The great population debate

[windy]

continued from:
viewtopic.php?p=123675#p123675

1. In response to this business about "carrying capacity" I pointed out that it has been shown that in terms of raw materials and so forth, our planet can support 1 trillion comfortably.

2. However, no one thinks we will get to 1 trillion. No one even thinks we will get to 100 billion

3. Even the most alarmist predictions place the maximum population at 10 billion - and it probably won't even get to that, given that the main problem for many developed countries, plus China, is a shrinking population.

So much for this argument about carrying capacity and limitless growth.

-Arguing that population growth will level off hardly disproves the idea of carrying capacity- in fact it fits nicely the Malthusian idea of "preventive checks" and the ecological model of logistic population growth.

Actually not. What causes the drop is women's education and the opportunity that comes with greater wealth.

And I was pointing out that we don't even get close to any sort of theoretical upper "carrying capacity" under these predictions. For the umpteenth time, this is a problem of poverty, not population.

-UN estimates were recently revised up to a world population of nearly 11 billion people by 2100.

And the most recent research published in Science says 9-10, and that it also the source of this study on women's education.

The context of that response was, what are "the most alarmist predictions" - neither that 9-10 billion estimate, or the UN "medium variant" estimate, qualify for that.

-If I'm not mistaken 1 trillion people spread over the <snip>

I'll dig out the paper and send it to you - but it's a moot point, as no one thinks we are even going to get close to that.

If you find it, please post the link here, could be interesting...

But to turn the problem around a bit: if (according to you) population size is not the problem, and resources are not the problem, why wouldn't (or shouldn't) our population grow to 100 billion or more?

[ThePrussian]

1. In response to this business about "carrying capacity" I pointed out that it has been shown that in terms of raw materials and so forth, our planet can support 1 trillion comfortably.

2. However, no one thinks we will get to 1 trillion. No one even thinks we will get to 100 billion

3. Even the most alarmist predictions place the maximum population at 10 billion - and it probably won't even get to that, given that the main problem for many developed countries, plus China, is a shrinking population.

So much for this argument about carrying capacity and limitless growth.

-Arguing that population growth will level off hardly disproves the idea of carrying capacity- in fact it fits nicely the Malthusian idea of "preventive checks" and the ecological model of logistic population growth.

Actually not. What causes the drop is women's education and the opportunity that comes with greater wealth.

And I was pointing out that we don't even get close to any sort of theoretical upper "carrying capacity" under these predictions. For the umpteenth time, this is a problem of poverty, not population.

-UN estimates were recently revised up to a world population of nearly 11 billion people by 2100.

And the most recent research published in Science says 9-10, and that it also the source of this study on women's education.

The context of that response was, what are "the most alarmist predictions" - neither that 9-10 billion estimate, or the UN "medium variant" estimate, qualify for that.

[/quote]

Ah, I see. I well, fair enough. I was quoting the most recent figures I could remember, and then referred to a more recent paper that I had just seen.

-If I'm not mistaken 1 trillion people spread over the <snip>

I'll dig out the paper and send it to you - but it's a moot point, as no one thinks we are even going to get close to that.

If you find it, please post the link here, could be interesting...

But to turn the problem around a bit: if (according to you) population size is not the problem, and resources are not the problem, why wouldn't (or shouldn't) our population grow to 100 billion or more?[/quote]

Good question. No particular reason, given those premises, why it shouldn't. It won't because of things like increasing prosperity means that people want meaningful careers and therefore have fewer kids.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I pointed out that it has been shown that in terms of raw materials and so forth, our planet can support 1 trillion comfortably.

No, some idiot-savant engineer wrote an article in a wanker engineering journal. Nor would any sane person describe a planet-wide Shenzen as "comfortable." You people need to get out-of-doors more often.

You may not have gotten that far in whatever school you attend, but we happen to live on a globe. Now as satisfying as all this is - I'm sure we could merrily trade insults for weeks - it's not the most productive of activities. Since you don't accept apologies....

I could do without the Carrier-esque claims to superior intellect, but apologies are of little interest to me. Especially in the form of 'oh, I don't think you're a racist, Matt, just everyone else who worries about overpopulation,' rapidly followed by 'how dare you advocate starving brown and yellow babies!'

It is associated with a lot of very nasty stuff - one child policy in China, forced sterilizations in India, the Irish potato famine - and you have to be willing to put a lot of clear blue water between yourself and it if you don't want to be associated with it

And the way to do that is to agree with your fevered vision of the future? Fuck that shit. You've tried this guilt-by-association trick on everyone here who's disagreed with you, and it's failed. Stick to the facts on the ground.

...nowhere have I opposed family planning or contraception. I think it is a fine thing to have these available in the developing world, if anyone wants it. I am also aware that people want it more when they are no longer trapped in abject poverty.

Yet you still deny that population growth can acerbate poverty & suffering. And you reject non-techy, pro-active solutions like promoting family planning, emancipating women, and fighting superstition, in favor of reactive fix-its that are expensive, dirty, or dependent on technologies that don't yet exist.

Your preference always for the most expensive, most complex, most difficult option indicates an emotional attachment (or hidden agenda) overriding any logic you may possess.

...as I have said repeatedly, there is no question that population growth is levelling off.

And you've been repeatedly corrected that it's slowing down, not leveling off. Why is this simple fact so hard for you to comprehend?

in terms of industrial growth, it really is, to all intents and purposes, unlimited.

You forgot to mention the helium 3 mines on the Moon. In the real world, of course, numerous constraints exist to infinite growth, such as pollution, environmental destruction, energy costs. Oh, no worries -- us super-genius engineers will invent something when the time comes. Have you heard the one about counting your chickens before they're hatched?

...there is enough nuclear waste, which can be used in next-generation nuclear power plants, to power all Europa for three hundred years, at its current levels of use. Bonus: this renders the waste harmless much more quickly, which is nice....

Just as soon as those next-gen reactors are invented by our heroes & saviors, the engineers. As my earlier links showed, solar and wind can provide many times the current energy requirements for Europe and the world -- using technology that's already up & running. Bonus: there's no nuclear waste in the first place. Even nicer.

Please explain your preference for the unproven, radioactive option.

There are also things like biomining that allow us to pull far more and far better out of supposedly "exhausted" mines.

"... that would allow us..." -- if and when this technology ever moves from the pages of Popular Mechanics into reality. Wunder Waffen again, and not needed if we just stop growing.

And it is that thing, namely production, that matters - you keep ignoring that you cannot consume that which has not been produced.

Libertarian crazy-talk. You keep ignoring that you can't produce stuff without consuming raw materials and energy. Or without producing waste products/pollution.

The belief that there is this fixed amount of resources and we're all running out has been around for a long time and it has been always wrong.

Tell that to the Easter Islanders. Or the Anasazi. Or the Rwandans.

There's only one real resource, and that is human ingenuity.

I've read that somewhere before. I remember -- The Fountainhead!


My hunch is, you actually want the Earth's population to keep rising, maybe via SENS. I also think your fetish for ever-expanding wealth has less to do with reducing poverty for the "browns" and the "yellows" than protecting your own plush lifestyle.

But here's what I find truly frightening about reckless fantasizers such as yourself: you say things like "We'll figure it out when we get there." You're like the person who blows several grand in Vegas because they're counting on a big christmas bonus. Sane, rational people wait until after there's a surplus, a new proven technology, before spending or expanding. No reliance on Wunder Waffen to repeatedly rescue our asses from the fire.

[Gefan]

Hey gang!
Room for one more in the cheap seats?

:popcorn:

[another lurker]

Hey gang!
Room for one more in the cheap seats?

:popcorn:

We just need some gay porn! Perhaps if they take off their shirts :P *wink* *wink*

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hey gang!
Room for one more in the cheap seats?

:popcorn:

We just need some gay porn! Perhaps if they take off their shirts :P *wink* *wink*

If it's Summer, I'm typing naked.

I believe it's night-time in Prussia at the moment, so our transhumanist friend must be tucked into his home-made cryogenic tube. Sorry, Gefan, it's intermission.

[another lurker]

Matt 'kill the poor' Cavanaugh wrote:

If it's Summer, I'm typing naked.

I was totes turned on by that. But then I saw your avatar.

As long as you keep that avatar, I doubt you'll be getting any hugs Matt Cavanaugh!

[windy]

The belief that there is this fixed amount of resources and we're all running out has been around for a long time and it has been always wrong.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes- in ecology, carrying capacity is not something that's fixed. If a population gains access to a new resource or develops a better strategy to utilize existing ones, the limit changes and the population can increase. However, if the population increases *past* the current carrying capacity, it can overutilize resources to the point of degradation and the carrying capacity actually goes down (either indefinitely, or until the resource has renewed itself):

http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/i ... -69183.jpg

This is not just a theoretical scare, but is actually observed in non-human species all the time. Sure, human reason and flexibility can help us deal with it better than most species, and we usually manage to develop new food sources whenever the curve risks turning down, but indefinitely? I wouldn't bet on it.

