Global Sustainability

Post Reply New Topic

I was reading the article below on yahoo news today and it got me thinking about something! So I thought I'd make a post to get a discussion going and see everyone's perspectives on the issue. And for the record, I'm not all "doom and gloom" and I don't think that we're facing worldwide crisis tomorrow or anything lol. But that said, I do think that if we don't start taking steps now and really thinking about it, these issues will have a huge impact on our society further on down the road.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ne ... 52944.html

Anyways, I thought I'd post here to see what everyone thinks about sustainability. What I mean by this, is really all-encompassing sustainability of the current world we live in, from technology to population to whatever else you can think of. The two biggest things that come to my mind are oil and population. Oil obviously won't be around forever since it's a nonrenewable resource, and if we keep using it up eventually it will run out. That may not happen this year, or even in 100 years, but there's a good chance it will happen if we maintain our current societal infrastructure. And if we don't have a replacement form of fuel by then, it could obviously cause more than a few problems. Similarly, global warming is also a huge long-term issue in my opinion, but I don't want to bring it up too much because I'd rather keep this focused on the broader topic, rather than have it delve into an argument about whether global warming is real or not.

As for population, I think that speaks for itself. 200 years ago there were less than a billion people, now we're closing in on 7 billion and still rising. It's been said that if everyone in the world today lived the same lifestyle as the average American family it would take the resources of ~4.5 Earths to support them, so if you think about that it really puts things into perspective! Plus, if you're ever looked at population curves for, say, deer...they look almost identical to the global human population curve, only with a sharp drop-off at the end when the population gets too high lol. You can say that that wouldn't happen to us because we're not animals, but the exact same factors come into play...availability of resources, disease, etc.

Of course I haven't nearly listed all of the sustainability issues we're currently facing, but these two are the ones that stand out the most in my mind. So, what do you all think about the issue? Will we be able to completely switch to renewable, environmentally friendly forms of energy before it becomes an irreversible problem? Will we be able to find new and innovative ways to support the growing population, or curb the accelerating population growth? Or will we end up in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max style universe living off grubs and meal-worms, and naming our children things like "Master Blaster"?

The world as it stands now is in no way sustainable. Too reliant on fossil fuels, too large a population, and many are too ignorant to accept those realities (looking at you, Conservatives!).

To claim otherwise is madness.

Sooner or later the world will be reduced to its steady state carrying capacity. Nature cannot be stopped in its natural doings.

ruveyn

Global resources dwindling is most likely the reason for most of the events occurring today, good or bad. The problem is hidden behind guises such as "terrorism" and "extremism", "market bubbles"

But that's just my opinion.

Not that simple. There are positive feedbacks. The whole system might simply break down with a massive extinction.

That will be a dynamic equilibrium, won't it. Nobody said that we will survive the progress toward dynamic equilibrium.

ruveyn

Perhaps better described as chaos.

I believe that, in time, renewable and more enviornmentally friendly sources of energy are inevitable, but only in that the market will eventually make the current sources so infeasible that we'd have to consider cheaper alternatives.

In other words, I advocate market driven rather than political incentives to "switch."

There are two problems with that.

1) Climate change. We need to be cutting down CO2 (and methane) emissions NOW!! !! Not in 30 years when renewables are cheaper and oil is more expensive. Not everyone believes in climate change, but I'm willing to trust the people who've spent years studying it. And in any case, I'd really rather not take the risk.
2) The problem is that if the changes are too sudden we might see a societal collapse. That's what some projections show. There was a neat graph and New Scientist article about it, but unfortunately I don't think I'd be able to access it anymore since I don't have a subscription.

It seems odd that Conservatives do not conserve.

Oh, I think it's too late. The Earth will just change to a new nominal, but it might not be nominal for many plants and animals, including us.

Human development tends to include mass extinction due to overpopulation relative to the production capabilities of society at that time. This tends to then spur innovation which leads to new production methods that let us expand further.

The prime "problem" is energy, as long as we have enough available energy a lot of other things can be produced with that energy, however with oil dwindling odds are that we are nearing a point where we'll need to rely much much more on nuclear power. Quite frankly, I find it idiotic to waste all the money currently being wasted on "green" energy, as opposed to investing it in nuclear power. Furthermore, we need to start investing large sums into space exploration since our future survival would be much more secure if we A: Spread to a second planet and B: Could mine off planets that are much bigger than the Earth and thus contain more resources.

