# Is our growth sustainable?



## young-gun (1 November 2011)

came across these vids on youtube. raises some good points, thought some may be interested  8 part vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=relmfu

quite an interesting example in part 3 with bacteria in a bottle.


----------



## Mr Z (1 November 2011)

It is very true that there are very real limits to growth and we maybe be over reach with our current population. The optimists point too technology and the fact that developed economies tend to stabilize population growth as the answer. The pessimists point to Asia's growth ambitions and say we are simply strapped for resources and that it will result in war.

What else have you got to do other than hang around and see how it ends?

Ain't life grand?


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 November 2011)

The planet is finite, that is a fact. Constant growth based on finite resources can't possibly be sustained. How long it can last is anyone's guess, but that it will end at some point is a given.


----------



## danbradster (2 November 2011)

I like the example of oil production peaking 20 years ago in America.  It will happen with all resources before long...

In 20 years when half of China want a life style like Americans how will the world have resources for that?  Assuming a stable 2% world growth, we'll consume as much in the next 35 years as we have in the entire world history.

With some resources' production having already peaked, imagine if we consumed double that again, there will be a lot more resources past their peak.

I'm holding a lot of resources.  Does anybody have any good strategies for resources investing?


----------



## young-gun (2 November 2011)

danbradster said:


> I like the example of oil production peaking 20 years ago in America.  It will happen with all resources before long...
> 
> In 20 years when half of China want a life style like Americans how will the world have resources for that?  Assuming a stable 2% world growth, we'll consume as much in the next 35 years as we have in the entire world history.
> 
> ...





its scary..and quite amazing what growth rates of 1-7% result in. resource stocks? if they have big exposure to china(as most do) and china's beginning to slow......

the next boom nation will be india, but they're not quite ready yet...thats if we have the resources and energy left for them to boom

as stated in the video, it's all going to come to a head oh so suddenly, but by then will it be too late? probably...


----------



## disarray (2 November 2011)

reposting


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 November 2011)

I understand the concept and believe in the peak oil theory, However we should never under estimate humans abilty to innovate, problem solve and adapt and over obsticles.

In 30 years we will still be growing and thriving, there is plenty of scope for recycling, efficiency improvements, substituation, and new sources of resources.

Remember just because they say their is X number of reserves left does not mean that thats all that exists, there may be many times that amount left undiscovered, or that will become reserves at a later date when new technology means we can access it, or it may be able to be complete replaced by new things

In the 1800's Some one may have been concerned about the future of the steam engine because based on calculations there may have been only 50 years of coal reserves, However not only have very many sources of coal been discovered they way we use coal has grow much more efficent and also new technologies have replaced alot of the coal that would have been needed other wise.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 November 2011)

For an example of how future tech can change dissaray's chart.

The chart states that we have 30 - 40 years of uranium left, if a tech such as the one bill gates is supporting comes through it would mean that the world could have an infinate supply of cheap energy, and with an endless supply of cheap energy any thing is possible.


----------



## young-gun (2 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> For an example of how future tech can change dissaray's chart.
> 
> The chart states that we have 30 - 40 years of uranium left, if a tech such as the one bill gates is supporting comes through it would mean that the world could have an infinate supply of cheap energy, and with an endless supply of cheap energy any thing is possible.






governments need to stop stuffing around and get on board with ideas and technology of this nature. if enough money and time is thrown at something it'll get there alot faster. i have no doubt there is 10's or even 100's of(plausable) ideas out there that scientists are currently working on, but these are probably decades away from actually providing sufficient energy to meet future demands. the fact is we're being lazy and ignorant, and i wouldnt be surprised if we started running out of essential resources before we had a new technology to replace it.

might aswell just sit back and wait for nuclear fusion


----------



## Mr Z (2 November 2011)

Human history is one of management by crisis, we will not get ahead of the problem willingly. The probabilities say we fight over resource and get innovative under the pressure of battle. Even now government will do all it can to lower the price of a critical resource like oil, in the process depriving the market of the price signal to get to work on the solving the problem. We like our leaders to do the wrong thing while it suits us and then when it goes wrong we like to string them up. Just look at Greece, where where the protests when the leader where digging the debt hole and handing out the borrowed sugar?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> Human history is one of management by crisis,




I totally agree with that, each step along the way there will be shocks, but in the grand scheme of things we will over come each one and it will turn out to be an opportunity for those with a bit of investment nouse and a positive outlook to the other side of it.

