The Population Bomb.

[TheWarriorMonk]

What exactly did “The Vatican” say?

Did God say we are limited to subsistence farming?

Did God say become reliant as possible on limited resources, and use the up as fast as possible?

Cite source.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Did God say become reliant as possible on limited resources, and use the up as fast as possible?

Cite source.

You are the one who has to cite the source.

What exactly did “The Vatican” say? You’re the one who referenced “The Vatican” … so what exactly did they say?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You are the one who has to cite the source.

You are clearly not interested in learning anything, so there is no point of citing anything. It takes less than a second to google the Vatican’s position on environment, responsibility, etc. if you are really interested.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You are clearly not interested in learning anything, so there is no point of citing anything. It takes less than a second to google the Vatican’s position on environment, responsibility, etc. if you are really interested.

[You don’t know what is actually is, do you?]

[Sounds like when people say something is in the spirit of Vatican II, but cannot provide any specific reference.]

It is not my obligation to attempt to make YOUR argument for YOU.

You raised the argument position; it is your obligation to provide the reference.

[In fact, we here have already been through this path on other threads … same general subject … previous years … , and we already found that the argument point does not exist … at least not in any or from any authoritative source … or with any degree of specificity … and further, there was a “press release” that was almost immediately retracted and withdrawn.]

None of this changes the fact that the Planet Earth is one humongous volcano … and there is no possible way that the people living on a volcano can “save the volcano”.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It is not my obligation to attempt to make YOUR argument for YOU.

You raised the argument position; it is your obligation to provide the reference.

I don’t recall this forum requiring such obligations. Furthermore, you haven’t done anything to support your opinion; you’ve just provided biased opinion pieces. My support starts at established scientific principles which anyone can look up.

That said, when people are discussing a subject, they should be aware of both sides of the discussion. Most people just aren’t, and don’t care…their own opinion, and the biased opinions of others, is the only thing that matters and everything else is dismissed.

Fact is, for anyone paying a minimal amount of attention, is the Bl JP II and our recently retired Pope have spoken on these matters. Those speeches, writings, and comments are available to anyone that has a remote interest in such matters.

Furthermore, want to take a guess a what is the only carbon-neutral country in the world? Any Catholic with an interest in environmental matters would know that in a second. Should we not follow that example?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Vatican has spoken on man’s responsibility with his environment, and how to act. Do you disagree with the Vatican?

Please provide the specifics.

Since you are so sure of them, then it should be no problem for you to elucidate us.

You would be performing a public service.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Please provide the specifics.

From where? Pope Benedict’s first homily? The Vatican conference for climate change? The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace? etc…

Since you are so sure of them, then it should be no problem for you to elucidate us.

You would be performing a public service.

Obviously necessarily because people don’t do their research.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not only my opinion, but it is the opinion of experts on both sides of this position. That was even noted (implicitly) in the ant-peak oil opinion piece a few posts back. The reasoning is different; e.g., “cheap energy is probably gone,” but the underlying issue is the same, i.e., lower EROEI.

What would the EROI of fracking have looked like in 1918? Assuming they could have done it even poorly at all, (admittedly not a good assumption) the costs would have been astronomical, given the technology of the time.

Today, gasoline at the pump costs about the same as it always did, in inflation-adjusted dollars, despite the fact that the “easiest” oil (excepting off the west coast) is gone. In fact, the 1918 cost was actually just a bit higher than it is now despite the fact that in 1918 they were only pumping “easy” oil.
inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not only my opinion, but it is the opinion of experts on both sides of this position. That was even noted (implicitly) in the ant-peak oil opinion piece a few posts back. The reasoning is different; e.g., “cheap energy is probably gone,” but the underlying issue is the same, i.e., lower EROEI.

They have to be discovered, otherwise we’ve got a great big problem on our hands. I’m just skeptical simply because I understand the science behind it, which allows me to sort through fact and fantasy.

You were, I believe, speaking of food production here.

Actually, there have been quite a few advances in food production in the last few years which do not relate to increased fuel use. Some, in fact, require less in the way of overall petroleum resource use than was previously the case. Some do, however, relate to capital investment, which is a slow process for farmers and ranchers who have to “bootstrap” into utilizing them.

 

[GregBussey]

They have to be discovered, otherwise we’ve got a great big problem on our hands. I’m just skeptical simply because I understand the science behind it, which allows me to sort through fact and fantasy.

That’s your opinion.

Of course this is not what I’m saying. You’re trying to use emotions and accuse someone of heresy to prove your point. Radicalism on both sides solves nothing.

You’re dodging the question. Why are you trying to convice us of impending doom if not to promote some remedy? So exactly what remedy are you promoting?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You’re dodging the question. Why are you trying to convice us of impending doom if not to promote some remedy? So exactly what remedy are you promoting?

You’re asking a leading question, and you wish me to lead me to your foregone conclusion. However, as a pro-life Catholic, that’s not happening.

I recommend living a sustainable lifestyle, one that does not have utter dependence on and plays a shell game with non-renewable resources. It’s also the lifestyle we’ve all lived except for the past century, which is a blip on the screen of human history, and the one we will be going back to in the future.

I also recommend not setting up a Ponzi-type economy. It’s not necessary; it’s solely a man-made concoction.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What would the EROI of fracking have looked like in 1918? Assuming they could have done it even poorly at all, (admittedly not a good assumption) the costs would have been astronomical, given the technology of the time.

They didn’t have the technology to do so. That technology today require huge amounts of resources, notably relatively cheap fossil fuels and otherwise resources. And, FWIW, they’re not even sure if the EROEI is positive, all factors considered.

Today, gasoline at the pump costs about the same as it always did, in inflation-adjusted dollars, despite the fact that the “easiest” oil (excepting off the west coast) is gone. In fact, the 1918 cost was actually just a bit higher than it is now despite the fact that in 1918 they were only pumping “easy” oil.
inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp

Fact is, we’ll all have to wait and see what the future holds. If countries like India and China ever achieve the U.S. standard of living, we’ll need several times more energy than is produced on the entire planet right now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I recommend living a sustainable lifestyle, one that does not have utter dependence on and plays a shell game with non-renewable resources. It’s also the lifestyle we’ve all lived except for the past century, which is a blip on the screen of human history, and the one we will be going back to in the future.

I’m not sure I would assert that “we all” lived a lifestyle based solely on renewable resources prior to the current century. People have used fossil fuels longer than that, and have mined resources back before recorded history.

Technology keeps changing things. Coal resources in England, for example, were nearly at their end until steam pumps to pump water out of mines were invented. Later on, of course, England imported fuels via transportation technology allowing for it.

Anybody could have predicted the end of resource use at all kinds of points in time, historically, and they would have at least seemed right in doing it, based on the state of knowledge at the time.

 

[GregBussey]

You’re asking a leading question, and you wish me to lead me to your foregone conclusion. However, as a pro-life Catholic, that’s not happening.

I recommend living a sustainable lifestyle, one that does not have utter dependence on and plays a shell game with non-renewable resources. It’s also the lifestyle we’ve all lived except for the past century, which is a blip on the screen of human history, and the one we will be going back to in the future.

I also recommend not setting up a Ponzi-type economy. It’s not necessary; it’s solely a man-made concoction.

No, just trying to cut to the chase so this doesn’t remain a useless debate (see 2 Tim 2:23).

So if I understand you correctly, you advocate an early 20th century lifestyle? That would be mostly agrarian, where every family has a dozen or so children and several acres to work. There was little in the way of medicine back then so we should eshew health care now. Transportation should be pedestrian - or equestrian for the wealthy. And we certainly can’t have any scientific research - or things like cell phones or the Internet - because that requires a lot of electricity. It would be like the “Little House on the Prairie” television show, right?

We do have pockets of that today. Around here we call it Amish country. I’m all for it. In fact I have 7 acres and 8 kids. I have chickens and deer, fruit trees and a big vegetable garden. I’m nowhere near self-sustaining, and like you, I will probably never do away with the internet. But I think it’s a fun concept to dabble in. I discover God in hard work and in nature.

I’m not sure you’ve thought it through though. Energy usage is not the only difference between 1913 and 2013. We have more people around today than we did back then. Today there’s only 50 acres for every man, woman and child on earth. Is that enough to sustain life without using non-renewable energy? What do you do about that? And obviously, if everyone has the dozen or so kids needed to bring in the harvest, the population will continue to grow. You haven’t said what you would do about population - which of course is the topic of this thread - except to say that you’re pro-life.

Putting aside population for a moment, the pseudo-Amish lifestyle is not going to be for everyone. If nature-lovers like you and me don’t believe the doom and gloom enough to give up the internet, then how can we expect Hollywood types - Al Gore chief among them - to give up their jets, limos and cavier? If there is a big economic collapse, perhaps brought on by EROI reaching your prophesied tipping point, then maybe the United Nations will have to close the doors on its swanky carbon-consuming environmental conventions. Only then will the Obama administration stop propping up the automotive industry.

For now though, the reason we see people continuing to work in manufacturing and technology and health care, is that good comes from these things. These things help people, and save lives. If some day, industry becomes more harmful than good, then the world will abandon it and become Amish. For now, though, isn’t the spectre of a catastrophe merely academic?

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, just trying to cut to the chase so this doesn’t remain a useless debate (see 2 Tim 2:23).

So if I understand you correctly, you advocate an early 20th century lifestyle? That would be mostly agrarian, where every family has a dozen or so children and several acres to work. There was little in the way of medicine back then so we should eshew health care now. Transportation should be pedestrian - or equestrian for the wealthy. And we certainly can’t have any scientific research - or things like cell phones or the Internet - because that requires a lot of electricity. It would be like the “Little House on the Prairie” television show, right?

We do have pockets of that today. Around here we call it Amish country. I’m all for it. In fact I have 7 acres and 8 kids. I have chickens and deer, fruit trees and a big vegetable garden. I’m nowhere near self-sustaining, and like you, I will probably never do away with the internet. But I think it’s a fun concept to dabble in. I discover God in hard work and in nature.

I’m not sure you’ve thought it through though. Energy usage is not the only difference between 1913 and 2013. We have more people around today than we did back then. Today there’s only 50 acres for every man, woman and child on earth. Is that enough to sustain life without using non-renewable energy? What do you do about that? And obviously, if everyone has the dozen or so kids needed to bring in the harvest, the population will continue to grow. You haven’t said what you would do about population - which of course is the topic of this thread - except to say that you’re pro-life.

Putting aside population for a moment, the pseudo-Amish lifestyle is not going to be for everyone. If nature-lovers like you and me don’t believe the doom and gloom enough to give up the internet, then how can we expect Hollywood types - Al Gore chief among them - to give up their jets, limos and cavier? If there is a big economic collapse, perhaps brought on by EROI reaching your prophesied tipping point, then maybe the United Nations will have to close the doors on its swanky carbon-consuming environmental conventions. Only then will the Obama administration stop propping up the automotive industry.

For now though, the reason we see people continuing to work in manufacturing and technology and health care, is that good comes from these things. These things help people, and save lives. If some day, industry becomes more harmful than good, then the world will abandon it and become Amish. For now, though, isn’t the spectre of a catastrophe merely academic?

If I recall correctly, the average farm in China is less than one acre. Of course, the life on them is miserable and primitive. Even so, their population continued to burgeon until the “one child policy”. Given the ongoing industrialization, that policy was probably not even needed to control the population, since, at a point, industrialization seems to do it all by itself eventually.

With the Amish, there is often more than meets the eye, or perhaps the belief about them. Some are quite strict about modern things, some very little. Other than their appearance and social habits, there isn’t much to distinguish a lot of them from any farmers. Well, they are also typically a lot better capitalized than many non-Amish farmers.

Being self-sustaining is a relative concept. There were lots and lots of self-sustaining farmers in earlier centuries, but part of their “self-sustenance” was due to the trading they did with others. Some were true subsistence farmers, but a lot were not.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m not sure I would assert that “we all” lived a lifestyle based solely on renewable resources prior to the current century. People have used fossil fuels longer than that, and have mined resources back before recorded history.

Technology keeps changing things. Coal resources in England, for example, were nearly at their end until steam pumps to pump water out of mines were invented. Later on, of course, England imported fuels via transportation technology allowing for it.

Anybody could have predicted the end of resource use at all kinds of points in time, historically, and they would have at least seemed right in doing it, based on the state of knowledge at the time.

As you say, “technology keeps changing things” …

There is another thread going on right now … about how the political leadership in England has dropped the ball with respect to energy … they are rapidly closing/shutting down nuclear power plants and coal fired power plants … relying on wind power and on natural gas imports …

However, the political leadership has also shut down/demolished storage facilities for natural gas.

And the wind power generators seem to be shutting down in cold weather.

So, natural gas may be running out as is electricity from wind power.

So, the UK may actually be forced to stop generating electricity.

England DOES have a vast amount of natural gas in the tight shale … as does Texas, Pennsylvania and other states. However, the political leadership has apparently yielded to the “Luddite” protesters who do not want to use hydraulic fracturing … which has been used in the United States for 60 years and with somewhere around one million wells.

There is actually a film available that discusses hydraulic fracturing: “FrackNation” … interested folks can look it up.

fracknation.com/

It gets shown on television from time to time and various community groups around the country show it at gatherings. You can also buy a copy for little money and there are clips from it on YouTube.

So, I guess what it all comes down to is this: are we willing to use contemporary and available technology … all of which improves constantly … sometimes with sudden jumps … or do we revert back to subsistence farming?

Back around 1900, railroads used very powerful coal-burning steam-powered locomotives, some of which generated 10,000 HP … and could run at 100 mph.

Technology evolved … and engines that burned various petroleum distillates began to evolve … at the same time as the maritime industry began to develop “diesel”-types of engines, so also the railroad industry began to experiment with non-steam engines … AND two bicycle shop owners also built a gasoline-fueled engine that was one-fourth the weight of the conventional engines of the day … and improvements began to leapfrog one another after that, yielding shortly to the airplane and the modern railroad diesel engine.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

So if I understand you correctly, you advocate an early 20th century lifestyle?

It will obviously and eventually will go back to something similar, except that we have some technological advances. One can do calculations based on the maximum available energy on the planet plus (name removed by moderator)uts from space and see that we cannot simply continue to use energy at ever increases rates for all eternity.

There was little in the way of medicine back then so we should eshew health care now.

The sad thing is, modern “health care” is atrocious and focused on the wrong things. Yes, major advances in certain emergency care (accidents, etc.) and childhood diseases have been made, but when it comes to chronic diseases, we might as well be in the stone age. That part of health care is focused on treating symptoms, not effecting cures. In a great many cases, as that is needed for a cure is to eat our natural diet (God didn’t invent Twinkies) and exercise.

What do you do about that? And obviously, if everyone has the dozen or so kids needed to bring in the harvest, the population will continue to grow. You haven’t said what you would do about population - which of course is the topic of this thread - except to say that you’re pro-life.

Just because I state a position based on accepted scientific facts doesn’t mean I have a solution. In fact, I don’t have to have a solution. Nature (being the nature that God set up) will take care of itself. It always has, and it always will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The sad thing is, modern “health care” is atrocious and focused on the wrong things. Yes, major advances in certain emergency care (accidents, etc.) and childhood diseases have been made, but when it comes to chronic diseases, we might as well be in the stone age. That part of health care is focused on treating symptoms, not effecting cures. In a great many cases, as that is needed for a cure is to eat our natural diet (God didn’t invent Twinkies) and exercise.

Perhaps even sadder is the fact that governmental interference in healthcare (particularly Obamacare) has placed a premium (provider reward) for “well care”. Providers are presently rewarded if they do the “well care” things the government thinks they should do; e.g. do the kind of physical exam one does for well people or have those “end of life” conferences. After 2014, they will be penalized if they fail to do it. The government monitors whether they do it or not, and whether the patient complies with “well care” recommendations or not, over time.

On the other hand, they have relatively reduced the provider rewards for “chronic care”, which disproportionately hits the poor, but most severely those who are disabled in some maner.

The two fit together. So, if, pursuant to 'well care", one is advised to lose weight or eat differently or whatever, that will be documented. If, then, one doesn’t do it despite those admonitions, one becomes “chronic” as to that condition.

Providers are already dumping “chronic” patients in favor of “well care” patients, and it’s reasonably foreseeable that will become more pronounced as time goes on.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Science changes constantly … contrary to someone … the science is never settled … maybe not even TBBT!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Science changes constantly … contrary to someone … the science is never settled … maybe not even TBBT!

I wouldn’t say that it changes constantly, but rather our understanding of it changes constantly. Underlying scientific principles, unless purely theoretical in nature, rarely change; they just build on what has already been discovered. That’s an important distinction.