What good is a used up world?

[TithonusSyndrome]

One thing that's hard for me is that we I start reading up on this kind of stuff, it's really hard for me to want to have kids.

Don't. That's the single thing a human being will do that will have more ecological impact than any other one thing, and possibly many combined carbon-impacting activities. I'm putting serious thought into getting snipped if it proves to be cheap enough and I have the recovery time available this summer.

[Bakustra]

Back in the '50s, the US made much of what it used, ran a large surplus in trade, had a gold backed currency and no debt. A family could have a decent house, car and 2.4 children going to good schools, with just one working parent, while the other (typically the wife), kept home affairs in order. Contrast that to today, where even with two parents working full time, credit cards and loans are a fact of life.

What does the gold standard have to do with the rest of that?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What does the gold standard have to do with the rest of that?

The removal of a tether for a currency has allowed our banks to exacerbate the problem by producing more and more debt backed by nothing but their word. It wasn't as bad up until the removal of Glass-Steagal and the formation of derivatives and related financial instruments which are basically fancy mathematical terms for gambling.

That's not to say a fiat currency doesn't work at all, but on a long enough timeline, they invariably return to their actual value, which is nothing.

One thing that's hard for me is that we I start reading up on this kind of stuff, it's really hard for me to want to have kids.

Adopt. I had this discussion with a female friend of mine just the other day (she's researching the orphan situation in Romania and the total lack of conformation with EU law). If you're serious about the carbon issue, and you want to help people, then there are plenty of kids who've had miserable lives without parents who could be given a loving home. I can't see any downside.

[Bakustra]

What does the gold standard have to do with the rest of that?

The removal of a tether for a currency has allowed our banks to exacerbate the problem by producing more and more debt backed by nothing but their word. It wasn't as bad up until the removal of Glass-Steagal and the formation of derivatives and related financial instruments which are basically fancy mathematical terms for gambling.

That's not to say a fiat currency doesn't work at all, but on a long enough timeline, they invariably return to their actual value, which is nothing.

Gold has an actual value of nothing too. This is a basic principle of economics: things have the value that we assign to them. Gold is valuable because we find it pretty and it doesn't tarnish or rust, or at least up until recently. Seashells had similar value to a number of coastal civilizations, glass beads to others. Does that mean that they have an intrinsic value equal to gold? If you wish to cry "scarcity", then why not use platinum-group metals? Those are far rarer than gold.

Also, all investment is gambling. The idea is trading off between low-risk, low-return investments such as dividends and high-risk, high-return investments such as blue-chip stocks and day trading, just as examples for personal investors. Seriously, try to find a means of investment that doesn't involve gambling. I dare you.

I am well aware that economists are generally regarded by the sections of the board who talk about them as roughly negative in value, but are you really willing to throw economics out entirely? What, then, shall be the replacement for the dismal science in such a brave new world?

[open_sketchbook]

It doesn't have to be thrown out entirely, just regulated. Heavily.

[Temujin]

Who said anything about killing off people? Nature will do that whether we vouch for a voluntary decline or not, you can't escape Liebig's laws just because you've invented technology. It's already quite the everyday occurrence in Africa and parts of Asia and South America. We only don't think about that, because we accept it as just how life is there. It's when that kind of thing happens in first world nations, do we suddenly take notice. And given the impoverished numbers going up in the UK and US, it can be argued it's started in earnest.

But don't worry. Short of a nuclear war, the vast majority of those who will die off are in places most people can't even locate on the map. People who never really had a chance to live like you or me, but who still rely on the bounty of industrialisation and the green revolution and a sound environment to keep their subsistence life somewhat stable.

Reminds me of something I heard a scientist say on a climate change special.

Essentially he said that once global warming starts having a full effect, we'll be lucky if we can support 2 billion people on Earth. He then added rather grimly that that means 4.5 billion people need to get off the Earth. And how do you get 4.5 billion people off the Earth? Famine, disease and war over ever scarcer resources. And of course he made the salient point that it will be the poor of the world who will be the ones to suffer disproportionately.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Gold has an actual value of nothing too. This is a basic principle of economics: things have the value that we assign to them. Gold is valuable because we find it pretty and it doesn't tarnish or rust, or at least up until recently. Seashells had similar value to a number of coastal civilizations, glass beads to others. Does that mean that they have an intrinsic value equal to gold? If you wish to cry "scarcity", then why not use platinum-group metals? Those are far rarer than gold.

