CBS report: Earth's resources are running out.

[MatticusMania]

1. That's right. "Going Green" is a marketing scam. Want to know how much of the forest I'm consuming just by working for the company I'm with right now? (mind you with **** microline printer technology). Yet they talk about going paperless like the wheels have been in motion long before I began working with them. Yea, I wonder how much was going to waste before me.
2. Expensive cars absolutely have a lot to do with it. What do you think happens when people can't afford to buy these cars? They sit there. Wasted time, resources, metal, paint, it all adds up.
3. We're brainwashed into believing oil is the only option, that or the ethanol **** going around. That's only a delay, when corn suddenly changes and becomes more difficult to grow.
4. We handle that space like ****ing idiots! There's room in VA, GA, Cali, etc. Because the "metro" area is NYC (and the states around it), LA, Chicago, etc are "the main" areas, people don't decide to spread further.
5. Its still a lot of space that consumes plenty of the planet. You don't think that would come back to bite us in the end?
6. Not everybody is living on top of their game, which has led us to the problems we have currently. The average awareness of people today doesn't show overwhelmingly high numbers of people that want to make a change, something that is imperative at this point that just like the government does, gets covered up and flowered with nice comments about the state of affairs.
7. Look at 6. I reiterate. People are not changing, and if they are, probably not as much as they could.

You think the world has the power to change? I don't think that change comes from an obesity rate that swallows over half the general population of the United States.

1) There is nothing wrong with "going green", but it doesnt really cost a bunch of money to recycle, be more efficient, and use less resources.
2) Many of those types of expensive cars are on backorder, and are purchased before they are made. There are still lots of people with the money to afford them, and thats the market the manufactureres cater to.
3) We need to go back to more localized communities. People could more easily travel by manpower (ie. bikes) if we didnt all have to work so far from where we live.
4) Yes, we absolutely do handle that space like morons. There is plenty of available space, but everyone wants to live in the big city.
5) It hasnt yet. And with so much more available space Im not sure it cant be argued that commemorating out dead loved ones is really wasting that space. Anyways, decades from now our current cemetaries will be newly developed land to build upon, just like all the landfills.
6) No, not everyone is, and thats a large part of the problem. People need to be more concerned about the impact they make on this world. I think the world may be dure for a spiritual revolution.
7) I think some people are, but I agree that there arent enough, and they arent doing as much as they could. But, if people dont enact these changes now, it wont be long before they have no choice, either by disasterous means, or force.

The world absolutely has the power to change. To use your example, obesity rates were drastically different 60 years ago. Our luxurient lifestyles and apathy have created the mess we're in, and it hasnt always been this way. Now, those may not be positive changes, but a clear example that we do have the power for change. When people wake up, either by choice or by force, I think we'll see some positive change for a change.

 

[scorpionldr]

Technology isn't the answer in the long run...people just have to stop breeding like rabbits. The cost is minimal (birth control), and is the simplest solution requiring the least effort.

three words: pro life community.

There's your problem right there.

And Matt, yea, if your doing recycling/using less resources, the pain is still majorly at the pump and the people that keep coming to it. Even if the cars are not available, for the increased demand, supply would build. Communities that are localized is something I think more people would want, but we're now in deep reliance on the big cities not because people love it so much, but because they are stuck there with their options. In other words, to quote Admiral Ackbar, ITS A TRAP!!

Unfortunately tho, it is a lot of resources commemorated to our loved ones. On the other hand, when driving past areas with giant cemetaries, I think "what a waste. What an absolute reminder we're ****ed." We don't really have decades to wait if the earth is running dry, y'know?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Changing your vehicle for a more fuel efficient one is just one way you can start making a change. There's plenty of other things you can do to help.

And it's a scam because it does nothing to change the situation? Not all marketing campaigns are created to physically do something. Sometimes the premise of a campaign is to just implant an idea and to get people talking. In those regards, it's been fairly successful.

 

[nortonrider]

according to this graph, the population boom is being caused by people that have no idea what a Prius is and I doubt if "Going Green" is even a topic of discussion for them.

Link Removed

 

[MatticusMania]

You realize it's that same open space that's far from cities that forces guys like Matt to drive 50 miles to work each day, right? That's the inherent flaw in our infrastructure. We built our nation with the idea of the automobile being a daily part of a workers commute from the suburbs into the cities. Oops. Didn't account for that finite resource that actually gets the car moving.

Certainly infrastructure will need to adapt. I dont think its outside of the realm of possibility. We might need a good catalyst to get the ball rolling, but given time Im sure the opportunity will present itself.

And going green is a marketing scam? *bites lip* OK. Let's assume it is a marketing scam ---- who cares? What's bad about turning to alternative forms of fuel that are cleaner and will leave a nicer planet for our kids to inherent? Honestly, what is bad about that? Likewise, what would be so bad about using a new energy source that is renewable and won't cost a guy $100 every single time he hits up a pump? Again, where's the con? At least if we make the change now while we still have gas reserves then the change will be calm and easy. I'd rather us make the change and find out we don't need it than wait, need it, but not be able to change because we don't have enough gas reserves to make it happen.

I think there is a difference between actually "going green", as in being less wasteful of our resources and developing self-sustainability, and the current push to "go green" and line corporations pockets with our dollar bills. One certainly does not need a lot of the "green" products pushed on us to achive that goal. Just look a few hundred years back to the American Indians as a model, they lived harmoniously with the land around them. Surely we have the means to incorporate similar ideologies into our modern world.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

according to this graph, the population boom is being caused by people that have no idea what a Prius is and I doubt if "Going Green" is even a topic of discussion for them.

Link Removed

Munji brought this up already. That curve is supposed to level out like that, and, oddly enough, the one I saw back in high school also capped off around 10-12 billion. The thing is, I don't see what will cause us to cap off there giving our current rate of growth.

 

[scorpionldr]

Changing your vehicle for a more fuel efficient one is just one way you can start making a change. There's plenty of other things you can do to help.

And it's a scam because it does nothing to change the situation? Not all marketing campaigns are created to physically do something. Sometimes the premise of a campaign is to just implant an idea and to get people talking. In those regards, it's been fairly successful.

I'm saying that the only green I'm seeing is the stuff I'm pulling out of my pockets to afford all this stuff that I have now.

Sure, I can ease off the water pump, recycle, eat less. Done done done. But if the new product isn't available or affordable? Just a lot of wind flapping through our gums. And there ain't no turbine to use it.

 

[nortonrider]

America makes up only 4 1/2% of the worlds population and yet consumes 25% of the worlds resources.

I have a feeling that if humans beings don't kill ourselves off, in the future they will be using the USA as an example of what Not to do.

 

[MatticusMania]

only 218 more days until 12-21-12

In all honestly, it would be ****ing great if something actually did come about, even if Im one of the ones to go out screaming.

three words: pro life community.

There's your problem right there.

And Matt, yea, if your doing recycling/using less resources, the pain is still majorly at the pump and the people that keep coming to it. Even if the cars are not available, for the increased demand, supply would build. Communities that are localized is something I think more people would want, but we're now in deep reliance on the big cities not because people love it so much, but because they are stuck there with their options. In other words, to quote Admiral Ackbar, ITS A TRAP!!

Unfortunately tho, it is a lot of resources commemorated to our loved ones. On the other hand, when driving past areas with giant cemetaries, I think "what a waste. What an absolute reminder we're ****ed." We don't really have decades to wait if the earth is running dry, y'know?

Its not being pro-life thats the problem. One can be pro-life and still not contribute to over-population so long as one decides not to have a brood of kids.

And theres no problem with the big cities, they are what they are. But we need to return to a less corporate society, and that is pretty much what fuels the necessity for these big cities. We need a return to an agrarian society where one can make a living for oneself, cultivating our land and raising crops and the like. I'm happily awaiting the day that the dollar dies. Most people will panic, a lot of people will die, and those not concerned with amassing fortune will inherit the world.

I hardly think the resources used in cemetaries is a waste when there is still so much available land. Aside from land I dont see much other resources being wasted. In a couples thousand years, the dead of today will be the fossil fuel of tomorrow.

 

[NWB]

Hydrogen

Where and how are you going to get the hydrogen?

Tidbit - It takes more energy to separate hydrogen from a water molecule than you get when the hydrogen is burned.

 

[MatticusMania]

Munji brought this up already. That curve is supposed to level out like that, and, oddly enough, the one I saw back in high school also capped off around 10-12 billion. The thing is, I don't see what will cause us to cap off there giving our current rate of growth.

Something will. If nothing else, it will be the scarcity of resources that'll do it.

I'm saying that the only green I'm seeing is the stuff I'm pulling out of my pockets to afford all this stuff that I have now.

Sure, I can ease off the water pump, recycle, eat less. Done done done. But if the new product isn't available or affordable? Just a lot of wind flapping through our gums. And there ain't no turbine to use it.

Here's a hint. The only real cost to living greener is time and effort. There are no products necessary to cut down on wasting resources, we just need to be more efficient.

America makes up only 4 1/2% of the worlds population and yet consumes 25% of the worlds resources.

I have a feeling that if humans beings don't kill ourselves off, in the future they will be using the USA as an example of what Not to do.

I think it was another thread where someone correlated the Roman Empire with the US. Its only a matter of time before we become the example you mention. Though, I dont think it'll necessarily be the end of the world or anything.

 

[scorpionldr]

In all honestly, it would be ****ing great if something actually did come about, even if Im one of the ones to go out screaming.



