Global overpopulation

[Zlaxer]

I think it's a cultural thing - the Chinese are smart enough to realize the consequence of polluting - they're leaders are just greedy as fuck...more so than Western OWGs...

Also, lots of Asian conversationalists in US and Japan...

[StCapps]

There is a far bigger correlation between wealth and caring about the environment than race and caring about the environment, and you have to be a complete dolt to think otherwise.

[Otern]

You don't have to replace fossil fuels, you get better at finding them and extracting them with improved technology, which boosts the reserves because you can now extract fossil fuels you couldn't before or didn't know they were there, they ain't running out.

You are ignoring technological growth to create a picture of unsustainablilty that is will not come to pass anytime soon. Just because the resources are finite doesn't mean they are going run out any time soon.

They said we would hit peak oil by the year 2000 back in 70's and 80's, based off the current rate of consumption at the time and the stated reserves at the time, yet we are nowhere near peak oil even as we speak. Technological growth makes a massive difference, and claims of running out of fossil fuels have been greatly exaggerated by people who don't know what they are talking about.

You're Malthusian Doomsday analysis never takes into account the growth of technology, and neither did Malthus when he predicted mass starvation due to overpopulation based on current rates of consumption and available resources at the time, this is why his predictions were so off, and why your predictions are so off.

From the dawn of time people have been claiming the Earth was overpopulated, and they were as wrong back then as you are now. Malthusian SIFCLF's, always crowing about the sky falling due to overpopulation, they never learn from constantly being proven wrong again and again. They simply claim their previous estimate was off due to "unforeseen" factors, but it's right around the corner this time, there are no "unforeseen" factors now, you'll see. Give it a rest already.

Of course better extraction methods do help some. As does increased oil prices, as then previously unprofitable fields get profitable. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's a non-renewable source, which in the long turn has to be replaced by a renewable source.

As for technological growth. It's not exponential, or even linear. Every technology follows an S-curve, until a new paradigm, and those paradigm shifts themselves follow an S-curve. Malthus didn't account for technological advance, but modern anti-Malthusian sentiment have a blind trust in technological advancement, where there isn't that much more room for technological advancement.

Wind and hydropower is as close to maximum efficiency as we're going to get. Can't really get much more out of it. There's still a little more to gain on solar, but even that will reach it's maximal practical efficiency. We already know the theoretical maximum efficiency, and it's not possible to go beyond maximum theoretical, without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

What most people fail to realize is that while fossil fuel can be replaced by renewable sources, those renewable sources are going to be way more labor intensive to exploit. And they require a vast area, compared to fossil fuels.

[StCapps]

You don't have to replace fossil fuels, you get better at finding them and extracting them with improved technology, which boosts the reserves because you can now extract fossil fuels you couldn't before or didn't know they were there, they ain't running out.

You are ignoring technological growth to create a picture of unsustainablilty that is will not come to pass anytime soon. Just because the resources are finite doesn't mean they are going run out any time soon.

They said we would hit peak oil by the year 2000 back in 70's and 80's, based off the current rate of consumption at the time and the stated reserves at the time, yet we are nowhere near peak oil even as we speak. Technological growth makes a massive difference, and claims of running out of fossil fuels have been greatly exaggerated by people who don't know what they are talking about.

You're Malthusian Doomsday analysis never takes into account the growth of technology, and neither did Malthus when he predicted mass starvation due to overpopulation based on current rates of consumption and available resources at the time, this is why his predictions were so off, and why your predictions are so off.

From the dawn of time people have been claiming the Earth was overpopulated, and they were as wrong back then as you are now. Malthusian SIFCLF's, always crowing about the sky falling due to overpopulation, they never learn from constantly being proven wrong again and again. They simply claim their previous estimate was off due to "unforeseen" factors, but it's right around the corner this time, there are no "unforeseen" factors now, you'll see. Give it a rest already.

Of course better extraction methods do help some. As does increased oil prices, as then previously unprofitable fields get profitable. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's a non-renewable source, which in the long turn has to be replaced by a renewable source.

As for technological growth. It's not exponential, or even linear. Every technology follows an S-curve, until a new paradigm, and those paradigm shifts themselves follow an S-curve. Malthus didn't account for technological advance, but modern anti-Malthusian sentiment have a blind trust in technological advancement, where there isn't that much more room for technological advancement.

Wind and hydropower is as close to maximum efficiency as we're going to get. Can't really get much more out of it. There's still a little more to gain on solar, but even that will reach it's maximal practical efficiency. We already know the theoretical maximum efficiency, and it's not possible to go beyond maximum theoretical, without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

What most people fail to realize is that while fossil fuel can be replaced by renewable sources, those renewable sources are going to be way more labor intensive to exploit. And they require a vast area, compared to fossil fuels.

At some point, doesn't mean anytime soon though. You can simply find other non-renewable resources to exploit, and find better ways to exploit and find non-renewables, until renewables get their shit together. Reports of doomsday being right around the corner have been greatly exaggerated.

[Otern]

We are on the cusp of fusion...not worried about this at all.

We grow more food than we can possible eat...we can desalinize water...we can probably mine asteroids for more metals...


Resources is not going to be humanity's biggest problem....integrating ass-backwards third worlders into modern society and fighting the evils of communism are the biggest problem we have.

Convincing them that women are not property and that throwing gays off buildings is unacceptable...or that communism leads to oppressive cronyism....Third worlders are uneducated and susceptible to false promise of Marxists...

Also Keeping the evil and greedy PRC leadership at bay... PRC is perhaps biggest threat humanity faces.

Fusion: We're nowhere near being able to use fusion for practical energy production. Maybe sometime in the future, but at least not in the next 20 years.

