The Population Bomb.

[Monte_RCMS]

We know how many abortions have been perpetrated in the United States … but does anyone know what the WORLDWIDE number is?

How many potential geniuses have we killed off?

We are so arrogant at totally ignoring the role of genius in improving the human condition.

We take everything for granted!!

Aluminum … we take it for granted … but it was once more costly than GOLD!

Until Charles Hall and Paul Héroult came along, that is.

READ THIS:

Charles Martin Hall and Paul Héroult might have developed the more practical process after Deville.

Before the Hall-Héroult process was developed in the late 1880s, aluminium was exceedingly difficult to extract from its various ores. This made pure aluminium more valuable than gold.[49] Bars of aluminium were exhibited at the Exposition Universelle of 1855.[50] Napoleon III of France is reputed to have given a banquet where the most honoured guests were given aluminium utensils, while the others made do with gold.[51][52]

Aluminium was selected as the material to be used for the 100 ounce (2.8 kg) capstone of the Washington Monument in 1884, a time when one ounce (30 grams) cost the daily wage of a common worker on the project.[53] The capstone, which was set in place on December 6, 1884, in an elaborate dedication ceremony, was the largest single piece of aluminium cast at the time, when aluminium was as expensive as silver.[53]

The Cowles companies supplied aluminium alloy in quantity in the United States and England using smelters like the furnace of Carl Wilhelm Siemens by 1886.[54][55][56] Charles Martin Hall of Ohio in the U.S. and Paul Héroult of France independently developed the Hall-Héroult electrolytic process that made extracting aluminium from minerals cheaper and is now the principal method used worldwide. Hall’s process,[57] in 1888 with the financial backing of Alfred E. Hunt, started the Pittsburgh Reduction Company today known as Alcoa. Héroult’s process was in production by 1889 in Switzerland at Aluminium Industrie, now Alcan, and at British Aluminium, now Luxfer Group and Alcoa, by 1896 in Scotland.[58]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You don’t have to be some PhD whizbang to invent some amazing new fabulous device. Or to make a scientific breakthrough.

The Wright Brothers owned a bicycle shop!

They did scientific experiments and invented their own instruments and came up with discoveries that have NEVER BEEN IMPROVED UPON.

At the same time, a government funded scientist outspent them 1000 to 1 and failed utterly.

Eccentric?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Carlson

Not very good at writing contracts?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Tiny simple devices?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talon_Zipper

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Abplanalp

No challenges left?

**How about figuring out how to get methane hydrides out of the ocean water.

How about figuring out how to develop thorium into a useful ordinary energy source.**

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The point is not that every one should be fit into Texas. The argument merely provides an easy way to visualize that the earth has plenty of room for everyone. Since everyone could theoretically fit into Texas (which is a mere 1.06% of earth’s habitable land), then we could theoretically have 98.94% of earth’s land left over for food. The point is not where people live. The point is that we are nowhere close to some imaginary limit.

If we put everyone on Jupiter we’d have even a lower population density. But once again, that’s not relevant. It’s the resources in the environment per person that matters.

Perhaps a better argument is to consider this: World population over the last 40 years has about doubled, right? (3.7 billion then versus 7.0 billion now). As population grew, did worldwide starvation and malnutrition increase or decrease? In fact, 37% of the world’s population suffered hunger in 1970 but only 16% suffered hunger in 2009. Therefore, higher population = less starvation. Why is that so? Because people are a resource. The more people we have, the more problem-solvers we have, the more innovators, the more laborers.

Along with the decrease in malnutrition is the increase use of non-renewable fossil fuels. The only way population can continue to increase is to continue to use a greater and greater amount of these fuels, as EROEI has been decreasing over time, as predicted.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The planet Earth has infinite resources.

Actually it doesn’t. Basic understanding of energy use and entropy.

But, “smart people” keep insisting that we have run out of ideas. That there never will be any more smart people.

The actual smart people have figured out that laws that God has written into our existence. Other “smart people” believe we can simply change God’s laws at whim and/or ignore them.

OK, how can this finite planet have infinite resources? Because the Earth itself virtually vomits out vast wealth on a daily basis … through volcanic action, for example … through tectonic energy releases, for example … through the releasing of energy from deep within the planet itself, for example … and by bombardment by cosmic rays and by solar corpuscles and by solar energy and by all sorts of other energy forms that come from outside the planet. AND, by encouraging people to learn what those resources are and how to develop them and apply them.

