"Happy" Earth Overshoot Day

[Winner]

Oh-my-gods

I don't know about a single person in my circle of friends/relatives who would even *have* a clothes dryer in their house. Everybody dries clothes outside, and there is absolutely no stigma associated with it. I live in a 6-storey apartment block, and we have common balconies for that, as well as a drying room in the basement if that's not enough. I think there used to be dryers there back in the commie era, but nobody every used those so they've been thrown out.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, it is nice to have a dryer in the middle of winter, since I hate being out in -30C for any reason, let alone hanging clothes on a line. But in spring, summer, and fall, it's crazy not to allow it.

 

[PhroX]

Don't you have a rack? I mean, I've never had a drier in my life and if it's too wet or cold to hang things outside, I just put them on a drying rack in the living room. In fact, I'll quite often do that even when it's nice outside as it's less hassle.

 

[El_Machinae]

Technology is something created and harnessed by our society.

Yes, I agree. But it takes time and resources to create. And the creation has opportunity cost even within the 'potential space' of the technological arsenal. IF one is worried about environmental impact, and IF one believes that there are putative technologies that can mitigate the consequences, then it makes sense to deliberately devote some time and resources to the creation of that specific part of the arsenal. Alternatively, one can reduce the environmental impact and hope that the innovations arise through other people's investments.

How do we contribute to the creation of technologies? Simply, in three ways. Our votes and then taxes support directed R&D. Our consumer dollars reward the historical R&D spending of investors. Research charities. That, as far as you and I are concerned, appears (to me) to be the three major contributions. You're already maximizing your income, so you cannot easily contribute more taxes. So, it's the consumer dollars that matter.

 

[Eukaryote]

Therefore, a certain level of healthy scepticism and an appraisal of the possible challenges are a must have. If people dismiss the problem with a reference to a "magic" technology or technologies which "in the future" will solve all our environmental and energy problems, they are living in a fantasy world. Historically, that has never happened and it's not likely to ever happen.

Well the slogan "we can't just trust that technology will save us," encourages people to think we must change our trajectory with regard to social change, but there's no reason to assume changing our trajectory with regard to technological change is any less important.

Also, I do think that as technology has advanced we have become less dependent on ecosystem services. Hunter-gatherers were utterly dependent on a precise balance in nature to get enough to eat. Farmers before irrigation depended on the rain to water their crops. If cheap desalination technology is invented, farmers won't even have to rely on rivers or groundwater any more. Also, since this century has faster technological change than any other century, (due to the hard work of a lot of smart people) we may see our dependance on ecosystems decrease faster than any previous point in history.

 

[Eukaryote]

How do we contribute to the creation of technologies? Simply, in three ways. Our votes and then taxes support directed R&D. Our consumer dollars reward the historical R&D spending of investors. Research charities. That, as far as you and I are concerned, appears (to me) to be the three major contributions. You're already maximizing your income, so you cannot easily contribute more taxes. So, it's the consumer dollars that matter.

Well said, especially since the private sector does not fund pure research.

 

[Winner]

Well the slogan "we can't just trust that technology will save us," encourages people to think we must change our trajectory with regard to social change, but there's no reason to assume changing our trajectory with regard to technological change is any less important.

Agreed, but that's hardly what anybody in this thread believes. I think that social/lifestyle change without technology is doomed to failure, just as hoping for a technological solution without any social change would be.

Also, I do think that as technology has advanced we have become less dependent on ecosystem services. Hunter-gatherers were utterly dependent on a precise balance in nature to get enough to eat. Farmers before irrigation depended on the rain to water their crops. If cheap desalination technology is invented, farmers won't even have to rely on rivers or groundwater any more. Also, since this century has faster technological change than any other century, (due to the hard work of a lot of smart people) we may see our dependance on ecosystems decrease faster than any previous point in history.

That isn't accurate. We rely on the environment in other ways, and the increased complexity of our reliance makes us ultimately more vulnerable to serious disruption.

