Just because Manbiot is right about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) doesn't make him smart. AGW is obviously right - just ask NASA and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Manbiot is a complete moron about population and nuclear power. That's because his small mind cannot grasp the concept of finite resources and of Entropy.
@marmaladekamikaze And you are a dangerous lunatic who deserves to have all his food and water and property taken away, since you obviously believe you can simply recreate it all out of thin air. Because you never did a day of work in your life, you do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the magnitude of the difference between having radioactive material 1 m away from you vs 93*10^6 miles away from you.
News flash, if you had worked a day in your life you'd find no one uses 'miles' anymore. Secondly, you're the lunatic coming out with rants about taking peoples ''Food and water away''. Third, and funniest of all, in case you didn't know, all the water we drink spends its time as water vapor and clouds in the 'thin air' before it arrives out of our taps, and as for Plants, yep they just require the 'thin air' soil and sunlight to grow. & Look up radioactive coal.
@marmaladekamikaze What a DUMBshit. News flash: obviously Americans still use "miles", unfortunately. I can't do anything about that. I didn't feel like doing the conversion in my head.
=all the water we drink spends its time =
If you had ever done a day of work in your life, you'd not pull shit like that out of your ass and make a fool of yourself proclaiming it as fact. Until you show me the math-computer models for water circulation on earth, most water spends its time in oceans.
It's spelled 'asinine' and not 'assinine'. What was that you were saying about me being brainless? Yes we all make spelling mistakes, none of us are infallible, so get over yourself.
@marmaladekamikaze Your inability to grasp the idea that the mass and therefore the energy in the universe is finite is astounding. extinct species are all finite too, not to mention the water on the planet. If someone is using the water then someone else cannot. Only 0.014% of all water can be used for drinking water production, as most of it is stored in clouds or in the ground.
You are falling into the 'Malthusian trap'.Malthus has been proven wrong, as Paul Ehrlich is, all because they fail to factor in Technology. The cost of space exploration has come down and continues to drop, unmanned robotic machines are becoming more and more capable. You are charicaturing 'asteroids' as simply 'plugging a gap'. There are enough Platinum group elements and other materials to support Trillions of people. Read the book 'Mining the Sky'.
George has failed to appreciate that every single environmental issue caused by humans can be reduced by there being less of us through voluntary contraception. I once put this to him and he shrugged. He assumes that voluntary contraception is some kind of evil weapon used by rich nations to reduce the populations of poor ones, but in reality voluntary contraception has reduced every families footprint rich and poor, by allowing them to have a smaller family and have money for education.
58 national science academies agree that overpopulation is a major issue. Even smaller families in western countries and smaller families worldwide is the MOST EFFECTIVE way of reducing our footprint. If everyone cuts their consumption by 20% but the population goes up by 30% its a waste of time. Voluntary contraception is the key!
Watch "Overconsumpulation" and "One Planet One Child" for more info.
This is megalomanic arrogance. Nationalist socialist fascists. We are a carbon based life form never forget that. Malthusian freaks have no place in our modern society, we will reproduce and advance despite these freaks. The purpose of all life is to survive and reproduce to preserve the immortality of the genetic code. Atmospheric carbon enrichment benefits all life on our Planet.
@TheQqkkk Good. Then you have to accept those of us who advocate for mandatory birth control by vasectomies of men. And those of us who advocated laws against breeding and then killing animals for food. (Those who are so desperate for meat can go eat roadkill for all I care.)
At 12:00 he really begins to lay it all out. You people who say the Earth is overpopulated are wrong. Count how many fields around you are laying fallow? doing nothing? I count them all, and they have been like that for years.
@marmaladekamikaze Bullshit. If you don't think the world is overpopulated,
then you have ZERO - and I mean ZERO - right to demand that everybody magically get a job in order to be given a house, privacy, clean water, utilities. It is practically impossible to demand this unnecessary bullshit that everybody find a job on their own, but it is 100% certain that they WILL have needs which must be met: so you pronatatlists have better provide for everyone.
The world isn't overpopulated, check your sources and stop believing everything you are told, check the figures. Some regions have a very high population density like cities, but the world as a whole is not overpopulated. Furthermore with the Agricultural green revolution- the use of fertilizers and high yielding crops, there is plenty of food for everyone.
@marmaladekamikaze You need to open up your mind and read other things. Learn about peak oil, which we're now 7 years past. If you don't think 99.9% of the human population dying off due to starvation caused by manmade climate change and oil running out is not serious, then I guess overpopulation is not a serious issue to you.
Peak oil is expected in 2030 according to the UN and proven reserves. Nuclear Fusion like the presently underconstruction Tokamak ITER in France will prevent the scare mongering nonsense figures you are pushing. Where did you get this 99.9% from?
Synthetic fuels produced by electricity derived from Nuclear power is not only doable but the US Navy are planning to field such a system on their carrier fleet to fuel their aircraft.
You Wrote- 'Unless you've got all-electric or fusion-powered vehicles (cars, boats, airplanes) you're not solving any transportation energy problems.'
So I responded with the solution of synthetic fuels for airplanes. To answer your question, yes, the synthesis of fuel, via the Fischer Tropsch reaction, will occur inside the boat/ US navy's nuclear powered carrier fleet.Look it up.
@marmaladekamikaze I know your brainwashed kind. You are fanatical anti-socialist pro-capitalist fanatics. You are the ultimate in irrational scare mongering.
Firstly I'm a socialist. I live in Ireland a very socialist country. Secondly if you don't like capitalism then please by all means step away from your computer and sign up at your local Amish community. When Socialism & Capitalism are done right we get the best of both worlds.
@marmaladekamikaze Earlier you stated that Malthus was wrong. Tell that to the Easter islanders, Pitcairn islanders or Mayans. Just because you haven't crashed your car doesn't mean you can never crash. p.s. Technology increases consumption because it improves efficiency at removing resources from ecosystem services. Efficiency means a a drop in price and a rise in consumption. Look up Jevons paradox.
Jevons paradox...man you need to read something written after 1900. In response to Jevons paradox see its rebuttal by the Climate Economics Dr. Jim Barrett. As for Zero sum isolated islanders yes in those rare instances were technology / farming techniques don't outpace food demand famines can occur. Technology like the Haber-Bosch process & the green Revolution headed by Norman Borlaug-who is responsible for about 1 billion lives, has ended that idiocy.
@marmaladekamikaze "As for Zero sum isolated islanders" the Earth is essentially an island in space. What logical explanation can you give that would stop the situation on Easter island occuring on a larger scale with a different non renewable and irreplaceable resource?
The probelm with technology is that it has to be invented very quickly after it is needed. Why assume that humans can always invent their way out of danger when there are examples where isolated humans didn't?
Easter Island suffered from soil erosion, salting of the earth, storms and most seriously a breakdown in social cohesion. Since the dawn of farming we have been using technology to enable the earth to have a higher and higher carrying capacity. This is by no means sustainable but then again neither is staying on this planet. Therefore it is inevitable that we move out into the black ocean. look up the video of Elon Musk & Diamondis discussing asteroid mining.
@marmaladekamikaze The soil erosion came about as a result of overpopulation and poor management of resources. A large % of the world's soils are also in a bad way. As stated moving to another location only delays the problem, it doesn't solve it. You cannot solve a problem with the way of thinking that created it. Humans must learn to live within our environmental boundaries or nature kicks our arse, it's that simple.
Again you've missed the point. Staying on earth forever is not exactly 'sustainable' either, the planet is not a nurturing goddess, it's indifferent to us. Furthermore people living in space would serve as insurance against a global natural disaster on earth. I'm quite bewildered by your calls to drive us back into caves and to construct mental boundaries of where our 'environment' ends.Meanwhile the Cosmos awaits.Elon Musk & Diamandis video,have you seen it?
@marmaladekamikaze "people living in space" -doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it. Ending our obsession with material/population growth would solve it. I didn't say move back into caves, I just apprecaite that we cannot survive long if we use ecosystem services faster than they can cope with our demands which we are currently doing. We must learn to live within finite ecosystem boundaries, we can still develop, we just have to do so sustainably and without using more stuff.
We don't have an obseesion with materials or population growth, these are just things that happen as a byproduct of being humans. Here again you are pushing this dogma that all of us should live within YOUR finite ecosystem boundary. Most sane people are saying, you know what, there is no boundary! If you really agree with your ''we have to use less stuff'' attitide then get off the internet. The internet relies on 'stuff' does it not? and your cell phone too
people who think there are no boundaries to constant growth in a finite system don't understand basic physics. The point I have been making which you missed was that everyone could live like you do if there were just 2 billion of us (reached through voluntary contraception and education, but with 7 billion the average consumption level is that of botswanan. Growth and declining ecosystem services just pushes more people into poverty.
uh huh, 2 billion of us, you come up with that yourself? Since you claim to more well versed in physics than I, even when you fail to grapple with my point that because of our access to Space we live in an near infinite resource system- as Elon Musk(Tesla motors founder & Space X CEO) & Peter Diamandis(of X prize fame) discuss in their youtube video. What happens when all 'natural' resources are depleted in your snobby hypothetical world of 2 billion people?