But to turn the problem around a bit: if (according to you) population size is not the problem, and resources are not the problem, why wouldn't (or shouldn't) our population grow to 100 billion or more?

Good question. No particular reason, given those premises, why it shouldn't. It won't because of things like increasing prosperity means that people want meaningful careers and therefore have fewer kids.

Ah, but have you ever considered why this happens? The rule that poverty=more children actually makes little sense in light of evolutionary biology. Why increase your reproductive output when starvation threatens?

http://www.economist.com/node/14164483

No doubt all these social explanations are true as far as they go, but they do not address the deeper question of why people's psychology should have evolved in a way that makes them want fewer children when they can afford more. There is a possible biological explanation, though. This is that there are, broadly speaking, two ways of reproducing.

One way is to churn out offspring in large numbers, turn them out into an uncaring world, and hope that one or two of them make it. The other is to have but a few progeny and to dote on them, ensuring that they grow up with every possible advantage for the ensuing struggle with their peers for mates and resources. The former is characteristic of species that live in unstable environments and the latter of species whose circumstances are predictable.

Viewed in comparison with most animals, humans are at the predictable-environment and doting-parent end of the scale, but from a human perspective those in less developed countries are further from it than those in rich ones. One interpretation of the demographic transition, then, is that the abundance which accompanies development initially enhances the instinct to lavish care and attention on a few offspring. Only when the environment becomes super-propitious can parents afford more children without compromising those they already have—and only then, as Dr Myrskyla has now elucidated, does the birth-rate start to rise again.

We currently see high population growth rates in poor countries where people have access to some medical advances (most importantly, vaccines) and new food sources, but are still culturally and mentally adjusted to pre-modern child mortality levels. Previously, that high birth rate was required just to keep the population at replacement level (the "hope that one or two make it" strategy). It's correct that prosperity tends to decrease birth rates (but only up to a point, if the above study is correct), but it's not correct that the poor must inevitably want a lot of children and wouldn't benefit from family planning.

[another lurker]

windy wrote:

We currently see high population growth rates in poor countries where people have access to some medical advances (most importantly, vaccines) and new food sources, but are still culturally and mentally adjusted to pre-modern child mortality levels. Previously, that high birth rate was required just to keep the population at replacement level (the "hope that one or two make it" strategy). It's correct that prosperity tends to decrease birth rates (but only up to a point, if the above study is correct), but it's not correct that the poor must inevitably want a lot of children and wouldn't benefit from family planning.

Exactly. That's what I have read. Basically, infant mortality has gone down, but having lots of kids is still the cultural norm. So much so, that not having a large family is still considered *abnormal*. So people end up with, in some cases, dozens of kids that they are unable to feed when things go bad and a drought comes along.

Oh, and from what I have read, in poor countries without social security, lots of kids = safety net for when the parents are older and can no longer look after themselves.

Anyways, this is interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/ju ... 08-30.html

Despite having the most Catholics in the world, 80 percent of Brazilian women of childbearing age are using some form of artificial contraception. In partnership with National Geographic Magazine, special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro examines the declining fertility rate, which has dropped to just 1.9 children per woman.

What's noteworthy about Brazil's declining fertility rate is that it's happening not just in the growing, prosperous middle-class areas, but also in the poorer sections of what remains a very unequal society.

Despite the economic growth, about a quarter of Brazil's population remains below the poverty line. Many live in the rural Northeast, but millions have crowded into slums, or favelas, in cities like Rio and Sao Paulo. They suffer from high crime and still lack some of life's basic needs. But they do have health services, including information about and access to contraception, including sterilization.

These women live in a Rio favela, where they work for a sewing cooperative called Coparaha. Liliane Moreira da Silva has three children, trying unsuccessfully to have a son. She couldn't control the gender balance of her kids, but she can control the decision to have them, she says.

The medical field has grown and evolved. But there are more specialists in such things as geriatrics. And these sorts of things are helping support the older population.

Brazil is far from the crisis that Europe is living. And the good news is that we have time to prepare and implement more policies and mechanisms to sustain this new Brazil.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Beeswax! You know what Rio Favela really needs? A shiny new nuclear reactor!

[TheMan]

Just joining in to drop a turd in the thread.

I was just thinking how much space everyone actually takes up...and if you organised an LA street party and invited everyone in the world and gave them a square meter each, enough room to dance around in. How many square meteres will it need? (to be honest I wasn't thinking this now I actually came across something a read a few years ago but remembering it due to this thread)

As per wiki: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Los Angeles metropolitan area has a total area of 4,850 square miles (12,561.442 km2), while the wider combined statistical area covers 33,954 square miles (87,940.456 km2), making it the largest metropolitan region in the United States by land area.

I'm not that good at math but I reckon we come pretty close to fitting everyone in...

My point? You've got to fight for you right to partee.

[ThePrussian]

I pointed out that it has been shown that in terms of raw materials and so forth, our planet can support 1 trillion comfortably.

No, some idiot-savant engineer wrote an article in a wanker engineering journal. Nor would any sane person describe a planet-wide Shenzen as "comfortable." You people need to get out-of-doors more often.

Right, specialists in the subject don't know what some nonentity online know.

I could do without the Carrier-esque claims to superior intellect

Not claims, merely observations, given that...

...there is enough nuclear waste, which can be used in next-generation nuclear power plants, to power all Europa for three hundred years, at its current levels of use. Bonus: this renders the waste harmless much more quickly, which is nice....

Just as soon as those next-gen reactors are invented by our heroes & saviors, the engineers.

They already have, as has...

There are also things like biomining that allow us to pull far more and far better out of supposedly "exhausted" mines.

"... that would allow us..." -- if and when this technology ever moves from the pages of Popular Mechanics into reality

...this, though it has been from the pages of journals like Nature.

The only reason both are not used is that they are consistently blocked by people like, well, people like you.

I think we have established the depths of your ignorance here.

So if it makes you feel better...

, but apologies are of little interest to me. Especially in the form of 'oh, I don't think you're a racist, Matt, just everyone else who worries about overpopulation,' rapidly followed by 'how dare you advocate starving brown and yellow babies!'

I will happily lump you in with Ehrlich etc, given your statements that the poor becoming wealthy would be bad.

in terms of industrial growth, it really is, to all intents and purposes, unlimited.

As my earlier links showed, solar and wind can provide many times the current energy requirements for Europe and the world -- using technology that's already up & running. Bonus: there's no nuclear waste in the first place. Even nicer.

Please explain your preference for the unproven, radioactive option.

Actually fully proven and I work alongside the specialists in that field. Solar energy is coming, but we are not there yet (there is more to it than just getting the necessary efficiency, but I don't have the time to educate you).

And when you have links to proper research papers, let me know.

And it is that thing, namely production, that matters - you keep ignoring that you cannot consume that which has not been produced.

Libertarian crazy-talk. You keep ignoring that you can't produce stuff without consuming raw materials and energy. Or without producing waste products/pollution.[/quote]

No, you keep ignoring that there is more than enough energy (I notice that you are suddenly claiming that technology does move forward), that there is more than enough material, and pollution decreases as efficiency increases (there's many rivers in Britain that were open sewers a hundred years ago, and smog has steadily decreased. Not to mention recycling abilities of things like metal keep increasing).

My hunch is, you actually want the Earth's population to keep rising, maybe via SENS.

My hunch is that you don't really know anything or work in any field where you might make a meaningful contribution to this. Therefore you try to rid yourself of your overpowering feeling of worthlessness by insisting that there are just too many poor people having too many babies. Kinda like those halfwits who think the urban poor have babies to get benefits.

But here's what I find truly frightening about reckless fantasizers such as yourself

Here's what's tiresomely worrying about people like you: you whine that you're lumped in with people who have been responsible for a great deal of misery and cruelty, and yet you don't give a damn about that, just that you are justly being associated with them.

Look. Leave this to scientists, engineers and businessmen, i.e., those with something meaningful to contribute. If you really want to help, stop people such as yourself getting in our way.

[SPACKlick]

I can't believe this is still going on.

1) Technology and science will continue to improve. We will make more efficient use of more of the sun's energy in better forms with fewer negative repercussions over time.

2) To feed a human takes about 1 acre. (mixed meat, pasture, grains, vegetables and fruit.) The world has about 15 billion acres of reasonably habitable land therefore there's more than enough land for people to survive. They can also thrive.

3) Not worrying about the increasing impact of populations and our technology stops the incentives to improve our lot. Even if this isn't a problem now, treating it like it is can make all our lives better.

[ThePrussian]

Thank heavens for you, windy. Trading insults with Matt is getting boring.

