Child Mortality is down - this is not good news Watch

F1Addict
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Fusion is pretty much free energy. With that we could do as much 'alchemy' as we wanted and simple make the materials require.

Well unless we have some stupendousness break throughs in science over the next few decades, and I seriously mean unbelievable breakthroughs, then we are going to have a bit of an issue.
Have you never heard of the conservation of energy principle? Energy can't be created or destroyed. From what I've learnt in A2 physics, fusion doesn't give free energy, but it does release a lot more energy than fission as a lot of energy needs to be given to the particles to actually fuse.

I'll remain optimistic about these technological breakthroughs, whether they happen or not. It could happens very soon. Forms of invisibility and teleportation are very real right now.

See ya.
0
reply
lukas1051
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
We will find ways to manage. Take GM crops for example, they've revolutionised issues with food. We'll come up with alternative ways of using resources, renewable energy and biodiesel, improved recycling. People worry way too much about overpopulation when in fact quite the opposite is the problem in a lot of MEDCs, people aren't having enough children and as a result there are not enough people to support the economies that once existed. Of course, you'd be stupid to deny overpopulation is an issue, but the key is to reduce and monitor birth rates, not increase death rates (aka. genocide).

The problem with these Malthusian theories is that they've never actually happened, a population crash has been predicted numerous times, but we've always found a way to overcome it. It's certainly nothing to worry about in the near future of the UK, that's for certain. Space is not an issue, there is plenty of room to build on, the residents of a little village may not be pleased about it but we do what we must. Food is not an issue, not in this country anyway, food grows back, if we don't have enough we plant more, or use genetic modification to give better yields, or find ways to improve soil quality so we can plant on land that would have once been considered not arable. We've already started to find ways of dealing with fuel and resource crises, these predictions of when X will run out just seem to get later and later. A couple of years ago I was told the oil would be gone in 2025. Now it's what, 2050? What is we find a huge oil well somewhere?

Stop worrying and be a little more optimistic
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by whyumadtho)
Developed countries' lifestyles rely on other people living in abhorrent conditions to keep the primary/secondary production cheap. Is your problem with overpopulation or the balancing of global lifestyles to a more equal position?
Exactly. Without billions of people in Indian and Chinese slums willing to work for what we'd consider a pittance, we wouldn't have the vast majority of our consumer goods.But as globalisation increases, our lifestyles probably won't be quite so cushy in relative terms.

More importantly, however, mortality isn't the only factor that affects population; birth rates are just as crucial. "Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate) So we shouldn't worry too much about an overexpanding population.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#104
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by F1Addict)
Have you never heard of the conservation of energy principle? Energy can't be created or destroyed. From what I've learnt in A2 physics, fusion doesn't give free energy, but it does release a lot more energy than fission as a lot of energy needs to be given to the particles to actually fuse.

I'll remain optimistic about these technological breakthroughs, whether they happen or not. It could happens very soon. Forms of invisibility and teleportation are very real right now.

See ya.
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Right. What scientific method would they use for that? I have never heard of a method to create materials that uses Energy only.

Energy is mass though, and that is what I am getting at. With such an abundance of energy, any form of electrolysis or other methods which are deemed at the moment to expensive due to the required energy would be resolved. By ~2018 we will see if we have fusion. As for indivisibility and quantum entanglement, they are not as great as you think. Quantum entanglement requires you to destroy the original particle, which is something I would not like to try.
Also fusion could help with space travel as it would provide a massive power source to do anything such as using railguns as launch platforms.
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Ah, but what is the key to everything being made?
Make sure it has a short life span so we can sell more.

Development is needed and is good as it makes our lives better, and helps our understanding of the universe. Yes, it is not vital, but ambition is a human trait, and we want to be the best and know as much as we can. It would be a sad thing that this ambition is cut short simply because of over breeding - something that could have been solved so easily.
Society could produce what is only needed, and have enough resources to carry on our research and developments to the point where we would not need to worry about resources ever again. However how would people feel if they went from a very basic home to a workplace which was state-of-the-art ?
Materialism and the ephemeral consumption of goods are what drive innovation and development. People always want something better and faster; if this were not the case, how would technological advances occur? These technological advances drive medical advances and environmental advances, too. Without a constant inflow of money the major technological companies across the world would not be able to grow and innovate to fuel development, and society would stagante. It seems to be a catch-22 situation.