Hunter-gatherers relied on the ecosystem in the simplest way imaginable, but their population density and the complexity of their society made them very resilient. Farming gave people access to more food, but it increased their reliance on other resources - quality topsoil, benign climate, water, fertilizers, wood, etc. Absence of any of these things could send the whole society crashing down, and the large sedentary population prevented easy relocation. Famine, epidemic diseases, and war became a part of human life. Ergo, technology brought some advantages, some solutions to previous problems, as well as many new problems.

Sticking with farming, today farmers are dependent on even more resources, the crucial one being oil and petroleum products. Without those, large scale mechanized agriculture becomes impossible to maintain, meaning we won't be able to feed our bloated population. Add to that the consequences of climate change, topsoil erosion, pollution buildup, and salination and we're looking at a serious problem with our food supply in a very near future. So how independent are we from the ecosystem, really? We need resources tu survive just as ever, we just need more of them both in terms of type and quantity.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Agreed, but that's hardly what anybody in this thread believes. I think that social/lifestyle change without technology is doomed to failure, just as hoping for a technological solution without any social change would be.

We don't have to "hope" for a technological solution though. We can forge it. Social change needn't be unnecessarily artificial. If our ability to produce resources does not increase (because technology hasn't advanced enough), then we will simply consume less. Not because we choose to consciously as a society to "save the Earth", but because we will be forced to be rising prices.

Resources will never run out. That is certain.

Will we face ecological disaster we cannot recover from is the real question? I don't think so, but we don't know yet.

That isn't accurate. We rely on the environment in other ways, and the increased complexity of our reliance makes us ultimately more vulnerable to serious disruption.

Sticking with farming, today farmers are dependent on even more resources, the crucial one being oil and petroleum products. Without those, large scale mechanized agriculture becomes impossible to maintain, meaning we won't be able to feed our bloated population. Add to that the consequences of climate change, topsoil erosion, pollution buildup, and salination and we're looking at a serious problem with our food supply in a very near future. So how independent are we from the ecosystem, really? We need resources tu survive just as ever, we just need more of them both in terms of type and quantity.

Dependence on Resources != Dependence on Ecosystems

Mankind can create much of what it needs without issue. The cost would be much higher though, barring technological development. Which we shouldn't ever bar.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Don't you have a rack? I mean, I've never had a drier in my life and if it's too wet or cold to hang things outside, I just put them on a drying rack in the living room. In fact, I'll quite often do that even when it's nice outside as it's less hassle.

I considered it. But the living room is carpeted, and I also have cats who would see the laundry as something to be played with, played on, and in general I'd have to rewash everything due to cat hair.

 

[Winner]

Resources will never run out. That is certain.

Earth is a finite system. I can assure you that they will. And don't start here about space, because we're literally centuries away from being able to utilize space resources in a manner and quantities relevant for Earth-based societies. IF we ever get there - the window of opportunity might close faster than we actually develop the technologies needed to establish a spacefaring society. But that is not a debate for this thread, visit the Space cadet thread on this forum if you want to talk about it.

Dependence on Resources != Dependence on Ecosystems

Ecosystem is what makes human life on Earth possible. Many resources are directly extracted from it, or their extraction is limited by its impact on the ecosystem.

Mankind can create much of what it needs without issue. The cost would be much higher though, barring technological development. Which we shouldn't ever bar.

Name one thing we produce that is "without issue" (meaning not dependent in some way on resources we draw from the planetary system and thus subject to various limitations).

 

[peter grimes]

.

Resources will never run out. That is certain.

Mankind can create much of what it needs without issue. The cost would be much higher though, barring technological development. Which we shouldn't ever bar.

