# I Pit The Sierra Club **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 16, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894 "2012-10-16T16:02:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/81 "2012-10-18T15:29:36Z")
“Being proud of being ignorant is not becoming in this message board.” Blah. “That “we should have turned to Venus already” is a straw man, climatologists are not saying that.” I never suggested they are saying that, I’m saying that if you follow through the logic of positive feedback then that is what would happen. The fact that the Earth isn’t like Venus shows that it has negative feedback mechanisms that will act in opposition to the warming effect brought about by increasing greenhouse gasses, not positive feedback that will amplify a small temperature increase of half a degree or so into some huge cataclysm as the corrupt climatologists insist will happen. “And clearly you are once again depending on the scientists not correcting and acknowledging that already” The idiotic claim was in an IPCC report that had already been published, therefore supposedly checked over by the best scientists in the world. It was only the evil climate deniers pointing out the stupidity of the claim that got it removed and there was still no apology from the IPCC. “what it is clear also is that you are incapable of even acknowledging that not all environmentalists are like the Sierra Club as Nuclear is also seen by serious researchers as a piece on how to deal with global warming.” Yes I realise that not every single person who cares about the environment is a genocidal maniac. But the mainstream ideologies of environmentalism (overpopulation, anti-nuclear, anti development) come from people inspired by eugenics, imperialism and hatred of humanity in general. This isn’t confined to the elite of environmentalism either, have you never heard anyone quoting that bit from the Matrix where agent Smith calls humanity a virus, people actually believe this shit. If you believe that global warming is real but that transitioning to nuclear is the solution ,instead of cutting energy use, then great. But you should realise you are in the minority among the environmentalists. Most of them are driven by ideas other then cutting CO2 emmissions. ---
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/82 "2012-10-18T15:42:51Z")
[Agent Smith: Humans are a virus.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI) Read the comments. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/83 "2012-10-18T16:26:17Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > “Being proud of being ignorant is not becoming in this message board.” Blah. > > “That “we should have turned to Venus already” is a straw man, climatologists are not saying that.” > > I never suggested they are saying that, Who are you Mitt Romney? We can check what you just said a few posts ago: > [@Cmoore](#): > > There is no tipping point, in natural systems negative feedback virtually always outways positive feedback, if the earth had such huge positive feedback mechanisms in relation to warming then it would have turned into another venus a _long_ time ago. > [@Cmoore](#): > > I’m saying that if you follow through the logic of positive feedback then that is what would happen. The fact that the Earth isn’t like Venus shows that it has negative feedback mechanisms that will act in opposition to the warming effect brought about by increasing greenhouse gasses, not positive feedback that will amplify a small temperature increase of half a degree or so into some huge cataclysm as the corrupt climatologists insist will happen. “follow through the logic”? Logic should tell you that this point is non-operative as that is not what the science or scientists say. > [@Cmoore](#): > > “And clearly you are once again depending on the scientists not correcting and acknowledging that already” > > The idiotic claim was in an IPCC report that had already been published, therefore supposedly checked over by the best scientists in the world. It was only the evil climate deniers pointing out the stupidity of the claim that got it removed and there was still no apology from the IPCC. And your sources forgot to tell you the IPCC apologized and corrected this more than 2 years ago. [http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/ipcc\_apologises\_for\_himalayan.html](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/ipcc_apologises_for_himalayan.html) > [@Cmoore](#): > > “what it is clear also is that you are incapable of even acknowledging that not all environmentalists are like the Sierra Club as Nuclear is also seen by serious researchers as a piece on how to deal with global warming.” > > Yes I realise that not every single person who cares about the environment is a genocidal maniac. But the mainstream ideologies of environmentalism (overpopulation, anti-nuclear, anti development) come from people inspired by eugenics, imperialism and hatred of humanity in general. This isn’t confined to the elite of environmentalism either, have you never heard anyone quoting that bit from the Matrix where agent Smith calls humanity a virus, people actually believe this shit. The reality is that you believe the shit that people that believe that shit are