Isn't producing "what is needed" reducing society to a subsistant state of living, which is something you wanted to avoid?
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Did you not read what I said?

WE CAN NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT POPULATION UNLESS IT IS REDUCED BY AT LEAST 80%.

Birth rates are falling, put population is still increasing, or at least being maintained. We will not be able to produce enough electricity for everyone in the world to live at a developed rate for any sustainable amount of time.
Things like hydrogen cars are crap as we could not make enough to replace every car at the moment, let alone keep people supplied with them.



But he forgets about materials. We have the science, but not the materials to supply it to so many people. Unless we master fusion, we are screwed.
80% are you stupid?

the populations ok as it is, and can easily stay around the 6-7bil figure, yes resources are gunna run out IF we use them as we have been for the last decade
however you are being quite ignorant of the fact Developed countries are slowing down heavily on these resources and it won't be long untill china and india stop as well
it is predicted that by 2020 the only pure petrol cars being made will be high end sportscars
our use of metal is slowing down as well, more and more items are being made of man made materials... heard of carbon fibre? light, strong as ****, and decreasing in cost rapidly, within 20 years it will be cheap enough to make cans of coke out of it
electricity is an easy one... solar power is becoming much more effective and cheaper, within a decade i would say its going to be the norm
technology will always find ways for us to survive its pretty much a part of our evolution now

the only problems are going to be in developing countries after china and india
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#107
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by whyumadtho)
Materialism and the ephemeral consumption of goods are what drive innovation and development. People always want something better and faster; if this were not the case, how would technological advances occur? These technological advances drive medical advances and environmental advances, too. Without a constant inflow of money the major technological companies across the world would not be able to grow and innovate to fuel development, and society would stagante. It seems to be a catch-22 situation.

Isn't producing "what is needed" reducing society to a subsistant state of living, which is something you wanted to avoid?
You would have to have a complete and utter change in society. At the moment the only reason to develop something is to allow you to make more money. What you would want is a system were these developments still occur yet without the sole purpose of being the next cash cow.
As for living with 'what we need', that would only be the case if the global population stays as it is. If you reduced it significantly then people could still maintain their current lifestyle, as well as their being enough resources to be able to advance to the stage were we need not worry about such things.

(Original post by lukas1051)
We will find ways to manage. Take GM crops for example, they've revolutionised issues with food. We'll come up with alternative ways of using resources, renewable energy and biodiesel, improved recycling. People worry way too much about overpopulation when in fact quite the opposite is the problem in a lot of MEDCs, people aren't having enough children and as a result there are not enough people to support the economies that once existed. Of course, you'd be stupid to deny overpopulation is an issue, but the key is to reduce and monitor birth rates, not increase death rates (aka. genocide).

The problem with these Malthusian theories is that they've never actually happened, a population crash has been predicted numerous times, but we've always found a way to overcome it. It's certainly nothing to worry about in the near future of the UK, that's for certain. Space is not an issue, there is plenty of room to build on, the residents of a little village may not be pleased about it but we do what we must. Food is not an issue, not in this country anyway, food grows back, if we don't have enough we plant more, or use genetic modification to give better yields, or find ways to improve soil quality so we can plant on land that would have once been considered not arable. We've already started to find ways of dealing with fuel and resource crises, these predictions of when X will run out just seem to get later and later. A couple of years ago I was told the oil would be gone in 2025. Now it's what, 2050? What is we find a huge oil well somewhere?

Stop worrying and be a little more optimistic
http://www.iter.org/proj/itermission

It is this or we are bust


(Original post by f00ddude)
80% are you stupid?

the populations ok as it is, and can easily stay around the 6-7bil figure, yes resources are gunna run out IF we use them as we have been for the last decade
however you are being quite ignorant of the fact Developed countries are slowing down heavily on these resources and it won't be long untill china and india stop as well
it is predicted that by 2020 the only pure petrol cars being made will be high end sportscars
our use of metal is slowing down as well, more and more items are being made of man made materials... heard of carbon fibre? light, strong as ****, and decreasing in cost rapidly, within 20 years it will be cheap enough to make cans of coke out of it
electricity is an easy one... solar power is becoming much more effective and cheaper, within a decade i would say its going to be the norm
technology will always find ways for us to survive its pretty much a part of our evolution now

the only problems are going to be in developing countries after china and india
:facepalm:

No country 'stops' using resources. When those 2 billion people start wanting electronic goods, then what? Do you think that computers are made from common materials? :confused:
As for cars - please tell me what will replace petrol? Hydrogen? Well sorry, we do not have enough lithium to produce the batteries for these cars - well, only enough to replace every car.......once.

