Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Amazing Video

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 10:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is seriously one of the most important (no pun intended) videos that I have ever seen. It clearly illustrates the power of the exponential function, the magnitude of population growth rates, and how energy production is not sustainable past one or two centuries. In fact, the professor (who is world renowned) argues that we have passed the Hubert peak and are actually on the declining. Furthermore, he talks about how discoveries of HUGE magnitude of natural resources are minuscule in comparison to growth rates.

If you have a spare hour, watch this video.

The guy also has a website:

http://albartlett.org...

I think I just might have changed my mind on abortion due to this video...lol
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I posted a thread for the video a year or two ago. I got yelled down by people too lazy to watch it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 11:04:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I posted a thread for the video a year or two ago. I got yelled down by people too lazy to watch it.

Have you watched it?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:37:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
a spare hour to watch a video? Do you know all the productive things one could do with that kind of time?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:51:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 11:18:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2012 11:04:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I posted a thread for the video a year or two ago. I got yelled down by people too lazy to watch it.

Have you watched it?

No. I made a thread about a video I never watched.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:51:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 11:37:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
a spare hour to watch a video? Do you know all the productive things one could do with that kind of time?

Forgot to say inb4
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reluctant_Liberal
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 10:56:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


This is seriously one of the most important (no pun intended) videos that I have ever seen. It clearly illustrates the power of the exponential function, the magnitude of population growth rates, and how energy production is not sustainable past one or two centuries. In fact, the professor (who is world renowned) argues that we have passed the Hubert peak and are actually on the declining. Furthermore, he talks about how discoveries of HUGE magnitude of natural resources are minuscule in comparison to growth rates.

If you have a spare hour, watch this video.

The guy also has a website:

http://albartlett.org...

I think I just might have changed my mind on abortion due to this video...lol

I don't suppose this video takes into account declining global birth rates that will halt population growth in the next fifty years? Or the growth potential of renewable energy? This video sounds flawed on its face.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:29:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:16:34 AM, Reluctant_Liberal wrote:
At 7/3/2012 10:56:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


This is seriously one of the most important (no pun intended) videos that I have ever seen. It clearly illustrates the power of the exponential function, the magnitude of population growth rates, and how energy production is not sustainable past one or two centuries. In fact, the professor (who is world renowned) argues that we have passed the Hubert peak and are actually on the declining. Furthermore, he talks about how discoveries of HUGE magnitude of natural resources are minuscule in comparison to growth rates.

If you have a spare hour, watch this video.

The guy also has a website:

http://albartlett.org...

I think I just might have changed my mind on abortion due to this video...lol

I don't suppose this video takes into account declining global birth rates that will halt population growth in the next fifty years?

This is a false claim. While in modern societies, developed nations have people producing less offrspring, and some societies are witnessing an epidemic in which people are having less than 2 children, which will cause the population to decrease, this is only a short fix.

However, remember that the offspring from the next generation are coming from families that produced a lot of children. Those that have genetics that make them less likely to choose to have children will become less populated while those that have genetics that will make them make them more likely to have children will become more populated. The population growth rate will be refueled.

This is just a matter of basic ecology and evolution/natural selection. Natural selection favors genetic characteristics that favor the most reproducible. Evolution doesn't care to favor producing the most goods/sevices per capita. If resources exist that can be used for more than just subsistence living, then it will be quickly consumed through an increase in population growth until wages are depressed back to subsistence living. We're just living in a short blimp in history in which there is high economic growth. This will not last long on a geological scale.

Or the growth potential of renewable energy? This video sounds flawed on its face.

This is true. If you combine uranium extracted from seawater, and develop breeder reactors, reactors that "create" nuclear fuel, then there's another energy for millions of years. However, this is at present day energy consumption. Energy consumption will likely grow as the economy grows as well.

If nuclear fusion is successful though, then it would essentially be a near unlimited energy source, limited only by the resources needed to build the plants that produce the fusion.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 9:54:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
With a 5% energy growth rate per year (currently), it is highly unlikely that any hydrocarbons will last past another century. Basically, that's a doubling rate every 12 years. Current oil consumption for the top 10 countries is 46.5 million barrels of oil per day. Within a lifetime, this 46 million will increase to 1.4 billion
barrels of oil per day. If you think that this is sustainable then you are highly naive.

I wonder if you can use thorium for nuclear fission...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 9:57:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 11:37:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
a spare hour to watch a video? Do you know all the productive things one could do with that kind of time?

Right, because somehow learning about the fact that our country is going to sh!t is less important than playing piano/violin/drawing.

Also, as a 16 year old, I seriously doubt that any of your activities are productive in the sense that they boost national productivity. Playing video games doesn't boost productivity. Neither does playing piano unless you play at concerts for money, which is unlikely. Same thing with violin and drawing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:18:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not food a driving factor of population control much more so than energy?