There are plenty of ways to get around the oil problem, offcourse they won't happen till it really is a problem, but I look forward to it. It's going to be a great movie and very enriching for those with a rational view of the big picture.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> There are plenty of ways to get around the oil problem, offcourse they won't happen till it really is a problem, but I look forward to it. It's going to be a great movie and very enriching for those with a rational view of the big picture.



I agree with that statement although I must point out that it will take quite some time to bring about a major shift.

1. Develop the new technologies.

2. Tool up to start production. Even if we we came up with alternative vehicles (for example) tomorrow, it will be years before every major car manufacturer has tooled up to put it in every new vehicle. The use of petrol engines would thus continue to increase in the short term.

3. Time to actually roll it out. For vehicles that's 20 years. For things like major power stations we're talking 30 - 60 years.

Back in the 1990's there were still a lot of electric utilities trying to work out what to do with their 1970's (built as a result of investment decisions made in the 1960's) oil-fired power plants that had become a millstone around their necks. So in the 1990's, we were still very much stuck with the legacy of 1960's decisions.

Looking at Victoria (for example) virtually the entire energy supply (electricity, gas, liquid fuels) comes about due to investment decisions made between 1918 to the late-1980's (and in the late 80's it was simply the rubber stamping of a plan first approved in the mid-70's). 

All this stuff is hugely long term. We'll find a way out I do expect, but it's not going to happen in less than a couple of decades and the pain in the meantime won't be pleasant. Sure, we'll make some progress fairly quickly. But what I'm saying is that it's going to take rather a long time to get around it fully.

It's worth considering that the SECV in Victoria was set up in 1918 specifically to develop local fuel resources (brown coal and hydro) and end the energy shortage then faced by Victoria due to frequent cut offs of coal supply from NSW. It was the early 1960's, more than 40 years later, when that goal was finally achieved with the construction of numerous brown coal, oil and hydro stations along the way. Things always look easy on paper but once you throw in some engineering difficulties, resource constraints (lack of fuel was always the problem in Vic) and a World War then it all gets rather difficult. 

The Hydro in Tasmania ended up spending 17 years building a single dam for the same reason. It's hard building things when you've got no materials (forcing you to produce your own...), minimal labour, hardly any money and so on which is what happens in a major crisis. They then built another 50 over the next 40 years with comparative ease. Things get much, much harder to build in a time of overall crisis and this is one point that shouldn't be missed in this discussion. If we're going to develop alternatives to oil then it will be MUCH easier to develop them BEFORE we have a crisis.


----------



## disarray (2 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> For an example of how future tech can change dissaray's chart.




i totally agree on the potential of future tech, but as Mr. Z said ...



			
				 Mr. Z said:
			
		

> Human history is one of management by crisis



 and 







			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I must point out that it will take quite some time to bring about a major shift




but an even bigger handbrake on development will be vested interests wanting to maintain the status quo for as long as is profitable. meanwhile the population grows and resources dwindle.


----------



## tothemax6 (2 November 2011)

Lol, why do people engage in these discussions?

Just accept that the future is going to be bad (and it is, and certainly not just because of energy needs), accept that you and others cannot and will not change it, shrug your shoulders, and think about something else.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (2 November 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Lol, why do people engage in these discussions?
> 
> Just accept that the future is going to be bad (and it is, and certainly not just because of energy needs), accept that you and others cannot and will not change it, shrug your shoulders, and think about something else.




