2050: end of earthly resources

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sunflow, Jul 20, 2002.

  1. sunflow Guest

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Squid Vicious Banned Banned

    The problem,of course, is that after reading that, the vast majority of people have already forgotten it by the next day.

    People, unfortunately, are stupid.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    That is why it is good that people like Sunflow, remind us to this.

    It is totally up to every human him/herself, to decide whether he/she wants to forget it, or actually do something about it.

    I agree with you that people are stupid. Very stupid, yes...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    WWF= World Wide FRAUD

    The WWF report is a stupid one and it is worth less than the paper on which it will be promulgated by the environuts. But the media will give it lots of coverage (and propaganda support). The WWF shows its Malthusian philosophy, and we all know what that philosophy means: <b>hate everything coming from humans... </b>

    <HR color=red>

    <center><font size=4 color=red><b>Thomas Malthus: Environmentatlist's Dear.</b></font></center>

    By Marjie Bloy, Ph.D., Research Fellow, National University of Singapore.

    Thomas Malthus believed that natural rates of human reproduction, when unchecked, would lead to geometric increases in population: population would grow in a ratio of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and so on. However, he believed that food production increased only in arithmetic progression: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. It seemed obvious to him that something had to keep the population in check to prevent wholesale starvation. He said that there were two general kinds of checks that limited population growth: preventative checks and positive checks. Preventative checks reduced the birth rate; positive checks increased the death rate.

    Moral restraint, vice and birth control were the primary preventative checks. Moral restraint was the means by which the higher ranks of humans limited their family size in order not to dissipate their wealth among larger numbers of heirs. For the lower ranks of humans, vice and birth control were the means by which their numbers could be limited - but Malthus believed that these were insufficient to limit the vast numbers of the poor.

    The positive checks were famine, misery, plague and war; because preventative checks had not limited the numbers of the poor, Malthus thought that positive checks were essential to do that job. If positive checks were unsuccessful, then inevitably (he said), famine would be the resulting way of keeping the population down. Before starvation set in, Malthus advised that steps be taken to help the positive checks to do their work. He wrote:
    <font color=blue>
    <blockquote><B>It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase in population must be limited by it, at least after the food has been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. ... To act consistently, therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operation of nature in producing this mortality, and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

    Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.</B></blockquote></font>

    In Malthus' opinion, the masses were incapable of exercising moral restraint, which was the only real remedy for the population problem (Malthus had eleven children). They were therefore doomed to live always at bare subsistence level. If all income and wealth were distributed among them, it would be totally wasted within one generation because of profligate behaviour and population growth, and they would be as poor and destitute as ever. Paternalistic attempts to help the poor were therefore highly likely to fail. Also, they were a positive evil because they drained wealth and income from the higher (and therefore more moral) ranks of society. These people were responsible - either in person or through patronage - for all the great achievements of society: art, music, philosophy, literature and so on owed their existence to the good taste and generosity of these people. Taking money from them to help the poor would deprive the world of culture.

    Source: <b>The Victorian Web.</b>

    Sure, we should follow Malthus and the WWF (<b>World Wide Fraud</B>) in their quest for a worldwide genocide. Just the sight of those three letters makes me sick...

    The Guardian, following its habit of misinforming people, has not yet got the news that the WWF changed its name years ago from "World Wildlife Fund" to "Worldwide Fund for Nature", but the spirit remains: geopolitical tool created for keeping the Imperail Claw on its old African colonies.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2002
  8. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Our living planet is dying. The signs and syptoms are being monitored, but the doctors are not responding to the call!

    The World Wildlife Living Planet Report for 2002 states...


    9 July, 2002

    Humans running up huge 'overdraft' with the planet says new WWF report

    Geneva, Switzerland - Standards of living and human development will start to plummet by 2030 unless humans stop using more natural resources than the planet can replace, according to a new report released by WWF, the conservation organization, 50 days before the start of the *World Summit on Sustainable Development*.

    *Living Planet Report* shows that humans are currently running a huge deficit with the Earth - using over 20 percent more natural resources each year than can be regenerated - and this figure is growing each year. Projections based on likely scenarios of population growth, economic development and technological change, show that by 2050, humans will consume between 180 percent and 220 percent of the Earth's biological capacity. According to the report, this means that unless governments take urgent action, by 2030, human welfare, as measured by average life expectancy, educational level, and world economic product will go into decline.

    "The fact that we live on a bountiful planet, but not a limitless one, presents world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development with a clear challenge," said Dr. Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International. "Ensuring access to basic resources and improving the health and livelihoods of the world's poorest people can not be tackled separately from maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems. Unless we ensure the health of those ecosystems, we will never be able to guarantee an acceptable standard of living for much of the world's population."

    According to the Living Planet Report, the Earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive land and sea space - or 1.9 hectares of productive land to provide for each of the 6 billion people on the planet. The global ecological footprint - or consumption of natural resources - is 2.3 hectares per person. However, while the footprint of the average African or Asian consumer being less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European's footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American's was about 9.6 hectares.

