LOL all he has is a bunch of drawings haha, not even a single test city. Tell him to show you "a building erected in front of your eyes without a human working on it". Who believes this garbage!
And this doesn't look like discovery, where is the logo?
@tjohn1986 That technology is already done you retard. Why don't you get educated on the state of technology instead of mouthing off you little fuck. I don't expect anymore though from a soldier like yourself, a killing machine, with nothing in his head but child porn and economics. Both of which he is neither good at. It is cost effectiveness that is why they are not utilising them in industry. Still cheap to employ dumbasses like you, bricklayers and the lot. Hope you die in a war by da way
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER LOL. Do you even know what drives technology? It's profit motive.
Oh so there exists technology than can build a house for 7 billion people and provide a comfortable living for everyone without anyone having to work? Makes sense! LOL. Wow you Zeitards are fun! Hey let's all go live in circle cities while the robots do all the work haha
@tjohn1986 Profit motive has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia, Open Office, all without profit and are successful. Did the Wright Brothers do what they did for profit? LMAO!!!!!
The world's population would drop dramatically when EVERYONE lives a high standard of living. All the countries having more babies are those in poor countries. FACT. And yes, people don't need to work when technology does the work. Do YOU work by walking to work? No you take a car (technology), you're so stupid.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER #FAIL Wright brothers had dozens of patents that they sold for money. Haha idiot!
High standard of living doesn't drop from the sky dumb shit.
Haha I still have to drive my car dumb shit. And it didn't just pop out of thin air. It had to be assembled, planned and build. And people build it to make money. Fuck off you retard!
@tjohn1986 You mind showing us these "dozens of patents"? Lmao. New research shows that innovation is separate from monetary gains and is more to do with people's intrinsic motivation, desire to have autonomy. Wikipedia, Open Office, Linux, all things people do without profit. Good game idiot.
High standard of living doesn't drop out of sky. Smartest thing you've said yet. No one is saying it does.
@tjohn1986 Stop using your car since you hate technology so much but enjoy using the fruits of it. It was assembled, and built by machines 97% of the time. Good game again loser. You can fuck off in a cave now and stop using technology.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Haha I love technology and I love capitalism that has produced it. You're the retard who hates money and profits. Hahahahaha what a retard!
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Haha u mad retard? You have been thoroughly owned. Yeah Apple made that iphone for you b/c they love you so much and not for profit. Haha RETARD!
@tjohn1986 Lol, the profit motive you love to jack off to is an illusion. Anyone would develop that sort of technology out of desires and interests more than any sort of monetary gain, something you have a hard time grasping.
@hybrid212 fresco is satanic because he try to disolve the religious of the earth...the bible says: who is not with me (GOD) is against to me!!! jaque mate!!!
@TheJoaquinsabina That is not true, Fresco tries to unify the world, including all churches for one common goal - to live in the brotherhood of man. Is that deviating teachings of any religion/church? I think not. I'm a Christian and I found more sense in his work than in any other book or church. I repeat - he is not attacking anyone's beliefs, he actually said that in the future there will be churches, but without "Jesus needs your money". What do you think God is? He doesn't need any money
Artist-geniuses and talented-visionaries of the future often strive toward utopian environments. No anger, no frustration, no hate, no war, etc.
Just Peace and Harmony of mind and soul; as if, humanity has been emotionally purged and psychosocially perfected to function in an extraordinary universal way.
Jacque Fresco speaks of an initial inspiration in youth as involving a round mechanical "Gear."
The New Jerusalem (Jeru-Salem) is a religious archetype of bliss and joy in a spectacular city.
With mental vision, all things are possible, even 2.2 million mile diameter "earth rings which take 24 hours to spin just once... well, that's what happens after the land and sea accomodates close to a trillion people... Easily possible with a combined social commitment to not become slaves after the monetary systems collapse.
First, we need to build robotic solar dish and battery factories such as to covert JUST 1% of the landspace...
As far as oil is concerned, there are TONS of available energy... geothermal, wind, solar, wave... the list just goes on and on... but in our monetary society, nobody can capitalize on it with the major oil companies running the show.
Egyptianlily- All those problems you suggested are very real... but Jaque has answers for ALL of them, i promise. I've visited him twice in his Venus, FL home and he answers ALL those questions. Hurricanes are dealt with by buildings that look like upside down funnels. This way, the wind swirls around the structure without ever being able to take the roof off, etc... Also, every one of Fresco's ideas is environmentally friendly. He always takes into account the sanctity of animal and plant life.
so instead of trying to control the population, we just encourage it and live on the water? That to me is foolish. I can see so many problems with building on the sea, possible damage to aquatic life, such as coral, and what do those ships use to transport the people and structures, most likely oil, unless we develop a bio-oil that is safe. And what about waste? Weather such as hurricanes or storms could do damage to the structures.
@egyptianlily Fuels derived from hemp. Ionized propelled vehicles. Also there are already cities in the sea (Oil rigs) . Building other cities with a circular structure would strengthen the building as well. Plus you build to were you actually protect and invigorate sea life. As far as waste goes. Everything can be made to be biodegradable and we use that waste for soil. After a couple hundred years we turn to space exploration and colonize other moons and planets. Don't be so negative.
@CedWii360 Hey, no im not trying to be all negative, i am going into environmental science and love this stuff, but i am just bringing up my own concerns seen from this video. And i wouldn't really be comparing oil rigs to what this guy is proposing as oil rigs, as seen from the gulf oil disaster, are not quite as ecologically friendly. Yes many people live on them, but they are still at risk for hurricanes, especially on the Atlantic coasts.
@CedWii360 And to colonize other planets that are somewhat hospitable for humans, is next to impossible unless we develop a way to travel through space at an outrageous speed. As many of the planets astronomers have found are millions of light years away. I understand the importance of finding alternative fuels, and finding ways to adequately use our resources, but in order to make the best options available, you need to analyze them to the nth degree to find loopholes and problems in the theory
Yeah right. Building cities on the water would be a lot more practical that building them on land. Oh right, he said if the population got so big there was no more land available. So why are robots doing everything? Can't find anyone will ing to work.
I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this.. i would contribute every bit of it i can, and live in it after. once it gets global attention, i think we'd be set. you can't express this idea in words and expect people to burst from the ignorant bubble society has brainwashed them to live in, you HAVE to actually bring it to life to convey a legitimate message across.
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
**Communes** already exist.
Interesting subject! -
The problem is,
a small commune has inferior knowledge, specialization,resources and hence can't deliver the same high-tech way of life people are used to in the globalized,industrialized,fossil-fueled world. Show spoiled people a *socially sound* Commune living *primitive* lifestyle, its not really inspiring.
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
- Another test case is Linux - many open source advocates, but show the vast majority of people Windows, Mac, Linux and they will go for the proprietary OS with commercial support. Linux requires harder work on the part of peers supporting eachother.
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
so, a small town using VP social principles CAN'T produce microprocessors etc.. it must barter its vegtables etc with the outside world to get them. So people look at it and dismiss it.
This is why the most extreme Venus Project supporters claim that the Venus Project must be instigated WORLDWIDE or not at all. .. similarly, getting 6billion to agree on unproven system is mad
The truth is that a town COULD do it.. there is no logical to technical reason that precludes it. Merely will to do so.
The fictional concept of money and the bizarre fantasy of economies is what prevents people from trying this until some point in the future when it might be needed. Shame. FYI there are examples of systems even today in the world that work on gift economies - the world science for example.
Interested in ideas? Visit defiant idealist dot com.
i'd like to beleive you, but REALLY? at what technology level ? at what carrying capacity, relative to the outside?
My guess is that town could be self-sufficient with ecofriendly farming etc but at a population density that would support 500million worldwide.
The 'fantasy of economies' is reality of fossil-fuel inputs manifest in ability to barter local produce for cheap industrial grain etc etc, sadly billions need it to live
@walter0bz - the short answer is that we have all the knowledge and technology necessary to live comfortably in a sustainable manner now. We can generate energy, we can produce food and recycle waste in de-cetralised models that are not reliant upon current un-sustainable, mass-agri-business, centralised infrastructure and markets. The reality now is set up to maximise the efficiency for a fictional economic market, not the most efficient and sustainable regarding actual resources. More on blog
ok, interesting blog but once again, what Carrying Capacity would you get this way. How many people can each town, country, continent, or whole world support this way compared to at present. I am a firm believer in the Malthusian Peak Oil idea: we have used fossil-fuels to multiply beyond carrying capacity (by using energy to amplify crop-yields, 'terraform' inhospitable areas, etc...) - when the oil runs out there will be a population crash - we are past point of no return
@walter0bz I heard a statistic that in 2007, the worldwide food production was about 8.5 trillion kilograms. Do the math. That is enough food to feed the entire world ten times over, and that is in our current system. Who knows what our planet could support in a R.B.E. Visit this website: overpopulationisamyth[dot]com
>>. That is enough food to feed the entire world ten times over,
But thats with fossil-fuels, where you have millions of years of stored energy (ancient biomass) to burn through. Modern industry allows humans to multiply using this stored oil energy.
WIth *renewables* you are back to harnessing solar via plants to feed people. Agricultural yields will be far lower.
If you consider Food and Energy as being interchangeable, it should be clear plants(solar) can't match fossil.
[1] its' religious propoganda. These groups fear christian/westerners being out-bred by other faster-breeding groups.
[2] Its' also 'existing-system' propoganda, i.e. without future Taxpayers governments will collapse, without future Debt-Slaves, banking will collapse.
These existing ponzi-schemes require continual growth, impossible on our finite planet (ok until fossil-fuels run out)
@walter0bz As to overpopulationisamyth[dot]com, I only found that website after a search on Google. I thought it made some good points and some not so good points. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
I am utterly at loggerheads with the P.O.V. Like VP followers, (and even hardline free-market beleivers), they refuse to acknowledge the role fossil-fuel energy (not technology) has in amplifying humans (check the graph, if you like 'science', 'maths')
If it was 'technology', well.. our systems are no way near as sophisticated as nature.