The future is going to be great, in 20 years energy will be cheaper than it is now, and recycling systems will be ten times better, 

The future will be better than the past,


----------



## tothemax6 (3 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The future will be better than the past,



Technology is always progressing. It cannot make up for social and political regression. Every man, be he in a hotel, in a slum, on a beach, in a war zone, knows that technology will be better in ten years. That doesn't mean his life will be. 
Have you lived through a war, Tysonboss? How about a proper recession? Periods of high social discordance? No westerner your or my age has. Given the macro indicators (the most telling of all being geodemographic), it is quite a bet to make that these won't happen.

I can't really see how someone could conclude that the future is going to be better than the past, but I suppose that would be a 'blissful ignorance' superior to a 'resigned understanding'.
Anyway, as they say in the future of property prices thread, 'everything is sunshine, lolipops, rainbows and bubbles'.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 November 2011)

Tothemax,.... It is interesting you ask that, yes I have seen the worst side of human nature, having spent 5 years as a soldier in an sf unit, I have lost a friend, sgt Brett till to an ied and another friend was permanently disabled by an ied( lost both hands and an eye), another incident in training left a guy dead and one with permanent damage to his arm, another friend was wounded an recently had a book published about him, another friend of mine was shot twice as he tried to rescue an American soldier who took a bullet an inch above his vest.


----------



## tothemax6 (3 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Tothemax,.... It is interesting you ask that, yes I have seen the worst side of human nature, having spent 5 years as a soldier in an sf unit, I have lost a friend, sgt Brett till to an ied and another friend was permanently disabled by an ied( lost both hands and an eye), another incident in training left a guy dead and one with permanent damage to his arm, another friend was wounded an recently had a book published about him, another friend of mine was shot twice as he tried to rescue an American soldier who took a bullet an inch above his vest.



Well in that case, yes your future will be relatively fine . The rest of us will find it rather uncomfortable.


----------



## johenmo (3 November 2011)

Unless our population growth plateaus or declines, no.  Man will attempt to delay thorugh innovation, force, etc but we consume faster than we replace.  Energy will never be free, for there is a cost of some sort to "make" energy (energy is neither created nor destroyed) & someone will want to profit from it.

Overconsumption will also have to be reigned in.  This is very similar to the overpopulation thread.


----------



## Dowdy (3 November 2011)

> Is our growth sustainable?




rephrase that to _*'Is China's growth sustainable?'*_ and give an answer

Whatever happens to China will effect us. If they boom/bust, so do we....


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 November 2011)

johenmo said:


> Energy will never be free, .




I never said free energy, I said very cheap.

It is not immpossible, in fact it is very likely that in the future there will be technologies that can produce un heard of amounts of electricity for next to nothing.

The main cost would be the cost to build the infrastructure, and like most energy infrastructure a pricing system that delivers the owner a regulated 10% return on the capital invested would be fine,

Add to the the relatively cheap energy people will produce themselves at home, eg. solar panels, and future effiency gains throughout the economy, eg switching a large portion of supply away from oil to electrical power,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 November 2011)

Here is the full video of bill gates talking at the ted conference on the future of energy. it is a pretty good video if you are interested in sustainabilty and the future.

It also gives a great insight into bill gates,


----------



## young-gun (4 November 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Lol, why do people engage in these discussions?
> 
> Just accept that the future is going to be bad (and it is, and certainly not just because of energy needs), accept that you and others cannot and will not change it, shrug your shoulders, and think about something else.





so in conclusion, don't discuss or comment on things you can't change? best we shut the forum down?


----------



## young-gun (4 November 2011)

Dowdy said:


> rephrase that to _*'Is China's growth sustainable?'*_ and give an answer
> 
> Whatever happens to China will effect us. If they boom/bust, so do we....




the videos are in relation to population growth, growth fundamentals, and consumption. not so much the growth of nations or current economic growth.

in saying that you are correct, if china goes bust so to will we.
and no their growth isnt sustainable.


is anyone of the opinion that governments may possibly leave it too late?(unless the private sector acts as gatesy appears to be) i honeslty believe the human race will be heavily impacted(negatively) by very scarce energy sources before full implementation of new and renewable energy has been achieved.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> It is not immpossible, in fact it is very likely that in the future there will be technologies that can produce un heard of amounts of electricity for next to nothing.



And therein lies the problem. Electricity is the easy bit, but thus far we've got no means of using it to run aircraft, trucks, buses etc.

There's lots of ways to get electricity but liquid fuels are another matter. Hence my firmly held view that we shouldn't be using oil / gas to generate electricity - it's a tragic waste of a truly valuable resource. 

We don't turn gold into lead, now do we...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (4 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> And therein lies the problem. Electricity is the easy bit, but thus far we've got no means of using it to run aircraft, trucks, buses etc.
> 
> There's lots of ways to get electricity but liquid fuels are another matter. Hence my firmly held view that we shouldn't be using oil / gas to generate electricity - it's a tragic waste of a truly valuable resource.
> 
> We don't turn gold into lead, now do we...




It will happen though, as you said if you can have large amounts of alternative electrcity production you can offset use of fossil fuels (gas and coal) which can be liquified, and even with current technolgy electric cars can offset liquid fuel use, and as technology in that space gets better trucks and buses will use electricity.

Aircraft is much harder, But with the oil use from cars and trucks freed up there would be plenty of oil supply for for aircraft, and who knows what future tech will come in the next 50 years,


----------



## tothemax6 (5 November 2011)

young-gun said:


> so in conclusion, don't discuss or comment on things you can't change? best we shut the forum down?



You can change your portfolio can't you? TBYS
A man can talk about many things, from torture to pink ponies. I'd rather be talking about the ponies.


----------



## Mr Z (5 November 2011)

Batteries are a big issue.

Hydrogen cells are effectively a battery BUT commercialization of the tech seems to be a real hurdle. The Toyota guy said ---> sure we can do it but no one can afford the cars.

NH3 is an option, Matt Simmonds liked its potential.

Most renewables require kilowatt for kilowatt backup capacity to exist. 

Nuclear has been demonized and held back in its development, there are some great developments that could be achieved there.

Big money in energy == complicated politics.

All good fun.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (5 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> , Batteries are a big issue.
> .




 yes, But batteries will get cheaper and smaller with technology, and we have 40 years to have this fully deployed, Although even with existing tech and prices a decent chunk of peoples commute could be power by electricity, it's happening already


----------



## Mr Z (5 November 2011)

I'm not even sure we have the metals to replace all the petrol driven cars with hybrids, even then they have a short battery life of around ten years with replacement cost writing the car off at that point. Batteries as we know them are not the answer IMO.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> I'm not even sure we have the metals to replace all the petrol driven cars with hybrids, even then they have a short battery life of around ten years with replacement cost writing the car off at that point. Batteries as we know them are not the answer IMO.



I suspect you are right. A battery car will end up being a "disposable" car that is in practice unrepairable other than minor bodywork, and then only when near new and still with a high enough resale value to make it worthwhile.

If we're ever going to live sustainably then we're going to have to go back to making things to last, not making them to be replaced after a few years at most. Even if we sort out the energy, then we're faced with declining ore grades, pollution and all the rest. Making things to break just doesn't stack up environmentally.


----------



## tothemax6 (6 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> A battery car will end up being a "disposable" car that is in practice unrepairable other than minor bodywork, and then only when near new and still with a high enough resale value to make it worthwhile.



Lol, and you will get it from a vending machine. Wasteful, but awesome .


----------



## Uncle Festivus (6 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> We don't turn gold into lead, now do we...




Not yet at least....?? Nano tech is looking interesting.... and  just a little bit scary..

In the meantime, something along the lines of a fuel cell 'cube' at home producing hydrogen for your car??

As to the topic, can 7 Billion people live the way we do? No. So either we have to take a reduction in living standards for the Chinese & Indians to increase theirs or we really do need to spend a bit of money on tech solutions to fuel & food?

http://dicksmithpopulation.com/links/


----------



## Mr Z (6 November 2011)

The trouble with kids these days is that they simply don't remember when you could repair things that broke.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (6 November 2011)

I like this
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse


It doesn't matter if clean, free energy ever comes to the public (it won't, there's no way to profit a lot from it, the corrupt corporations and governments will never allow it), every natural resource that we need for food, water and production is very very limited.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (6 November 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I like this
> http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if clean, free energy ever comes to the public (it won't, there's no way to profit a lot from it, the corrupt corporations and governments will never allow it), every natural resource that we need for food, water and production is very very limited.