Every social change includes mass murder, the French Revolution required the murder of clerics and aristocrats, the move from Dark Ages to The Age of Reason required the black plague and so on. This is to weed out the social structure that has grown stagnant and has reached the pinnacle for that structure under given circumstances so that a new structure can be constructed on top of the old one. Communism tries to force this, through revolution but it has to happen organically in order for it to be effective. I have no doubt that on a 200 - 500 year view, we'll most likely move towards a global government with a form of democratic communism, that is unless we've killed each other off and are living in small tribal groups.

Why? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that things are as dire as you believe them to be?



I have news for you: They are already prohibitively expensive. And don't get me started on those gimmick laden frustration booths known as "hybrids" and "electric cars." Have you given any thought to where that electricity comes from? It comes from enviornmentally un-friendly toxic metal batteries and coal fired or nuclear power plants. Never mind the fact that you can buy an entry level Lexus or a BlueTec Mercedes for about what you'd pay for the aforementioned vehicles.

Also, would you care to elaborate on practical energy alternatives for things like aircraft, commercial trucks, cargo ships, and other heavily fossil fuel-dependent conveyances that make global commerce and civilization possible?



Contrast with: "We need to be cutting down CO2 (and methane) emissions NOW!! !!"

I see no problem with overpopulation, limited natural resources or the environment. Historicaly all three problems have been solved with less people and that is normally accomplished by a good old fashioned world wide war killing millions. Only maybe the next one might need to include billions. Less people in the world solves all our current problems.

I prefer simple solutions to simple problems. Not to mention that nothing spurs an economy more then a war. Very few are unemployed during a large enough war.

Last edited by enso on 05 Apr 2012, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately the original article I read that in is no longer available. There is a vague reference to something like that buried in this article: Dangerous Decade.
You can find some reports saying that we need to take far more radical approaches than simply peaking in the next few years. There are some old articles which say that our emissions should have peaked this year. This is one example, although I'm not sure if it's necessarily the most reliable source: Not Just A Number

No, electric cars are not the answer right now. Things we can do are: improve energy efficiency, find ways to use less energy and drive less, give incentives to travel by rail rather than air when practical, improve mass transit, institute a carbon tax so that the environmentally friendly options become competitive (the extra costs imposed on people by this can be offset by reducing income taxes, sales taxes, and other things), try to grow more food locally (when it's in season) so it doesn't have to be transported as far, consume less, offer government loans to build solar-roofs. There are a lot of things which, taken together, can reduce CO2 emissions. And although it might be expensive now, it will cost a lot less than runaway climate change.

Air planes are difficult--at present we have no replacement fuel. Hydrogen or a biofuel could be used one day. For now we should just try to cut down on how much we fly. Using teleconferencing for business where possible (and I know that some business does have to be done face-to-face) would be a good start. In the medium term there are some very cool proposals for ways to dramatically improve the efficiency of cargo ships. These range from high-tech sales to supplement the engine, more efficient types of propellers, and I think there was even one proposal for how to partially power a ship by solar power. But once again, we should try to cut down on how much stuff we consume, especially how much we import. If we produced products that last longer, and produced them domestically so that they could be transported by rail, that could help a lot. It would of course require some major reorienting of the global economy, so it would require a gradual transition. My point is we need to start that transition now so it will be done as soon as possible.

Also, remember that when they talk about carbon emissions, they are talking on a global scale. The developing world still has rising CO2 emissions, and that isn't likely to change in the next few years. So the industrialized world is going to have to make more sever reductions to compensate. We're the ones that can afford it, after all. And the ones who started it. (Interestingly, a number of African countries have pledged carbon neutral development paths).

There is a big difference between starting a planned reduction in CO2 emissions and being forced to stop our current course of development quickly because of environmental damage and shortages of resources. But in any case, I'm not proposing an instantaneous phase-out. I'm saying that we start reducing emissions now. A few percent reduction a year wouldn't be so bad. And it's not as onerous as you might think. Sweden cut its CO2 emissions by 20% while growing its economy by 40%. Or so I've been told. That 40% number seems suspiciously large.

I know eh? Makes no sense.