Sustainable development and Population Reduction

[rpp]

It is false analysis to look at population growth in terms of number. The measure should be in terms of statistics like percentage of growth, births per capita, etc. Just using numbers is deceptive as it cannot show a change in the rate of growth.

The anti-human, pro-abortion and pro-contraception, anti-farming people who are screaming that there are too many people like to use this false analysis because it has greater shock value.

Using this argument give those people the same degree of credibility and overall trustworthiness as those who claim that dihydrogen oxide is a toxic chemical because hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people die every year as a result its effects.

Dihydrogen oxide is water.

Actually, I meant dihydrogen monoxide. If the previous posted corrected me that is fine. I do not know as my personal settings prevent me from seeing his posts.

 

[PapaSquash]

And what do you suppose fertilizes these plants with great yields? What fuels their planting, harvesting, processing, packaging, and global distribution? Fossil fuels!

And is there nothing else that could do these things? Or are these things accomplished using fossil fuels for the same reason that lighting our cities and powering our mobility is accomplished using fossil fuels, that is because fossil fuels are, at present, the cheapest way to do so?

 

[rpp]

And is there nothing else that could do these things? Or are these things accomplished using fossil fuels for the same reason that lighting our cities and powering our mobility is accomplished using fossil fuels, that is because fossil fuels are, at present, the cheapest way to do so?

Obviously fossil fuels are not the only way. As technology advances, we will improve other forms of energy generation. Battery technology has advanced quite a bit in recent years. So has hydrogen fuel cell technology.

There are always naysayers who say this and that. There are those who like to preach doom-and-gloom because they can get attention. The simple fact is that these are, in many ways, a form of panic. And by panic I mean a suspension of rational thought. Rationally, the response is not to kill people (usually by abortion, but also by withholding medicine and technology from poor nations) as many who support “population control” and “environmental responsibility” advocate. The rational response is to address issues such as food production and distribution.

There have been great advances in recent years in developing disease-resistant crops of rice and other grains. Also, new strains of rice, which is part of at least one meal a day for 3/4 of the world’s population, have been developed that increase the yield significantly per plant. The same is true with corn and soybeans. New fruit cultivation techniques have also increased yields dramatically in recent decades. Currently research is being done to increase the nutritional and calorie content of many staple products which effectively increases yields too.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Fossil fuels generate about 60% of U.S. electrical power. Nuke about 20% and hydro most of the rest. [Approximate numbers] So-called innovative new technologies provide around 1%. And the demand for base load power is increasing.

Fuel for transportation is almost all provided by fossil fuels.

Sooo, provide some numbers about how non-fossil fuels are going to provide what we need.

Batteries are only storage devices; you need to generate the electricity some “other” way. Hydrogen is not found naturally in any great quantity; it also has to be generated or manufactured.

The U.S. has enough coal and oil and natural gas to last for a very long time … hundreds of years. But for the most part it is tied up … such as with the Riady deal and prohibitions on drilling off shore and in Alaska. Not to mention the lack of new refining capability.

Numbers, please.

Obviously fossil fuels are not the only way. As technology advances, we will improve other forms of energy generation. Battery technology has advanced quite a bit in recent years. So has hydrogen fuel cell technology.

There are always naysayers who say this and that. There are those who like to preach doom-and-gloom because they can get attention. The simple fact is that these are, in many ways, a form of panic. And by panic I mean a suspension of rational thought. Rationally, the response is not to kill people (usually by abortion, but also by withholding medicine and technology from poor nations) as many who support “population control” and “environmental responsibility” advocate. The rational response is to address issues such as food production and distribution.

There have been great advances in recent years in developing disease-resistant crops of rice and other grains. Also, new strains of rice, which is part of at least one meal a day for 3/4 of the world’s population, have been developed that increase the yield significantly per plant. The same is true with corn and soybeans. New fruit cultivation techniques have also increased yields dramatically in recent decades. Currently research is being done to increase the nutritional and calorie content of many staple products which effectively increases yields too.

 

[rpp]

Fossil fuels generate about 60% of U.S. electrical power. Nuke about 20% and hydro most of the rest. [Approximate numbers] So-called innovative new technologies provide around 1%. And the demand for base load power is increasing.

