PDA

View Full Version : Future of out planet/humans?



Damian
2004-Jan-18, 02:22 PM
mmmm.........well i just wanted to ask what the futures has in stored for our race and out planet.
POST WHAT YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN!
Earth gets destroyed by black hole? God liberates man from sickness and war :D ANYTHING! I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!
Personally i dont care as long as i see something intresting happen while i live....mmmm.....like the planet instantaneously explodes and all will be blown to bits <_<

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jan-18, 03:53 PM
The book "The life and death of planet earth " (: how the new science of astrobiology charts the ultimate fate of our world) paints a rather reasonable scenario.

We must make sure some humans are out of the solar system soon enough for us to survive whatever happens to the earth and its near neighbors. :ph34r:

Tinaa
2004-Jan-18, 04:50 PM
I read that book too. I thought it was rather depressing. Microbes win the race to last the longest, but all will be fried in the end. Ugh&#33;

Chook
2004-Jan-18, 08:12 PM
We&#39;ll probably get hit by an asteroid before all that, don&#39;t you think? :unsure:

damienpaul
2004-Jan-31, 01:15 AM
I have been thinking of this, and one thing that I could see happening as a result of planetary colonisation down the track - way down the track is perhaps speciation. Deriving from adapting to the environments of the world&#39;s we colonise, I am certain that even with biodomes etc there still will be adaptation/mutation - and after a while we could have real Martians, Ganymedans etc

Dave Huntsman
2004-Jan-31, 02:29 AM
I have been thinking of this, and one thing that I could see happening as a result of planetary colonisation down the track - way down the track is perhaps speciation. Deriving from adapting to the environments of the world&#39;s we colonise, I am certain that even with biodomes etc there still will be adaptation/mutation - and after a while we could have real Martians, Ganymedans etc

I concur...as long as we&#39;re sub-luminal in terms of speed; and over a long enough period of time. It would only start once the true first generation, indigenous-born happens. Even then, might take awhile. I understand, for example, that if a Caucasian is suddenly plunked down in sub-saharan Africa, it takes about 1000 years for the skin color to have significantly darkened for the descendants. And that&#39;s just for skin tone.

Everything changes, though, if our next Edison or Einstein comes up with whatever &#39;warp drive&#39; eventually happens (he says, optimistically). For our species, distance is not measured in terms of distance; but in terms of travel time.

Dave

Duane
2004-Feb-04, 02:21 AM
Wow I could really get wound up thinking about this one. Looking even now at the humans on our planet, how many more generations of non-contact would have needed to have passed before, say, north american indians would have been unable to pro-create with northern europeans?

Imagine that we humans share about 98.6% of our DNA with chimpanzees. How many generations passed between the split that occurred in the branch that lead to both species?

Now imagine that humans begin to settle other nearby planets in other solar systems. Considering the amount of time it takes for us to travel to these new worlds(assuming todays technology with no space warping or other avoidances of light-speed), how long would it take for species diversification to occur?

Even more mind boggling, if a group of humans were on another planet that was significantly different from this one--say much hotter or cooler or wetter or drier, which then drove evolutionary changes in those humans, and enough time passed for them to change but not diverge enough to be unable to procreate with those who stayed behind, would we get a new "human"?

What of they diverged enough that any offspring became sterile, like mules are now? Would they be considered "less human"? What if they de-evolved but were still able to produce viable offsping with those who stayed on this planet? Would they still be human?

Talk about ethical and moral dilemas. You think we have bigots now, imagine a "human" race which has lost 3% of it&#39;s cranial capacity compared to us, but gained 5% muscle mass due to thier planet&#39;s higher gravity. Insta slaves anyone?

I laugh when I see star trek&#39;s multitude of different species who seem to be able to pro-create with other species, yet, given enough time and separation is that not what could occur with humans?