Solar power is still ****, and the volume needed would radiate so much heat back it would destroy the eco system in that area, and possibly globally. Fusion is the only solution to power, but it has been '20 years away' for the last 60 years.
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
You would have to have a complete and utter change in society. At the moment the only reason to develop something is to allow you to make more money. What you would want is a system were these developments still occur yet without the sole purpose of being the next cash cow.
The profits made from being a "cash cow" are often reinvested into new, innovative products that drive the developments that you feel are needed. Without such an inflow of money, they could not continue their development. Mass production of goods is needed for any development to occur. In terms of a realistic future scenario, how else do you think the developments would occur without the present system operating? What will motivate the company?

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
As for living with 'what we need', that would only be the case if the global population stays as it is. If you reduced it significantly then people could still maintain their current lifestyle, as well as their being enough resources to be able to advance to the stage were we need not worry about such things.
Are you refusing to accept that the Western lifestyle is the entire problem? People's aspiration to the inherently destructive Western lifestyle, as well as the current superfluous consumption that characterises the West are the two primary problems. Society must stop consuming in such an extravagant style to prevent the problem from worsening. A massacre of billions of people is far more extreme and unrealistic than a change in societal values, even if both are highly improbable.

It seems that your suggestions are very unrealistic at the moment. Global genocide and the removal of capitalism from global businesses will not happen. What pragmatic policies should be enforced to prevent the depletion of resources?
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Jimbo1234)

No country 'stops' using resources. When those 2 billion people start wanting electronic goods, then what? Do you think that computers are made from common materials? :confused:
As for cars - please tell me what will replace petrol? Hydrogen? Well sorry, we do not have enough lithium to produce the batteries for these cars - well, only enough to replace every car.......once.

Solar power is still ****, and the volume needed would radiate so much heat back it would destroy the eco system in that area, and possibly globally. Fusion is the only solution to power, but it has been '20 years away' for the last 60 years.
not stop using, but stop relying on them as something we NEED
and as soon as this happens the demand goes down, therefore what we do have lasts longer
lets say we have 1000 bits of iron, we use 10 a day, thats gunna last 100 days
lets say due to new technology we no longer need it but still use 2 bits a day, thats 500 days
and that is exactly what we are seeing in countries such as the UK and US, the demand for oil has started to steady due to the new man made materials and soon it is predicted that the demand will start to actually decrease. we are no longer using the "predicted" amounts and the prediction for when resources will run out is changing all the time, in our favour

solar power is no longer ****, with the technology we have now they can power smartphones with a small sheet of solar film on the screen. admittedly this is still expensive but as with all technology, the price will drop over time. HTC are considering using it on one of their 2013 smartphone ranges and this will retail around £600 and there were rumors HP and Dell are considering its use for laptops
my secondary school was 30% powered by a windmill generator on our school field, and there are quite a few schools in my area doing the same.
Nuclear power is growing as well, altho tbh i dunno much about it im just showing yet another example
you can now grow some forms of petrol as well, its not in a great position at the moment, although it is increasingly being used in farm vechles

you seem to be quite ignorant of the technology in the world today. it is more likely we are killed off by scientists experimenting with physics and anti matter than a lack of resources

have a look into what experiments are going on, and what is happening in the world of technology before you say we need to cull the population. governments and businesses are investing billions into these kinds of projects afterall

the only places your argument has any ground are countries in the middle east, africa and so on, where these places will not be able to afford new tech, however these places are not exactly heavy users of non renewable resources, and most only supply the western world with oil
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by whyumadtho)
The profits made from being a "cash cow" are often reinvested into new, innovative products that drive the developments that you feel are needed. Without such an inflow of money, they could not continue their development. Mass production of goods is needed for any development to occur. In terms of a realistic future scenario, how else do you think the developments would occur without the present system operating? What will motivate the company?

Are you refusing to accept that the Western lifestyle is the entire problem? People's aspiration to the inherently destructive Western lifestyle, as well as the current superfluous consumption that characterises the West are the two primary problems. Society must stop consuming in such an extravagant style to prevent the problem from worsening. A massacre of billions of people is far more extreme and unrealistic than a change in societal values, even if both are highly improbable.

