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.

"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?

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 ....

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"?

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.

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.

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