Ok, getting a headache thinking about it&#33; :D ;)

MissV
2004-Feb-23, 01:12 AM
I think the Earth itself will far outlive Humans. I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll go through many disasters before we are extinct though, another world war, another ice age, the gravitational shift from north to south, asteroids. All in all though, I think Humans are too destructive, too apathetic, too narcissistic and childish to really live all that long, in the scope of time. I think we will be our own destruction, but many years after us, I think another lifeform will evolve into intelligence. I wish it better luck.

devilmech
2004-Feb-23, 01:20 AM
If you ask me, I find it amazing that humans have had a future for this long. With the exception of the African elephant, we are the only species that destroys it&#39;s environment, the only species to kill other members of it&#39;s own for sport, etc.

Personally, I think humanity as we know it is doomed one way or the other. What remains to be seen is whether we can evolve into a more responsible species or whether we truly are a "blink of the cosmic eye."

damienpaul
2004-Feb-23, 10:42 AM
devilmech, or we will speciate, as i mentioned in another thread, forming totally different species, but that may be a long way off if at all.

QJones
2004-Feb-23, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by devilmech@Feb 23 2004, 01:20 AM
With the exception of the African elephant, we are the only species that destroys it&#39;s environment.
I don&#39;t fully agree. Every species proliferates and consumes as much as possible, in a static state, each species eventually runs out of resources. For example, yeast on a petri dish consume all the food and die of their own waste products. It&#39;s just that other ecologies compensate in the wild, and they derive benefit from other creature&#39;s waste. For example, our feces is good for bacteria. And eventually, those bacteria make the feces good for plants.

Personally, I am quite optimistic about the future. I think that, with intelligence, husbanding of resources, and technology humans have no forseeable bounds. There are various puzzles that we&#39;re working to crack (cheaper energy, extending lifespan, boosting intelligence, etc.) that are slowly being progressed on.

I think that the longevity issue will be cracked before I&#39;m old, meaning that &#39;old&#39; will be pushed further and further back (meaning, actually, that I might not ever need die of old age). As well, we can develop new processes to industrialize space, thus creating an opportunity to not only push people into space, but increase the average wealth of our people.

If we can reach this stage before wasting our natural resources, as a species, we have it made. And in a relatively short timescale.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Feb-28, 12:49 PM
If Hubbert was right there may be very bad times ahead in the near future. See http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/pe...l/peak_oil.html (http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/peak_oil/peak_oil.html),
http://www.oilcrash.com/ruppert.htm, and http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ for some chilling predictions.

Dave Mitsky

Faulkner
2004-Feb-28, 09:10 PM
Oil pollutes, it makes a few men filthy rich & the rest of us poor, it causes bloody wars, it stifles all alternative energy efforts, and...generally I&#39;m looking forward to the oil crash. This world needs a kick in the butt.

Doesn&#39;t oil lubricate tectonic plates or something? What is the affect of removing all the oil from the Earth&#39;s crust?

damienpaul
2004-Feb-28, 10:23 PM
I don&#39;t think the oil lubricates tectonic plates, so thats one less worry.

I agree with Faulkner, i believe we will have no choice but to switch to alternative sources of fuel, particularly if we colonise other worlds.

QJones
2004-Feb-28, 11:18 PM
We&#39;ve got LOTS of alternative fuel sources right now, they&#39;re just not economically feasible.

Actually, I&#39;d prefer that we continue to use the cheapest source. Frankly, I prefer to pay &#036;1 / 15km that I&#39;m paying now to drive, vs. more ... I have better things to do with my money (that I&#39;ve worked for).

However, I&#39;m actively doing other things to advance our space technology ... so, I don&#39;t feel like a hypocrite.

Planetwatcher
2004-Feb-29, 03:59 AM
To a great degree I have to concur with devil mech and Miss V.
We will be our own undoing, and the planet will likely far outlive us, at least in our present form and conciept of life.

I also believe there will come some of the ramifacations predicted via religious means which I will not elaberate on, except to say these ramifacations will drasticly change the face of the Earth and human kind as we know it.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Feb-29, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Faulkner@Feb 28 2004, 09:10 PM
Oil pollutes, it makes a few men filthy rich & the rest of us poor, it causes bloody wars, it stifles all alternative energy efforts, and...generally I&#39;m looking forward to the oil crash. This world needs a kick in the butt.