@walter0bz Look, I'm not saying fossil-fuel has not played a significant role in the evolution of our species! I'd have to be a total dumbass to say that. I'm saying that we don't NEED fossil fuel to continue this progress. There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. Are you being so willfully ignorant that you think fossil fuel is the end-all and be-all in our progress? Are you stuck in the oil drum of your mind?
>>" There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. "
- I dont doubt tech will progrss & there will be amazing solar-powered achievements.
But: these will be scarce luxuries, not abundant.
fuel cells and solar panels require scarce elements (platinum,silver..).
Solar using abundant recycling? nature already figured out.. PLANTS!!!!!! you think you can improve on that?! Learn how a computer works, and learn how a Plant works.. compare the engineering complexity....
>>There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. "
- the key thing about fossil vs solar= Energy Density: because fossil is SO energy dense, you can keep a car outside your flat. human pop density goes thru roof. Solar on the other hand requires each person to have a large area to harness... just like having a plot of land to grow your own food, or to grow food for your own horse.
Solar won't make you any free-er than you were with horses in roman times. LAND=power.
@walter0bz Did I mention solar at all? No I did not. Is solar the only alternative? No it is not. Come on man. The context of your thinking is shit. There are hydroelectric dams, nuclear fusion which isn't far off, geothermal energy (harvesting Mt Aloha in Hawaii is enough to power the ENTIRE WORLD), wirelessly transmitted solar energy from space, the list goes on and on. Let me say this again. WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS.
@walter0bz It's better than oil because it doesn't pollute and we will have it much longer. It IS transportable. Ever heard of this invention called a "battery".
>> Ever heard of this invention called a "battery".
yes, and fuel cells... but Nature has done the R&D. the best way to store energy (abundantly) in the biosphere is hydrocarbons. (fats, oils). this method uses the most abundant elements.
>>It's better than oil because it doesn't pollute
- note, i'm not a "fossil-fuel apologist" - I just understand we can't exist without them. I recommend we cease breeding as a solution. (VHEMT has the answer).
>>"Let me say this again. WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS."
- you have a mis-conception, an exaggerate hope.. that "new tech" will save you.
I am trying to tell you the biosphere is already full of hugely sophisticated "Tech" i.e. plants and animals that are all renewably powered, yes, even using Geothermal (chemosynthesizer bacteria in hydrothermal vents).
You have expectation of "tech" based on the power of fossil fuels.. but our machines are very clumsy.
@walter0bz >>you have a mis-conception, an exaggerate hope.. that "new tech" will save you.<<
What do those life forms have anything to do with what we are talking about? If anything, they only support what I'm saying, that such energy sources are viable, practical alternatives. If life-forms having to adapt to those things can harness it, surely technology can be much more effective.
>>"If life-forms having to adapt to those things can harness it, surely technology can be much more effective."
no you're still missing the point.
You want technology to help humans harness those sources.
I'm saying other organisms are "better adapted" because they have support "built in".
human technology was usefull for the ecological niche of "fossil-fuels". But from Gaia's perspective, humans are a disaster like a super-volcano, a cancer causing mass extinctions..
>>"There are ... wirelessly transmitted solar energy from space"
[1] really? where?
[2] if we start focussing more of the sun's energy on earth from the rest of space, wont that cause CLIMATE CHANGE?
i'm all for offworld solar if it can be done but dont count on it to save us.. better as fuel for offworld humans if we realize star-trek fantasies . what are the odds we'll see permanent offworld settlement in our lifetime?
@walter0bz It's also worth mentioning that today's solar cells are only able to convert less than 15% of the sun's energy into electricity. Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs. So, even though it is not very good today, it will be much more practical soon. That is, assuming the profit motive doesn't stifle it to keep the oil industry dominant and make people think it's the only option, which you seem to have so ignorantly bought in to.
>>"Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs."
- can you make plants grow more food, using these alternative energies. Because thats what we are already used to with Petrochemical fertilizer: additional ENERGY input into the plants, by giving them more food.
or did plants already figure it out how to convert sunlight into food? Aren't humans just plant-parasites?
in Gaia theory you can't view any creature in isolation. you want to 'geoengineer'?
>>"That is, assuming the profit motive doesn't stifle it to keep the oil industry dominant and make people think it's the only option, which you seem to have so ignorantly bought in to."
- No.
you haven't understood my POV.
we chose oil, above other alternatives. why? why did people pick petrol cars instead of horses or electric ones? why did other manufacturers choose to start using oil instead of continuing with their WINDMILLS, or building Solar concentrator steam?
@walter0bz >>why did people pick petrol cars instead of horses or electric ones? why did other manufacturers choose to start using oil instead of continuing with their WINDMILLS, or building Solar concentrator steam?<<
Back then, oil was the most efficient method. This isn't the early 1900s anymore.
>>"Back then, oil was the most efficient method. "
no. it was the most ABUNDANT method. I'm still not getting through.
Imagine if you discovered a battery that had been left charging for millions of years. Then you'd use electric :)
as it happened, we found biomass that had been accumulating for millions of years, so we made devices to use that. Hence the entire "industrial age", past 200 yrs "progress" (i.e. dead end)
>>"Back then, oil was the most efficient method. This isn't the early 1900s anymore."
the freemarket beleivers also have false hope for electric cars, they say the market will cause subsitution.. no need to switch yet because oil is 'cheap'. But I understand it as "oil is abundant, electric car tech scarce". When oil becomes Scarce, elec cars will still be Scarce. (even if they're 'cheaper than oil' in future).
Anyway CARS are the least of our worries, by a LONG way...
@walter0bz >>i dont think its the only option. but i know why we use it.<<
I know why we use it too. It's been the most efficient for a long time now, and we've gotten attached to it, so what is your point? You say that you don't think it's the only option, then from the looks of all your long-winding arguments it seems you do think it's the only option. You make no sense.
>>"Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs. "
- NO NO NO you cannot just take tech out of the lab and deploy it. modern civilization relies on much refinement, and lab experiments prove concepts in isolation. Like "intels 80 core chip". Doesn't run existing software, thats taken decades to develop...
Whats stopping you developing these magic solar panels YOURSELF, as OpenSource?
@walter0bz The Venus Project proposes continuing our innovation of agriculture WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT WE DON'T NEED THEM.
we have all these technologies available now. wind, PV cells, solar concentrators. many types of energy - but together they don't match what we get from fossil-fuels. we could always choose what energy to use... our parents and grandparents unknowingly over-bred us into a dead-end. e.g. peeps live in areas that are too cold, enabled by fossil-fuel. too dry, enabled by fossil fuel.
@walter0bz ""Where does it show we don't need them?"" Dude, just research it for yourself. Jacque Fresco gives many talks about how there are many ways to innovate energy production to be just as efficient or more efficient than fossil fuels. In his interview with Larry King, he mentioned that harnessing the geothermal energy from Mt Aloha in Hawaii would give enough energy to power the entire world, and there are 100s of sites such energy could be harvested from.
>>" Dude, just research it for yourself. Jacque Fresco gives many talks about how there are many ways to "
- i have seen the VP material. he lists many different types of energy. he gives the RAW stats about how much energy comes in.
but you guys claim profit prevents us exploiting solar. I dont agree. you could sell solar panels until every desert was covered, or until you'd built a Dyson Sphere.
"money stiffles solar" because it calculates that oil is 'better' energy source .
@walter0bz >>but you guys claim profit prevents us exploiting solar. I dont agree. you could sell solar panels until every desert was covered, or until you'd built a Dyson Sphere.<<
Bullshit. Who is going to buy all these solar panels? No one, because that would be TOO EXPENSIVE. People will only invest in what gets them what they want saving the most money. That is how the profit motive works.
@walter0bz >>engineering involves trial and ERROR.. you can't just throw stats around in isolation. There are many practical problems with any scheme.<<
Okay, so what? Of course every engineering endeavor involves trial and error. Therefore geothermal energy is not a viable alternative? What is your point?
>>" with Larry King, he mentioned that harnessing the geothermal energy from Mt Aloha in Hawaii "
WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE? how many engineering problems will it throw up.
You could build oil-factories around the volcano, to use all our existing infrastructure (e.g. geothermal grow lights to power algae). If it made more energy than it took to build the factory, it would be profitable.
@walter0bz >>How would a Geothermal plant be any more socially liberating than an oil-rig? its still 'a hole, some machinery, and some energy comes out'.<<
It would be more liberating because it is a clean source of energy and there is a lot of it.
>>"It would be more liberating because it is a clean source of energy and there is a lot of it."
but thats what they thought when they got oil.
Horses were only available to people who had enough grass. then they invented cars, which were socially liberating in that landless people could use them. but they went on to breed offspring that were dependent and hence slaves to those owning the tech that powered them...
you think Geothermal would pan out any differently?
the raw stats of how much energy comes in are meaningless, because human life & machines need a certain balance of conditiions. Plenty of energy on venus .. or in the sahara :)
Infact you could personally go and move to the sahara and build improvized solar concentrators there ... let me know how you get on. Really what is stopping a group of venus project fans getting together to do that?
Could it be that ALL MODERN TECH REQUIRES FOSSIL FUEL FOR ITS MANUFACTURE???
renewables are only viable if they can 'power their own constrution' just like plants do. (solar-powered-solar-panel factory)
Go back in time armed with modern knowledge (books, even ipods with PDF's..). Start with a Windmill, a Waterwheel, even trash from the modern age... let me know how much "technology" you can build, from scratch, WITH NO FOSSIL FUEL INPUTS. no coal to smelt metals. no oil for plastics. "you can use starch!!" SHOW me, dont tell me... how practical is that?
@walter0bz >>renewables are only viable if they can 'power their own constrution' just like plants do. (solar-powered-solar-panel factory)<<
Bullshit. How can we ever harness new energy if we have to use that energy to harness it? You are creating a pointless conundrum. What rule says we can't use oil powered machines to build, say, a geothermal plant? We have to use what we have, then we can be done with it. Again, you make no sense.
for sustainability, NO MINING IS ALLOWED. (even geothermal, you have to use it at the speed it naturally diffuses out e.g . hotsprings, the earth needs that heat to power the van-alan belt so please dont deplete it...)