Hi! I see that you haven't met my pet kitten, I call him Trappy:

... the idea is that once we enter a decline phase in fossil fuel availability—first in petroleum—our growth-based economic system will struggle to cope with a contraction of its very lifeblood. Fuel prices will skyrocket, some individuals and exporting nations will react by hoarding, and energy scarcity will quickly become the new norm. The invisible hand of the market will slap us silly demanding a new energy infrastructure based on non-fossil solutions. But here’s the rub. The construction of that shiny new infrastructure requires not just money, but…energy. And that’s the very commodity in short supply. Will we really be willing to sacrifice additional energy in the short term—effectively steepening the decline—for a long-term energy plan? It’s a trap! - See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/#sthash.vTrqnns5.dpuf

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

This is the economic challenge that those expecting a technological solution must overcome.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it likely? I'm pessimistic.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Earth is a finite system. I can assure you that they will. And don't start here about space, because we're literally centuries away from being able to utilize space resources in a manner and quantities relevant for Earth-based societies. IF we ever get there - the window of opportunity might close faster than we actually develop the technologies needed to establish a spacefaring society. But that is not a debate for this thread, visit the Space cadet thread on this forum if you want to talk about it.

Centuries? Man. Ever the pessimist.

I believe it is a debate that could be had in this thread because if the collection of resources in space is something that could be done in our lifetimes (or our childrens'), then this thread has no point.

How could resources run out in a closed system also? Earth is not quite closed, but still, how? Considering

Ecosystem is what makes human life on Earth possible. Many resources are directly extracted from it, or their extraction is limited by its impact on the ecosystem.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Name one thing we produce that is "without issue" (meaning not dependent in some way on resources we draw from the planetary system and thus subject to various limitations).

Define planetary system.

 

[peter grimes]

Define planetary system.

Name one thing that mankind does on Earth that has zero environmental impact.

And please read that link I posted above - about the Energy Trap. It's completely relevant to this line of discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it might be true that we'll not run out of some resources. Fossil fuels, for example, could just become too expensive to extract. It's the poverty due to a sudden collapse that I'd like to avoid. Hence, why I tout the idea of proactive dollars.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Name one thing that mankind does on Earth that has zero environmental impact.

Just because there is an environmental impact does not mean that mankind does not achieve a net-gain, even in the long-run, from the action.

The point is, I believe, that mankind is far less reliant on natural things and can afford to "destroy" them to an extent.

And please read that link I posted above - about the Energy Trap. It's completely relevant to this line of discussion.

An interesting read. The problem I believe with it, is that the articles relies on the idea that we will very suddenly and dramatically see a decline in production.

Unless there is some sort serious shock, this is unlikely.

 

[Winner]

Centuries? Man. Ever the pessimist.

No, a realist. And as for my credentials, I am one of the biggest space buffs on this forum, along with a few others.

I believe it is a debate that could be had in this thread because if the collection of resources in space is something that could be done in our lifetimes (or our childrens'), then this thread has no point.

The maths simply doesn't add up. Moving large quantities of resources around the solar system and up and down the Earth's gravity well is absolutely beyond the scope of our current technology, and even if we could do it, it would be horrible energy intensive. Given that our issue is mainly with the diminishing access to cheap energy, I don't see it as a viable proposition.

By the time we get access to plentiful space resources, we will have already learned how to live sustainably or Earth. And if we fail, no space future for mankind - ever.

How could resources run out in a closed system also? Earth is not quite closed, but still, how? Considering

What is that even supposed to mean?

That means, for example, that although theoretically there is enough iron in the Earth's crust to sustain human industry for millions of years, getting it out and refining it would require us to completely annihilate the ecosystem which provides us with clean water, air to breathe, and food. So practically, resources are limited by our ability to efficiently and ecologically extract them.

Another example are the so-called renewable resources, like fresh water, wood, fish, topsoil, etc. The planetary ecosystem directly produces those resources in finite quantities. If you extract them faster than they can be renewed, they stop being renewable (duh).

 

[peter grimes]

Name one thing that mankind does on Earth that has zero environmental impact.

Just because there is an environmental impact does not mean that mankind does not achieve a net-gain, even in the long-run, from the action.

The point is, I believe, that mankind is far less reliant on natural things and can afford to "destroy" them to an extent.

