How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Monte_RCMS]

The difference is not of planets but of time frames.

Yes, oil as we now find it in the earth is a net (positive) energy source. We would not drill it if that were not the case. The earth’s crust is riddled with dead oil wells where the value of oil remaining is less than the cost to pump it.

But that net energy is the result of a millennial process of biological growth, fuelled by millenniums of sunlight, and catalyzed by further millenniums of underground pressure. The total energy received from the sun, wind, etc, in growing the plant life and then entombing the remnants so that oil formation could proceed, is far greater than the energy that was finally stored as fossil fuel.

Now that natural energy is of no consequence to the oil economy, because it required no human effort. In fact, it occurred when there was no human life anyhow.

But if we as humans are to maintain the energy culture we have now once the oil is gone, we will need to replace it somehow. Photoelectric and solar thermal, windmills, etc, can do a large part of it. But for transportation technology (especially trucks, ships and aircraft) there is no substitute for liquid fuel.

And then, the net energy decrease in creating the liquid fuels will be an issue. Corn ethanol just won’t cut it, however dear it may be to political leaders in our central states.

God Bless and ICXC NiKA.

You’re right.

We only think we have enough oil and natural gas for 500 to 1000 years.

After that we are screwed because after that there will be no one smart enough to come up with a new energy source.

[Did I get that right?]

So, for now we should use NO oil and NO natural gas or any other natural resource. But instead we should shut all down of the carbon based energy … and focus exclusively on solar and wind, which are free for the asking. No special equipment needed.

[How will be prevent ourselves from freezing in the dark, immobilized, until we get the solar and wind equipment up to speed?]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There are some oil wells that have oil which they performed dating on … and it dates back to BEFORE the biological / fossil oil.

And there are exhausted oil fields which have started coming back to life. Apparently really old oil seeps UP into them.

So … why don’t we just use that really old oil. Abiotic / abiogenic / … different names. R-U Theory. The Russians have been very successful applying that theory.

And … “millennial process of biological growth, fuelled by millenniums of sunlight” … that doesn’t work either. Because it’s not thousands of years … it’s a couple of hundred MILLION years. 300 million years old.

Only about 1% of U.S. energy comes from solar and wind.

1%.

No matter how hard you work, you will not be able to supply the other 99% in any reasonable time frame from non-oil resources.

There IS so-called renewable energy, but almost all of that comes from hydro.

Sorry, but the green approaches don’t work.

Suggest taking a closer look at nuclear. Not just uranium, of which we have HUGE resources, but also at thorium, etc.

 

[GEddie]

You’re right.

We only think we have enough oil and natural gas for 500 to 1000 years.

After that we are screwed because after that there will be no one smart enough to come up with a new energy source.

[Did I get that right?]

Five hundred to one thousand years? Either you mistyped, or your sources are rather more optimistic than mine.

I disagree that no one will be smart enough to solve the problem. The human mind is our best resource. Heck, it’s made our flimsy bodies the dominant lifeform on this planet!

The problem is to direct all the mental energy to solving the problem before the physical limits start to pinch. “Being green” won’t cut it. We need an emergency crash program, like the Manhattan project in WW2. The stakes are that high.

The energy is out there. The sun is inexhaustible, once we have collectors in space. Nuclear will help, although it is expensive to set up and maintain. We just need the collective will to fix the problem.

So, for now we should use NO oil and NO natural gas or any other natural resource. But instead we should shut all down of the carbon based energy … and focus exclusively on solar and wind, which are free for the asking. No special equipment needed.

[How will be prevent ourselves from freezing in the dark, immobilized, until we get the solar and wind equipment up to speed?]

I don’t know how you got from what I said to that. Recognizing the mathematical conditions does not make the problems insoluble. It is the first step to solving them.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read “Power Hungry” by Robert Bryce. Use his references for further checking.

Do a search for Marcellus Shale … there are actually many different kinds of oil-bearing and natural-gas bearing shales.

That search will take you to the others.

