In a way, discovering a path to immortality or greatly lengthened lifespans would be pretty good for the enviromental cause, because suddenly everyone making decisions is going to be alive when the shit really hits the fan.
Now, even the younger generation isn't going to really notice the worst effects of what has already been done. We'll see the start of the ocean extinctions, and the great deteriation of the arctic ice, but the real water level rises are projected for the second half of the 21st century. Since average lifespans are in the 80 year range, it's mostly our children who have it bad, and their children who'll have it the worst. (Because they are going to be young during this, meaning they'll mostly be responsible for doing the work, and generating the money, to deal with it).
I have a pretty defeatist attitude about the whole thing. I don't see a political path for any of the four great powers to deal with this preventively. China and India simply don't care that much about their own populace now, let alone in the future. The US cares more, but not enough to sacrifice economic growth, especially in harsh times. Europe has done the most, but still not enough, and with current economics and the behaviour of the other nations it's becoming very hard to sell any further actions politically. I really think we're going to fish until we run out of fish, and burn fossil fuels until we run out of fuel.
a ton of largely unregulated plants in the developing world leaking crap everywhere.
Regardless of your views, the third world has the right to develop into a goosing economy powerhouses that the West once was. They have ever right to follow in the same path the the UK, America, France and other rose through history.
You mean they have the right to destroy communities, rewrite histories, enslave populations, oppress the masses and make people compete for literal slave wages? If that's the case, then no, they don't have that right.
Well the wealth that you're currently making comes from plundering of Europeans and Westerners to improve their own countries. Thats the reason why the "West" is in the "1st world". Off the backs of Third world and off the backs of the periphery.
I feel that the Third world, regardless of the enviromental damages, should be able to rise the same except with the plundering of the First world and the return of the policies that Britian, America and the rest of the 1st world imposed on the third world to be implemented on the first world. India, China and the Middle East should be able to use the exact same racist and environmental damaging policies that were put into place in their countries by the first world. An eye for an eye.
Because when you're starving to death in a corpse-filled radioactive wasteland, there's nothing like a smug sense of moral superiority to distract you from the buzzard pecking out your eyeball.
a ton of largely unregulated plants in the developing world leaking crap everywhere.
Regardless of your views, the third world has the right to develop into a goosing economy powerhouses that the West once was. They have ever right to follow in the same path the the UK, America, France and other rose through history.
You mean they have the right to destroy communities, rewrite histories, enslave populations, oppress the masses and make people compete for literal slave wages? If that's the case, then no, they don't have that right.
Well the wealth that you're currently making comes from plundering of Europeans and Westerners to improve their own countries. Thats the reason why the "West" is in the "1st world". Off the backs of Third world and off the backs of the periphery.
I feel that the Third world, regardless of the enviromental damages, should be able to rise the same except with the plundering of the First world and the return of the policies that Britian, America and the rest of the 1st world imposed on the third world to be implemented on the first world. India, China and the Middle East should be able to use the exact same racist and environmental damaging policies that were put into place in their countries by the first world. An eye for an eye.
Because when you're starving to death in a corpse-filled radioactive wasteland, there's nothing like a smug sense of moral superiority to distract you from the buzzard pecking out your eyeball.
Best apocalypse ever!
MplsOsiris on
A while back I hated where my life was and where my life was going. Now I'm happily engaged, in the best shape I've been in since high school, have a bunch of wild stories and most importantly I enjoy my life! You can check out what I'm up to next at http://coolbyintent.com/blog
I just saw this stupefyingly ignorant, depressing comment on a blog I go to:
What is funny the treehuggers are opposed to a company that supposedly won't reduce their C02 emissions...
Um last time I checked plants and trees take in C02, and through photosynthesis generate oxygen. (look up carbon cycle).
So treehuggers want to stop CO2 production that can kill off the planets flora, thus killing us off in the process, wow.
That is the whole problem with real science vs. climate change scam.
(sorry didn't mean to start a debate, but it's basic science, and I live in California which has the most rediculas restrictions on emmisions in the world, cause of fuzzy logic science done by C.A.R.B. that the rest of the country wants to follow.)