Fuel for transportation is almost all provided by fossil fuels.

Sooo, provide some numbers about how non-fossil fuels are going to provide what we need.

Batteries are only storage devices; you need to generate the electricity some “other” way. Hydrogen is not found naturally in any great quantity; it also has to be generated or manufactured.

The U.S. has enough coal and oil and natural gas to last for a very long time … hundreds of years. But for the most part it is tied up … such as with the Riady deal and prohibitions on drilling off shore and in Alaska. Not to mention the lack of new refining capability.

Numbers, please.

I cannot provide you numbers not just because I agree with you, but because they do not exist. My post was directed at the anti-human, pro-suicide people who keep screaming there are too many people. I cannot disagree with you because it is simply not possible for there to be too many people. God loves us all.

 

[drpmjhess]

And is there nothing else that could do these things? Or are these things accomplished using fossil fuels for the same reason that lighting our cities and powering our mobility is accomplished using fossil fuels, that is because fossil fuels are, at present, the cheapest way to do so?

As non-renewable fossil fuels begin their inevitable decline (some say we reached Hubbert’s peak in 2005; others believe oil will peak in 2015), we’ll see a transition to power production through wind, tidal, solar, and other sources. We need to move quickly, however, as the manufature, transportaiotn, and installation of renewable facilties are heavily oil dependent.

Agriculture will present challenges, both because our phenomenal crop production in the past has been boosted by fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and because there is already competition between our use of corn for ethanol, and our use of it for food.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Since the 1940’s, all forecasts of future supply of oil showed that it would run out in 20 years.

We were supposed to run out in 1960. That didn’t happen.

The Limits to Growth/ Club of Rome group said we would run out of almost all natural resources by 1990 or thereabouts.

That didn’t happen either.

The reason for the lousy forecasts is that it is impractical from a financial perpsective to explore for more than a 20 year supply of oil. So we will always have a 20-year supply of oil, but no more than that.

Other fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas are known to be in greater supply, simply because they are so abundant.

As non-renewable fossil fuels begin their inevitable decline (some say we reached Hubbert’s peak in 2005; others believe oil will peak in 2015), we’ll see a transition to power production through wind, tidal, solar, and other sources. We need to move quickly, however, as the manufature, transportaiotn, and installation of renewable facilties are heavily oil dependent.

Agriculture will present challenges, both because our phenomenal crop production in the past has been boosted by fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and because there is already competition between our use of corn for ethanol, and our use of it for food.

 

[drpmjhess]

Since the 1940’s, all forecasts of future supply of oil showed that it would run out in 20 years. We were supposed to run out in 1960. That didn’t happen.

The reason for the lousy forecasts is that it is impractical from a financial perpsective to explore for more than a 20 year supply of oil. So we will always have a 20-year supply of oil, but no more than that.
.

Al, there is a difference between reaching peak production and running out of oil. We can be in deep trouble long before we literally run out. M. King Hubbert predicted in 1956 that US oil production would peak in 1970 – he was spot on. While he missed the peak of global oil production – which he thought would occur in 2000 – individual oil fields aroudn the world are beginning their terminal decline. It is folly for us to act as though there is no end to petroleum. Whether the peak of production is 2005, 2015, or 2025, prudence would seem to urge us to begin preparing for it now, rather than waiting like deer in the headlights.

Let’s suppose we don’t hit peak until 2025. We should take these two decades as a grace period to prepare for the end of cheap power. Things we should be doing include:

(1) building networks of light rail and high-speed intercity rail while we still have sufficient petroleum to fuel their construction. (When we visit my wife’s family in France, transportation is a dream!)

(2) Reducing the size and weight of American cars.

(3) Restructuring society so that people live, shop and work much closer together, take public transportation to work, and telecommute as much as possible.

(4) Restructure our agriculture along sustainable lines, so that farms operate as organically as possible, using fertilizer that does not depend on fossil fuels for its manufacture.

 

[PapaSquash]

Al, there is a difference between reaching peak production and running out of oil. We can be in deep trouble long before we literally run out. M. King Hubbert predicted in 1956 that US oil production would peak in 1970 – he was spot on. While he missed the peak of global oil production – which he thought would occur in 2000 – individual oil fields aroudn the world are beginning their terminal decline. It is folly for us to act as though there is no end to petroleum. Whether the peak of production is 2005, 2015, or 2025, prudence would seem to urge us to begin preparing for it now, rather than waiting like deer in the headlights.