Doesn&#39;t oil lubricate tectonic plates or something? What is the affect of removing all the oil from the Earth&#39;s crust?
An oil crash will produce untold human suffering. A "die-off" of unprecendented scale (from a population of 6 billion to perhaps as few as 500 million) due to wars for resources, breakdowns in medical and social services, rioting, and mass starvation is very possible. Most of the world&#39;s food production is dependent on petroleum (and natural gas) for fertilizers, cultivation, irrigation, harvesting, and transportation. There is no substitute for oil in the production of petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and plastics.

Dave Mitsky

Faulkner
2004-Feb-29, 03:40 PM
Have we only just learnt that oil is a limited resource? I doubt it. Who&#39;s responsible for bringing society down this path of catastrophe?

Tinaa
2004-Feb-29, 03:55 PM
I am most certainly glad we raise a garden every year and my kids have learned to can veggies. We don&#39;t even use a tiller, just good ole muscles. Perhaps this hobby will save their life someday&#33; My dream is that someday a decendent of mine will be planting seeds on another planet. But until then, what other resourses are being researched? Geothermal, solar, nuclear, hydrogen cell, ethanol?

Guest
2004-Mar-02, 02:05 PM
Hi, I&#39;m Dutch & we pay 1,20 Euro / liter, 80 % are taxes.
When here the oilprices rice they say that is because the N-Americans are spoiling to much energy because it&#39;s so cold/hot in US of N-America.
The cheapest energy is being efficient with energy. It&#39;s also best for our children, which end-up with energy wich is more expensive than it now is, while they most probibly use much more energy to cool of the overheated earth&#33; When it&#39;s too expensive the world economy would freeze (or worse) and the human world could collapse. Our human economy is addicted on oil. For human survival its very important to change our energy habits. In my opinion, humans are less likely to survive natural disasters than African elephants because we need (preferably the cheapest) clothes. The need for clothes shows that we are still not adabted for earths climate&#33; So were are we talking about...

QJones
2004-Mar-02, 06:04 PM
Actually, there are many ways we could be more efficient. Using grain as a fuel is MUCH more efficient that using oil. Mainly because the grain is so easy to produce. Hence, ride you bike after eating a sandwich&#33;

In addition, I find that we have many needlessly wasteful practices. My main gripe is people who mow their lawns and bag away the grass. Using gasoline to till a useless crop, and then filling this crop in landfills? Madness. This is why I&#39;ve let my back yard grow wild, but have included food crops (beans and apples). Heck, the gasoline used to get apples to your store (and from your store to your house) can be reduced by growing apples in the back yard (not by much, but by some).

It&#39;s beef and chicken that are amazingly wasteful. Not that I advocate a totally vegetarian life-style - that&#39;s a personal choice - but to cut down on meat would really help us out. It costs (in the states) about one gallon of gasoline to for each pound of beef brought to market. And the grain used to grow beef (never mind other crops ... like beans) would give people 2x the protein that they derive from beef. ie., you have to feed a cow 2 grams of grain protein for every gram of beef protein you get ... nevermind the other calories.

I personally like to conserve resources ... not because I think they&#39;re irreplaceable, but in case we need them in the future. I&#39;d rather gasoline be spent advancing society that mowing my lawn.

pasiphae_spirit
2004-Mar-02, 09:10 PM
well i think human life will probably end in the future because of nuclear war. i think life on earth will basically end because of nuclear war & maybe future asteriod that should hit earth in the future. earth might turn into something like mars in the very distant future.

Tom2Mars
2004-Mar-03, 06:40 PM
So much gloom and doom&#33;

Are any of you reading my posts? Wake up&#33; (lot&#39;s of finger snapping here).

There are plenty of alternatives and they are innexpensive. The only problem is misapplication of the alternatives.

Would you carry water in a leaking bucket? Of course not&#33; Fix the leak or use a new bucket.

I hear all this complaining about the cost of solar, it&#39;s too expensive, it&#39;s not ready yet.