As much as a respect chris martenson's work and the effort he has put into his various videos and classes, (I first took interest in his work years ago) I don't feel he makes enough of an allowance for human innovation.

There will be ways to have unlimited energy in the future, and it will be very cheap while the owners of the infrastructure still generate good enough returns to encourage them to contiune maintaining and expanding their infrastructure.

Keep in mind I am not saying their won't be shock along the way, Shocks are nessasary for great innovations.

Unlimited cheap energy gives rise to all sorts of options, will unlimited cheap energy their is no shortage of water, no shortage of metals etc.etc

Energy is by far the biggest cost and the biggest limiting factor in our economy, with cheap energy all sorts of recycling options, mining option, water options become available.

It's a bit crazy to think that we are any where near perfection as far as human innovation goes, in  100 years they will look back at 2011 in a similar fashion to the way we look back at 1911.

No doubt some one as I said earlier from the 1850's making projection about the future of the steam engine and coal supplies would have be way wrong.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (6 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I suspect you are right. A battery car will end up being a "disposable" car that is in practice unrepairable other than minor bodywork, and then only when near new and still with a high enough resale value to make it worthwhile.
> 
> If we're ever going to live sustainably then we're going to have to go back to making things to last, not making them to be replaced after a few years at most. Even if we sort out the energy, then we're faced with declining ore grades, pollution and all the rest. Making things to break just doesn't stack up environmentally.




I can't see why a Battery car could not have the worn out parts replaced, 

and a battery car would have massive savings over it's life in fuel savings and the cost of servicing, So a big one off cost after 10years would not be bad, and would be offset to a degree by trading in the old battery for recycling.

The Average life of a car in Australia less than 10 years any way,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (6 November 2011)

The future of Electric vechicles,

there is two videos one linked and obe embbeded

The link is the better video, but the second video was the only one that would embed.

[video]http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2011/11/01/n_w_tesla_drive_musk.cnnmoney/[/video]


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I can't see why a Battery car could not have the worn out parts replaced,
> 
> and a battery car would have massive savings over it's life in fuel savings and the cost of servicing, So a big one off cost after 10years would not be bad, and would be offset to a degree by trading in the old battery for recycling.
> 
> The Average life of a car in Australia less than 10 years any way,



I can assure you that, at least it was a couple of years ago, the average life of a car is about double that in Australia. The average age of a car on the roads is somewhere near 10 years, half of them older and half of them younger. Hence why it took 20 years from the phase out of leaded petrol for new cars to it and substitutes disappearing at the pump. 

As for repairs, you certainly could repair one but it comes down to economics. Consider that my own (standard petrol engine) car is 11.5 years old. It's mechanically A1 (only 78,000 km), as new interior but has a few minor scratches on the outside. Now here's the brutal reality - if I am involved in anything more than a truly trivial accident then the insurer will simply write it off as uneconomic to repair. It could easily last another 20 years with my usage, but it's not worth repairing if it needs anything major done to it.

For an electric car I'd expect the situation to be no better and quite likely worse. Without the need for regular servicing, parts will simply be built and the car designed without servicing in mind. Even a simple job will end up needing more labour than it would be worth paying for, and I'm guessing that the cost of replacing the batteries will be more than the car is worth in running condition - once the batteries die it's effectively a write off.

Cars in general are already well down this track. I remember quite well as a child that there were an awful lot of garages etc around back in those days. But what happens now? It gets taken to the dealer or some chain store mechanic for a service and that's about it. Excluding performance cars, modifications etc there wouldn't be too many people actually rebuilding engines these days - when the motor in a standard car dies these days it's usually the end of the car unless it's a warranty claim.

