/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2590323]

Global warming is a hoax.
And not because it isn't real - it very much is.
It's a hoax because it is a minor problem.
It is used to draw attention from the major problem, the one that the media will never mention - overpopulation, and as a result over-consumption.

There really is no avoiding this.
The world won't magically be able to avoid this issue, technology won't save us and mining for minerals in space won't either.

Humanity isn't special folks and just like any other organism in a petri dish, we will reach critical failure.

What will we do, and how can we really solve this?
(For an HR version of the picture, go to http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/articles/NS_2007-05-23/26051202.jpg))

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590342]

>>2590323
>It's a hoax because it is a minor problem.
No
>It is used to draw attention from the major problem, the one that the media will never mention - overpopulation, and as a result over-consumption.
Oh great.
>technology won't save us
Vertical farming, skyscrapers, use of non-polluting energy sources and less emissions from factories so larger cities are feasible/not unhealthy as fuck.
>mining for minerals in space won't either.
Nah, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.2590348]

>>2590342
Ah, Inurdaes.
I've been expecting you and your invalid arguments if any at all.

[Anonymous No.2590359]

Make no mistake that Global Warming is real for one reason or another.

World population will stabilize within then next 40-50 years provided the poor people around the world stop having so many kids (more family planning).

The world is completely capable of supporting that population with efficient use of resources.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590364]

>>2590348
If you're OP, you put up a topic that would be all great to discuss if it actually was a problem that is super-fucking-hard to fix, but it isn't, not even in the current capitalistic system. No one is going to starve, because there will be vertical farms. No one is going to die from thirst, because there will be more desalinization plants. No one is going to have wars over electricity, because solar, nuclear, and even geothermal and wind are improving in efficiency. not to mention fusion. Wars are already happening over shit like oil, which will most likely be replaces with algae biofuels, other forms of ethanol and electric cars.

Scientific progress and discoveries are picking up pace all the time, leading to shit like space elevators being SERIOUSLY discussed whereas 25 years ago you'd have the entire room of engineers and scientists laugh and call security. Metals/rare-Earth metals are the only problem so far but that will also be fixed with undersea mining and asteroid mining as soon as it becomes profitable.

[Anonymous No.2590365]

>>2590348
To be fair, you didn't present any arguments for this claim either:

>It's a hoax[...]
>It is used to draw attention from the major problem[...]

"Hoax" implies deliberation. Do you have any evidence that any individual or group is deliberately pushing and exaggerating climate change with the specific purpose of drawing attention away from overconsumption and overpopulation?

[Anonymous No.2590369]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590371]

>>2590369
Urgh, the worst type of hippies.

[Anonymous No.2590379]

I've thought the same thing for a long time OP.

We need to get ahead of the curve if we are to survive, we need to do good things like investing in new technology and employing it, at the same time we need to be fascist assholes as well, shutting our borders and telling the rest of the world we are not going to let their overpopulation be our problem when the malthusian catastrophe kicks in. Either they start handing out rubbers or they starve with no aid from us.

[Anonymous No.2590382]

Hippies and luddites are things of the past. Start renewing your vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.2590383]

>>2590371
>Over-consumption is a situation where resource-use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to inevitable environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases. Generally the discussion of overconsumption parallels that of overpopulation; that is the more people, the more consumption of raw materials to sustain their lives.

Reality seems to disagree with you. Big surprise.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590387]

>>2590383
>start using a globalized network of distributing resources efficiently, make vertical farms mainly automated, start undersea mining, improve product standards testing to eliminate a lot of planned obsolescence

WELL SHIT THAT WAS FUCKIN' HARD, AYE?

[Anonymous No.2590395]

>>2590387
>WELL SHIT THAT WAS FUCKIN' HARD, AYE?
Let's see:
>start using a globalized network of distributing resources efficiently
Good luck with that one
>make vertical farms mainly automated
Probable.
>start undersea mining
Good luck with that one as well
> improve product standards testing to eliminate a lot of planned obsolescence
I'm sorry, you must be new to humanity.

[Anonymous No.2590399]

>>2590387
Let's not forget moving to a closed loop economy.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590402]

>>2590395
They don't do it, I'll try to.

[Anonymous No.2590403]

>>2590387
>improve product standards testing to eliminate a lot of planned obsolescence
yeah let me just talk to the upper echelon of CEOs and tell them that our precious resources are more important than their heaps of money.
are you that stupid?

[Anonymous No.2590406]

>>2590402
Enough with your fucking Tasmania already.
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN
Yeah i mad

[Anonymous No.2590407]

>>2590387
Vertical farms are retarded, even now with plenty of resources something as simple as covering crops with plastic sheeting is expensive and only used in the most intensively farmed land in 1st world countries, the rest is ok though, it is worth mentioning if these things were efficient we'd be doing them already.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590408]

>>2590403
This is one of those things where I support big government. It lasts less than 8 years on average? You have 5 years to make it better or ditch that product line, since you ain't gonna be able to sell it here. Of course, I can think of a whole myriad of problems stemming from this, the more major ones being if it's a major corporation that it'll just completely pack up and take its business elsewhere.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590412]

>>2590406
Pic related
>>2590407
http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2020-2029.htm#verticalfarms

[Anonymous No.2590411]

>>2590387
Funnily enough, that's pretty much the same ideas degrowth proponents propose. Improve distribution, automatize wherever it's possible, eliminate profit-oriented modes of production... Except that they're aware that temporary solutions are not enough, and that it requires a radical political movement.

Is that what shocks you so ?

[aether !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2590414]

>>2590323
Incorrect. Global Warming is a much bigger problem than Overpopulation. For breeding too much or having too many people can be easily fixed with a new order, wars or final solutions. The ecosystem, however, cannot be fixed, due to the fact that once it reaches a negative zone it will start to rapidly get worse. We haven't been able to get to another planet to reach other resource, so 'terraforming' is nothing but a pipe dream, dreamt by you fucking idiot nerds who complain about stupid irrelevant things.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590419]

>>2590411
I'm up for the same level of effective consumption, meaning everyone should continue to have a car, drive it how much they want, cellphones etc etc. Actually, I want a hundred times better than that. Our current system is INCREDIBLY wasteful, and it's fucking retarded how much poverty still exists in the world. I'd be completely fine with having 15 billion people in the world, provided there was a system that could take care of them + not fucking up the biosphere majorly.
What these degrowth people suggest sounds a hell of a lot more like 'We use too much, lets improve efficiency some and practically move into communes.'

[Anonymous No.2590425]

>>2590411
Except that degrowthers are proponents of caveman world scenarios not better management and efficiency scenarios.

[Anonymous No.2590428]

>>2590412
Seeing those pictures of apparently multi-million dollar skyscraper farms doesn't help your argument, sorry but it's totally absurd and doesn't help your little cause. Cut the fat.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590433]

>>2590428
Not an argument. Tell me why not. Remember to not try to apply such a solution to today's economic environment, but one where resources are more strained due to fighting, a population of around 8 billion, droughts and a shitload of other climate catastrophes.

[Anonymous No.2590442]

>>2590412
>http://www.futuretimeline.net

[Anonymous No.2590441]

>>2590419
It's mostly about reaching a level of consumption that could be extended to the whole of humanity. Very few want us to live in isolated communes, though most would accept the fact that there's no need for more than one car per individual, and that changing cellphones every year is unecessary too.
A large part of our consumption is useless : planned obsolescence isn't just about making stuff that stops working earlier, it's also about making people accept the idea than consuming more is better. Like you that wants a hundred time more consumption than now if possible, disregarding its finality and just concerning yourself with the production.

[Anonymous No.2590440]

>>2590433
>one where resources are more strained
Then it would be even more difficult to construct and maintain skyscrapers for the purpose of supporting a few acres of cropland wouldn't it.

The idea of growing crops on the roofs of buildings is fine, this is just stupid. I don't even see why you feel compelled to debate this.

[Anonymous No.2590443]

>>2590425
Except that your preconceptions are retarded.

[Anonymous No.2590445]

>>2590433
Also the amount of arable land in a country is often just a few percentiles, you're always going to be better off using the same construction and maintenance resources on an irrigation scheme somewhere to make pastures fit for crops. By supporting vertical farms you suggest to people that you have a very deluded understanding of how the real world works, you seriously need to drop this shit now.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2590446]

>>2590440
Automation and improved building techniques/materials will most likely cut down the price of building and maintaining the building. I'm too tired to continue arguing, but i'm going to end this with "You'll see."
>>2590441
My solution to all that? THIS GUY'S SOLUTION.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

[Anonymous No.2590463]

>>2590445
Except that vertical farms would automatically preserve the amount of arable land simply by decreasing factors of soil erosion even if you went to some ludicrous extreme of trucking top soil straight off the fields and into the vertical farms.

[Anonymous No.2590494]

>He still believes we don't have enough food for everyone

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2590508]

>>2590494
sooner or later someone will argue that vegetarianism is the solution to the problem.

[Anonymous No.2590515]

>>2590494
Are you aware that for every joule of energy that you eat, an average of nine joules of petrol-based is needed for production and transportation.

Sure vertical hydroponic farms will improve that somewhat, but not to a degree that we will be able to feed even all that are alive now when we reach peak oil (and by then we will be many, many more).