The belief that there is this fixed amount of resources and we're all running out has been around for a long time and it has been always wrong.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes- in ecology, carrying capacity is not something that's fixed. If a population gains access to a new resource or develops a better strategy to utilize existing ones, the limit changes and the population can increase.

My point precisely.

This is not just a theoretical scare, but is actually observed in non-human species all the time. Sure, human reason and flexibility can help us deal with it better than most species, and we usually manage to develop new food sources whenever the curve risks turning down, but indefinitely? I wouldn't bet on it.

I would. They key word in that is non-human. Humanity has a unique capacity that no other species know to us really has: the faculty of reason. When an animal exhausts the food in its environment, it starves - human beings invent agriculture. Now people are saying "There's not enough land!" - and that is why vertical farms are in development. Now those will cost more, sure - but that is again why the problem is poverty.

However while we can solve most any problem in reason, we cannot solve anything outside of it. The mega-famines of the twentieth century were the result, always, of those systems such as Stalin's Russia or Mao's China in which reason was choked off and freedom abrogated. As Amartya Sen says "Nature causes crop failures, human beings cause famine". Take a look at the pictures of the holdomor. That is unreason's physical form.

Which brings me to why I point out what the overpopulation hysterics have meant in practice. Now Matt can act all hurt when I point out that Malthus wrote in support of the Corn Laws that killed a million Irish. That's just tough beans. It's like when I'm arguing with my fellow rightists - I point out that if they want to argue seriously about immigration, they have to put a lot of clear blue water between themselves and those that are simply racists.

I often get a similar response, I might add.

Good question. No particular reason, given those premises, why it shouldn't. It won't because of things like increasing prosperity means that people want meaningful careers and therefore have fewer kids.

Ah, but have you ever considered why this happens? The rule that poverty=more children actually makes little sense in light of evolutionary biology. Why increase your reproductive output when starvation threatens?

Well, in terms of evolution, it makes perfect sense. In times of high infant mortality and constant war - our species sad history - big families or extinction. In modern times, in terms of rational self interest, having junior ready to take over the farm when you are too old and bent to do it, has been a standard defence against poverty. When those pressures are relieved, reproduction drops off.

Viewed in comparison with most animals, humans are at the predictable-environment and doting-parent end of the scale, but from a human perspective those in less developed countries are further from it than those in rich ones.

Once again, the problem is poverty, not population.

We currently see high population growth rates in poor countries where people have access to some medical advances (most importantly, vaccines) and new food sources, but are still culturally and mentally adjusted to pre-modern child mortality levels. Previously, that high birth rate was required just to keep the population at replacement level (the "hope that one or two make it" strategy). It's correct that prosperity tends to decrease birth rates (but only up to a point, if the above study is correct), but it's not correct that the poor must inevitably want a lot of children and wouldn't benefit from family planning.

How many times do I have to say this? I am not against family planning or contraception, and happy to have them available for them as wants them. What I will NOT listen to is all this stuff that there are "too many people". That first of all tends to lead to terminal plans made for those people, and secondly, it is always tends to be a fear of those poor people who come from elsewhere and look funny.

I was born in Africa. I remember being completely horrified when I heard that well-heeled women from the US were flying in to tell the local villagers they were having "too many children". There's a tone there up with which I will not put.

[ThePrussian]

Thank heavens for you, windy. Trading insults with Matt is getting boring.

The belief that there is this fixed amount of resources and we're all running out has been around for a long time and it has been always wrong.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes- in ecology, carrying capacity is not something that's fixed. If a population gains access to a new resource or develops a better strategy to utilize existing ones, the limit changes and the population can increase.

My point precisely.

This is not just a theoretical scare, but is actually observed in non-human species all the time. Sure, human reason and flexibility can help us deal with it better than most species, and we usually manage to develop new food sources whenever the curve risks turning down, but indefinitely? I wouldn't bet on it.

I would. They key word in that is non-human. Humanity has a unique capacity that no other species know to us really has: the faculty of reason. When an animal exhausts the food in its environment, it starves - human beings invent agriculture. Now people are saying "There's not enough land!" - and that is why vertical farms are in development. Now those will cost more, sure - but that is again why the problem is poverty.

However while we can solve most any problem in reason, we cannot solve anything outside of it. The mega-famines of the twentieth century were the result, always, of those systems such as Stalin's Russia or Mao's China in which reason was choked off and freedom abrogated. As Amartya Sen says "Nature causes crop failures, human beings cause famine". Take a look at the pictures of the holdomor. That is unreason's physical form.

Which brings me to why I point out what the overpopulation hysterics have meant in practice. Now Matt can act all hurt when I point out that Malthus wrote in support of the Corn Laws that killed a million Irish. That's just tough beans. It's like when I'm arguing with my fellow rightists - I point out that if they want to argue seriously about immigration, they have to put a lot of clear blue water between themselves and those that are simply racists.

I often get a similar response, I might add.

Good question. No particular reason, given those premises, why it shouldn't. It won't because of things like increasing prosperity means that people want meaningful careers and therefore have fewer kids.

Ah, but have you ever considered why this happens? The rule that poverty=more children actually makes little sense in light of evolutionary biology. Why increase your reproductive output when starvation threatens?

Well, in terms of evolution, it makes perfect sense. In times of high infant mortality and constant war - our species sad history - big families or extinction. In modern times, in terms of rational self interest, having junior ready to take over the farm when you are too old and bent to do it, has been a standard defence against poverty. When those pressures are relieved, reproduction drops off.

Viewed in comparison with most animals, humans are at the predictable-environment and doting-parent end of the scale, but from a human perspective those in less developed countries are further from it than those in rich ones.

Once again, the problem is poverty, not population.

We currently see high population growth rates in poor countries where people have access to some medical advances (most importantly, vaccines) and new food sources, but are still culturally and mentally adjusted to pre-modern child mortality levels. Previously, that high birth rate was required just to keep the population at replacement level (the "hope that one or two make it" strategy). It's correct that prosperity tends to decrease birth rates (but only up to a point, if the above study is correct), but it's not correct that the poor must inevitably want a lot of children and wouldn't benefit from family planning.

How many times do I have to say this? I am not against family planning or contraception, and happy to have them available for them as wants them. What I will NOT listen to is all this stuff that there are "too many people". That first of all tends to lead to terminal plans made for those people, and secondly, it is always tends to be a fear of those poor people who come from elsewhere and look funny.

I was born in Africa. I remember being completely horrified when I heard that well-heeled women from the US were flying in to tell the local villagers they were having "too many children". There's a tone there up with which I will not put.

[another lurker]

Why isn't anyone talking about algae as a possible future energy resource?

[Gumby]

Just joining in to drop a turd in the thread.

I was just thinking how much space everyone actually takes up...and if you organised an LA street party and invited everyone in the world and gave them a square meter each, enough room to dance around in. How many square meteres will it need? (to be honest I wasn't thinking this now I actually came across something a read a few years ago but remembering it due to this thread)

As per wiki: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Los Angeles metropolitan area has a total area of 4,850 square miles (12,561.442 km2), while the wider combined statistical area covers 33,954 square miles (87,940.456 km2), making it the largest metropolitan region in the United States by land area.

I'm not that good at math but I reckon we come pretty close to fitting everyone in...

My point? You've got to fight for you right to partee.

I make absolutely no claim as to the accuracy of this map, but it's interesting nonetheless. Take from it what you will.
http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.co ... trated.jpg

[ThePrussian]

Why isn't anyone talking about algae as a possible future energy resource?

Take it up with Matt - he's the one who thinks that technology is static.

[TheMan]

Why isn't anyone talking about algae as a possible future energy resource?

It's #52 on the agenda...we're up to #5

[Matt Cavanaugh]

(I have barn work to catch up on today, so I'll only be able to clean up The Prussian's pile of manure a little at a time)

I will happily lump you in with Ehrlich etc, given your statements that the poor becoming wealthy would be bad.

When you use Straw Man fallacies, do you consciously do it, or are you so dull you think they count as legitimate arguments?

I've very clearly stated my firm belief that reducing population increases prosperity and quality of life. (Note: I'll eschew using the term "wealth" until you better define it.) FTR, I advocate applying social & political remedies to aggressively reduce birth-rates over time, and bring consumption of resources to a level sustainable by currently operational capabilities. At no point have I advocated reducing quality of life for anyone, much less "starving" babies.

I realize that comprehending social interactions, public policy, etc. can be hard for many engineers, but do please make the effort to address your criticism to my actual positions.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

You cannot consume that which has not been produced.

That sentence is inane. Repeating it ad nauseam will not make it any more valid.

See if you can follow this logic. Take shoes:

True, I can't "consume" a pair of shoes until the cobbler "produces" it. But the cobbler can't produce the shoes without consuming leather, wood, nails, etc. The tanner can't produce leather without consuming lots of nasty chemicals, oceans of water, heat, oh and dead cow skins. To feed & raise his cows, the skins producer consumes land, water, nutrients in the soil, etc. His cows produce manure and methane, and offal when they're slaughtered, which have to go somewhere.