You can only recycle materials available on the surface, just like the biosphere does. Whats stopping you & a group of VP fans visiting local scrapyard and getting going building all this 'abundance' yourself ?? I've seen improvized solar-concentrators on youtube.
@walter0bz >>for sustainability, NO MINING IS ALLOWED. (even geothermal, you have to use it at the speed it naturally diffuses out e.g . hotsprings, the earth needs that heat to power the van-alan belt so please dont deplete it...)<<
This is ridiculous. You have any idea how much energy we would have to deplete to even dent the van alan belt? That's not gonna happen.
VP makes valid observations i.e. most humans are 'debt-slaves'. if you could share the resources, perhaps we'd on average be better off, i.e. everyone gets current Chinese quality of life (2.1ha/person)
westerners downgraded form current 5-10ha/person, africans & indians upgraded from current 1hectare per person.
but VP is populism, "telling you what you want to hear".
Reality is not ABUNDANT.
it is FINITE.
renewables don't "run out" .. but compared to FF's they will be SCARCE
i wish it was true but it isn't. I grew up wanting star-trek scifi future for sure.
I understand how energy and technology work. We have had a ~200 year 'splurging' period of overabundance, and regardless of our peak knowledge & tech, most humans are in for hell when the fossil-fuel runs out. In the future, only a small elite will keep modern tech. most survivors will like like cavemen or middle-ages if they're lucky. Most humans simply won't even survive.
@walter0bz ""In the future, only a small elite will keep modern tech. most survivors will like like cavemen or middle-ages if they're lucky. Most humans simply won't even survive."" Forgive me for thinking that you're not as smart and knowledgeable as you say you are to take your prediction seriously.
>>" Forgive me for thinking that you're not as smart and knowledgeable as you say you are to take your prediction seriously."
- well, do a practice run - SHOW ME how long you can survive without fossil-fuels. maybe make a youtube video and post it. "day 1.. day 2...". (i'll let you use a fossil-fueled video recorder).
because where i'm sat, empirical evidence and reason states we can't survive without fossil-fuels. (yes, i'm fatalistic about where civ is going)
@walter0bz >>SHOW ME how long you can survive without fossil-fuels. <<
You're missing the point, which is that the WORLD is capable of getting away from fossil fuels and still retaining efficiency. I've already given many ways it can be done, as well as Jacque Fresco. Now you're just in denial. I alone can't stop relying on fossil fuels when the rest of the world is.
failed states/oppressive states (e.g. north korea) are result of losing fossil-fuels
(e.g. NK isolated post soviet collapse?). They're smart,but if they can't generate abundance with local resources when cut off from fossil-fueled global industry, what makes you think YOU can?
without fossil fuels you are back to what falls out of the sky. If you think solar is so good, go move to Africa and enjoy all the abundance on the edge of the sahara! LMAO post a video of your experiences!
@walter0bz You also say that eventually the resources of this world will fall into the hands of an elite group and many will be left with nothing and even starve. I don't know what world YOU live in, but that is the way things are now.
>>" I don't know what world YOU live in, but that is the way things are now."
- I think we'll starve because there wont be enough to go round. (competition means elite emerge)
- resources aren't equally distributed.. they never can be, so long as we're trying to catchup with population growth ... we can outbreed any tech. If you could feed 4 kids, there would be people wanting 5... This is how evolution worked. see 'octopi' for extreme example (1000 offspring, 0.1% survive)
you'd think we're smarter than bacteria, but facts would indicate otherwise. Since the industrial revolution we have multiplied like a plague, exterminating other species.... destroying forests to replace them with farms and concrete cities to house & feed ever rising human population.
>>"many will be left with nothing and even starve. "
Why are we currently multiplying SO fast ?
1900 - 1.5billion; mid century - 2.5billion; 2000- 6billion .. set to pass 7billion. 3X peeps in one lifespan! More people are being SAVED than STARVED. (due to fossil-fuels). The "Global Elite" are the ones running the trade&industry that allows this massive abundance. soon coming to end. we're like 'bacteria in a petri dish'.
@walter0bz We have been currently multiplying so fast because the impact fossil fuel has had on the efficiency of our agriculture. You have repeated that I've lost count how many times, and I've already stated more than once that I'm aware of this fact and I agree with you on that. However, whether you like it or not, there are alternatives to fossil fuel that can help us continue this efficiency and we can even become a healing part of the planet improving nature. Sorry to break it to you. :)
@walter0bz {{s- we already had wind powered trade & agri assistance (water wheels, sailing ships, windmills)
- we already use geothermal. (eg. in iceland).
- should be obvious that solar can't accelerate plant growth when plants are already superior solar machines..}}
We don't use any of those things compared to the amount we use fossil fuel. If we did, we wouldn't need fossil fuel nearly as much or not at all. We don't use them because there is no easy money in it.
>>"We don't use any of those things compared to the amount we use fossil fuel. "
- yes, now you're getting it. we dont use them as much as fossil fuel because, they're PATHETIC by comparison.
>>"We don't use them because there is no easy money in it."
WRONG.
oil is only money for Oil-man. for everyone else, there is strong incentive to find alternative. If you have no oil, its an Expense not an income... monetary incentive is to minimize consumption of things you dont own
>>"They're pathetic now, but only because we're not massively using them. Geothermal would be great if we started using it more."
whats harder to build- a Windmill, or an Offshore Drilling rig?
There are youtube vids of DIY solar concentrators. Its' C19th tech. They didn't take off because they dont match oil.
Forget cars - we can already move between cities using electric trains, trams+bikes in cities. (moreso in europe). not a matter of tech, rather abundance/scarcity
why would you expect input from sunlight would match a resource that took millions of years to accumulate ?
the case for peak oil is blindingly obvious when you see the process. daily trickle of sunlight (which plants allready use) versus millions of years of stored energy..
its no ones' fault really, our parents, our grandparents.. when they started using oil, how could they know - it would create billions of extra people who would one day suffer its loss. The uses were added one at a time. at the outset, depletion wasn't a problem. And those who prefer to multiply always end up in the majority.
-Will VP world appease meat eaters or vegetarians & animal rights types who think we shouldn't keep any captive animals ? Do you really think both groups will *agree*?
@walter0bz {{Will VP world appease meat eaters or vegetarians & animal rights types who think we shouldn't keep any captive animals ? Do you really think both groups will *agree*?}}
Who says they have to agree? If someone doesn't want to eat meat, they don't have to. They have no right to impose that value on others. Besides, no one really consumes as much meat as they do plants anyways.
>>"Besides, no one really consumes as much meat as they do plants anyways."
- will you make meat abundant? earth might support some multiple more vegetarians, so one mans abundance is anothers' scarcity.
Also, animal rights peeps claim we dont have a right to farm animals at all.. (abundance for us is cruelty for them). note I'm not strongly opinionated on these issues just stating observations on others.
@walter0bz Fortunately we have begun to develop nanotechnology. The scientists in this field have made the claim that within a decade or so, we will be able to grow meat in vats. And I'm sure that we could accelerate the time line if we put our resources behind it. I like meat, and feel the proteins provided by meats are good for us, and possibly needed. I understand the angst of animal rights types, we do terrible things to animals. There has to be a technological solution of some sort.
Do not confuse the miracles of "technology" with the brute force energy glut Fossil-Fuels gave us (millions of years of stored solar burned in 200 years).
Ants already have NanoTechnology to process food - namely symbiotic fungus.
I'm sure the work being done is very ingenious, but we are already surrounded by vastly superior renewably powered systems (eg 'plants'). Human brain does things computers can't on 20 watts.
@herpiethelovebug - humans 'cheat' using fuel to accelerate digestion - enabling us to consume food we're unevolved for. Was ok in moderation (i.e. using scraps of deadwood as fuel), but when we started using fossil-fuels for cooking (& everything else, e.g. heating to live where it is too cold), we were "living beyond our means" - drawing down the earth to multiply unsustainably. you dont want to hear it - you're like an algae bloom, or bacteria in petri dish , or reindeer on st mathews island.
@walter0bz LOL You don't have to tell me I'm just a critter. I know it, which is one reason I support the VP. Think of it like a really cool hamster cage, for humans :) I had heard, don't know if its true, that our brains evolved in part because we became meat eaters. The extra protein and whatnot.
@herpiethelovebug - ' brains/meat eater' - yes I beleive this theory. and cooking further reduces the amount of energy we need to divert to digestion. (i.e. freed up that energy for brains).
but brains are like "software" wheras evolved biology is like "hardware". I beleive much of the biosphere is way more effieicnt than human tech, its just with resource excess (fossil fuel) it can look temporarily usefull. eg Geothermal energy? chemosynth bacteria already use it better than we ever could...
the monetary sys doesn't cause scarcity: it requires more loans being taken out, continuous activity. fiat/debt bubble tracked growing abundance from oil turned into human value.
if we could expand through new energy sources (fusion , space, solar, geothermal)..or find new efficiencies.. the monetary system would continue just fine.
its breaking down because the energy that fueled it is expiring.
@walter0bz {{its breaking down because the energy that fueled it is expiring.}}
Yeah no shit. That's why we need to get out of fossil fuel and use alternatives more than we are using now such as geothermal, more efficient solar (>40% energy conversion), heck even ethanol. Those are just known alternatives now. Surely more will be discovered.
- possibly, but its wishfull thinking. can't just assume.
>>" use alternatives more than we are using now such as geothermal, "
- why did icelanders ever bother importing oil? icelanders are incentivized to export their geothermal energy just as much as saudis' want to export oil. we'd be using it... if it was viable. didn't romans use hot-springs already ?
I Agree we DO need to develop alternatives - just dont expect they can save everyone.
>>" therefore if we abandon their use we will become a totalitarian regime like them."
elsewhere on YT i encounter peeps who think the social system causes abundance or scarcity. My assertion is the opposite. social systems are emergent, dictated by resources & tech.
e.g. prior to Oil age, we had feudal land-ownership social system. (we might revert to that in Solar age). Did Oil allow international banking to grow because it made energy so mobile? (trucks/ships/aeroplanes)
@walter0bz >>elsewhere on YT i encounter peeps who think the social system causes abundance or scarcity. My assertion is the opposite.<<
In that case, I fundamentally disagree with everything you say because that premise doesn't seem to make any sense. Again, back to that statistic I showed you about the amount of food the world produces. Despite that abundance, many people still starve to death. That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect. There is no arguing otherwise.