[Anonymous No.2590550]

>>2590446

[Anonymous No.2590565]

>>2590463
If it was such a big problem it would still be cheaper to build the same barriers to soil erosion on surface farms.

[Anonymous No.2590571]

>>2590508
A handy link for when that time comes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3993364

[Anonymous No.2590624]

>>2590515
This. Somehow people think that "vertical farming" is a panacea requiring no sustenance other than the energy of love and "good vibes". It costs money to trunk water and minerals, moreso when said targets are 400m vertically raised in metropolitan areas.

It costs a lot of money and nasty manufacturing to make fertilizers that people are going to want hanging over their domiciles and workplaces - you ever smell cow shit or crushed up inedible parts of cow mixed with cow shit?

Arable land? Exactly what fucking vertical part of a skyscraper is arable to you fuckwits? Yeah, plant a fucking tomato at the base - free food!

Farming; yeah, that'll be easy right? Just get a couple of the underpaid migrants to swarm into the city every day so you can feast on enviro-conscious, vegan meals.

You do like living in a high-rise apartment swarming with insect-larvae and permanently blocked from sunlight by heavy vegetation right?

Anyone seriously suggesting

[Anonymous No.2590671]

>>2590624

>he thinks vertical farms are going to be made in residential areas

[Anonymous No.2590705]

>>2590414
Eco systems benefit from more heat.

[Anonymous No.2590721]

>>2590671

> Implying that we are going to build massive load bearing structures that will somehow have negative environmental offsets

[Anonymous No.2590982]

2 tripfaggot trolls in one thread. Obviously OP is on to something.

[Anonymous No.2590993]

glad to see none of you have taken a class in thermodynamics outside of highschool

[Anonymous No.2590995]

OP you're an idiots

1. Distinguish between GW and AGW
2. The world always had slightly more people than the carrying capacity

[Anonymous No.2591003]

Don't worry too much about overpopulation. At the rate population growth is deceleration, global population will peak around 9 or 10 billion shortly after 2050, and then go into decline. Africa is the sticky spot that is lagging behind with extreme poverty and large family size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

IMO, the peak oil crisis is the problem. It's the one thing that might interfere with the progress that will lead to our population peaking earlier and lower.

[Anonymous No.2591047]

Bump because the sky isn't falling.

[Anonymous No.2591050]

>>2591003
Overpopulation is not a fixed number. Whether we peak at nine or fifteen billions is not the problem.
When are humans too numerous ? when they can`t guarantee good living conditions to most of their population. Which is already the case, and will be increasingly evident, not because of population growth, but because of industrialization of continental asia and other formerly miserable regions.

[Anonymous No.2591063]

>>2591003
>At the rate population growth is deceleration, global population will peak around 9 or 10 billion shortly after 2050
>Don't worry too much about overpopulation.

Right, because we haven't been experiencing problems as a result of large population for many years. Only when it's 9-10B do the "real" problems come into play, right?

>IMO, the peak oil crisis is the problem.
>implying massive oil consumption, and its peaking, isn't a result of overpopulation

[Anonymous No.2591064]

>>2591050
The point is moot, because our choices are peaking at that level or peaking later and higher. The best way to keep under, or get back under, the "carrying capacity" for a given technological level is to keep the peak of human population sooner and lower, and that is accomplished by helping the third-world bootstrap to a level where birthrates drop.
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/

[Anonymous No.2591075]

>>2591063
>Right, because we haven't been experiencing problems as a result of large population for many years. Only when it's 9-10B do the "real" problems come into play, right?
All the previous moaning about population in the 80s was a myth. We have enough food for everyone. And I'm not saying 9 or 10 billion is sustainable, really. I need to make no such claim. But our options are either peaking around 9-10 billion shortly after 2050 before going into decline, or peaking even higher and later.

[Anonymous No.2591098]

>>2591064
No. Malthusian policies are not the solution, and we can't wait for superior education to kick in, because as it is now it would require a form of economical development comparable to europe`s, which is unstainable if applied to a large part of humanity.
We need to ditch capitalism or increase the portion of humanity in misery.

[Anonymous No.2591104]

>>2591064
No. Malthusian policies are not the solution, and we can't wait for superior education to kick in, because as it is now it would require a form of economical development comparable to europe`s, which is unsustainable if applied to a large part of humanity.
We need to ditch capitalism or increase the portion of humanity in misery.

[Anonymous No.2591111]

>>2591098
>We need to ditch capitalism or increase the portion of humanity in misery.
Have you even seen any of the stats in the Hans Rosling videos? Ditching capitalism hardly seems like the solution, especially given the history of capitalism in Asia. It's the only thing that has brought many of them into the first world.