My neighbour had a Hyundai with about 220,000 km on it. It was a 98 model in fairly good condition. The engine needed some work and the end result is the car ended up at the wreckers since repair just didn't make financial sense. Give it a few years and the same will be true of any Holden, Ford etc too unless we're talking about an up market model with a good resale value when it's old. 

My comment about not fixing electric cars isn't about electric cars per se. Rather, it's that cars in general are slowly going down the same track as everything else and becoming "disposable". The moment my 11.5 year old car needs more than about one sixth of its original purchase price spent on it, that's effectively the end of it unless I choose to burn money. Sad but true.

Another example along the same lines is the humble household hot water system. With proper maintenance, they have a life of 20+ years. But it's not worth paying someone to do the work, hence apart from a few DIY'ers nobody bothers and instead they just buy an entire new system every 10 years or so. Another thing that is simply "throw away" for no reason other than that the cost of labour to maintain it exceeds replacement value. Cars are about the only consumer item that hasn't already gone this way but even they are slowly but surely...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (6 November 2011)

The average age is 7 years,


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The average age is 7 years,



= an item which is basically "thrown away" beyond a certain point, usually triggered by a repair being required, well before it is actually worn out in a technical sense.

I think the real point I'm trying to make here is being missed. Nobody is likely to actually spend serious $ replacing batteries on a 10 year old electric car given that cars that age have little value anyway. If the battey life is pretty much a given as 10 years tops, then that basically puts a hard limit on the lifespan of the car for the vast majority of users for whom replacement won't be economically viable.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (7 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I don't feel he makes enough of an allowance for human innovation.




And you do not make enough of an allowance for government corruption.



Tysonboss1 said:


> Unlimited cheap energy gives rise to all sorts of options, will unlimited cheap energy their is no shortage of water, no shortage of metals etc.etc
> 
> Energy is by far the biggest cost and the biggest limiting factor in our economy, with cheap energy all sorts of recycling options, mining option, water options become available.




Please elaborate. Mass recycling is not so much an energy problem as it is a problem with capitalism. Also note, desalination has enormous environmental impacts - in particular on marine life.

No matter how much easier mining will get, there will still be fewer resources left to mine, at lower grades and concentrations. How far can it go? We will have to severely  deface our planet just to get enough resources to live in a sustainable way unless the world's population significantly shrinks.



Tysonboss1 said:


> It's a bit crazy to think that we are any where near perfection as far as human innovation goes, in  100 years they will look back at 2011 in a similar fashion to the way we look back at 1911.




Just a pipe dream mate, there are no butterflies in the future of this planet, only misery. Too many greedy and powerful people would rather profit from us scrambling and slaving away to compete for the last natural resources left on the planet.

If clean, cheap energy does not benefit them, it will never be allowed - simple as that. No such company will get a loan, or regulatory approval, any people involved will be murdered, technology stolen. There are people every year in various countries who claim to have invented some way of gathering energy much better. They are very soon never heard from again. None of this is new.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (8 November 2011)

There is a lot of stuff that does not get recycled because it is not "economical" to recycle it, this means it costs more to collect, transport and process than is recovered at the end, a large portion of those costs are energy costs.

Again with mining, a large portion of a mines costs are energy, lowering the costs of mining means existing mines could continue into lower grade ores, also with cheap energy metals that are dissolved in sea water could be extracted, Japan has already got a system that could produce uranium from sea water for $250 a kilo.

Human labour it's self would be cheaper, over 90% of a persons income is spent on energy, not just directly eg. electricity, gas and petrel you burn your self. But also indirectly, eg, a loaf of bread was baked, transported, packaged, flour milled, crops planted and sprayed, displayed in a lit store etc etc. 

If you lowered the cost of energy you would lower the cost of living, and there fore there would be less pressure on raising minimum wages etc,


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

I'm glad to see that someone "gets it" about energy...

Energy isn't like anything else and it's the one reasource we should be concerned about above all others.