>>" Despite that abundance, many people still starve to death. That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect. There is no arguing otherwise."
- People continuously starved to death throughout history.
- world population was in the range 200-500m throughout history.
- then Fossil-Fuels created abundance that fed an extra 6 billion people.
- rise peaked at 3X per lifetime!
- we can out-breed any tech which is why people starve.
>>That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect.
Millions do starve.
but fossil fuels fed BILLIONS.
and sadly, when fossil fuels run out, yes the extra BILLIONS WILL STARVE. Sorry to break it to you!
It only takes 3 babies per woman for population to double in 40 years. Some have 7!!!!.
Human instincts are designed for 50% mortality... each woman produced 4kids stable pop, half die, routinely. .. Fossil fuels allowed us to feed more hence population explosion.
You haven broken anything to me. So far you have only made predictions on the future based on the assumption that past trends will remain the same. That's poor deduction, I'm sorry to break it to you. :)
-- we can out-breed any tech which is why people starve. --
Bullshit. People starve because they lack purchasing power to acquire food. Again, this planet produces enough food to feed everyone very well. Don't tell me there isn't enough NOW.
@walter0bz {{some say we shouldn't have milk. for me a good diet would be plenty of fish & chicken. Others want to be vegetarian.}}
You're twisting what I'm saying into something irrelevant again. What does dieting have anything to do with the food supply? If one doesn't want to eat wheat, dairy, and/or meat they don't have to. Heck, that leaves more for everyone else. What are you trying to prove?
>>"People starve because they lack purchasing power to acquire food. "
this fact is contrary to the hard documented evidence of rapid Population Growth.
People starve because they breed faster than the resources/efficiency increase. (measured by purchasing power)
(some would point out this struggle is exactly what causes evolution, i would argue we should use our brains to plan ahead.. leave overbreeding to species without our complex brains).
-there will never be enough when a woman can produce as many as 7 babies.
we got here through evolution, & this is driven by birthing more creatures than there is food for, & 'survival of the fittest'. least fit get eaten. Ones that dont had adaptation. That's what we're hard wired for, instinctively.
So we need *rationing* if we want to avoid "dog-eat-dog" world.
I see no admission of this in VP, only promises of "Abundance !!"
@walter0bz {{So we need *rationing* if we want to avoid "dog-eat-dog" world.}}
Now you're starting to sound like the whose solutions are going to lead to a North Korean type regime.
{{I see no admission of this in VP, only promises of "Abundance !!"}}
Then you don't do your research very well. Whenever Jacque Fresco talks about a resource-based economy, he always mentions "the carrying capacity of the planet."
@walter0bz {{we got here through evolution, & this is driven by birthing more creatures than there is food for, & 'survival of the fittest'. least fit get eaten. Ones that dont had adaptation. That's what we're hard wired for, instinctively.}}
It sounds to me like your comparing humans to wild animals. Evolution is contingent upon how a species copes with their environment. Since we humans innovate our environment as opposed to wild animals who just react to it, that comparison is invalid.
@Nathan173AB >>"Since we humans innovate our environment as opposed to wild animals who just react to it, that comparison is invalid."
- right up until WW1 -ww2 continuous warfare between states to balance upward population pressure was considered natural. we paused killing eachother when we had fossil-fuel to expand into.
>> Since we humans innovate our environment
- we're still subject to natures laws. granted, preindustrial agri=sustainable enviro manipulation but there was war for land
@walter0bz {{right up until WW1 -ww2 continuous warfare between states to balance upward population pressure was considered natural. we paused killing eachother when we had fossil-fuel to expand into.}}
We had been using fossil fuel for decades before those wars came around. You seriously need a history lesson. Those wars were not about population control.
All wars are about population control eventually.. they're about gaining control of land and resources. Hitler wanted russian oil fields and 'lebensraum' to multiply germans at expense of others. Energy and Food are interchangeable.
We stopped major regular wars when industrial-age weapons took off, because the economics changed. and probably because it co-incided with fossil-fuel fertilizers. Wars for food likely post peak oil
@walter0bz >>If you think solar is so good, go move to Africa and enjoy all the abundance on the edge of the sahara! LMAO post a video of your experiences!<<
I have no money, and I don't have permission to work on that land. Otherwise I would. Also, I stated earlier that I think current solar energy is crap, so why are you making up stuff about what I say? Is it so you can make sound arguments that I would agree with so you can be right? What's up?
JACQUES FRESCO=DUMBASS!
Shonenut213 1 week ago
Jaques Fresco is a fucking dumbass communist moron who never graduated high school because his nerdwad ass got raped up this ass in school restroom.
Shonenut213 1 week ago
VV you guys uhh gay?
NevSteezy 2 months ago
LOL all he has is a bunch of drawings haha, not even a single test city. Tell him to show you "a building erected in front of your eyes without a human working on it". Who believes this garbage!
And this doesn't look like discovery, where is the logo?
tjohn1986 3 months ago 3
@tjohn1986 That technology is already done you retard. Why don't you get educated on the state of technology instead of mouthing off you little fuck. I don't expect anymore though from a soldier like yourself, a killing machine, with nothing in his head but child porn and economics. Both of which he is neither good at. It is cost effectiveness that is why they are not utilising them in industry. Still cheap to employ dumbasses like you, bricklayers and the lot. Hope you die in a war by da way
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER LOL. Do you even know what drives technology? It's profit motive.
Oh so there exists technology than can build a house for 7 billion people and provide a comfortable living for everyone without anyone having to work? Makes sense! LOL. Wow you Zeitards are fun! Hey let's all go live in circle cities while the robots do all the work haha
tjohn1986 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 Profit motive has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia, Open Office, all without profit and are successful. Did the Wright Brothers do what they did for profit? LMAO!!!!!
The world's population would drop dramatically when EVERYONE lives a high standard of living. All the countries having more babies are those in poor countries. FACT. And yes, people don't need to work when technology does the work. Do YOU work by walking to work? No you take a car (technology), you're so stupid.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER #FAIL Wright brothers had dozens of patents that they sold for money. Haha idiot!
High standard of living doesn't drop from the sky dumb shit.
Haha I still have to drive my car dumb shit. And it didn't just pop out of thin air. It had to be assembled, planned and build. And people build it to make money. Fuck off you retard!
tjohn1986 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 You mind showing us these "dozens of patents"? Lmao. New research shows that innovation is separate from monetary gains and is more to do with people's intrinsic motivation, desire to have autonomy. Wikipedia, Open Office, Linux, all things people do without profit. Good game idiot.
High standard of living doesn't drop out of sky. Smartest thing you've said yet. No one is saying it does.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 Stop using your car since you hate technology so much but enjoy using the fruits of it. It was assembled, and built by machines 97% of the time. Good game again loser. You can fuck off in a cave now and stop using technology.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Haha I love technology and I love capitalism that has produced it. You're the retard who hates money and profits. Hahahahaha what a retard!
tjohn1986 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 Retard.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Haha u mad retard? You have been thoroughly owned. Yeah Apple made that iphone for you b/c they love you so much and not for profit. Haha RETARD!
tjohn1986 2 months ago
@tjohn1986 Lol, the profit motive you love to jack off to is an illusion. Anyone would develop that sort of technology out of desires and interests more than any sort of monetary gain, something you have a hard time grasping.
/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
RETARD.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 2 months ago
Jacques fresco= satan!
TheJoaquinsabina 3 months ago
@TheJoaquinsabina haha, u are uneducated
hybrid212 3 months ago
@hybrid212 and u are a satanic jaques fresco bitch!!
TheJoaquinsabina 3 months ago
@TheJoaquinsabina please, can you explain what satanic means to you?
hybrid212 3 months ago
@hybrid212 fresco is satanic because he try to disolve the religious of the earth...the bible says: who is not with me (GOD) is against to me!!! jaque mate!!!
TheJoaquinsabina 3 months ago
@TheJoaquinsabina That is not true, Fresco tries to unify the world, including all churches for one common goal - to live in the brotherhood of man. Is that deviating teachings of any religion/church? I think not. I'm a Christian and I found more sense in his work than in any other book or church. I repeat - he is not attacking anyone's beliefs, he actually said that in the future there will be churches, but without "Jesus needs your money". What do you think God is? He doesn't need any money
hybrid212 3 months ago
@hybrid212 ok like you want satan son!!
TheJoaquinsabina 3 months ago
Artist-geniuses and talented-visionaries of the future often strive toward utopian environments. No anger, no frustration, no hate, no war, etc.
Just Peace and Harmony of mind and soul; as if, humanity has been emotionally purged and psychosocially perfected to function in an extraordinary universal way.
Jacque Fresco speaks of an initial inspiration in youth as involving a round mechanical "Gear."
The New Jerusalem (Jeru-Salem) is a religious archetype of bliss and joy in a spectacular city.
spiritech999 3 months ago
so badass, this dude needs to be president haha
GrabYourKankles 3 months ago
This can work.
dedder15 4 months ago
Comment removed
rcacad 4 months ago
@rcacad I believe you mean Buckminster Fuller.
RoyalRibosome 3 months ago
With mental vision, all things are possible, even 2.2 million mile diameter "earth rings which take 24 hours to spin just once... well, that's what happens after the land and sea accomodates close to a trillion people... Easily possible with a combined social commitment to not become slaves after the monetary systems collapse.
First, we need to build robotic solar dish and battery factories such as to covert JUST 1% of the landspace...
fireofenergy 5 months ago
what an incredible visionary he is, i wish him a long life, we need more people like him.
kramnesnay 5 months ago
After the sea get's over populated then what? We have got to find a way to get into space.
u2hubbard 5 months ago
it doesnt even talk about the venus project.. like it only talks about sea cities.
runebagel 6 months ago
looks like a nightmare
jeddazenovka 6 months ago
@jeddazenovka That's because you fear change.
