|
Blue Star posted:I dont know where else to post this and it doesnt seem like it belongs in the climate change threads or the energy generation thread. I am asking about peak oil, peak helium, rare earth metals, and all those things. I have heard that we're pretty much running out and when we run out, that's it, our civilization will not be possible any more. Our civilization is built on cheap access to raw materials and soon we won't have those. I have heard that sustainable reneweable energy is impossible and we're pretty much screwed because we need fossil fuels, but those are running out. yeah there is literally no way any western lifestyle is long-term sustainable and without unforseeable technology developments the world's either going to need to re-evaluate it's resources or let poor people starve in their millions, growing eventually to billions there is nothing more to it than that.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Sure, but that's not relevant to what I'm saying given the total level of non-Western emissions, their projected rise over the next half-century, and the point I'm making about them. It's definitely true that the West emits more than its fair share, and has historically been responsible for the bulk of emissions, but at this point it's become a global problem that will be increasingly globalized as development in places like India and Brazil ramps up. Problems like climate change and resource depletion are real, but we've long passed the point where they can simply be reduced to a moral issue of "Western lifestyles". If India started using the resources per capita that the US did we'd already need to use food far better than we do or literally run out "western lifestyles" isn't a moral issue. I'm referencing the ecological footprint of western europe (and the US); which remains at a level that, if matched by China or India, would cause serious and immediate pressure on the food supply. So yes, it's a global problem. And as you specifically mentioned, talk of global resource management basically means "gently caress the third world". Is there then no benefit to establishing a new western standard of better resource use? we have the ability to develop sustainable technologies, or refining/productivity technologies, and pass them to developing nations whose only current choice is poo poo resources or none. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
CyclicalAberration posted:Your evidence that technological growth won't be able to compensate is? Historically it has. Of course this doesn't mean it always will, but without reason to believe otherwise I know what I will bet on. this is literally faith by the way
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:internet, video games....um....better visual effects in movies.... the internet is a human right now and up there with some of the greatest technological achievements of humanity. You can trade medical information instantaneously cross-continent. The fact that most people trade cat videos with it doesn't lessen what an incredibly world-changing thing it is. Cars were total poo poo at first. It took a long time for the benefits to begin becoming widespread, like fridges, like electricity. The internet jumped from a CERN project to a human right in less than two decades. So, Blue Star posted:
No. Not even slightly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are the one crying the end is nigh, who's the cult? is the cult the guy arguing that things are on a path to end badly and just might, or the idiots who assume that it'll just be resolved by *magic* because that's what you think technology is. The rest of us call what you're thinking of magic. This is the greatest threat to the species yet faced; perhaps we will overcome, but indications currently aren't too good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:"You have too much faith in technology and treat it like magic! Also I have identified a particular technology as so vital to human life that I believe the human race would cease to exist if it does not remain exactly as it is in 2017 forever till the end of time and no conceivable technology could ever replace it" no I'm just not making a positive statement on the matter until evidence predisposes one way or another the evidence of "well we usually do it" is not actually evidence
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:
Again I'm the guy saying science is nowhere near finished but if you can name a technology that replaces oil without massive population changes go ahead. You've literally got no idea what you're talking about or arguing for here. You can continue to justify your magical thinking to yourself but you've got nothing interesting to say.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
rudatron posted:The issue isn't necessarily running out of oil, it's an increase in cost, and the resulting knock on effects. Remember what I said about food price increases and how income inequality is going to make that a bigger problem than it needs to be? It's the same with oil. Okay, human society functioned without oil with 2 billion people - we have, what, 7 billion now? Then you've got the fact that cities, social structure, everything has changed since then. I don't think I'm disagreeing with OOCC on tech as much as I'm agreeing with your assessment here, when we start using shale we will not have the ability to feed 7 billion people the way we are now. We're already dealing with food instability in unexpected places, like chocolate and palm oils, this is not going to get better before it gets worse. We don't have the technology and we don't have the financial impetus required to totally overhaul energy companies globally. We'll find some technological replacement, but the sooner we find it the less likely we are to see deaths. We're not on a timescale to do that. We won't be on a timescale to do that, or predict what disruption we'll see, until we can start assessing the viability of our new technologies. Tech doesn't simply appear out of thin air. It builds on related technologies. There have been a few freak moments, perhaps notably penicillin (willing to be corrected), but the mentioned examples of things like combustion tech in cars have clear predecessors. What are we building on, fusion or shale? shale fucks the food chain through pricing. Fusion requires more coordination than we're giving it. I imagine there's a lot of techs bubbling around to be developed but it's not like we're seeing an answer appear. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why would I be able to name the exact combination of technologies? When in history has anyone ever been able to say the exact details of technological progress from 100 years after their death? Yes. This is faith. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 18:03
|
|