The whole issue was to have something tied to a resource that cannot be replicated, faked or otherwise manipulated. There are far rarer metals even than platinum, but they are used in actual industry (ignoring that gold is to an extent too). Gold exists in sufficient quantities globally, has those very properties you listed in its favour, and is always seen as a convenient store of value. Take that anchor away, and fiat currency can be printed in stupid proportions like how the Anglo nations are doing now.

Also, all investment is gambling. The idea is trading off between low-risk, low-return investments such as dividends and high-risk, high-return investments such as blue-chip stocks and day trading, just as examples for personal investors. Seriously, try to find a means of investment that doesn't involve gambling. I dare you.

I am well aware that economists are generally regarded by the sections of the board who talk about them as roughly negative in value, but are you really willing to throw economics out entirely? What, then, shall be the replacement for the dismal science in such a brave new world?

Investing is nothing like the shit Wall Street and The City pulled off in the last decade. It's not stocks go up and down, it's piling bets on top of bets to the point of Greek tragedy. What went on in the past caused bubbles, yes. But if you've noticed these last two years, the bubbles have dwarfed all others in the past combined simply because of the use of CDOs, subprime mortgages, ARMs and derivative instruments. It's absurd, and people in the industry have even said as much and that they can't fathom even a fraction of what's going on. When Alan Greenspan comes out and says "I fucked up", you know something is afoot.

Also, I seem to be unable to find where I said I'd throw out all of economics. You need to point that part out to me. My point of contention is with the present model of economics (or rather, the one that has been in charge since the industrial revolution really got going).

Reminds me of something I heard a scientist say on a climate change special.

Essentially he said that once global warming starts having a full effect, we'll be lucky if we can support 2 billion people on Earth. He then added rather grimly that that means 4.5 billion people need to get off the Earth. And how do you get 4.5 billion people off the Earth? Famine, disease and war over ever scarcer resources. And of course he made the salient point that it will be the poor of the world who will be the ones to suffer disproportionately.

Sir David Attenborough has often spoken out about population growth, but it's such a taboo that even a respected, rational naturalist like him can get hate mail and death threats over the mere mention that, maybe, there are just too many fucking humans. He did a good programme for the BBC a few months back on this issue, looking at water, food, energy and ecology and in just about every area, humans have screwed the pooch so bad in places, it's irreparable. Look to Pakistan for energy, India for water or China for food and you'll see these issues getting ever more apparent.

I wouldn't be surprised if, like in 2008, commodities of all types go up and spike with oil, given everything is inextricably linked to the black gold.

[Bakustra]

It doesn't have to be thrown out entirely, just regulated. Heavily.

The point is this way, sir. You appear to be heading towards Albuquerque instead. The point is that claiming that certain types of investment are gambling (as opposed to others) and using this to condemn bankers, or declaring that bringing back the gold standard would keep those dirty financiers in line, yes it would, betrays an ignorance of economics, one of such caliber that I expect fully to see the labor theory of value lurking about nearby.

When I see such ignorance coupled with authoritarian statements, it suggests one of three possibilities:

1. The person is letting their fingers set forth upon the keyboard without actually thinking about it.

2. The person doesn't actually know much about what they're talking about, but think that they do.

3. The person is actually rejecting much of economics altogether.

So excusez moi for being charitable. I also am aware of the general attitudes expressed concerning economics and economists on this forum. Now, there is also the possibility that you are suggesting that we significantly regulate economics as a study, in which case I would be interested in how you would produce economic standards (since I presume that this would be related to certifying accountants and engineers) that are objective without biasing in favor of particular economic models, especially since the subjectivity of economics is well-known.

Gold has an actual value of nothing too. This is a basic principle of economics: things have the value that we assign to them. Gold is valuable because we find it pretty and it doesn't tarnish or rust, or at least up until recently. Seashells had similar value to a number of coastal civilizations, glass beads to others. Does that mean that they have an intrinsic value equal to gold? If you wish to cry "scarcity", then why not use platinum-group metals? Those are far rarer than gold.