We produce more than we can eat now, this is true. But this production relies on non-renewables. Natural gas for fertilizer production. Coal, gas and oil for generating electricity to produce that fertilizer. Fossil fuel for transportation. Can these things be replaced by renewables? Sure. But they're nowhere near as efficient. We can do electrolysis to get hydrogen gas, but it's nowhere near as efficient as the current steam refraction of natural gas.

Desalinization: also extremely energy demanding process.

Basically, every "future solution" I see people come up with, fail to recognize the immense demand in energy production. So renewables wouldn't just need to replace our current fossil fuel use, but surpass it.

Technology is not magic. The world has a carrying capacity, and it's substantially lower when the non-renewables starts running low.

[StCapps]

We are on the cusp of fusion...not worried about this at all.

We grow more food than we can possible eat...we can desalinize water...we can probably mine asteroids for more metals...


Resources is not going to be humanity's biggest problem....integrating ass-backwards third worlders into modern society and fighting the evils of communism are the biggest problem we have.

Convincing them that women are not property and that throwing gays off buildings is unacceptable...or that communism leads to oppressive cronyism....Third worlders are uneducated and susceptible to false promise of Marxists...

Also Keeping the evil and greedy PRC leadership at bay... PRC is perhaps biggest threat humanity faces.

Fusion: We're nowhere near being able to use fusion for practical energy production. Maybe sometime in the future, but at least not in the next 20 years.

We produce more than we can eat now, this is true. But this production relies on non-renewables. Natural gas for fertilizer production. Coal, gas and oil for generating electricity to produce that fertilizer. Fossil fuel for transportation. Can these things be replaced by renewables? Sure. But they're nowhere near as efficient. We can do electrolysis to get hydrogen gas, but it's nowhere near as efficient as the current steam refraction of natural gas.

Desalinization: also extremely energy demanding process.

Basically, every "future solution" I see people come up with, fail to recognize the immense demand in energy production. So renewables wouldn't just need to replace our current fossil fuel use, but surpass it.

Technology is not magic. The world has a carrying capacity, and it's substantially lower when the non-renewables starts running low.

A low level of technology has a substantially lower carrying capacity than a higher level of technology. Technology might not be magic, but it drastically effects what the earth's carrying capacity is. Non-renewables will not start running low at any point in the near future, and by the time they do, technology will have changed so much that is might not even matter that much, or at all, depending how far into the future that actually happens.

If you think we are going to start running low in 20 years, that's just Malthusian SIFCLF bullshit.

[Otern]

until renewables get their shit together.

This is what I'm talking about. Renewables simply can't reach the cost efficiency and availability of fossil fuels. It will be cheaper in the future, as non-renewable prices rise, because of depletion. But it will still be a limited resource.

For example airplanes in the future will very likely rely on biofuel. It's expensive, requires a lot of energy and area to produce, compared to pumping up oil today.

And most of the electricity production in the world relies on coal, oil and gas. Run low on this, and a lot would be replaced by renewables, but it's going to be much more expensive. We're living in the golden age of cheap energy now, as long as we're having access to fossil fuels, but that shit's going to end someday.

[Speaker to Animals]

Even the fact that you hold this value so important that you can't bring yourself to accept that other races value it very little in general should indicate to you that it's a genetic trait.

Valuing the environment for its own sake is a weird white people thing.

And when you say we "need only develop them and they will stop polluting", what you are actually saying is that we need only make them white. Think about it.

It's a weird first world people thing, Japan ain't white.

Japan is Asian, and you were just blaming Asians for not caring as if it's race thing that Asians don't care, when it clearly isn't, it's wealth related.

Japan is one tiny country that does not make your case.

You are prattling on as if any of can't just drive around town and note the obvious fact that the, the higher the minority population of a neighborhood, the higher the amount of garbage littering the streets.

[StCapps]

until renewables get their shit together.

This is what I'm talking about. Renewables simply can't reach the cost efficiency and availability of fossil fuels. It will be cheaper in the future, as non-renewable prices rise, because of depletion. But it will still be a limited resource.

For example airplanes in the future will very likely rely on biofuel. It's expensive, requires a lot of energy and area to produce, compared to pumping up oil today.

And most of the electricity production in the world relies on coal, oil and gas. Run low on this, and a lot would be replaced by renewables, but it's going to be much more expensive. We're living in the golden age of cheap energy now, as long as we're having access to fossil fuels, but that shit's going to end someday.

We won't be running low on coal, oil or gas for a very long time to come. You seem to think it's right around the corner, but it's not. By then we might discover a non-renewable energy source that is so efficient and in such quantity, that you don't even have to worry about renewables or non-renewables.

[StCapps]

Even the fact that you hold this value so important that you can't bring yourself to accept that other races value it very little in general should indicate to you that it's a genetic trait.

Valuing the environment for its own sake is a weird white people thing.

And when you say we "need only develop them and they will stop polluting", what you are actually saying is that we need only make them white. Think about it.

It's a weird first world people thing, Japan ain't white.

Japan is Asian, and you were just blaming Asians for not caring as if it's race thing that Asians don't care, when it clearly isn't, it's wealth related.

Japan is one tiny country that does not make your case.

You are prattling on as if any of can't just drive around town and note the obvious fact that the, the higher the minority population of a neighborhood, the higher the amount of garbage littering the streets.

Japan does make the case, because they aren't white, and they care. You have no proof that only whites care, I have plenty of proof that they aren't the only ones.

Like I say, bigger correlation between wealth and caring about the environment than race and caring about the environment.

You just want to make everything about race, because you're a dirty filthy eugenicist, who thinks genetics are responsible for all human problems and are responsible for all human achievements.