Sustainability 101: Exponential Growth - Arithmetic, Population and Energy (Full - Updated)

[hitssquad]

18:30 "you couldn't put the population of Los Angeles in the Boulder valley."

Why not? Boulder has a dry land area of 63.1 million square meters. Los Angeles has a population of only 3.8 million which works out to 16.6 square meters per person -- or 166 square meters at an average height of 10 stories, or 1,660 square meters at an average height of 100 stories.

What's so impossible about that?

[Kerolden]

@hitssquad and how sustainable a circumstance is that when take into account road systems,waste disposal,water demands,sustainable air quality.the environment of the boulder valley cannot support a population the size of los angeles,in fact the environment of los angeles can barely support the population it currently has.if you think otherwise then just research the increasing california water crisis,demand is far exceeding supply,and new infrastructure will not fix the shortage.

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "the [...] california water crisis"

As much as there is such a thing, is it caused by population or by policy?

.

"road systems"

If you reserved 10% of the 63.1 million square meters of dry land area in Boulder for roads and parks, it would make it impossible for 3.8 million people to live there? Really? Lets see: Subtracting 10% leaves us with about 57 million square meters to put people. At an average height of 10 stories, that allows 150 sqm (or 1,615 sqft) per person.

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "waste disposal"

How about putting waste in landfills?

.

"water"

How about selling it, instead of giving it away?

.

"air quality"

How about charging for air pollution?

[Kerolden]

@hitssquad your math and these ideas you put forward are arbitrary(where exactly did 10 percent come from,youre making figures up,this is not an accurate estimate of how much land would be needed for roads and parks,also the big issue of utilities(energy) has not been mentioned,which is a huge resource and land hog).these dont resolve the basic requirement of sustainability.arable land is certainly a natural resource,that statement is nonsense.

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "where exactly did 10 percent come from"

Here: juliansimon. com/writings/Articles/LEBATLAN­. txt

I'd thought he'd said 10. It was actually 20: "even leaving 20% of the land area for streets, parks, and buildings other than housing."

.

"utilities(energy) [...] is a huge resource and land hog)"

You want energy utilities that serve Boulder to move *into* Boulder? Why? You're saying your demand is that Boulder be made into an island? What's wrong with trading beyond Boulder for energy?

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "these dont resolve the basic requirement of sustainability."

What's "sustainability"? Who's "requiring" it?

.

"arable land is certainly a natural resource"

Nope: juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource "Chapter 8 Are We Losing Ground?"

"Chapter 9 Two Bogeymen: "Urban Sprawl" and Soil Erosion"

"Chapter 10 Water, Wood, Wetlands--And What Next?"

"Chapter 29 Population Growth And Land"

[Kerolden]

@hitssquad this is what i mean when i say sustainability, wwwDOTpnasDOTorg/content/99/14­/9266DOTlong

[RayDandy]

@Kerolden the link is wrong, but i think its called "Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy"

[Kerolden]

@hitssquad the reference is garbage,no science whatsoever,not surprisingly that "research" is from an unqualified individual,he has zero education in these topics and hes from the heritage foundation,wow,what a joke.yeah i'm sure he has no bias.

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "this is what i mean when i say sustainability [pnas]"

Sustainability isn't defined there.

.

"the reference is garbage"

I didn't ask you if you thought it was garbage. You have no response to any of Julian Simon's logic or facts? You have no response to any of mine, nor to any of my questions?

[Kerolden]

@hitssquad and its need to be underscored that it is not simply about shoving people into a patch of land,there is the complexity of keeping that society running by the habitability and usability of that particular environment,many of these areas dont even produce their own food(no arable land available) and various other necessities,they're imported,what would occur in such areas with failing economies that could not afford to import,they would have no other option but to move,which increases

[Kerolden]

@Kerolden the strain on other places.

[hitssquad]

@Kerolden "many of these areas dont even produce their own food(no arable land available)"

Arable land isn't a natural resource. It's always been manufactured by people. If people aren't producing any arable land in a given area, it's because it's cheaper to import things that would otherwise be produced on that arable land. Is it shocking that there are cities in the world that don't produce their own cars or pencils? Do you yourself produce everything you use? What's wrong with trading?

[christo930]

Why doesn't this work when the growth rate is 70%? If I had $10 and I got a 70% return, my compound interest wouldn't be doubling every year. 10,17,28.9 (at this point I should have 40)49.13 (at this point I should have 80)83.521(160) and so on.

[christo930]

@christo930 He is absolutely wrong when he says the the birth rate and death rate are going to meet at equilibrium. What is actually going to happen, since we are passed sustainable population, is that the death rate will outstrip the birthrate until our numbers meet at the earth's natural carrying capacity, or there will be a catastrophic drop through disease war famine etc.

[hitssquad]

@christo930 "Why doesn't this work when the growth rate is 70%?"

...Because "if r is small, then ln(1 + r) approximately equals r". Conversely, if r is large, then ln(1 + r) won't approximately equal r, and we will therefore have to use the full formula shown here: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Rule_of_72#Derivation

[christo930]

@hitssquad It's been too many years since I learned this stuff:) But thanks for the reply, I'll check it out.

[phillips78]

Keep going Dr Bartlett, you are brilliant! There is more on this topic at "overconsumpulation" and "one planet, one child".

[glorp896]

as to Pilzer's book: technology, which, it is assumed, creates wealth without limit by a process revealingly labeled "economic alchemy" propounds a gospel of no limits for all... just how many can we have as ALL?... if u don't like this guy in this video, or his arch-nemesis Paul Zane Biliionaire, u can use this utube video as a response:

"May God Have Mercy On Your Soul"

as to the other Paul of the Ehrlich type:

"The Population Explosion", his 1990 book, but he did write more recent books

[glorp896]

"God Wants You to Be Rich: How and Why Everyone Can Enjoy Material and Spiritual Wealth in Our Abundant World"

by PAUL ZANE PILZER

well, if a god doesn't save us i hope at least paul can, but i prefer the clarion call and message of PAUL EHRLICH, if only to prepare for the worst and know hope for the best is folly...

[glorp896]

:25 Einstein called this the EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD, he was referring to doubling times compounded as to interest/dividends as one example... The RULE OF 72 applies to this econo-math and can be used to calculate doubling times and inflation's effect on money's worth - so at 1:47 i'm surprised he uses THE RULE OF 70? Why not RULE OF 71? actually he is a bit WRONG, or i should say accurate enough? 69 is actually better for lower rates - 72 is really a convenience for easy fraction math...