In a nutshell, he's saying "if we stop burning fossil fuels then plants won't have any CO2 to make oxygen with!"
That's just so goddamn horrifyingly stupid. The biosphere's going to get fucked-up because idiots like this can't be bothered to know what the hell they're talking about, and everybody will suffer for it.
In a nutshell, he's saying "if we stop burning fossil fuels then plants won't have any CO2 to make oxygen with!"
That's just so goddamn horrifyingly stupid. The biosphere's going to get fucked-up because idiots like this can't be bothered to know what the hell they're talking about, and everybody will suffer for it.
This is a somewhat common claim, actually. I think there was some viral gossip that some folks put out to take advantage of how poorly some people paid attention during science class when they were kids.
I'm amused that he mentioned CARB though - some years back I was rather heavily involved in it, and the big deal with CARB is that a bunch of stakeholders got the state to delay everything until way beyond the last minute, making the regulation insane instead of merely difficult.
a ton of largely unregulated plants in the developing world leaking crap everywhere.
Regardless of your views, the third world has the right to develop into a goosing economy powerhouses that the West once was. They have ever right to follow in the same path the the UK, America, France and other rose through history.
You mean they have the right to destroy communities, rewrite histories, enslave populations, oppress the masses and make people compete for literal slave wages? If that's the case, then no, they don't have that right.
Well the wealth that you're currently making comes from plundering of Europeans and Westerners to improve their own countries. Thats the reason why the "West" is in the "1st world". Off the backs of Third world and off the backs of the periphery.
I feel that the Third world, regardless of the enviromental damages, should be able to rise the same except with the plundering of the First world and the return of the policies that Britian, America and the rest of the 1st world imposed on the third world to be implemented on the first world. India, China and the Middle East should be able to use the exact same racist and environmental damaging policies that were put into place in their countries by the first world. An eye for an eye.
Because when you're starving to death in a corpse-filled radioactive wasteland, there's nothing like a smug sense of moral superiority to distract you from the buzzard pecking out your eyeball.
I think it's important to retain a sense of perspective here, what will happen with massive global warming is a collapse of advanced human civilization, and a huge rearrangement of earths ecosystems into a warmer and less productive mode. Not everywhere will be fallout 3 style desert, and once advanced civilization has been destroyed for a few decades much of the worst effects will begin to heal themselves.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
Historically, a lot of the collapses are effectively total. There are no survivors. You push your resources to the limit and the population doesnt just bend back slightly. I'm sure the Christian Vikings in Greenland thought they were above cannibalism too. The difference in modern times are that our populations are highly linked, as opposed to the various past civilizations that collapsed in near total isolation.
I think both human ingenuity and tenacity are underestimated in those doomsday scenarios. We may give fuckall about the fates of our hypothetical grandchildren, let alone the grandchildren of poor people in other countries, but I think that once quality of life starts getting seriously threatened by this, we will mostly adapt. Most of these changes, while severe, are slow. This is the biggest problem with getting action against them, but also a boon with mitigating their results.
That's the thing though, once quality of life starts getting seriously threatened by this it might too late.
Being reactive, however good we are at it, is not enough.
Shanadeus on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
While a lot of things related to climate change are slow, there are plenty of changes that arent apparent until right at the end, at which point changes come fast. You're not out of trees until you are REALLY OUT OF TREES. Somebody got to cut down the last useful tree on Easter Island before they all bit it. Maybe he thought that human ingenuity or technology would save them. Its possible that many past people's knew that they were overextending themselves and thought similarly. They were all wrong.
a ton of largely unregulated plants in the developing world leaking crap everywhere.
Regardless of your views, the third world has the right to develop into a goosing economy powerhouses that the West once was. They have ever right to follow in the same path the the UK, America, France and other rose through history.
You mean they have the right to destroy communities, rewrite histories, enslave populations, oppress the masses and make people compete for literal slave wages? If that's the case, then no, they don't have that right.
Well the wealth that you're currently making comes from plundering of Europeans and Westerners to improve their own countries. Thats the reason why the "West" is in the "1st world". Off the backs of Third world and off the backs of the periphery.
