3 ms·

Malthus was exactly right, but he couldn't anticipate the coming industrial revolution and the explosion of energy availability through fossil fuels. There may

by wazoox 14y ago

Malthus was exactly right, but he couldn't anticipate the coming industrial revolution and the explosion of energy availability through fossil fuels. There may be an equivalent revolution looming, but I can see no sign of it. For all purposes, Malthus could be right 200 years late. Most people seem to stick to "the system has worked for 350 years, so it must be able to go on indefinitely".

twoodfin 14y ago
That's a long way from "The only thing we know for certain is that the way we live now is totally unsustainable in the long run".
Turing_Machine 14y ago
"There may be an equivalent revolution looming, but I can see no sign of it." Plenty of material here: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
- wazoox 14y ago
  Yes, I know of this one and it's precisely the sort of wishful thinking I was mentioning, particularly the sheer disregard of energy related problems (obviously, everything will be easy for ever if finding energy and getting rid of waste heat has some magical solution). You should study some posts from this for a contradictory POV: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ I particularly like the discussion between the "exponential economist and finite physicist": http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... Or see also "Galactic Scale Energy" for a quick use of math to kill J. McCarthy arguments: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "particularly the sheer disregard of energy related problems" Did you actually read this? We have enough fissile material to last billions of years. "Billions". With a B. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
    - wazoox 14y ago
      Yes, I've read this several years ago, but you didn't read my links. Because my link use actual arithmetic, while McCarthy only says that those who don't use arithmetic are condemned to fail, then happily proceed with vague numbers and absolutely ZERO actual data.
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
        "Because my link use actual arithmetic" No, they don't. They use the assumption that population and energy use per capita will continue to grow exponentially, when it's clear that it doesn't. That may be "arithmetic" of a sort, but GIGO, you know. Essentially every developed country is below replacement level (the United States is an exception, but only due to high immigration). Find out why that is and then you can discuss the issue without, as McCarthy said, talking nonsense. I did use actual arithmetic in the waste heat calculation, which I notice that you did not dispute.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "Waste heat" is not a problem for the foreseeable future, by the way. The mean insolation arriving at the surface of the earth is ~1000 w/m2. The Earth has a surface area of about 5.1×10^8 km^2 or 5.1x10^14 m^2, so the incoming energy from the sun amounts to about 5x10^17 watts. World electrical power output is only about 2 terawatts = 2x10^12 watts, or 1/250,000 of the heat received from the sun. Clearly it's going to be a long time before we have to worry about "waste heat" on a global level. As your source says, do the math.

by wazoox 14y ago

twoodfin 14y ago

That's a long way from "The only thing we know for certain is that the way we live now is totally unsustainable in the long run".

Turing_Machine 14y ago

"There may be an equivalent revolution looming, but I can see no sign of it." Plenty of material here: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html

wazoox 14y ago
Yes, I know of this one and it's precisely the sort of wishful thinking I was mentioning, particularly the sheer disregard of energy related problems (obviously, everything will be easy for ever if finding energy and getting rid of waste heat has some magical solution). You should study some posts from this for a contradictory POV: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ I particularly like the discussion between the "exponential economist and finite physicist": http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... Or see also "Galactic Scale Energy" for a quick use of math to kill J. McCarthy arguments: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  "particularly the sheer disregard of energy related problems" Did you actually read this? We have enough fissile material to last billions of years. "Billions". With a B. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
  - wazoox 14y ago
    Yes, I've read this several years ago, but you didn't read my links. Because my link use actual arithmetic, while McCarthy only says that those who don't use arithmetic are condemned to fail, then happily proceed with vague numbers and absolutely ZERO actual data.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      "Because my link use actual arithmetic" No, they don't. They use the assumption that population and energy use per capita will continue to grow exponentially, when it's clear that it doesn't. That may be "arithmetic" of a sort, but GIGO, you know. Essentially every developed country is below replacement level (the United States is an exception, but only due to high immigration). Find out why that is and then you can discuss the issue without, as McCarthy said, talking nonsense. I did use actual arithmetic in the waste heat calculation, which I notice that you did not dispute.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  "Waste heat" is not a problem for the foreseeable future, by the way. The mean insolation arriving at the surface of the earth is ~1000 w/m2. The Earth has a surface area of about 5.1×10^8 km^2 or 5.1x10^14 m^2, so the incoming energy from the sun amounts to about 5x10^17 watts. World electrical power output is only about 2 terawatts = 2x10^12 watts, or 1/250,000 of the heat received from the sun. Clearly it's going to be a long time before we have to worry about "waste heat" on a global level. As your source says, do the math.