Best estimates NOW run 500 years.

But more and more of the oil and gas bearing shales are being discovered all the time, most recently by Israel and Poland.

Perhaps a minor correction, we have always known about the oil- and gas-bearing shales, but we didn’t, until just now, have a way of extracting them.

Undersea research is just at its earliest stages because of the hostile environment … worse than on the moon. Men want to go back to the moon to explore; 12 men have already been there. Two men have been to the Marianas Trench and they only stayed for 20 minutes before they retreated. With no desire to return. BUT what they saw there, astounded them.

As you know the last three science missions to the moon were cancelled. All the hardware and training were done and paid for. We now think that the moon has resources of He3. The manned expeditions Apollo 18, 19 and 20 probably would have confirmed all that and brought back enough to pay for the whole project. Read up on all that. The justification for canceling the final three moon missions increasingly mystifies me … even more so after 40 years … they had all been paid for already. 400,000 people worked for ten years to make it happen and at the last second, literally, the project was canceled. The people working on the project were literally told to go home, to leave immediately and to leave all their papers and calculations and drawings behind. Everything was abandoned. Nothing was saved. No drawings. Nothing.

Three more launches to complete the project … six months maximum and we would have recovered tons of data and mineral samples. But we literally threw away ten years worth of work.

Meanwhile, we know there is a vast amount of methane in the ocean and on the floor of the ocean. Different formats.

Progress IS being made with solar, but it is excruciatingly slow owing to the low energy density and the very expensive technology needed to capture it. Visit www.valeslake.com and scroll down for Howard Hayden’s book.

If you are sincere in learning, then check out the leads I have provided.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One of the problems is that the “overpopulation” argument depends on a “belief” that the resources of the earth are finite.

But, there are limits to that argument.

What if, we continuously discover more and more resources?

Without end.

We can, for example, harness the power of radioactivity … perhaps forever.

We can recycle water forever … just by taking advantage of the power of the sun.

Anyway, with respect to energy and chemistry, read here:

geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml

There are better uses for oil and gas than burning it … we can use it/them as the feedstocks for petrochemistry. To make things instead of using it/them for energy.

The real problem, in my opinion, is human arrogance … we think we KNOW that we are running out of energy … and then we discover more.

But our arrogance tells us THAT THERE IS NO MORE.

It is finite. And we have found it all.

And then someone discovers more.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Human arrogance.

That’s how you counter the overpopulation argument.

One of my pastors used to infuriate the parish by saying constantly: “God will provide”. And in retrospect, he was actually right.

Focus on God. Study God … sounds arrogant … God is Infinite. But we can study God, we have about 5000 years of history to study. When He intervened. When people turned their backs on Him.

We say there is no more water … we are running out of water. We need to ration water.

And the God gives us a demonstration: huge floods.

Fifty feet above normal.

There seems actually to be plenty of water. It may be inconveniently located from time to time. Maybe we need to either pump it to where the people want to live OR people need to move to where there is bountiful water.

Build houses on stilts or on barges so they float.

Abandon the ridiculous notion of a 100-year flood. it’s way too artificial. We don’t have enough statistical data to even compute a “100-year-flood”.

Store it someplace. Dig lakes and reservoirs.

To pump the water requires energy. But then we discover the shale oil and gas, can’t transport the oil and gas fast enough. Plenty of shale oil and gas.

To pump the water requires pipe and canals and aqueducts … construction.

But we can do that.

Arrogance: Australian “experts” said no more water. Permanent droughts. [some did disagree] But the “experts” carried the day and spent all their money to build factories to convert salt water to fresh water which would be doled out. Then they had massive floods. Plenty of water. If they built water catchment, then they could have used the flood water. Solved all the problems? No. But what they needed to do was to take a different reframe of their water problem. There are cyclical trends to water.

But the “experts” said no more water.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Fifty years ago, one of my friends worked on a design, as part of a large team, to tame the floods of the Ohio River.

He and his cohorts were vilified by the newspapers.

They all resigned in humiliation and went away.

So, now they have all these floods.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The REAL problem with focusing on God … is that it is not secular.

Depending on God is not depending on a secular solution.

We don’t want to depend on God.

Is this arrogance? Hubris? Violation of the First Commandment?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Perfect argument:

Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

Wonderful argument.

You know the TV program: The Big Bang Theory.

Guy knows everything about the universe.

Has all the answers.

Afraid of dogs.

Can’t drive a car.

And human sexual reproduction is too messy.

But he knows everything that is wrong with society.

Remind you of anyone YOU know?

Jees, I’ve been working with these guys for decades.

Every time a word comes out of Sheldon’s mouth, I can name real actual people who say or have said the exact same things.

In fact, some of my friends have even provided the refrigerator magnets on Sheldon’s refrigerator on the set.

But they don’t “get it”.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Instead of considering the Earth as a big blue marble, reframe the view …

… consider the Earth as a volcano. 3500 miles deep. With an almost infinite supply of geothermal energy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A thousand apologies for going on and on …

But the arguments offered by Dr. Sheldon Cooper are just too good to pass up.

[And they are funny at the SAME TIME!!]

sheldonshirts.com/sheldonquotes4.html

And there are many Web sites devoted to Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

“I’m quite aware of the way humans usually reproduce, which is messy, unsanitary – and, based on living next to you for three years --involves loud and unnecessary appeals to a deity.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

But for transportation technology (especially trucks, ships and aircraft) there is no substitute for liquid fuel.

And then, the net energy decrease in creating the liquid fuels will be an issue. Corn ethanol just won’t cut it, however dear it may be to political leaders in our central states.

God Bless and ICXC NiKA.

Methanol.

We can have an almost limitless supply of methanol.

www.energyvictory.net

www.methanol.org

Etc.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Need to understand carbon, hydrogen, the basic chemical bond, and the -OH radical … which gives you alcohol … ethanol, methanol, and the rest:

academicearth.org/lectures/alcohol-properties

High school chemistry. Ten minutes from one H.S. chem class

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol

Drinking is just ONE tiny aspect of the alcohol family. Some are drinkable and some are poison. Well, actually, enough ethanol will also kill you.

Anyway, watch the video and read the article.

Unfortunately, even the Wiki article overcomplicates the issue.

Look at this table first:

Common Names
Chemical Formula IUPAC Name Common Name
Monohydric alcohols
CH3OH Methanol Wood alcohol
C2H5OH Ethanol Grain alcohol
C3H7OH Isopropyl alcohol Rubbing alcohol
C5H11OH Pentanol Amyl alcohol
C16H33OH Hexadecan-1-ol Cetyl alcohol

Polyhydric alcohols
C2H4(OH)2 Ethane-1 ,2-diol Ethylene glycol
C3H5(OH)3 Propane-1 ,2,3-triol Glycerin
C4H6(OH)4 Butane-1 ,2,3,4-tetraol Erythritol
C5H7(OH)5 Pentane-1 ,2,3,4,5-pentol Xylitol
C6H8(OH)6 Hexane-1 ,2,3,4,5,6-hexol Mannitol, Sorbitol
C7H9(OH)7 Heptane-1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7-heptol Volemitol

Unsaturated aliphatic alcohols
C3H5OH Prop-2-ene-1-ol Allyl alcohol
C10H17OH 3,7-Dimethylocta-2,6-dien-1-ol Geraniol
C3H3OH Prop-2-in-1-ol Propargyl alcohol

Alicyclic alcohols
C6H6(OH)6 Cyclohexane-1 ,2,3,4,5,6-geksol Inositol
C10H19OH 2 - (2-propyl)-5-methyl-cyclohexane-1-ol Menthol

You can also refer to butanol and propanol

[Propane and butane are pretty common household names. You probably use the stuff where you live.]

There are only 16 of them in the whole “family” … not a big deal.

And of those only six are “household names”.

Piece of cake.