The whole issue was to have something tied to a resource that cannot be replicated, faked or otherwise manipulated. There are far rarer metals even than platinum, but they are used in actual industry (ignoring that gold is to an extent too). Gold exists in sufficient quantities globally, has those very properties you listed in its favour, and is always seen as a convenient store of value. Take that anchor away, and fiat currency can be printed in stupid proportions like how the Anglo nations are doing now.

You can do that with gold too, you know. Unless you somehow wish to manufacture intelligent printing presses that refuse to print bills that will reduce the value of gold that each bill is worth? You seem to be wedded to the idea that governments will somehow be beheld to a lump of conductive metal (and what of countries with small gold supplies? Oh well, they're not important, are they?) rather than the actual conduct of human governments throughout history.

The actual consequences for the US would be disastrous, since with current gold prices, reserves, and GDP, one new US dollar under the gold standard would be worth 48 old dollars. This would cause significant deflation, exacerbating the current debt problem, and driving many people currently on the edge of ruin headlong into ruin. Great job fixing the economic recession.

Also, all investment is gambling. The idea is trading off between low-risk, low-return investments such as dividends and high-risk, high-return investments such as blue-chip stocks and day trading, just as examples for personal investors. Seriously, try to find a means of investment that doesn't involve gambling. I dare you.

I am well aware that economists are generally regarded by the sections of the board who talk about them as roughly negative in value, but are you really willing to throw economics out entirely? What, then, shall be the replacement for the dismal science in such a brave new world?

Investing is nothing like the shit Wall Street and The City pulled off in the last decade. It's not stocks go up and down, it's piling bets on top of bets to the point of Greek tragedy. What went on in the past caused bubbles, yes. But if you've noticed these last two years, the bubbles have dwarfed all others in the past combined simply because of the use of CDOs, subprime mortgages, ARMs and derivative instruments. It's absurd, and people in the industry have even said as much and that they can't fathom even a fraction of what's going on. When Alan Greenspan comes out and says "I fucked up", you know something is afoot.

Also, I seem to be unable to find where I said I'd throw out all of economics. You need to point that part out to me. My point of contention is with the present model of economics (or rather, the one that has been in charge since the industrial revolution really got going).

Ah, the good old habit of disregarding what people actually say in favor of what you wanted them to say. Describing the irresponsible practices of many American banks as "gambling" and singling them out as such implies that you believe that responsible investment is somehow different in character. The difference is one of degree, not of some fundamental divide beyond simple irresponsibility and responsibility.

As for the snide commentary, see my reply to open_sketchbook.

Reminds me of something I heard a scientist say on a climate change special.

Essentially he said that once global warming starts having a full effect, we'll be lucky if we can support 2 billion people on Earth. He then added rather grimly that that means 4.5 billion people need to get off the Earth. And how do you get 4.5 billion people off the Earth? Famine, disease and war over ever scarcer resources. And of course he made the salient point that it will be the poor of the world who will be the ones to suffer disproportionately.

Sir David Attenborough has often spoken out about population growth, but it's such a taboo that even a respected, rational naturalist like him can get hate mail and death threats over the mere mention that, maybe, there are just too many fucking humans. He did a good programme for the BBC a few months back on this issue, looking at water, food, energy and ecology and in just about every area, humans have screwed the pooch so bad in places, it's irreparable. Look to Pakistan for energy, India for water or China for food and you'll see these issues getting ever more apparent.

I wouldn't be surprised if, like in 2008, commodities of all types go up and spike with oil, given everything is inextricably linked to the black gold.

So, you don't see any reason why suggesting that the majority of the world's population needs to die could be considered taboo or unwelcome to people?

[Admiral Valdemar]

You can do that with gold too, you know. Unless you somehow wish to manufacture intelligent printing presses that refuse to print bills that will reduce the value of gold that each bill is worth? You seem to be wedded to the idea that governments will somehow be beheld to a lump of conductive metal (and what of countries with small gold supplies? Oh well, they're not important, are they?) rather than the actual conduct of human governments throughout history.

The actual consequences for the US would be disastrous, since with current gold prices, reserves, and GDP, one new US dollar under the gold standard would be worth 48 old dollars. This would cause significant deflation, exacerbating the current debt problem, and driving many people currently on the edge of ruin headlong into ruin. Great job fixing the economic recession.