What you see in the media are stories about so-called "House of the Future" showcase homes that cost millions. But lots of people(hundreds of thousands) have found that it is more cost effective to make the house as efficient as possible, then add a small amount of solar.

I&#39;m building them, they work. Right now, it&#39;s 88F. outside in the shade at 1:36 in the afternoon. My inside temperature is 66F and I haven&#39;t had the air conditioning on for the whole last month. This building, with labor, costs about 1/2 of a conventionally built house, it meets code.

Conservation and efficiency costs less than creating energy. Fancy, smancy builders with lots of money will spend lots of money. Intelligent, frugal designers will spend less money. Apply that same concept to Space Development and you all will be E-mailing from your habitats in Space instead of moping down here on this rock.

Guest_guest
2004-Mar-03, 10:18 PM
The Earth may explode some day in the distant future.
The details a available at http://www.eugenesavov.com

Duane
2004-Mar-03, 10:42 PM
Talk about self promotion..............................

Tinaa
2004-Mar-03, 10:47 PM
The Earth may explode and I may get back into a size five. I wouldn&#39;t bet on either one&#33; ;)

Tom2Mars
2004-Mar-04, 02:15 AM
:o Is Mars going to explode too, cause that&#39;s where I was going. I&#39;d hate to leave one planet blowing up just to get to another as it blew up.

By the way QJones, I think the grain:beef protein conversion is even worse than 2:1. Once I read 15:1, another 5:1. It&#39;s been a long time though because I stopped eating beef 30 years ago.

Hey, is that a rabbit out there...gotta go&#33;

:P

damienpaul
2004-Mar-04, 07:47 AM
Tinaa I think that if i were to romp around in a size 5 floral kilt wearing a pink beret and great big pruple boots is also just as likely&#33;

Faulkner
2004-Mar-04, 10:00 AM
So it&#39;s likely the Earth IS going to explode??? :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:

damienpaul
2004-Mar-04, 11:19 AM
:lol: Faulkner, you been watching me again...allow me to rephrase, the likelyhood of Earth exploding is as likely as Fraser dancing in a yellow raincoat and kilt and singing &#39;I&#39;m a little teapot&#39; in Swahili&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I agree with Duane, talk about self promotion&#33;

But I really believe that human impact will mean little in say a future where we are extinct...i mean way into the future.

Guest
2004-Mar-04, 04:12 PM
water lubracates the tectonic plates

devilmech
2004-Mar-04, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Tinaa@Mar 3 2004, 10:47 PM
The Earth may explode and I may get back into a size five. I wouldn&#39;t bet on either one&#33; ;)
I wear a size five :P Don&#39;t ask how I know that <_<

Guest_SOL
2004-Mar-05, 11:05 PM
The planet will die one way or another, no matter wether the cause is natural or man made so will the sun and even our galaxy....so us humans have no chance in the long run ..it is all a matter of time.

The question is how much time can our intelligence give us ............. that is if we use it ;)

Victoria
2004-Mar-06, 09:15 AM
Intelligence added with awareness has to equal worth. As soon as we forget about our simple selves and begin to consider all worlds maybe our sights will widen.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Mar-08, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Tom2Mars@Mar 3 2004, 06:40 PM
So much gloom and doom&#33;


Sorry but an oil crash is the most frightening "end-of-the-world" scenario that I&#39;ve come across in a long time. The main point to keep in mind is the lack of time and money to convert a multi-trillion dollar oil-based world economy to something else, whatever that could possibly be. Drastic conservation is the only viable short-term alternative and that is political suicide.

Here&#39;s still another thing to be worried about - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05....htm?list717760 (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm?list717760)

Well, have a happy day&#33; <g>

Dave Mitsky

Faulkner
2004-Mar-08, 11:10 AM
Sure, all us innocent folk will die, but the guilty parties will just take off in their spaceships & go live in luxury apartments on Mars and beyond...