So there's a causal link from my purchase of a pair of shoes to increased greenhouse gases -- a cost beyond the price of the shoes. Ya follow?

Now, I own four pair of boots. Each for a specific role, and I literally wear them until they fall to pieces. My GF has 15 pair of boots in her closet, a few she's never even worn. (She acknowledges she has an addiction.)

Just in terms of boots alone, my GF is c. 4x "wealthier" than me. Simple question: how does this alleviate the water shortage in India?

[ThePrussian]

(I have barn work to catch up on today, so I'll only be able to clean up The Prussian's pile of manure a little at a time)

I will happily lump you in with Ehrlich etc, given your statements that the poor becoming wealthy would be bad.

When you use Straw Man fallacies, do you consciously do it, or are you so dull you think they count as legitimate arguments?

I've very clearly stated my firm belief that reducing population increases prosperity and quality of life. (Note: I'll eschew using the term "wealth" until you better define it.) FTR, I advocate applying social & political remedies to aggressively reduce birth-rates over time, and bring consumption of resources to a level sustainable by currently operational capabilities. At no point have I advocated reducing quality of life for anyone, much less "starving" babies.
.

What you said was, in so many words, that increasing the prosperity of the poor increased consumption and since you think consumption is a Bad Thing, you, ergo, are opposed.

And you are really not in a position to complain of straw men.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

What you said was, in so many words, that increasing the prosperity of the poor increased consumption and since you think consumption is a Bad Thing, you, ergo, are opposed.

And you are really not in a position to complain of straw men.

'I'm rubber; you're glue' -- is that really all you've got?

It was a fairly simple question: do you think that my GF's Imelda Marcos-style consumption is a good thing for Indians to adopt? Is that the sort of "wealth" you're thinking of?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Take it up with Matt - he's the one who thinks that technology is static.

You've got more straw men than a cornfield in Iowa!

I most certainly do not discount technological advances. I simply find it imprudent to base our public policies on new advances before those advances have actually been realized. (That's called 'putting the cart before the horse.')

Ironically, while TP is gung-ho on the future success of exotic things like desalinization, carbon sequestration, and nano-bio mining, his faith in the genius of engineers suddenly evaporates when it comes to mundane things like solar, wind, biomass ... that is, just the renewable technologies.

The earth doesn't have enough farm land to feed 11 billion people? No probs, we'll GM plants to live off salt water, or invent vertical farms! I read a paper on vertical farms, so we're good to go!

The grid needs to be updated before it can handle thermal solar power? Ooh, that's a dead end. I'm stumped. Better stick with nuclear.

[another lurker]

ThePrussian wrote:

Once again, the problem is poverty, not population.

You do realize that 6 children on a 1 acre farm is basically going to condemn the entire family to extreme poverty? That population *is* the problem. And that with fewer children, the parents would have more resources to spend on those children, who would then be likely to afford shoes, and maybe even...school? Not everyone would have to work 24/7 in hard labour just to feed the entire family? (and even then, there is no guarantee of food - children often go hungry. and lest we forget..the 8 year old girls get sold off as sexual slaves because the family can no longer afford to feed them). So what's wrong with educating people about contraception and even handing out free condoms/depro provera shots etc.

And why are you so obsessed with nuclear energy? What is wrong with solar, wind and even algae? Algae is still in development - it is not yet efficient enough - and currently, manufacturing enough algae to power the US economy would take up the entire state of IOWA. But wind and solar are perfectly viable in many regions - in fact, entire deserts can be populated with wind and solar panels. The Sahara, from what I have read (along with many of the world's deserts), would be ideal for acres of solar panels and even wind turbines.

[ThePrussian]

Take it up with Matt - he's the one who thinks that technology is static.

You've got more straw men than a cornfield in Iowa!

It's long, long past time when you could complain of that. I offered you many opportunities to debate reasonably; now it's too late

The grid needs to be updated before it can handle thermal solar power? Ooh, that's a dead end. I'm stumped. Better stick with nuclear.

Once again - I'm the one who has confidence in human ingenuity, and not you. And this doesn't help:

I most certainly do not discount technological advances. I simply find it imprudent to base our public policies on new advances before those advances have actually been realized. (That's called 'putting the cart before the horse.')

Given that you don't seem to know that much about our current levels of technology, nor about what is a trade journal and what is a scientific journal, I think your utterances on the subject can be filed under "irrelevant". Like this one:

The grid needs to be updated before it can handle thermal solar power? Ooh, that's a dead end. I'm stumped. Better stick with nuclear.

Again, lack of any serious knowledge of the subject. Meanwhile you spend half your time whining that "there's not enough energy" and the other half complaining about an obvious, clean and easy solution to that problem. You complain about relying on human ingenuity and technological advance, saying we should work with what we have - except when it comes to actually solving a problem with what we have, so you insist on what you previously condemned.

Simply not serious.

[ThePrussian]

ThePrussian wrote:

Once again, the problem is poverty, not population.

You do realize that 6 children on a 1 acre farm is basically going to condemn the entire family to extreme poverty?

That was the state of affairs not that long ago in Europe; in fact, my family has some memories of that sort of thing. What changed? The industrial revolution.

I am keenly aware of all the other things you describe and they are truly dreadful. They are what poverty really means - which is why I don't like it when people like Matt start whining that "if poor people get wealthy then consumption will go up - and that'd be just dreadful!" :violin:

Large families are a consequence of that level of poverty; you cannot even begin to think of family planning until you start to pull out of that state of life.

And why are you so obsessed with nuclear energy? What is wrong with solar, wind and even algae?

Because nuclear power works. Anyway, we are currently sitting on a lot of nuclear waste. Now we can either leave it down there for the next fifty thousand years or so - or we can use up that toxic gunk in the next-gen reactors, cutting our carbon emissions and providing reliable power for Europe's next three centuries. It is also amazingly efficient - it takes next to nothing in uranium to power a city.

As regards those other ones - I quite like solar. It still needs to be improved for mass and city-scale use (the problem of integrating them into electrical grids, given their erratic power production, is decidedly non-trivial), but we've already got good offsets for small towns and private residences, in the developed world. It's just way too expensive for places like India and Africa, at the moment. Populating the sahara sounds great, except you would need to transport a huge amount of energy worldwide. For the moment, I'm looking at microwave focusing.

I can't stand wind - the windmills are hideous eyesores, they destroy the local bird life, and they require a giant infrastructure to make them work. It beggars belief that this stuff is called green.

I don't know much about algae. The Solyndra fiasco does not inspire me with confidence; on the other hand, I know a few scientists who are doing amazing things with moss. This looks like something well worth reexamining in ten years.

[Spence]

About 12 hours before this thread was put up I had a population debate thread all ready to go - but I didn't bother submitting. I wasn't convinced people would follow at that point, particularly as I'd not really been too active in the debate. But I'm glad you posted this one up windy - I think people were always more likely to follow your thread over here than mine!

The overpopulation debate itself never really interested me that much. It's an ongoing scare story which has been running for hundreds of years (probably about as long as we've attempted to measure populations). I suppose like a stopped clock, there is a chance that one day it might turn out to be right. Of course doomsday "end of the world is nigh" stories have always garnered good headlines, whether from religion or science. I would subjectively put the human overpopulation doomsday scenario somewhat less credible than extinction from asteroid impact, and perhaps slightly more credible than the Mayan calendar doomsday story was (before 2012, of course :lol: )

What I find most interesting about the overpopulation debate is how many relatively intelligent people seem to be susceptible to it. In spite of the rather obvious history of failed predictions. And this certainly extends to the skeptical movement, where few seem willing to criticise it. Perhaps it is unfair to view the slymepit as a part of the skeptical movement, but it certainly exhibits similar qualities.

In this debate, for example, we've had stuff like:

this planet has a finite supply of metals, minerals, sand for concrete

Sand for concrete got me. Sand is composed mainly of crystalline silicate (SiO2), the single most abundant chemical compound in the earth's crust, making up nearly 50% by mass. To "run out of sand" we'd have to remove most of the earth's crust... and what would we do with that then? To think we are about to use it all up requires a massive failure of basic science knowledge. If Mike Adams made such a claim, skeptics would be all over it. But an overpopulation nut? Gets a free pass.

Talking of Mike Adams, how about this one above:

The tanner can't produce leather without consuming lots of nasty chemicals

Oooh, nasty chemicals. Presumably nasty chemicals made in an evil science lab, not like those lovely natural chemicals that are perfectly in tune with the environment. Perhaps Mike has a journalist's position going spare? He loves that shit.

And I have to reference windy here, cos windy is pretty awesome, and did actually point out another clanger (another one which Mike Adams would be proud of... seeing a pattern here?): viewtopic.php?p=123387#p123387. This does show that there was at least one call out, when the poster strayed into windy's area of expertise. But other than that we saw little skepticism despite astonishing levels of woo.