Its not being pro-life thats the problem. One can be pro-life and still not contribute to over-population so long as one decides not to have a brood of kids.

And theres no problem with the big cities, they are what they are. But we need to return to a less corporate society, and that is pretty much what fuels the necessity for these big cities. We need a return to an agrarian society where one can make a living for oneself, cultivating our land and raising crops and the like. I'm happily awaiting the day that the dollar dies. Most people will panic, a lot of people will die, and those not concerned with amassing fortune will inherit the world.

I hardly think the resources used in cemetaries is a waste when there is still so much available land. Aside from land I dont see much other resources being wasted. In a couples thousand years, the dead of today will be the fossil fuel of tomorrow.

I think your just copying me. and unfortunately thats what pro-lifers do, they have a brood of kids. Hate to keep using my friend in MO as an example but he started out with one kid, his wife was extreme pro-life christian (think the song "every sperm is sacred") and he quickly went from 1 to 3 kids, I'm not sure how many he's going to have soon

 

[MatticusMania]

I think your just copying me. and unfortunately thats what pro-lifers do, they have a brood of kids. Hate to keep using my friend in MO as an example but he started out with one kid, his wife was extreme pro-life christian (think the song "every sperm is sacred") and he quickly went from 1 to 3 kids, I'm not sure how many he's going to have soon

Yeah, but thats that an extreme ideal of what it means to be "pro-life". I dont want to get too deep in that territory as thats political & religious discussion, but something to consider:

Keep in mind that many people who view "every sperm as sacred" are also largely against pre-marital sex.
Pro-life has to do with the protection of embryos and fetuses, not necessarily "go out and have a bunch of kids".
One can be pro-life and still reproduce responsibly.
Even pro-choice people can have a bunch of kids.
Some "pro-choicers" may be in favor of letting women choose whether to abort or not, but would not want to do so when it comes to their own genes/cells/baby.

 

[scorpionldr]

Yeah, but thats that an extreme ideal of what it means to be "pro-life". I dont want to get too deep in that territory as thats political & religious discussion, but something to consider:

Keep in mind that many people who view "every sperm as sacred" are also largely against pre-marital sex.
Pro-life has to do with the protection of embryos and fetuses, not necessarily "go out and have a bunch of kids". One can be pro-life and still reproduc responsibly.

Reponsible is a very mature word for the society I live in. Almost dangerous.

 

[NWB]

The thing is, I don't see what will cause us to cap off there giving our current rate of growth.

How about food supply?

Presently, it takes roughly 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food. As fossil fuels decline...

Arable land is limited and climate change may reduce the percentage even further. Add to that declines in soil fertility. Add to that erosion of topsoil.

Then there's water supply. For example, I deal with aquifers that are so contaminated that drinking water from one would greatly, I mean greatly, increase your cancer risk. Again, climate change will also affect this part of the equation.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Oh no, I mean I can definitely think of a few things that will cap us off. I just don't see that cap happening at 12 billion. That's what I meant.

 

[NWB]

Here's a hint. The only real cost to living greener is time and effort. There are no products necessary to cut down on wasting resources, we just need to be more efficient.

I think it was another thread where someone correlated the Roman Empire with the US. Its only a matter of time before we become the example you mention. Though, I dont think it'll necessarily be the end of the world or anything.

On both points, I agree with you completely.

 

[nortonrider]

Where and how are you going to get the hydrogen?

Tidbit - It takes more energy to separate hydrogen from a water molecule than you get when the hydrogen is burned.

solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, any source to generate enough energy for electrolysis.

but, that's not the only way:

"Generating hydrogen does not necessarily require a great deal of energy. Prof. Jerry Woodall, of Prudue University, has worked with a hydrogen separation model for years at ambient pressure and without electrolysis.
Aluminum alloys with gallium at very low temperatures (you can speed it up by heating the gallium to 100 degrees C.). When water is introduced to the Al & Ga alloy, the oxygen atoms rapidly bond to the aluminum (resulting in a sludge of aluminum oxide, aka alumina). The remaining H2 molecules are freed.
The alumina separates itself from the alloy, making the gallium available for reuse. Further, the alumina itself can be recycled back to it's pure form."

To address the issues, people just need to start thinking outside of the hydrocarbon box.

 

[NWB]

Oh no, I mean I can definitely think of a few things that will cap us off. I just don't see that cap happening at 12 billion. That's what I meant.

Oh yeah, I'd put the cap much lower.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Munji brought this up already. That curve is supposed to level out like that, and, oddly enough, the one I saw back in high school also capped off around 10-12 billion. The thing is, I don't see what will cause us to cap off there giving our current rate of growth.

Economic growth is part of the solution as well as part of the problem. As people move up to a "middle-class" lifestyle they start having less kids as they (a) get access to birth control, (b) improve the status of women and give them more of a voice, and (c) feel less need to have lots of kids to support them in old age.