PDA

View Full Version : How Long can we live in Earth?



sandra16
2004-Aug-25, 05:26 AM
Hi,

I would like to know how long we can live in this earth?

Because i heard saying that Earth will not be good to live after some days!

Is it true??????

xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx
2004-Aug-25, 08:00 AM
sandra what do u mean that its not good to live in? You mean not suitable for life forms? I assume. It might not be suitable when earths natural resouces ran out or people start killing each other. That will be the end of the world. But before this happens i hope the scientists all around the world will do any thing to prevent such catastrophe.

Chook
2004-Aug-25, 11:30 AM
Sandra - If you live in Iraq, Sudan and some other dangerous countries; or if the planet Earth gets hit with a fairly big asteroid - what you heard may be correct.

Otherwise - I think you can expect, at least, another 20 years of living to enjoy.

In the meanwhile - have fun! :D :lol: ;)

ulgah
2004-Aug-26, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by sandra16@Aug 25 2004, 05:26 AM
Hi,

I would like to know how long we can live in this earth?

Because i heard saying that Earth will not be good to live after some days!

Is it true??????
Sandra,
If you can, get the book, "The Life and Death of Planet Earth," by Peter D. Ward & Donald Brownlee. That should answer your question. Maybe its not so bad. :)

bossman20081
2004-Aug-26, 09:22 PM
The earth will die near the end of the suns life for sure- itll basically fry the planet, then possible engulf earth if it gets big enough in its red giant stage- but of course thats about 5 billion years away... so I wouldnt worry about it. Then theres the possibilty of an asteroid, nuclear war, and maybe a biological war as well. Thats all that I can think of right now.........

ASEI
2004-Aug-27, 12:43 AM
As long as civilization doesn't collapse, the earth should be able to support a few billion indefinitely. Really, the only resource we can "run out of" is an energy resource such as oil, or coal. Oil is the only one that is really very limited from a consumption standpoint. Nuclear energy, especially with breeder reactors and stimulated fission reactors are "non-renewable", but it is almost irrelevant considering the few ten-thousand years fuel supply. A lot of the "hundred" years of fuel estimate comes from limiting uranium mining techniques to only the most easy to reach deposits (I forget, but it was something like $30/lb). If we mine it at $80/lb, we still have an enourmous reserve. (Considering a lb of it is worth 30,000 lb of coal, we could be mining it at $1000/lb, and it would still be economically viable in a nuclear economy).

Every other material we use, such as aluminum, iron, plastic, pine, glass, silicon, molybdenum, ect is renewable through recycling or farming. Once recycling becomes more economically viable than mining (as it has for some metals), then we will recycle more than we mine.

zephyr46
2004-Aug-27, 03:35 AM
Because i heard saying that Earth will not be good to live after some days!

I suppose it has to do with where you are. If you are into pristine wilderness, land clearing in the Amazon is pretty bad, if you are into pristine beachs, some cities are working hard at keeping them clean.

There are some very pesimistic people out there that have giving up fighting for clean air, food and water, the person who told you that the Earth will be no good in some days sounds very pessmistic, a cup half empty person.

We are lucky, we have tamed nature, we have seen industrial developement, but we have also realised there is a lot of good things at risk, giving us the chance to save, conserve and preserve things that are important to us.

Don't give up, find out what your freind was worried about, never underestimate what can be saved or changed for the better.

I like earth, and think their are enough good people on it to keep in good to live on for my life time at least, maybe my daughters children as well :)

Earth
2004-Sep-02, 08:45 PM
:unsure: maybe in a few hundred years time I bet the earth may become unhabitable because of us humans polluting it :(

John L
2004-Sep-02, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx said+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx said)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It might not be suitable when earths natural resouces ran out or people start killing each other. That will be the end of the world. But before this happens i hope the scientists all around the world will do any thing to prevent such catastrophe.[/b] ...and
<!--QuoteBegin-ASEI said
Really, the only resource we can "run out of" is an energy resource such as oil, or coal. Oil is the only one that is really very limited from a consumption standpoint.[/quote]
There is a new technology coming soon called Thermal Depolymerisation. It can take ANYTHING - just about - and feed it through a high heat and pressure water system and what comes out the other end are the constituent elements it was composed. And all organics (including plastics) get converted to basic hydrocarbon compounds including high grade oil. Based on the levels of temperature, pressure, and the time the material is allowed to process, several differnt hydrocarbons can be selected for production.

Everything fed into the system is ground down in large industrial grinders and then broken down. The non-organics come out the other end in a powdered form of the various metals and minerals that can then be separated and reused. It is even fairly self sufficient in that it can use the oil it produces from one batch of organic waste processed to power the system for the next batch with plenty left over. There is a test system being used at a turkey processing plant. All of the unused bits of turkey are broken down to oil, a mineral powder, and a high purity carbon powder. Once this takes off it will be the solution to pollution. ANYTHING can be processed in the system and everything that comes out can be reused... except maybe nuclear waste.

ASEI
2004-Sep-03, 12:56 AM
The non-organics come out the other end in a powdered form of the various metals and minerals that can then be separated and reused. It is even fairly self sufficient in that it can use the oil it produces from one batch of organic waste processed to power the system for the next batch with plenty left over.

There seems to be some perpetual motion involved here. Low energy organic waste would have to take in a lot of energy to be processed into oil (A higher energy state). This requires some net power input. This sounds promising, but probably requires an input power source.

bossman20081
2004-Sep-04, 12:57 AM
Which would probably be coal.....

ASEI
2004-Sep-04, 01:55 AM
No. A good nuclear input source to drive such a reaction would be far cleaner than coal. Besides, less people would die mining a few pounds of uranium than digging out thousands of tons of coal every month.

Nuclear driven recycling systems make a lot of sense. To drive the recycling of chemicals into higher energy/purity states with other chemical energy sources just creates waste on the same degree of scale.

eburacum45
2004-Sep-05, 09:46 AM
The energy input would come from solar enegry; we receive 18,000 times as much energy from the sun each day as we use in fossil fuels; so an efficient solar energy collection programme would solve our energy problems for billions of years.

Callisto
2004-Sep-05, 01:25 PM
You never know Earth could end any minute. An asteroid or something could hit Earth or something and were probably all gone depending on the impact of the asteroid. I know they&#39;re preparing for a situation like that and probably try and explode it before it reaches us, but what if it doesn&#39;t work? :unsure: