Apocalypse Soon?

I have read much of the thread with interest. Several points have been dealt with in great detail and it is difficult to know where to enter the conversation without going over old ground, so I thought I'd just plunge in to one of your recent posts. This is what you said in response to billvon's query "What materials will we use up?"

I'd like to look at each of these in turn -

Oil - I certainly agree that we will use the available oil at some point. It looks likely that will happen, in practical terms, sometime this century, but why do you think alternative energy sources, coupled with energy conservation cannot replace this?
Fresh Water - Thoughtful economists, historians and scientists have been suggesting/warning for some time that we could face a crisis in the availability of fresh water. I wonder if you would acknowledge that this is more a crisis of the distribution of fresh water than it is an absolute shortage of fresh water. Certainly we can't use up fresh water, unless it stops raining, so it seems this one is out of place in your list.
Concentrated Metal Ores - Would you concede that this would cease to be a problem if the energy problem were licked? If not, why not?
Phosphorus - I am assuming you are concerned about the depletion of inexpensive phosphorous reserves which form a key part of the Green Revolution. If this is so, why do you consider it highly unlikely - which by implication is the case - that we will not find an effective means of conserving and recycling nutrients in our farming methods?

I sense, and would welcome a correction on your part if I got it wrong, that you do not see any way we can dig our way out of a problem by application of smarter technology. Do I have that right? If I do understand you correclty on that point on what basis do you justify the view? We've used technology to dig ourselves out of problem after problem for centuries. I'm just not clear why you think this should end now. I'm not saying that we will always find a solution in technology, but we have thus far, so why is now going to be the first time that it fails us?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK let's go through those. I'll skip oil for now since there have been a thousand posts about that already.

Fresh water - yes, it is indeed a concern. We have all the fresh water we could ever want but it is not in the places we want it to be in. For example, it would take us centuries to use up all the water contained in the ice in Antarctica, but it's not in Phoenix where we want it to be.

However, water is a renewable resource. More keeps falling out of the sky, and we are doing well with the amount we are getting now. Thus while fresh water supplies might be a limit to growth, they are certainly not a dwindling resource that will cause established civilizations to perish.

Topsoil - yes, we use topsoil like crazy. Overuse of topsoil led to the Dust Bowl, and Erlich used topsoil depletion to prove that in the 1970's mass starvations would wipe out a big chunk of civilization. He was, of course, wrong - we switched to methods (chemical fertilization) that do not rely on the natural cycle of topsoil formation, and learned techniques to preserve the topsoil we have.

Concentrated metal ores - we dig metal out of the ground, concentrate it and then use it to build stuff. When we are done we just throw it away, because there is so much of it. As we start running out of ore we start reusing the already-concentrated waste products rather than mining more. Iron (for example) is not destroyed; after 1000 re-uses of the same kilogram of iron, all the iron is still there. Thus provided we have enough ore right now (which we do) we have the metals we need to support a stable population.

Phosphorous - see above. Right now we discard most of our phosphorous through sewage systems. It is easy to reclaim, and we will do so if we have to.

No, I used the same logic and applied it to a different topic. Your assertion that there is a finite limit to solutions, after which we will "run out" and die is nonsensical, just as the assertion that we will "run out" of genetic combinations and die is. Neither viable solutions nor viable genetic combinations have finite limits.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We do not need to use up all the oil to start having serious problems. Once oil production peaks (conventional crude, 2006), demand begins to outstrip supply. This causes the price of oil to rise rapidly. Oil is the keystone resource. It is used in the production cycle of everything else we produce. When the cost of oil rises, so does the cost of everything else. This leads to economic stagnation (where we are now) and eventually continuous economic contraction. Once the economy begins to contract, it is only a matter of time before it collapses. That is the basic theory. But collapse is likely to be accelerated greatly by the effects on the financial system. The world is currently so deep in debt that a sovereign default could trigger a financial system supply chain cross-contagion that could rapidly destroy the entire world monetary system, leading to very rapid collapse and massive human die off.

Please take a look at the David Korowicz paper:

http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/tr...ontagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/

Like oil, it is not a question of when we use up all the fresh water. The problem comes when there is not enough fresh water to meet our current needs. Competition for the resource increases costs.

No. I don't understand the question. Why would "licking" the energy problem solve a shortage of metal ores? Are you suggesting that if we had enough energy, we could just dig deeper? That completely ignores the problem of higher cost metals. And, more importantly, the energy problem is not in the process of being "licked" at all.

The Green Revolution is reliant on cheap, plentiful oil supplies. Yields are no longer rising as they once did. Conserving and recycling phosphorus wouldn't stop the loss, it would just potentially slow it down at greatly increased cost.

