On limiting population growth thru contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@StAnastasia
If so then I give you credit. Probably not a bad bet to do all that considering how many other threats there are out there that could make the economy collapse. Is your opinion based solely on the fact that new oil finds have declined in recent years or do you have any research into exactly how much cheap oil is still left? And if so, how many year(s) do we have before it runs out in your opinion?

Also have you ever read the book “Pierced by a Sword”. This discussion reminds me of that however the collapse in that book was caused by a computer problem 🙂
 
Nate13 said:
@StAnastasia If so then I give you credit. Probably not a bad bet to do all that considering how many other threats there are out there that could make the economy collapse.

A stimulating (if sobering) book is James Kunstler’s The Long Emergency: Confronting the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century.
Is your opinion based solely on the fact that new oil finds have declined in recent years or do you have any research into exactly how much cheap oil is still left? And if so, how many year(s) do we have before it runs out in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You said:
:hmmm: I know Sarah, I think, gave birth at 65. I know what you mean.

Yes, infant mortality could reduce the population drastically. And without any medicine, illness would account for many adults dying before middle age.
Click to expand...
Psalmist in 1000 B.C.: “The days of our years in them are threescore and ten years. But if in the strong they be fourscore years: and what is more of them is labour and sorrow.”

Now why would it be written that men live to 70-80 years of age if they only lived to 35?

Who says they didn’t have any medicine? Sure some adults would die at all ages and more than today. The main problem with a historical “average life span” is that it takes into account all the children who die in infancy that reduces the average. The median age of death of those reaching adulthood was not 30 or 40. When someone reached adulthood their life expectancy was probably around 10 years shorter than today. In other words, most people lived to be 65 or so. What percentage of people today truly receive life saving care in adulthood before age 65? Not many.
 
@StAnastasia
Why couldn’t hydrogen replace petroleum? There are some safety issues and the vehicles that run on it cost more to make, but it is feasible. The only reason it hasn’t taken off is because the technology is still in the early stages and the vehicles are much more expensive. Why do you not consider hydrogen to be a viable alternative? Even with the safety concerns, wouldn’t it be better to accept those and use the technology as opposed to allowing civilization as we know it today to collapse?
 
Nate13 said:
@StAnastasia
Why couldn’t hydrogen replace petroleum? There are some safety issues and the vehicles that run on it cost more to make, but it is feasible. The only reason it hasn’t taken off is because the technology is still in the early stages and the vehicles are much more expensive. Why do you not consider hydrogen to be a viable alternative? Even with the safety concerns, wouldn’t it be better to accept those and use the technology as opposed to allowing civilization as we know it today to collapse?
Click to expand...
Nate, interesting question. Kunstler has a chapter on why the hydrogen economy will not work, in part because hydrogen is taken from natural gas for the most part, so you might as well burn the natural gas. Safety is an issue: it would take 26 hydrogen tanker trucks for every one gasoline truck we have on the road now. Since tanker trucks are involved in one out of six truck accidents, imagine a Hindenburg disaster happening every montn or two! Here are some paragraphs from an interesting website you might want to explore (Hydrogen is energy storage not an energy source)"

"Hydrogen is not a source of energy, merely a way to store energy.

"Solar hydrogen is great. It has been demonstrated on small scale systems and it works. The problem is replacing our current overconsumption - we use oil because it is incredibly concentrated, not merely because the oil companies are evil. Solar hydrogen may have a role in a future that is much more bioregional and local, with reduced demand (and increased community / quality of life). It is the industrial process that mimics photosynthesis …

"It is difficult to find anyone familiar with solar electricity who seriously thinks that we are going to replicate our current misbehaviors with fossil fuels by switching to solar hydrogen.

“While it is unlikely that a solar - hydrogen economy will ever be created that replicates our current destructive, over consumptive lifestyles (at least the minority of humanity that lives in the US, Europe and Japan), it would be useful toward sustaining a much more modest, local production civilization based on current solar income. A small amount of solar electricity in so-called third world villages would do wonders to improve the standard of living, education, communication, water pumping and purification, etc. (The cost of the invasion of the Iraqi oil fields is roughly what it would cost to provide clean water for most of the rural villages in the “Third World.”) And we here in the so-called First World could learn to live more efficiently as we shift the electric grids toward 100% renewable energy, seeking greater satisfaction in cultivating human relationships, culture and bioregional visions as the oil winds down and mandates a more local way of life.”
 
StAnastasia said:
Nate, interesting question. Kunstler has a chapter on why the hydrogen economy will not work, in part because hydrogen is taken from natural gas for the most part, so you might as well burn the natural gas. Safety is an issue: it would take 26 hydrogen tanker trucks for every one gasoline truck we have on the road now. Since tanker trucks are involved in one out of six truck accidents, imagine a Hindenburg disaster happening every montn or two! Here are some paragraphs from an interesting website you might want to explore (Hydrogen is energy storage not an energy source)"

"Hydrogen is not a source of energy, merely a way to store energy.