Let’s suppose we don’t hit peak until 2025. We should take these two decades as a grace period to prepare for the end of cheap power. Things we should be doing include:

(1) building networks of light rail and high-speed intercity rail while we still have sufficient petroleum to fuel their construction. (When we visit my wife’s family in France, transportation is a dream!)

(2) Reducing the size and weight of American cars.

(3) Restructuring society so that people live, shop and work much closer together, take public transportation to work, and telecommute as much as possible.

(4) Restructure our agriculture along sustainable lines, so that farms operate as organically as possible, using fertilizer that does not depend on fossil fuels for its manufacture.

Nothing intrinsically evil about any of the above, BUT

I can’t help but notice the you left out Point 5 as noted in the first post of this thread, which involves reducing the human population by more than half over the next 93 years. Freezing like a deer in the headlights is none too smart, but it is pure genius compared to flinging oneself lemming-like into the eternal abyss.

 

[Ender]

And what do you suppose fertilizes these plants with great yields? What fuels their planting, harvesting, processing, packaging, and global distribution? Fossil fuels!

Global distribution? We’re talking about production in countries that couldn’t even feed themselves. Packaging? Processing? Did I leave out the part that some of the problems created by the high yield wheat was a shortage of sacks to put it in and not enough carts (not trucks, carts pulled by animals) to distribute it? What fueled their planting and harvesting were man and beasts … which were also the likely source of most of their fertilizers. I saw hay harvested by hand in Germany in the 1970s; how do you think they were handling it in parts of the world without electricity and running water? Which, by the way, is how they’ll continue doing it if environmentalists have their way and succeed in limiting the growth of power plants in third world nations.

Ender

 

[Montalban]

This was an exchange from another thread. It became an interesting sub-issue and I decided to start a separate thread.

The problem is not over-population, but one of resources not being properly distributed.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The biggest issue with “global distribution” is not about transportation. It’s about locally produced tyrants who are dictators who control every aspect of the local economy with draconian force. There are many countries in Africa, for example, that once were extremely productive, but once they became dictatorships were unable to feed themselves.

Just one example, of many: Read the most restrained, most polite biography of Robert Mugabe that I could find:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

He is the poster child for how to starve millions of people and destroy a country. The wikipedia article is very charitable toward him, but you can Google “Robert Mugabe” and get more of the details of how his repression impacted Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and destroyed their food production.

The kind of distribution that has been referred to is how resources just happen to be located around the world, geographically and demographically. It’s not about transportation and the production of sacks for grain. Where there are agricultural products, local entrepreneurs will provide a variety of packaging, either by resale or by local manufacture.

Unless some totalitarian dictator corrupts the economic system with draconian rules, police state tactics, and give the productive sectors of the country to his friends and partners.

Some of these dictators may even have good intentions; but their ignorance of agriculture, mining, forestry, manufacturing, transportation, public health, and other social and economic facts of life result in wholesale destruction of the economy or of specifically targeted sectors.

Global distribution? We’re talking about production in countries that couldn’t even feed themselves. Packaging? Processing? Did I leave out the part that some of the problems created by the high yield wheat was a shortage of sacks to put it in and not enough carts (not trucks, carts pulled by animals) to distribute it? What fueled their planting and harvesting were man and beasts … which were also the likely source of most of their fertilizers. I saw hay harvested by hand in Germany in the 1970s; how do you think they were handling it in parts of the world without electricity and running water? Which, by the way, is how they’ll continue doing it if environmentalists have their way and succeed in limiting the growth of power plants in third world nations.

Ender

 

[Montalban]

On a side note I don’t think Al Gore should have got the Nobel Peace Prize.

They didn’t give it to (Sir) Bob Geldof in the 80s when he helped save starving Ethiopia, because the committee said saving people from starvation had nothing to do with peace.

 

[Petergee]

On a side note I don’t think Al Gore should have got the Nobel Peace Prize.

They didn’t give it to (Sir) Bob Geldof in the 80s when he helped save starving Ethiopia, because the committee said saving people from starvation had nothing to do with peace.