There's quite a few reasons why this might be, not least of which might be that those who can spot the weapons grade bullshit aren't really interested in getting into debates with ideologues. (Not suggesting everyone in the debate is an ideologue, but this subject certainly has its fair share). I can certainly understand that perspective.

Interesting as well that those terribly worried about running out of concrete (lol) would advocate wind power over nuclear. Nuclear certainly uses a lot of concrete - containment and biological shielding mainly - but to put that into perspective, a wind farm capable of producing an output similar to a nuclear power station would require an order of magnitude more concrete by volume.

Just to repeat that - an order of magnitude more.

But somehow the concrete used in wind farms is magically renewable concrete, not like the evil non-renewable stuff they use in nukes. Who knew? (And that's just the concrete. Don't get me started on the rare earth metals, like neodymium. There's quite a penalty to pay for distributed turbines over one big turbine hall)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Given that you don't seem to know that much about our current levels of technology, nor about what is a trade journal and what is a scientific journal, I think your utterances on the subject can be filed under "irrelevant".

At his blog, TP reveals his vast expertise on solar:

I have a friend who is working on solar. He says that there are huge problems integrating it into a an energy grid, so for the moment it seems to be restricted to niche markets, such as individual houses and so on.

Quick, anonymous friend of TP! -- warn all these nations before they hurtle headlong into impracticable large-scale solar projects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment ... ergy_grids

Why, oh, why didn't the US military talk to TP's friend before embarking on its foolish initiative to build 3 GW of solar, and for the US Navy to shoot for 50% renewable energy by 2025?

http://theenergycollective.com/hermantr ... lar-energy


I previously provided links on how Spain's engineers are smarter than TP & his friend, having somehow figured a way to produce more energy from solar than the entire US, and how MIT (mos def smarter than TP) showed that its hometown of Cambridge could meet a third of its energy just from roof PVs, at about 1/4 the cost of an equivalent nuclear generator. TP must have missed those, seeing as he only reads "scientific" journals filled with plans for housing a trillion people.

It's just way too expensive for places like India and Africa, at the moment.

DC units are very suitable for most rural uses, are relatively cheap, and require zero infrastructure. Don't suppose any of those scientific journals mentioned solar ovens or sand-bag lamps?

--
On the other hand, TP has specific, technical oppositions to wind:

I can't stand wind - the windmills are hideous eyesores, they destroy the local bird life, and they require a giant infrastructure to make them work.

Want hideous eyesores? Visit the oil shale fields of Alberta. Stroll the beaches after the BP spill.

Somehow, all these various nations figured out a way to implement large-scale wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

Of course, countries with large populations like Norway can manage "giant infrastructures":
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/28/nor ... -capacity/


Yeah, Prussian, you're for the birds, alright:

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats: 100's of millions
Power lines: 130- 174 million
Windows: 100 million
Pesticides: 70 million
Automobiles: 60-- 80 million
Lighted communication towers: 40-- 50 million
Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... -birds.htm

[ThePrussian]

Quick, anonymous friend of TP! -- warn all these nations before they hurtle headlong into impracticable large-scale solar projects:

Once again, you seem to fail to get that that is rather an argument for my side - after all, it's an example of the technical advance you consider a myth. I'd still prefer to hear it from a specialist than an internet nonentity.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Oooh, nasty chemicals. Presumably nasty chemicals made in an evil science lab, not like those lovely natural chemicals that are perfectly in tune with the environment.

Please -- Molecules is molecules, duh.

Tanning chemicals are caustic. They must be manufactured somewhere, and must be disposed of after use. All this has a cost attached to it.

Tanning uses large quantities of water. It must come from somewhere. After use, it must either be recycled or purified before releasing, which uses energy. More costs.

Livestock raised for hides require acreage, which might have been used for something else, like carbon sequestration (a.k.a., trees.) Their farts produce methane. Their hooves erode soil. It takes a lot of water to irrigate their pastures. There's tractor work involved. More costs. (I claim expertise here, having myself raised cattle, goats & horses.)

Because of her boot over-consumption, My GF uses 4x the chemicals, 4x the water, 4x the energy than I. She creates 4x the cow farts & causes 4x the deforestation.

My GF doesn't need 15 pair of boots. Yet this is the indulgent, wasteful lifestyle TP touts as a cure to all the world's problems. That's sheer lunacy.


**

(SiO2), the single most abundant chemical compound in the earth's crust, making up nearly 50% by mass. To "run out of sand" we'd have to remove most of the earth's crust.. To think we are about to use it all up requires a massive failure of basic science knowledge.

The total amount of silicon within the Earth's crust is not equivalent to the amount that can be practicably and cost-effectively mined. Further, there's a whole lot more that goes into pouring concrete than mining silicon. Perhaps it's a relatively cheap resource, but nevertheless there are real costs associated with producing it.

To fail to comprehend that requires a massive lack of common sense.

Nuclear certainly uses a lot of concrete ... but ... a wind farm capable of producing an output similar to a nuclear power station would require an order of magnitude more concrete by volume.

I'd like to see those figures if you have a link. Though I do recall there was a considerable amount of extra concrete used in the "retro-fit" of Chernobyl.

Don't get me started on the rare earth metals, like neodymium

Oh, I'd very much like to get you on the topic of rare (sic) earth metals, as I'm sure you're misinformed on that one, too.

Despite your and TP's protestations to the contrary, with all these energy sources, there are trade-offs involved. Germany's scientists & policy-makers determined that wind and even solar made more sense than nuclear. I tend to put considerable trust in German ingenuity (Falschpreußer excepted.)

In spite of the rather obvious history of failed predictions ...

We don't need to look to past predictions. Right now, for real, India doesn't have enough water for its people. To get it, India is permanently destroying water sources. Right now, for real, China doesn't have enough food for its people. To get it, they're farming on unsuitable land, ruining it permanently, and exhausting the oceans' fish stock, ruining that for all of us. Right now, all across Florida and the US Southwest, entire neighborhoods are falling into sinkholes, caused by the exhaustion of aquifers.

Y'all say, don't worry, we'll figure something out when the time comes. Well, the time has come and past, and you geniuses have got squat. Forgive me if I don't hand over the reins.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Sand for concrete got me.

components.jpg

(14.83 KiB) Downloaded 224 times

Silly, science-ignorant me! Sand is only the second-biggest component of concrete.

And of course, the elves just leave all these materials at our doorstep each morning.

[another lurker]

ThePrussian wrote:

Large families are a consequence of that level of poverty; you cannot even begin to think of family planning until you start to pull out of that state of life.

Large families are a consequence of culture, tradition, and an agrarian lifestyle. Give people more money, and they will likely just breed even more children - because times are 'good'. If having a large family is integral to one's culture, that's what one will do - in good times or bad. Educate women, provide them with jobs that give them more control over their lives - and you will see a reduction in large families and by extension, poverty.

However, industrialization and even employment/education do not automatically lead to lower birth rates. Just look at the Philippines. Where contraception has been illegal for a while now (thanks RCC)*. Middle class and rich women can afford contraception and abortion - they just have to leave the country, or bribe their doctor. Poor families are struggling with 8-10 children. And this is with industrialization + a certain level of female emancipation. The point I am making is, there are *many* confounding factors that affect fertility, and 'wealth' alone is not the 'solution' to large families + poverty.

As for 'keeping the poor down' - the way to do it is not to reduce their population. The way to do it is to exploit them, and make sure they keep shitting out kids they can't feed, let alone educate. This will provide a large, cheap labour force for a long time to come.



*I believe that contraception is no longer illegal in the Philippines - however, the RCC is still fighting it tooth and nail. The usual shit about morality and the right to life!

[another lurker]

Spence wrote:

The overpopulation debate itself never really interested me that much. It's an ongoing scare story which has been running for hundreds of years (probably about as long as we've attempted to measure populations). I suppose like a stopped clock, there is a chance that one day it might turn out to be right. Of course doomsday "end of the world is nigh" stories have always garnered good headlines, whether from religion or science. I would subjectively put the human overpopulation doomsday scenario somewhat less credible than extinction from asteroid impact, and perhaps slightly more credible than the Mayan calendar doomsday story was (before 2012, of course :lol: )

Strawman. I don't believe that overpopulation = doomsday. Not at all. However, human history is nothing but long cycles of intensification and depletion. Drought, famine, wars, genocide - all over resources, or rather, the lack of. To naively think that scientists will just wave their magic science wands and solve all of the earth's problems is laughable at best. The world is complicated. What seems like a great idea at first might not be. Blind faith in technology is unwise.

And I have to reference windy here, cos windy is pretty awesome, and did actually point out another clanger (another one which Mike Adams would be proud of... seeing a pattern here?): viewtopic.php?p=123387#p123387. This does show that there was at least one call out, when the poster strayed into windy's area of expertise. But other than that we saw little skepticism despite astonishing levels of woo.