"Solar hydrogen is great. It has been demonstrated on small scale systems and it works. The problem is replacing our current overconsumption - we use oil because it is incredibly concentrated, not merely because the oil companies are evil. Solar hydrogen may have a role in a future that is much more bioregional and local, with reduced demand (and increased community / quality of life). It is the industrial process that mimics photosynthesis …

"It is difficult to find anyone familiar with solar electricity who seriously thinks that we are going to replicate our current misbehaviors with fossil fuels by switching to solar hydrogen.

“While it is unlikely that a solar - hydrogen economy will ever be created that replicates our current destructive, over consumptive lifestyles (at least the minority of humanity that lives in the US, Europe and Japan), it would be useful toward sustaining a much more modest, local production civilization based on current solar income. A small amount of solar electricity in so-called third world villages would do wonders to improve the standard of living, education, communication, water pumping and purification, etc. (The cost of the invasion of the Iraqi oil fields is roughly what it would cost to provide clean water for most of the rural villages in the “Third World.”) And we here in the so-called First World could learn to live more efficiently as we shift the electric grids toward 100% renewable energy, seeking greater satisfaction in cultivating human relationships, culture and bioregional visions as the oil winds down and mandates a more local way of life.”
Click to expand...
There are ways of transporting hydrogen in a safer manner, it just takes some effort. Hydrogen requires 4 times the volume of gasoline to transport but is 3 times as light. Thus I highly doubt your claim that it would take 26 trucks to carry hydrogen fuel as opposed to one truck to carry gasoline. Besides natural gas another leading place to find methane gas is trash fields. I also know there are trash incinerators of a sort that can break down anything outside of nuclear material into hydrogen and carbon. This way of getting rid of our trash might prove more feasible if the hydrogen could be sold as fuel to pay for the process.

You also fail to see the point of this argument. While we might not be able to mimic the current lifestyle we lead with hydrogen we could at least get the necessities down correct? Hydrogen vehicles could transport food in just as effective a way as vehicles powered by gasoline. Maybe not everyone gets there own personal hydrogen vehicle but as mentioned before that is not even necessary and is incredibly wasteful whether you vehicle is good for the environment or not. A 40 minute bike ride to work isn’t much different than a 20 minute car ride to work. You might even get to work faster in the big cities where traffic is bad.

I highly doubt you are prepared to say hydrogen technology has no foreseeable breakthrough’s. Do you not believe that hydrogen vehicles could replace a lot of the core needs of our society that runs on petroleum?
 
Nate13 said:
You also fail to see the point of this argument.
Click to expand...
The argument begins with

“Hydrogen is not an energy source.”🙂
While we might not be able to mimic the current lifestyle we lead with hydrogen we could at least get the necessities down correct?
Click to expand...
No, because hydrogen is not an energy source.🙂
I highly doubt you are prepared to say hydrogen technology has no foreseeable breakthrough’s. Do you not believe that hydrogen vehicles could replace a lot of the core needs of our society that runs on petroleum?
Click to expand...
This breakthrough will require something like what Q suggested on Star Trek, when he suggested simply changing the gravitational constant of the universe.

A non-energy source is not a substitute for a cheaply available fossil fuel that obtained it potential energy over millions of years.
 
Warrior1979 said:
The argument begins with

“Hydrogen is not an energy source.”🙂

No, because hydrogen is not an energy source.🙂

This breakthrough will require something like what Q suggested on Star Trek, when he suggested simply changing the gravitational constant of the universe.

A non-energy source is not a substitute for a cheaply available fossil fuel that obtained it potential energy over millions of years.
Click to expand...
Your right hydrogen isn’t an energy source in and of itself, but its even better than that. Any naturally occurring compound with hydrogen in it is a potential energy source. You just need to “refine” it to pull the hydrogen out. The only reason to use hydrogen though is if they get it to a point where it takes a small enough amount of energy to pull it out of the compound its found in. Otherwise its more efficient to just create the electrical energy and run the car directly off electrical power.
 
Nate13 said:
Your right hydrogen isn’t an energy source in and of itself, but its even better than that. Any naturally occurring compound with hydrogen in it is a potential energy source. You just need to “refine” it to pull the hydrogen out. The only reason to use hydrogen though is if they get it to a point where it takes a small enough amount of energy to pull it out of the compound its found in. Otherwise its more efficient to just create the electrical energy and run the car directly off electrical power.
Click to expand...
Actually, anything in existence has energy. The issue is getting more energy out than one has to put in (at least from our perspective). Fossil fuels have a particular set of characteristics, and none of the alternative fuel “sources” have those type of characteristics, hence the reason they are not substitutes.
 
