made and that US oil production was permanently on its way down. They were either wrong or they lied, because discoveries have been made in the US and production has increased (and in fact, it began increasing before the short film was released). Maybe they thought it was just going to be a small bump, that the trend would return to a steep decline in short order. It didn't, and according to projections you yourself have shown me it won't.

Ok the shale boom is bigger than some people expected it to be. But the shale boom is about to decline soon. The shale boom is still temporary, and it doesn't change the fact that oil is finite and will eventually run out. And it still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternative energies that can fully replace oil. Yes alternative energies exist such as biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro and etc. But nobody has been able to prove that the alternative energies can FULLY replace oil. And so far, Michael Ruppert's predictions that industrial civilization will collapse are correct. Have you ever watched the movie Collapse by Michael Ruppert? Watch that movie, and then address the points made in that movie because many of my points and information come from that movie. Michael Ruppert has also written many books and done many lectures on peak oil. There is also Richard Heinberg, David Goodstein, Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Julian Darley and many more people who have come up with the same conclusions as me. And the conclusion they came up with is that the fate of industrial civilization is bleak. The end of the age of oil is bleak. It is not going to be an easy transition to make to a post oil world. Will mankind survive the end of the age of oil? Yes. Will there be 15 billion people on this planet? Most likely no and even if there were, it definitely wouldn't be sustainable. Is 7 billion people sustainable? Possibly not but maybe it might be.



By the way, the USA's military and industrial might arose from its giant oil industry. That's a fact. Without cheap oil, the USA wouldn't be what it is today.




Sure, the US wouldn't be what it is today without oil production. It's also true that the US and global economy's logistics and manufacturing are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The point I've been making is that this isn't necessarily so even despite the fact that it presently is so. That industrial society and global economics are both possible in the absence of an abundance of oil. You've done plenty to substantiate the claim that oil is a finite resource that's being overconsumed, but precious little to show that industrial society is impossible in its absence.

Most experts on peak oil have said that industrial civilization will most likely not exist without fossil fuels. Even if industrial civilization could exist without fossil fuels, there is no way we can consume as much energy as we can now without the use of fossil fuels. The future is almost certainly characterized by less energy because when you remove fossil fuels from the equation, you remove a major energy source that cannot be fully replaced.



You said that silicon is an irreplaceable component of transistors, which are a vital part of computers, which are themselves an essential component of modern industrial economies. I showed you definitively that this is not the case, and that a viable alternative presently exists (albeit a presently economically unfavorable one). You said that silicon was an essential component of alternative energy systems like solar panels, and I showed that it isn't. Now it's coal that is absolutely vital for production of solar panels, and you're putting out insane figures per panel (I'm honestly not even sure how you came to the conclusion that a single solar panel requires 1-4 tons of coal to be manufactured, not even assuming you're talking about the plant's electrical consumption). You said human population growth was such that the global population would double within the century, and the UN's census and projections shot that down hard and fast. Your pointing to Liebig's Law is relevant (it's effectively an application of the concept of limiting reagents to biology and ecology, which is perfectly reasonable), but the considerations change substantially when the limiting factor is either replaceable or recyclable (much of what you listed is either or both).

Silicon is actually one of the few sources we aren't running out of. It is the second most abundant natural resource on this planet, so we are definitely not short of it. But computers, solar panels and wind turbines also require rare earth metals, which are not as abundant as you think.



I really do believe you're passionate about environmental issues, and that's a good thing. Humanity needs people who are concerned about the impact of resource distribution, population growth, technology, energy sources, environmental policy, an so on. It's even encouraging that you're now looking at sources like NASA (the study you pointed to wasn't empirically rigorous, but had some interesting insights), the EIA, and so on instead of the blogs and materials of environmental activist groups. You're even offering specific steps you feel ought to be taken, and honestly I'm not entirely against your proposals. For example:

1. Reduce population growth by diminishing family sizes.

I'd change this to pursuing birth rates at about replacement in societies like the UK or the US and seeking to curb high birth rates in poorer countries (particularly sub-Saharan Africa) by increasing access to economic and educational opportunities there, especially among women and girls. Improving standards of living (particularly by reducing the spread of preventable diseases) and establishing conditions of economic stability should help quite a bit as well. I'm well aware that this would be a major undertaking, and I'm not proposing it would be finished quickly. But it's something which definitely belongs on the world's "to do" list.


