Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The greatest depression in history

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:10:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you guys think of this video? It's about 30 minutes long but quite informative. It's about as non-partisan of a video on energy and resource depletion as you can get.

I can definitely see our standard of living getting significantly decreased, large famines, and a population shrink via death If the information is accurate.

Some main objectives to it:
1) If we get to the point in which there are not enough debtors, thus causing a credit crunch, quantitative easing can aid in the formation of debt-free money. Quantitative easing is buying off assets, like bonds, with money created.

2) I think the possibility of nuclear fusion is hugely overlooked. The allotted time to get nuclear fusion running is enough since the video seems to give an allotted time of at least 50 years until peak energy occurs. It also ignores that If one uses seawater uranium reserves, that gives us 60,000 year supply at present rate:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

I also think the possibility of solar energy is also overlooked as well. You have this giant start that produces an unimaginable amount of energy. Surely there will be viable method to harness quite a bit of that energy. Not sure what the "maximum" amount of energy one can get and how much land would be needed. Perhaps using oceans as a medium might work.

Anybody have any information about the facts of energy and resource depletion? I'm sure roylatham has a lot of information about the issue.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:28:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 1:25:30 AM, Mimshot wrote:
Please compare the left half of:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

What's your point?

I think it's obvious that population growth and economic growth with reach a limit. However, the question is whether we overshot our carrying capacity or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:35:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's your point?

I think it's obvious that population growth and economic growth with reach a limit. However, the question is whether we overshot our carrying capacity or not.

Normal biological populations follow a logistic growth curve. They have an exponential growth phase, followed by a linear growth phase, followed by a slowing rate of growth phase to asymptotically approach an equilibrium. It seems like every couple weeks someone comes out with a new book/article/video saying "exponential growth is unsustainable." Well, yeah, but that's ok, because we'll just reach an equilibrium. There doesn't need to be any great catastrophe.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:42:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 1:35:55 AM, Mimshot wrote:
What's your point?

I think it's obvious that population growth and economic growth with reach a limit. However, the question is whether we overshot our carrying capacity or not.

Normal biological populations follow a logistic growth curve. They have an exponential growth phase, followed by a linear growth phase, followed by a slowing rate of growth phase to asymptotically approach an equilibrium. It seems like every couple weeks someone comes out with a new book/article/video saying "exponential growth is unsustainable." Well, yeah, but that's ok, because we'll just reach an equilibrium. There doesn't need to be any great catastrophe.

yes but a population can overshoot it's carrying capacity in the short run, which causes then causes the population to decrease significantly:
http://en.wikipedia.org...(ecology)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:57:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think you wanted http://en.wikipedia.org... and the sources from that article show that really all the people talking about overshoot are really trying to fearmonger about human population. There are real things we should worry about (infectious diseases, global warming, unstable governments in developing counties) but this "there is not tomorrow" stuff is nonsense. It's 2012 or Family Radio with some math to make it sound scientific.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, that sounded harsher than I meant it. I shouldn't drink and post. Anyway, suffice it to say, I think we should invest in new energy technology, but I'm not worried the end is coming.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:29:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 1:10:22 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I can definitely see our standard of living getting significantly decreased, large famines, and a population shrink via death If the information is accurate.
Yes it could happen and becomes more likely every year due to climate change. Many crop yields have been negatively impacted such as peanuts, rice, sugar, corn, and wheat. Furthermore with increasing flooding, droughts and other weather events crop destruction via those means increases steadily.
The ironic thing is that climate change will impact poor nations in Africa, and Asia the most. Given that those nations already have trouble feeding themselves things don't look good for them.
However there are certain things that could easily counteract those things. For example if America stopped raising livestock and used all the resources to grow crops for consumption it could end world hunger.
1/3 of all food is wasted/thrown out. Most waste in 3rd world countries comes from them lacking the proper storage technology. Another idea is to put a huge taxes on corporations whom throw out food
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:01:52 AM, Mimshot wrote:
Sorry, that sounded harsher than I meant it. I shouldn't drink and post. Anyway, suffice it to say, I think we should invest in new energy technology, but I'm not worried the end is coming.

No worries.

There's no "end of world" scenario. But a scenario of a severe lowering of production and possible famine is absolutely possible. There are so many variables, ad so many uncertainties that it would be very difficult to comprehend the impact and it still widely debated. You have to take into consideration capital, resource and land costs to extract more energy, which is difficult to measure.

However, the USA only invests 2.8% in R&D, including both private and public sector. The amount dedicated to developing alternative energy is only a fraction of the GDP. I'd say you could probably max out at 10-15% GDP to spend just purely on alternative energy and still keep it a "free market".

I'd say nuclear fusion will have to be the eventual solution, since all one needs is hydrogen, which is plenty abundant. And this can be in the hundreds or even thousands of years, since coal and uranium reserves still exists.

Problem, is that the American government is so screwed up, it can hardly keep itself afloat in relatively peaceful times, never mind disaster situations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...