7 ms·

>why THIS time things are different. Because all growth since Malthus' time has been due to the use of stored Carbon energy. Malthus' observations had been lar

by graeme 11y ago

>why THIS time things are different. Because all growth since Malthus' time has been due to the use of stored Carbon energy. Malthus' observations had been largely true until then. Maybe we'll figure out some way to replace our stored carbons inputs in a way that lets us keep the same energy surplus. But, that's the short answer for why things may be different: the past 200 years have been a historical aberration. The fact that an effect takes a while to work itself out doesn't mean that that effect is nonexistent.

astine 11y ago
When we run out of stored carbon energy we will probably switch wholesale to splitting atoms and harnessing the energy of the sun. Alternate energy is a matter of how soon, not whether.
- c22 11y ago
  I tend to agree with this view. While population growth definitely comes at a cost it also provides us with our most valuable resource: human intellect. Perhaps this is the perfect time to tap our earth's carbon battery to propel us into the next orbital of energy production and consumption. Or perhaps we are not socially and culturally smart enough to make efficient use of this energy and we will exhaust our surplus and perish, another evolutionary footnote of history. Either way, I doubt we have the power to stop this juggernaut now so might as well assume (and try to achieve) the optimistic option.
13thLetter 11y ago
> Maybe we'll figure out some way to replace our stored carbons inputs in a way that lets us keep the same energy surplus. We already have: unfortunately, massive and pervasive scientific illiteracy, often abetted by the same people complaining about population growth and carbon-based energy, has prevented us from making full use of nuclear power. If you'd like to fix the energy problem as quickly as possible, without waiting for breakthroughs in solar or battery storage or fusion, it's Greenpeace you need to talk to.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  You don't even need nuclear power, we could get all the energy we currently need from geothermal sources. It's not exactly renewable but it's non-polluting and there's enough energy to last us for a long long time to come (I can't remember the exact figures, I'll look it up). That said, it's good to diversify energy sources (so long as they're non-polluting), and I can see some potential benefits for thorium-based reactors. The main reason we haven't moved away from fossil fuels more quickly isn't due to blocking nuclear, it's due to short-term profit-led thinking. EDIT: "The MIT report estimated that over 200 zettajoules (ZJ) would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements – sufficient to provide all the world's present energy needs for several millennia." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy Plenty of time to develop renewables and nuclear fusion, no?
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    "present energy needs for several millennia" means actual energy needs is a much, much shorter timespan assuming we continue our exponential trend of energy use.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      Doesn't matter, as long as it buys time to develop renewables and nuclear fusion.
    - ableal 11y ago
      > continue our exponential trend of energy use. I think that trend has had its run - we're not brute-forcing every industrial process any more, getting clever about energy use is all the rage now.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > You don't even need nuclear power, we could get all the energy we currently need from geothermal sources. It's not exactly renewable but it's non-polluting and there's enough energy to last us for a long long time to come (I can't remember the exact figures, I'll look it up). Nuclear is non-polluting too. It's probably the greenest form of energy available to us per kWh if you count everything up. Diversification is a good idea though. > The main reason we haven't moved away from fossil fuels more quickly isn't due to blocking nuclear, it's due to short-term profit-led thinking. There are two aspects here - one is that we haven't moved away from fossil fuels due to "short-term profit-led thinking", or as it is formally known (if you count profits in dollars), the market economy. But the second aspect is that as we slowly move towards other sources, we're moving away from nuclear - and that happens because of FUD and politics (which is also "short-term profit-led thinking").

by graeme 11y ago

astine 11y ago

When we run out of stored carbon energy we will probably switch wholesale to splitting atoms and harnessing the energy of the sun. Alternate energy is a matter of how soon, not whether.

c22 11y ago
I tend to agree with this view. While population growth definitely comes at a cost it also provides us with our most valuable resource: human intellect. Perhaps this is the perfect time to tap our earth's carbon battery to propel us into the next orbital of energy production and consumption. Or perhaps we are not socially and culturally smart enough to make efficient use of this energy and we will exhaust our surplus and perish, another evolutionary footnote of history. Either way, I doubt we have the power to stop this juggernaut now so might as well assume (and try to achieve) the optimistic option.

13thLetter 11y ago

> Maybe we'll figure out some way to replace our stored carbons inputs in a way that lets us keep the same energy surplus. We already have: unfortunately, massive and pervasive scientific illiteracy, often abetted by the same people complaining about population growth and carbon-based energy, has prevented us from making full use of nuclear power. If you'd like to fix the energy problem as quickly as possible, without waiting for breakthroughs in solar or battery storage or fusion, it's Greenpeace you need to talk to.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
You don't even need nuclear power, we could get all the energy we currently need from geothermal sources. It's not exactly renewable but it's non-polluting and there's enough energy to last us for a long long time to come (I can't remember the exact figures, I'll look it up). That said, it's good to diversify energy sources (so long as they're non-polluting), and I can see some potential benefits for thorium-based reactors. The main reason we haven't moved away from fossil fuels more quickly isn't due to blocking nuclear, it's due to short-term profit-led thinking. EDIT: "The MIT report estimated that over 200 zettajoules (ZJ) would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements – sufficient to provide all the world's present energy needs for several millennia." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy Plenty of time to develop renewables and nuclear fusion, no?
- aidenn0 11y ago
  "present energy needs for several millennia" means actual energy needs is a much, much shorter timespan assuming we continue our exponential trend of energy use.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Doesn't matter, as long as it buys time to develop renewables and nuclear fusion.
  - ableal 11y ago
    > continue our exponential trend of energy use. I think that trend has had its run - we're not brute-forcing every industrial process any more, getting clever about energy use is all the rage now.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > You don't even need nuclear power, we could get all the energy we currently need from geothermal sources. It's not exactly renewable but it's non-polluting and there's enough energy to last us for a long long time to come (I can't remember the exact figures, I'll look it up). Nuclear is non-polluting too. It's probably the greenest form of energy available to us per kWh if you count everything up. Diversification is a good idea though. > The main reason we haven't moved away from fossil fuels more quickly isn't due to blocking nuclear, it's due to short-term profit-led thinking. There are two aspects here - one is that we haven't moved away from fossil fuels due to "short-term profit-led thinking", or as it is formally known (if you count profits in dollars), the market economy. But the second aspect is that as we slowly move towards other sources, we're moving away from nuclear - and that happens because of FUD and politics (which is also "short-term profit-led thinking").