@marmaladekamikaze "access to space"- go ahead pop to the nearest inhabitable palent why don't you, should take you about 10,000 years and 100 trillion dollars...sigh, you really are very being rather naive. For now we are stuck with just our planet. Why not try and fix thinsg here first before expanding the problem to other regions. Natural resources only reduce when you consume faster than the replacement rate of ecosystem services which we are doing currently.
You've again demonstrated that you never did bother to watch the free video I have been suggesting to you for the past few days, did you? 'Elon Musk(Tesla motors founder & Space X CEO) & Peter Diamandis(of X prize fame). It's right here on youtube. Once you've watched it you'll have quite the egg on your face. Asteroid mining isn't travelling to an 'inhabitable planet', and as far as I know there are no other inhabitable planets known, not even Gilese 581c.
@marmaladekamikaze Getting into orbit is one thing, travelling to other planets is an entirely different matter. Eight pounds of weight, costs $400,000 to get it to the moon, so your space travel ideas to other planets are unrealistic at this point in technological advance. answer my question: Then what do you do once you have exhausted the asteroids?
Please point out where I suggested we travel to ''other planets'', you'll find I never mentioned such a thing. Near earth asteroids are less difficult to get to / lower Delta-v required, than the moon. What do we do once we've exhausted the asteroids? I don't think that's an issue. you clearly do not grasp how much material there is out there. look up 'valuable asteroid resources' and look at the numbers for yourself. FYI a kilogram of Rhodium costs $250,000
@marmaladekamikaze "What do we do once we've exhausted the asteroids? I don't think that's an issue" Of course it's an issue, you are simply slowing down consequences temporarily rather than deal with the cause which is teh assumption that infinite growth is a good thing in a finite system. p.s. FYI a kilogram of rhodium is not easily extractable from an asteroid.
@checkyoursources I mean your argument is akin to a caveman saying ' oh I better not invent farming which would feed billions and billions of more people because that is just ''slowing down the consequences temporaily...'' I say bravo, you've successful transported us back to living in caves, enjoying your computer are you? & FYI Rhodium and the even more valuable He-3 are easy to extract. 'Asteroid mining' was in essense done by Inuits years ago see-Cape York meteorite.
@marmaladekamikaze No, as stated there are technologies that increase consumption and there are those that don't, you want consumption to increase but the best you can up with is to look for more finite sources from asteroids?! How does that solve the problem.
As I have said, a European level of consumption and tech is fine but only with 2 billion, not 7 billion people.
What are you going to do with this world of 2 billion people, and why you choose 2 billion and not 20 billion you have yet to explain. A world of 2 billion people will also eventually run out of economically viable mining of materials and have to import materials from Near earth Asteroids. Your point is mute sir, it's not a question of either or, it's a question of when. Yes the Universe is finite, but it's practically infinite for our purposes.
@marmaladekamikaze We can supply 2 billion at a European level of consumption long term with no environmental damage, the same cannot be said of 7 billion, let alone 20 billion?!
Who will run out of resources first 20 billion or 2 billion?
Answers on a postcard to the Easter islanders/pitcairn islanders and Mayan emoire who didn't know the answer and failed as result.
Mining asteroids is not economically viable, star trek isn't real!
Are you saying that the Cape York Meteorite wasn't used by Inuits for thousands of years as a source of metal? I see you are just glossing over real facts because it doesn't fit your view, how rational of you lol! FYI they didn't do much asteroid mining in star trek IIRC.
as for your '2 billion people' did you even hear Monbiot said at 11:00 to 12:00 in the video?
The most precious resource in the whole universe is intelligence. Yes I am trading the near infinite resources of the universe for more people/more intelligence. But I think that's a good exchange. Yet you seem to value inanimate materials over human life and continually push your 2 billion human population agenda. By the way as hitssquad pointed out and quoted me I never said the universe was infinite I wrote 'near infinite'. Check your sources!
@marmaladekamikaze What intelligence is there in current situation of having 80% of the world population on less than 10 dollars a day when we can get everyone out of poverty by putting finance into education and voluntary contraception?
More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around and a large under-educated population because education resources are split around a large base.Accessing resources off planet is exceptionally difficult.
By all means donate your money to helping the education of disadvantaged people! and yes contraception should be a choice. However as has Rosling (of TED statistics fame) will go through with you, those people on 10 dollars a day you're talking about, were on 1 dollar a day 10 years ago, and will be on 100 dollars a day according to UN statistics in another 10.Overall things are improving friend, as much as you'd bizarrely prefer that they were not, they are!
@marmaladekamikaze Has Rosling taken into account the environment, price of food (rising) or quality of life as anything but material wealth?
You make the assumption that progress has been driven by high population growth rather than progress being driven by a few well educated individuals (more likely to come from a stable population). Please do tell us how you personally have advanced human progress or are you goping to continue along the "someone else will invent something" line?
You wrote -''More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around '' Are you *%@*ing serious? I take issue with this, Intelligence isn't a finite resource, you don't have to go halfsies with your neighbours on it! Much research has been done on class sizes and it turns out that regardless of class size, Teacher quality is the number 1 index of student scoring. I know, I have a brother who teaches in Kenya.
@marmaladekamikaze "You wrote -''More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around '' Are you *%@*ing serious?"
I think checkyoursources meant "less resources to go around", rather than "less intelligence to go around".
@marmaladekamikaze yes we would and we would have done so with less damage to the environment. “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein
@marmaladekamikaze "because of our access to Space we live in an near infinite resource system"
The Earth, alone, accounts for almost half the rocky mass of the solar system: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size "The relative masses of the solid bodies of the Solar System. Earth at 48% and Venus at 39% dominate."
The asteroids have virtually no mineral resources relative to what's available on Earth. They might be useful for people living in free-space habitats, though.
@marmaladekamikaze I realize you were talking about near-Earth asteroids (NEA's), but those are dwarfed in total mass by the asteroid belt -- which itself isn't much: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Asteroid_belt "The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×10^21 to 3.2×10^21 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon. The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone."
and if we wanted to collect rocks then you might have a point, however we're trying to get expensive/rare on earth materials like certain metals and fuels.
''One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal -- more than has ever been mined in the course of human history.''
@marmaladekamikaze ""[...] hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal [is] more than has ever been mined in the course of human history.''"
Copper alone falsifies that. $124 billion worth (16.1 million tonnes at $7,680 per tonne) of copper was mined in 2010 alone. Perhaps 400 million tonnes of copper has been mined since 1900. At $7,680 per tonne, that's $3 trillion worth.
.
"we're trying to get expensive/rare [...] materials"
If you flood the market, they will no longer be as rare.
@marmaladekamikaze "''One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal"
Since those metals won't be as rare when you're flooding the market with them, the value of the metals in the asteroid won't be "hundreds of billions of dollars-worth" anymore. It will be less.
Besides, it's merely speculation what asteroids actually contain. On the other hand, we *know* what the earth's crust contains: millions of years' worth of rare metals.
The earth's crust alone holds some 200 trillion tonnes of fission fuel (40 U + 160 Th), or some 32.4 billion years' worth at 16 TW (the current societal energy burn-rate). If or when extra-terrestrial fuel is needed, it won't come from rocky bodies. It will come from the gas giants.
It would not be profitable to extract Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system, I never even hinted at such a thing if you check, What I was referring to in terms of fuel was ISRU hydrogen and Oxygen for Space vehicle propellant depots. NASA are designed a propellant depot at the moment. also of interest is beamed Solar Satellite Power, aneutronic Helium-3 for tokamak reactors like that of ITER under construction and so on.
@marmaladekamikaze "extract[ing] Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system [...] I never even hinted at"
I know. I was saying that importation of fuels to Earth isn't needed. It could potentially be a minor competitor to the 32.4 billion years' worth of crustal terrestrial fission fuels, but it's not absolutely needed.
.
"beamed Solar Satellite Power"
Also not needed.
.
"ISRU hydrogen and Oxygen for Space vehicle"
Yes. Space resources would find their most likely markets in space.
@marmaladekamikaze "It would not be profitable to extract Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system"
Earlier, you extolled the market for rhodium at only $250,000/kg. We know that uranium and thorium could profitably be sold on Earth for $1 million/kg, because each kg is capable of releasing the same 1700 kWh of energy in a barrel of oil more than 10,000x over (about 13,300x, more precisely), and because oil often trades at around $100/bbl. $100/bbl x 10,000 = $1 million/kg.