We&#39;re doomed&#33;

Tom2Mars
2004-Mar-08, 05:11 PM
Faulkner, you can ride along in my ship, trust me it&#39;ll be a lot safer trip than those "guilty-parties" will experience.

They will probably hire the lowest bidder, treat them like animals and complain about the shade of Navaho White used on the walls. Do you think that the poor workers left behind are going to put in their best efforts? ;)

Weaselbunny
2004-Mar-08, 05:14 PM
If I was a lowly worker on it, I&#39;d leave a fish behind a radiator somewhere&#33;

Just pondering... Have we stopped evolving, are we now just evolving technologically? Because if survival of the fittest leads to evolution, surely medical science has sorted that out.

Maybe some mad geneticist in the future will breed a race of super-human psycho soldiers though, hence science advancing physical evolution.

I agree with you guys that if/when we branch off into space or different environments, then evolution may start again.

I tend to think that we&#39;ll wipe ourselves out before we get that far, but I would hope that if humanity (by some fluke) survives for say the next million years, perhaps we&#39;ll evolve into pure energy or something like that.

Or maybe one day we&#39;ll just give up and slope back into the sea from whence we came&#33; (which will by that time be a noxious sludge of radioactive pollution, waste and badness)

Also, with petrol costing 0.75 per litre, then surely more of us should look to alternatives over here, I know I&#39;d be up for saving money with alternative energies, Tom2Mars, we need you in Britain&#33;

Tom2Mars
2004-Mar-08, 05:31 PM
To Dave Mitsky re-[Sorry but an oil crash is the most frightening "end-of-the-world" scenario that I&#39;ve come across in a long time. The main point to keep in mind is the lack of time and money to convert a multi-trillion dollar oil-based world economy to something else, whatever that could possibly be. Drastic conservation is the only viable short-term alternative and that is political suicide.]

Yeah, I know, that&#39;s why I&#39;m working on solutions to the exclusion of a normal life. I&#39;ve addressed this in other posts.

I am extremely optomistic&#33;&#33; And besides, people have an astonishing capacity for focusing on solutions when they are backed into a corner, and they&#39;re getting there real fast&#33; Plus, take a look around, from trains and horses, to the moon in 50 years. From Eniac, the early vacuum based computer with an AC cooling system the size of a house, to the calculator in you pocket. Cell-phones.

Oh, here&#39;s a big one&#33;...Americans actually talking about maybe eating less and exercising more&#33; If that isn&#39;t a sign that the Apocolypse can be addressed and delayed, I don&#39;t know what is.

Funny story. I filled up the tank in my 35mpg car at a convenience store and make a joke about the oil running out in 40 years(that&#39;s right, I don&#39;t even give total strangers a break&#33;). The guy standing next to me, about 30 to 40 years old, said "Well, I&#39;ll be dead before that happens&#33;" Gives a big laugh. I smiled a little and asked "Got any kids?" By the surprised and thoughtful way he responded, I had the feeling that he may have a different perspective in the future.

Plus, if the solutions were priced to sell, people will buy into whatever you offer them.

So relax, it&#39;s going to be OK(maybe).

Tom :D

QJones
2004-Mar-09, 12:23 AM
Very true. In my opinion, life expectancy is really going to rise over the next few decades (and possibly long-term, if the technology doesn&#39;t slow). For people to only look forward to the next 40 years is quite short-sighted. Stats say I should only live another 40 years or so ... but my science knowledge says that it should be quite a bit longer.

The important thing is for people to aid the advance of knowledge and technology. Too often we spend our disposable income on things that hurt us in the long run. I hope more people can reverse this trend.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Mar-10, 08:16 AM
Tom,

The salient point is that oil won&#39;t disappear in the near future or for decades to come for that matter but it will be increasingly more difficult and expensive to obtain. The result won&#39;t be very pretty. The term "peak oil" means that oil production has crested and is on the downslope of a Gaussian distribution. This may in fact have already happened. Yet the world population continues to grow and with it demand for oil at an ever increasing pace.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...03_simmons.html (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html)

Excerpt from the above (A=Matthew Simmons, 6/2003):

Q. I&#39;ve been reading your papers for the last two years, and I want to congratulate you on really good work, and in many cases it&#39;s work that I would have expected from a gas company, not from an investment banker. Last year, you defended the administration&#39;s concept of depletion...and you show a real genuine concern for the future of the world,... and the hydrogen proposal is really a fantasy, don&#39;t you think it is time for a more enlightened energy policy.