Cite evidence? I’m not defending the Nobel Committee’s sometimes noticeable biases, but to the best of my knowledge, as a matter of strict policy they never say why any nominee was not awarded a prize.

 

[Al_Masetti]

We need to get back on the topic of the Malthusian predictions of gloom and doom; these predictions of “the sky is falling” get made all the time … first by Malthus; and all of them have proven to be false.

The fact is that we have barely begun to explore the Earth and its natural resources and a whole variety of energy sources.

The biggest energy source, proven over and over, is the ability of human spirit and human inventiveness. Demonstrated over and over.

The only people who keep pushing notions of sustainable development are those who don’t see how prosperity can extend into the future for everyone and who, thus, want to limit the benefits and the bounty of the Earth to a few fellow elitists.

 

[drpmjhess]

]The fact is that we have barely begun to explore the Earth and its natural resources and a whole variety of energy sources.

True – solar and wind and geothermal will work for static applications, and much can and needs to be done in terms of how we build. But what we have upon us in the near term is a liquid fuels crisis: in the next decade we will be running low on the easy oil for fueling cars, trucks, agricultural tractors, construction machinery, and airplanes. The Hubbert’s peak for petroleum is likely to be between 2010 and 2015, after which it will become increasingly expensive to extract the heavier crude from tar sands and shales. To do that we will need lots of electricity, presumably from nuclear-fission-powered generation facilities.

 

[Ender]

True – solar and wind and geothermal will work for static applications, and much can and needs to be done in terms of how we build.

I think there are only two sources of energy capable of providing the electricity we need if we move away from oil and natural gas: coal and nuclear. France generates about 80% of her electricity via nuclear power plants and so could we if environmentalists allowed it. This is a political issue, not a scientific one.

The Hubbert’s peak for petroleum is likely to be between 2010 and 2015, after which it will become increasingly expensive to extract the heavier crude from tar sands and shales.

The extraction of oil from shale is an economic issue; we haven’t done it up until now because of the cost, but with the cost of oil above $80 a barrel it may already be economically viable to begin doing it. Our known reserves of oil locked up in shale exceeds the reserves of the Middle East.

Ender

 

[drpmjhess]

The extraction of oil from shale is an economic issue; we haven’t done it up until now because of the cost, but with the cost of oil above $80 a barrel it may already be economically viable to begin doing it. Our known reserves of oil locked up in shale exceeds the reserves of the Middle East.
Ender

Ender, you’re right that it is an economic issue, but it’s also an energy issue. Shale oil extraction is enormously energy-intensive. When it costs a barrel of oil in to extract a barrel of oil, it will be a no-go situation. The only economically and energetically feasible way I see for extracting it is nuclear-powered electrical generation plants for the creation of steam to wash the oil out.

Another reason for nuclear is that even with shale oil, at present rates of demand increase even that won’t last long. As for uranium, the Hubbert’s Peak seems to be about 2075, so that at maximal extraction rates it won’t last much beyond 2200. If we hope for the survival of humanity for another 10,000 years, we have to look beyond both uranium and fossil fuels.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Among the natural resources at issue is water.

Interesting article, by the way, about Atlanta’s current problems in not having any back-up plans to provide water to the city.

Here is the link: drudgereport.com/

In my experience (twice), major water suppliers have proposed large reservoir projects only to be turned down by the politicians.

In one case, 50 years later, the supplier’s projections of water demand were exactly accurate. But the water wasn’t there. [Pascack Valley, Bergen County, New Jersey]

In the other case, it is about 25 years and the complaints about there not being any water available have already started. [Tocks Island Project; northwestern New Jersey]

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i believe that God desires us to return to a more natural lifestyle in harmony with the created order. our current american life style is unsustainable, materialistic, wasteful and artificial. globalism and free market capitalism is like a giant ponzi scheme that will come to a catastrophic end. something has got to give. i do believe that at some point in the near future, our consumptive lifestyle will be forced to change.

it’s not God’s desire that we live on top of on another in overcrowded cities. to be separated from creation is more like living in hell to me. i don’t understand why we need immigration at this point. it’s a fact that most immigrants flock to big cities making them even more overcrowded.

but, i’m the last one to support forced population control. it is just that at some point, the world could be overcrowded.