I never said anything about fixing the recession, because this recession is never going away since you can't sufficiently grow an economy with ever more expensive energy (nor is the US ever paying off its debt with over $50T in liabilities: a 100% tax on all citizens wouldn't pay off the interest). I also never said the gold standard was perfect, nor that governments would not try and play around with it either (indeed, the very fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that). But I am saying that is you base your currency on something solid, not just ones and zeroes in a computer as is the norm now, then it's a damn sight harder to pull off the massive bubble blowing in stocks and property and personal debt than has been happening in recent times. And all fiat currencies have died a death in the past, it's no different today.

It need not just be gold. You could use any required commodity for trade, as we do now, but not have it tied to the dollar. It can be said that today we only trade in oil, not dollars, and as the price of oil goes up, the dollar's value falls. At the end of the day, you can't live off paper notes.

Ah, the good old habit of disregarding what people actually say in favor of what you wanted them to say. Describing the irresponsible practices of many American banks as "gambling" and singling them out as such implies that you believe that responsible investment is somehow different in character. The difference is one of degree, not of some fundamental divide beyond simple irresponsibility and responsibility.

Which is what I bloody said, unless you have a reading comprehension problem you're not divulging. I fully understand how stocks and shares work, I have them. What I DON'T find acceptable is blowing the game way out of proportion with hideously complex, highly leveraged bets on outcomes that could devastate whole industries, because they potentially can.

Oh wait, looks like it happened back in 2008.

So, you don't see any reason why suggesting that the majority of the world's population needs to die could be considered taboo or unwelcome to people?

You DO have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Kindly point out where I even HINTED at genocide, or shut the fuck up.

You sound like a raving Catholic nutjob who's not even considered the possibility that I may be talking about family planning and contraception. I'm talking about people getting over this fucking primal instinct of... fucking. There are thousands and thousands of kids already in the world without a proper family or any real future outside of a shitty orphanage which, literally, locks them up and neatly out of the way, or foster homes that pass on kids like so many parcels. But no, people want their own sprogs for whatever reason. Fuck the kids already out there, right? I know, let's keep IVF on the NHS too.

The absolute last thing the world needs is more humans, and yet, there are lunatics out there genuinely worried about the extinction of the human species as they look at stabilised (or even falling) native birth levels in the First World. They conveniently forget the powder keg of Africa, the Middle-East and Asia or South America where mass immigration from those places still takes place to the First World. And all those mouths to feed and aspirations to sate put more strain on a system that is already collapsing.

No, when I talk population control, like Attenborough, I'm not telling people to go fucking die in the gutter, or to have gas chambers built. I'm talking about getting people to understand the concept that eludes most regarding physical limits, and to learn that small families are a good idea. Or hey, don't have kids at all. But that makes you a weird person if you don't want a family, even in these days.

[Bakustra]

You can do that with gold too, you know. Unless you somehow wish to manufacture intelligent printing presses that refuse to print bills that will reduce the value of gold that each bill is worth? You seem to be wedded to the idea that governments will somehow be beheld to a lump of conductive metal (and what of countries with small gold supplies? Oh well, they're not important, are they?) rather than the actual conduct of human governments throughout history.

The actual consequences for the US would be disastrous, since with current gold prices, reserves, and GDP, one new US dollar under the gold standard would be worth 48 old dollars. This would cause significant deflation, exacerbating the current debt problem, and driving many people currently on the edge of ruin headlong into ruin. Great job fixing the economic recession.

I never said anything about fixing the recession, because this recession is never going away since you can't sufficiently grow an economy with ever more expensive energy (nor is the US ever paying off its debt with over $50T in liabilities: a 100% tax on all citizens wouldn't pay off the interest). I also never said the gold standard was perfect, nor that governments would not try and play around with it either (indeed, the very fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that). But I am saying that is you base your currency on something solid, not just ones and zeroes in a computer as is the norm now, then it's a damn sight harder to pull off the massive bubble blowing in stocks and property and personal debt than has been happening in recent times. And all fiat currencies have died a death in the past, it's no different today.

It need not just be gold. You could use any required commodity for trade, as we do now, but not have it tied to the dollar. It can be said that today we only trade in oil, not dollars, and as the price of oil goes up, the dollar's value falls. At the end of the day, you can't live off paper notes.