A. That would be wonderful but I think that it is going to take a while. There really aren&#39;t any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies. This is a tough question and I have no answers.

http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm

All the technological advances that you mentioned were a result, at least indirectly, of the availability of cheap oil.

Dave Mitsky

Duane
2004-Mar-10, 11:18 AM
Well that&#39;s an interesting tie in Dave. I didn&#39;t know you were a conspiracy theorist&#33; ;)

Isn&#39;t this the same Michael Ruppert who says that Bush was aware that the 9/11 attcks were going to occur, but allowed them to occur for the political gain he could get out of them? Isn&#39;t he also the one who claims the US government and CIA is intimately and purposefully involved in supplying America with drugs?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I think that there are limits on the amount of oil that there is in the world, but my father was in the oil industry for 40 or so years (I live in Alberta, the oil capital of Canada) and he says there is still plenty of oil with more being discovered all of the time.

Did you know that Alberta sits on reserves that equal the reserves in Saudi Arabia? Those reserves are harder to reach because they are tied up in oil sands (http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/com/Sands/default.htm) but the know how is there to extract them. There are also new discoveries in Africa & Asia with literally billions of barrels of oil.

AS for Rupperts suggestion that there are no alternatives, take a look at hydrogene fuel cell technology, wind powered electrical generation, solar cell technology, electric motor technology, or a host of others. While some of these are still rather crude, the research is ongoing and evolving. Believe me, there are plenty of "bridges" and more coming all of the time.

Coming back to the topic at hand, I am optimistic that we are at the beginning of a remarkable time for humankind. We are about to depart for the stars&#33; :o

QJones
2004-Mar-10, 11:05 PM
As well. there have been discoveries of methane hydrate in the arctic.

There are lots of fossil fuels left, but it gets harder and harder to get them. New technologies need to be invented to harvest the fuels. This leads to pressure to invent (I&#39;m good with that&#33;) and pressure to conserve (I&#39;m also good with that&#33;). Basically, as the cost of one type of production increases, the more pressure there is for alternates to be discovered.

Sometimes I don&#39;t know whether to invest in oil companies or in alternative energy companies. Oil companies will continue to be profitable for a long time, but alt. energy companies seem to deserve the financial impetus investing provides.

Powerman 5000
2004-Mar-10, 11:15 PM
Don&#39;t worry soon we can handle the power of hydrogen in cars and that subtracts transportation

Dave Mitsky
2004-Mar-11, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Duane@Mar 10 2004, 11:18 AM
Well that&#39;s an interesting tie in Dave. I didn&#39;t know you were a conspiracy theorist&#33; ;)

Isn&#39;t this the same Michael Ruppert who says that Bush was aware that the 9/11 attcks were going to occur, but allowed them to occur for the political gain he could get out of them? Isn&#39;t he also the one who claims the US government and CIA is intimately and purposefully involved in supplying America with drugs?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I think that there are limits on the amount of oil that there is in the world, but my father was in the oil industry for 40 or so years (I live in Alberta, the oil capital of Canada) and he says there is still plenty of oil with more being discovered all of the time.

Did you know that Alberta sits on reserves that equal the reserves in Saudi Arabia? Those reserves are harder to reach because they are tied up in oil sands (http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/com/Sands/default.htm) but the know how is there to extract them. There are also new discoveries in Africa & Asia with literally billions of barrels of oil.

AS for Rupperts suggestion that there are no alternatives, take a look at hydrogene fuel cell technology, wind powered electrical generation, solar cell technology, electric motor technology, or a host of others. While some of these are still rather crude, the research is ongoing and evolving. Believe me, there are plenty of "bridges" and more coming all of the time.