I am not against GMO"s btw. I don't have a problem with Monsanto per se- just their business practises. Nope, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories either. However, common sense would argue that any for profit company would like as big a market share as possible + will charge consumers as much as they can possibly bear. Monsanto, and others like it, are not charities.

The problems in India are very complex, and the point that I had made in the main thread is that it is not so much 'new technology' that is to blame - it is BLIND FAITH in such technology - when other factors - such as human greed, corruption, and fickle weather are to blame. I don't care how perfect your magical technology is - if humans won't share, you're not gonna solve shit, and you won't have your magical future utopia of 1 trillion happy people.

So, I did some more research on the BT cotton, and found this:

As a farmer from India I would like to highlight few factors that are responsible for farmers suicides. The success of the crop depends on the timely and sufficient monsoon.

If monsoon fails in a particular year the farmer falls in to the debt trap set by the money lenders at village levels.These money lenders drain the blood out of the farmers by charging exorbitant interest which goes even up to 60% pa.

The Minimum Support Price fixed by the Govt for our produce are not adequate enough to cover the cost of production and leave sufficient profit margin.The cost of production keeps escalating at an alarming rate every season. But it is not reflected in the selling price of our produce.

The return we get is inconsistent with the risk involved in farming.The MSP is not only insufficient, it seldom works.

The local traders and middle men exploit the farmers who are desperate in selling their produce.

Due to these factors farmers fall in to the debt trap. Unable to serve the debts some of them pathetically end their lives.

Farmers suicides due to debt burden is a bigger issue.Farmers in the states where cotton is not at all grown also end their lives. Even prior to Bt Cotton was introduced in our country farmers were commiting suicide.

And I did some *more* research, and came across this:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 30798.aspx

India’s Bt cotton dream is going terribly wrong. For the first time, farmer suicides, including those in 2011-12, have been linked to the declining performance of the much hyped genetically modified (GM) variety adopted by 90% of the country’s cotton-growers since being allowed a decade ago.

Bt cotton’s success, it appears, lasted merely five years. Since then, yields have been falling and pest attacks going up. India’s only GM crop has been genetically altered to destroy cotton-eating pests.

For farmers, rising costs —in the form of pesticides — have not matched returns, pushing many to the brink, financially and otherwise. Simply put, Bt cotton is no more as profitable as it used to be.

“In fact cost of cotton cultivation has jumped…due to rising costs of pesticides. Total Bt cotton production in the last five years has reduced,” says the advisory.

Now, maybe the Indian Ministry of Agriculture is simply bowing to public pressure. Who knows? However, just as it is wrong to take off one's skeptical hat and belive that 1) monsanto is teh ebil cuz they purposely sell bad seeds to farmers knowing the farmers will fail, it is also wrong to 2) believe that just because some super smrt scientist invented new fancy technology that his invention is suddenly and magically immune from NATURE. 3) and human weakness and greed

The entire point I have been making here - since this entire bullshit argument started - is that blind faith in technology = the stupid. It's that simple. I totally support all of the work that scientists are doing, and I absolutely love reading about all of the new inventions - but, until these ideas can be properly implemented, and shown to work, it's just speculation, nothing more. And I believe that we should make every effort to improve life for people *in the here and now* and not just in the future when magical wealth and technology will solve everything.

PS Speaking of nuclear energy, I was reading about these a few years ago in Discover magazine, and it's kinda cool:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Once again, you seem to fail to get that that is rather an argument for my side - after all, it's an example of the technical advance you consider a myth. I'd still prefer to hear it from a specialist than an internet nonentity.

I think we've entered Jesse Powell territory here.

I've provided numerous links to credible sources that belie TP's arguments, and in response all I get is ad hom & guilt-by-association fallacies.

I ask specific questions of TP; he replies with straw man fallacies or ad nauseam repetitions.


Having to defend his fantasies in the face of hard facts must be exhausting for TP. He's reduced to claiming that me citing all the mega solar installations and projects in countries around the word is confirmation that:

for the moment [solar] seems to be restricted to niche markets, such as individual houses and so on

or that his claim that solar is too expensive & infrastructure-heavy for Africa is confirmed by:

On average, many African countries receive up to 325 days of sunlight per year. This gives solar power the potential to bring energy to virtually any location in Africa without the need for expensive large scale grid level infrastructural developments.

Still, my lack of a B.S. apparently makes me a "nonentity" too feeble-minded to get any of this science stuff. I must rely on the judgement of of TP -- who definitely has no lack of BS -- regarding all things technical. Like CFL light bulbs:

"it conserves next to nothing (you get maybe a 5% reduction) while being very dangerous; those energy saving lightbulbs are toxic....The energy reductions ... would be miniscule....

Really?

Compact florescent bulbs last 5 times longer than a conventional bulb and uses 70% less energy.

"If every American home replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a long-lasting CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal to the emissions of 800,000 cars"

many [CFLs] now use as little as 0.4 mg. By comparison, mercury thermometers contain about 500 mg of mercury,

Coal-fired power plants are humans' No. 1 source of mercury pollution, and energy-intensive incandescents make those plants burn more coal than CFLs do ... [six times the mercury of a CFL]

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/transl ... f-the-bulb


Psst, TP -- I think I've located the "scientific journal" from which you derive all your 'expertise':
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... estructive

Look. Leave this to scientists, engineers and businessmen, i.e., those with something meaningful to contribute. If you really want to help, stop people such as yourself getting in our way.

Yeah, no. Definitely not handing the reins over to the likes of you.

[another lurker]

Solar cooking in Africa:

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/South_Africa

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Solar cooking in Africa:

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/South_Africa

You racist! How dare you deny brown people more wealth?

http://www.rewonline.com/restaurant-equ ... ml?src=gsh

[Spence]

ROFLMAO. It seems some people don't like their ignorance exposed. The backpedalling was entertaining, but nothing beyond that. As I said, there's no real debate to be had on these issues. Aside from a few political or PR vanity projects, population and technology will continue to grow.

Prediction is hard - particularly of the future, and none of us know what is going to happen until it happens. But ultimately politicians will always choose growth, and the population will continue to grow. So we're going to find out one way or another, and you know which side I'm backing. And there will always be people selling the doomsday scenario (btw another lurker, it can't be a strawman since I didn't claim that was your argument - your decision to answer the point not directed at you hardly makes a strawman now, does it).

Anyway, I'll just leave this here for the hell of it. Global food production normalised by population.

food_for_thought.jpg

(20.57 KiB) Downloaded 212 times

Anyway I'd better let you good folks get back to hoarding sand! I hear there's a shortage looming...

[Dornier Pfeil]

Sand for concrete got me.

components.jpg

Silly, science-ignorant me! Sand is only the second-biggest component of concrete.

And of course, the elves just leave all these materials at our doorstep each morning.

It is not the sand that matters. It is the cement. Cement is manufactured with a carbon based fuel, be it coal, petroleum, natural gas or wood. Only one of those is renewable.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Sand for concrete got me.

The attachment components.jpg is no longer available

Silly, science-ignorant me! Sand is only the second-biggest component of concrete.

And of course, the elves just leave all these materials at our doorstep each morning.

It is not the sand that matters. It is the cement. Cement is manufactured with a carbon based fuel, be it coal, petroleum, natural gas or wood. Only one of those is renewable.

Thanks for the clarification. All the materials used in manufacturing concrete, even lowly sand, need to be acquired and transported. That, too, uses diesel. Spence seems unable to grasp that minor detail.

He can go pound sand; but you get a Wunder Waffe!

dornier-do-335-pfeil-fighter-03.png

(181.44 KiB) Downloaded 202 times

(The Prussian might ask to borrow it in his crusade to alleviate the developing world's tragic shortage of Uggs.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'll just leave this here for the hell of it. Global food production normalised by population.

food_for_thought.jpg

You re-state the obvious. Food production is rising to meet the demands of a rising population.

But that's not the point. This increase in food production you so gleefully point to is being purchased at a terrible cost: erosion of soil, deforestation, silting of rivers, etc. And still the population keeps rising. It's unsustainable. Do you understand the meaning of unsustainable? Or do you just not fucking care?

[another lurker]

I'll just leave this here for the hell of it. Global food production normalised by population.

food_for_thought.jpg

You re-state the obvious. Food production is rising to meet the demands of a rising population.

But that's not the point. This increase in food production you so gleefully point to is being purchased at a terrible cost: erosion of soil, deforestation, silting of rivers, etc. And still the population keeps rising. It's unsustainable. Do you understand the meaning of unsustainable? Or do you just not fucking care?

I don't think he gets it. Graphs go up, therefore, graphs will always go up! :lol:

[Spence]

It is not the sand that matters. It is the cement.