Well, can you name one, even with your shifting criteria?

I'm not saything there can't be a net gain in completely depleting some particular resource. Killing off a certain strain of parasite, for example, would be something that could conceivably yield a net gain to humanity.

Maybe the confusion comes down to your use of the word 'natural'. I take that to roughly mean anything made of luminous matter that doesn't incorporate trans-Uranic elements. Plastic is natural in that the raw materials and energy needed to make them come from the natural world - no oil or no energy = no plastic.

An interesting read. The problem I believe with it, is that the articles relies on the idea that we will very suddenly and dramatically see a decline in production.

Unless there is some sort serious shock, this is unlikely.

Depends on what you mean by sudden - he was being intentionally conservative by taking a 2% decline in liquid fuels. And you surely noticed that the decline can be either absolute or relative, which is important considering the insane economic growth in Asia. Take a look at the price of oil over the past 20 years. It's gone up quite a bit, and as China and India further consumerize it will almost certainly go up even further. Which, of course, is exactly the risk of the Energy Trap. If antything, the decline he modeled is unrealistic for being too gentle, not too steep.

At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Well, can you name one, even with your shifting criteria?

Salt is pretty easy to make/obtain. One could conceivably hollow out a rock (with another rock), fill it with sea water, then let it sit in the Sun for an amount of time.

WABAM! Salt!

You're probably looking for something more complicated though...The hard part about that, I give you, is that the economy does rely on natural-biological elements to run. Theoretically, however, we could set up a number of facilities that are self-sustaining and do not use natural-biological elements. The cost however, would likely be high.

Maybe the confusion comes down to your use of the word 'natural'. I take that to roughly mean anything made of luminous matter that doesn't incorporate trans-Uranic elements. Plastic is natural in that the raw materials and energy needed to make them come from the natural world - no oil or no energy = no plastic.

I should have clarified, biological, as in ecosystems, which is where the argument came from. We do not rely on ecosystems for our production of many goods unless it is convenient to do so. Basically, a changing environment would not be detrimental to mankind.

Depends on what you mean by sudden - he was being intentionally conservative by taking a 2% decline in liquid fuels. And you surely noticed that the decline can be either absolute or relative, which is important considering the insane economic growth in Asia. Take a look at the price of oil over the past 20 years. It's gone up quite a bit, and as China and India further consumerize it will almost certainly go up even further. Which, of course, is exactly the risk of the Energy Trap. If antything, the decline he modeled is unrealistic for being too gentle, not too steep.

The fact the the price of oil has risen continually without issue so far is what makes it appear not to be a trap.

Why can't oil prices simply continue to rise until oil is simply too costly to use? It is highly unlikely oil production will ever drop (absolutely or relatively) due to a lack of oil before it is uneconomical to use oil.

Which brings me to this:

The maths simply doesn't add up. Moving large quantities of resources around the solar system and up and down the Earth's gravity well is absolutely beyond the scope of our current technology, and even if we could do it, it would be horrible energy intensive. Given that our issue is mainly with the diminishing access to cheap energy, I don't see it as a viable proposition.

Your point is that we will somehow "run out" of resources on Earth before it is economical (it is likely technologically possible in a short time frame if it was to be economical) to gather resources from space, if demand continues to increase and supply continues to dwindle, resources collected from space would become economical over time, right?

Another example are the so-called renewable resources, like fresh water, wood, fish, topsoil, etc. The planetary ecosystem directly produces those resources in finite quantities. If you extract them faster than they can be renewed, they stop being renewable (duh).

So...?

 

[Benefactor]

As I see it, the basic theory is that as energy becomes more expensive everything else becomes more expensive, which leads to no one spending money, which leads to recession. As the economy starts to fall apart no-one has the excess money to invest in/buy the more expensive forms of energy and the economy starts to go downhill at a faster rate as factories and businesses close up. The whole economy basically spirals downwards, taking with it our chance of researching and inventing our way out of the problem.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Here is an article I should have linked before.