It seems that your suggestions are very unrealistic at the moment. Global genocide and the removal of capitalism from global businesses will not happen. What pragmatic policies should be enforced to prevent the depletion of resources?
You are very right in that my ideas are unrealistic which is the problem. The western lifestyle is highly demanding, however would people want to revert back? How would people be motivated if they could not buy a better phone, in fact then actually have no mobiles, no computers etc? The only way development could be funded is through major monopolies and funding from governments, but of course this will not happen. The only way to maintain social order would be for complete social reform based around a noble lie or something similar to keep people happy with having very little.

But seeing that pigs will learn how to fly before any of this happens, I can't see a very happy out come for people in the next 100 or so years.

(Original post by f00ddude)
not stop using, but stop relying on them as something we NEED
and as soon as this happens the demand goes down, therefore what we do have lasts longer
lets say we have 1000 bits of iron, we use 10 a day, thats gunna last 100 days
lets say due to new technology we no longer need it but still use 2 bits a day, thats 500 days
and that is exactly what we are seeing in countries such as the UK and US, the demand for oil has started to steady due to the new man made materials and soon it is predicted that the demand will start to actually decrease. we are no longer using the "predicted" amounts and the prediction for when resources will run out is changing all the time, in our favour

solar power is no longer ****, with the technology we have now they can power smartphones with a small sheet of solar film on the screen. admittedly this is still expensive but as with all technology, the price will drop over time. HTC are considering using it on one of their 2013 smartphone ranges and this will retail around £600 and there were rumors HP and Dell are considering its use for laptops
my secondary school was 30% powered by a windmill generator on our school field, and there are quite a few schools in my area doing the same.
Nuclear power is growing as well, altho tbh i dunno much about it im just showing yet another example
you can now grow some forms of petrol as well, its not in a great position at the moment, although it is increasingly being used in farm vechles

you seem to be quite ignorant of the technology in the world today. it is more likely we are killed off by scientists experimenting with physics and anti matter than a lack of resources

have a look into what experiments are going on, and what is happening in the world of technology before you say we need to cull the population. governments and businesses are investing billions into these kinds of projects afterall

the only places your argument has any ground are countries in the middle east, africa and so on, where these places will not be able to afford new tech, however these places are not exactly heavy users of non renewable resources, and most only supply the western world with oil
Well this is my point, the 'new solution' to oil is horse crap as we do not have enough materials to replace every car, let alone make these new cars for the next 20 years. Seeing that they have not mentioned anything about other cars then this is alarming.

As for alternative power sources, I can guarantee you that I am not the ignorant one here. If we removed every gas, coal, and oil power plant, we could not make up the difference in power without seriously damaging the environment or using all the uranium within a matter of years. Even with solar panels, you still need lithium so again, same problem. Bar fusion, no alternative energy source is viable. They would either cripple the environment or require rare earths and you simply could not mine enough to replace the deficit in the power grid. But guess what fusion needs? That's right - lithium.
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by Jimbo1234)


Well this is my point, the 'new solution' to oil is horse crap as we do not have enough materials to replace every car, let alone make these new cars for the next 20 years. Seeing that they have not mentioned anything about other cars then this is alarming.

As for alternative power sources, I can guarantee you that I am not the ignorant one here. If we removed every gas, coal, and oil power plant, we could not make up the difference in power without seriously damaging the environment or using all the uranium within a matter of years. Even with solar panels, you still need lithium so again, same problem. Bar fusion, no alternative energy source is viable. They would either cripple the environment or require rare earths and you simply could not mine enough to replace the deficit in the power grid. But guess what fusion needs? That's right - lithium.
no, theres tonnes of new methods we could use, its impossible to tell which ones going to take off,
cars can be made largely out of carbon fibre which is now stronger and lighter than metal, when this is cheap enough (it started on very top end cars and is so far on cars around the 50k mark and dropping) it will also make the car lighter, creating new ways to power the car
a car with a carbon fibre chassis is a lot lighter than a standard car, so could be powered by much weaker methods than petrol
if we removed our resources we would be stuck? WOW no way?! are you serious wow my arguments been destroyed... of wait, we are talking about the future, we have time to adapt

infact, i can now see that what i thought was ignorance is just stupidity (of your just a bit messed up and want an excuse to kill 5billion or so people)

how to explain this to an idiot...