----------



## Mr Z (8 November 2011)

With energy we can solve most other issues... our economies are effectively back by energy these days. No cheap energy and we will be severely hampered... that is definitely issue #1.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (8 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Human labour it's self would be cheaper, over 90% of a persons income is spent on energy, not just directly eg. electricity, gas and petrel you burn your self. But also indirectly, eg, a loaf of bread was baked, transported, packaged, flour milled, crops planted and sprayed, displayed in a lit store etc etc.




In what country? I don't even spend 50% of my income.


I agree that energy is the #1 issue, but it is a ruse to say it is the only important issue or that it can fix all or even most problems.


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 November 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I agree that energy is the #1 issue, but it is a ruse to say it is the only important issue or that it can fix all or even most problems.




For the first 2.5 million years of humankind's existence, "energy" was far from being the #1 issue. 

IMO the "energy is the #1 issue" issue has only arisen in the past say, 50 years (or .000016% of humankind's timeline) because of the primary let's-bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-because-it's-all-too-horrible-to-contemplate-any-workable-solution issue for solving the Number One Burning Issue...

...and that is - _Human OVERPOPULATION in relation to the finite amount of earth resources available_.

FACT- If human population had been kept _sustainable in relation to energy sources_, *there would be no current energy issues*!

*sniff*

I need some tissues after those issues.....


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 November 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> In what country? I don't even spend 50% of my income.
> 
> .




perhaps if your saving it, but i you are spending it a large chunk is going to energy. As I said I am not just talking about the petrel, gas and elec you directly pay for,

I am talking about the every thing the energy input into the Food, Clothing, housing, water and production and transport of the goods you buy. etc etc


----------



## Mr Z (9 November 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> FACT- If human population had been kept _sustainable in relation to energy sources_, *there would be no current energy issues*!




Hey Jeff! Isn't that a bit circular? We have made a quantum leap in energy potential at almost every major change in energy source, which was driven by need! Assuming that population rises now lead to the perfection of a renewable that does not really solve the population issue. Also at some point in that 2.5 million year history it was our mastering of external energy sources that defined us as a species. Be it fire or the use of water those basics enabled us to move forward.

IMO with energy we stand a chance of solving the other issues and eventually developing a secure enough life that we stabilize our populations, without it we are screwed.

The question in my mind is what is the sustainable limit? The answer to that is in technique (technology) which is dependent on energy. Again the discussion gets circular and I am afraid we will not know if we are in overreach until we are there and experiencing failure. Then we will respond under crises and find out what is truly possible. Crisis is the only certainty here IMO --> it is the way we do things!


----------



## craft (9 November 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> For the first 2.5 million years of humankind's existence, "energy" was far from being the #1 issue.




Energy is and has always been the number 1 Issue. It controls natural populations and diversity.

If it costs less then 1 KJ to find and capture your next one KJ of energy, then your species population grows at the expense of your prey. If it costs more, then your population decreases taking pressure of the prey and letting it recover.  KJ’s expended being in equilibrium with KJ consumed is the natural order. Humans in recent history have been able to super charge the natural order through utilising stored energy and our population has exploded.  We must continue to find ways of liberating stored energy or suffer a massive reversal in human population. Nature dictates it.

If we are successful in liberating the stored energy we have become accustomed too, how long will it be before an un-natural population decimates finite elements or critical natural balances?  

Why is it that the virus seeks to destroy the host it needs for its very survival?  We need a global approach to getting consumption/population down to a naturally sustainable level otherwise we are picking a fight with our host that we will ultimately loose in a very messy way.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 November 2011)

craft said:


> If we are successful in liberating the stored energy we have become accustomed too, how long will it be before an un-natural population decimates finite elements or critical natural balances?




Thats the biggest question,

One saving grace is the notion that as populations become more urbanised and educated birth rates have a big decrease, and population growth slows.

As we reach our limit, the free market would naturally be making the cost of living increasingly expensive, and people would natually start questioning whether having more than 1 or 2 children per couple or if having any kids would make their life better.


----------



## Mr Z (9 November 2011)

It is an observable phenomena that population growth stabilizes as wealth increases. The question is at what level and is that actually achievable or sustainable for a given life style.