@marmaladekamikaze Buying uranium or thorium at your quoted rhodium price of $250,000/kg would be like buying a barrel of oil for $19. People might be willing and able to pay more than that.
@hitssquad According to your figures (and correct me if i'm wrong) 3.75326 x 10 to the power of 16 KWh from all the thorium if you used all the known thorium deposits. Worldwide use was 1.32 × 10 to the power of 14 KWh and growth in energy consumption is 5% so a doubling every 14 years. How long would we last on throium if everyone used it and consumption doubled every 14 years?
@checkyoursources "x 10 to the power of 16 KWh from all the thorium"
No: x 10 to the power of 24 KWh. You're off by a factor of e8, or 100 million. Each kilogram of Th contains about 2.26e7 kWh. There are about 1.6e17 kilograms of Th in the crust. 7 + 17 is 24.
.
"How long would we last on throium if [...] consumption doubled every 14 years?"
It's irrelevant because nothing grows exponentially forever in nature. Al Bartlett has been taken to task by his allies for claiming that things do.
@checkyoursources What we see instead are S-curves of growth. At 1000x the current global burn-rate of 16 TW, society would be producing heat at the rate of 1 /11th the solar flux received by Earth, and the uranium and thorium in the crust would only be enough to last at that rate for 32.4 million years. There's more uranium and thorium in the mantle, by the way, and it's accessible simply be removing the overburden (AKA "mining") and letting it cool a bit.
@hitssquad "uranium and thorium in the crust would only be enough to last at that rate for 32.4 million years" I disagree as the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, it suggests reactors could run more than 200 years at CURENT rates of consumption. Of course the rate of consumption isn't static so it will be significantly less than 200 years. It always comes back to: And then what?
Very funny. Source? World energy consumption was half today's rate in 1998? Let's check ... wait. This is interesting: eia. gov/totalenergy "Worldwide energy consumption grows by 53% between 2008 and 2035 in the Reference case, with much of the increase driven by strong economic growth in the developing nations especially China and India."
.
That's only 1.59%/y growth (44 year doubling time). Does that seem like a lot less than 5% to you?
@hitssquad My soudce was Enerdata: "World energy use in 2010: over 5% growth" and "According to BP’s annual Statistical Review of World Energy, published today, 2010’s energy consumption was up by 5.6% on the year before" Economist 2011
@checkyoursources "2010’s energy consumption was up by 5.6% on the year before"
Then why did you apply it to the next 2000 years? Energy consumption was down in 2009 compared to the year before. Did you forget there was a recession? Did you think world energy consumption had grown year-on-year at 5.6%/y for the last 200 years straight? That would have added up to a growth factor of over 54,000.
@hitssquad Odd, because I used your figures from 5 hours ago (1700 kWh x 13,300)maye i missed something or maybe you did, not sure. Q1) Why haven't economists realised that "nothing grows exponentially forever"? p.s. Q2) To change my question to suit you: in the event that consumption doubled every 20 years for the next say 2000 years, (not unrealistic) how much energy would we need by then?
@checkyoursources "Why haven't economists realised that "nothing grows exponentially forever"?"
Julian Simon? He said it over and over: juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR24. txt "But we must recognize what Malthus eventually came to recognize. After he published the short simplistic theory in the first edition of his Essay on Population, he took the time to consider the facts as well as the theory. He then concluded that human beings are very different from flies or rats."
@checkyoursources "in the event that consumption doubled every 20 years"
That's an absurdly-high growth rate -- especially long-term. The US didn't even grow its own energy consumption that fast through the 20th century. What wrong with the EIA's prediction of a 44-year doubling time?
.
"for the next say 2000 years"
That would be 5 doublings per century, for 20 centuries, for a total of 100 doublings -- or a factor of 1.27e30. Multiply that by the current 16e12w, and we get 2e43 watts.
@checkyoursources If you'd gone with your original 14-year doubling period, you would have ended up after 2000 years at 1.6e56 watts, or over a million times the total luminosity of all the stars in the observable universe.
.
"(not unrealistic)"
Are you sure? You don't think maybe Julian Simon's right that nothing grows exponentially forever?
@hitssquad Humans have to be paid (unless you are a supporter of slavery which I hope you aren't), while nature doesn't have to be paid, please feel free to provide evidence that humans could provide oxygen with man made tech that nature couldn't do better and for free?
What are you talking about? Who has stopped the oceans from making oxygen? When did this happen? Source?
If that's not what you meant, then how are you planning on preventing the oceans from producing oxygen? Please state your oxygen-production-prevention plan right here, right now. If you don't have such a plan, what makes you think anyone else could do it?
From the web: "According to NASA the average person needs 0.84 kg of O2 per day"
From wikipedia: "Oxygen gas is the second most common component of the Earth's atmosphere, taking up 20.8% of its volume and 23.1% of its mass (some 10^15 tonnes)."
That's e18kg / .84 kg/d / 365.24 days / 7 billion people = 4.656e5 years' worth of oxygen in the atmosphere at current population-wide human-body use rates.
@hitssquad Humans make up less than 0.00001% of oxygen using life on this planet so the oxygen would last considerably less time if most plants/photosynthesising organisms were to be wiped out.
My original point was that Humans cannot replace ecosystem services without paying huge amounts of money so we should choose to live within their limits rather than promoting un-ending growth as many economists have done.
@hitssquad Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. Moreover, the UN environment programme confirmed in 2004 that there were nearly 150 "dead zones" in the world's oceans where discharged sewage and industrial waste, farm fertiliser run-off and other pollutants have reduced oxygen levels to such an extent that most or all sea creatures can no longer live there.
percentage points? That doesn't make any sense. Source? "according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis."
"The suffocating idiocy of Peter Tatchell and the media"
How about a *real* source?
.
"After a brief factual interlude stating that oxygen levels were higher when gigantic dinosauria roamed the earth citing credible acadmics he then claims that these same academics support claims that oxygen levels are 15% or lower in densely populated cities! An astonishing claim
"not supported by any evidence from Tatchell. I wonder if he is getting confused with pollution causing lower levels of oxygen in water surrounding cities?"
@hitssquad Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University and Professor Jon Harrison of the University of Arizona concur
@checkyoursources "Robert Berner [...] Ian Plimer [...] Jon Harrison [...] concur"
If you knew that, why did you plagiarize that error- and fallacy-riddled Peter Tatchell Guardian article that sourced a non-existent book by a non-existent "author"?
@checkyoursources "Berner [...] suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago."
Maybe not: "Geochemical modeling by Robert Berner (Yale University) suggests that the oxygen content of Earth’s atmosphere was much higher during Pennsylvanian times (30 to 35%) than today (21%"
You're saying the "Pennsylvanian times" were 10,000 years ago? Guess again: "During the Pennsylvanian and earliest Permian periods (about 320 to 290 million years before present)"
@hitssquad Actually Berner has written more than one paper on many different periods. To clarify: do you agree that burning of fossil fuels has decreased the oxygen content of the atmosphere?
@checkyoursources "Berner has written more than one paper on many different periods."
Then why haven't you listed a relevant paper of his, yet?
.
"do you agree that burning of fossil fuels has decreased the oxygen content of the atmosphere?"
More than a whole percentage point? No. 1% is 10,000 ppm. CO2 is currently only 390 ppm (0.039% by volume), up only 110 ppm from the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm. So that's only 0.011% O2 that was sequestered into CO2.
hahaha 'checkyoursources' you sir again demonstrate your sheer lack of insight. The World Oxygen levels have dropped by approximately 250 PPM (CO2 levels have risen by about this much from 100 PPM to 350 PPM) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. A 250 PPM drop in Oxygen is nothing. Hell ancient peoples probably got exposed to much lower oxygen levels when huddled around a fire or inside a cave! Are you sure you're not mentally challenged?
@marmaladekamikaze And have you seen this?: globalwarminghysteria. com/blog/2008/8/18/now-oxygen-crisis-threatens-us-all-reports-guardian. html
"Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in
"O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. [...]”"
@marmaladekamikaze Yesterday, I wrote: "Perhaps 400 million tonnes of copper has been mined since 1900. At $7,680 per tonne, that's $3 trillion worth."
I downloaded the Excel spreadsheet data from that USGS page, and I summed the annual-production column giving this more accurate figure: 558,298,000 tonnes. Again using the 2010 average copper price of $7,680 per tonne in 2010 dollars, that's $4.3 trillion worth -- 43% higher than my previous estimate.
Why are you fixating on Copper all of a sudden? The metal M-type asteroids like 1986-DA do not contain much copper, however they do contain high amounts of Nickel, & platinum group metals like Rhodium.