Ah, the business cycle is invalid, then? Your fantasies about the future and how we're all going to die and then eat cockroaches would be a marvelous piece of rhetoric if intentional. You would dangle them out there, daring people to disagree with you and thus drag things off course, if it were intentional. I am sure that you would not do so, of course.

See, the problem is that with the gold standard, or the seashell standard, or with the plutonium standard, we would not be issuing money, but rather certificates for a specific amount of said commodity. Choosing a rare commodity will produce either massive deflation or else be no different than the current system, as the quantities of gold would be so small as to enable rapid changes in the value of money without people noticing. These are flaws with the idea of tying money to any commodity. Further, I would like to note, on the grounds of smartassery, that all money has a value, even if it is the value of the memory it takes up in the case of credit. Finally, the potential overability of credit does not make your wet dreams about gold certificates any more valid. The two are separate issues. The easy availability of credit is something that can be fixed without zooming back to the nineteenth century.

Ah, the good old habit of disregarding what people actually say in favor of what you wanted them to say. Describing the irresponsible practices of many American banks as "gambling" and singling them out as such implies that you believe that responsible investment is somehow different in character. The difference is one of degree, not of some fundamental divide beyond simple irresponsibility and responsibility.

Which is what I bloody said, unless you have a reading comprehension problem you're not divulging. I fully understand how stocks and shares work, I have them. What I DON'T find acceptable is blowing the game way out of proportion with hideously complex, highly leveraged bets on outcomes that could devastate whole industries, because they potentially can.

Oh wait, looks like it happened back in 2008.

So why call them "gambling" as a pejorative? Oh, wait, you seem to have forgotten what I was saying.

So, you don't see any reason why suggesting that the majority of the world's population needs to die could be considered taboo or unwelcome to people?

You DO have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Kindly point out where I even HINTED at genocide, or shut the fuck up.

Dude. The point is that there are more people than can be sustained at a comfortable level of existence. They have to die one way or another, preferably through a happy old age with a great many children, but regardless, the population has to come down. Unless you have some sort of magic solution to said problem that involves immortality and infinite resources.

Your response to this, and the fact that you freak out about the thought of billions dying, apart from assuring me that you approximate a functioning human being in most respects, encapsulates my point exactly. You aren't comfortable with it. Neither am I. Nobody that isn't divorced from reality in some respect is. I can see why people react negatively to it, and why some people would send death threats to Attenborough.

[The Romulan Republic]

Meanwhile, in other news, textbooks across the nation are being re-written to favour the Texas Board of Education's right-wing agenda.

Unfortunately, yes. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that fundamentalism inhibits any attempt at dealing with these problems. However, I do remain optimistic that the long-term trend is towards increasing liberalism in America.

Of course, these are global problems, not American problems, though America does play a major role. I'm just not familiar enough with the politics of, say, China to comment very much on where they might be going in the next twenty years.

[The Romulan Republic]

You have more faith than I do.

I'm well aware that there's a fair chance our civilization will fuck everything up, collapse, and fade into oblivion. I just don't consider it inevitable, and recognize that in some areas at least, some progress is being made.

If you can see nationalism (something on the rise in Europe), religious fundamentalism and general corruption fading to nothing in the next decade, well, I welcome it. But they won't.

They won't ever die out completely, I suppose. And obviously while progress is being made in some countries, ground is being lost elsewhere. However, I'm less concerned about Europe than China and America, who have (correct me if I'm wrong) the biggest negative environmental impact.

Of course, every little bit matters.

Einstein said that the solutions to our problems can't come from the thinking that brought about such problems in the first place. So long as people with a special interest in the status quo exist in power, so too will this buggered system.

Unless things reach a point where the entire system simply collapses, but obviously a solution that didn't involve mass famine and widespread warfare would be preferable.

Sorry for the double post, but I wasn't sure if I'd have time to edit this whole thing into my last one.

[Kuroji]

With all of this, personally, I'm far more concerned about running out of rare minerals in the next half-century than I am about the environment. Not to say I don't have my concerns, but at the present rate of consumption we're going to run out of a lot of stuff that we rely on for our current industrial practices unless we find an awful lot of new sources.