Industrializing third world countries is very difficult because if you want everyone on this planet to live with the same standard of living as an average North American, you need three more Earth's worth of resources. Clearly there is no way we can obtain three more Earth's worth of resources. But I agree that the standard of living in African countries need to increase. And women need to get educated to reduce birth rates. There is a positive correlation between higher education and reduced birth rates.

But there is a paradox here, the more people there are in developed countries, the less likely they will industrialize, and the less likely they industrialize, the more their population will grow. So this is a very difficult to solve problem indeed.



2. Emphasize local food production.

I'd change this to checking against overproduction and overconsumption with economic incentives, regulatory tools, and subsidies, but there's something to be gained from people starting home gardens or communal gardens if they can.


Local food production is a must because without fossil fuels, it would no longer be possible to transport food from hundreds or thousands of kilometers to a grocery store. When we live in a post-peak oil world, it is entirely possible that grocery store shelves will become empty because trucks run out of fuel. And when trucks run out fuel, they can't deliver food to grocery stores for sale. During the meanwhile time, as the price of oil increases, the price of food increases because food requires oil for transportation, and in many cases, production as well.



3. Reduce meat production and consumption.

There are actually several very serious environmental and public health concerns surrounding the meat industry, and honestly fruit and vegetable producers have a number of practices which are concerning as well. You mentioned topsoil erosion earlier, and that's actually a salient problem (particularly in China). Crop rotation, proper irrigation practices, nutrient supplementation, excessive use of pesticides, there are significant problems to be addressed in the agricultural industry. You're also right to be sniffing around overconsumption of meat since cattle require a huge amount of land relative to the amount of meat produced and pose threats to water and soil quality. Good work here.


A good thing we agree with this point. Also human beings, contrary to popular belief, no not need to eat meat to stay healthy. Can meat be healthy? Yes but we don't need to eat large amounts of meat everyday to stay healthy. I eat very little meat, and I'm still healthy.



4. Abandon religions which assume infinite population growth and consumption is sustainable.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity doesn't actually assume that.


Actually in the Bible it says "be fruitful and multiply. Have dominion over the fish and Earth" meaning and implying infinite consumption and infinite population growth. That's why I think Christianity and Islam needs to be abandoned. There are other reasons Christianity and Islam need to be abandoned as well. For example, Islam and Christianity are just plain wrong. The creation of man, according to these religions, is from Adam and Eve. But Adam and Eve obviously never existed. Evolution and biology prove that Islam and Christianity are false because evolution proves that human beings evolved from other animals, more specially primates and apes. Humans are technically apes. We evolved from apes that is a fact. And these apes evolved from earlier primates, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, bacteria and finally in the beginning human beings were just organic molecules that eventually became the first single cellular organisms. We know how human beings evolved and were created. This proves these religions to false, and therefore these religions need to be abandoned.



5. Abandon capitalism.

I have to assume you mean market modes of distribution, consumerism, and for profit production here, none of which are exclusive to capitalism. I'm also left to ask what mode of economics you'd replace capitalism with.

I have no idea what to replace capitalism with. There is, however, the Venus Project. And a resource-based economy. I only recently heard of this, and I'm still conducting research on this. I suggest you also do research on the Venus Project and resource-based economy. We should have that as our economic model instead of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and compound interest.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

onibrotonel wrote:

So far, what have you contributed to this theory, besides writing a lot?

When did you start?

How dedicated are you?

What do you do everyday that reflects to your theory?


Watch the movie Collapse, and then address the points made in that movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVd-zAXACrU

So far nobody has been able to refute the points in that movie. So the movie stands to be correct. It is a 1 hour 20 minute summary of peak oil, population overshoot and die off, and the future of mankind (which is a bleak future characterized by energy and resource shortages). Peak oil is real. Peak oil means the collapse of current industrial civilization. All of the points I've made where made from other movies, articles, and books written on peak oil, population overshoot and die-off and the fate of industrial civilization written by Michael Ruppert, Richard Heinberg, Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Julian Darley and many other folks in the peak oil and sustainability movement.