@checkyoursources ''the world's soils are in a bad way...moving to another location doesn't solve it''. two words for you buddy - Crop Rotation. You also wrote ''The soil erosion came about as a result of...poor management of resources'' The 'management of resources' sounds a hell of a lot like agricultural technology to me. The Easter Islanders cut down too many trees too fill their Religious Cult need for massive statues. Without the trees the soil eroded heavily.
@marmaladekamikaze 1) the world economy runs on a non renewable source so that puts us in an even worse dilemma than the Easter Islanders. 2) It is estimated that up to 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded. If you use ecosystem services faster than they can replenish or replace what we remove then we start to lose them. crop rotation can delay this but it doesn't solve the problem.
You seem familiar with the well known Dystopian incidents of past Island community disasters, but are you familiar with the continuing success story of the Anutan Islanders? They have a population density similar to bangladesh's. And they're doin just fine! you should give them a bit of research as a counterpoint to your misled, IMHO, world view.
@marmaladekamikaze Actually population density on Anuta 800per km2 is almost 20% less than that of Bangladesh 980 per km2 and as stated before carrying capacity depends on consumption per capita multiplied by population. For the average westerner to live like an Anutan they would need to use 20 times less. Anuta also has the advantage of very fertile seas and a human population that is relatively stable and in tune with the environment, something most of us don't have.
'Actually' your wrong the figures are 811 and 964 respectively and thus closer to 15% less. Not to mention, I wrote a ''similar'' population density, no where did I write they were the exact same. And you are dodging the point. Is Anuta overpopulated? of course not! Anuta is essentially a utopia with good social cohesion and team work 'managing their resources', with technology. The point is with team work & Tech the world can carry 10s of billions.
@mphello "This guy is worthless AGW-denying shit". I'm sorry, but do you think George Monbiot denies AGW? Have you ever read a single one of his articles?
@neutronbomb1000 Yes. He promotes nuclear energy, which only increases AGW.
Have you ever studied physics and logic and math? Have you added up the enormous costs of processing fuel, processing waste, storing waste, building the reactors, etc.? It requires an entire coal-fired plant just to process the fuel.
@mphello Bullshit. Have YOU ever "added up the enormous costs of processing fuel" etc? If so, I'd like to see your calculations. If not, and you're referencing a peer reviewed article that has, then please give me the reference so I can check it. If you've done neither (which is what I suspect) then please stop wasting my time. I call ABSOLUTE UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT on your comment. Get your facts straight.
@neutronbomb1000 Yes, I have. And, stop wasting MY time. You responded to ME, not the other way.
So, since you are a fucking subhuman shithead that never did a day of work and owes the public millions of dollars in back taxes that you stole (I reported you to the IRS), YOUR time cannot be "wasted".
@mphello Well, then, please send your calculations to makron5@gmail.com. Otherwise just post the title so I can find it on the net. I can't wait to read about how nuclear energy is going to warm the planet. But I have to say, your immediate and unfortunate personal attack makes me question whether you are, in fact, telling the truth, or whether you're talking hot air. For the record, I do work - I'm a scientist.
Monbiot is not a mathematician. He cannot do mathematical modelling. Therefore he is not mentally qualified to judge the existence or non-existence of any problem or its magnitude. He is also therefore not qualified to determine cause and effect, which is an abstract concept.
The world is seriously overpopulated. We need mandatory vasectomies.
And to outlaw killing animals for food so the poorer people can have more arable mand.
He is actually more stupid than I previously believed; previously I thought he was one of the most idiotic people talking about nuclear data. Now he's just dumbest guy in the room with his mouth open.
So overpopulation is no problem and nuclear power is fine,so we can continue our infinite expansion on a finite planet;What a prick! The chris hitchens of environmentalism;A Turncoat corporate cock sucker;Monbiot le merde
@TheLeatherAnarchist1 George Monbiot: "There is an issue with population and it is one of the factors that loads the environment with extra pressure. There's no question about that." How, then, did you get from his talk that "overpopulation is no problem"? He clearly states that it IS a problem at the outset of his argument. The rest of his talk looks at which segments of the population are more environmentally destructive.
@marmaladekamikaze While malthus got the timing wrong, he hasn't been disproved and in several instances he was spot on: The Mayans, Easter Islanders and Pitcairn islanders all experienced an overpopulation collapse.
So what you're saying is Your Prophet of doom-Malthus wasn't wrong (which he was) but that he will someday have the last laugh. ok, I didn't know this guy spawned a league of zealots! And I see you're back to the Mayan, Easter & Pitcairn Islanders...didn't we discuss this already! or have you no long term memory? The Mayans had a climatic induced collapse,-Curtis, Jason H.;Brenner,Mark(1995)Have you even looked up the Anutan Islanders as a counterpoint yet?
@marmaladekamikaze Has it not occured to you that a large population near or beyond the long term limits of ecosystem services to support them is less well able to deal with raid climatic change than a small population.
He is right to say that over-population has been exaggerated mainly by the super-rich who have a vested interest in perpetuating it. The truth is global food production far exceeds global human reproduction.
@hairymarx Bullshit. If you don't think the world is overpopulated,
then you have ZERO - and I mean ZERO - right to demand that everybody magically get a job in order to be given a house, privacy, clean water, utilities. It is practically impossible to demand this unnecessary bullshit that everybody find a job on their own, but it is 100% certain that they WILL have needs which must be met: so you pronatatlists have better provide for everyone.
"Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power" makes interesting reading.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
Just because Manbiot is right about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) doesn't make him smart. AGW is obviously right - just ask NASA and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Manbiot is a complete moron about population and nuclear power. That's because his small mind cannot grasp the concept of finite resources and of Entropy.
mphello 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
marmaladekamikaze 2 weeks ago
@marmaladekamikaze And you are a dangerous lunatic who deserves to have all his food and water and property taken away, since you obviously believe you can simply recreate it all out of thin air. Because you never did a day of work in your life, you do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the magnitude of the difference between having radioactive material 1 m away from you vs 93*10^6 miles away from you.
mphello 2 weeks ago
@mphello
News flash, if you had worked a day in your life you'd find no one uses 'miles' anymore. Secondly, you're the lunatic coming out with rants about taking peoples ''Food and water away''. Third, and funniest of all, in case you didn't know, all the water we drink spends its time as water vapor and clouds in the 'thin air' before it arrives out of our taps, and as for Plants, yep they just require the 'thin air' soil and sunlight to grow. & Look up radioactive coal.
marmaladekamikaze 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze What a DUMBshit. News flash: obviously Americans still use "miles", unfortunately. I can't do anything about that. I didn't feel like doing the conversion in my head.
=all the water we drink spends its time =
If you had ever done a day of work in your life, you'd not pull shit like that out of your ass and make a fool of yourself proclaiming it as fact. Until you show me the math-computer models for water circulation on earth, most water spends its time in oceans.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze You just proved what a brainless fuckhead you are with that assinine statement of yours.
=There is no finite resources.=
Then you should have NO problem if a burglar steals all your possessions infinitely often, because you believe you can instantly replace them all.
mphello 1 week ago
@mphello
It's spelled 'asinine' and not 'assinine'. What was that you were saying about me being brainless? Yes we all make spelling mistakes, none of us are infallible, so get over yourself.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze Your inability to grasp the idea that the mass and therefore the energy in the universe is finite is astounding. extinct species are all finite too, not to mention the water on the planet. If someone is using the water then someone else cannot. Only 0.014% of all water can be used for drinking water production, as most of it is stored in clouds or in the ground.
checkyoursources 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources
You are falling into the 'Malthusian trap'.Malthus has been proven wrong, as Paul Ehrlich is, all because they fail to factor in Technology. The cost of space exploration has come down and continues to drop, unmanned robotic machines are becoming more and more capable. You are charicaturing 'asteroids' as simply 'plugging a gap'. There are enough Platinum group elements and other materials to support Trillions of people. Read the book 'Mining the Sky'.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
Comment removed
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
George has failed to appreciate that every single environmental issue caused by humans can be reduced by there being less of us through voluntary contraception. I once put this to him and he shrugged. He assumes that voluntary contraception is some kind of evil weapon used by rich nations to reduce the populations of poor ones, but in reality voluntary contraception has reduced every families footprint rich and poor, by allowing them to have a smaller family and have money for education.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
58 national science academies agree that overpopulation is a major issue. Even smaller families in western countries and smaller families worldwide is the MOST EFFECTIVE way of reducing our footprint. If everyone cuts their consumption by 20% but the population goes up by 30% its a waste of time. Voluntary contraception is the key!