J95X3RNVY 5 months ago
@J95X3RNVY thats because i prefer to keep our forests and don't want to live in manmade and controlled environment
jeddazenovka 5 months ago
@jeddazenovka Nature is altered, but in the slightest way... The forests won't be effected.
J95X3RNVY 5 months ago
@J95X3RNVY Ok so you can live in the cities and i will remain in the forests!
jeddazenovka 5 months ago
@jeddazenovka Exactly!
J95X3RNVY 5 months ago
He's amazing! Wonderful beautiful mind!
InTheirImage7 6 months ago
Its Jacque Fresco, please change the comments to correctly site his name. Good video :)
therabbithole999 6 months ago 19
As far as oil is concerned, there are TONS of available energy... geothermal, wind, solar, wave... the list just goes on and on... but in our monetary society, nobody can capitalize on it with the major oil companies running the show.
ChasCase 6 months ago
Egyptianlily- All those problems you suggested are very real... but Jaque has answers for ALL of them, i promise. I've visited him twice in his Venus, FL home and he answers ALL those questions. Hurricanes are dealt with by buildings that look like upside down funnels. This way, the wind swirls around the structure without ever being able to take the roof off, etc... Also, every one of Fresco's ideas is environmentally friendly. He always takes into account the sanctity of animal and plant life.
ChasCase 6 months ago
so instead of trying to control the population, we just encourage it and live on the water? That to me is foolish. I can see so many problems with building on the sea, possible damage to aquatic life, such as coral, and what do those ships use to transport the people and structures, most likely oil, unless we develop a bio-oil that is safe. And what about waste? Weather such as hurricanes or storms could do damage to the structures.
egyptianlily 7 months ago
@egyptianlily Fuels derived from hemp. Ionized propelled vehicles. Also there are already cities in the sea (Oil rigs) . Building other cities with a circular structure would strengthen the building as well. Plus you build to were you actually protect and invigorate sea life. As far as waste goes. Everything can be made to be biodegradable and we use that waste for soil. After a couple hundred years we turn to space exploration and colonize other moons and planets. Don't be so negative.
CedWii360 6 months ago
@CedWii360 Hey, no im not trying to be all negative, i am going into environmental science and love this stuff, but i am just bringing up my own concerns seen from this video. And i wouldn't really be comparing oil rigs to what this guy is proposing as oil rigs, as seen from the gulf oil disaster, are not quite as ecologically friendly. Yes many people live on them, but they are still at risk for hurricanes, especially on the Atlantic coasts.
egyptianlily 6 months ago
@CedWii360 And to colonize other planets that are somewhat hospitable for humans, is next to impossible unless we develop a way to travel through space at an outrageous speed. As many of the planets astronomers have found are millions of light years away. I understand the importance of finding alternative fuels, and finding ways to adequately use our resources, but in order to make the best options available, you need to analyze them to the nth degree to find loopholes and problems in the theory
egyptianlily 6 months ago
great idea i love it but not in this life time
321kire 7 months ago
great ideal, but can we live up to it.
teedome3284 7 months ago
We don't need to move to the sea you morons, the world population is already leveling off. Most experts predict 10 billion people is a high estimate.
blahk04 7 months ago
@blahk04 .... then a crash to 1billion due to oil depletion and climate change.... thats 9 billion doomed people
walter0bz 7 months ago 6
@walter0bz good math!!!!!!!!
mlegere16 1 month ago in playlist Other Interviews
Watch this once: 1 am content. Watch this twice: I SUPPORT THE VENUS PROJECT!
Watch it thrice: I am going to school just for humanity!
enlighteneveryone 8 months ago
Yeah right. Building cities on the water would be a lot more practical that building them on land. Oh right, he said if the population got so big there was no more land available. So why are robots doing everything? Can't find anyone will ing to work.
This guy lives in a dream world and proud of it.
Hooverdarnit 8 months ago
Did anyone noticed that the last building looks like Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea?
rmaretic 8 months ago
damn, all this excitement of venus project, almost vomited all over my monitor. Ya, I'm so. :)
But I love the project. The people who voted negatively are IIIUMINATI.
Play671 8 months ago
I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this.. i would contribute every bit of it i can, and live in it after. once it gets global attention, i think we'd be set. you can't express this idea in words and expect people to burst from the ignorant bubble society has brainwashed them to live in, you HAVE to actually bring it to life to convey a legitimate message across.
MajorisVYCanis 9 months ago
@MajorisVYCanis -
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
**Communes** already exist.
Interesting subject! -
The problem is,
a small commune has inferior knowledge, specialization,resources and hence can't deliver the same high-tech way of life people are used to in the globalized,industrialized,fossil-fueled world. Show spoiled people a *socially sound* Commune living *primitive* lifestyle, its not really inspiring.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@MajorisVYCanis -
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
- Another test case is Linux - many open source advocates, but show the vast majority of people Windows, Mac, Linux and they will go for the proprietary OS with commercial support. Linux requires harder work on the part of peers supporting eachother.
[more]
walter0bz 8 months ago
@MajorisVYCanis -
>>"I would like to know why we haven't even tried to construct a small town focusing exactly on this"
so, a small town using VP social principles CAN'T produce microprocessors etc.. it must barter its vegtables etc with the outside world to get them. So people look at it and dismiss it.
This is why the most extreme Venus Project supporters claim that the Venus Project must be instigated WORLDWIDE or not at all. .. similarly, getting 6billion to agree on unproven system is mad
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz
The truth is that a town COULD do it.. there is no logical to technical reason that precludes it. Merely will to do so.
The fictional concept of money and the bizarre fantasy of economies is what prevents people from trying this until some point in the future when it might be needed. Shame. FYI there are examples of systems even today in the world that work on gift economies - the world science for example.
Interested in ideas? Visit defiant idealist dot com.
defiantidealist 8 months ago
@defiantidealist
>>The truth is that a town COULD do it..
i'd like to beleive you, but REALLY? at what technology level ? at what carrying capacity, relative to the outside?
My guess is that town could be self-sufficient with ecofriendly farming etc but at a population density that would support 500million worldwide.
The 'fantasy of economies' is reality of fossil-fuel inputs manifest in ability to barter local produce for cheap industrial grain etc etc, sadly billions need it to live
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz - the short answer is that we have all the knowledge and technology necessary to live comfortably in a sustainable manner now. We can generate energy, we can produce food and recycle waste in de-cetralised models that are not reliant upon current un-sustainable, mass-agri-business, centralised infrastructure and markets. The reality now is set up to maximise the efficiency for a fictional economic market, not the most efficient and sustainable regarding actual resources. More on blog
defiantidealist 8 months ago
@defiantidealist -
ok, interesting blog but once again, what Carrying Capacity would you get this way. How many people can each town, country, continent, or whole world support this way compared to at present. I am a firm believer in the Malthusian Peak Oil idea: we have used fossil-fuels to multiply beyond carrying capacity (by using energy to amplify crop-yields, 'terraform' inhospitable areas, etc...) - when the oil runs out there will be a population crash - we are past point of no return
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz I heard a statistic that in 2007, the worldwide food production was about 8.5 trillion kilograms. Do the math. That is enough food to feed the entire world ten times over, and that is in our current system. Who knows what our planet could support in a R.B.E. Visit this website: overpopulationisamyth[dot]com
Nathan173AB 8 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>. That is enough food to feed the entire world ten times over,
But thats with fossil-fuels, where you have millions of years of stored energy (ancient biomass) to burn through. Modern industry allows humans to multiply using this stored oil energy.
WIth *renewables* you are back to harnessing solar via plants to feed people. Agricultural yields will be far lower.
If you consider Food and Energy as being interchangeable, it should be clear plants(solar) can't match fossil.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"overpopulationisamyth[dot]com"
- I've analyzed in detail..
[1] its' religious propoganda. These groups fear christian/westerners being out-bred by other faster-breeding groups.
[2] Its' also 'existing-system' propoganda, i.e. without future Taxpayers governments will collapse, without future Debt-Slaves, banking will collapse.
These existing ponzi-schemes require continual growth, impossible on our finite planet (ok until fossil-fuels run out)
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz As to overpopulationisamyth[dot]com, I only found that website after a search on Google. I thought it made some good points and some not so good points. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
i've seen this forum / group / many youtube vids.
I am utterly at loggerheads with the P.O.V. Like VP followers, (and even hardline free-market beleivers), they refuse to acknowledge the role fossil-fuel energy (not technology) has in amplifying humans (check the graph, if you like 'science', 'maths')
If it was 'technology', well.. our systems are no way near as sophisticated as nature.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz Look, I'm not saying fossil-fuel has not played a significant role in the evolution of our species! I'd have to be a total dumbass to say that. I'm saying that we don't NEED fossil fuel to continue this progress. There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. Are you being so willfully ignorant that you think fossil fuel is the end-all and be-all in our progress? Are you stuck in the oil drum of your mind?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. "
- I dont doubt tech will progrss & there will be amazing solar-powered achievements.
But: these will be scarce luxuries, not abundant.
fuel cells and solar panels require scarce elements (platinum,silver..).
Solar using abundant recycling? nature already figured out.. PLANTS!!!!!! you think you can improve on that?! Learn how a computer works, and learn how a Plant works.. compare the engineering complexity....
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>There are alternatives to it that are just as good or better. "
- the key thing about fossil vs solar= Energy Density: because fossil is SO energy dense, you can keep a car outside your flat. human pop density goes thru roof. Solar on the other hand requires each person to have a large area to harness... just like having a plot of land to grow your own food, or to grow food for your own horse.
Solar won't make you any free-er than you were with horses in roman times. LAND=power.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz Did I mention solar at all? No I did not. Is solar the only alternative? No it is not. Come on man. The context of your thinking is shit. There are hydroelectric dams, nuclear fusion which isn't far off, geothermal energy (harvesting Mt Aloha in Hawaii is enough to power the ENTIRE WORLD), wirelessly transmitted solar energy from space, the list goes on and on. Let me say this again. WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>nuclear fusion which isn't far off,
Nuclear fusion is the only serious one.
Hydroelectric & Wind are solar by proxy.
Geothermal: already powers the VAN ALAN BELT. There are chemosynthesizer bacteria that are already better adapted than humans for using geothermal.
