Depletion of Resources

[betazed]

I would appreciate if no-one brought up Capitalism in this thread again unless someone first explains to me why it is pertinent to the subject at hand, viz, depletion of resources and the ecological sustainability of current world civilization.

Fair comment.

I brought it up because I wanted to show that civilizational sustainability from the energy viewpoint is hardly a technological problem now but a political and social problem. The best socio-economic organization that we have is capitalism. I went into some length why capitalism cannot sustain itself in the long run and undertake these massive projects (which become more and more essential from civilizational sustainability point) about a month back. You can dig it up here.

 

[Little Raven]

Imagine....

I've read the book. I'm well aware of the promise that awaits us beyond the atmosphere. I'm also aware that it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

And if this trend keeps up, we may not have much time.

 

[luiz]

Violent resistance is not necessarily a sensible reaction to being robbed at gun-point ...

I understand, but my point was that it's stupid to seize the offshore rings but they would never be able to exploit them.

We could easily sink the platrorms, and what could they do in retaliation? Invade us?

 

[luiz]

I just found an article called Ten Capitalist Myths. Our stubborn, idealistic die-hard capitalists here should read it. It debunks many common myths in a very convincing way.

In respect to TLC's resquest, I'll not make an indepth response. But let me just say that this site simply say "they are wrong". Nothing is debunked, there is no proof or rational argumentation, just claims.

 

[luiz]

That didn't happen in Bangla Desh until now. Density is already at 1000 people/km². My numbers were too high, though. India grows with 1,5% p.a..

It will though, sooner or later.
And 1,5% is a fairly acceptable population growth.

I think they produce enough food at the moment. I'm worried more because of the oil they will need. India has a significant economic growth.

The fact that they are experiencing economic growth is great.

 

[Mise]

I would appreciate if no-one brought up Capitalism in this thread again unless someone first explains to me why it is pertinent to the subject at hand, viz, depletion of resources and the ecological sustainability of current world civilization.

Capitalism is based on maximising profits. Long term profts are less valuable than short term profits, so in a capitalist system short term profits are most sought after. In the short term, oil is the biggest profit maker. In the long term, renewable energy is the biggest profit maker. Capitalists chose to go down the "oil" route and make lots of money. People who are less profit oriented (and therefore less 'capitalist') go down the "renewables" route and ask the (normally socialist/left-leaning) government for lots of money, in the hope that in the future, they will make lots of money and/or fame (as is the case in Universities). Thus, capitalism and the 'capitalist mentality' can be seen as a causal factor in the depletion of natural resources (the above example used oil, but any resource can be applied with only minor modifications).

Note that I myself don't believe that capitalism is the root of the problem. I only believe that capitalism is not the solution to the problem, as many capitalists seem to believe. (Worse are the capitalists who believe there is no problem.) Capitalism may not have struck the match that lit the fire, but certainly, capitalism is the one throwing the gasohol on the flame.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

First of all: None of us will ever see the depletion of oil. The biggest oil reserve in the world, has not yet even touched! It's located in Canada, under thick layers of ice. It is damn hard to exploit these fields. What I have read about it (not recently) is that it will be profitable when a barrel of Brent Oil costs 120-150 US dollars.

There is also the tar sands in northern Alberta, which itself has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but it even costs over 20 dollars a barrell to produce. Thus when oil drops below that price, production all but stops.

The point being that oil won't run out, but become unprofitable.

And the other point is that Canada is freaking loaded.

 

[crystal]

At a 1,5% annual growth rate, population will double in 47 years and triple in 74 years. In the case of India, I hardly find it a sustainable scenario. And they have not even industrialized yet...

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Crystal, you have to take into count, the rate of change of the rate of change. That growth rate won't stay forever.

 

[crystal]

Crystal, you have to take into count, the rate of change of the rate of change. That growth rate won't stay forever.

So what's your estimate and calculations then?

 

[dgfred]

There is also the tar sands in northern Alberta, which itself has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but it even costs over 20 dollars a barrell to produce. Thus when oil drops below that price, production all but stops.