Watch "Overconsumpulation" and "One Planet One Child" for more info.
checkyoursources 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Europol Says"
/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94&feature=channel_video_title
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
This is megalomanic arrogance. Nationalist socialist fascists. We are a carbon based life form never forget that. Malthusian freaks have no place in our modern society, we will reproduce and advance despite these freaks. The purpose of all life is to survive and reproduce to preserve the immortality of the genetic code. Atmospheric carbon enrichment benefits all life on our Planet.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 YR RIGHT....ONCE BRITAIN HAS HAD GOOD UNIVERSITIES,,, NOW IS PRODUCING IDIOTS LIKE HIM....HE IS RUBBISH
MarcoBocoure 4 months ago
George monbiot is a progressive, we have to accept differing opinions within the movement!
TheQqkkk 6 months ago
@TheQqkkk Good. Then you have to accept those of us who advocate for mandatory birth control by vasectomies of men. And those of us who advocated laws against breeding and then killing animals for food. (Those who are so desperate for meat can go eat roadkill for all I care.)
mphello 1 month ago
At 12:00 he really begins to lay it all out. You people who say the Earth is overpopulated are wrong. Count how many fields around you are laying fallow? doing nothing? I count them all, and they have been like that for years.
marmaladekamikaze 6 months ago
@marmaladekamikaze Bullshit. If you don't think the world is overpopulated,
then you have ZERO - and I mean ZERO - right to demand that everybody magically get a job in order to be given a house, privacy, clean water, utilities. It is practically impossible to demand this unnecessary bullshit that everybody find a job on their own, but it is 100% certain that they WILL have needs which must be met: so you pronatatlists have better provide for everyone.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello
The world isn't overpopulated, check your sources and stop believing everything you are told, check the figures. Some regions have a very high population density like cities, but the world as a whole is not overpopulated. Furthermore with the Agricultural green revolution- the use of fertilizers and high yielding crops, there is plenty of food for everyone.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze You need to open up your mind and read other things. Learn about peak oil, which we're now 7 years past. If you don't think 99.9% of the human population dying off due to starvation caused by manmade climate change and oil running out is not serious, then I guess overpopulation is not a serious issue to you.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello
Peak oil is expected in 2030 according to the UN and proven reserves. Nuclear Fusion like the presently underconstruction Tokamak ITER in France will prevent the scare mongering nonsense figures you are pushing. Where did you get this 99.9% from?
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze And peak oil has been proven to be past, around 2005, by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
Where did you get this "2030" from?
The UN is not THE best expert on peak oil.
Unless you've got all-electric or fusion-powered vehicles (cars, boats, airplanes) you're not solving any transportation energy problems.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello
Synthetic fuels produced by electricity derived from Nuclear power is not only doable but the US Navy are planning to field such a system on their carrier fleet to fuel their aircraft.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze Is the nuclear material generating the electricity that creates the synthetic fuel all happening inside the car, boat, or plane?
I don't think so. I think that all takes place OUTSIDE the car, boat, and plane.
Yeah - a Canadian company does pyrolysis of trash to generate electricity,
and other companies (using electricity) turn trash into oil (which we need for more than just fuel - we need as feedstock to make stuff).
So?
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello
You Wrote- 'Unless you've got all-electric or fusion-powered vehicles (cars, boats, airplanes) you're not solving any transportation energy problems.'
So I responded with the solution of synthetic fuels for airplanes. To answer your question, yes, the synthesis of fuel, via the Fischer Tropsch reaction, will occur inside the boat/ US navy's nuclear powered carrier fleet.Look it up.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago 2
@marmaladekamikaze I know your brainwashed kind. You are fanatical anti-socialist pro-capitalist fanatics. You are the ultimate in irrational scare mongering.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello
Firstly I'm a socialist. I live in Ireland a very socialist country. Secondly if you don't like capitalism then please by all means step away from your computer and sign up at your local Amish community. When Socialism & Capitalism are done right we get the best of both worlds.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze Earlier you stated that Malthus was wrong. Tell that to the Easter islanders, Pitcairn islanders or Mayans. Just because you haven't crashed your car doesn't mean you can never crash. p.s. Technology increases consumption because it improves efficiency at removing resources from ecosystem services. Efficiency means a a drop in price and a rise in consumption. Look up Jevons paradox.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Jevons paradox...man you need to read something written after 1900. In response to Jevons paradox see its rebuttal by the Climate Economics Dr. Jim Barrett. As for Zero sum isolated islanders yes in those rare instances were technology / farming techniques don't outpace food demand famines can occur. Technology like the Haber-Bosch process & the green Revolution headed by Norman Borlaug-who is responsible for about 1 billion lives, has ended that idiocy.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago 2
@marmaladekamikaze "As for Zero sum isolated islanders" the Earth is essentially an island in space. What logical explanation can you give that would stop the situation on Easter island occuring on a larger scale with a different non renewable and irreplaceable resource?
The probelm with technology is that it has to be invented very quickly after it is needed. Why assume that humans can always invent their way out of danger when there are examples where isolated humans didn't?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Easter Island suffered from soil erosion, salting of the earth, storms and most seriously a breakdown in social cohesion. Since the dawn of farming we have been using technology to enable the earth to have a higher and higher carrying capacity. This is by no means sustainable but then again neither is staying on this planet. Therefore it is inevitable that we move out into the black ocean. look up the video of Elon Musk & Diamondis discussing asteroid mining.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze The soil erosion came about as a result of overpopulation and poor management of resources. A large % of the world's soils are also in a bad way. As stated moving to another location only delays the problem, it doesn't solve it. You cannot solve a problem with the way of thinking that created it. Humans must learn to live within our environmental boundaries or nature kicks our arse, it's that simple.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Again you've missed the point. Staying on earth forever is not exactly 'sustainable' either, the planet is not a nurturing goddess, it's indifferent to us. Furthermore people living in space would serve as insurance against a global natural disaster on earth. I'm quite bewildered by your calls to drive us back into caves and to construct mental boundaries of where our 'environment' ends.Meanwhile the Cosmos awaits.Elon Musk & Diamandis video,have you seen it?
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze "people living in space" -doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it. Ending our obsession with material/population growth would solve it. I didn't say move back into caves, I just apprecaite that we cannot survive long if we use ecosystem services faster than they can cope with our demands which we are currently doing. We must learn to live within finite ecosystem boundaries, we can still develop, we just have to do so sustainably and without using more stuff.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
We don't have an obseesion with materials or population growth, these are just things that happen as a byproduct of being humans. Here again you are pushing this dogma that all of us should live within YOUR finite ecosystem boundary. Most sane people are saying, you know what, there is no boundary! If you really agree with your ''we have to use less stuff'' attitide then get off the internet. The internet relies on 'stuff' does it not? and your cell phone too
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze my "finite ecosystem boundary"?
people who think there are no boundaries to constant growth in a finite system don't understand basic physics. The point I have been making which you missed was that everyone could live like you do if there were just 2 billion of us (reached through voluntary contraception and education, but with 7 billion the average consumption level is that of botswanan. Growth and declining ecosystem services just pushes more people into poverty.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
uh huh, 2 billion of us, you come up with that yourself? Since you claim to more well versed in physics than I, even when you fail to grapple with my point that because of our access to Space we live in an near infinite resource system- as Elon Musk(Tesla motors founder & Space X CEO) & Peter Diamandis(of X prize fame) discuss in their youtube video. What happens when all 'natural' resources are depleted in your snobby hypothetical world of 2 billion people?
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze "access to space"- go ahead pop to the nearest inhabitable palent why don't you, should take you about 10,000 years and 100 trillion dollars...sigh, you really are very being rather naive. For now we are stuck with just our planet. Why not try and fix thinsg here first before expanding the problem to other regions. Natural resources only reduce when you consume faster than the replacement rate of ecosystem services which we are doing currently.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
You've again demonstrated that you never did bother to watch the free video I have been suggesting to you for the past few days, did you? 'Elon Musk(Tesla motors founder & Space X CEO) & Peter Diamandis(of X prize fame). It's right here on youtube. Once you've watched it you'll have quite the egg on your face. Asteroid mining isn't travelling to an 'inhabitable planet', and as far as I know there are no other inhabitable planets known, not even Gilese 581c.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze Getting into orbit is one thing, travelling to other planets is an entirely different matter. Eight pounds of weight, costs $400,000 to get it to the moon, so your space travel ideas to other planets are unrealistic at this point in technological advance. answer my question: Then what do you do once you have exhausted the asteroids?