So, in lets say 50 (in reality its going to be closer to 100) years we will have run out of stuff we currently use IF we use it at this rate... thats a fact well done you were correct there, want a gold star?
however, in that time we can very easily create new materials and methods of producing energy, think about where we were 50 years ago and how different technology was
if you had told someone then what the internet was they wouldnt have believed you, mobile phones, solar power, they had only just found out about nuclear weapons! We have even sent a probe into space looking for anti matter, something people wouldnt even have known about 50 years ago
now although most of our developments are not to do with finding renewable energy and resources, thats because it was not untill the last decade or so that humans really decided it was a problem and it is only then we really started working on this

in 50 years time for all we know we could have found a way to turn standard dirt into the strongest material known to man, timetravel is a genuine possibility within the next 50 years (forwards, and accepting timetravellers from the future) we could even be mining on the moon you just don't know
basically, technology moves FAST, we have no idea what we could be doing in 50 years time, but the chances are, with the current issues a lot of research will be going into creating a sustainable way of living, and therefore that is what we will have

OH and we have started recycling, slowing down the process even more, the future could be a world where almost everything is recycled therefore buying us much much more time to change

IF the we ran out of all our resources today, yeh wed be pretty much screwed, but its not going to happen, its a gradual process which we have started preparing for and we should easily be ready for when it does.
0
reply
Fonix
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
This type of scaremongering has been around for decades. If not centuries. Since the beginning of the 20th century people have been actively trying to conserve resources for fear of mass starvation etc.

What happened? Did we decrease demand? No

We increased supply buy having the green revolution.

Necessity is the mother of invention

We will be fine, and so will our children (in this respect at least)
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
You are very right in that my ideas are unrealistic which is the problem. The western lifestyle is highly demanding, however would people want to revert back? How would people be motivated if they could not buy a better phone, in fact then actually have no mobiles, no computers etc? The only way development could be funded is through major monopolies and funding from governments, but of course this will not happen. The only way to maintain social order would be for complete social reform based around a noble lie or something similar to keep people happy with having very little.

But seeing that pigs will learn how to fly before any of this happens, I can't see a very happy out come for people in the next 100 or so years.
Exactly. The Western lifestyle not only facilitates the inexorable decline of resources, but also promotes and expects it. There is a failure of consideration towards the indirect impacts consumption may have due to profiteering repressing such information unless required by law and it partial contribution to public ignorance. Society is accelerating towards a cliff but as basic things like fuel become more expensive, the consequential impacts they will have on all facets of society may invoke change.
0
reply
Ali1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by Jimbo1234)


http://www.childmortality.org/cmeMain.html


So, child mortality is coming down, more countries are becoming developed, this should be good news right?

Wrong.

We barely have enough resources to support less then a billion people in a 'developed' lifestyle, how can we possibly support more?

I am not talking just about oil, but other materials such as lithium (20 years supply left so you better start enjoying nuclear batteries), rare earth minerals which are key to electronic goods, and general power consumption. Unless we crack fusion there is no possibly way we can generate enough energy. Wind farms? The amount needed would screw up the wind patterns or completely stop wind in areas. Solar panels? They would take up such a large surface area that it would heat up the atmosphere and destroy the eco system.
The only solution I can see is that every country needs to put a population cap and reduce the worlds population by at least 90% otherwise humanity will be permanently stuck in the middle ages within 100 years.

EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_ra...ts_mining.html

2012 : end of terbium
2018 : end of hafnium
2021 : end of silver
2022 : end of antimony
2023 : end of palladium
2025 : end of indium
end of gold
end of zinc
2028 : end of tin
2030 : end of lead
2038 : end of tantalum
2039 : end of copper
2040 : end of uranium
2048 : end of nickel
2050 : end of oil

