Will science and technology save us from the upcoming resource crunch

[Quartz]

@Lumpy

The dirty secret of recycling is that it is stupendously work-intensive.

Some recycling is, some isn’t. To recycle vegetables, you simply tip them on the compost heap, for instance.

[GIGObuster]

@Stan_Shmenge

6. Global warming and the impact it may or may not have, is, at best, debatable, at worst, a red herring. The fact that it is the neo-luddites’s wet dream and ideal policy excuse makes it a dangerous notion, but that is primarily a conceit of the west. You won’t see India or China worrying two craps about it, nor any so called “developing” country.

:rolleyes:

India, China defer agreement on Himalayan glaciers - Times of India

India is worried about signs of faster melting of glaciers, which feeds major rivers like the Brahmaputra, due to global warming. China is anxious about the massive drought situation in the Tibetan region this year.

Ramesh said a comprehensive accord will be drawn up after another round of talks when a Chinese delegation of environment scientists and officials visit New Delhi in October end.

@Stan_Shmenge

The west will see the error of it’s ways eventually as our eastern rivals begin to outstrip us to an ever increasing extent. Future generations will look back on the whole craze as a “silly season”.
.

I also have to point out that that I do not consider myself a neo-luddite, I do think that while ADW is a reality, the effects of it and what we should do about it are still being discussed and researched.

What it is clear is that the ones that deny that other nations’ scientists are not worried also are being silly.

[msmith537]

@Stan_Shmenge

Many people are stuck in the thinking that the earth is a finite resource, but capturing and refining even a small asteroid would provide untold mineral wealth.

Any solution that involves going into space can be done here on Earth for orders of magnitute more cheaply.

Mine an asteroid? How about just drill much deaper into the Earth which is a billion times the size of the largest asteroid?

Build massive orbiting habitats? How about you build the same size habitat as part of an existing urban metropolis?

Want to terraform Mars? For a fraction of the cost, just fix what’s wrong with the Earth.

@Stan_Shmenge

…Nuclear waste is simply a non-problem. One simple solution would be to glassify it and just drop it into the ocean over a subduction zone. Problem solved at low cost and ZERO risk. This is an issue where we have allowed the technically illiterate to impose their purely emotional fears on society, to it’s great detriment

.

Call me “technically illiterate”, but what do you mean by “glassify” it? Turn it into glass or contain it in glass? And how does that process render nuclear waste “safe”?

Why does everyone think that solutions are so simple the greatest minds who actually work in that field have never thought of it?

[Stan_Shmenge]

@msmith537

Call me “technically illiterate”, but what do you mean by “glassify” it? Turn it into glass or contain it in glass? And how does that process render nuclear waste “safe”?

You mix it with molten glass to make it so the nuclear material will not migrate from a solid and relatively inert form. Dumping it into an oceanic subduction zone means that it will eventually be carried into the Earth’s magma core where it can do no harm.

Why does everyone think that solutions are so simple the greatest minds who actually work in that field have never thought of it?

Many solutions thought of by great minds are rejected by the lesser minds that run the show. (Politicians)

What it is clear is that the ones that deny that other nations’ scientists are not worried also are being silly.

Scientists may fret about the issue, but the national policy of those countries is a different kettle of fish. China is bringing a new coal fired power plant online EVERY WEEK. India is ditching bicycles for automobiles at a furious rate. Those nations are NOT mitigating their output of CO2, they are increasing it as fast as they are able, and will continue to do so.

[GIGObuster]

@Stan_Shmenge

Scientists may fret about the issue, but the national policy of those countries is a different kettle of fish. China is bringing a new coal fired power plant online EVERY WEEK. India is ditching bicycles for automobiles at a furious rate. Those nations are NOT mitigating their output of CO2, they are increasing it as fast as they are able, and will continue to do so.

I know that already, I was only pointing out that that it was incorrect to say that they are not worried about Global Warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

TIANJIN, China — China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.

But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

In any case, accepting that AGW is here does not mean that we should turn into Luddites, I’m currently more in the Bjorn Lomborg camp, that basically says that until further notice (this depends if the sequestration levels of CO2 change) we should invest, allow and help nations to develop quickly so when the shit hits the fan, regarding the likely environmental changes, they will be ready to adapt to the problem and be less dependent on other nations.

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?

A: No. In Cool It he writes: “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century” (p8).

[BrainGlutton]

@Napier

In the early 80’s a book entitled “The Fate of the Earth” by Jonathan Schell (I hope I remembered all these details correctly) came out. It made a pretty convincing argument that we would start running out of natural resources, and the shortage of various resources would force us to use others less efficiently, such that we would systematically deplete more and more kinds of resources more and more rapidly.

No, that book was all about the dangers of nuclear war. You must be thinking of something else. Maybe Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968).

[TheMadHun]

The solution is not with science but religion.
When the religious overlords allow mankind unrestricted birth control then the population bomb can be defused, populations will recede to balance productivity, and the current methods will sustain the world.

[Wesley_Clark]

@TheMadHun

The solution is not with science but religion.
When the religious overlords allow mankind unrestricted birth control then the population bomb can be defused, populations will recede to balance productivity, and the current methods will sustain the world.

Religion doesn’t seem to play a role in birth control. Total fertility rate (how many kids the average woman has) is strongly correlated with GDP. Once GDP hits a certain level ($5000 per capita) women stop having more than 1-3 kids each. Replacement rate is 2.1.

It doesn’t matter if the country is christian, islamic, free, dictatorial, makes $50k per person or $5k per person. It applies to Islamic nations, buddhist nations, hindu nations, secular nations and christian nations. World population is set to stabilize at 9-10 billion around 2050 due to this fact.