being taken seriously among researchers. I have presented evidence, you only bring say so’s with no evidence, I have seen that in reality the current Nazis are making efforts to take over the environmentalist movement, the fact that they have failed with the organizations is not taking away what I have seen coming from extreme rightists, I have seen several linking to truly racist sites when they talk about a “white genocide” going on and they segue to accusing the environmentalists of a similar idea. It is the ultimate in sour grapes when they failed to take over even the Sierra Club. > [@Cmoore](#): > > If you believe that global warming is real but that transitioning to nuclear is the solution ,instead of cutting energy use, then great. But you should realise you are in the minority among the environmentalists. Most of them are driven by ideas other then cutting CO2 emmissions. Malarkey. And a Godwin still. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/84 "2012-10-18T16:29:57Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > [Agent Smith: Humans are a virus.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI) > > Read the comments. Relying on Youtube comments is like relying on a Google Vomit. > **[YouTube](https://xkcd.com/202/)** In other words, you really have no good evidence that serious researchers or scientists and even environmentalists are plotting genocide. What you have there is just a conspiracy theory at the same level as the Moon Hoax one. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/85 "2012-10-18T16:51:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Relying on Youtube comments is like relying on a Google Vomit. And likely to be counterproductive if you’re advocating \*against \*planetary extinction… ---
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/86 "2012-10-18T16:51:49Z")
Well correcting your misunderstandings of what I’m sayng is getting dull so I’m not going to bother anymore. Maybe you should head over to that youtube video I posted and join your enviro-pals. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/87 "2012-10-18T16:57:33Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > Well correcting your misunderstandings of what I’m sayng is getting dull so I’m not going to bother anymore. Maybe you should head over to that youtube video I posted and join your enviro-pals. As it is clear to all except you, those are not my pals, you have only a conspiracy theory and you smell of concerned Nazi troll farts. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/88 "2012-10-18T22:25:24Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > Which branch of environmentalism do you subcribe to? Stopping the useless eaters from breeding, throwing billions of people into poverty or out and out genocide right now for the sake of the planet? Well, technically mass slaughter rather than genocide as such. But look, punk, we radical Deep Ecology types aren’t going to be the ones committing genocide, forcing people into poverty and refugee camps, etc. We’re trying to warn you that you yourselves will end up doing that–many\* non-\*environmentalists are already doing that–because there simply aren’t the resources for all that you desire. Seriously, a lot of the world’s worst problems come back to some variation on, “People want things they don’t realize they can’t have, or can’t have without screwing over somebody else.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/89 "2012-10-18T22:32:38Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > …people seem forced to choose between one or the other or risk being called a “bleeding heart liberal” or a “climate denier”. Personally my ideology is to support economic development worldwide in order to drag bilions of people out of grinding poverty, this clashes irreconcilably with the right wingers AND the modern left that has been hijacked by environmentalist dogma. Oh good grief. What is poverty? Lack of relative economic power. Want to increase poverty? Get the birth rate higher than the death rate, it’ll happen. Society tolerates, nay, encourages a rate long-term of population growth in humans that no naturalist would recommend for non-endangered wildlife species. And then wonders why so many people are displaced into slums, refugee camps, and so forth. And magic “development” is supposed to feed everyone? As if. ---
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/90 "2012-10-19T00:12:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Oh good grief. What is poverty? Lack of relative economic power. Want to increase poverty? Get the birth rate higher than the death rate, it’ll happen. > > Society tolerates, nay, encourages a rate long-term of population growth in humans that no naturalist would recommend for non-endangered wildlife species. And then wonders why so many people are displaced into slums, refugee camps, and so forth. > > And magic “development” is supposed to feed everyone? As if. You look at thngs as if there is a pie and as the population grows each person’s slice of the pie shrinks. That’s not how the economy works. People dig stuff out of the ground and turn it into useful products, in the words of Charlie Chaplin “[the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg&feature=related)”. More people= more workers. “To populate is to govern” said someone I can’t remember the name of, if people are having children and those children survive to have some of their own then things are good. I don’t care if “naturalists” recommend it or not. If you want to decrease population growth then support economic development, poor people have more children then the wealthy, this is sociological fact. You want to deprive people of economic development, that’s genocide. If all the arable land on Earth were farmed with modern techniques it could support hundreds of billions of people.’ ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/91 "2012-10-19T00:20:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One of the ways to solve the issue involves doing something similar to what they do in France, there is a lot of standards there and the people that live close to the plants benefit directly, heck, many are part owners of the plants; the point here is that, good luck in convincing the industry in the USA into looking into solutions that are close to socialism but the reality is that a lot of the NIMBY that is seen (And it is impossible that those rates of opposition that you see when things come to a vote are all made of old fashion environmentalists, clearly a lot of people, even conservatives, fall for the NIMBY) is IMHO happening because right now there are very little incentives or benefits that the communities that are around the proposed disposal sites are seeing. You misunderstand; for many of us, it is not NIMBY, but NOMP. I have been an environmental chemist; I have worked on superfund sites; I do not understand why people assume very dangerous waste can be easily managed when **it never has been in the past.** And every type of waste we generate seems to be worse than the last. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/92 "2012-10-19T00:53:50Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > You look at thngs as if there is a pie and as the population grows each person’s slice of the pie shrinks. That’s not how the economy works. People dig stuff out of the ground and turn it into useful products, in the words of Charlie Chaplin “[the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg&feature=related)”. More people= more workers. > > “To populate is to govern” said someone I can’t remember the name of, if people are having children and those children survive to have some of their own then things are good. I don’t care if “naturalists” recommend it or not. If you want to decrease population growth then support economic development, poor people have more children then the wealthy, this is sociological fact. You want to deprive people of economic development, that’s genocide. Once again, NO (PDF Plan B, Lester Brown) > **[pb4book.pdf](https://wayback.archive-it.org/22906/20240420151039/https://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf)** > > 1119.49 KB > [@](#): > > The Plan B goal of stabilizing population is set at 8 billion or > lower simply because I do not think world population will ever > reach the 9.2 billion projected by U.N. demographers for 2050. > To begin with, the vast majority of the 2.4 billion people projected > to be added by 2050 will be born in developing countries— > countries where the land and water resource base is > deteriorating and hunger is spreading. Simply put, many support > systems in these countries are already in decline, and some > are collapsing. The question is not whether population growth > will come to a halt before reaching 9.2 billion but whether it will > do so because the world shifts quickly to smaller families or > because it fails to do so—and population growth is checked by > rising mortality. Plan B embraces the reduced fertility option.66 > Eradicating poverty is a priority goal for three reasons. One, > in combination with giving women everywhere access to reproductive > health care and family planning services, it is the key to > accelerating the global shift to smaller families. It also helps > bring impoverished nations into the international community, > giving them a stake in such matters as stabilizing climate. When > people are not sure where their next meal is coming from, it is > difficult for them to get excited about trying to stabilize the > earth’s climate. And third, eradicating poverty is the humane > thing to do. One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is the > capacity to care about others. > The fourth component of Plan B involves repairing and protecting > the natural systems that support humankind. This > includes conserving soil, banning deforestation, promoting > reforestation, restoring fisheries, and making a worldwide effort > to protect aquifers by raising water productivity. Unless we can > reverse the deterioration of these systems we are unlikely to > reverse the rise in hunger. > Plan B is an integrated program with four interdependent > goals. We are not, for example, likely to stabilize population > unless we can also eradicate poverty. Conversely, we cannot > restore the earth’s natural systems without stabilizing population > and climate, and we are not likely to stabilize climate unless > we also stabilize population. Nor can we eradicate poverty > without