    At the same time, the Living Planet Index (LPI), which is based on trends in populations of hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish also shows clearly that the current human consumptive pressure is unsustainable. Over the past 30 years, the LPI has declined by about 37 percent. The decline in freshwater species has been particularly dramatic, with 54 percent decline on average in the populations of 195 species living in rivers and wetland ecosystems. Marine species are also under threat - with an average decline of 35 percent in 217 species, while forest species populations show a 15 percent decline in 282 species.

    WWF believes that governments could reverse some of these negative trends and put humanity back on a path to sustainable development if they address some key issues. These include improving the resource efficiency with which goods and services are produced - in particular moving energy supplies away from fossil fuels and promoting energy-efficient technologies, buildings and transport systems; encouraging equitable and sustainable consumption; and conserving and restoring natural ecosystems to maintain their biological productivity and diversity.

    "We do not know exactly what the result will be of running this massive overdraft with the earth. What is clear though is that it would be better to control our own destiny, rather than leave it up to chance," said Jonathan Loh, author of the Living Planet Report. "At the WSSD, world leaders will have a magnificent opportunity to address the root causes of our obvious failure to achieve sustainable development and set us on the path to a truly sustainable future."

    Bill Hamilton:
    I don't even see any awareness on the part of average citizens and neighbors who are too concerned about rushing to their nearest grocery store or WalMart to purchase and consume more goods.

    Some say the environmentalists are alarmists and only normal changes are occurring to our green planet. Could that be true? I don't think so. All one has to do is graph the changes and plot the statistics on a curve and a graphic picture will emerge and it is not a pretty picture.

    So, what can we do about it? Warnings have been given to the leaders of the world and still we see outdate policies pursued, especially by the Bush team. It seems Bush is intent on doing more environmental damage, not less.

    The best you can do is prepare for survival as an individual and reach out to other aware individuals and symbiotically form a group. Such groups should give some consideration toward making a local thriving ecosphere and give additional consideration toward hollowing out a cave or underground shelter where the environment can be controlled. Things may get hot one day on the surface of the earth and having a contingency plan is the way to go.
  9. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Banshee, your activity in the forums seems to be dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting Apocalyptic scaremongeries that would, presumably, awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth. The report by the <b>World Wide Fraud</b> --oops, the <i>Wordwide Fund for Nature</i> follows the old Malthusian strategy: <b>"Scare them to death --and then you can stick your hands in their pockets."</b> That policy is universally used by robbers and muggers, when they put a knife to their victim's throat, or a gun into their skulls, while saying: "Gimme your money!" It works only on people unable to defend themselves, but it does not work with self-defense experts or Karate, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and other blackbelts.

    The green tactics of "scaring and asking for money" works -unfortunately- on gullible and/or ignorant people, who sincerely donate money for "saving something" that will only make the checkbooks of the green leaders grow fatter and fatter.

    But for those who know about science and the environment, the Living Planet by the WWF does not fool us for a single microsecond. The report is just a clumsy artifact based solely in computer projections and "managed" statistics that use selective, biased and mostly forged data for reaching results that had been previously designed and established by a geopolitical agenda.

    I must point something to you: had you ever visited and read any of the links I suggested, you would have stopped posting your "The Sky is Falling" messages. You choose to believe in whatever you want, and that's OK with me. But, as a longtime teacher, much in the way I feel sad when I see a pupil that refuses to learn, I feel sad when I see a grownup adult refusing to use the basic mechanisms of reasoning for harnessing the full potential of his/her brain.

    It seems you have lots of faith in our Prophets of Doom.
  10. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member


    I am not posting only for you to critisize. I choose to do it this way and let you have your say. Whatever, it is fine by me.

    Are you not copying and pasting the same reply?

    In no way do I have to justify myself.

    I learned a while ago that it is talking to a deaf man's ears in your case.

    This thread is not here to argue, so I post articles and no more than that in this forum. I suggest you keep yourself occupied with your own "businesses" and copy and paste all your resources.

    Good luck...
  11. Urbaniteman Registered Member

    This is my first posting. I don't type well and am unsure of proper posting protocol. Copy and paste seems ok to me as at least it shows you based your opinion on something that someone else took the time to write about.

    For my 2 cents worth, I don't need the WWF's article or anyone elses to warn me of impending doom to resources and therefore humanity. It is apparent to me in everyday life. It did seem the WWF was streching it a bit, but if one knows one's multiplication tables at least through x2, it should be obvious that anything above a world wide zero population growth will lead to exponential populaion growth. It is true the planet will run out of resources at some point as we have not achieved this zero pop growth.

    Technology is the only hope to curb this. In using methods that will be unpopular to most idiologies, as in these, we view the planet and everything on it, as being created for us (even though our existance has only been for a fraction of a percent of Earth history). But unfortunately the masses, especially in Western society, has used technology for football, beer, cars food, and a host of other activities that do nothing to help preserve or enhance humanity.