Once again, they are not infinite. I’ve actual seen estimates of how long it would take to use up all the energy on the earth, assuming every last atom of earth was converted into energy, using historic energy trends, and consideration of the second law of thermodynamics. It’s less than a millenium. Obviously natural forces will limit us far before we ever get there.

Instead, what we are doing is killing our new people off at a staggering rate. We have killed 50 million Americans ALONE … not to mention Russians, Japanese, Europeans, people of every cultural and language grouping … killing them off because we look at them as burdens instead of as potential geniuses …

While I certainly don’t advocate this, I advocate not sticking our heads in the sand and to start using resources responsibly. The alternative will not be pleasant.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Entropy ONLY works in or applies to a closed-system.

Planet Earth is NOT a closed system.

So, all of the energy in the Earth’s core will be exhausted in a millennium?

After all these billions of years … it will only last one more millennium.

Amazing.

Ohio alone has been discovered to have more oil than Saudi Arabia … something the “peak oil people” are not happy to have disseminated.

Alberta, Canada, has enough oil to power the Earth for 200 years … as far as we know so far.

There is enough geopressurized methane to last 600 years … with much much more methane hydrides in the ocean.

Not to mention thorium and uranium nuclear power.

We have barely begun to scratch the surface.

On millennium.

Yeah, right, but, sorry, I don’t think so.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Entropy ONLY works in or applies to a closed-system.

Planet Earth is NOT a closed system.

True to an extent. But the energy absorbed by the earth isn’t replenishing our use of fossil fuels fast enough. Or, more correctly, where using nonrenewable resources at a rate much faster than the earth can create them. That means at some point we the population will readjust to reflect to decreased availability of resources.

So, all of the energy in the Earth’s core will be exhausted in a millennium?

After all these billions of years … it will only last one more millennium.

Amazing.

Have humans existed on Earth for all these billions of years using energy at ever increasing rates? C’mon, that type of argument isn’t even worth addressing. Man since the industrial age has used vastly more resources (most nonrenewable) than man prior to that.

Ohio alone has been discovered to have more oil than Saudi Arabia … something the “peak oil people” are not happy to have disseminated.

Alberta, Canada, has enough oil to power the Earth for 200 years … as far as we know so far.

The amount is not relevant; it’s the cost of obtaining that oil that is relevant, which is one of those things that gets utterly ignored by those that don’t have a basic understanding of these issues. The EROEI for the oil in the areas you mentioned is far less than in Saudi Arabia. Once that number goes negative, it is no longer economically feasible to extract it anymore. It’s like spending a dollar to get back two quarters.

There is enough geopressurized methane to last 600 years … with much much more methane hydrides in the ocean.

Once again, it’s about feasibility. God’s laws of physics don’t go away because we want them to.

 

[wynnejj]

Arguments such as our population has doubled before, when the “smart” experts said we would crash and we didn’t, are no more relevant than the guy who jumps off a building and accelerates toward ground, looks at his watch, and says, “See my brother’s calculation is wrong, I haven’t hit ground yet.”.

Arguments such as the loss of geniuses due to abortion have some merit, but the growth exponential nature of population makes the poker game that we are playing an exponentially higher stakes game every time we double the population. You can throw people at a problem, but the politics of the process will probably come up with a 2000 page omnibus healthcare plan.

More importantly, the Church’s position about “responsible parenthood” which allows for limiting family for serious reasons makes the population problem moot if we ever arrive at that destination. I see no change of course direction from the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Arguments such as our population has doubled before, when the “smart” experts said we would crash and we didn’t, are no more relevant than the guy who jumps off a building and accelerates toward ground, looks at his watch, and says, “See my brother’s calculation is wrong, I haven’t hit ground yet.”

I believe that this different this time. Why? We can no longer simply depend on nature in and of itself to provide for us. Our current population levels are entirely dependent on the use of fossil fuels. To simply maintain our current population for all time, we must use continue to use a significant amount of fossil fuels for all time. If those fossil fuels become less available, then the population will decrease accordingly.