Coming back to the topic at hand, I am optimistic that we are at the beginning of a remarkable time for humankind. We are about to depart for the stars&#33; :o
I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means. Ruppert&#39;s site was merely linked to other peak oil sites. I had never heard of him prior to several weeks ago.

I&#39;ll say it again. The whole point is that the alternatives to cheap petroleum are going to take too long to develop and will be too expensive to compensate for the decline in volume oil production. All the solar power in the world won&#39;t make gasoline, fertilizers, plastics, and pharmaceuticals when oil grows scarse. If the world had gotten serious about this 30 years ago it might have been a different story.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageTwo.html

Dave Mitsky

damienpaul
2004-Mar-11, 10:20 AM
I do agree with you Dave, however, in South Australia, a solar power station has been running for a while, and the solar towers are still on the cards...

Weaselbunny
2004-Mar-11, 10:39 AM
I could be wrong, or I could be paranoid, but I seem to remember hearing that the oil companies and whatnot buy patents and try to make it difficult for viable alternatives to come into the marketplace? :ph34r:

The problem with changing to renewable energy sources is in the changing the attitudes of the powerful &#39;men&#39; whose first love is their wallet, not the planet. :angry:

It&#39;s nice to see that things in this respect are starting to change... but to my mind, alternatives aren&#39;t pushed and publicised near enough in this country, you don&#39;t hear an awful lot on the TV about the environment (not during my viewing hours anyway, I don&#39;t get a TV guide) and it seems to me that the environment &#39;used&#39; to be an issue, the hole in the ozone &#39;used&#39; to be an issue. <_<

The idea of viable alternatives needs to be sold to the public as a whole, and pressure needs to be put on governments/organisations, to research these options and make them not only environmently beneficial, but financially beneficial.

Duane
2004-Mar-11, 11:31 PM
I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means.

I didn&#39;t think so, hope you caught the sarcasm :lol:

As for the rest, I think people started getting serious about it in the early-mid 70&#39;s, during the oil crisis. The world as a whole is far less dependant on oil now then it was then, mostly as a result of many ongoing programs that saw their start during that period.

The ideas of solar and wind power, the theories of electric, hydrogen and hybred vehicles, and the application of recycling can all trace their "serious" start to those days.

That is not to say that more could have been (and still should be) done. Oil is a finite resource and it would be a hard time indeed if it we were to suddenly run out. I am heartened by the amount of money and effort that is being put into the search for alternative energies though and I don&#39;t think the situation is as grim as is set out by Ruppert and others.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Mar-13, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Duane@Mar 11 2004, 11:31 PM

I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means.

I didn&#39;t think so, hope you caught the sarcasm :lol:

As for the rest, I think people started getting serious about it in the early-mid 70&#39;s, during the oil crisis. The world as a whole is far less dependant on oil now then it was then, mostly as a result of many ongoing programs that saw their start during that period.

The ideas of solar and wind power, the theories of electric, hydrogen and hybred vehicles, and the application of recycling can all trace their "serious" start to those days.

That is not to say that more could have been (and still should be) done. Oil is a finite resource and it would be a hard time indeed if it we were to suddenly run out. I am heartened by the amount of money and effort that is being put into the search for alternative energies though and I don&#39;t think the situation is as grim as is set out by Ruppert and others.
Duane,

The alternative energy programs that Carter started were killed when Reagan came to power. Despite Gore&#39;s environmentalist leanings very little was done while Clinton was president and crude oil was unusually cheap. Dubya and Cheney are oil men. Their idea of alternative energy is to drill for oil in wilderness preserves in Alaska.

"Forecast of rising oil demand challenges tired Saudi fields" - a front page story in the New York Times on February 25th (browse http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil-gerth250204.htm for the article).

There was an op/ed piece on this topic entitled "The Coming Crunch" in the Harrisburg Patriot on Thursday. It was not very optimistic.

