overdrawn at the pocari bank

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7696197.stm

 

Report suggests that consumption outstrips supply by as much as a third, making some of us 'debtors'.

 

Two points:

 

1. is that Norway on the consumption map as high as the USA?

 

2. If work was simply raw materials x energy this would make sense. But work is raw material x energy x skill x technology, is it not? If so, we simply need to up our game...

[Aristes]

Sadly, this is inevitable. We can buy very little time before we pay for our success as a species. It's not even our fault. We live in a reality of finite resources. I thought the article was interesting but what's the remedy? I notice it gave us the bad news, but the even worse news is that there is nothing we can do short of a massive decrease in the population or inter-planetary colonization. I'd like the latter, but I'm afraid the former is the only realistic outcome.

[Walsingham]

Sadly, this is inevitable. We can buy very little time before we pay for our success as a species. It's not even our fault. We live in a reality of finite resources. I thought the article was interesting but what's the remedy? I notice it gave us the bad news, but the even worse news is that there is nothing we can do short of a massive decrease in the population or inter-planetary colonization. I'd like the latter, but I'm afraid the former is the only realistic outcome.

 

Er... so you didn't like my idea of becoming more adept or improving our technology?

 

For example, fusion power would massively increase our ability to produce energy.

[random n00b]

For example, fusion power would massively increase our ability to produce energy.

Yeah, fusion power is pretty much the industrial Grail of our day. With an arguably limitless power source that's as clean as it is cheap, sustainability problems go *poof*.

 

I have two questions about the article, though. First of all is, as always, a matter of source, statistics, and interpretation and conclusions reliability. When raw data and how that data was obtained and processed isn't made available, I'm a bit suspicious - what with things like "in 2030 we'll need the equivalent of two Earths". Not necessarily an issue with the study itself, since it may be BBC who cut that out.

 

And then, I think there's the issue of WHO is paying the price, as net global "debt" may not be as bad as reported, given the fact that the study seems to be tailored around consumption per country as opposed to total surface/total resources. This would mean that underdeveloped and poor countries bear the excess load, and when the crack comes around, it'll be them who suffer the most. If so, it wouldn't be surprising that this little detail was omitted, so as to preserve the shock value of the article.

Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[Aristes]

I think technology is great. In fact, that has been the argument in regards to all sorts of environmental warning signs. However, it still doesn't answer the basic question. Cold fusion, for example, would create an arguably limitless power source, but it doesn't put minerals back in the earth. It's not just oil that is finite. Copper is finite. Gold is finite. Maybe fusion can create these things in such abundance it buys us almost unlimited time.

 

...And I'm not being argumentative. Maybe technology can overcome these obstacles as it has so many in the past. I'm not really all that familiar with the ideas behind the study. Alls I can do is look at the numbers game, and they look bleak for humanity going forward. Technology has to shoulder a pretty big burden, but maybe it's not all that unlikely. *shrug* I hope I'm wrong. Better to eat crow and live, I always say.

[random n00b]

It's not just oil that is finite. Copper is finite. Gold is finite. Maybe fusion can create these things in such abundance it buys us almost unlimited time.

As far as I know (and I'm by no means an expert), the biggest problem with recycling highly elaborated products (electronic components and stuff) is that the cost offsets the advantages, and so it's simply more cost-effective to keep mining and processing ores. With an essentially unlimited power supply, electrolytic processes and other separation and refining techniques which may not be commercially viable ATM, could be so in the future. Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[Walsingham]

If recycling takes energy and technology* then that would effectively reduce our requirement for raw materials a thousandfold.

 

 

*I'm assuming that we can either up our ability to recycle, or make our new products more recycleable

[taks]

I have two questions about the article, though. First of all is, as always, a matter of source, statistics, and interpretation and conclusions reliability. When raw data and how that data was obtained and processed isn't made available, I'm a bit suspicious - what with things like "in 2030 we'll need the equivalent of two Earths". Not necessarily an issue with the study itself, since it may be BBC who cut that out.

it's a study by the WWF... nuff said.

 

yes, i'm sorry, but the WWF, EDF, sierra club, et al consist entirely of human hating idiots. period. alarmism at its best.

 

taks

[samm]

yes, i'm sorry, but the WWF, EDF, sierra club, et al consist entirely of human hating idiots. period. alarmism at its best.

Whereas people whose god is called economy love humans

[taks]

uh, yeah... i'm not sure how that is a reply/retort to what i said, smiley notwithstanding.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I guess that was my point in regards to the original article. It offered no solutions. It simply said, we're using up the Earth's resources too fast. Okay, now what? Say we cut our consumption in half? Do we force women to have abortions also? If we're completely screwed because of our current rate of consumption, then we're pretty much screwed, right? Personally, I think it does come down to technology, but not for harvesting resources on Earth. If it comes down to making do with what we have, then there's nothing we can do in the long run. It's a numbers game, and, ultimately, the numbers are not in our favor. So, I'm all for technology. I don't have faith that we'll get enough of it in time, but I'm for trying.

 

I hadn't thought of it as human hating, but I can see that description. According to that article, at the end of the day, anything less than complete reversal means that we're going down the drain. If it's not in 22 years, then it's certainly within a hundred, right? Essentially, there is absolutely nothing we can do short of ceasing to exist. Anything else is simply a stopgap measure.

 

I really don't have a beef with the article, so much as I wonder how these scientists sleep at night because, from what I can tell, their outlook is completely hopeless.

[taks]

forgetting WWF bias in their presentation of the facts/statistics for a moment...

one of the common problems with "reports" that come out of these organizations is that they almost without fail ignore the simple fact that technology continually improves, which completely changes their predictive power. the same sort of folks were warning about the "peak oil" crisis that seems to keep getting pushed off. their myopic view cannot fathom the possibility that we will find ways around just about every problem we encounter.

 

i don't necessarily agree that "the numbers are not in our favor," however. not because i think our resources are limitless, but that i think we just don't know how vast they are. the "evidence" that we're running out is coming from the same kind of groups making the specious claims in this article. what are our limits? who would have thought 30 years ago that our ability to grow crops would increase as it has, using less resources to feed more people? how much more oil is out there? it's a big world, and we haven't even come close to exploring all of it (most of it is actually unexplored).

 

the same fools also continue population trends out as is infinitely, failing to notice that as countries get wealthier, their growth slows. the world's population trend is already beginning to show this.

 

I hadn't thought of it as human hating, but I can see that description. According to that article, at the end of the day, anything less than complete reversal means that we're going down the drain. If it's not in 22 years, then it's certainly within a hundred, right? Essentially, there is absolutely nothing we can do short of ceasing to exist. Anything else is simply a stopgap measure.

oh, these guys are convinced that humanity is a plague on the earth. gaia worshipping to the max. yes, the only solution is to halt technological advancement (the one thing that saves us) and decrease our population to "sustainable" levels.

 

taks

[random n00b]

Schopenhauer would agree.

[Aristes]

Schopenhauer would agree.

 

Great. You made me take the time to look up an article on him. On the other hand, thanks for forcing me to read up on him.

[taks]

me too.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

One can't predict the rate of innovation, but it would be rather foolish to put all our eggs in that basket.

 

I think we are back to a basic truth about humanity, we don't live long enough to bother about issues that will arise two generations down the line. We can worry, were good at that, but actually make choices here and now that will directly affect our economies, such gestures are usually in the token category.

[Walsingham]

It's not teh fault of capitalists. It's the fault of women.

 

AAAAAAALLLLL the fault of women.

 

Without women a man will cheerfully live his entire life with only the following requisites:

 

1 pair shorts

1 blanket

1 knife

1 spoon

fuel for a fire

an earthenware tub for brewing things in

things to brew

things to hunt

women

 

Of these, the manufactured goods would take perhaps two months personal labour to acquire. Everything else, from comic books to oil tankers is the fault of women and their lousy mate preferences. Look at bonobos. They have no war, no personal possessions, or territory ...and no mate selection. They just jig-a-jig with the nearest primate. Granted they look like someone stepped on a bag of hemorrhoids, but it doesn't seem to put them off.

[random n00b]

You know, you may be on to something, there...

[Guest The Architect]

Yeah, you!

[Trenitay]

sooo we kill all women?

[Asol]

One can't predict the rate of innovation, but it would be rather foolish to put all our eggs in that basket.

 

I think we are back to a basic truth about humanity, we don't live long enough to bother about issues that will arise two generations down the line.

 

Long story short I meant to comment in the fallout but got drawn here.

 

These subjects are sad to me because personal responsibility rarely comes up. It is alway science man or politician is going to come to the rescue just in time ect... It is a joke.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Asol

[Walsingham]

One can't predict the rate of innovation, but it would be rather foolish to put all our eggs in that basket.

 

I think we are back to a basic truth about humanity, we don't live long enough to bother about issues that will arise two generations down the line. We can worry, were good at that, but actually make choices here and now that will directly affect our economies, such gestures are usually in the token category.

 

I assume you've read "The Trouble With Lichen?"

[Aristes]

Walsingham, you scare me.

[Gorgon]

One can't predict the rate of innovation, but it would be rather foolish to put all our eggs in that basket.

 

I think we are back to a basic truth about humanity, we don't live long enough to bother about issues that will arise two generations down the line. We can worry, were good at that, but actually make choices here and now that will directly affect our economies, such gestures are usually in the token category.

 

I assume you've read "The Trouble With Lichen?"

No, but you made me google it.