I am personally leery of date predictions. Also, people should not discount theories just because someone incorrectly predicted a date based on that theory. The underlying science behind the theory must be investigated. Example: Peak Oil theory. People are stating it’s completely wrong because the date was exactly predicted (an ridiculous and unreasonable standard). And they’ll use, say, the amount of predicted oil in Ohio to further discount the theory. Well, if these people stopped focusing on the date and focused on, say, EROEI, they’d quickly find out that the science behind Peak Oil theory is correct.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s always been “different this time”.

 

[wynnejj]

I am personally leery of date predictions.

I think that statement would get 100% agreement on this thread from all quarters.

The fact is we can’t predict our scientific breakthroughs that will do away with our dependence on fossil fuels, nor the underground breakthroughs that will make fossil fuels percolate up to a level where we can get at it readily. One can’t worry about “forever” corrective actions because our Earth will pass away.

One can’t make arguments that our resources are infinite either, because it suggests that that God gave us a command that there was no potential to fulfill … Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It’s always been “different this time”.

The difference this time is that we are not living within the renewable boundaries of nature on a worldwide scale. Societies that do not live within these boundaries eventually and always collapse to the natural norm.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The fact is we can’t predict our scientific breakthroughs that will do away with our dependence on fossil fuels, nor the underground breakthroughs that will make fossil fuels percolate up to a level where we can get at it readily.

The problem with the scientific breakthrough has come is because there is no breakthrough to be had. “Breakthroughs” in energy generally involve using more energy from another source to achieve a goal. Example: People rave about fracking. What’s the EROEI on the energy obtained from fracking? Hint: it ain’t good, and that’s without giving a thread of consideration of the environmental damage it causes.

One can’t worry about “forever” corrective actions because our Earth will pass away.

Now you’re starting to sound like a Buddhist, living in the here and now.

This is actually interesting, because many Catholics simply don’t think about the future, and answers to questions are often of the type “God will provide.” But that is the subject of another thread.

Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

How many people existed when he gave that command?

 

[wynnejj]

How many people existed when he gave that command?

Two. I guess it really was a tall order.

Obviously it was our marching orders to be handed down through the generations. And, sure enough we are marching right to that destination. We are asked to march right to the point where we “fill the earth” with people. Not to over-fill, but to fill. If I asked you to fill a bucket with fruit, the idea would be concrete enough. What we seem to be arguing in the population control debate is whether the Texas world population city proposal should be continued throughout the world, or whether we have reached the “fill the earth” capacity in terms of a sustainable steady-state filled earth population. Considering that fossil fuel is limiting factor for which there is no substitute seems pessimistic. Saying we can go on forever seems contrary to the biblical injunction that suggests that there is a filled earth capacity.

 

[SamH]

The difference this time is that we are not living within the renewable boundaries of nature on a worldwide scale. Societies that do not live within these boundaries eventually and always collapse to the natural norm.

We’re not? Source for this claim?

I think back to the claims 110 years ago that the US had hit the maximum population it could sustain with the food resources available. Seems pretty silly doesn’t it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe that this different this time. Why? We can no longer simply depend on nature in and of itself to provide for us.

We haven’t “simply depended on nature to provide for us” since primitive man jumped out of a tree onto a rabbit to kill it, skinned it with his teeth, and ate it raw.

I don’t know why you would say something like this. It is in the very nature of mankind to devise ways to get around nature’s limitations or to work with them in such a way as to make them work for us, not against us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The difference this time is that we are not living within the renewable boundaries of nature on a worldwide scale. Societies that do not live within these boundaries eventually and always collapse to the natural norm.

What are the renewable boundaries of nature? The handsful of grass seeds we can gather in a field and shove in our mouths? Man has altered the “boundaries of nature” on a massive, massive scale from time immemorial. Where was corn 15,000 years ago? It didn’t exist, that’s where it was. Corn then was a rare, tiny seed head we would, today, never think of as anything to eat, let alone as corn. Indians, over the millenia, changed it to something millions of them could depend on. To this day, nobody knows quite how they did it.

Before Europeans, there were approximately as many bison on the plains as there are now cattle. Additionally, there were thousands of elk, antelope and deer. But plains Indians (very few in number then) starved while billions of tons of nutritious protein were all around them. It took the coming of the horse for them to access it on any kind of life-sustaining scale, and it caused a population explosion among them. The pre-horse Indians lived within the renewable boundaries of nature, and so did those who obtained the “technological development” of riding horseback. As with corn, the “renewable boundaries” didn’t change. People’s ability to utilize them changed.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Considering that fossil fuel is limiting factor for which there is no substitute seems pessimistic.