    The overindulgence of these activities make people mentally blind-

    and therefore stupid.
  12. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    There is no physic resourceproblem, only economical/political problems about SHARING/DISTRIBUTING the loot.

    when we run out of oil in 50 - 100 years ? we have coal for at least 1500 years and nuclear and renewable energies on top of that. Consider the sheer thickness of the earthcrust and that we mine just the outer skin wich is less than 0,5 precent than you see we have plenty of metals/minerals in the rest of the crust. At some point, due to price/demand or advances in extraction techniques it becomes economical attractive to dig deeper mines. So talking about mining other planets is really unnecessary and certainly not cheaper, I agree however that mining other planets is more exciting/imaginative for sci-fi enthousiasts like me.

    However, the market of supply and demand will regulate itself, but not without trouble, wars, diseases , pollutions, extinctions of animals etc etc, just because there are some people that want much more than others.

    Come to think of it, overpopulation and the Bush "More SUV" policy is the best thing since decades that happened to us environmentalists ? Why ? because it will help burn up the dirty depletable resources fast (before global warming has time to really kick in), so that, when these resources get scarce, they are FORCED by circumstances (also the hungry american consumer, wanting to maintain his lifestyle) to be more ahum resourcefull and do more with recycling and other resources.

    Me always thought that Bush and his resourcehogging business associates lacked long term vision, but now I can see they thought way ahead of me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 28, 2004
  13. Eggsited Registered Senior Member

    What are the effects to Polymers and and many other industries dependeant on oil
  14. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Urbaniteman, welcome.

    About the topic...... I wonder if one day femtotech (maybe just picotech) may be developed to help solve this things out? (oh, if you're wondering what I meant, try to relat nano and atoms.)
  15. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Well, we don't need femtotech or picotech, although they would be a bonus;

    to provide enough energy for a population of 10 billion living at present day American standards of living, we would need to cover the equivalent of 5% of the Earth's land surface with photovoltaic solar cells; this is actually a massive area, and would cause quite a lot of ecological damage.

    If we are determined to all live in modern comfort we will have to accept a certain amount of environmental change...

    in truth, it seems likely to me that fusion power will be available before the coal runs out in a thousand years time, and before we have to build a new continent in the Pacific Ocean just to hold the solar energy generators;

    but as a last resort, the option exists-
    apart from energy, every other resource can and will be recycled, of course.
    given enough forward planning, civilisation could thrive on our planet for millions of years.
    SF worldbuilding at
  16. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Oh- except helium-
    you cant recycle helium; once it's gone, it's gone.

    Another reason to go to the Moon.
  17. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Hydrocarbons for polymers can be extracted from coal as well, Technologically speaking it must even be possible to make polymers and peptides out of thin air and water , as air contains Co2 and nitrogen and water the hydrogen, wouldn't be a cheap methode (maybe nanotech will change that), but wouldn't it be nice if you had some box that sucks in air and water and outputs a proteine shake complete with plastic cup and straw

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Isn't helium a waste product of tokamak fusion reactors ?
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2004
  18. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Hopefully yes, nantotech may help provide 'near-limitless' supply of hydrocarbon fuel, and at the same time, reduce the green-house effect (right or just too much?).
    Oh also, somewhat related to "atmosphere loss" thread I started ages ago, so it's true that we're losing helium, but what is it for, anyway?
  19. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    That would be a good thing, Edufer. The general population could care less about nature and perserving it. IMHO, its better to scare people and take their money (if thats even the case), than to let them lead lives being ignorant of the casualites of human civilization. At least now they have some appreciation or respect for nature, even if a few dollars are missing from their change bottle on their dresser.

    "Life is unfair, what are you going to do about it?"

  20. Eggsited Registered Senior Member

    the helium waste can be used to make blimps... it think thats so cool...millions of blimps in the sky...i wont one, can't wait
  21. certified psycho Beware of the Shockie Monkey Registered Senior Member

    i think the end of earthly resources would would end sooner then 2050. I say this because the earth is in a shitty shape at the current time.
  22. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    It is going up to space constantly, but it keeps coming back. Helium is formed in the deep parts of Earth's crust, just above the mantle, as a result of decaying radon. Then, helium starts its way up the surface and, in the region known as the "methane region", it mixes with it and produces oil. The theory, already proven, is that oil is constantly being formed by this process, and the reason for "unexplained" refilling of ancient oil wells that were depleted.

    That's the reason why "fossil fuel" is a misnomer for oil (petroleum) and that term should be left for carbon, that comes from ancient jungles and biomass depositions.

    Oil companies collect helium in their drillings and sell it in the market. So no way we'll ever run out of helium - first radon must disappear, along with all radioactive material inside Earth's crust.
  23. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    I was under the impression that all the worlds helium comes from a singel source, an oil well/ field in texas, and it is running out. Now, sure, it may be formed undergroudn, but is it actualy collecting somewhere in enough density to be recoverable? If not, then we're buggered. The article i read made no mention of any alternative sources of helium.

Share This Page