2064 : end of platinum

2072 : end of natural gas

2087 : end of iron
2120 :end of cobalt
2139 : end of aluminium
2158 : end of coal
so why dont you start by making a small contribution to the survival of the earth and killing yourself?
2
reply
Aeschylus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
I'd just like to say posters like the OP were responsible for the (entirely ideologically based) idea to sterilise over a million woman in India, totally unnecessarily in the 70s. There's a very good book written on it that I cannot for the life of me remember
0
reply
Arianto
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Fusion+Nanotechnology) x Spacetravel = win. Is nice. :borat:
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#117
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by f00ddude)
no, theres tonnes of new methods we could use, its impossible to tell which ones going to take off,
cars can be made largely out of carbon fibre which is now stronger and lighter than metal, when this is cheap enough (it started on very top end cars and is so far on cars around the 50k mark and dropping) it will also make the car lighter, creating new ways to power the car
a car with a carbon fibre chassis is a lot lighter than a standard car, so could be powered by much weaker methods than petrol
if we removed our resources we would be stuck? WOW no way?! are you serious wow my arguments been destroyed... of wait, we are talking about the future, we have time to adapt

infact, i can now see that what i thought was ignorance is just stupidity (of your just a bit messed up and want an excuse to kill 5billion or so people)

how to explain this to an idiot...

So, in lets say 50 (in reality its going to be closer to 100) years we will have run out of stuff we currently use IF we use it at this rate... thats a fact well done you were correct there, want a gold star?
however, in that time we can very easily create new materials and methods of producing energy, think about where we were 50 years ago and how different technology was
if you had told someone then what the internet was they wouldnt have believed you, mobile phones, solar power, they had only just found out about nuclear weapons! We have even sent a probe into space looking for anti matter, something people wouldnt even have known about 50 years ago
now although most of our developments are not to do with finding renewable energy and resources, thats because it was not untill the last decade or so that humans really decided it was a problem and it is only then we really started working on this

in 50 years time for all we know we could have found a way to turn standard dirt into the strongest material known to man, timetravel is a genuine possibility within the next 50 years (forwards, and accepting timetravellers from the future) we could even be mining on the moon you just don't know
basically, technology moves FAST, we have no idea what we could be doing in 50 years time, but the chances are, with the current issues a lot of research will be going into creating a sustainable way of living, and therefore that is what we will have

OH and we have started recycling, slowing down the process even more, the future could be a world where almost everything is recycled therefore buying us much much more time to change

IF the we ran out of all our resources today, yeh wed be pretty much screwed, but its not going to happen, its a gradual process which we have started preparing for and we should easily be ready for when it does.
You obviously do not talk to anyone doing a science degree as you have no idea on what is 'cutting edge' or what is actually used.

Carbon fibre makes a car lighter....but it still weighs a hell of a lot and requires some form of engine. There are either combustion or electrical engines and they all require some type of finite fuel.......note the 'finite' part of that.
As for your 'tonnes' of methods, care to source some? :rolleyes:
The future? You realise that is only about 20 years ? Not some sci-film or other warped dream you have were sciences appears out of thin air.

Yes we have progressed a lot, but it all requires materials. :eek: And they are running out alarmingly fast as the computing industry never predicted it would grow into such a massive market.

You seem to claim that 'we can very easily create new methods of producing energy', which shows how little you know. How? Apart from fusion there are no viable new methods being developed or even known about, and with todays technology, I doubt this will change much.
Time travel a possibility? I'm talking about science, not some sci-fi horse **** kid. Go read Science rather then Star Trek please.

Yes, technology moves fast, and I know people who are on the cutting edge of some of the fields and there are many new things to be made but they all share one thing in common, they need rare earths - that thing China just stopped exporting because it realised how valuable they are.

Ironically what we recycle are the things that are least of our worries. We recycle paper (why? We can sustain it perfectly), tin (still a fair bit left), plastics (got good substitutions lined up), and glass ( again, perfectly sustainable).

So unless you are going to come back with some facts, don't bother posting again.

(Original post by Fonix)
This type of scaremongering has been around for decades. If not centuries. Since the beginning of the 20th century people have been actively trying to conserve resources for fear of mass starvation etc.

What happened? Did we decrease demand? No

We increased supply buy having the green revolution.

Necessity is the mother of invention

We will be fine, and so will our children (in this respect at least)
I beg to differ seeing that we are at a stage of development were we can predict how much minerals we have, and predicted how we will use them. 100 years ago - even 30 years ago they did not have much of an idea but thanks to modern techniques, we now do. On top of this the minerals in demand were not even being used 40 years ago and no one knew they would be.

(Original post by Ali1991)
so why dont you start by making a small contribution to the survival of the earth and killing yourself?
Because I noticed this problem so it is my free ticket.
Anyway, you going to contribute something decent to this thread?