I don’t classify myself as an optimist or pessimist, but simply a realist. I simply base my opinions on the facts before me. I don’t attempt to alter the facts, or the outcome based on those facts.

One of the most interesting things I’ve observed over the course of my lifetime is that many people start with their version of the facts, and/or their version of a preconceived outcome. They really don’t understand the issues, and, If challenged, they then work backwards to attempt to defend their positions. I’ve even experienced some things firsthand related to this, where my senses actually ignored objectively observable information, because I had a preconceived notion of the outcome. There’s all sorts of interesting issues in psychology, quantum physics, etc. related to this, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What are the renewable boundaries of nature?

Simple…not creating a situation where we become utterly dependent on energy sources that we use up orders of magnitude faster than they are created. When we use up the nonrenewable sources, we will be back to relying on renewable resources…and renewable resources can’t support our current level of population. Investigate it yourself; current nonrenewable resources per person are simply obscene.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Simple…not creating a situation where we become utterly dependent on energy sources that we use up orders of magnitude faster than they are created. When we use up the nonrenewable sources, we will be back to relying on renewable resources…and renewable resources can’t support our current level of population. Investigate it yourself; current nonrenewable resources per person are simply obscene.

Here is what happens in real life:

As resources start to become scarcer, the price gets bid up. As the price starts to go up, the really smart people figure out how to find more OR they figure out how to make substitutes.

And then the price goes back down and everybody can afford bountiful quantities.

It’s only when people with no ability to produce anything or to invent anything gain control … and they begin to act like tyrants and dictators.

THAT is what happens.

In REAL life.

Works every time.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I don’t classify myself as an optimist or pessimist, but simply a realist. I simply base my opinions on the facts before me. I don’t attempt to alter the facts, or the outcome based on those facts.

One of the most interesting things I’ve observed over the course of my lifetime is that many people start with their version of the facts, and/or their version of a preconceived outcome. They really don’t understand the issues, and, If challenged, they then work backwards to attempt to defend their positions. I’ve even experienced some things firsthand related to this, where my senses actually ignored objectively observable information, because I had a preconceived notion of the outcome. There’s all sorts of interesting issues in psychology, quantum physics, etc. related to this, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

Really???

Seriously???

[You cannot be serious!]

[People should not go around stating false opinions as absolute facts.]

There are abundant natural resources that we have not yet begun to tap into.

There is natural gas IN the ocean and there is natural gas at the BOTTOM of the ocean.

People have not yet figured out how to retrieve it.

There is definite evidence for abiogenic oil and gas …

WHAT is the evidence?

Simple: there is oil and gas that is OLDER than the so-called “fossil fuels” … and the only way it can be OLDER is if it originates from a much greater depth. From the giant furnace that makes up the entirety of the earth except for the thin surface crust layer.

What can be used to replace gasoline and diesel for motor fuels?

CNG and LNG … now in the process of being implemented using normal market forces.
Go on-line to LNGWorldNews.

Visit YouTube and see for yourself!

AND, methanol. Basic high school chemistry. Read “Energy Victory” and “Turning Oil Into Salt”.

Seriously, do the reading. This is current technology. Not rocket science.

Is there a shortage of electricity? NO. France gets 80% of its electricity and even EXPORTS electricity … from nuclear power. The United States only gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear … which is about what most of the rest of the world does.

France simply decided it was not going to be held hostage by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC nations. So, they came up with an alternate form of energy to generate electricity. Everybody else can do the same thing.

India is even working to bypass uranium and use other naturally occurring substances.

[You know about thorium, right?]

Is there a shortage of water? NO. We have plenty of water. Sometimes it is inconveniently located or the rain is timed badly for us. But we can transport it by canals and by pipelines, as we need it. AND/OR we can store it … in devices known as reservoirs.

OR, we can process sea water through desalination.

OR, we can put sea water into natural depressions and let nature do the work.

OR, we can pump sea water into natural depressions and let nature do the work.

Over the eons, through the mechanism of continental tectonic plate movement, in fact, **whole oceans **have been formed and closed up.

Humans can figure out how to do these things.

In fact, figuring out how to do these things happens all the time and has been happening all along.