3 ms·
Correct. I find the image, that there is a max amount of oil we can use up without making the earth uninhabitable for humans, much more tangible. That separate
by Roritharr 11y ago
Correct. I find the image, that there is a max amount of oil we can use up without making the earth uninhabitable for humans, much more tangible.
That separates the actual existance of oil fields from their extraction and offers a direct point of blame, something which we seem to need.
The person/organisation that draws the drop that kills earth will be the one we should focus and prosecute, and we should announce that beforehand, so that nobody wants to be that person.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoThe carrying capacity for humans on Earth pre-fossil fuels was roughly 1 billion. We're up to 7 billion now. And we're comfortable enough to actually notice the environment in a way people even 60 years ago were not. I think this is causal - fossil fuels made 6/7ths of us possible.
- saryant 11y agoIt's absolutely true. Daniel Yergin wrote what is largely considered to be the definitive history of oil and makes the compelling case that modern humanity is only possible because of our 20th century transformation into Hydrocarbon Man. Kerosene lengthened the working day, oil created the post-war society we currently enjoy and made possible the amazing increase in agricultural productivity over the past several decades. For all its ills and drawbacks, oil made modern civilization possible.
- dredmorbius 11y agoPhenomenal book. Hugely recommended. And that's despite disagreeing strongly with Yergin's petro-optimism. He absolutely knows his subject.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoYergin's book is a classic.
- the8472 11y agoJust like slavery helped us build civilizations in the past. That's not an argument for continued use once the problems are recognized. A currently large population means nothing if it's not sustainable.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoWhat exactly do you think replaced slavery?