Plenty of people multiply in 3rd world countries with very limited available energy.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:20:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 10:18:57 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not food a driving factor of population control much more so than energy?

Plenty of people multiply in 3rd world countries with very limited available energy.

Food can be produced as long as there is energy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Reluctant_Liberal
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:48:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

I don't suppose this video takes into account declining global birth rates that will halt population growth in the next fifty years?

This is a false claim. While in modern societies, developed nations have people producing less offrspring, and some societies are witnessing an epidemic in which people are having less than 2 children, which will cause the population to decrease, this is only a short fix.

However, remember that the offspring from the next generation are coming from families that produced a lot of children. Those that have genetics that make them less likely to choose to have children will become less populated while those that have genetics that will make them make them more likely to have children will become more populated. The population growth rate will be refueled.

Sorry. You're just wrong here. Population grown in Europe one hundred and fifty years ago was comparable to population growth in the developing world today. Population is controlled by cultural and technological factors. Access to the pill and higher standards of living in the developing world will do the same thing they did in Europe and the United States: bring population growth to a standstill. Genetics have absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is just a matter of basic ecology and evolution/natural selection. Natural selection favors genetic characteristics that favor the most reproducible. Evolution doesn't care to favor producing the most goods/sevices per capita. If resources exist that can be used for more than just subsistence living, then it will be quickly consumed through an increase in population growth until wages are depressed back to subsistence living. We're just living in a short blimp in history in which there is high economic growth. This will not last long on a geological scale.

What you're talking about is the perpetuation of genetic characteristics, not the perpetuation of lots of babies. And while evolution is more important over millions of years, cultural and environmental factors will make a bigger difference in the next hundred. And cultural and environmental factors say you're wrong about where population is going.

Or the growth potential of renewable energy? This video sounds flawed on its face.

This is true. If you combine uranium extracted from seawater, and develop breeder reactors, reactors that "create" nuclear fuel, then there's another energy for millions of years. However, this is at present day energy consumption. Energy consumption will likely grow as the economy grows as well.

If nuclear fusion is successful though, then it would essentially be a near unlimited energy source, limited only by the resources needed to build the plants that produce the fusion.

I was actually referring to solar, offshore wind, tidal, and geothermal energy. Did you know the cost of solar is getting cut in half every two years? How's that for exponential growth. Or hell, I don't like fracking, but if we can't run our air conditioners full blast all summer we'll use it. As the cost of energy increases, so does the profitability of finding new sources of energy. You're fears (about population growth) are simply unfounded.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reluctant, it's not necessarily the population growth rates that are going to screw us in the short run, but instead the energy growth rates. World energy growth rates are 5% right now (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Within 70 years, they will double FIVE times. The amount of oil that will be needed will far exceed the TOTAL oil that has ever been produced in the world.

Onto renewable energy, the only one that really has possibility for large scale is nuclear fission, and even that poses problems of radioactive pollution and finite resources. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal (lol) will never be able to produce enough electricity to power the world. Solar electricity is hard to transport, wind power takes up a lot of area and doesn't produce too much electricity, geothermal is extremely expensive and can't be done in all areas, and tidal is a joke.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Reluctant_Liberal
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:17:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:08:01 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Reluctant, it's not necessarily the population growth rates that are going to screw us in the short run, but instead the energy growth rates. World energy growth rates are 5% right now (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Within 70 years, they will double FIVE times. The amount of oil that will be needed will far exceed the TOTAL oil that has ever been produced in the world.

Onto renewable energy, the only one that really has possibility for large scale is nuclear fission, and even that poses problems of radioactive pollution and finite resources. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal (lol) will never be able to produce enough electricity to power the world. Solar electricity is hard to transport, wind power takes up a lot of area and doesn't produce too much electricity, geothermal is extremely expensive and can't be done in all areas, and tidal is a joke.

I don't really have the time to give you the response you deserve, so for now I will simply say that these kinds of predictions have been made for the past two hundred years and they haven't come true yet.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:21:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:17:27 AM, Reluctant_Liberal wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:08:01 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Reluctant, it's not necessarily the population growth rates that are going to screw us in the short run, but instead the energy growth rates. World energy growth rates are 5% right now (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Within 70 years, they will double FIVE times. The amount of oil that will be needed will far exceed the TOTAL oil that has ever been produced in the world.

Onto renewable energy, the only one that really has possibility for large scale is nuclear fission, and even that poses problems of radioactive pollution and finite resources. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal (lol) will never be able to produce enough electricity to power the world. Solar electricity is hard to transport, wind power takes up a lot of area and doesn't produce too much electricity, geothermal is extremely expensive and can't be done in all areas, and tidal is a joke.

I don't really have the time to give you the response you deserve, so for now I will simply say that these kinds of predictions have been made for the past two hundred years and they haven't come true yet.

The guy in the video already discussed it. The reason is that those predictions were done on the upward slope of the curve, and hence were not correct. However, empirical evidence now shows that we are at the very top of the curve.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 10:48:25 AM, Reluctant_Liberal wrote:

I don't suppose this video takes into account declining global birth rates that will halt population growth in the next fifty years?

This is a false claim. While in modern societies, developed nations have people producing less offrspring, and some societies are witnessing an epidemic in which people are having less than 2 children, which will cause the population to decrease, this is only a short fix.

However, remember that the offspring from the next generation are coming from families that produced a lot of children. Those that have genetics that make them less likely to choose to have children will become less populated while those that have genetics that will make them make them more likely to have children will become more populated. The population growth rate will be refueled.

Sorry. You're just wrong here. Population grown in Europe one hundred and fifty years ago was comparable to population growth in the developing world today. Population is controlled by cultural and technological factors. Access to the pill and higher standards of living in the developing world will do the same thing they did in Europe and the United States: bring population growth to a standstill. Genetics have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I agree to the above. However those who voluntarily agree to have more children will be the "fittest" in the sense and those that voluntarily agree to have less children will be the least fit.

Environment factors have influenced those in modern day to have less children, however not everyone is affected by the environment equally. That's where natural selection comes into play. That's how natural selection comes into play. Those that produce more children, despite "environmental conditioning" will go on to have children that will have more children. It's easy to think of the people. The "dumb" people that refuse to wear a condom or use birth control and have lots of sex and don't get abortions. These are the people of the future that natural selection selects.


This is just a matter of basic ecology and evolution/natural selection. Natural selection favors genetic characteristics that favor the most reproducible. Evolution doesn't care to favor producing the most goods/sevices per capita. If resources exist that can be used for more than just subsistence living, then it will be quickly consumed through an increase in population growth until wages are depressed back to subsistence living. We're just living in a short blimp in history in which there is high economic growth. This will not last long on a geological scale.

What you're talking about is the perpetuation of genetic characteristics, not the perpetuation of lots of babies. And while evolution is more important over millions of years, cultural and environmental factors will make a bigger difference in the next hundred. And cultural and environmental factors say you're wrong about where population is going.

Evolutionary changes happen quite quickly. We've observed these changes through microevolution. Speciation is a process that takes millions of years, but these are only small changes that occur quite quickly.

Or the growth potential of renewable energy? This video sounds flawed on its face.

This is true. If you combine uranium extracted from seawater, and develop breeder reactors, reactors that "create" nuclear fuel, then there's another energy for millions of years. However, this is at present day energy consumption. Energy consumption will likely grow as the economy grows as well.

If nuclear fusion is successful though, then it would essentially be a near unlimited energy source, limited only by the resources needed to build the plants that produce the fusion.

I was actually referring to solar, offshore wind, tidal, and geothermal energy. Did you know the cost of solar is getting cut in half every two years? How's that for exponential growth. Or hell, I don't like fracking, but if we can't run our air conditioners full blast all summer we'll use it. As the cost of energy increases, so does the profitability of finding new sources of energy. You're fears (about population growth) are simply unfounded.

I have my doubts on these types of energy solutions. I think nuclear energy is the way to go. I know this is anecedotal, but most of my engineering professors, even those that specialize in environment pollution prevention, think these forms of renewable energy are just bad. The main problems are that these forms of energy are unreliable. The sun doesn't shine all the time, which means you have to develop expensive energy storage facillities and switch between the two different energy sources instantly to kee the energy source going, which makes the capital costs very expensive.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 10:20:00 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/4/2012 10:18:57 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not food a driving factor of population control much more so than energy?

Plenty of people multiply in 3rd world countries with very limited available energy.

Food can be produced as long as there is energy.

pretty sure if there existed only one nuclear reactor in the world, it would be dedicated solely to growing food.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 3:14:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I only watched the first few minutes of the video, but it seems like horsepucky. Exponential growth projections assume that nothing intervenes to lower the growth rates, which is wrong.

The United Nations estimates that the world population will stabilize in about 50 years with about a third more people than we have now. In primitive societies, having lots of children is the method for providing security in old age. That's being replaced by retirement programs, so population is already stable or negative in the developed world.

Of course, birth control dominates developed-society growth rates. As the need for large families decreases, birth control will rise in the developing world.

As technology develops new methods and products, resource needs change. Imagine projections done in the 1800s about how much hay would be needed to feed all the horses a hundred years hence, or how much whale oil would be needed for illumination. Recent projections of doom are every bit as silly. Academic predictions made in the 60s (Paul Erlich) showed that the world would be in a shambles by 2000. Not a single prediction has been born out.

In the developed world per capita energy consumption is stable. The developing world will need a lot more energy, but over time that will come from new sources. Orbiting solar power stations can provide virtually any amount of power. The issue is strictly cost.