restoring the earth’s natural systems. > The ambitiousness of this save-our-civilization plan is > matched by the urgency with which it must be implemented. > Success depends on moving at wartime speed, restructuring the > world energy economy at a pace reminiscent of the restructuring > of the U.S. industrial economy in 1942 following the attack > on Pearl Harbor. The United States shifted from producing cars > to turning out planes, tanks, and ships within a matter of > months. The current restructuring cannot be achieved without > a fundamental reordering of priorities. And it will not be > accomplished without sacrifice. For example, the key to the > 1942 industrial restructuring was a ban on the sale of new cars, > a ban that lasted nearly three years.67 > We face an extraordinary challenge, but there is much to be > upbeat about. All the problems we face can be dealt with using > existing technologies. And almost everything we need to do to > move the world economy off the collapse path and back onto an > environmentally sustainable path has already been done in one > or more countries. For example, more than 30 countries have > essentially stabilized their population size.68 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/93 "2012-10-19T01:02:23Z")
> [@j666](#): > > You misunderstand; for many of us, it is not NIMBY, but NOMP. > > I have been an environmental chemist; I have worked on superfund sites; I do not understand why people assume very dangerous waste can be easily managed when **it never has been in the past.** > > And every type of waste we generate seems to be worse than the last. The situation is like that because the sites for the disposal are not ready yet and delayed by many NIMBY efforts, but once again I do think the costs involved in dealing with the risks are not priced adequately, I do think that for all that have to live close to those places the industry should pay their mortgage or land value or give them free or very cheap energy. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/94 "2012-10-19T01:27:44Z")
It’s funny (in a Pit sort of way) to watch college sophomores (or just the sophomoric) discuss development issues without a shred of understanding of how development works, what’s involved, how various programmes function, etc. Not a hint of a clue. For example, I daresay that our September Troll is absolutely clueless about, say, Rio+20 (untill it just Googled it now), or how the concept of sustainable development is evolving. Given that it’s either an intentional troll or intentionally ignorant, I have no interest in making a pretence at informing it. Suffice as to say it’s made up such a fictional straw-world that even Rush or Beck would roll their eyes and be tempted to make a donation to PETA. I have no idea how **GIGO** does it. Speaking of **GIGO** , I think **j666’s** point was that nuclear power plants generate large quantities of hazardous materials that have two general characteristics: high hazard levels and long-term persistence. The high hazard levels are particularly relevant to things like expected utility; long-term persistence are particularly relevant to things like liability and the like. Given industry’s (as an oversimplified whole) history of hazardous waste handling, even under relatively severe regulation (to speak nothing of the anti-regulation winds blowing though congress), it is an arguable proposition that nuclear waste will yield similar outcomes–particularly if we’re talking about scaling up nuclear power to the level in which it will make a substantial contribution to energy production. Further, given chains of custody, corporation law, potential cost distributions, etc., it is not quite feasible to pre-reward everyone who may suffer consequences. Free electricity and Springfield fish may placate those whose communities host a plant, but they are not the only ones possibly affected by waste. And once a plant has legitimately (as in, done their due diligence in earnest (which is very important)) and handed waste off to a third party, what happens when that third party has an accident (or does somethign nefarious) some distance from the source? Or if _that_ third party hands off to another party, and that fourth party screws up? Ensure that the source has the funds on reserve to cover any losses caused by its products at any time? In fifty years? Two hundred? Five? Those could be enormous costs (again, consider the expected utility of the risk), something that would be prohibitively expensive for one plant to cover. I trust you see where the argument goes from there (I mean that in a you’re capable of following a discussion way, not a it’s-so-clear-that-you-must-agree-with-me way). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/95 "2012-10-19T01:56:06Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Given industry’s (as an oversimplified whole) history of hazardous waste handling, even under relatively severe regulation (to speak nothing of the anti-regulation winds blowing though congress), it is an arguable proposition that nuclear waste will yield similar outcomes–particularly if we’re talking about scaling up nuclear power to the level in which it will make a substantial contribution to energy production. Further, given chains of custody, corporation law, potential cost distributions, etc., it is not quite feasible to pre-reward everyone who may suffer consequences. Free electricity and Springfield fish may placate those whose communities host a plant, but they are not the only ones possibly affected by waste. And once a plant has legitimately (as in, done their due diligence in earnest (which is very important)) and handed waste off to a third party, what happens when that third party has an accident (or does somethign nefarious) some distance from the source? Or if _that_ third party hands off to another party, and that fourth party screws up? Ensure that the source has the funds on reserve to cover any losses caused by its products at any time? In fifty years? Two hundred? Five? Those could be enormous costs (again, consider the expected utility of the risk), something that would be prohibitively expensive for one plant to cover. I trust you see where the argument goes from there (I mean that in a you’re capable of following a discussion way, not a it’s-so-clear-that-you-must-agree-with-me way). Nope, don’t worry, I do see that, the reason why I insist on paying the people that will have to live close to those places is precisely because of those risks, of course I do not have much hopes to see the industry face the real price they have to pay and do what they do in France by sharing more than just the risks. So until the Nuclear deal changes I do not see much development there so I do favor more efforts in developing and deploying solar, wind, geothermal and even more natural gas if we control the resulting emissions. ([Easier to scrub the CO2 from natural gas than with coal as coal emits twice the amount of CO2 than coal](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qp_dy1mj0JEJ:news.investors.com/business/062811-576774-giving-dirty-coal-a-carbon-scrub-easier-said-than-done.htm%3Fp%3Dfull+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/96 "2012-10-19T02:20:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Easier to scrub the CO2 from natural gas than with coal as coal emits twice the amount of CO2 than coal) Ahem, that should say “as coal emits twice the amount of CO2 than Natural Gas.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/97 "2012-10-19T04:00:48Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > You look at thngs as if there is a pie and as the population grows each person’s slice of the pie shrinks. That’s not how the economy works. People dig stuff out of the ground and turn it into useful products, in the words of Charlie Chaplin “[the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg&feature=related)”. More people= more workers. Personally, I was sad to seek Chaplin go back into acting after his brief career as an economist. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/98 "2012-10-19T09:51:02Z")
> [@Cmoore](#): > > If all the arable land on Earth were farmed with modern techniques it could support hundreds of billions of people.’ This right here is the problem. This is not remotely true. Agriculture requires fresh water, lots of it, and nitrogen, and phosphorus. There are limits to all of these things, and we are close to at least two of those limits (not the nitrogen, admittedly). We could crash before we hit eight billion humans. In any case, your plan would require the extinction of all wild large animals. I’ll continue to respect the Creation, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/99 "2012-10-19T13:04:27Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > This right here is the problem. This is not remotely true. Agriculture requires fresh water, lots of it, and nitrogen, and phosphorus. There are limits to all of these things, and we are close to at least two of those limits (not the nitrogen, admittedly). We could crash before we hit eight billion humans. > > In any case, your plan would require the extinction of all wild large animals. I’ll continue to respect the Creation, thanks. Salt water can be turned into fresh water, it just requires energy. Yes we’re back to energy again, I know you enviros think magic pixies keep the economy going but you should really think about how silly that is. Nitrogen and phosporous are plentiful in the Earths crust, eventually the good deposits will be used up and we’ll have to mine the less concentrate deposits instead, which will require more energy for the same amount of end product, energy yet again. Incidentally, extremely rich deposits of potash have been found in my area, the North Yorkshire moors and plans are in place to start mining it. You can guess who wants to stop it from being developed. Where did you pull “the extinction of all wild large animals” from? ---
**Author:** ![Cmoore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Cmoore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmoore)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894/100 "2012-10-19T13:06:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Personally, I was sad to seek Chaplin go back into acting after his brief career as an economist. Does it take an economist to know that the Earth is big and has lots of stuff in it’s crust? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-sierra-club/637894.md?page=6)