Zero growth economies and recyclable everything is where we need to end up BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 November 2011)

craft said:


> Why is it that the virus seeks to destroy the host it needs for its very survival?  We need a global approach to getting consumption/population down to a naturally sustainable level otherwise we are picking a fight with our host that we will ultimately loose in a very messy way.




Our Host is going to die anyway, It's the nature of the universe. It is just a matter of how many generations we can fit in before our host dies, and it would be prefered that our host died of natural causes,


----------



## craft (9 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Thats the biggest question,
> 
> One saving grace is the notion that as populations become more urbanised and educated birth rates have a big decrease, and population growth slows.
> 
> As we reach our limit, the free market would naturally be making the cost of living increasingly expensive, and people would natually start questioning whether having more than 1 or 2 children per couple or if having any kids would make their life better.




Not so sure

Ideally these countries with birth rates dropping would have steady GDP per capita and a corresponding decrease in cumulative GDP.  But it seems the more we have the more we want, the aim seems to be an incessant focus on cumulative GDP growth and ever spiralling upwards GDP per capita. Not having kids doesn’t seem to be a deliberate attempt to limit cumulative consumption; seems to me the motivation is more along the lines of not wanting to dilute the power to consume.



Tysonboss1 said:


> Our Host is going to die anyway, It's the nature of the universe. It is just a matter of how many generations we can fit in before our host dies, and it would be prefered that our host died of natural causes,





I suspect if we keep carrying on as we have the global immune system will kick in and put as back into our box many millions of generations before we would need to worry about the natural end of our host.


----------



## craft (9 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.





We designed the credit system - we can Re-design it.  Negative interest rates (a type of demurrage charge on holding cash) would work just as well to control velocity of the money supply and without the endless need for growth dictated by money scarcity created via a positive interest rate. 

Negative real interest rates are already occurring in some parts of the world as we start to face our limits to overall growth – perhaps we will redesign the system by default as we stumble forward.


----------



## Mr Z (9 November 2011)

Negative rates means no credit and an economy that migrates back to cash. Negative real rates is only achievable while you can keep people fooled, that fails at some point, then the velocity of money rises along with the negative price effects of the latter half of an inflation. Simply re-engineering our credit system is a substantial challenge, I have not yet seen any suggestion that would work.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 November 2011)

craft said:


> I suspect if we keep carrying on as we have the global immune system will kick in and put as back into our box many millions of generations before we would need to worry about the natural end of our host.




depends how far away the meteor is,


----------



## craft (9 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> Simply re-engineering our credit system is a substantial challenge, I have not yet seen any suggestion that would work.




I have found Bernard Lietaer to be very interesting reading in this area. certainly brightened my oulook on the possabilities for adapting the financial system. 

http://www.lietaer.com/


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 November 2011)

Mr Z said:


> Zero growth economies and recyclable everything is where we need to end up BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.



The financial system is the crux of the problem. Ultimately, we need to get to a point where the Reserve Bank (or whoever is running the show by then) targets stability, not growth. Until that time, anything else we do toward sustainability is futile at best.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 November 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> perhaps if your saving it, but i you are spending it a large chunk is going to energy. As I said I am not just talking about the petrel, gas and elec you directly pay for,
> 
> I am talking about the every thing the energy input into the Food, Clothing, housing, water and production and transport of the goods you buy. etc etc




I am better aware than the majority as to how much energy is in everything, in particular food. This just doesn't address the issue of over-population though. At best, the money saved on energy will be spent on consuming the rest of our natural resources at a faster rate.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This just doesn't address the issue of over-population though.



According to Wiki., the birth rate is approximately 2.5 times the death rate this year. Modern science and technology is keeping people alive and alive longer. Once a cancer cure is found then the difference could really blowout. There is a survival mechanism in all organisms but the impact of mind on natural balance is seemingly uhhh not natural. 



> Annual births peaked at 173 million in the late 1990s, and are now expected to remain constant at their 2011 level of 134 million, while deaths number 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040.




It will be either self inflicted or microbial attacks which reduces population up the road ahead.


----------