That's to say nothing about the issues with petroleum that everyone is undoubtedly aware of by now.

If people were dedicated enough to try it, and costs were not as big of an issue, there are a lot of ways to feed people. Hydroponics and aeroponics have plenty of potential and can fit a lot into not much space, without having to constantly use nitrogen-based fertilizers. It's less a matter of being able to produce the food at all, and more a matter of producing it in a sustainable manner that doesn't strip the soil of nutrients.

As to dwindling non-renewable resources though... well, we've got some interesting things in the pipeline that can supplement and replace petroleum, but won't be economically viable until it hits between a hundred fifty and two hundred US dollars per barrel, and even then still needs to be tweaked so it can be rolled out on a massive scale instead of just some lab going 'isn't this neat, and it only costs five times what it costs at the pump'. As far as things like zinc, tantalum, copper, nickel, lead, and other materials that are used in current tech... about the only way we're going to fix that is either one hell of an insane global recycling initiative, intense mining without regard to the local environs, or, just maybe, someone kicking NASA in the ass and getting them to bring some ore from the asteroid belt down here so we can start harvesting our solar system's sources.

Ultimately, though, the problem is that our society consumes. The only way to fix that is that insane global recycling initiative so that society can be perpetually maintained at its current level, and that's pretty damned unlikely to have happen.

[MKSheppard]

I like how nobody's raised the point of ATOMIC ENERGY as the solution to our problems.

[[R_H]]

I like how nobody's raised the point of ATOMIC ENERGY as the solution to our problems.

Well Shep, that's a non-renewable resource dontcha know. I was just reading a book on the subject of the effects of climate change on society, Klimakriege (I don't know if it's available in English, but I recommend it), and that's basically what the author said about nuclear energy and (clean) coal. Never mind solar panels and wind mills using scarce resources as well.

[Kuroji]

I have a habit of thinking long-term. Very long-term. Nuclear power is a good solution, and if you've got methods that allow you to reprocess and reuse your fuel repeatedly it's a great idea. Unfortunately, you can't use nuclear power in anything mobile, so no nuclear-powered cars or mass transit short of a metro rail system.

You're going to see a lot of disruptions in terms of consumer goods (electronics, cars, anything using plastics) if some alternate source of minerals, or alternate manufacturing technique not requiring those minerals, isn't found in the coming few decades. And it's got not the least thing to do with electricity.

[Bakustra]

I like how nobody's raised the point of ATOMIC ENERGY as the solution to our problems.

Because it's not? Having cheap electricity would be a large part of any real solution, but some of the problems lie in convincing First Worlders to a)cut back on what they eat universally and b)take a lifestyle hit in general. All the nuclear power plants in the world won't solve anything long-term if their electricity goes solely to First World countries, after all. There is also the problem of convincing people to cut back on children, but increasing the wealth of the Third World should do wonders to alleviate that.

Any solution needs to incorporate agricultural, social, and industrial changes in order to make a real difference.

[MKSheppard]

Unfortunately, you can't use nuclear power in anything mobile, so no nuclear-powered cars or mass transit short of a metro rail system.

Wrong. Use nuclear power to crack hydrogen or ammonia. Use THAT in your vehicals.

You're going to see a lot of disruptions in terms of consumer goods (electronics, cars, anything using plastics) if some alternate source of minerals, or alternate manufacturing technique not requiring those minerals, isn't found in the coming few decades. And it's got not the least thing to do with electricity.

It's called COAL TO OIL. Use all the coal we save by mass nuclearization to produce synthetic oil.

And for specific resource depletion...well, there's always the Hughes Mining Barge and seabed mining

[Kuroji]

I can see that working, actually, at least to an extent. If you can start a national initiative to roll out nuclear power with a new plant design and shut up all the people who whine 'not in my backyard' you could simultaneously also roll out a more robust and redundant power grid, because it's pretty shaky as is, though I'm not expecting any massive three-day blackouts this summer. Still... converting coal to oil is expensive. Doable, sure, but hopefully not a thing we'd have to rely on for a good long time.

Thank you for the mention of anhydrous ammonia as a fuel source in vehicles; I'd not run across that previously and it looks quite interesting. Probably doable, though the present hydrogen suggestions that are floating around are crap IMO until they've got a viable way to store it as safely as gasoline (which is, all considered, not really all that safe -- that's what's really telling).