And where the hell did I suggest anything remotely Malthusian? Anyone who thinks Malthus applies to global population growth is delusional.

[Anonymous No.2591126]

>>2591104
It doesn't require THAT level of growth. Look at Vietnam. Hell, just look at the Hans Rosling videos I linked, or see the stats yourself at gapminder.org.

Saying that the solution is to keep people poor completely ignores what is known about history, poverty, and population growth. Take a minute to look at the video I posted.

[Anonymous No.2591135]

>>2591111
>Have you even seen any of the stats in the Hans Rosling videos?
No.

And capitalism did pull people into the "first world", the problem is how it did it. The world can't house 6 billions people living like europeans.

[Anonymous No.2591142]

>>2591135
>The world can't house 6 billions people living like europeans.
Then the first-world standard of living will have to decline a bit. Maybe back to what it was like in the 50s. It's going to happen when the oil crisis hits anyway. Then declining population and progressing technology will lessen the issue over time.

[Anonymous No.2591146]

>>2591135
>>Have you even seen any of the stats in the Hans Rosling videos?
>No.
I really, really recommend them. For the longest time my view of the world was dominated by word-of-mouth and political propaganda. Take a look at the stats - it's much more encouraging than the continual end-of-the-world prophecies we've had for the past 200 years. Every generation has seemed to expect the world to end at any moment.

[Anonymous No.2591229]

Well for one thing humans need to stop breeding like motherfucking rabbits.
But that will be impossible due to:
>Catholics
>Having a big family is publicly encouraged and WILL be encouraged forever because to a nation bigger population is always an advantage. Trying to cut down on breeding is like shooting your nation in the leg.
>Humans can't/don't want to control their sex-drive

Humanity is doomed.

[Anonymous No.2591272]

Solution is simple.
Humanity thrives because it has no predators to control the population.
Introduce a genetically engineered/created predator that feeds on humans to the earth's eco-system.
>Human population stabilizes

Or alternatively there needs to be more wars. That is currently the only thing that is limiting human population atleast a little bit. The current wars are too small though. To stabilize human population we need something bigger and something that lasts LONG.

[Anonymous No.2591277]

Simple solution: We kill all of the niggers and brown asians.

Goddamn did our forefathers have it right.

[Anonymous No.2591284]

>>2591142
>Then the first-world standard of living will have to decline a bit. Maybe back to what it was like in the 50s.
Yes. That's what I mean by ditching capitalism, because such a decline can't be organized in the current system.
>It's going to happen when the oil crisis hits anyway.
Not sure. And before that, we'll see increasingly environment-damaging oil exploitations pop up.

>>2591146
Can't you link a text ?

[Anonymous No.2591378]

>>2591272
Can't the predator be a robot?
Why must it always be genetic-engineering...

[Anonymous No.2591379]

>>2591284
>Yes. That's what I mean by ditching capitalism, because such a decline can't be organized in the current system.
Hah. Yes it can. It's called a depression.

>>2591229
>>2591272
If you think that large family size in the third world is about religion, or that humanity is "doomed" to a Malthusian catastrophe, you just haven't looked at the stats. Check the Hans Rosling videos.

[Anonymous No.2591390]

>>2591284
>Can't you link a text ?
The data is not presentable as text. You really want to look at tables? Anyway, the best I can offer you are the Hans Rosling videos linked, or the stats you can access yourself at gapminder.org
If the problem is that the videos are too long, here's a shorter one (<5min) that gets the idea of the historical trends across. Bonus: You can see Chinas "Great Leap Forward" decimate their life expectancy as mass starvation hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

[Anonymous No.2591454]

Every couple is limited to two children each with a different sex.

Problem over population?

[Anonymous No.2591469]

>>2591454
>each with a different sex.
So what happens to people who turn out two boys or two girls first?

But really, this is pointless. In the first world countries, birth rates are near zero-growth or *below* sustainable. And why is that?

What's that Malthus? You're a faggot? That's OK Malthus, we all knew.

[Anonymous No.2591479]

>>2591379
Depression isn't organized, and it doesn't last long enough to throw us back to the prior decades' levels of consumption.

[Anonymous No.2591482]

>>2591479
Depression is nothing more or less than a prolonged contraction of the economy. How does that not reduce the per-capita GPD, and by close association, the standard of living?

[Anonymous No.2591487]

>>2590323
> technology won't save us
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

Yes, it will.
And, in fact, this idea of scarcity that has you so worried is what will drive technology harder and harder to solve this problem.

[Anonymous No.2591496]

>>2590323
I love how that pic (I've seen the large version, fuck you OP) suggests that things like rare earth elements can "run out", as though we were burning them like oil.