|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
http://www.ageofstupid.net/
Pete Postlethwaite stars as a man living alone in the devastated future world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance? U.S. / Canada Premier Monday evening UK / Aus. / NZ already occurred. Rest of world Tuesday. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
"why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?"
Because the real problem is overpopulation and we are doomed, so quit worrying about it, would you? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
On Sep 22, 9:55*am, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Nathan Crowell wrote: "why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?" Because the real problem is overpopulation and we are doomed, so quit worrying about it, would you? ... and that is a subject no one is prepared to approach. *Consider that world population is about ten times what natural resources can support in the long term. *Meanwhile "growth" is still the mantra of most people today even though it has shown itself to be a false and destructive hope. Just add another lane to the freeway... Jobst Brandt Yep. In about 20 years when 'peak oil' has passed and we can no longer make fertilizers from fossil oil and humanity can only grow enough food to feed about 2 Billion people .... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
On Sep 22, 1:46*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Mike A Schwab wrote: "why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?" Because the real problem is overpopulation and we are doomed, so quit worrying about it, would you? ... and that is a subject no one is prepared to approach. *Consider that world population is about ten times what natural resources can support in the long term. Meanwhile "growth" is still the mantraa of most people today even though it has shown itself to be a false and destructive hope. Just add another lane to the freeway... Yep. *In about 20 years when 'peak oil' has passed and we can no longer make fertilizers from fossil oil and humanity can only grow enough food to feed about 2 Billion people .... Most folks don't remember or are old enough to recall what a beautiful place (for instance) northern California was 70 years ago, with endless orchards, vineyards, redwood forests, electric railways from Marin to San Jose and more, Mt. Tamalpais Scenic RR and simple housing. *Average folks could afford private prep schools. *Meanwhile, "Progress" got rid of all that. We need larger families... and cars (aka trucks). Jobst Brandt Jobst, what's the fertility rate in the countries where you do your long bike rides every year - Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy? What does that portend for population "growth"? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
On Sep 22, 1:01*pm, Mike A Schwab wrote:
.. *In about 20 years when 'peak oil' has passed and we can no longer make fertilizers from fossil oil and humanity can only grow enough food to feed about 2 Billion people .... Don't forget to factor in the "fertilizer" effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
On Sep 22, 9:05*pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Sep 22, 1:01*pm, Mike A Schwab wrote: . *In about 20 years when 'peak oil' has passed and we can no longer make fertilizers from fossil oil and humanity can only grow enough food to feed about 2 Billion people .... Don't forget to factor in the "fertilizer" effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The main limiting factor in growth rate is the availability of water, other fertilizer ingredients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus), temperature range. If all land areas got as much water as the Brazilian Rain Forest, all land could have that high a density of plant life. Even this would only take out about 50% of the fossil carbon we release. Some areas will get more water, other areas will get less, they will average out. However, there are significant regions that get their water from melting mountain glaciers, they have grown to take advantage of faster melting glaciers, which will soon finish melting away. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5183E/w5183e00.htm looks like a good resource on all the effect of climate change on plant growth with variable values of various growth factors. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Age of Stupid
On Sep 23, 2:47*am, Mike A Schwab wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:05*pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote: On Sep 22, 1:01*pm, Mike A Schwab wrote: . *In about 20 years when 'peak oil' has passed and we can no longer make fertilizers from fossil oil and humanity can only grow enough food to feed about 2 Billion people .... Don't forget to factor in the "fertilizer" effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The main limiting factor in growth rate is the availability of water, other fertilizer ingredients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus), temperature range. *If all land areas got as much water as the Brazilian Rain Forest, all land could have that high a density of plant life. *Even this would only take out about 50% of the fossil carbon we release. Some areas will get more water, other areas will get less, they will average out. *However, there are significant regions that get their water from melting mountain glaciers, they have grown to take advantage of faster melting glaciers, which will soon finish melting away. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5183E/w5183e00.htmlooks like a good resource on all the effect of climate change on plant growth with variable values of various growth factors. I agree with your point that water availability is key. I doubt that any great percentage of world food production depends on melting glaciers. If the customers were there to buy the food, available water would support much more food production than now. Just look at the reforestation of the easterrn US for proof of that. And it's far from obvious that a warmer earth would be a drier earth. Granted that carbon isn't, for example, one of the 10s in 10-10-10 fertilizer; nevertheless a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere promotes plant growth, and thus acts suspiciously like fertilizer. Beyond that, I have my doubts that a shortage of fertilizer is on the horizon because of petroleum shortages. "Green manure" crops like buckwheat convert atmospheric nitrogen into usable form; besides still plentiful mining supplies, phosphorous is recyclable if we set our minds to do it, and potash is renewable. Overpopulation? Think Saskatchewan, Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and countless other long stretches of emptiness. My experience from many long bike rides is of a lack of population and consequent lack of motels. Read my reports on the crazyguyonabike site and see how often I've had to quit riding early because of a lack of facilities ahead. I do have a "green" streak in me, which among other things, has made me a bicycle commuter to work since 1996. But that streak fits under the sub-headings of conservation and stewardship, not doomsday projections. Best personal regards Ron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq | Tom Kunich | Rides | 672 | December 3rd 04 06:49 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ | David Reuteler | General | 0 | November 11th 04 06:41 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ vyphih | Hunrobe | General | 11 | November 11th 04 02:45 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq | Tom Kunich | Rides | 4 | November 10th 04 04:26 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq | Tom Kunich | Social Issues | 2 | November 10th 04 04:26 AM |