I feel that the Third world, regardless of the enviromental damages, should be able to rise the same except with the plundering of the First world and the return of the policies that Britian, America and the rest of the 1st world imposed on the third world to be implemented on the first world. India, China and the Middle East should be able to use the exact same racist and environmental damaging policies that were put into place in their countries by the first world. An eye for an eye.
Because when you're starving to death in a corpse-filled radioactive wasteland, there's nothing like a smug sense of moral superiority to distract you from the buzzard pecking out your eyeball.
I think it's important to retain a sense of perspective here, what will happen with massive global warming is a collapse of advanced human civilization, and a huge rearrangement of earths ecosystems into a warmer and less productive mode. Not everywhere will be fallout 3 style desert, and once advanced civilization has been destroyed for a few decades much of the worst effects will begin to heal themselves.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
The thing is volcano's don't do this.
In monitoring atmospheric CO2 concentrations, if volcanos were making huge quantities of CO2 then we would expect to see big spikes in years when there are major eruptions. But we don't. Volcanism simply doesn't emit that much CO2 and it's a colossal lie that it does. Link.
I'm not saying we won't be doing extensive damage to the environment, that mass extinctions are not coming, or that loads of people won't suffer and possibly die, or that we won't be spending astronomical sums in order to mitigate all the crap we've caused, and that maybe some nations will topple in the ensuing chaos. But I think that talking about extinction level events is hyperbole. Even large scale resource wars seem unlikely to me, largely because the cost of war itself has become astronomical for first world nations (because of the change in valuation of human life inside those countries).
SanderJK on
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
It's hard to imagine how we'd ever develop modern technology without easily available coal and oil to jumpstart us. Sure, we could manage with nuclear our renewables now, but how would you ever develop that tech in the first place? I have a hard time believing that anyone could design a nuclear reactor while working by candlelight, and corresponding with everyone else by letters delivered by horses.
On the other hand, we might have developed much better agriculture technology, since we'd have to make do with much less raw power.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
Well considering the most basic unit of industrial technology - the steam engine - was only properly developed in the abundant energy of coal mine I think the result of such a change would be a world entirely unrecognisable to us. I guess you might have some hydropower -> electric dynamo path, but none of the intermediate steps seem economically viable.
Fossil fuels are most likely necessary for a civilization like ours to arise in the first place. In the best case scenario, there would be enough fossil fuels to get modern society started but not enough for their use to start causing major environmental problems.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
Well considering the most basic unit of industrial technology - the steam engine - was only properly developed in the abundant energy of coal mine I think the result of such a change would be a world entirely unrecognisable to us. I guess you might have some hydropower -> electric dynamo path, but none of the intermediate steps seem economically viable.
Hydro power would be possible I guess. But that wouldn't be able to power any sort of large vehicle, unless they somehow made batteries way better than we can do. And without vehicles, they wouldn't be able to build any large hydro plants like the hoover dam that could actually run a factory. They'd pretty much just be stuck with medieval style watermills.
Which would actually be pretty cool, in some ways. But they wouldn't be launching anyone into space.
I'm not saying we won't be doing extensive damage to the environment, that mass extinctions are not coming, or that loads of people won't suffer and possibly die, or that we won't be spending astronomical sums in order to mitigate all the crap we've caused, and that maybe some nations will topple in the ensuing chaos. But I think that talking about extinction level events is hyperbole. Even large scale resource wars seem unlikely to me, largely because the cost of war itself has become astronomical for first world nations (because of the change in valuation of human life inside those countries).
Large-scale won't happen. But a reversion to a small enough scale that it does happen is entirely likely.
I would point out what's happening in places like Greece with the current financial crisis: that is rioting and anarchy over fiscal austerity measures. That is a fixable problem over the short term.
Now start guessing at what would happen if instead of austerity, we were dealing with real world food shortages. It won't happen suddenly - of course. Prices can go up and up and up and we'll just deal with it, but all the while they are the number of people in need and on welfare is going up as well, and unlike fiscal austerity we'd be looking at no real immediate possible fixes.