So far what I've done to address the issue is to have few kids as possible. Keep reproduction at a responsible level rather than irresponsibly reproducing. And also making myself less reliant on cars and other fossil fuel using devices.
43354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
I would love if we could expand to bases and colonies on the moon and onto Mars. We are way behind on this.
Posted 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


BlueOniwrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:

The world consumes 90 million barrels of oil every day. There are about 1.2 trillion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil left in the ground. Doing the math, divide 1.2 trillion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil by 90 million barrels every day and you get about 40 years max at the present rate of usage of oil. But world oil production will soon decline because the easy-to-reach oil is depleted and has peaked, so oil consumption will decline in the following decades from now because of oil supply shortages (not because of new technologies that replace oil). So the reminding 1.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil might last for another century or so because of reduced demand caused by the decline of world oil production (due to passing peak oil and entering the decline phrase of Hubbert's Curve). But by the end of this century, virtually all of the world's oil would be gone. Meaning the end of the oil age will be by the end of this century.


There are an awful lot of assumptions you're not stating here. You're assuming that no policies will ever be enacted to control consumption, that the efficiency of homes/vehicles/industrial machines/logistics/power grids/power generation/materials science/computing/I could go on will stay constant, that no further proven oil reserves will emerge, that oil/natural gas extraction and discovery technology will not advance, and that alternative materials/fuels don't offer any options.

The dig with increasing efficiency is that it tends to drive consumption up such that the benefits of the increased efficiency are undone, but that's what things like price controls and subsidies are for.


I already mentioned that 95% of all of all oil there ever is has already been discovered. We already know how much oil there is on this planet. During the past 140 years, the planet has been thoroughly explored for oil. There are very few new oil fields to discover. And whatever new oil fields that are discovered are always smaller and harder to extract than the older oil fields we discovered in the early to mid 20th century. World oil discoveries for oil fields peaked in 1964, and has been on an irreversible decline ever since.

Also it is a proven fact that oil consumption is on the rise and not on a decline. We are consuming more and more oil every year, as the human population continues to increase. Also the developed nations China and India are consuming more oil per capita as they continue to industrialize. But the supply of oil is decreasing everyday from further consumption. And more importantly, nobody has been able to come up with alternatives that can truly replace oil in its entirety. Yes there are alternatives to oil, but nothing can completely replace oil. Oil is, by far, the most convenient and powerful resource mankind has ever discovered. And it is most likely we will never discover a resource that is more powerful and convenient than it.


BlueOni

The end of the oil age means the collapse of industrial civilization because industrial civilization is dependent on oil. Nothing in any combination, anywhere can replace the edifice built by fossil fuels. Nothing. A post oil age would mean a localized economy. Globalization--the large scale importation of goods from China by the USA and other developed countries--will be OVER in another couple of decades because of peak oil. This is because globalization is reliant on cheap oil to move goods around the world. Without cheap oil, this becomes impossible.


Nuclear propulsion of merchant fleets is but one potential alternative avenue (though it's not currently ready for implementation), and it is possible to manufacture non-petroleum based lubricants for motors, industrial machinery, and so on. Global distribution is not intrinsically dependent upon oil. It's just heavily dependent on oil right now.

Nuclear energy is not renewable. Nuclear energy is based on uranium, which is also a nonrenewable resource. We are running out of uranium, and we are likely to soon peak in uranium too. Also, nuclear fuel is very radioactive, and to dispose of nuclear waste is a huge problem. The radioactivity of nuclear fuel is dangerously high for many centuries.


BlueOni

The peak in USA oil production is a fact. It has been proven time and time again that the USA's oil production peaked and declined since the early 1970s. No amount of technology and innovation can change a geological imperative. Peak oil has already happened in the USA. The USA is producing much less oil than it did during the 1970s. The USA used to be the number one exporter of oil back in the 1950s and earlier. For the past three to four decades, the USA has become the number one importer of oil. The USA imports about 2/3 of its oil. Also, the USA uses more oil per capita than any country in the world. It is very unlikely the USA will reduce oil consumption unless oil imports drop because of the lack of supply.

Let me show you a graph of USA oil production.



The USA oil production did indeed peak in 1970/1971.


Right, the US is not producing what it did prior to 1970. I never said it was. I said that, contrary to what your documentary had claimed, the US did not enter a period of irreversible decline in oil production (and it didn't since the decline substantially reversed however temporarily). I said that more discoveries had been made, and they have. I said that US production is currently as high as it was in the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s, and it is. I said that US oil production was not conforming to the shape of a bell curve anymore, and it's not. I at no point said that the US wasn't a net oil importer, that its production hadn't peaked, or that oil is an infinite resource. My points were that the documentary misrepresented production data and that recent discovery and production in the US have extended the window for action (something the graph you just pointed to shows in its projections).