They should have taught you all of his in H.S. chemistry in one lecture.

Including the cute diagrams.

Once you have ONE of the diagrams, you can just add on and create the rest.

Start with CH3-OH which is the first alcohol family member … methanol … and go from there.

CH3 … and then just add another H-C-H and then tack on the -OH

That gives you ethanol

Piece of cake.

Start with the Wiki article.

 

[Warrior1979]

But, there are limits to that argument.

There are also limits to your argument. The reason is that you simply don’t understand the issues necessary to counter the argument. You’ll need to learn about entropy and its application in the real world, otherwise you’ll only have credibility when speaking to those in the choir that don’t understand the issues either.

Good luck.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There are also limits to your argument. The reason is that you simply don’t understand the issues necessary to counter the argument. You’ll need to learn about entropy and its application in the real world, otherwise you’ll only have credibility when speaking to those in the choir that don’t understand the issues either.

Good luck.

real world and entropy.

good one!

[stop with the Klingon science, already. it’s worse than harry potter science]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Or … how to argue with a malthusian:

pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-its-wrong-to-agree-with-the-malthusians-about-ethanol/

found on www.energyvictory.net and mouse around to articles

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is real world.

Posted by Gilliam:

From the NY Times (not noted to be a pro-oil propaganda site):

HUGE NEW OILFIELDS DISCOVERED IN TEXAS…

---

nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html

The point is that in the real world, human spirit guided by the Holy Spirit finds new resources.

We call them “natural resources” … but maybe we should rename them: Divine Resources … put there by God and slowly discovered and unlocked by humans.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There are also limits to your argument. The reason is that you simply don’t understand the issues necessary to counter the argument. You’ll need to learn about entropy and its application in the real world, otherwise you’ll only have credibility when speaking to those in the choir that don’t understand the issues either.

Good luck.

What IF: we have a case of mixed metaphors.

The idea that population will grow exponentially to infinity.

But resources on the Planet Earth are by definition finite.

Because the Earth is finite.

But WHAT IF the resources available on Earth are not finite!

Silly, you say.

But think about it.

You have a flower pot. The soil and nutrients in the flower pot are finite.

BUT, what if the “Gardner” adds more and more nutrients and shines more and specially “designed” “grow-light” on the flower pot. And suppose the “Gardner” IS Infinite.

Then the flower pot is no longer limited to ONLY the finite resources found in the flower pot.

BUT, you say, what makes you think that there is some Mystical Gardner showering more and more nutrients on the planet Earth and shining some Mystical “grow light” to allow an “infinitely large” population to succeed on the planet Earth?

Well, why not?

What’s there to stop some Mystical Gardner from providing more nutrients and more light?

There is still a large amount of knowledge of the Earth we just don’t have. We do not understand radiation. We do not understand solar “impingement”. We do not understand the concentration of the nutrients that exist below the Earth’s surface. We really do not understand energy or gravity.

So, if the mathematical problem presents an infinitely large series of population, then why NOT provide an infinitely large series of nutrients to support that population?

[By the way, I’m NOT asking you, personally, to provide that infinitely large series of nutrients … not possible for you. But it is possible for unforeseen energy and nutrients to be provided that we cannot at this time, secularly, envision … but toward which we could be directed / inspired by God either directly or by direction and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Just think of all the amazing progress we have made so far with our limited abilities.]

 

[Darkbloom]

Actually…If I used a mule …the calorie count of producing my energy sustainability yield… goes even lower…Which means a higher sustainability.

Only if you could cultivate as many acres with a mule as you could with a tractor, which is absurd. The margin between (name removed by moderator)ut/output may be greater with a mule than a tractor, but the volume of work done by machinery more than compensates for the difference.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Only if you could cultivate as many acres with a mule as you could with a tractor, which is absurd. The margin between (name removed by moderator)ut/output may be greater with a mule than a tractor, but the volume of work done by machinery more than compensates for the difference.

Depends on the cost of the mule versus the cost of the tractor.