Seabed mining... well... there are a host of safety concerns, I'm sure, but my personal view is that it would be cheaper overall to just pick a damn asteroid, do the math, send something up there to bring it into orbit (stick it in lunar orbit if you're worried about it hitting Earth), and mine it as needed. More importantly than just safety though, if something happens that cuts off orbit, you've got the resources at the bottom of the gravity well you can still use.

[Darth Wong]

Even if we hypothetically solve the CO2 output problem of electrical power generation through the use of nuclear power, that doesn't really solve the larger problem of an overburdened environment or a bogus economy. We cut down millions of acres of forest every year to grow more food to feed our ever-growing global population. To grow that food, we pump ever more vast quantities of pesticides and fertilizers into the environment, which ends up polluting rivers and streams and then running off into the ocean, where it slaughters entire local ecosystems. Our economy is based on borrowing. We're at the point that regions which have used up all their damned water are hungrily eyeing neighbouring regions which haven't. Does it really take a genius to see that this situation cannot hold? Nuclear power is hardly going to solve all of this, especially since we don't want many countries to have it.

[Ryan Thunder]

Nuclear power is hardly going to solve all of this, especially since we don't want many countries to have it.

About this; we could just give them reactors that can't be used to produce nuclear weapons. IIRC, CANDU reactors are one of the safest, and can't be used in this way.

[mr friendly guy]

I have a habit of thinking long-term. Very long-term. Nuclear power is a good solution, and if you've got methods that allow you to reprocess and reuse your fuel repeatedly it's a great idea. Unfortunately, you can't use nuclear power in anything mobile, so no nuclear-powered cars or mass transit short of a metro rail system.

Why can you not have electric power cars and have nuclear provide the electricity. Electric cars as technology stands is limited in the distance it can travel, however the worlds second largest (soon to be the largest) car market China, has most of its citizens commuting ONLY within a city hence the limited travel distance won't be such a problem. For longer distance travel, such as in rural areas hybrid cars until electric cars becomes better.

Even if we hypothetically solve the CO2 output problem of electrical power generation through the use of nuclear power, that doesn't really solve the larger problem of an overburdened environment or a bogus economy. We cut down millions of acres of forest every year to grow more food to feed our ever-growing global population. To grow that food, we pump ever more vast quantities of pesticides and fertilizers into the environment, which ends up polluting rivers and streams and then running off into the ocean, where it slaughters entire local ecosystems. Our economy is based on borrowing. We're at the point that regions which have used up all their damned water are hungrily eyeing neighbouring regions which haven't. Does it really take a genius to see that this situation cannot hold? Nuclear power is hardly going to solve all of this, especially since we don't want many countries to have it.

I am interested in what you think about desalination plants. Australia are getting several, and if water is going to be an expensive commodity in the future, then those countries with plants, and a border via the sea could potentially sell the water to those with little water and make a tidy profit.

Now I am not saying we build more and more desalination plants. I agree with those who say ultimately the population has to shrink by natural means. I am suggesting that these "solutions" people have suggested serve as a stop gap measure until ultimately the population stabilises. Oh, and if any one points out that the economy will take a hit with this smaller futurisitc population, then a) either that will happen and we have to cop it sweet or b) we somehow improve production through technology, industrialisation (of those nations that aren't) etc.

[Kuroji]

Why can you not have electric power cars and have nuclear provide the electricity. Electric cars as technology stands is limited in the distance it can travel, however the worlds second largest (soon to be the largest) car market China, has most of its citizens commuting ONLY within a city hence the limited travel distance won't be such a problem. For longer distance travel, such as in rural areas hybrid cars until electric cars becomes better.

Rarity of lithium. You're going to need a LOT of it to put together the batteries for those cars, barring some breakthrough in the supercapacitor technologies they've been tinkering with. Beside that, batteries lack the energy density and portability of mediums like gasoline.