Geothermal is just "dig a hole, energy comes out".
How is that socially different from oil.. its not in a storable, transportable form
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz It's better than oil because it doesn't pollute and we will have it much longer. It IS transportable. Ever heard of this invention called a "battery".
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>> Ever heard of this invention called a "battery".
yes, and fuel cells... but Nature has done the R&D. the best way to store energy (abundantly) in the biosphere is hydrocarbons. (fats, oils). this method uses the most abundant elements.
>>It's better than oil because it doesn't pollute
- note, i'm not a "fossil-fuel apologist" - I just understand we can't exist without them. I recommend we cease breeding as a solution. (VHEMT has the answer).
c02->algae is encouraging though..
walter0bz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>"Let me say this again. WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS."
- you have a mis-conception, an exaggerate hope.. that "new tech" will save you.
I am trying to tell you the biosphere is already full of hugely sophisticated "Tech" i.e. plants and animals that are all renewably powered, yes, even using Geothermal (chemosynthesizer bacteria in hydrothermal vents).
You have expectation of "tech" based on the power of fossil fuels.. but our machines are very clumsy.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>you have a mis-conception, an exaggerate hope.. that "new tech" will save you.<<
What do those life forms have anything to do with what we are talking about? If anything, they only support what I'm saying, that such energy sources are viable, practical alternatives. If life-forms having to adapt to those things can harness it, surely technology can be much more effective.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"If life-forms having to adapt to those things can harness it, surely technology can be much more effective."
no you're still missing the point.
You want technology to help humans harness those sources.
I'm saying other organisms are "better adapted" because they have support "built in".
human technology was usefull for the ecological niche of "fossil-fuels". But from Gaia's perspective, humans are a disaster like a super-volcano, a cancer causing mass extinctions..
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"There are ... wirelessly transmitted solar energy from space"
[1] really? where?
[2] if we start focussing more of the sun's energy on earth from the rest of space, wont that cause CLIMATE CHANGE?
i'm all for offworld solar if it can be done but dont count on it to save us.. better as fuel for offworld humans if we realize star-trek fantasies . what are the odds we'll see permanent offworld settlement in our lifetime?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz It's also worth mentioning that today's solar cells are only able to convert less than 15% of the sun's energy into electricity. Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs. So, even though it is not very good today, it will be much more practical soon. That is, assuming the profit motive doesn't stifle it to keep the oil industry dominant and make people think it's the only option, which you seem to have so ignorantly bought in to.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs."
- can you make plants grow more food, using these alternative energies. Because thats what we are already used to with Petrochemical fertilizer: additional ENERGY input into the plants, by giving them more food.
or did plants already figure it out how to convert sunlight into food? Aren't humans just plant-parasites?
in Gaia theory you can't view any creature in isolation. you want to 'geoengineer'?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>Because thats what we are already used to with Petrochemical fertilizer:<<
I already told you about hydroponic solutions.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"I already told you about hydroponic solutions."
ok! go into business as a hydroponic farmer if you're so convinced they make more food without fossil fuels!
food prices are going UP, so, if you can make abundant food, you profit !
your claim is .. you wont need as many raw materials, so you wont need 'Investment' (fossil-fuel tokens) to do this?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"That is, assuming the profit motive doesn't stifle it to keep the oil industry dominant and make people think it's the only option, which you seem to have so ignorantly bought in to."
- No.
you haven't understood my POV.
we chose oil, above other alternatives. why? why did people pick petrol cars instead of horses or electric ones? why did other manufacturers choose to start using oil instead of continuing with their WINDMILLS, or building Solar concentrator steam?
walter0bz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walter0bz >>why did people pick petrol cars instead of horses or electric ones? why did other manufacturers choose to start using oil instead of continuing with their WINDMILLS, or building Solar concentrator steam?<<
Back then, oil was the most efficient method. This isn't the early 1900s anymore.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Back then, oil was the most efficient method. "
no. it was the most ABUNDANT method. I'm still not getting through.
Imagine if you discovered a battery that had been left charging for millions of years. Then you'd use electric :)
as it happened, we found biomass that had been accumulating for millions of years, so we made devices to use that. Hence the entire "industrial age", past 200 yrs "progress" (i.e. dead end)
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Back then, oil was the most efficient method. This isn't the early 1900s anymore."
the freemarket beleivers also have false hope for electric cars, they say the market will cause subsitution.. no need to switch yet because oil is 'cheap'. But I understand it as "oil is abundant, electric car tech scarce". When oil becomes Scarce, elec cars will still be Scarce. (even if they're 'cheaper than oil' in future).
Anyway CARS are the least of our worries, by a LONG way...
walter0bz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>"make people think it's the only option, which you seem to have so ignorantly bought in to."
- i dont think its the only option.
but i know why we use it.
Oil is the most powerful, convinient energy source, because its' ready made ... it took millions of years to form.
oil IS SOLAR POWER....plant remains..biofuel.
How could biofuel grown in my maybe 80 year lifespan match biofuel that tool millions of years to accumulate?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>i dont think its the only option. but i know why we use it.<<
I know why we use it too. It's been the most efficient for a long time now, and we've gotten attached to it, so what is your point? You say that you don't think it's the only option, then from the looks of all your long-winding arguments it seems you do think it's the only option. You make no sense.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>" then from the looks of all your long-winding arguments it seems you do think it's the only option."
- i repeat.
I understand there are many types of energy. We should use them all.
I also understand that they will not match oil.
only Fusion or space colonization can.
Fission is essential to sustain our "Overpopulation". But its not a long-term solution, it still "runs out".
Renewables will be possible for a world population of 2billion people.
we need one-child policy.
walter0bz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>"Solar panels that convert over 40 or 50% are showing promise in research labs. "
- NO NO NO you cannot just take tech out of the lab and deploy it. modern civilization relies on much refinement, and lab experiments prove concepts in isolation. Like "intels 80 core chip". Doesn't run existing software, thats taken decades to develop...
Whats stopping you developing these magic solar panels YOURSELF, as OpenSource?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>NO NO NO you cannot just take tech out of the lab and deploy it.<<
So what's your point? That they don't exist and won't work because...? Look up "spire solar record".
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@walter0bz The Venus Project proposes continuing our innovation of agriculture WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT WE DON'T NEED THEM.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
where does it show we don't need them?
we have all these technologies available now. wind, PV cells, solar concentrators. many types of energy - but together they don't match what we get from fossil-fuels. we could always choose what energy to use... our parents and grandparents unknowingly over-bred us into a dead-end. e.g. peeps live in areas that are too cold, enabled by fossil-fuel. too dry, enabled by fossil fuel.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz ""Where does it show we don't need them?"" Dude, just research it for yourself. Jacque Fresco gives many talks about how there are many ways to innovate energy production to be just as efficient or more efficient than fossil fuels. In his interview with Larry King, he mentioned that harnessing the geothermal energy from Mt Aloha in Hawaii would give enough energy to power the entire world, and there are 100s of sites such energy could be harvested from.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" Dude, just research it for yourself. Jacque Fresco gives many talks about how there are many ways to "
- i have seen the VP material. he lists many different types of energy. he gives the RAW stats about how much energy comes in.
but you guys claim profit prevents us exploiting solar. I dont agree. you could sell solar panels until every desert was covered, or until you'd built a Dyson Sphere.
"money stiffles solar" because it calculates that oil is 'better' energy source .
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>but you guys claim profit prevents us exploiting solar. I dont agree. you could sell solar panels until every desert was covered, or until you'd built a Dyson Sphere.<<
Bullshit. Who is going to buy all these solar panels? No one, because that would be TOO EXPENSIVE. People will only invest in what gets them what they want saving the most money. That is how the profit motive works.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Bullshit. Who is going to buy all these solar panels? No one, because that would be TOO EXPENSIVE."
- Let me explain,
Money is a symbol for energy. (maybe 'energy X knowledge',but knowledge is abundant so...)
more energy = more money
less energy = less money.
Thats why Oil companies are rich - they control most abundant Energy source.(same with 'land-owners',land=solar)
If you made abundant solar power, you would be richer than oil companies. that is.. if it WAS more energy
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>"the mentioned that harnessing the geothermal energy from Mt Aloha in Hawaii"
- you want to go poking holes and building infrastructure around volcanoes ?! you first...
engineering involves trial and ERROR.. you can't just throw stats around in isolation. There are many practical problems with any scheme.
Look how complex offshore drilling rigs are. That is a measure of just how powerful oil is. (i.e. the oil released offsets that huge operation).
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>engineering involves trial and ERROR.. you can't just throw stats around in isolation. There are many practical problems with any scheme.<<
Okay, so what? Of course every engineering endeavor involves trial and error. Therefore geothermal energy is not a viable alternative? What is your point?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" with Larry King, he mentioned that harnessing the geothermal energy from Mt Aloha in Hawaii "
WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE? how many engineering problems will it throw up.
You could build oil-factories around the volcano, to use all our existing infrastructure (e.g. geothermal grow lights to power algae). If it made more energy than it took to build the factory, it would be profitable.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE?<<
Yeah you're right. I guess I don't really have any proof if there is a lot of energy under volcanoes...COME ON MAN SERIOUSLY???
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>"Yeah you're right. I guess I don't really have any proof if there is a lot of energy under volcanoes"
- ok, practical harnessable energy.
That energy powers the VAN ALLEN BELT (turbulent liquid core)
Imagine if we started multiplying exponentially by drawing down the energy in the earth...
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
VP's central claim is that Profit requires Scarcity, hence we dont develop others. I reject this claim outright.
we started using Oil because it Cars were more abundant than Horses! because Kerosene was more abundant than Whale oil.
How would a Geothermal plant be any more socially liberating than an oil-rig? its still 'a hole, some machinery, and some energy comes out'.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>How would a Geothermal plant be any more socially liberating than an oil-rig? its still 'a hole, some machinery, and some energy comes out'.<<
It would be more liberating because it is a clean source of energy and there is a lot of it.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"It would be more liberating because it is a clean source of energy and there is a lot of it."
but thats what they thought when they got oil.