When a riot started from such a situation, it would pretty much never stop. Western nations discovering they don't have enough food, or coastal cities which are now being seasonally flooded in places they used to never be, will revert civilization fucking fast. Consider how hard it would be for you to replace your car if it were destroyed in a riot, and that riot never actually stopped because the underlying problem could not be cured in any short term - and that the people involved felt that they were rapidly approaching the wall of "starving in the streets".
The real danger is not large scale resource wars between modern nations - its that the modern nations of the world would have the base of their stability eroded to the point where they are no longer modern nations as we know them.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
Sounds like humanity is winning to me. I don't like seafood and let me ask you this, what is the most terrifying part about the oceans? Answer: the shit that lives in them. I fail to see the problem.
darklite_x on
Steam ID: darklite_x Xbox Gamertag: Darklite 37 PSN:Rage_Kage_37 Battle.Net:darklite#2197
I'm not saying we won't be doing extensive damage to the environment, that mass extinctions are not coming, or that loads of people won't suffer and possibly die, or that we won't be spending astronomical sums in order to mitigate all the crap we've caused, and that maybe some nations will topple in the ensuing chaos. But I think that talking about extinction level events is hyperbole. Even large scale resource wars seem unlikely to me, largely because the cost of war itself has become astronomical for first world nations (because of the change in valuation of human life inside those countries).
Large-scale won't happen. But a reversion to a small enough scale that it does happen is entirely likely.
I would point out what's happening in places like Greece with the current financial crisis: that is rioting and anarchy over fiscal austerity measures. That is a fixable problem over the short term.
Now start guessing at what would happen if instead of austerity, we were dealing with real world food shortages. It won't happen suddenly - of course. Prices can go up and up and up and we'll just deal with it, but all the while they are the number of people in need and on welfare is going up as well, and unlike fiscal austerity we'd be looking at no real immediate possible fixes.
When a riot started from such a situation, it would pretty much never stop. Western nations discovering they don't have enough food, or coastal cities which are now being seasonally flooded in places they used to never be, will revert civilization fucking fast. Consider how hard it would be for you to replace your car if it were destroyed in a riot, and that riot never actually stopped because the underlying problem could not be cured in any short term - and that the people involved felt that they were rapidly approaching the wall of "starving in the streets".
The real danger is not large scale resource wars between modern nations - its that the modern nations of the world would have the base of their stability eroded to the point where they are no longer modern nations as we know them.
So how likely is it that these sorts of things will actually happen?
They're already happening. The Middle East just went to shit over food prices. In part, at least (there was also that whole "democracy" thing, but food prices were a large factor in raising dissatisfation with the government).
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
They're already happening. The Middle East just went to shit over food prices. In part, at least (there was also that whole "democracy" thing, but food prices were a large factor in raising dissatisfation with the government).
Civilization is 4 meals from anarchy.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
They're already happening. The Middle East just went to shit over food prices. In part, at least (there was also that whole "democracy" thing, but food prices were a large factor in raising dissatisfation with the government).
Civilization is 4 meals from anarchy.
I read this as Civilization 4 is meals from anarchy.
The funny thing is that in Civilization games, cities don't riot over starvation. They just quietly starve to death.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
It's hard to imagine how we'd ever develop modern technology without easily available coal and oil to jumpstart us. Sure, we could manage with nuclear our renewables now, but how would you ever develop that tech in the first place? I have a hard time believing that anyone could design a nuclear reactor while working by candlelight, and corresponding with everyone else by letters delivered by horses.
On the other hand, we might have developed much better agriculture technology, since we'd have to make do with much less raw power.
I think we'd have developed many of the things we have today but most of them wouldn't really have got anywhere since the prototype versions would be like space rockets. Yes, we can just about grind it out to make it work, but it's not cheap and easy enough for mass use.
Development would also have been hugely delayed as we'd have to rely on charcoal burning for most of our energy, and so many things rely on mass implementation of other things. I figure we'd by now have got to about an odd mass technology level like this 1850s, but with all kinds of random extra knowledge thrown in. Probably the 20th centuries main form of energy growth would have been throwing up giant dams everywhere. It really depends on how smart people would be. Would say, Einstein and co still have come up with relativity? Would the US government or someone still have been able to muster enough electrical power with probably 1/20 the total wattage available to purify some uranium and build a reactor? Could someone invent the semiconductor and solar panels in a world where electricity was rare and available in tiny amounts?
