First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Any doomers or Malthusians on this forum?
14035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Maine U.S
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
OP. While all your "Plans" sound ideal unfortunately they will all be for nothing without the proper resources, and skills/training to protect them. I would like to think better of the human race, however it will be very likely that a good portion of the survivors will resort to a baser nature. Kill or be killed, take or be taken from. Not everyone will be willing to share or join up in a community. Especially when supplies dry up in the cities they will have no choice but to move on to the country, and people can do terrible things when they are hungry. So I'm curious what are your plans for this eventuality? Are you a gun enthusiast? Have you had military or survivalist training?
Posted 2/16/15
You know maybe it's gonna happen, maybe not... I don't know, but I think that learning to forage/wild-craft and hunt is a better avenue for survival then agriculture not that it doesn't have it's place just that it's more sustainable in the long run even in our modern world.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
I get a laugh about how much money these folks waste on something that more than likely will never happen. Prophets and sages have been proclaiming the end times for longer than any of us have been around. Peak oil isn't going to cause the collapse everyone thinks it will, since we are already moving away from it and will continue to plus if you actually did some research you would come across some cool tech folks are actually getting to work like this. http://rt.com/usa/navy-fuel-conversion-ship-197/

Cracking carbon and creating fuel out of seawater you can do it with air as well but you don't have the carbon level to do it costly. So yeah I'm not worried about end of oil more worried about the carbon level and the burning of said fuel and the fact there is all sorts of methane hydrate locked away that when it thaws enough will kill us off. So what would be more important getting off fossil fuels or worring about them running out. Personally all for getting off of them and not worrying about the end because they run out.

Also kids study how societies work you will find they tend to be a bit more resilient then you think they are, this isn't ancient Rome with the Huns at the gate.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Posting this here since the other thread was locked on grounds that this thread is a duplicate (it's actually one of three).


serifsansserif wrote:

Sorry, just had to put in my two cents.. >.>


The part where oil comes into Desu's argument about farming is commercial transportation of materials and products, as well as operation of industrial agricultural equipment. Combines, tractors, commercial trucks, these all run on fossil fuels and are lubricated using petroleum derivatives of one sort or another, therefore "food is made with oil". I have already said that alternative fuel sources and lubricants exist and would be emphasized in an economic climate such that petroleum based lubricants and fuel sources became unaffordable, and Desu just guffawed in my face and acted like I was treating technology as though it were some sort of golden god.

I don't know if Desu genuinely believes that there's absolutely no way to power a combine, a tractor, or a commercial truck without using a combustion engine or if he's just saying he doesn't to have something to argue about. I really, truly don't. But I do know that combines, tractors, and commercial trucks would, in a climate where previously common lubricants and fuel sources became unaffordable, be powered and lubricated using alternatives which already exist and would be researched and advanced as the aforementioned harsh economic conditions became further and further imminent. The agricultural business, the commercial trucking business, and the governments of the world are not run by slack-jawed, drooling morons.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

BlueOni wrote:
The agricultural business, the commercial trucking business, and the governments of the world are not run by slack-jawed, drooling morons.


Desu-chan doesn't seem to have much faith in imanity, does he?

Truly, he and the sources he relied upon in making these posts haven't really thought things through as well as they think they have. Both he and this Mat Savinar guy have failed to take into account the accelerating pace of advancement in various alternatives as oil becomes more and more expensive. Further, the less oil we burn for transportation, the more is available for every other use. The less we burn for electricity, the more is available for every other use, etc. Oil certainly will peak and prices will rise but alternatives will absolutely prevent the kind of doomsday scenario Desu predicts.



Y'know, come to think of it Desu acts a lot like his avatar. I don't think he learned anything from his brief vacation. He's aiming for a longer one.
18050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
The original goal of OP is "I TOLD YOU SO."
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

evilotakuneko wrote:

Desu-chan doesn't seem to have much faith in imanity, does he?


The person who has been quoted as declaring our species a plague? No, never.


Truly, he and the sources he relied upon in making these posts haven't really thought things through as well as they think they have. Both he and this Mat Savinar guy have failed to take into account the accelerating pace of advancement in various alternatives as oil becomes more and more expensive. Further, the less oil we burn for transportation, the more is available for every other use. The less we burn for electricity, the more is available for every other use, etc. Oil certainly will peak and prices will rise but alternatives will absolutely prevent the kind of doomsday scenario Desu predicts.


Right, and that's without taking into consideration that I'm not talking about just letting the market figure these things out on its own. I'm all for public sector actors and public sector money being directed toward advancing sustainable technologies/energy sources and setting up the infrastructural elements necessary to widen a sustainable fleet's distribution range. We're talking New Deal level investment here, but over the course of 2-3 decades instead of all at once. I'm a bit fringe now, but not as much as I would've been 30 years ago. Now it's a serious question.


Y'know, come to think of it Desu acts a lot like his avatar. I don't think he learned anything from his brief vacation. He's aiming for a longer one.


I don't know much about Suiseiseki other than that she's distrustful of humans, tends to soul trees, and is a bit of a prankster.
454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Winter Springs, F...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Looks like someone on this thread should try looking up Jacque Fresco on YouTube (just saying).
7691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Basketball Court
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
wait didn't you make a thread like this already?
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

evilotakuneko wrote:


BlueOni wrote:
The agricultural business, the commercial trucking business, and the governments of the world are not run by slack-jawed, drooling morons.


Desu-chan doesn't seem to have much faith in imanity, does he?

Truly, he and the sources he relied upon in making these posts haven't really thought things through as well as they think they have. Both he and this Mat Savinar guy have failed to take into account the accelerating pace of advancement in various alternatives as oil becomes more and more expensive. Further, the less oil we burn for transportation, the more is available for every other use. The less we burn for electricity, the more is available for every other use, etc. Oil certainly will peak and prices will rise but alternatives will absolutely prevent the kind of doomsday scenario Desu predicts.



Y'know, come to think of it Desu acts a lot like his avatar. I don't think he learned anything from his brief vacation. He's aiming for a longer one.


I honestly wonder how long his stay will be with us... Either he'll grow tire, grow out of his beliefs, or become permabanned.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

BlueOni wrote:

Right, and that's without taking into consideration that I'm not talking about just letting the market figure these things out on its own. I'm all for public sector actors and public sector money being directed toward advancing sustainable technologies/energy sources and setting up the infrastructural elements necessary to widen a sustainable fleet's distribution range. We're talking New Deal level investment here, but over the course of 2-3 decades instead of all at once. I'm a bit fringe now, but not as much as I would've been 30 years ago. Now it's a serious question.



I've been wanting green energy to mirror the new deal since the markets all went to shit. It really makes a lot of sense considering that health care needs reform... again, just like in the 30's.
labor laws need reform... again... like the 30's
building a new information and energy infrastructure is needed... again.. like the 30's (except noow we need gree energy instead of just electricity, and we need better internets instead of running phone lines)
we need to completely rehaul our highways and transportation based on expected needs... again.. like the thirties (existing road are going to shit, we need green transportation and to switch to public transportation)
We need minimum wage reform... again.. like the 30's....
we need economic stimulus amongst the jobless and low wage workers... again... like the 30's....

I mean... why DON'T we have a new new deal yet?
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

serifsansserif wrote:

I mean... why DON'T we have a new new deal yet?


Because like ZOMG GUBBERMINT SPENDING IS TEH EVULZ!!!! and such as.

Or something like that.

Also congressional gridlock caused by the rapid polarizing of American politics since 2001.

Consider that Democrat president Bill Clinton, working with a Republican-held congress, turned budget deficits into budget surpluses. Democrat president Obama, working with a Democrat-held congress for the first two years of his presidency, struggled even to repair the damage done by the Bush administration and congress. And post 2010, hell the government might as well have been shutdown, considering what little has been done by it since then.

And to try and tie all this into the topic of this thread: if anything's gonna kill us, it's not peak oil, or oil depletion. It's our worthless politicians who are willing to reject anything a member of the other party proposes--even if it's something they themselves had submitted previously.

Maybe that's the source of Desu's lack of faith in imanity.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

evilotakuneko wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:

I mean... why DON'T we have a new new deal yet?


Because like ZOMG GUBBERMINT SPENDING IS TEH EVULZ!!!! and such as.

Or something like that.

Also congressional gridlock caused by the rapid polarizing of American politics since 2001.

Consider that Democrat president Bill Clinton, working with a Republican-held congress, turned budget deficits into budget surpluses. Democrat president Obama, working with a Democrat-held congress for the first two years of his presidency, struggled even to repair the damage done by the Bush administration and congress. And post 2010, hell the government might as well have been shutdown, considering what little has been done by it since then.

And to try and tie all this into the topic of this thread: if anything's gonna kill us, it's not peak oil, or oil depletion. It's our worthless politicians who are willing to reject anything a member of the other party proposes--even if it's something they themselves had submitted previously.

Maybe that's the source of Desu's lack of faith in imanity.


hahahah.. totally was a rhetorical question.

If the politicians are polarized, it's because the people are. But yeah.. that's just as likely to do us in.. Or any of the other failings of human kind as of late... But I still have faith that eventually it all pulls through..
169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Malthus only argued that the amount of arable land is constant (and hence food production is itself is bounded), but population growth is not, so there will be a point at which food production cannot meet the needs of a continually growing population.

It's reasonable conjecture possibly intended to provoke conversation. One possible question: Is it possible for democracy to continue to exist where basically all food, clean water, clean air, and power has to be rationed? Is reproduction a right in such a world?

Of course people don't even necessarily agree with Malthus's proposition. Some people believe that we can reach zero population growth and possibly even lower the world population before we hit the point where we have to worry about insufficient food production capacity. Other people may believe that we will be able to create new land in the form of asteroid colonies, which would possibly allow the amount of arable land to increase in direct proportion to population.

Here's why I think we're fucked: Population growth is highest in the third world where the standard of living is the lowest. In order for them to bring their growth down to first world levels, they would need to have first world standards of living. If we wanted everyone to live like people live in the first world, the world population would somehow have to get down to about one third of what it is right now. And another kicker: all the horrible things that lower population in the short term like wars and disease also tend to cause massive, widespread poverty, which promotes higher birth rates which increases population growth in the long run.

Maybe we (or some subset of we) will get off this planet before we overcrowd it. Maybe we will find a way to make everyone feel rich/happy while consuming roughly 66% less than what those of us in the first world are consuming right now.

Maybe technology (space travel technologies, VR, AI) will buy us enough time to fix our culture, but I think that possibility is just about as likely as the possibility that technology will merely be another means of oppressing the have-nots in a land ruled by tyranny justified by the scarcity of food, energy, and clean water.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

mintyfraud wrote:

Malthus only argued that the amount of arable land is constant (and hence food production is itself is bounded), but population growth is not, so there will be a point at which food production cannot meet the needs of a continually growing population.

It's reasonable conjecture possibly intended to provoke conversation. One possible question: Is it possible for democracy to continue to exist where basically all food, clean water, clean air, and power has to be rationed? Is reproduction a right in such a world?

Of course people don't even necessarily agree with Malthus's proposition. Some people believe that we can reach zero population growth and possibly even lower the world population before we hit the point where we have to worry about insufficient food production capacity. Other people may believe that we will be able to create new land in the form of asteroid colonies, which would possibly allow the amount of arable land to increase in direct proportion to population.

Here's why I think we're fucked: Population growth is highest in the third world where the standard of living is the lowest. In order for them to bring their growth down to first world levels, they would need to have first world standards of living. If we wanted everyone to live like people live in the first world, the world population would somehow have to get down to about one third of what it is right now. And another kicker: all the horrible things that lower population in the short term like wars and disease also tend to cause massive, widespread poverty, which promotes higher birth rates which increases population growth in the long run.

Maybe we (or some subset of we) will get off this planet before we overcrowd it. Maybe we will find a way to make everyone feel rich/happy while consuming roughly 66% less than what those of us in the first world are consuming right now.

Maybe technology (space travel technologies, VR, AI) will buy us enough time to fix our culture, but I think that possibility is just about as likely as the possibility that technology will merely be another means of oppressing the have-nots in a land ruled by tyranny justified by the scarcity of food, energy, and clean water.


It's conjecture which can spur interesting conversation, I'll agree. But it's a rather simplistic exploration of the problem of food security, and we've borne out some great solutions for the part he did explore. We've figured out ways to increase the amount of food produced per square meter of ground by modifying crops' genes for the sake of increasing fruit/vegetable size/number and conferring pest resistance, and we haven't stopped researching ways to increase crop yields even further (vertical gardening, for instance, offers some potential).

With that out of the way, food security cannot be reduced to the mere abundance of arable land, and so starvation isn't simply a matter of population growth against land availability. Here's a list of indicators for food security from the UN:

http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.VOLFUC7Yqv8

Some of the most important for present day are political stability, road/rail density, food price volatility, and food waste. It is these which are the underlying cause of much of the starvation in the world. Here's some good news, though: food security is on a global uptick, and while many countries are in need of major improvements and investments malnourishment and hunger are on the decline. We're nowhere near hitting the doom alarm as far as food is concerned.

http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.