Each time technology has come to the rescue, our species has done what any animal would do with the opportunity. Breed to the maximum level possible, creating the next problem needing a technological solution. So in reality, we haven't ever really dug ourselves out of any problems at all. We have only managed to kick the can down the road to eventual collapse.

The reason we will fail soon is mainly because of the problem of peak oil. The cost of maintaining our civilization will soon overwhelm us.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The number of genetic permutations theoretically infinite. The earth's resources are not. I wasn't suggesting that we would run out of ideas, just resources. So your analogy is invalid.

Instead of using the "same" logic and applying it to a different topic, why not just answer the question directly:

The earth's resources are finite, after all. Each time we have figured out a new "solution", our population has risen to exploit the new "solution" to exhaustion, requiring yet another new "solution". Under these conditions, it seems quite logical to assume that we will eventually run out of workable "solutions". Why doesn't that make sense?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you for your very speedy response. I'm of hiking this weekend, so you may need to wait till Monday for further replies.

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't address my question: why do you think alternative energy sources will not be able to largely replace oil?

Again, could you adress my specific question? Perhaps I was ambiguous, so I'll rephrase it. do you agree or disagree that the problem with frresh water is more one of distribution than absolute availability? this doesn't mean its not a problem, but it means it is a different kind of problem, which is going to have different solutions. If the problem is incorrectly defined it will restrict your ability to see possible solutions.

Dig deeper; extract from lower grade ores; mine in more remote areas; etc. Ore extraction is fundamentally an energy problem. So, if we had licked the energy problem that would pretty well lick the ore problem. Are you challenging this point?

There is some really interesting research on hydroponics that I shall try to locate that would basically suggest you are mistaken.

And yet, in country after country, to date and in projections into the future, birth rates decline with increasing wealth and the population levels off and could, in the future, even decline. We used to "breed to the maximum possible" and most of us died and the population grew very slowly. Then we figures out how to keep people alive and the population soared. Then we figured out how to make people wealthy and the population began to decline in areas above a certain 'wealth level'. Multiple stages Futilitist - I don't think you've taken that into account.

which brings me back to my first question and why you believe alternative energy sources won't work.

 

1. Oil has unique qualities (liquid at room temperature and very high energy density) that make it very difficult to replace.
2. We don't have the scaleable technologies ready to go. It would take a lot of time to replace oil with alternatives (decades) and the all liquid fuels peak is forecast to happen within the next couple of years.
3. The process of ramping up all that infrastructure costs money we currently don't have.
4. Alternative energies use oil in their production processes.
5. Alternative energy sources are more expensive than the oil they are meant to replace, so they aren't really a solution at all.

I don't think it matters much whether the problem is caused by distribution or absolute availability. Both increase the cost of obtaining fresh water. The rising cost is the unsolvable problem.

1. We are no where near to "licking" the energy problem.
2. Digging deeper, utilizing lower grade ores, and mining in more remote areas costs more.

I seriously doubt we will have a hydroponic revolution to replace the Green Revolution. It sounds very expensive.

We are still breeding to the maximum level possible. We always have and always will. Our breeding has slowed recently, but it is not due to us figuring anything out. It is due to resource constraints.

The rate of population growth began to slow when the world reached peak energy per capita, around 1978. The 'wealth level' stuff is just a correlation, not a causation. You credit human ingenuity for solving a problem that nature is solving for us.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They are not infinite. They are bounded by the number of genes we can cram onto human chromosomes. It is, however, a very, very large number.

The only resource that is finite is energy, and we get more of that from the Sun than we can use now. The total solar energy available is many more orders of magnitude than we are using. Indeed, if we covered only Spain* with solar panels using today's technology, we would get all the energy that we use worldwide now - INCLUDING oil.

We do not "use up" other resources (carbon, phosphorous, iron etc) so provided there is enough now for our needs there always will be. The one exception to that is enriched uranium, which we transmute into a different element and thus permanently deplete it.

(* - needless to say there are better positionings for - and better designs for - solar collectors.)

Ideas result in resources. We weren't using coal until someone had that idea. We weren't using oil until someone had that idea. We weren't using solar until someone had that idea. We weren't using EV's until someone had that idea. We weren't recycling until someone had that idea. Thus unlimited ideas (specifically unlimited solutions) result in unlimited resources.

Because we can solve every single "resource depletion" problem with a new solution, and have done so in the past. We may not like the new solution, and thus (for example) may use oil until it becomes more expensive than we like. Then we will prefer a different solution. If we could not generate new solutions we would be doomed - but we have a long, long history of generating them.

 

If that were true, countries with access to lots of resources (i.e. the US) would be breeding like crazy, and poor areas without access to resources (like Niger or Afghanistan) would be breeding most slowly.

The opposite is true. Thus your claim that it is due to resource constraints is contradicted.