Men like Dr. Colin Campbell ( http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/ ), Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes ( http://www.hubbertpeak.com/deffeyes/ ), Dr. Albert Bartlett ( http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/ ), and Matthews Simmons ( http://www.mms.gov/mmab/policy-committee/M...wSimmonsBio.htm (http://www.mms.gov/mmab/policy-committee/Meetings/Spring00/MatthewSimmonsBio.htm) and http://www.peakoil.net/MatSim.html ) are hardly wild-eyed fanatics.

Additional links to read and ponder:

http://www.planetforlife.com/End%20of%20Ch...Cheap%20Oil.htm (http://www.planetforlife.com/End%20of%20Cheap%20Oil.htm)

http://www.museletter.com/partys-over.html

http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html


The more I read about peak oil the more apprehensive I become.

Dave Mitsky

damienpaul
2004-Mar-13, 05:53 AM
Is there a link to that article Dave?

Dave Mitsky
2004-Mar-13, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 13 2004, 05:53 AM
Is there a link to that article Dave?
There is indeed:

http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/....xml?penncolfie (http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columnists/107901361325560.xml?penncolfie)

Dave Mitsky

Guest_folkhemmet
2004-Mar-14, 01:04 AM
I heard some expert on the radio say that &#39;Stalin and Hitler were aberrations in world history.&#39; This struck me as absurd, especially coming from the mouth of a historian, since there are countless examples of tyrannical and brutal rulers stretching much further back into history than the 20th century. Ghengis Khan, leader of the Mongols, is one prominent example as his empire violently conquered more territory than any other. The conquistadors Pizzaro and Cortez are two other good examples. However, I would be careful not to place all the blame on individuals since they are inherently constrained by the socioeconomic system, and its associated ideology, within which they operate.

Instead of focusing soley on Hitler and Stalin as if they were the only evil men in history, I would argue that the expansion of western Capitalism was by far the most brutal, destructive, and dehumanizing event that took place in the world&#39;s history. Tens of millions of native north and south Americans were slaughtered and millions of Africans perished as slaves. The natural environment of the new world was plundered for profit. Today, the system is very effective at allowing rich CEOs to fly around in their private jets and rip workers off, but it can&#39;t even provide clean drinking water to the one billion human being currently lacking this most basic right.

In any case, what does the above have to do with the future of humanity and the planet? It means that it is unlikley that humanity will be able to survive the 21st century if the state Capitalist institutions currently in power continue to operate unchecked. Also, beware of alternative ideologies such as facism and communism since they inevitably lead to hierarchical systems of privelege for an elite.

My personal dream is that humanity will create an enlightened spacefaring culture after solving the plethora of seemingly intractable social problems which still exist at this late date in our history. I am still young so I guess I&#39;ll see how things play themselves out.

Weaselbunny
2004-Mar-14, 08:09 PM
I hope I&#39;m a little more optimistic, but I&#39;m inclined to agree.


&#39;Stalin and Hitler were aberrations in world history.&#39; This struck me as absurd

Yup, there&#39;s plenty of evil B&&#036;&%D&#036; gone before, and probably more to come. Shame really.

I think the greatest danger to humans, is humans. :(

Spacemad
2004-Mar-14, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Weaselbunny@Mar 14 2004, 08:09 PM
I hope I&#39;m a little more optimistic, but I&#39;m inclined to agree.

I think the greatest danger to humans, is humans. :(




I also find myself in agreement with you, Weaselbunny.


We are our own worst enemies - we dont need any invading alien force to put us in greater danger than that in which we place ourselves&#33;

Spacemad
2004-Mar-14, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Mar 11 2004, 11:31 PM

That is not to say that more could have been (and still should be) done. Oil is a finite resource and it would be a hard time indeed if it we were to suddenly run out. I am heartened by the amount of money and effort that is being put into the search for alternative energies though and I don&#39;t think the situation is as grim as is set out by Ruppert and others.

I am very much in favour of promoting & using alternative energies. Our dependence on oil & coal has gone too far, in my opinion. For many years I have tried to recycle what I could & Im glad that now more & more local authorities are taking this seriously & are providing the means for people to recycle some of their "waste" instead of dumping it all into landfills.