Yes there is an increase in oil production by the USA. We can both agree with this point. I agree with you on this point.


BlueOni

By the way, the USA peaked in oil discoveries back in the 1930s. The shale oil boom is only a temporary blip. It only marginally increased USA oil production and only temporarily. The USA will NEVER produce as much oil as it did during the early 1970s. It has been over 40 years since the peak of USA oil production, and the USA will never become an oil exporting nation again. The USA, like I mentioned, imports 2/3 of the oil it uses (which is 20 million barrels a day). The USA produced 9.6 million barrels a day at its peak of oil production. Even if the USA could produce as much oil as it did in 1971, they can domestically only produce half as much oil as they currently need.


Marginally increased production? Are you kidding me? A marginal increase would be if that arrow pointing at 2011 represented the peak in a tiny bump in the curve which went back down and returned to the original course after about a decade. You are looking at a projection stating that US oil production will rival production in 1990 for about 20 straight years, after which a shallow decline is projected. Maybe the production is marginal compared to US consumption, but that's not a tiny bump up in projected US production rates.

My point about discovery was one about the documentary's misrepresentation of the data. They were claiming that no discoveries had been made and that US oil production was permanently on its way down. They were either wrong or they lied, because discoveries have been made in the US and production has increased (and in fact, it began increasing before the short film was released). Maybe they thought it was just going to be a small bump, that the trend would return to a steep decline in short order. It didn't, and according to projections you yourself have shown me it won't.

Ok the shale boom is bigger than some people expected it to be. But the shale boom is about to decline soon. The shale boom is still temporary, and it doesn't change the fact that oil is finite and will eventually run out. And it still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternative energies that can fully replace oil. Yes alternative energies exist such as biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro and etc. But nobody has been able to prove that the alternative energies can FULLY replace oil. And so far, Michael Ruppert's predictions that industrial civilization will collapse are correct. Have you ever watched the movie Collapse by Michael Ruppert? Watch that movie, and then address the points made in that movie because many of my points and information come from that movie. Michael Ruppert has also written many books and done many lectures on peak oil. There is also Richard Heinberg, David Goodstein, Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Julian Darley and many more people who have come up with the same conclusions as me. And the conclusion they came up with is that the fate of industrial civilization is bleak. The end of the age of oil is bleak. It is not going to be an easy transition to make to a post oil world. Will mankind survive the end of the age of oil? Yes. Will there be 15 billion people on this planet? Most likely no and even if there were, it definitely wouldn't be sustainable. Is 7 billion people sustainable? Possibly not but maybe it might be.



By the way, the USA's military and industrial might arose from its giant oil industry. That's a fact. Without cheap oil, the USA wouldn't be what it is today.




Sure, the US wouldn't be what it is today without oil production. It's also true that the US and global economy's logistics and manufacturing are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The point I've been making is that this isn't necessarily so even despite the fact that it presently is so. That industrial society and global economics are both possible in the absence of an abundance of oil. You've done plenty to substantiate the claim that oil is a finite resource that's being overconsumed, but precious little to show that industrial society is impossible in its absence.

Most experts on peak oil have said that industrial civilization will most likely not exist without fossil fuels. Even if industrial civilization could exist without fossil fuels, there is no way we can consume as much energy as we can now without the use of fossil fuels. The future is almost certainly characterized by less energy because when you remove fossil fuels from the equation, you remove a major energy source that cannot be fully replaced.



You said that silicon is an irreplaceable component of transistors, which are a vital part of computers, which are themselves an essential component of modern industrial economies. I showed you definitively that this is not the case, and that a viable alternative presently exists (albeit a presently economically unfavorable one). You said that silicon was an essential component of alternative energy systems like solar panels, and I showed that it isn't. Now it's coal that is absolutely vital for production of solar panels, and you're putting out insane figures per panel (I'm honestly not even sure how you came to the conclusion that a single solar panel requires 1-4 tons of coal to be manufactured, not even assuming you're talking about the plant's electrical consumption). You said human population growth was such that the global population would double within the century, and the UN's census and projections shot that down hard and fast. Your pointing to Liebig's Law is relevant (it's effectively an application of the concept of limiting reagents to biology and ecology, which is perfectly reasonable), but the considerations change substantially when the limiting factor is either replaceable or recyclable (much of what you listed is either or both).

Silicon is actually one of the few sources we aren't running out of. It is the second most abundant natural resource on this planet, so we are definitely not short of it. But computers, solar panels and wind turbines also require rare earth metals, which are not as abundant as you think.



I really do believe you're passionate about environmental issues, and that's a good thing. Humanity needs people who are concerned about the impact of resource distribution, population growth, technology, energy sources, environmental policy, an so on. It's even encouraging that you're now looking at sources like NASA (the study you pointed to wasn't empirically rigorous, but had some interesting insights), the EIA, and so on instead of the blogs and materials of environmental activist groups. You're even offering specific steps you feel ought to be taken, and honestly I'm not entirely against your proposals. For example:

1. Reduce population growth by diminishing family sizes.

I'd change this to pursuing birth rates at about replacement in societies like the UK or the US and seeking to curb high birth rates in poorer countries (particularly sub-Saharan Africa) by increasing access to economic and educational opportunities there, especially among women and girls. Improving standards of living (particularly by reducing the spread of preventable diseases) and establishing conditions of economic stability should help quite a bit as well. I'm well aware that this would be a major undertaking, and I'm not proposing it would be finished quickly. But it's something which definitely belongs on the world's "to do" list.


Industrializing third world countries is very difficult because if you want everyone on this planet to live with the same standard of living as an average North American, you need three more Earth's worth of resources. Clearly there is no way we can obtain three more Earth's worth of resources. But I agree that the standard of living in African countries need to increase. And women need to get educated to reduce birth rates. There is a positive correlation between higher education and reduced birth rates.

But there is a paradox here, the more people there are in developed countries, the less likely they will industrialize, and the less likely they industrialize, the more their population will grow. So this is a very difficult to solve problem indeed.



2. Emphasize local food production.

I'd change this to checking against overproduction and overconsumption with economic incentives, regulatory tools, and subsidies, but there's something to be gained from people starting home gardens or communal gardens if they can.


Local food production is a must because without fossil fuels, it would no longer be possible to transport food from hundreds or thousands of kilometers to a grocery store. When we live in a post-peak oil world, it is entirely possible that grocery store shelves will become empty because trucks run out of fuel. And when trucks run out fuel, they can't deliver food to grocery stores for sale. During the meanwhile time, as the price of oil increases, the price of food increases because food requires oil for transportation, and in many cases, production as well.



3. Reduce meat production and consumption.

There are actually several very serious environmental and public health concerns surrounding the meat industry, and honestly fruit and vegetable producers have a number of practices which are concerning as well. You mentioned topsoil erosion earlier, and that's actually a salient problem (particularly in China). Crop rotation, proper irrigation practices, nutrient supplementation, excessive use of pesticides, there are significant problems to be addressed in the agricultural industry. You're also right to be sniffing around overconsumption of meat since cattle require a huge amount of land relative to the amount of meat produced and pose threats to water and soil quality. Good work here.


A good thing we agree with this point. Also human beings, contrary to popular belief, no not need to eat meat to stay healthy. Can meat be healthy? Yes but we don't need to eat large amounts of meat everyday to stay healthy. I eat very little meat, and I'm still healthy.



4. Abandon religions which assume infinite population growth and consumption is sustainable.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity doesn't actually assume that.


Actually in the Bible it says "be fruitful and multiply. Have dominion over the fish and Earth" meaning and implying infinite consumption and infinite population growth. That's why I think Christianity and Islam needs to be abandoned. There are other reasons Christianity and Islam need to be abandoned as well. For example, Islam and Christianity are just plain wrong. The creation of man, according to these religions, is from Adam and Eve. But Adam and Eve obviously never existed. Evolution and biology prove that Islam and Christianity are false because evolution proves that human beings evolved from other animals, more specially primates and apes. Humans are technically apes. We evolved from apes that is a fact. And these apes evolved from earlier primates, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, bacteria and finally in the beginning human beings were just organic molecules that eventually became the first single cellular organisms. We know how human beings evolved and were created. This proves these religions to false, and therefore these religions need to be abandoned.



5. Abandon capitalism.

I have to assume you mean market modes of distribution, consumerism, and for profit production here, none of which are exclusive to capitalism. I'm also left to ask what mode of economics you'd replace capitalism with.

I have no idea what to replace capitalism with. There is, however, the Venus Project. And a resource-based economy. I only recently heard of this, and I'm still conducting research on this. I suggest you also do research on the Venus Project and resource-based economy. We should have that as our economic model instead of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and compound interest.


Finally, someone that is willing to put BlueOni in her place, talk her lingo, talk specifics. As for the others trolling you, they're just following their leader, their capitalist crusader. Nothing lasts forever. Not individuals, and not even generations. We will not save the human race from inevitable extinction. It will not happen in a blink, but famine will be slow, but will be the death of hope passed down. No colonization of the stars or FTL travel, and if we could we'd find nothing before we all died out. Its debateable, but its too late for conservation at the rate we consume resources. The fact of the matter is you're right and its a hard pill to swallow so don't give up, it doesn't matter who doesn't want to hear it, not everyone disagrees for the most part.
1931 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
Can we please ban Man from earth? He is just too op. How the fuck would I have know there was something called using your brain. Please ban Man, Earth.

- One of the many player of Earth
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:
I never said to kill off entire family lines. I just said to reduce the fertility rate of people which is entirely voluntarily and painless. Nobody needs to force people to not reproduce. What I'm proposing is this. Just everyone realizes that further population growth is no longer possible. And then everyone reduces the fertility rate to below replacement level. Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If everyone decided to have just one or two children, then the fertility rate will naturally decrease, and the population will naturally decrease overtime.

You can do that. Or you can keep on increasing population until disease, famine and war reduces the population. I would rather have people voluntarily decide to have fewer children to decrease population than people being forced to reduce population through war, famine and disease. That's the issue we are facing. Imagine how painful a population reduction through war, famine and disease would be.

Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If people voluntarily chose to not have more than one or two kids, then the world population will naturally reduce over a few centuries, and the world would be a much better place as a result.

Realistically that's unlikely, and more realistically the population will probably only decrease as a result of war, famine and disease. Overshoot and die-off seems to be the only option for the population to be reduced back down to a level the Earth can handle. That's far worse than voluntarily choosing to only have 1 or 2 children and voluntarily decreasing the population through responsible reproduction. Rather than recklessly reproducing, continually increasing population, until the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, and then the population experiences a die-off.


Seriously.. cut down on your quotes...

Anyway, if you're in front of a computer, chances are you aren't part of the problem. Birth rates aren't high in the developed world, and, in fact, are equal to or less than what you're proposing.

So........

Most of the population growth is in the developing world. You proposed earlier that we should industrialize all of the developing world. That might sound like a good idea on paper, but it faces serious problems. Industrialization means more resource consumption per capita for the developing world. But there isn't enough resources on this planet for the entire developing world to industrialize. How do I know this? It is estimated that we need another 2 to 3 earths worth of resources for the entire world's population to have the same life style as a North American. There is no way we can obtain another 2 to 3 Earth's worth of resources. People in the industrialized world live a life that's too lavished and comfortable to be emulated around the entire world. There is no way everyone on Earth will have the luxuries that North Americas have like cars, computers, plenty of food and flat-screen TVs.

There is only one Earth. And that Earth is finite. You can't double population without expecting a drop in the quality of life, because you have twice as many people to share the resources with. You can't increase the amount of resources on this Earth, so every time you increase the population, you end up with less resources for everyone. The only way the developing world can increase standards of living is to stop population growth because the more people there are, the less everyone gets.

Nigeria, for example, has 180 million people. By 2050, the population of Nigeria is expected to reach 400 million. By 2100, the population of Nigeria is expected to reach 900 million at the current rate of growth. That's not sustainable. And of course, I have little hope for the endangered species on this planet, because as population growth continues, they will have less and less room as humans continue to encroach on their living space. Say bye bye to gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, giraffes, lions, hippos, rhinos, crocodiles and other exotic animals in Africa as their population goes from 1 to 4 billion people.

Africa is the only place on Earth where there are still decent populations of exotic animals. They have been exterminated throughout the rest of the world already by humans. And with the population of Africa rapidly growing in this century, it is unlikely all of those exotic animals will survive. I doubt all of the other exotic species on this planet will survive until the end of this century. I doubt tigers and snow leopards will exist in the future no matter how much we protect them. The moment the population increases no other species on this planet have any chance of surviving.