 

If if if, we can't cover Spain with solar panels, much less send that electricity around the world any time in the near future quick enough to save us. Peak oil is peak capital, and these alternatives are very capital intensive. We would need to develop and scale them BEFORE we actually need them, and governments don't generally work like that. They react to crises.

This is your basic delusion in a nutshell. Ideas aren't energy. There are certainly smart people working on these issues, and many are desperate to sustain the unsustainable. But I've pointed out before, you don't recognize the scale of the problem, the scale of how much we rely on is based on oil, and how all the alternatives can't compare. The end can't come too soon anyway, we are ruining the planet with our industrial activities, and killing ourselves.

The industrial revolution is not even 200 years old, a mere blip in history.

 

We won't have the money. The oil makes us prosperous, and without it, the economy won't be able to support the investment needed to scale these alternatives up. In many areas, there just isn't any technological solution, if it isn't already happening it's too late. Are you going to run all the container ships on solar panels? Are you going to launch communications satellites by pedal power? Is every struggling homeowner in the suburbs going to be able to afford an electric car?

 

Correct - see my note about that. It would be a stupid idea.

Also correct. It makes much more sense to power Los Angeles from solar plants in El Centro.

Until the next peak.

They are working like that now. Wind power is growing 25% a year and, if expansion continues at this rate, will supply 20% of our electricity by 2030. And we don't even have a serious crisis yet.

Nope, but they result in energy. An idea resulted in oil. An idea resulted in nuclear power. An idea will someday result in fusion.

I think that is a failure in imagination on your part. The question is not "can we do it?" - the question is "when do we want to do it, and which option do we use?"

Compare Los Angeles in 1970 to Los Angeles today. Compare Donora, PA in the 1950's to Donora today.

Agreed. It would certainly be stupid to claim that we have even begun to figure out energy solutions.

 

Nope, natural gas. Many ships use this now. And if that gets too expensive, they will use other sources (google the Otto Hahn commercial cargo ship.)

Nope. Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are much more efficient propellants.

Nope. Just, say, half of them.

 

That's all I'm saying. And we don't have the luxury of time, or money. All we have is an excess of hubris caused by living in a time when energy growth was hardly ever an issue.

 

That sounds pretty easy. What's the hold up?

This makes no sense at all. Of course we do permanently deplete many of the earth's resources.

That is silly. Ideas don't result in resources, like some kind of magic. A resource exists, and then someone thinks of an idea for how to exploit it. In order to be practical, that idea must be physically possible and economically viable. Practical solutions to our energy resource problems simply do not exist. Covering Spain with solar panels is not a practical solution to our energy problems.

This is a lame argument that you have made over and over and over and over and over and over. Our history is no guarantee that we will solve the next problem that comes along. That statement defeats your lame argument no matter how many times you repeat it.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Alternatives (like natural gas) are cheaper.

The idea to drill for oil did not result in more resources? Interesting claim.

Correct. Hence the note in my post.

Also correct. But the fact that we have done it for thousands of years is a very strong indication that we will continue to do it. To claim "it has worked for millenia, but will suddenly stop working" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. So far you do not even have ordinary proof.

 

What thousands of years? We are going through an anomaly in history. This is a one time deal. Millions of years of accumulated solar energy is lying in easy to transport and burn liquid form not too far underground. It's never going to get any easier than that.

 

Well, all of human history is an anomaly. We have used external energy the entire time - first wood for heat and light, and animals for power, then water for power, then coal for power, whale oil for light etc etc. And during every transition people have predicted disaster.

Except for all the previous times we used external sources of energy - and switched.

Until, say, cheap fusion becomes available. We got oceans full of hydrogen. Will never get any easier than that. Until the next development . . .

 

Why should I give up heroin? They say it will kill you, but I've shot up a million times and it never has, so it must be fine!

I think you are about right, cheap fusion might be possible, but it will be a long period of depression before that. That's all I'm saying. And science will struggle if and when it doesn't get the funds for expensive things like particle accelerators.

 

Because when you look at history it actually HAS killed a lot of people. If civilization had been wiped out a few times due to dependence on oil, then that would be an excellent argument that it will happen this time as well.

Would you give up water, because it might kill you? After all, just because it never has before doesn't mean it won't tomorrow . . .

I think we will grow more slowly than we did when oil was very cheap - but that's not the same as being in a depression. (And definitely not the same as 90% of humanity dying.)

 

I think this is the anomaly that spidergoat was referring to:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That population spike is the direct result of the use of fossil fuels, most recently oil. No known animal population has that kind of growth curve which does not experience a rapid die off as a result.

We would have to switch downward in terms of the amount of total energy we use. That has never happened in human history.

Ha ha! Cheap fusion, huh? When do you expect that, exactly?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!