The point being that oil won't run out, but become unprofitable.

And the other point is that Canada is freaking loaded.

Due to increased sale of legalized pot . Maybe Canada should give
some of the money to their hockey teams to keep them afloat .

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

So what's your estimate and calculations then?

No one can truly estimate, but it can be assumed that if resource pressures continue to increase, the growth rate will decrease as well.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Due to increased sale of legalized pot . Maybe Canada should give
some of the money to their hockey teams to keep them afloat .

Oh we have a plan for that. We will just wait until everyone in North Carolina says "screw the Hurricanes, I am going to watch NASCAR", and we will then move that team to Winnipeg and call it the Jets.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I understand, but my point was that it's stupid to seize the offshore rings but they would never be able to exploit them.

We could easily sink the platrorms, and what could they do in retaliation? Invade us?

Flatten Rio.

Look, despite Dubyah's best attempts to convince us of the opposite, Americans aren't stupid. They wouldn't simply drop commandos on the platforms and wait to get sunk. They'd explain most patiently that, in the furtherance of the interests of humanity as a whole, including those of Brazil, they had to take control of the rigs. If Brasilia didn't budge, they'd strike at things far away from the rigs, trying to cause sufficient pain to make Brazil cave in, while making clear that if anything happened to the rigs - which are important to the well-being of Humanity, remember - Brazil would come to regret this. If that too failed, they'd try and wipe out anything with the range to reach the rigs, and then only take them over.

 

[dgfred]

Oh we have a plan for that. We will just wait until everyone in North Carolina says "screw the Hurricanes, I am going to watch NASCAR", and we will then move that team to Winnipeg and call it the Jets.

They would return but nobody would be able to pay their salaries .
Really they have done well here, I have been to several games though
I live over 1hr 1/2 away from Raleigh. They can't seem to score enough
though . Past 2 seasons they have been woefull.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Mise: Looking at the real world, it's hard to get the impression that non-capitalist systems are more prone to sustainability.

(And it's still irrelevant to the more extreme non-sustainability scenarios, according to which the Earth cannot support more than a billion or so people in the long term under any system.)

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

They would return but nobody would be able to pay their salaries .
Really they have done well here, I have been to several games though
I live over 1hr 1/2 away from Raleigh. They can't seem to score enough
though . Past 2 seasons they have been woefull.

It is sad though, when the Coyotes were the Winnipeg Jets, the team sold out basically every game ever, even when the team sucked. The fans never gave up, but they had to leave anyways.

Back on topic. America would be stupid to take arms against Brazil, even if only on a small scale.

 

[Little Raven]

Flatten Rio.

Oh wait. That's actually really accurate.

 

[crystal]

No one can truly estimate, but it can be assumed that if resource pressures continue to increase, the growth rate will decrease as well.

Are you so sure? Look at this graph of global population history then:

Using that as a help, my estimate actually seems to be too low.

 

[luiz]

Flatten Rio.

Look, despite Dubyah's best attempts to convince us of the opposite, Americans aren't stupid. They wouldn't simply drop commandos on the platforms and wait to get sunk. They'd explain most patiently that, in the furtherance of the interests of humanity as a whole, including those of Brazil, they had to take control of the rigs. If Brasilia didn't budge, they'd strike at things far away from the rigs, trying to cause sufficient pain to make Brazil cave in, while making clear that if anything happened to the rigs - which are important to the well-being of Humanity, remember - Brazil would come to regret this. If that too failed, they'd try and wipe out anything with the range to reach the rigs, and then only take them over.

Unless nukes comes into this equation, there's not that much that they can do.

They could try to destroy us from the sky, but the military dictatorship years left us with a legacy of tens of thousands of anti-aircraft bateries. Rio alone has more of them then most medium-sized nations.

Furthermore we're not Iraq, our air force could not be destroyed at the ground. Of course the USAF would beat the crap out of the FAB, but still it would not be like in Iraq. All in all, if Vietnam proved to be tough I can only imagine the level of toughness that it would be to strike Brazil.