Populations would certainly be at most 1/6 of today, simply due to transport costs of food. Cities would still have to be surrounded by vast acres of nearby farmland since while there would almost definately be refrigeration (most useful thing you can do with electricity really, and a concept which had been known for a long time) there simply wouldn't be enough energy for mass road building and transport.
Clearly there is no air travel and never has been, since no high density fuel source exists, but we'd probably have some damn big steam/sail transport vessels.
I disagree that you wouldn't slowly get giant dams built everywhere though. Massive projects like that can be done. We still have explosives and tools, and manpower can get most of the work done. I guess they might have developed excellent biotech, and that might get them onto biofuels more energy dense and easy to use than charcoal. However you cut it the development of technology beyond say 1800 would have been hugely different.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited June 2011
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Hmm, I guess that's true, I guess you're saying we'd go to coal for all our non transportation needs? I still don't think that would be able to get out enough power to avoid food prices rocketing up, which would force people towards a more vegetarian (or at least non-beef) diet and cut population growth to negative levels.
Even coal would be pushed up in price, it's tough to hugely increase production, especially as wage pressures skyrocket due to food and fuel prices increasing. Perhaps exactly where the whole 'Price levels will stop us totally destroying everything' will happen is debatable, but it will happen. The earth will survive our ravages no matter what we do, the question is what will be left of us. I think we'll probably end up with 100 million to 1 billion left by 2150 or so, with the environment gradually recovering but in a rather more sad way than we have today. Lets hope the people of the future like squid and wheat!
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Hmm, I guess that's true, I guess you're saying we'd go to coal for all our non transportation needs? I still don't think that would be able to get out enough power to avoid food prices rocketing up, which would force people towards a more vegetarian (or at least non-beef) diet and cut population growth to negative levels.
Even coal would be pushed up in price, it's tough to hugely increase production, especially as wage pressures skyrocket due to food and fuel prices increasing. Perhaps exactly where the whole 'Price levels will stop us totally destroying everything' will happen is debatable, but it will happen. The earth will survive our ravages no matter what we do, the question is what will be left of us. I think we'll probably end up with 100 million to 1 billion left by 2150 or so, with the environment gradually recovering but in a rather more sad way than we have today. Lets hope the people of the future like squid and wheat!
I think we're more likely to find scientific ways to convert our dead into more oil than we are to give it up entirely.
I have limited expertise in this, but from what I understand coal prices are actually rising fairly dramatically as well, so we may hit a point relatively soon where other energy sources become viable. I am pretty convinced that only economic motivators can shift the world off fossil fuels though. As long as they're around and cheap, they will be burned.
It's hard to imagine how we'd ever develop modern technology without easily available coal and oil to jumpstart us. Sure, we could manage with nuclear our renewables now, but how would you ever develop that tech in the first place? I have a hard time believing that anyone could design a nuclear reactor while working by candlelight, and corresponding with everyone else by letters delivered by horses.
Assuming you can get copper, you can make hydro work. As far as large dams go, you can likely make those work in a widely distributed fashion (instead of 1 hoover dam per river, 1,000 tiny dams that power a village). Wind power works about the same, depending on what options you have for scavenging. Transport over distances is tricky, but if you can arrange for electricity you can arrange for trains. Tracks would be a pain, but you should be able to make them entirely out of wood if you're willing to replace them a lot (oh, you may also crash a lot. rider beware I guess).
All that is really a long winded way of saying people are immensely resourceful. I think the worst bet you can make is that betting that humans won't find a way to do something (eventually).
I think a more interesting question is going to be: what happens when everyone decides that they really need to do something about this planet not being as habitable as we need it to be? We've already managed planetary scale engineering once, and that was accidentally. What happens if we actually try to do it, and actually divert a substantial quantity of resources to it?
People are going to suddenly realize what a great idea thorium based CANDU (or other cool design spec) reactors are
Just like China did
True, nuclear power will eventually be the main source of energy for us, however you can't built nuclear plants in response to a crisis. They take years to build, the question is will the government see gas prices at $5 and say 'right, screw you objectors on both sides. This is a national crisis in the making and we must act now, build us 100 reactors over the next 5 years' or will they just kick the can down the road.
Sounds like humanity is winning to me. I don't like seafood and let me ask you this, what is the most terrifying part about the oceans? Answer: the shit that lives in them. I fail to see the problem.
haha this joke is so hilarious.
i know you are joking, just like the other forty people who made this joke.
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Hmm, I guess that's true, I guess you're saying we'd go to coal for all our non transportation needs? I still don't think that would be able to get out enough power to avoid food prices rocketing up, which would force people towards a more vegetarian (or at least non-beef) diet and cut population growth to negative levels.
Today, oil-fired generators output about 1% of total electric power generation in the USA. Renewables are nearly 4%, hydro nearly 7%. Nuclear is a little more than 20%, natural gas almost 25%, and the rest is coal, about 45%.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we'd go to coal for non-transportation needs. We're already there, and we've always been there. Burning oil for electricity is not a thing the US has done. We do use about 25% of our crude oil for conversion into heating oil, but that's much less of a problem to overcome, especially if the earth in general is warmer... is heating oil what you were talking about?
Maybe we would've evolved into a society like in Final Fantasy III. We'd get awesome steam-powered robots and airships and bad-ass Magitech armies. Everything would be sweet until Hitler starts the magicaust and turns into a giant winged angel perched atop a pile of writhing dead bodies and we have to send FDR and Churchill and Stalin and some token healer to stop him with the power of friendship.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Hmm, I guess that's true, I guess you're saying we'd go to coal for all our non transportation needs? I still don't think that would be able to get out enough power to avoid food prices rocketing up, which would force people towards a more vegetarian (or at least non-beef) diet and cut population growth to negative levels.
Today, oil-fired generators output about 1% of total electric power generation in the USA. Renewables are nearly 4%, hydro nearly 7%. Nuclear is a little more than 20%, natural gas almost 25%, and the rest is coal, about 45%.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we'd go to coal for non-transportation needs. We're already there, and we've always been there. Burning oil for electricity is not a thing the US has done. We do use about 25% of our crude oil for conversion into heating oil, but that's much less of a problem to overcome, especially if the earth in general is warmer... is heating oil what you were talking about?
Transportation. With enough energy you can make anything. With less energy you can turn coal into an oil-like product. Thermal depolymerization is something to be serious about, in the sense that the cheapest feedstock is going to invariably turn out to be carbon-rich shit we dig out of the ground.
This is what I mean when I say peak oil won't deal with our emissions problems on it's own - it'll just make the internal combustion engine slightly less appealing.
Posts
Now, even the younger generation isn't going to really notice the worst effects of what has already been done. We'll see the start of the ocean extinctions, and the great deteriation of the arctic ice, but the real water level rises are projected for the second half of the 21st century. Since average lifespans are in the 80 year range, it's mostly our children who have it bad, and their children who'll have it the worst. (Because they are going to be young during this, meaning they'll mostly be responsible for doing the work, and generating the money, to deal with it).
I have a pretty defeatist attitude about the whole thing. I don't see a political path for any of the four great powers to deal with this preventively. China and India simply don't care that much about their own populace now, let alone in the future. The US cares more, but not enough to sacrifice economic growth, especially in harsh times. Europe has done the most, but still not enough, and with current economics and the behaviour of the other nations it's becoming very hard to sell any further actions politically. I really think we're going to fish until we run out of fish, and burn fossil fuels until we run out of fuel.
Because when you're starving to death in a corpse-filled radioactive wasteland, there's nothing like a smug sense of moral superiority to distract you from the buzzard pecking out your eyeball.
Best apocalypse ever!
In a nutshell, he's saying "if we stop burning fossil fuels then plants won't have any CO2 to make oxygen with!"
That's just so goddamn horrifyingly stupid. The biosphere's going to get fucked-up because idiots like this can't be bothered to know what the hell they're talking about, and everybody will suffer for it.
This is a somewhat common claim, actually. I think there was some viral gossip that some folks put out to take advantage of how poorly some people paid attention during science class when they were kids.
I'm amused that he mentioned CARB though - some years back I was rather heavily involved in it, and the big deal with CARB is that a bunch of stakeholders got the state to delay everything until way beyond the last minute, making the regulation insane instead of merely difficult.
I think it's important to retain a sense of perspective here, what will happen with massive global warming is a collapse of advanced human civilization, and a huge rearrangement of earths ecosystems into a warmer and less productive mode. Not everywhere will be fallout 3 style desert, and once advanced civilization has been destroyed for a few decades much of the worst effects will begin to heal themselves.
Gaia theory while absurd as a principle for preventing global warming will eventually heal it. The whole 'volcanoes make more CO2 than we do!' argument actually does work for the ecosystem fixing things up over centuries and millenia. Humans won't become extinct, nor will we become cavemen. We'll very likely end up with a population of a few 10s of millions living in a psuedo 18th century style but with no resources to ever build a gigantic manufacturing base again.
Being reactive, however good we are at it, is not enough.
The thing is volcano's don't do this.
In monitoring atmospheric CO2 concentrations, if volcanos were making huge quantities of CO2 then we would expect to see big spikes in years when there are major eruptions. But we don't. Volcanism simply doesn't emit that much CO2 and it's a colossal lie that it does. Link.
I would love to know what modern civilization would look like if fossil fuels like oil and coal had never existed (or at least if we'd never stumbled across their usage). What would things look like today? Would we have developed everything we have today, but with a society based strictly on renewables? Would everything be nuclear powered? Would we have discovered something entirely new by now?
I know it's a fairly unrealistic scenario, since the existence of fossil fuels seems an inevitable upshot of the way our planet works. Still, it's fascinating.
On the other hand, we might have developed much better agriculture technology, since we'd have to make do with much less raw power.
Well considering the most basic unit of industrial technology - the steam engine - was only properly developed in the abundant energy of coal mine I think the result of such a change would be a world entirely unrecognisable to us. I guess you might have some hydropower -> electric dynamo path, but none of the intermediate steps seem economically viable.
Which would actually be pretty cool, in some ways. But they wouldn't be launching anyone into space.
Large-scale won't happen. But a reversion to a small enough scale that it does happen is entirely likely.
I would point out what's happening in places like Greece with the current financial crisis: that is rioting and anarchy over fiscal austerity measures. That is a fixable problem over the short term.
Now start guessing at what would happen if instead of austerity, we were dealing with real world food shortages. It won't happen suddenly - of course. Prices can go up and up and up and we'll just deal with it, but all the while they are the number of people in need and on welfare is going up as well, and unlike fiscal austerity we'd be looking at no real immediate possible fixes.
When a riot started from such a situation, it would pretty much never stop. Western nations discovering they don't have enough food, or coastal cities which are now being seasonally flooded in places they used to never be, will revert civilization fucking fast. Consider how hard it would be for you to replace your car if it were destroyed in a riot, and that riot never actually stopped because the underlying problem could not be cured in any short term - and that the people involved felt that they were rapidly approaching the wall of "starving in the streets".
The real danger is not large scale resource wars between modern nations - its that the modern nations of the world would have the base of their stability eroded to the point where they are no longer modern nations as we know them.
So how likely is it that these sorts of things will actually happen?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Civilization is 4 meals from anarchy.
I read this as Civilization 4 is meals from anarchy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think we'd have developed many of the things we have today but most of them wouldn't really have got anywhere since the prototype versions would be like space rockets. Yes, we can just about grind it out to make it work, but it's not cheap and easy enough for mass use.
Development would also have been hugely delayed as we'd have to rely on charcoal burning for most of our energy, and so many things rely on mass implementation of other things. I figure we'd by now have got to about an odd mass technology level like this 1850s, but with all kinds of random extra knowledge thrown in. Probably the 20th centuries main form of energy growth would have been throwing up giant dams everywhere. It really depends on how smart people would be. Would say, Einstein and co still have come up with relativity? Would the US government or someone still have been able to muster enough electrical power with probably 1/20 the total wattage available to purify some uranium and build a reactor? Could someone invent the semiconductor and solar panels in a world where electricity was rare and available in tiny amounts?
Populations would certainly be at most 1/6 of today, simply due to transport costs of food. Cities would still have to be surrounded by vast acres of nearby farmland since while there would almost definately be refrigeration (most useful thing you can do with electricity really, and a concept which had been known for a long time) there simply wouldn't be enough energy for mass road building and transport.
Clearly there is no air travel and never has been, since no high density fuel source exists, but we'd probably have some damn big steam/sail transport vessels.
I disagree that you wouldn't slowly get giant dams built everywhere though. Massive projects like that can be done. We still have explosives and tools, and manpower can get most of the work done. I guess they might have developed excellent biotech, and that might get them onto biofuels more energy dense and easy to use than charcoal. However you cut it the development of technology beyond say 1800 would have been hugely different.
Damn you robot Hitler! Damn you to hell!
Still, I think it's interesting to wonder both what will happen as fossil fuels become expensive (we won't run out of them, they will just stop being cheap) and what would happen if we never had them.
Personally I think the increase in prices will save us from the worst abuses we can do to the climate. Once gas is $8 a gallon and ground beef is $6 a pound with adjusted incomes still the same we will have to cut our emissions. We won't want to take buses and eat bread and lettuce, but we'll be forced to.
I seriously doubt it. I think it could actually go the other way.
Coal accounts for way more emissions then our oil usage, and as oil gets scarcer the most obvious counter is going to be to turn to coal-intensive ways of producing more oil.
Hmm, I guess that's true, I guess you're saying we'd go to coal for all our non transportation needs? I still don't think that would be able to get out enough power to avoid food prices rocketing up, which would force people towards a more vegetarian (or at least non-beef) diet and cut population growth to negative levels.
Even coal would be pushed up in price, it's tough to hugely increase production, especially as wage pressures skyrocket due to food and fuel prices increasing. Perhaps exactly where the whole 'Price levels will stop us totally destroying everything' will happen is debatable, but it will happen. The earth will survive our ravages no matter what we do, the question is what will be left of us. I think we'll probably end up with 100 million to 1 billion left by 2150 or so, with the environment gradually recovering but in a rather more sad way than we have today. Lets hope the people of the future like squid and wheat!
I think we're more likely to find scientific ways to convert our dead into more oil than we are to give it up entirely.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Just like China did
All that is really a long winded way of saying people are immensely resourceful. I think the worst bet you can make is that betting that humans won't find a way to do something (eventually).
I think a more interesting question is going to be: what happens when everyone decides that they really need to do something about this planet not being as habitable as we need it to be? We've already managed planetary scale engineering once, and that was accidentally. What happens if we actually try to do it, and actually divert a substantial quantity of resources to it?
True, nuclear power will eventually be the main source of energy for us, however you can't built nuclear plants in response to a crisis. They take years to build, the question is will the government see gas prices at $5 and say 'right, screw you objectors on both sides. This is a national crisis in the making and we must act now, build us 100 reactors over the next 5 years' or will they just kick the can down the road.
haha this joke is so hilarious.
i know you are joking, just like the other forty people who made this joke.
you are joking right?
Today, oil-fired generators output about 1% of total electric power generation in the USA. Renewables are nearly 4%, hydro nearly 7%. Nuclear is a little more than 20%, natural gas almost 25%, and the rest is coal, about 45%.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we'd go to coal for non-transportation needs. We're already there, and we've always been there. Burning oil for electricity is not a thing the US has done. We do use about 25% of our crude oil for conversion into heating oil, but that's much less of a problem to overcome, especially if the earth in general is warmer... is heating oil what you were talking about?
Transportation. With enough energy you can make anything. With less energy you can turn coal into an oil-like product. Thermal depolymerization is something to be serious about, in the sense that the cheapest feedstock is going to invariably turn out to be carbon-rich shit we dig out of the ground.
This is what I mean when I say peak oil won't deal with our emissions problems on it's own - it'll just make the internal combustion engine slightly less appealing.
well seeing how said remark is well past any comedic value at this point my mind does wander