Your obsession with growth is clear.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
Please point out where I suggested we travel to ''other planets'', you'll find I never mentioned such a thing. Near earth asteroids are less difficult to get to / lower Delta-v required, than the moon. What do we do once we've exhausted the asteroids? I don't think that's an issue. you clearly do not grasp how much material there is out there. look up 'valuable asteroid resources' and look at the numbers for yourself. FYI a kilogram of Rhodium costs $250,000
marmaladekamikaze 3 weeks ago
@marmaladekamikaze "What do we do once we've exhausted the asteroids? I don't think that's an issue" Of course it's an issue, you are simply slowing down consequences temporarily rather than deal with the cause which is teh assumption that infinite growth is a good thing in a finite system. p.s. FYI a kilogram of rhodium is not easily extractable from an asteroid.
checkyoursources 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
marmaladekamikaze 2 weeks ago
@marmaladekamikaze ad hominem.
checkyoursources 1 week ago
@checkyoursources I mean your argument is akin to a caveman saying ' oh I better not invent farming which would feed billions and billions of more people because that is just ''slowing down the consequences temporaily...'' I say bravo, you've successful transported us back to living in caves, enjoying your computer are you? & FYI Rhodium and the even more valuable He-3 are easy to extract. 'Asteroid mining' was in essense done by Inuits years ago see-Cape York meteorite.
marmaladekamikaze 1 week ago
@marmaladekamikaze No, as stated there are technologies that increase consumption and there are those that don't, you want consumption to increase but the best you can up with is to look for more finite sources from asteroids?! How does that solve the problem.
As I have said, a European level of consumption and tech is fine but only with 2 billion, not 7 billion people.
checkyoursources 1 week ago
@checkyoursources
What are you going to do with this world of 2 billion people, and why you choose 2 billion and not 20 billion you have yet to explain. A world of 2 billion people will also eventually run out of economically viable mining of materials and have to import materials from Near earth Asteroids. Your point is mute sir, it's not a question of either or, it's a question of when. Yes the Universe is finite, but it's practically infinite for our purposes.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze We can supply 2 billion at a European level of consumption long term with no environmental damage, the same cannot be said of 7 billion, let alone 20 billion?!
Who will run out of resources first 20 billion or 2 billion?
Answers on a postcard to the Easter islanders/pitcairn islanders and Mayan emoire who didn't know the answer and failed as result.
Mining asteroids is not economically viable, star trek isn't real!
checkyoursources 3 days ago
@checkyoursources
Are you saying that the Cape York Meteorite wasn't used by Inuits for thousands of years as a source of metal? I see you are just glossing over real facts because it doesn't fit your view, how rational of you lol! FYI they didn't do much asteroid mining in star trek IIRC.
as for your '2 billion people' did you even hear Monbiot said at 11:00 to 12:00 in the video?
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze It is vastly different, and more complex and costly,to mine something on earth to mining an asteroid in space!
I think you are being irrational suggesting that mining an asteroid in Space is "easy"!
Monbiot isn't always right, especially on Population.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@checkyoursources
The most precious resource in the whole universe is intelligence. Yes I am trading the near infinite resources of the universe for more people/more intelligence. But I think that's a good exchange. Yet you seem to value inanimate materials over human life and continually push your 2 billion human population agenda. By the way as hitssquad pointed out and quoted me I never said the universe was infinite I wrote 'near infinite'. Check your sources!
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze What intelligence is there in current situation of having 80% of the world population on less than 10 dollars a day when we can get everyone out of poverty by putting finance into education and voluntary contraception?
More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around and a large under-educated population because education resources are split around a large base.Accessing resources off planet is exceptionally difficult.
checkyoursources 3 days ago
@checkyoursources
By all means donate your money to helping the education of disadvantaged people! and yes contraception should be a choice. However as has Rosling (of TED statistics fame) will go through with you, those people on 10 dollars a day you're talking about, were on 1 dollar a day 10 years ago, and will be on 100 dollars a day according to UN statistics in another 10.Overall things are improving friend, as much as you'd bizarrely prefer that they were not, they are!
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze Has Rosling taken into account the environment, price of food (rising) or quality of life as anything but material wealth?
You make the assumption that progress has been driven by high population growth rather than progress being driven by a few well educated individuals (more likely to come from a stable population). Please do tell us how you personally have advanced human progress or are you goping to continue along the "someone else will invent something" line?
checkyoursources 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources
You wrote -''More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around '' Are you *%@*ing serious? I take issue with this, Intelligence isn't a finite resource, you don't have to go halfsies with your neighbours on it! Much research has been done on class sizes and it turns out that regardless of class size, Teacher quality is the number 1 index of student scoring. I know, I have a brother who teaches in Kenya.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze "You wrote -''More people does not equate with more intelligence per capita,it simply means there is less to go around '' Are you *%@*ing serious?"
I think checkyoursources meant "less resources to go around", rather than "less intelligence to go around".
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources
''Why not fix things here first'' - If all of humanity had that attitude we would never have journeyed out of Africa.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze yes we would and we would have done so with less damage to the environment. “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze "because of our access to Space we live in an near infinite resource system"
The Earth, alone, accounts for almost half the rocky mass of the solar system: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size "The relative masses of the solid bodies of the Solar System. Earth at 48% and Venus at 39% dominate."
The asteroids have virtually no mineral resources relative to what's available on Earth. They might be useful for people living in free-space habitats, though.
hitssquad 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze I realize you were talking about near-Earth asteroids (NEA's), but those are dwarfed in total mass by the asteroid belt -- which itself isn't much: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Asteroid_belt "The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×10^21 to 3.2×10^21 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon. The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone."
hitssquad 6 days ago
@hitssquad
and if we wanted to collect rocks then you might have a point, however we're trying to get expensive/rare on earth materials like certain metals and fuels.
''One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal -- more than has ever been mined in the course of human history.''
wired article on asteroid-mining.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze ""[...] hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal [is] more than has ever been mined in the course of human history.''"
Copper alone falsifies that. $124 billion worth (16.1 million tonnes at $7,680 per tonne) of copper was mined in 2010 alone. Perhaps 400 million tonnes of copper has been mined since 1900. At $7,680 per tonne, that's $3 trillion worth.
.
"we're trying to get expensive/rare [...] materials"
If you flood the market, they will no longer be as rare.
hitssquad 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze "''One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of metal"
Since those metals won't be as rare when you're flooding the market with them, the value of the metals in the asteroid won't be "hundreds of billions of dollars-worth" anymore. It will be less.
Besides, it's merely speculation what asteroids actually contain. On the other hand, we *know* what the earth's crust contains: millions of years' worth of rare metals.
hitssquad 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze "and fuels."
The earth's crust alone holds some 200 trillion tonnes of fission fuel (40 U + 160 Th), or some 32.4 billion years' worth at 16 TW (the current societal energy burn-rate). If or when extra-terrestrial fuel is needed, it won't come from rocky bodies. It will come from the gas giants.
hitssquad 3 days ago
@hitssquad
It would not be profitable to extract Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system, I never even hinted at such a thing if you check, What I was referring to in terms of fuel was ISRU hydrogen and Oxygen for Space vehicle propellant depots. NASA are designed a propellant depot at the moment. also of interest is beamed Solar Satellite Power, aneutronic Helium-3 for tokamak reactors like that of ITER under construction and so on.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marmaladekamikaze "extract[ing] Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system [...] I never even hinted at"
I know. I was saying that importation of fuels to Earth isn't needed. It could potentially be a minor competitor to the 32.4 billion years' worth of crustal terrestrial fission fuels, but it's not absolutely needed.
.
"beamed Solar Satellite Power"
Also not needed.
.
"ISRU hydrogen and Oxygen for Space vehicle"
Yes. Space resources would find their most likely markets in space.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze "It would not be profitable to extract Fissile fuels from the rocky bodies of the solar system"
Earlier, you extolled the market for rhodium at only $250,000/kg. We know that uranium and thorium could profitably be sold on Earth for $1 million/kg, because each kg is capable of releasing the same 1700 kWh of energy in a barrel of oil more than 10,000x over (about 13,300x, more precisely), and because oil often trades at around $100/bbl. $100/bbl x 10,000 = $1 million/kg.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze Buying uranium or thorium at your quoted rhodium price of $250,000/kg would be like buying a barrel of oil for $19. People might be willing and able to pay more than that.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@hitssquad According to your figures (and correct me if i'm wrong) 3.75326 x 10 to the power of 16 KWh from all the thorium if you used all the known thorium deposits. Worldwide use was 1.32 × 10 to the power of 14 KWh and growth in energy consumption is 5% so a doubling every 14 years. How long would we last on throium if everyone used it and consumption doubled every 14 years?
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@checkyoursources "x 10 to the power of 16 KWh from all the thorium"
No: x 10 to the power of 24 KWh. You're off by a factor of e8, or 100 million. Each kilogram of Th contains about 2.26e7 kWh. There are about 1.6e17 kilograms of Th in the crust. 7 + 17 is 24.