Sure. Only a scientific illiterate would worry about the sand. That's kind of the point.

Cement is manufactured with a carbon based fuel, be it coal, petroleum, natural gas or wood. Only one of those is renewable.

Nothing forcing cement to be made with carbon based fuel. That's the way we do it today, because that is the most efficient way to do it given our current tech. Most certainly not the only way of doing it. All you need is the right mix of materials and energy input. The energy could come in any form, including nuclear (in fact, trees aren't really an energy source, but an intermediary conversion process - they just convert nuclear energy into chemical energy, hydrocarbons)

[Spence]

You re-state the obvious. Food production is rising to meet the demands of a rising population.

Why am I not surprised you cannot read a simple graph? *Meeting* the demands would be a flat line on that graph, because it is normalised against population. We are *exceeding* the demands of a growing population.

With graph reading skillz like that, it's no surprise you thought we were running out of sand. How many of your other claims rely on the same level of understanding?

I don't think he gets it. Graphs go up, therefore, graphs will always go up! :lol:

Hmm. For someone so quick to claim they are being strawmanned, interesting how you get to that from what I actually said. Let's just have a quick recap of what I did say for your convenience:

Prediction is hard - particularly of the future

The line is actually paraphrased from a famous scientist - I deliberately chose that because it would resonate with the scientifically literate and be noticed. It's kind of a tell.

Don't worry, I'm well aware I can't predict the future. You only have to look at what happened in Zimbabwe to see the terrible impact bad policy has on food production. If we have people who think the world is running out of sand or that believe anti-GM propaganda setting policy, then sure, food production could drop. I'm not saying it can't happen; in my subjective opinion, it is unlikely to happen. However, the risk of bad policy might be increased if people feel they can't call on the BS, which appears to be the case in the skeptics movement. (Not that I consider the quality of thinking in the skeptics movement to be much higher than most other "movements")

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Nothing forcing cement to be made with carbon based fuel. That's the way we do it today, because that is the most efficient way to do it given our current tech. Most certainly not the only way of doing it. All you need is the right mix of materials and energy input. The energy could come in any form, including nuclear (in fact, trees aren't really an energy source, but an intermediary conversion process - they just convert nuclear energy into chemical energy, hydrocarbons)

"That's the way we do it today." And that's how we deplete fossil fuels ... today. And cause climate change ... today. But no worries, because some wanker has written a paper on how in theory there are other ways.

Trees are my energy source for heat every winter. But I'm science illiterate, so I forgot to mention trees just convert the power of the sun.

This is why there's an "idiot" in "idiot-savant".

[Matt Cavanaugh]

You re-state the obvious. Food production is rising to meet the demands of a rising population.

Why am I not surprised you cannot read a simple graph? *Meeting* the demands would be a flat line on that graph, because it is normalised against population. We are *exceeding* the demands of a growing population.

I know how to interpret a graph:
1961: Pop 3.1 bn x c. 2,200 cal = 6.8 tr calories
2006: Pop 6.5 bn x c. 2,700 cal = 17.6 tr calories

A 250% expansion in 45 years. Your pretty graph doesn't display the costs associated with that rapid increase.

Also, since the figures are aggregate, it tells us nothing about where the increase in caloric intake has been realized -- are we feeding the starving, or just fattening up the rich?

"Meeting" a demand means just that. "Exceeding" a demand in this instance would mean we produce more food than is consumed.

Only a simpleton or a libertarian would consider this graph "proof" that no drawbacks exist to population growth.

[another lurker]

You re-state the obvious. Food production is rising to meet the demands of a rising population.

Why am I not surprised you cannot read a simple graph? *Meeting* the demands would be a flat line on that graph, because it is normalised against population. We are *exceeding* the demands of a growing population.

I know how to interpret a graph:
1961: Pop 3.1 bn x c. 2,200 cal = 6.8 tr calories
2006: Pop 6.5 bn x c. 2,700 cal = 17.6 tr calories

A 250% expansion in 45 years. Your pretty graph doesn't display the costs associated with that rapid increase.

Also, since the figures are aggregate, it tells us nothing about where the increase in caloric intake has been realized -- are we feeding the starving, or just fattening up the rich?

"Meeting" a demand means just that. "Exceeding" a demand in this instance would mean we produce more food than is consumed.

Only a simpleton or a libertarian would consider this graph "proof" that no drawbacks exist to population growth.

And that such a graph *proves* that we can keep intensifying production indefinitely with no drawbacks.

I mean, it's been working for the last 40+ years, so surely, it will just keep working this way forever, right?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

it's no surprise you thought we were running out of sand. How many of your other claims rely on the same level of understanding?

Strawman. I didn't say we were running out of sand. I said there were costs associated with acquiring any raw materials. I picked "sand" out of the top of my head, as I knew it was one of the components of concrete. I could have mentioned portland cement, gravel, or even the water. All of them come from somewhere and need to be transported to the concrete plant. The plant uses energy. Diesel, power -- these are not infinite resources.

This seems fairly easy to comprehend. Yet you fixate on the sand, and fancy yourself a clever debater for ignoring my actual point. Did I mention I have a binder full of women?

If we have people who ... believe anti-GM propaganda setting policy, then sure, food production could drop.

Strawman. Another lurker clearly stated they do not believe the anti-GMO hype. Not do I. It's you all who keep bringing it up as YA Wunder Waffe. GM has its uses, but it's no magic cure to rising food demands. In the wrong hands (Monsanto) it is used to manipulate the market and force farmers into dependency on fertilizers & seed (conveniently sold by Monsanto.) And The Prussian wants me to step out of the way, so the businessmen & their lab rats can solve all our problems.

[Spence]

BWAHAHAHA

Oh noes... we ... we can't do things! Because things have costs! We must stop doing things immediately!

Costs.... like running out of sand for concrete! So we must build windmills.. out of concrete!

BWAHAHAHA

Oh I'm sorry, I interrupted. Please, do go on. Your deep economic insights are just a wonder to behold.

Today's episode was brought to you by the fallacies of the precautionary principle*, the is-ought problem and the number three.

*Fear of unknown, unmeasurable losses, vis-à-vis Pascal's wager

PS. Matt, you said sand for concrete, so no, it isn't a straw man, even if you've since been educated on the topic. It deserves mockery. Your alternatives are just as retarded, but I have no interest in chasing you around as you endlessly shift goalposts and change the costs to new ones that you invent on the way. Just like anti-vaxxers shifting to a new evil chemical as they go through the lists of chemicals in vaccines. It's a tedious debate that I have no interest in. So the sand in concrete point is just a proxy for your inability to estimate actual costs. Get over it.

[another lurker]

sarcasm wrote:Oh noes... we ... we can't do things! Because things have costs! We must stop doing things immediately!

Costs.... like running out of sand for concrete! So we must build windmills.. out of concrete!

You really are the king of strawmen, aren't you?

First you imply that Matt and I believe in doomsday overpopulation hysteria.

Then you imply that we are anti-GMO freaks.

And now you are saying that Matt is such a dumbfuck that he wants to end all human progress now cuz he simply pointed out that raw materials do not simply materialise out of the ether.

And the tiny writing at the bottom of your post is impossible to read, btw.

[ThePrussian]

Spence is ably taking care of Matt, which frees me up for the sensible conversation here.

ThePrussian wrote:

Large families are a consequence of that level of poverty; you cannot even begin to think of family planning until you start to pull out of that state of life.

Large families are a consequence of culture, tradition, and an agrarian lifestyle.
<snip>

I don't disagree with what you write here - up to an including the stuff about the RCC. I would amend it slightly - "culture, tradition and an agrarian lifestyle" is a synonym for poverty. Most people forget, but this is why Marx defended capitalism as the destroyer of tradition and the liberator of man from feudal bondage; something I agree with the old buzzard about. That is why he defended the destruction of the feudal Confederacy by the capitalist Union.

The enormous power that industrializaton and capitalism places in the hands of individuals does not remove the need for struggle - it just makes that struggle winnable.

As for 'keeping the poor down' - the way to do it is not to reduce their population. The way to do it is to exploit them, and make sure they keep shitting out kids they can't feed, let alone educate. This will provide a large, cheap labour force for a long time to come.

True - which is what anti-globalization amounts to in practice. It is the grossest system of exploitation. That is why I banged on about trade-barriers in the other thread.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Spence is ably taking care of Matt, which frees me up for the sensible conversation here.

Since you've ignored every specific question I've asked you, found yourself proven stupefyingly wrong on the technical details of solar, wind, and light bulbs, and able to only to respond with pathetic ad hom, guilt-by-association, and strawman fallacies, I'm not surprised you've conceded debating me.

Really, don't want to try to define your concept of "wealth"? How about your geeky solution to Bangalore's water table having turned into a sewer? No? Give up?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

BWAHAHAHA

Oh noes... we ... we can't do things! Because things have costs! We must stop doing things immediately!