Most species on this planet are expected to become extinct by the end of this century because of further population increases. That's a fact. Biologists, ecologists, sociologists and other scientists know this, but the general public is ignorant of this fact. And the population continues to increase making this biologically impoverished world more of a reality with every passing day.

About 80% of the species on this planet will likely become extinct by the end of this century if the human population continues to increase. There isn't any population on Earth that needs a population culling more than the human race. And the human race will receive that population culling as a natural response from the Earth, as the Earth gets rid of the human plague. Humanity is really just a plague. We destroy everything we touch. This is a fact. Starvation, famine, war and disease will naturally remove the excess in human population. When nature receives an excess of any species, it will deal with it in the most brutal and heartless ways. Nature doesn't care about human suffering. When there is more humans than the Earth can support, the Earth will get rid of us like trash. The same way we killed off every other species on this planet.


Sure.. If we stick with current practices.. but you seem to like to post a lot of shit without reading.

As per agriculture, I listed better practices that are taking hold.
I mentioned urban farming and "green" spaces.

heres some pics

NYC gives tax credits for green roofs, as do other cities like chicago.
an article on urban farming
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/dining/17roof.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
More on rabbits over chickens
http://magazine.good.is/articles/backyard-bunnies-are-the-new-urban-chickens
NYC started recently a project to try and capture compostable waste and turn it into something of use (fertilizer for growing food)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/compost/composting_nyc.shtml
And though can't find sheep over cattle, here's goats:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/12/goat-other-sustainable-red-meat/
(it's not the only city trying to figure it out, but it is one of the most difficult ones to make this a reality)
And vancouver is kinda the poster child for a long running urban ag project:
http://www.urbanfarmers.ca/

Then there's the development in technology. I think Blue Oni's post kinda covered a LOT of the areas that I hadn't.

Quite frankly, you seem waaaaaaaay too fanatical about all this, and what pisses me off is that rather than DOING something about this you keep bitching.

Meanwhile I'm gonna go back to the 16 varieties of tomatoes, 4 varieties of peppers, artichokes, strawberries, blueberries, and 6 varieties of marigolds, 2 varieties of watermelon (plus one that's organic and grows in about a 18" round pot), cucumbers (also hybridized for compact spaces), and peas (heirloom varietiy design fir intensive gardening spaces and window boxes) that I'm starting in my apartment to sell to people interested in growing food and ornamentals in their own back yards and patios come spring.

And it's all done organically without all those fossil fuel resources you keep complaining we're wasting and "have no alternatives to".
31839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:

I discovered this website which is pretty interesting. It has a brief excerpt which perfectly describes the history and likely future of mankind.

http://sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Dixon/ch_01_en.htm

The especially important part is the highlighted area. Focus on the bolded and underlined parts.


The first men were plant gatherers and animal hunters and differed little in life style from other herbivorous and the carnivorous animals around them. They had sufficient intellect to devise tools and weapons and a social organization that made hunting and food gathering more efficient. Neither of these things, however, made any serious impact on the environment.

The first great change in their life style came when, instead of hunting and gathering animals and plants they brought them together and looked after them in a single location. This eliminated the element of danger present in hunting and reduced the probability of starvation, as there was no longer the possibility of returning empty-handed from a foraging expedition. It was the beginning of agriculture.

The evolution of man can be traced from an ape-like ancestor through hominids such as Australopithecus and early members of his own genus such as Homo erectus. Cro-magnon man, an early form of the species Homo sapiens itself, appeared in Europe towards the end of the Pleistocene ice ages. Man's skull developed from a massive structure containing a small brain into one of lighter bones encasing a large cerebral cavity. Man's large brain gave him the power of conscious thought and separated him from the rest of the animal kingdom.

At first the areas under cultivation were small and relatively insignificant. However, the improvements to early man's way of life were so dramatic that his populations increased markedly and more and more land had to be cleared of its natural vegetation to make room for crops and grazing animals.

As man's ingenuity and tool-making ability grew, he invented industrial processes that could produce tools with greater speed and less trouble than before. This inevitably involved heat, and forests were cut down to supply wood and mountainsides were dug away to reach coal to provide fuel. Within a few thousand years the landscape of the earth was changed out of all recognition.