Great idea guys. Drill into a volcano. Why build massive power plants for creating heat to create electricity and waste time and money fueling them. Volcanoes are ready built power plants which will fire up and fuel themselves forever. Drill in, heat water, run steam turbines, generate power. Run stirling engines by planting one conductive cable under the volcano and another conducting cable on its snowy cap. Watch the temperature difference run those engines. Volcanoes could generate electricity to run public transport and power cities. 👍
 
Warrior1979 said:
Actually, anything in existence has energy. The issue is getting more energy out than one has to put in (at least from our perspective). Fossil fuels have a particular set of characteristics, and none of the alternative fuel “sources” have those type of characteristics, hence the reason they are not substitutes.
Click to expand...
Actually they have converted engines that run on gasoline to run on hydrogen fairly easily. Boeing has a new UAV out that does exactly that. Hydrogen has 3 times the amount of potential power by weight compared to gasoline. Unfortunately hydrogen needs about 4 times the volume of gasoline though to provide the same power. From an aerodynamics perspective though this is actually about equal depending on the situation. I would rather have to deal with an increase in volume that causes drag rather than an increase in dead weight that causes drag in some situations. The volume necessary could also be corrected assuming we find better ways to pressurize the hydrogen fuel.

Hydrogen’s future relies on two things:
  1. Finding a way to reduce the energy necessary to separate hydrogen from whatever source its naturally found in. Currently it makes more sense just to use that energy as electrical energy to power cars that way instead.
  2. Find an effective way to store and move hydrogen around by itself or within another medium.
 
Nate13 said:
Hydrogen’s future relies on two things:
  1. Finding a way to reduce the energy necessary to separate hydrogen from whatever source its naturally found in. Currently it makes more sense just to use that energy as electrical energy to power cars that way instead.
Click to expand...
The problem with reducing the energy necessary to separate is that it can’t be done; it’s a known physical constant. It’s like saying “Hey, let’s just change the value of “pi” so we can make the circle bigger.”

Energy is always released when, say, hydrogen combines with oxygen to create a water molecule. Energy is always required to break the bond. Due to entropy more energy will be required to break the bond than into creating the bond. And that energy difference will come from an outside energy source.

If you want to make a comparison with this situation with oil, hydrogen contained in a molecule would be the the equivalent of actually having to make the oil from it’s component elements. The separated hydrogen would be the equivalent of oil.

In other words, hydrogen in a bond is the equivalent of the unusable byproducts of burning the petroleum.
 
Warrior1979 said:
Actually, anything in existence has energy. The issue is getting more energy out than one has to put in (at least from our perspective). Fossil fuels have a particular set of characteristics, and none of the alternative fuel “sources” have those type of characteristics, hence the reason they are not substitutes.
Click to expand...
I’ve just returned from speaking at an international conference in Mexico City. The trip reminded me how temporary in the larger scheme of things is our present brief bubble of vast affluence and vast population.

Before the European invasion, Mesoamerica had a human population of around 15-20 million, bounded by the constraints of climate and fertility. Some anthropologists argue that protein scarcity was one factor driving the economy of human sacrifice. With Cortez and his successors came early modern farming, improved by the industrial revolution. The petroleum-supported “green revolution” has propped Mexico up to about 100 million people.

Almost everything I saw in Mexico reflected cheap and abundant oil: the bustling airport, the streets and roads crammed with traffic, the gleaming hotels, the gated communities of the rich, the vast slums of the poor, the millions of people. I saw a few examples of pre-petroleum culture, such as a farmer ploughing with a horse. However even the plough was made of steel – mined, refined, and manufactured by means of cheap fossil fuels.

It will be interesting to see how all of this – in Mexico, in the US, in Europe and Asia, Africa and Australia – will last as the price of post-peak oil soars inexorably out of reach.

StAnastasia
 
You said:
Great idea guys. Drill into a volcano. Why build massive power plants for creating heat to create electricity and waste time and money fueling them. Volcanoes are ready built power plants which will fire up and fuel themselves forever. Drill in, heat water, run steam turbines, generate power. Run stirling engines by planting one conductive cable under the volcano and another conducting cable on its snowy cap. Watch the temperature difference run those engines. Volcanoes could generate electricity to run public transport and power cities. 👍
Click to expand...
Volcanoes are not forever. And drilling into the ones hottest enough to be useful could also be dangerous.
 
Nate13 said:
So are nuclear power plants. Pick your poison 😃
Click to expand...
A nuclear plant would produce more usable energy more consistently over a longer period of time. And nuclear plants can be put in any place that has adequate water and protection from substantial seismic events, whereas volcanoes cannot be moved.
 
The problem that I foresee is unemployment if machines replace human workers.
 
BBC had a great news special on Africa and its agriculture. If Africa can get to 80% efficiency in agriculture as compared to the industrialized countries it can feed the world.
 
buffalo said:
BBC had a great news special on Africa and its agriculture. If Africa can get to 80% efficiency in agriculture as compared to the industrialized countries it can feed the world.
Click to expand...
What a novel idea. Africa feeds it own people instead of relying on industrialized countries. Of course we can’t allow that because then we would have no leverage by which to prevent them using non-renewable energy sources and leverage to make them use contraceptives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top