Horses were only available to people who had enough grass. then they invented cars, which were socially liberating in that landless people could use them. but they went on to breed offspring that were dependent and hence slaves to those owning the tech that powered them...
you think Geothermal would pan out any differently?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
the raw stats of how much energy comes in are meaningless, because human life & machines need a certain balance of conditiions. Plenty of energy on venus .. or in the sahara :)
Infact you could personally go and move to the sahara and build improvized solar concentrators there ... let me know how you get on. Really what is stopping a group of venus project fans getting together to do that?
Could it be that ALL MODERN TECH REQUIRES FOSSIL FUEL FOR ITS MANUFACTURE???
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
renewables are only viable if they can 'power their own constrution' just like plants do. (solar-powered-solar-panel factory)
Go back in time armed with modern knowledge (books, even ipods with PDF's..). Start with a Windmill, a Waterwheel, even trash from the modern age... let me know how much "technology" you can build, from scratch, WITH NO FOSSIL FUEL INPUTS. no coal to smelt metals. no oil for plastics. "you can use starch!!" SHOW me, dont tell me... how practical is that?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>renewables are only viable if they can 'power their own constrution' just like plants do. (solar-powered-solar-panel factory)<<
Bullshit. How can we ever harness new energy if we have to use that energy to harness it? You are creating a pointless conundrum. What rule says we can't use oil powered machines to build, say, a geothermal plant? We have to use what we have, then we can be done with it. Again, you make no sense.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" What rule says we can't use oil powered machines to build, say, a geothermal plant? "
Renewables are only viable if they can power themselves.
See PLANTS, they manage it. Your own biological technology powering your mind right now works this way.
start with wind & solar, and use them to build your Geothermal plant.
if you NEED fossil-fuel, thats a sign you wont be able to maintain it.
if its more 'expensive' today, thats a sign of something that will be SCARCE in future
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
for sustainability, NO MINING IS ALLOWED. (even geothermal, you have to use it at the speed it naturally diffuses out e.g . hotsprings, the earth needs that heat to power the van-alan belt so please dont deplete it...)
You can only recycle materials available on the surface, just like the biosphere does. Whats stopping you & a group of VP fans visiting local scrapyard and getting going building all this 'abundance' yourself ?? I've seen improvized solar-concentrators on youtube.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>for sustainability, NO MINING IS ALLOWED. (even geothermal, you have to use it at the speed it naturally diffuses out e.g . hotsprings, the earth needs that heat to power the van-alan belt so please dont deplete it...)<<
This is ridiculous. You have any idea how much energy we would have to deplete to even dent the van alan belt? That's not gonna happen.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nathan173AB
>>" You have any idea how much energy we would have to deplete to even dent the van alan belt?"
see "exponential growth".
It only takes 3 children per woman to double our numbers every 40 years.
Some women have 4..even 7 kids!
at 3 kids, 400 years, = 1024X population: billions would become trillions.
we must stick to solar, on earth.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
VP makes valid observations i.e. most humans are 'debt-slaves'. if you could share the resources, perhaps we'd on average be better off, i.e. everyone gets current Chinese quality of life (2.1ha/person)
westerners downgraded form current 5-10ha/person, africans & indians upgraded from current 1hectare per person.
but VP is populism, "telling you what you want to hear".
Reality is not ABUNDANT.
it is FINITE.
renewables don't "run out" .. but compared to FF's they will be SCARCE
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
i wish it was true but it isn't. I grew up wanting star-trek scifi future for sure.
I understand how energy and technology work. We have had a ~200 year 'splurging' period of overabundance, and regardless of our peak knowledge & tech, most humans are in for hell when the fossil-fuel runs out. In the future, only a small elite will keep modern tech. most survivors will like like cavemen or middle-ages if they're lucky. Most humans simply won't even survive.
sorry :)
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz ""In the future, only a small elite will keep modern tech. most survivors will like like cavemen or middle-ages if they're lucky. Most humans simply won't even survive."" Forgive me for thinking that you're not as smart and knowledgeable as you say you are to take your prediction seriously.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" Forgive me for thinking that you're not as smart and knowledgeable as you say you are to take your prediction seriously."
- well, do a practice run - SHOW ME how long you can survive without fossil-fuels. maybe make a youtube video and post it. "day 1.. day 2...". (i'll let you use a fossil-fueled video recorder).
because where i'm sat, empirical evidence and reason states we can't survive without fossil-fuels. (yes, i'm fatalistic about where civ is going)
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>SHOW ME how long you can survive without fossil-fuels. <<
You're missing the point, which is that the WORLD is capable of getting away from fossil fuels and still retaining efficiency. I've already given many ways it can be done, as well as Jacque Fresco. Now you're just in denial. I alone can't stop relying on fossil fuels when the rest of the world is.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
failed states/oppressive states (e.g. north korea) are result of losing fossil-fuels
(e.g. NK isolated post soviet collapse?). They're smart,but if they can't generate abundance with local resources when cut off from fossil-fueled global industry, what makes you think YOU can?
without fossil fuels you are back to what falls out of the sky. If you think solar is so good, go move to Africa and enjoy all the abundance on the edge of the sahara! LMAO post a video of your experiences!
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>failed states/oppressive states (e.g. north korea) are result of losing fossil-fuels<<
North Korea has lost out on fossil fuels, therefore if we abandon their use we will become a totalitarian regime like them. Your logic sucks.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"therefore if we abandon their use we will become a totalitarian regime like them. Your logic sucks."
I'll explain again:
when the resources become scarce (we dont have choice on this) we get 4 possible outcomes:-
[1] mad max anarchy. [2] wars [3] oppressive states. [4] we draw staws and peacefully decide who starves. or something like logans run.
i dont know which is most likely
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz You also say that eventually the resources of this world will fall into the hands of an elite group and many will be left with nothing and even starve. I don't know what world YOU live in, but that is the way things are now.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" I don't know what world YOU live in, but that is the way things are now."
- I think we'll starve because there wont be enough to go round. (competition means elite emerge)
- resources aren't equally distributed.. they never can be, so long as we're trying to catchup with population growth ... we can outbreed any tech. If you could feed 4 kids, there would be people wanting 5... This is how evolution worked. see 'octopi' for extreme example (1000 offspring, 0.1% survive)
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
you'd think we're smarter than bacteria, but facts would indicate otherwise. Since the industrial revolution we have multiplied like a plague, exterminating other species.... destroying forests to replace them with farms and concrete cities to house & feed ever rising human population.
Tell me, HOW MANY HUMANS DOES EARTH NEED?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"many will be left with nothing and even starve. "
Why are we currently multiplying SO fast ?
1900 - 1.5billion; mid century - 2.5billion; 2000- 6billion .. set to pass 7billion. 3X peeps in one lifespan! More people are being SAVED than STARVED. (due to fossil-fuels). The "Global Elite" are the ones running the trade&industry that allows this massive abundance. soon coming to end. we're like 'bacteria in a petri dish'.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz We have been currently multiplying so fast because the impact fossil fuel has had on the efficiency of our agriculture. You have repeated that I've lost count how many times, and I've already stated more than once that I'm aware of this fact and I agree with you on that. However, whether you like it or not, there are alternatives to fossil fuel that can help us continue this efficiency and we can even become a healing part of the planet improving nature. Sorry to break it to you. :)
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"However, whether you like it or not, there are alternatives to fossil fuel that can help us continue this efficiency "
- we already had wind powered trade & agri assistance (water wheels, sailing ships, windmills)
- we already use geothermal. (eg. in iceland).
- should be obvious that solar can't accelerate plant growth when plants are already superior solar machines..
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{s- we already had wind powered trade & agri assistance (water wheels, sailing ships, windmills)
- we already use geothermal. (eg. in iceland).
- should be obvious that solar can't accelerate plant growth when plants are already superior solar machines..}}
We don't use any of those things compared to the amount we use fossil fuel. If we did, we wouldn't need fossil fuel nearly as much or not at all. We don't use them because there is no easy money in it.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"We don't use any of those things compared to the amount we use fossil fuel. "
- yes, now you're getting it. we dont use them as much as fossil fuel because, they're PATHETIC by comparison.
>>"We don't use them because there is no easy money in it."
WRONG.
oil is only money for Oil-man. for everyone else, there is strong incentive to find alternative. If you have no oil, its an Expense not an income... monetary incentive is to minimize consumption of things you dont own
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{yes, now you're getting it. we dont use them as much as fossil fuel because, they're PATHETIC by comparison.}}
They're pathetic now, but only because we're not massively using them. Geothermal would be great if we started using it more.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"They're pathetic now, but only because we're not massively using them. Geothermal would be great if we started using it more."
whats harder to build- a Windmill, or an Offshore Drilling rig?
There are youtube vids of DIY solar concentrators. Its' C19th tech. They didn't take off because they dont match oil.
Forget cars - we can already move between cities using electric trains, trams+bikes in cities. (moreso in europe). not a matter of tech, rather abundance/scarcity
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
why would you expect input from sunlight would match a resource that took millions of years to accumulate ?
the case for peak oil is blindingly obvious when you see the process. daily trickle of sunlight (which plants allready use) versus millions of years of stored energy..
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
its no ones' fault really, our parents, our grandparents.. when they started using oil, how could they know - it would create billions of extra people who would one day suffer its loss. The uses were added one at a time. at the outset, depletion wasn't a problem. And those who prefer to multiply always end up in the majority.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
-do the links on food make sense?
-Will VP world appease meat eaters or vegetarians & animal rights types who think we shouldn't keep any captive animals ? Do you really think both groups will *agree*?
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{Will VP world appease meat eaters or vegetarians & animal rights types who think we shouldn't keep any captive animals ? Do you really think both groups will *agree*?}}
Who says they have to agree? If someone doesn't want to eat meat, they don't have to. They have no right to impose that value on others. Besides, no one really consumes as much meat as they do plants anyways.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Besides, no one really consumes as much meat as they do plants anyways."
- will you make meat abundant? earth might support some multiple more vegetarians, so one mans abundance is anothers' scarcity.