.
"How long would we last on throium if [...] consumption doubled every 14 years?"
It's irrelevant because nothing grows exponentially forever in nature. Al Bartlett has been taken to task by his allies for claiming that things do.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources What we see instead are S-curves of growth. At 1000x the current global burn-rate of 16 TW, society would be producing heat at the rate of 1 /11th the solar flux received by Earth, and the uranium and thorium in the crust would only be enough to last at that rate for 32.4 million years. There's more uranium and thorium in the mantle, by the way, and it's accessible simply be removing the overburden (AKA "mining") and letting it cool a bit.
hitssquad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad "uranium and thorium in the crust would only be enough to last at that rate for 32.4 million years" I disagree as the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, it suggests reactors could run more than 200 years at CURENT rates of consumption. Of course the rate of consumption isn't static so it will be significantly less than 200 years. It always comes back to: And then what?
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@checkyoursources "growth in energy consumption is 5%"
Very funny. Source? World energy consumption was half today's rate in 1998? Let's check ... wait. This is interesting: eia. gov/totalenergy "Worldwide energy consumption grows by 53% between 2008 and 2035 in the Reference case, with much of the increase driven by strong economic growth in the developing nations especially China and India."
.
That's only 1.59%/y growth (44 year doubling time). Does that seem like a lot less than 5% to you?
hitssquad 2 days ago
@hitssquad My soudce was Enerdata: "World energy use in 2010: over 5% growth" and "According to BP’s annual Statistical Review of World Energy, published today, 2010’s energy consumption was up by 5.6% on the year before" Economist 2011
checkyoursources 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "2010’s energy consumption was up by 5.6% on the year before"
Then why did you apply it to the next 2000 years? Energy consumption was down in 2009 compared to the year before. Did you forget there was a recession? Did you think world energy consumption had grown year-on-year at 5.6%/y for the last 200 years straight? That would have added up to a growth factor of over 54,000.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@hitssquad Odd, because I used your figures from 5 hours ago (1700 kWh x 13,300)maye i missed something or maybe you did, not sure. Q1) Why haven't economists realised that "nothing grows exponentially forever"? p.s. Q2) To change my question to suit you: in the event that consumption doubled every 20 years for the next say 2000 years, (not unrealistic) how much energy would we need by then?
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@checkyoursources "Why haven't economists realised that "nothing grows exponentially forever"?"
Julian Simon? He said it over and over: juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR24. txt "But we must recognize what Malthus eventually came to recognize. After he published the short simplistic theory in the first edition of his Essay on Population, he took the time to consider the facts as well as the theory. He then concluded that human beings are very different from flies or rats."
hitssquad 2 days ago
Comment removed
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources "in the event that consumption doubled every 20 years"
That's an absurdly-high growth rate -- especially long-term. The US didn't even grow its own energy consumption that fast through the 20th century. What wrong with the EIA's prediction of a 44-year doubling time?
.
"for the next say 2000 years"
That would be 5 doublings per century, for 20 centuries, for a total of 100 doublings -- or a factor of 1.27e30. Multiply that by the current 16e12w, and we get 2e43 watts.
hitssquad 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "(not unrealistic)"
Very funny: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ Orders_of_magnitude_(power)
• 3.31e31W - approximate luminosity of Beta Centauri
• 1.23e32W - approximate luminosity of Deneb
• 5e36W - approximate luminosity of the Milky Way galaxy.
• 1e40W - approximate luminosity of a quasar
• 1e42W - approximate luminosity of the Local Supercluster
• 1e45W - approximate luminosity of a gamma-ray burst
• 2e49W - approximate total luminosity of all the stars in the observable universe
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources If you'd gone with your original 14-year doubling period, you would have ended up after 2000 years at 1.6e56 watts, or over a million times the total luminosity of all the stars in the observable universe.
.
"(not unrealistic)"
Are you sure? You don't think maybe Julian Simon's right that nothing grows exponentially forever?
hitssquad 2 days ago
@hitssquad The twentieth century saw a rapid twentyfold increase in the use of fossil fuels.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@hitssquad Humans have to be paid (unless you are a supporter of slavery which I hope you aren't), while nature doesn't have to be paid, please feel free to provide evidence that humans could provide oxygen with man made tech that nature couldn't do better and for free?
checkyoursources 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "The twentieth century saw a rapid twentyfold increase in the use of fossil fuels."
Then why did you predict a 132-fold increase in world energy use for every succeeding century?
.
"nature doesn't have to be paid"
Preservation of anything, including the welfare-roll you call ecosystem-services, has opportunity costs: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
.
"oxygen"
Humans wouldn't need to provide oxygen soon, because the atmosphere contains e18kg, or 465,000 years' worth.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources "that nature couldn't do better"
What are you talking about? Who has stopped the oceans from making oxygen? When did this happen? Source?
If that's not what you meant, then how are you planning on preventing the oceans from producing oxygen? Please state your oxygen-production-prevention plan right here, right now. If you don't have such a plan, what makes you think anyone else could do it?
hitssquad 2 days ago
@checkyoursources My math for the 465,000 years' worth of oxygen:
From the web: "According to NASA the average person needs 0.84 kg of O2 per day"
From wikipedia: "Oxygen gas is the second most common component of the Earth's atmosphere, taking up 20.8% of its volume and 23.1% of its mass (some 10^15 tonnes)."
That's e18kg / .84 kg/d / 365.24 days / 7 billion people = 4.656e5 years' worth of oxygen in the atmosphere at current population-wide human-body use rates.
hitssquad 2 days ago
@hitssquad Humans make up less than 0.00001% of oxygen using life on this planet so the oxygen would last considerably less time if most plants/photosynthesising organisms were to be wiped out.
My original point was that Humans cannot replace ecosystem services without paying huge amounts of money so we should choose to live within their limits rather than promoting un-ending growth as many economists have done.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
@hitssquad Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. Moreover, the UN environment programme confirmed in 2004 that there were nearly 150 "dead zones" in the world's oceans where discharged sewage and industrial waste, farm fertiliser run-off and other pollutants have reduced oxygen levels to such an extent that most or all sea creatures can no longer live there.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "Humans make up less than 0.00001% of oxygen using life"
Source? If the oxygen cycle is 2,000 years, then the human fraction of oxygen-using life is 2,000 / 465,600 = 0.43%.
.
"the oxygen would last considerably less time if most plants/photosynthesising organisms were to be wiped out."
Don't animals eat plants? How are you planning on keeping *all* the animals alive and breathing after wiping out most of their food supply?
.
"huge amounts of money"
19 cents a day.
hitssquad 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "prehistoric times, the level of oxygen"
That one-third-higher oxygen peak you're referring to occurred 300 million years ago: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ Geological_history_of_oxygen
12,000 years ago was *also* during "prehistoric times", and the oxygen level has been constant since then.
.
"and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%."
That is absurd. How would a tiny fraction of a percent of air being displaced by *air* pollution cause oxygen levels to drop many
hitssquad 1 day ago
percentage points? That doesn't make any sense. Source? "according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis."
"The suffocating idiocy of Peter Tatchell and the media"
How about a *real* source?
.
"After a brief factual interlude stating that oxygen levels were higher when gigantic dinosauria roamed the earth citing credible acadmics he then claims that these same academics support claims that oxygen levels are 15% or lower in densely populated cities! An astonishing claim
hitssquad 1 day ago
"not supported by any evidence from Tatchell. I wonder if he is getting confused with pollution causing lower levels of oxygen in water surrounding cities?"
hitssquad 1 day ago
@hitssquad Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University and Professor Jon Harrison of the University of Arizona concur
checkyoursources 1 day ago
@checkyoursources "Robert Berner [...] Ian Plimer [...] Jon Harrison [...] concur"
If you knew that, why did you plagiarize that error- and fallacy-riddled Peter Tatchell Guardian article that sourced a non-existent book by a non-existent "author"?
hitssquad 1 day ago
@checkyoursources "Berner [...] suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago."
Maybe not: "Geochemical modeling by Robert Berner (Yale University) suggests that the oxygen content of Earth’s atmosphere was much higher during Pennsylvanian times (30 to 35%) than today (21%"
You're saying the "Pennsylvanian times" were 10,000 years ago? Guess again: "During the Pennsylvanian and earliest Permian periods (about 320 to 290 million years before present)"
hitssquad 1 day ago
@hitssquad Actually Berner has written more than one paper on many different periods. To clarify: do you agree that burning of fossil fuels has decreased the oxygen content of the atmosphere?
checkyoursources 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "Berner has written more than one paper on many different periods."