Even if we hypothetically solve the CO2 output problem of electrical power generation through the use of nuclear power, that doesn't really solve the larger problem of an overburdened environment or a bogus economy. We cut down millions of acres of forest every year to grow more food to feed our ever-growing global population. To grow that food, we pump ever more vast quantities of pesticides and fertilizers into the environment, which ends up polluting rivers and streams and then running off into the ocean, where it slaughters entire local ecosystems. Our economy is based on borrowing. We're at the point that regions which have used up all their damned water are hungrily eyeing neighbouring regions which haven't. Does it really take a genius to see that this situation cannot hold? Nuclear power is hardly going to solve all of this, especially since we don't want many countries to have it.

Bingo. That may introduce more problems than solutions; you'd have to be damned careful with how you handle things in that respect. I think we were assuming a best-case scenario where you're not going to have anyone decide to be stupid, break down the plant and refine the fissile material to weapon-grade. Unlikely, unfortunately, and even if they didn't refine it the more extreme terror groups wouldn't think twice about making dirty bombs with it. You'd have to look at solutions like orbital power platforms to shoot it back down planetside via microwave or whatever ideal technical solution engineers can come up with. Beside, relying on nothing but nuclear is not the ideal solution here either.

I am interested in what you think about desalination plants. Australia are getting several, and if water is going to be an expensive commodity in the future, then those countries with plants, and a border via the sea could potentially sell the water to those with little water and make a tidy profit.

Now I am not saying we build more and more desalination plants. I agree with those who say ultimately the population has to shrink by natural means. I am suggesting that these "solutions" people have suggested serve as a stop gap measure until ultimately the population stabilises. Oh, and if any one points out that the economy will take a hit with this smaller futurisitc population, then a) either that will happen and we have to cop it sweet or b) we somehow improve production through technology, industrialisation (of those nations that aren't) etc.

Useful, but for any areas that aren't on the coast it's going to be difficult for them to get clean water piped to them. Not impossible, just difficult. But logistically speaking, I don't see tankers full of fresh water ever being a viable way to solve this problem.

[Channel72]

I'm not entirely optimistic about the future prospects of humanity either, however it's worth noting that the cluster-fuck of problems we're currently facing are more or less intertwined. They all revolve around resource consumption and competition. Population growth and increased standards-of-living is the driving force behind all of this, however if we're going to be optimistic, we can note that in Europe at least, countries with higher living standards are exhibiting population decline as many people focus on their education and career over raising families. Although it's not entirely clear why this isn't happening in other first world nations, such as the United States, it's probably a function of better education, less religiosity, better social safety-nets, and the fact that many areas in the United States are still quasi-third world shit-holes.

So it's possible that breakthroughs in energy technology, (such as widespread use of nuclear power, or in decades to come some form of practical fusion), will lead to widespread, affordable increases in living standards, ultimately resulting in steady population decline.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

With all of this, personally, I'm far more concerned about running out of rare minerals in the next half-century than I am about the environment. Not to say I don't have my concerns, but at the present rate of consumption we're going to run out of a lot of stuff that we rely on for our current industrial practices unless we find an awful lot of new sources.

Climate change is the concern that ought to top your list of things to be concerned about. It will be hard to be concerned about, say, having more osmium to make ballpoint pens with if climate change is impacting agriculture to the point your industrial workers are starving to death; or are being killed in heat waves and/or massive storms. The second thing to be concerned about is reducing global resource consumption and population growth. The third is weaning the globe off its dependence on fossil petrochemicals before their declining production and rising costs strangle the economic efforts required to get away from them. Finding more sources of rare metals . . . way down the list.

If people were dedicated enough to try it, and costs were not as big of an issue, there are a lot of ways to feed people. Hydroponics and aeroponics have plenty of potential and can fit a lot into not much space, without having to constantly use nitrogen-based fertilizers. It's less a matter of being able to produce the food at all, and more a matter of producing it in a sustainable manner that doesn't strip the soil of nutrients.

Are either of these actually feasible on the orders of magnitude required to support six to nine billion people? Or even, say, three to five billion? Are these genuinely scalable technologies, or just buzzwords to throw around?

Ultimately, though, the problem is that our society consumes. The only way to fix that is that insane global recycling initiative so that society can be perpetually maintained at its current level, and that's pretty damned unlikely to have happen.

Two problems, actually. First, is that there are too many people. Second, those people consume too much. You can sustain a much smaller number of people on a First World lifestyle complete with recycling. However, the planet's current consumption and population are absolutely unsustainable without technologies and geo-engineering projects that are "just on the horizon."