Also, animal rights peeps claim we dont have a right to farm animals at all.. (abundance for us is cruelty for them). note I'm not strongly opinionated on these issues just stating observations on others.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz Fortunately we have begun to develop nanotechnology. The scientists in this field have made the claim that within a decade or so, we will be able to grow meat in vats. And I'm sure that we could accelerate the time line if we put our resources behind it. I like meat, and feel the proteins provided by meats are good for us, and possibly needed. I understand the angst of animal rights types, we do terrible things to animals. There has to be a technological solution of some sort.
herpiethelovebug 6 months ago
@herpiethelovebug -
Do not confuse the miracles of "technology" with the brute force energy glut Fossil-Fuels gave us (millions of years of stored solar burned in 200 years).
Ants already have NanoTechnology to process food - namely symbiotic fungus.
I'm sure the work being done is very ingenious, but we are already surrounded by vastly superior renewably powered systems (eg 'plants'). Human brain does things computers can't on 20 watts.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@herpiethelovebug - humans 'cheat' using fuel to accelerate digestion - enabling us to consume food we're unevolved for. Was ok in moderation (i.e. using scraps of deadwood as fuel), but when we started using fossil-fuels for cooking (& everything else, e.g. heating to live where it is too cold), we were "living beyond our means" - drawing down the earth to multiply unsustainably. you dont want to hear it - you're like an algae bloom, or bacteria in petri dish , or reindeer on st mathews island.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz LOL You don't have to tell me I'm just a critter. I know it, which is one reason I support the VP. Think of it like a really cool hamster cage, for humans :) I had heard, don't know if its true, that our brains evolved in part because we became meat eaters. The extra protein and whatnot.
herpiethelovebug 6 months ago
@herpiethelovebug - ' brains/meat eater' - yes I beleive this theory. and cooking further reduces the amount of energy we need to divert to digestion. (i.e. freed up that energy for brains).
but brains are like "software" wheras evolved biology is like "hardware". I beleive much of the biosphere is way more effieicnt than human tech, its just with resource excess (fossil fuel) it can look temporarily usefull. eg Geothermal energy? chemosynth bacteria already use it better than we ever could...
walter0bz 6 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Besides, no one really consumes as much meat as they do plants anyways."
..what about peeps on locarb diets. Very meat heavy.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
the monetary sys doesn't cause scarcity: it requires more loans being taken out, continuous activity. fiat/debt bubble tracked growing abundance from oil turned into human value.
if we could expand through new energy sources (fusion , space, solar, geothermal)..or find new efficiencies.. the monetary system would continue just fine.
its breaking down because the energy that fueled it is expiring.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{its breaking down because the energy that fueled it is expiring.}}
Yeah no shit. That's why we need to get out of fossil fuel and use alternatives more than we are using now such as geothermal, more efficient solar (>40% energy conversion), heck even ethanol. Those are just known alternatives now. Surely more will be discovered.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>Surely more will be discovered.
- possibly, but its wishfull thinking. can't just assume.
>>" use alternatives more than we are using now such as geothermal, "
- why did icelanders ever bother importing oil? icelanders are incentivized to export their geothermal energy just as much as saudis' want to export oil. we'd be using it... if it was viable. didn't romans use hot-springs already ?
I Agree we DO need to develop alternatives - just dont expect they can save everyone.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" therefore if we abandon their use we will become a totalitarian regime like them."
elsewhere on YT i encounter peeps who think the social system causes abundance or scarcity. My assertion is the opposite. social systems are emergent, dictated by resources & tech.
e.g. prior to Oil age, we had feudal land-ownership social system. (we might revert to that in Solar age). Did Oil allow international banking to grow because it made energy so mobile? (trucks/ships/aeroplanes)
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>elsewhere on YT i encounter peeps who think the social system causes abundance or scarcity. My assertion is the opposite.<<
In that case, I fundamentally disagree with everything you say because that premise doesn't seem to make any sense. Again, back to that statistic I showed you about the amount of food the world produces. Despite that abundance, many people still starve to death. That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect. There is no arguing otherwise.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" Despite that abundance, many people still starve to death. That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect. There is no arguing otherwise."
- People continuously starved to death throughout history.
- world population was in the range 200-500m throughout history.
- then Fossil-Fuels created abundance that fed an extra 6 billion people.
- rise peaked at 3X per lifetime!
- we can out-breed any tech which is why people starve.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>That alone proves that economic systems do have a major effect.
Millions do starve.
but fossil fuels fed BILLIONS.
and sadly, when fossil fuels run out, yes the extra BILLIONS WILL STARVE. Sorry to break it to you!
It only takes 3 babies per woman for population to double in 40 years. Some have 7!!!!.
Human instincts are designed for 50% mortality... each woman produced 4kids stable pop, half die, routinely. .. Fossil fuels allowed us to feed more hence population explosion.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz
-- Sorry to break it to you! --
You haven broken anything to me. So far you have only made predictions on the future based on the assumption that past trends will remain the same. That's poor deduction, I'm sorry to break it to you. :)
-- we can out-breed any tech which is why people starve. --
Bullshit. People starve because they lack purchasing power to acquire food. Again, this planet produces enough food to feed everyone very well. Don't tell me there isn't enough NOW.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>" Again, this planet produces enough food to feed everyone very well. "
- ah, everyone in the world will agree on what is a "very good diet" ?
wheat allergies.. our digestive system has barely caught up with our agriculture. Dairy allergies.. some say we shouldn't have milk.
for me a good diet would be plenty of fish & chicken. Others want to be vegetarian.
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{some say we shouldn't have milk. for me a good diet would be plenty of fish & chicken. Others want to be vegetarian.}}
You're twisting what I'm saying into something irrelevant again. What does dieting have anything to do with the food supply? If one doesn't want to eat wheat, dairy, and/or meat they don't have to. Heck, that leaves more for everyone else. What are you trying to prove?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"What does dieting have anything to do with the food supply?"
MASSIVE amount ..
Are you aware eating meat requires more land per person?
For max carrying capacity you must restrict everyone to vegetarian, & LOW protein diet.
>>"What are you trying to prove?"
- scope for dissagreement. Some people think its their right to eat meat. others think it should be banned to save the environment.
I know my own prefered diet (high protein) is impossible for 6billion people
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{For max carrying capacity you must restrict everyone to vegetarian, & LOW protein diet.}}
Where is the objective data that explains this?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
wikipedia : environmental vegetarianism
its' something like a tenfold land useage difference.
every time energy is processed by a creature you lose some. Google: "tuna secondary predator".
So, with global resource sharing everyone must agree on 'whether or not its better to have more kids or fewer that eat meat'.
Do you eat meat? some say its' unacceptable!!!!
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB -
you think we can use geothermal energy to power agriculture?
you think nature hasn't already evolved means of using that energy (if its' useable).
hot springs on the ocean floor ... its a small niche. nothing compared to the solar powered biosphere.
ocean is much easier for evolution than land (chemical soup). ocean =2/3rds of surface.
Geothermal energy diffuses out already. Unlike nuclear reactor, the decay/heat is already 'spread out' instead of the heat being concentrated.
walter0bz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walter0bz {{you think we can use geothermal energy to power agriculture?}}
What's preventing us?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"People starve because they lack purchasing power to acquire food. "
this fact is contrary to the hard documented evidence of rapid Population Growth.
People starve because they breed faster than the resources/efficiency increase. (measured by purchasing power)
(some would point out this struggle is exactly what causes evolution, i would argue we should use our brains to plan ahead.. leave overbreeding to species without our complex brains).
walter0bz 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Don't tell me there isn't enough NOW."
-there will never be enough when a woman can produce as many as 7 babies.
we got here through evolution, & this is driven by birthing more creatures than there is food for, & 'survival of the fittest'. least fit get eaten. Ones that dont had adaptation. That's what we're hard wired for, instinctively.
So we need *rationing* if we want to avoid "dog-eat-dog" world.
I see no admission of this in VP, only promises of "Abundance !!"
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{So we need *rationing* if we want to avoid "dog-eat-dog" world.}}
Now you're starting to sound like the whose solutions are going to lead to a North Korean type regime.
{{I see no admission of this in VP, only promises of "Abundance !!"}}
Then you don't do your research very well. Whenever Jacque Fresco talks about a resource-based economy, he always mentions "the carrying capacity of the planet."
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB he always mentions "the carrying capacity of the planet."
- he never admits oil/FF increased it, he never admits we're overpopulated
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{we got here through evolution, & this is driven by birthing more creatures than there is food for, & 'survival of the fittest'. least fit get eaten. Ones that dont had adaptation. That's what we're hard wired for, instinctively.}}
It sounds to me like your comparing humans to wild animals. Evolution is contingent upon how a species copes with their environment. Since we humans innovate our environment as opposed to wild animals who just react to it, that comparison is invalid.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB >>"Since we humans innovate our environment as opposed to wild animals who just react to it, that comparison is invalid."
- right up until WW1 -ww2 continuous warfare between states to balance upward population pressure was considered natural. we paused killing eachother when we had fossil-fuel to expand into.
>> Since we humans innovate our environment
- we're still subject to natures laws. granted, preindustrial agri=sustainable enviro manipulation but there was war for land
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz {{right up until WW1 -ww2 continuous warfare between states to balance upward population pressure was considered natural. we paused killing eachother when we had fossil-fuel to expand into.}}
We had been using fossil fuel for decades before those wars came around. You seriously need a history lesson. Those wars were not about population control.
Nathan173AB 7 months ago
@Nathan173AB
>>"Those wars were not about population control."
All wars are about population control eventually.. they're about gaining control of land and resources. Hitler wanted russian oil fields and 'lebensraum' to multiply germans at expense of others. Energy and Food are interchangeable.
We stopped major regular wars when industrial-age weapons took off, because the economics changed. and probably because it co-incided with fossil-fuel fertilizers. Wars for food likely post peak oil
walter0bz 7 months ago
@walter0bz >>If you think solar is so good, go move to Africa and enjoy all the abundance on the edge of the sahara! LMAO post a video of your experiences!<<
I have no money, and I don't have permission to work on that land. Otherwise I would. Also, I stated earlier that I think current solar energy is crap, so why are you making up stuff about what I say? Is it so you can make sound arguments that I would agree with so you can be right? What's up?
Nathan173AB 7 months ago