Man's knowledge grew, most significantly in the field of medical science. Accidents and diseases that help to keep natural populations in check were overcome or reduced in their effects by man's endeavours. Genetic defects that, in the wild, would have proved fatal and would have been eliminated by natural selection were perpetuated because their possessors were allowed to live and reproduce. World population increased exponentially and hardly a region of the earth's surface remained untouched by man.

The ultimate effect was that, whereas other animals change and adapt through the slow process of evolution to fit into their environment, man was able to change his environment to suit his current needs, reaping a short-term advantage in the process. Living outside evolution each stage in his rapid cultural development was passed on to the next generation, not through his genes but by learning. Although he avoided the unpleasant effects of natural selection, he also did without its long-term benefits and in short called a halt to evolution as it applied to himself. The result was a world overburdened by a population of beings unable to survive without their own conscious intervention, a world given over to the essential needs of man, a world poisoned by his waste.

Ultimately the earth could no longer supply the raw materials needed for man's agriculture, industry or medicine, and as shortage of supply caused the collapse of one structure after another, his whole complex and interlocking social and technological edifice crumbled. Man, no longer able to adapt, rushed uncontrollably to his inevitable extinction.

With the dominant life form gone the animal world entered a period of evolutionary chaos that lasted tens of thousands of years. However, man's extinction provided the impetus for the formation of many new species of animals and his disappearance was of fundamental importance in shaping the world that has emerged 50 million years later.


Basically mankind's population will keep on increasing until the world runs out of natural resources. There is not enough natural resources to support the population, so human kind becomes extinct from resource depletion. That's the worst case scenario. If we were lucky, we might keep on increasing population until a mass die-off happens. Then most of the population (perhaps as much as 90 to 95%) is gone with a few remaining survivors. I believe the second scenario is more likely because I still have some hope for mankind.

But it is also possible that both scenarios happen. First, mankind's population goes into overshoot. There are too many people. The population experiences a die-off. 90 to 95% of the population is dead. And then the reminding population continue to experience future population overshoots and die-offs over the next couple of millennia. Every cycle of population overshoot and die-off will make the Earth less and less inhabitable. Until the Earth becomes so uninhabitable that mankind eventually becomes extinct.

Good riddance to the cancer of the planet. Mankind is in fact a cancer to this planet. We do nothing but destroy all other species on this planet for our own self-fish greed. Human population keeps on growing to fulfill the manifest destiny of the Bible which is "be fruitful and multiply. Subdue the Earth and have domination over the land and fish." We've been doing this for the past couple of millennia and effectively rendering this Earth into a toxic wasteland. Indeed we became fruitful and multiplied. Resulting in the catastrophic destruction of all other organisms on this planet. But eventually the Earth will get rid of us. As the Earth's biosphere dies, we end up destroying our own life support system. We cannot live separately from nature. Nature is a part of us because nature created us. We are animals evolved from other animals. If we destroy nature, we end up destroying ourselves in the end because we are dependent on nature for our survival.

You can either ignore this message and keep on increasing population and consumption until we become extinct. Or we can smarten up and stop increasing population and give our species a chance of surviving in the long-term.

I'm certainly not the only person with this view point. Daniel Quinn also makes this point very clear. Watch the following video.

Ishmael author Daniel Quinn: Saving the World, Moving Beyond Civilization: Part 1 of 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhFw6frrGrU

Many environmentalists have been warning of this upcoming catastrophe. Yet people around the world ignore them. We continue to increase population and consumption, until the die-off and extinction event happens. If only there were more wise people on this planet like me, who realize how screwed we will be if we continue business as usual.

Imagine what the world would be like if we doubled population again. I can't imagine what it would be like. The burden of the incredibly large human population is already causing catastrophic environmental damage on this planet. With another doubling of population, we are likely to become extinct as a species.

Facts are on my side. I have graphs and other data that support the view that humanity is on a run-away train leading to his own destruction. Do I need to show graphs of human population again? There are other graphs I can show, but the graph of human population is the only graph I need to show.
another thread about this crap?amazing
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:



So far what I've done to address the issue is to have few kids as possible. Keep reproduction at a responsible level rather than irresponsibly reproducing. And also making myself less reliant on cars and other fossil fuel using devices.

That's an average person/couple could do.

But, you have to be realistic.

I'm not going to write long because I'll just assume you're smart. But, all in all, your psa is somewhat human desensitization, not in a literal way.

College students can't even differentiate trash and recycle bins in their campuses.
Edit: they know but they'll do the opposite way. College.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.