Then why haven't you listed a relevant paper of his, yet?
.
"do you agree that burning of fossil fuels has decreased the oxygen content of the atmosphere?"
More than a whole percentage point? No. 1% is 10,000 ppm. CO2 is currently only 390 ppm (0.039% by volume), up only 110 ppm from the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm. So that's only 0.011% O2 that was sequestered into CO2.
hitssquad 1 day ago
@checkyoursources
hahaha 'checkyoursources' you sir again demonstrate your sheer lack of insight. The World Oxygen levels have dropped by approximately 250 PPM (CO2 levels have risen by about this much from 100 PPM to 350 PPM) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. A 250 PPM drop in Oxygen is nothing. Hell ancient peoples probably got exposed to much lower oxygen levels when huddled around a fire or inside a cave! Are you sure you're not mentally challenged?
marmaladekamikaze 1 day ago
@marmaladekamikaze And have you seen this?: globalwarminghysteria. com/blog/2008/8/18/now-oxygen-crisis-threatens-us-all-reports-guardian. html
"Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in
hitssquad 22 hours ago
"O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. [...]”"
hitssquad 22 hours ago
@marmaladekamikaze Yesterday, I wrote: "Perhaps 400 million tonnes of copper has been mined since 1900. At $7,680 per tonne, that's $3 trillion worth."
I downloaded the Excel spreadsheet data from that USGS page, and I summed the annual-production column giving this more accurate figure: 558,298,000 tonnes. Again using the 2010 average copper price of $7,680 per tonne in 2010 dollars, that's $4.3 trillion worth -- 43% higher than my previous estimate.
.
It falsifies the Wired article even more.
hitssquad 1 day ago
@hitssquad
Why are you fixating on Copper all of a sudden? The metal M-type asteroids like 1986-DA do not contain much copper, however they do contain high amounts of Nickel, & platinum group metals like Rhodium.
In sum you're looking in the wrong direction.
marmaladekamikaze 1 day ago
@checkyoursources ''the world's soils are in a bad way...moving to another location doesn't solve it''. two words for you buddy - Crop Rotation. You also wrote ''The soil erosion came about as a result of...poor management of resources'' The 'management of resources' sounds a hell of a lot like agricultural technology to me. The Easter Islanders cut down too many trees too fill their Religious Cult need for massive statues. Without the trees the soil eroded heavily.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze 1) the world economy runs on a non renewable source so that puts us in an even worse dilemma than the Easter Islanders. 2) It is estimated that up to 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded. If you use ecosystem services faster than they can replenish or replace what we remove then we start to lose them. crop rotation can delay this but it doesn't solve the problem.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
You seem familiar with the well known Dystopian incidents of past Island community disasters, but are you familiar with the continuing success story of the Anutan Islanders? They have a population density similar to bangladesh's. And they're doin just fine! you should give them a bit of research as a counterpoint to your misled, IMHO, world view.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
@marmaladekamikaze Actually population density on Anuta 800per km2 is almost 20% less than that of Bangladesh 980 per km2 and as stated before carrying capacity depends on consumption per capita multiplied by population. For the average westerner to live like an Anutan they would need to use 20 times less. Anuta also has the advantage of very fertile seas and a human population that is relatively stable and in tune with the environment, something most of us don't have.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources
'Actually' your wrong the figures are 811 and 964 respectively and thus closer to 15% less. Not to mention, I wrote a ''similar'' population density, no where did I write they were the exact same. And you are dodging the point. Is Anuta overpopulated? of course not! Anuta is essentially a utopia with good social cohesion and team work 'managing their resources', with technology. The point is with team work & Tech the world can carry 10s of billions.
marmaladekamikaze 1 month ago
jesus ... take george out of the carbon police... and he suddenly becomes quite cool.
hughgallagher 7 months ago
PETA presents clear-minded arguments.
Zero Population Growth presents clear-minded arguments.
Wind and solar power companies present clear-minded arguments.
This guy is worthless anthropogenic-global-warming (AGW)-denying shit.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello "This guy is worthless AGW-denying shit". I'm sorry, but do you think George Monbiot denies AGW? Have you ever read a single one of his articles?
neutronbomb1000 6 months ago 2
@neutronbomb1000 Yes. He promotes nuclear energy, which only increases AGW.
Have you ever studied physics and logic and math? Have you added up the enormous costs of processing fuel, processing waste, storing waste, building the reactors, etc.? It requires an entire coal-fired plant just to process the fuel.
mphello 6 months ago
@mphello Bullshit. Have YOU ever "added up the enormous costs of processing fuel" etc? If so, I'd like to see your calculations. If not, and you're referencing a peer reviewed article that has, then please give me the reference so I can check it. If you've done neither (which is what I suspect) then please stop wasting my time. I call ABSOLUTE UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT on your comment. Get your facts straight.
neutronbomb1000 6 months ago
@neutronbomb1000 Yes, I have. And, stop wasting MY time. You responded to ME, not the other way.
So, since you are a fucking subhuman shithead that never did a day of work and owes the public millions of dollars in back taxes that you stole (I reported you to the IRS), YOUR time cannot be "wasted".
mphello 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello Well, then, please send your calculations to makron5@gmail.com. Otherwise just post the title so I can find it on the net. I can't wait to read about how nuclear energy is going to warm the planet. But I have to say, your immediate and unfortunate personal attack makes me question whether you are, in fact, telling the truth, or whether you're talking hot air. For the record, I do work - I'm a scientist.
neutronbomb1000 6 months ago
@mphello
The EROEI of nuclear power is 50 to 1. Calculated by people with a science degree(New York Academy of Science), not retards that don't know maths.
52111centrumcz 1 month ago 6
Monbiot is not a mathematician. He cannot do mathematical modelling. Therefore he is not mentally qualified to judge the existence or non-existence of any problem or its magnitude. He is also therefore not qualified to determine cause and effect, which is an abstract concept.
The world is seriously overpopulated. We need mandatory vasectomies.
And to outlaw killing animals for food so the poorer people can have more arable mand.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello
there is NOT a problem of insufficient arable land. Get a clue.
52111centrumcz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is actually more stupid than I previously believed; previously I thought he was one of the most idiotic people talking about nuclear data. Now he's just dumbest guy in the room with his mouth open.
waterspindle 8 months ago
So overpopulation is no problem and nuclear power is fine,so we can continue our infinite expansion on a finite planet;What a prick! The chris hitchens of environmentalism;A Turncoat corporate cock sucker;Monbiot le merde
TheLeatherAnarchist1 9 months ago
@TheLeatherAnarchist1 George Monbiot: "There is an issue with population and it is one of the factors that loads the environment with extra pressure. There's no question about that." How, then, did you get from his talk that "overpopulation is no problem"? He clearly states that it IS a problem at the outset of his argument. The rest of his talk looks at which segments of the population are more environmentally destructive.
neutronbomb1000 6 months ago
@TheLeatherAnarchist1 Bravo! Excellent comment!
mphello 1 month ago
@TheLeatherAnarchist1
you're falling into the fallacy of mathusian thinking. educate yourself please.
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze While malthus got the timing wrong, he hasn't been disproved and in several instances he was spot on: The Mayans, Easter Islanders and Pitcairn islanders all experienced an overpopulation collapse.
checkyoursources 3 days ago
@checkyoursources
So what you're saying is Your Prophet of doom-Malthus wasn't wrong (which he was) but that he will someday have the last laugh. ok, I didn't know this guy spawned a league of zealots! And I see you're back to the Mayan, Easter & Pitcairn Islanders...didn't we discuss this already! or have you no long term memory? The Mayans had a climatic induced collapse,-Curtis, Jason H.;Brenner,Mark(1995)Have you even looked up the Anutan Islanders as a counterpoint yet?
marmaladekamikaze 3 days ago
@marmaladekamikaze Has it not occured to you that a large population near or beyond the long term limits of ecosystem services to support them is less well able to deal with raid climatic change than a small population.
checkyoursources 2 days ago
Comment removed
BLahhamstick 10 months ago
Wow, such clear-minded, systematic thinking, never hesitates, complete eloquence. I'm very impressed.
pcoldham 11 months ago 3
He is right to say that over-population has been exaggerated mainly by the super-rich who have a vested interest in perpetuating it. The truth is global food production far exceeds global human reproduction.
hairymarx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hairymarx Bullshit. If you don't think the world is overpopulated,
then you have ZERO - and I mean ZERO - right to demand that everybody magically get a job in order to be given a house, privacy, clean water, utilities. It is practically impossible to demand this unnecessary bullshit that everybody find a job on their own, but it is 100% certain that they WILL have needs which must be met: so you pronatatlists have better provide for everyone.
mphello 1 month ago