What are you, a ten year-old?


Your claims so far:

1) "the human overpopulation doomsday scenario [is] somewhat less credible than extinction from asteroid impact, and perhaps slightly more credible than the Mayan calendar doomsday";

2) a wind farm capable of producing an output similar to a nuclear power station would require an order of magnitude more concrete by volume. You repeated the words "order of magnitude", but failed to provide supporting figures, much less an overall cost-benefit comparison of wind vs. nuclear;

3) mumble, mumble, rare earth metals! mumble, mumble;

4) But ultimately politicians will always choose growth, and the population will continue to grow. [i.e., pop growth cannot be solved by social remedies];

5) We are *exceeding* the [food] demands of a growing population.


Your evidence so far for these claims:

1) Blanket statemend: it's a doomsday "end of the world is nigh" story;

2) Blanket statement: it's "weapons-grade bullshit";

3) SiO2 is abundant, so it costs nothing to use it;

3b) You said "sand", neener, neener. I win the debate;

4) In theory, it's possible to use alternate energy sources to make cement; so current costs associated with fossil fuels are irrelevant;

5) Trees don't create energy, they just convert it; so they don't count as a resource;

6) Food consumption is going up, up, up! I win the debate;

7) Caution in the face of uncertainty is for sissies.


Oh, and of course, we're just anti-vaxxers, conspiracy nuts, anti-GM freaks, and other assorted liberal arts retards. (At least you didn't call us racists, like TP did.)

You say I'm unable to estimate actual costs? Yet your pal TP's estimate of energy savings from CFLs was 14 times too low! You're a bit more clever, as you simply refuse to provide any estimates, figures, quotes, links -- or anything of substance to substantiate your childish rants.

I can see why you prefer to avoid serious debates. In future, you should stick to discussions with fellow 10 year-olds and assorted libertarians.

[ThePrussian]

Spence is ably taking care of Matt, which frees me up for the sensible conversation here.

Since you've ignored every specific question I've asked you, found yourself proven stupefyingly wrong on the technical details of solar, wind, and light bulbs

Actually, that's all lies from you, as anyone can see, and that is the reason I don't bother trying to debate anything with you. Leave this to the scientists.

[Spence]

Matt, I'm not debating you, for the reason I don't wrestle with pigs: both end up covered in shit, and the pig just enjoys it.

Mind you, the pig probably has a better grasp of physics than you do. As ThePrussian notes, your response to me is by and large a pack of lies, with one exception. You asked for evidence wind uses more concrete than nuclear. I didn't bother before because (1) intelligent interested people can find evidence for themselves and (2) you probably wouldn't understand it. But since I did make a claim, and the burden of evidence is on me, I will back that one up:

http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/ ... _input.pdf

And the money quote:

Nuclear fission energy requires small inputs of natural resources compared to most other fossil and nonfossil energy technologies [1]. The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 90 cubic meters (m³) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(ave)) generating capacity, when operated at a capacity factor of 0.9 MW(ave)/MW(rated) (Fig. 1). For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters per second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m³ of concrete per average MW(ave). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m³ of concrete per average MW(ave); and natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m³ concrete.

Note how in figure 1 they actually have to squash a section of the y-axis to get wind power raw material usage on to the chart! Thank goodness for "renewables", eh? *lol*

[another lurker]

Spence wrote:

Mind you, the pig probably has a better grasp of physics than you do. As ThePrussian notes, your response to me is by and large a pack of lies

Prove it. It should be relatively easy for someone with your intellectual prowess to prove Matt wrong with a mere flick of the wrist.

[Spence]

sarcasm wrote:Oh noes... we ... we can't do things! Because things have costs! We must stop doing things immediately!

Costs.... like running out of sand for concrete! So we must build windmills.. out of concrete!

You really are the king of strawmen, aren't you?

Well, let's just find out shall we?

First you imply that Matt and I believe in doomsday overpopulation hysteria.

Nope, my first entry was discussing why rational skeptics do not tend to call out overpopulation hysteria, noting that some have predicted doomsday scenarios. At no point did I make any claim of the sort you list above.

Then you imply that we are anti-GMO freaks.

What, you mean when I linked to windy's take down of your quoting anti-GMO propaganda? If you think that makes you look like "anti-GMO freaks" (I do not remember using the word freaks at any point in this discussion, please feel free to correct me), then I can't help that.

And now you are saying that Matt is such a dumbfuck that he wants to end all human progress now cuz he simply pointed out that raw materials do not simply materialise out of the ether.

Where did I say Matt wants to end all human progress? I agree I said he was scientifically illiterate (I didn't say dumbfuck, but the sentiment was there). I sincerely doubt his ability to understand costs, strongly evidenced by the things he has said. And a failure to understand costs would lead to bad policy. All of those things are reasonable. But where did I say he wanted to end all human progress? Again, please link to my exact words.

And the tiny writing at the bottom of your post is impossible to read, btw.

Treat it as an intelligence test.

So far, number of strawman fallacies correctly identified: zero. I'm almost tempted to put one in deliberately to see if you spot it. I guess if you point at everything and call it a strawman, eventually you'll be right. Could take a while though.

[another lurker]

Spence wrote:

So far, number of strawman fallacies correctly identified: zero. I'm almost tempted to put one in deliberately to see if you spot it. I guess if you point at everything and call it a strawman, eventually you'll be right. Could take a while though.

And I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. You've been pulling the 'guilt by association' card all along and it is painfully obvious. You blab about how you're a rational skeptic, then you blab a bit about how Matt and I are not, then you give some examples (strawmen) of the non-rational non-skeptical ideas that Matt and I *must* be associated with because we are not simply accepting that technology is some sort of magical cure all for society's ills.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Spence is ably taking care of Matt, which frees me up for the sensible conversation here.

Since you've ignored every specific question I've asked you, found yourself proven stupefyingly wrong on the technical details of solar, wind, and light bulbs

Actually, that's all lies from you, as anyone can see, and that is the reason I don't bother trying to debate anything with you. Leave this to the scientists.

In the same way 'anyone can see' that CFLs only reap 5% energy savings, not the 70% cited by the scientists at the US Dept. of Energy, et al.? Don't you want to debunk their outrageous claims with the evidence you used to derive your 5% figure?

And what about those solar ovens another lurker linked to? Don't you want to prove that rural Africans still need nuclear reactors to power their kitchens?

Is it a 'lie' for us to point out the many social factors affecting birthrates, or that non-technical solutions have been proven to work in reducing birthrates? (Note: grunting "Capitalism good" doesn't count as a rebuttal.)


Oh, remind me again, exactly what kind of "scientist" are you? Appeal to Authority is especially pretentious when it's self-authority. And particularly embarrassing when other authorities expose your errors.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I sincerely doubt his ability to understand costs, strongly evidenced by the things he has said. And a failure to understand costs would lead to bad policy.

In my corporate career, I handled multi-million-dollar budgets, and always came in under. I've managed my own entrepreneurship with far lower but far tighter budgets. I've responded to RPFs for my professional services. I designed, sourced the materials, and built my own barn, house, guest cabin, fencing, out-buildings. I've served on the boards of non-profits, involved in fund-raising, grant-writing and budgeting. Over my career, I've performed countless cost-benefit analyses.

Remind us, what you do for a living?

I'll tell you what is not a cost-benefit analysis: 1) flippantly dismissing any & all concerns for ancillary or hidden costs as "scare-mongering" or "doomsday scenarios"; 2) the semi-religious faith in "human ingenuity" to miraculously negate those costs after they've been incurred.

*
OK, you've proven that wind installations require more concrete than nuclear reactors. But I thought you said concrete was cheap? So why is this a barrier to replacing nuclear with wind?

Fill in the blanks for us, would ya?

Total Construction costs (per MW)
Nuclear _____
Wind _____

The rest of the cost-benefit analysis would go something like this:

ROI ....... Ramp-Up ...... lifetime
Nuke ......10-15 years .... ?
Wind ....... 2-5 years ..... ?

Energy source ...... Acq. Cost .. Disp. Cost .. Supply
Nuke (fissiles) ..... $$$$ ...... $$$$ ........ limited
Wind (wind, duh)..... $0 .......... $0 ........ infinite

Ongoing operation, maintenance
Nuke .... $$$
Wind .... $

Waste disposal
Nuke .... expensive, dangerous
Wind .... n/a

Decommissioning
Nuke .... $$$
Wind .... n/a

Meltdown impact
Nuke .... expensive, dangerous, environment destruction, birth defects & other fun stuff
Wind .... :lol:

Grand Total Operation costs
Nuke ____
Wind ____


I suppose you have technical papers comparing all these associated costs, right? If so, don't bother throwing your pearls before a "pig" like me. Send them direct to Chancellor Angela Merkel, before those science-illiterate, fiscally-inept Germans complete their replacement of nuclear with renewables.