(Original post by Aeschylus)
I'd just like to say posters like the OP were responsible for the (entirely ideologically based) idea to sterilise over a million woman in India, totally unnecessarily in the 70s. There's a very good book written on it that I cannot for the life of me remember
SO please tell me how many minerals are left and what will we use instead.
Don't ****ing comment if you don't know what you are on about.
0
reply
Aeschylus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Y

SO please tell me how many minerals are left and what will we use instead.
Don't ****ing comment if you don't know what you are on about.
Synthetic Oil derived from bacteria is being developed by a variety of countries and needs greater funds but the potential for mass commercialisation is there. Google LS9

The extreme solution you're proposing is ideologically slanted to 'kill off most of the third world to fund our extravagant lifestyles'. Not invest in research to decrease use of materials or develop alternatives or invest in mass public transport support or greater recycling (and these are off the top of my head)but kill off people lovely. Once again I find you in a thread rejecting any view apart from your own because your's is the god-given truth and all the alternatives can't possibly as good.

Your list of materials that will run out exactly when (despite oil was forecast in 1919 to run out within 10 years) has been shown to be bunkum and the fact you cling to it so repeating the same old schtick is quite frankly amusing

I'll repeat what I said earlier: The stone age did not end because they ran out of stone. When materials become more and more prohibitively expensive, alternatives will be created, urged on by financial profit, and most keenly, necessity. Look at WWII for example. In six years we had the first man made object actually to reach space, the atom bomb, the jet engine and god knows what else.
2
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by Aeschylus)
The stone age did not end because they ran out of stone.
:top:

Anyway - it's clearly good news if you're a kid who's not going to die, morally your life has as much value as Jimbo123's and should be celebrated.

The problem with these ghastly overpopulation doomsayers is that they don't like human beings - something PJ O'Rourke addreses for comedy value in the book I namechecked earlier.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#120
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#120
(Original post by Aeschylus)
Synthetic Oil derived from bacteria is being developed by a variety of countries and needs greater funds but the potential for mass commercialisation is there. Google LS9

The extreme solution you're proposing is ideologically slanted to 'kill off most of the third world to fund our extravagant lifestyles'. Not invest in research to decrease use of materials or develop alternatives or invest in mass public transport support or greater recycling (and these are off the top of my head)but kill off people lovely. Once again I find you in a thread rejecting any view apart from your own because your's is the god-given truth and all the alternatives can't possibly as good.

Your list of materials that will run out exactly when (despite oil was forecast in 1919 to run out within 10 years) has been shown to be bunkum and the fact you cling to it so repeating the same old schtick is quite frankly amusing

I'll repeat what I said earlier: The stone age did not end because they ran out of stone. When materials become more and more prohibitively expensive, alternatives will be created, urged on by financial profit, and most keenly, necessity. Look at WWII for example. In six years we had the first man made object actually to reach space, the atom bomb, the jet engine and god knows what else.
Ok, so lets say you have solved oil, what about actual minerals? Which would be more destructive to society? The end of oil or the end of computing?

Stop making Straw men. I never said the 3rd world. Frankly they are not the problem as they consume very little. The problem is the Western lifestyle as it is impossible to sustain.

So you claim that modern day prospecting is as accurate as that in 1919? :rolleyes: What a great argument. You mas as well claim that magic is the key to solving this problem.
As I showed with gold, we have already mined over 50% of it and that has been within the last 100 years, and with demand increasing, that will run out within 50 years.
Now before you spout out ' we'll find other things', remember that thing from chemistry called a periodic table and that every mineral is on there, so as soon as we start crossing them out, we have a big problem.

Your analogy of the stage age does not work very well. Something more accurate would be 'What if they needed stone to get into the bronze age but had all ran out?'. That is what we are dealing with as the key to development are computers and they run the risk of not developing due to a lack of materials. Do you even know how many rare earths are in one computer?

(Original post by Joinedup)
:top:

Anyway - it's clearly good news if you're a kid who's not going to die, morally your life has as much value as Jimbo123's and should be celebrated.

The problem with these ghastly overpopulation doomsayers is that they don't like human beings - something PJ O'Rourke addreses for comedy value in the book I namechecked earlier.
So please tell me what a computer is made from and how those minerals will last for 100 years? :rolleyes: Don't comment when you obviously have no understanding of the topic.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (227)
39.21%
No - but I will (40)
6.91%
No - I don't want to (41)
7.08%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (271)
46.8%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise