There's no tomorrow [sustainability]

[Denny]

A video about the sustainability of Earth. I have been conscious about the overpopulation issue for quite a while but never had any numbers or simple examples to fall back on. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Sorry if it has already been posted, couldn't find any previous post about it.

[Thrillho]

I'm a (trying-to-be) subsistence farmer who designs inexpensive, sustainable, super-efficient homes. I do this mostly because the world is ending.

[Suominatua]

A video about the sustainability of Earth. I have been conscious about the overpopulation issue for quite a while but never had any numbers or simple examples to fall back on. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Sorry if it has already been posted, couldn't find any previous post about it.

My thoughts on the subject:

There is a simple and efficient way to stop growing populations that has been shown by current statistics.

The simple fact of the matter is that in nearly all developed countries, native population growth rates have become negative. That means the people in the country are having less children than would replace them... Their populations are 'shrinking'.

This is true in the U.S. The only reason the U.S. has a growing population is because our shrinking of naturalized citizens is overpowered by our immigration.

In locations where people are most worried about overpopulation are usually the locations where we have to worry about it the least. This would be the developed nations.

My solution: Help nations develop.

It's as simple as that. The only nations that actively have growing natural populations in the developed worlds are countries were the government has set up systems to encourage natural population growth (example: France) but for the most part, developed nations naturally decrease in population.

Doing anything in the U.S. doesn't really help the problem, because we aren't in areas where it's an issue. It is reaching out to the developing world which will provide the answer to the over-population issue.

Ultimately, if Overpopulation isn't stopped in the third world, nature will do something else to correct the issue in the ways in which these locals are least able to defend themselves: disease. It is the developing world which has the least access to medicine, and also has the issues of Over-population.

Hopefully we can reach out, and businesses can reach out, to help stabilize things and help nations in the developing world before something like that happens.

Good things are happening, like in South Africa, where development is continuing. There is also Mozambique which is doing so well economically, that people from Portugal are moving there to the 'use to be a colony' of theirs for the cheap prices and the promising future. Other projects like the East Asian Federation which looks like it will stabilize and help out those countries involved also seem like they are headed in the right direction.

[ETFnerd]

capitalism is like the engine of a car. it moves the car forward. what an engine doesn't do well is stop a car. you need brakes for that. to ask an engine to grow it's own brakes isn't reasonable.

the arguments that the engine makers are making now is that brakes aren't necessary... so what if a few people get run over..? in the long run, everybody benefits from acceptance of a "few" casualties on the road, as long as the engine keeps chugging along at an accelerated pace...

this, besides being an immoral argument..., it is also unsustainable... but this is starting to sound like a political discussion so i will end it here and say no more...

[Max Power]

I didn't get to watch the whole video since I'm at work, so I'll just address the first few minutes of it. Sustainability is a problem, but right now there are no viable options for a change. Until then oil is what we have to work with, and there is still plenty of oil in the world. Not only are new fields still being found, but new sources (oil sands, tight oil) there are also continuing improvements in secondary recovery where they go into a well in decline and through various methods, they boost the production. I'm sure there's more to the video and I will watch the rest when I get home, but for now, I just wanted to leave you with this.

[Rooks]

My take, either the video is right and eventually we just run ourselves out of everything forcing us back to the 1800's or science "wins" so to speak and develops means of power that are unfathomably efficient. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter simply because of our economy. If it gets to the point where oil actually begins to limit the upper echelons of society (meaning it'll have hit the lower classes long before that), the amount of money that will get poured into areas trying to develop means around it will be absurd.

Second point, taking all the Sustainability aspects out of the video, the things suggested at the end aren't bad ideas for anyone, especially the debt.

[chairohkey]

The simple fact of the matter is that in nearly all developed countries, native population growth rates have become negative. That means the people in the country are having less children than would replace them... Their populations are 'shrinking'.

This is true in the U.S.

Don't tell this to the Mormons.

[Suominatua]

Don't tell this to the Mormons.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2886596

And as well... their 'reported numbers' are heavily criticized and many consider them unreliable.

Regardless, though, like I said, U.S. population numbers overall from natural citizens are shrinking. If we had no immigrants, the 'breeding' Mormons would simply move into the opening left by the 'less breeding' rest of the populace and no fear of overpopulation would occur.

***************************************************************************

Anyways, I just got a chance to watch the video, and here are my comments on it:

The opening was nice. It's a little boring to me because I've heard it all before, though a new visualization was ok I guess, and I approve of it because while I may have already accepted such statistics and facts, others have not, so if it convinces a few more people of the details it proposes, it's fine.

One caveat I will make, though, is that their bias is quite prevalent throughout their illustrations (such things like their illustration of the U.S. military, which could have been expressed equally as well by showing how large the U.S. military is to compliment it's oil usage) which, regardless of whether or not you agree with the biases, were there none-the less and detracted a bit from the information they presented in my opinion.

To put it another way, those least likely to accept the problem of peak oil, are those who this video has inherent biases against the views of. That makes this video difficult to convince those who have yet to be...

Moving on, their description of thermonuclear energy annoyed me slightly. I understand they are trying to present the image, however they could have been more honest about the whole issue... After all, while thermonuclear power does have issues, many would not think them insurmountable. (and yes, thermonuclear power, by nature of what it uses, has a chance to replace most of the world's energy needs if it works out for the next millenium) Basically, they 'hand-wave' over it, because it is a threat to the entire energy industry if it takes off. It produces little to no nuclear waste (and any 'waste' is inherently useful in thermonuclear power plants of a second type... it's inherent within the nuclear reactions taking place) and is almost completely danger free. If a normal, fission nuclear reactor were to bust open, it shoots hot radioactive material everywhere. We know about Cherynoble (I did a report on it) and how that area can't be used for years, but remember, nuclear FUSION is very different. If a nuclear fusion reactor were to bust open, the material might be able to shoot it's way through about 20 inches of concrete, before topping in it's tracks... That's ALL the nuclear material, not just some part of it. It's inherently weak made up of very light atoms.

Next on the list, they sort of threw aside wind power, even though there are locations where wind could be utilized and have yet to be touched where wind is extremely reliable and consistent.

Humorously, following that, they were 'light' on the problems with damming rivers. The video claimed "most rivers in the developed world are already dammed"....

First off, that statement, in and of itself is obviously very very problematic. It's unrealistic to suggest that most rivers in the developed world are already dammed. What they meant to say was "most rivers in the developed world which are reasonable to dam and would be possible to dam without extremely adverse ecological disaster have already been dammed" While I still doubt that statement as well, recent research on most dams suggest that the adverse effects of dams is larger than most models use to predict. For instance: the Three Gorges dam in China is stopping sediment from flowing down river. This sediment is what stabilizes coastal cities from erosion, and you know what major city lies right on this particular river? Shanghai... So they UNDER emphasized the problems that are coming to light with dams.

Next, 'conventional geothermal systems are limited'... Well ok. Oil location is ALSO limited... but that didn't stop us from transporting said energy. There are many ways to store energy and transport it, and it's irrational to just throw off conventional geothermal energy just because it's location centric. However, I suspect there are larger factors that make it unrealistic, but the video didn't inform me of any of them and I don't have research into geothermal energy unlike my knowledge in the other sectors so I can't really comment.

I found it interesting they gave a positive spin on the newly developed geothermal power... I'll have to look into that

I admit they are over-generalizing to squeeze some of this information into the 35 minutes, but it still bugs me a bit. One such thing, is that there is such a thing as 'bio-plastics' derived not from petrochemicals. These, of course, have their own crop of problems, but none the less do exist and so the statement that '...such as plastics, which come from oil" isn't completely honest.

OOOhhhh, now on to the next part ^.^

Ok lol, we have more of this 'debt formed money' concept. Don't get me wrong, it is somewhat accurate to some extent, but the way in which it is regarded with such fear is unrealistic. An IOU note is a form of debt which is traded, and so money has always been inherently the same concept. Now, the fact that banks are able to 'create money' using the method of the loaning process which doesn't require the exact same amount of money exist in the bank is an a legislative issue, I admit, however it is not an 'uncontrolled or unknown' process as some would like to think. When the government loans money to a bank initially, it inherently knows that it is going to be multiplied by the amount stipulated under the current reserve rates. I personally would agree a re-structuring of the federa reserve system is necessary, but the generic "It's money based debt" battle cry is unrealistic and frankly naive. It is the control over the money which caused Andrew Jackson to 'defeat the bank', and not the money based system itself.

"Like a Ponzi Scheme, the system must expand or die." Hmm... harkening the 'system' to a Ponzi Scheme eh? First off, this is a basic criticism of ANY capitalism based system. Not a single 'system' other than pure Marxism doesn't share some of this truth on some level. However 'die' isn't the correct word. We have a perfect word for it. It is 'Recession'. That's right, what we are in right now is because our system was shrinking. But wait, aren't most things continuing on as usual? Sure, some people are having trouble, but that's nothing compared to the issues that exist in other locations throughout the world. The truth of the matter is that a Capitalist system will want to expand naturally, and it will do so and sustain itself if properly regulated. Instances such as 'under-lending' which caused the current recession are symptoms of incorrect legislation messing up the system. Other issues such as certain costs within the healthcare industry help push that up as well.

Basically, this criticism of the capitalist system of ours leaves much to be desired... Not that there aren't good criticisms of the capitalist system, but this video is NOT one of them.

The discussion on the increasing environmental problems is indeed an issue, and I was hoping they would spend longer on it :/

Just a few charts definitely do NOT reveal the entire story. *sigh* But, it seems as though this video would rather harbinger doom about the system, than show a problem which our current government is working hard to address. In fact, with more support, our government would be better able to address the environmental problems which I would argue are not required for our system to function. But, this video is not purposed for that so oh well...

Then I realized another inherent analogy problem they are creating. An increasing economy does not equal more consumption... Economic increases are heavily dependent upon innovation as well... I realize our system has it's flaws, but leaving this important factor out and not giving it any time annoys me a bit.

Ooohhh... on a side note, their music choice on the introduction of the 'Food' section was nice ^.^ I know the piece somewhat well. From a cinematographic point of view, it works well to create that 'dark' perspective they are looking for.

Post was too long, more in next post.

[Suominatua]

Their projections on fishing seemed spot on, however I wish they would have used the words "Over-fishing" at least once... not sure why they didn't.

LOL Norman Borlaug isn't a very unbiased source btw...

As for the actual population growth statics, my data still stands. It is, unfortunately, not a problem that can be solved in first world nations alone, as it is the majority an issue within the developing world. It is an issue, though, but their generalizations (once again) leave me wanting.

"Technology is not energy"... no, but it is an important aspect of it's creation. The remarks about conservation are accurate, and are also somewhat true about technology. That is, they implied certain kinds of technology, those involved with technology creation, can cause increasing production and usage, however that is definitely not ALWAYS, and indeed there are many different kinds of technological innovations which cause an overall more-efficient and healthier society without increasing the required materials (and therefore decreasing them).

"A large portion is lost forever as waste"... the waste from recycling plants is usually the bio-degradable kind. Any 'waste' is inherently re-useable among a large enough time-frame. Of course, their generalizations washed over the idea of 'immediate usage'...

OK, and there's the wrap-up. Hmm... interesting.

So the entire video was a 'warning' of impending doom rather than a realistic attempt at furthering the discussion for solutions.

Well, in my final comments I will say this: The video was way too general, got it right a few times, but focused on some of the wrong issues. It's style is off-putting to those least exposed to this type of message. And finally, it's final message was "Get ready, we're all going to get screwed"...

Honestly... the only benefit I got from this video was that I might look more into 'overfishing' (humorously a word they never even used) which in my few seconds of research when I paused the film, looks to be more problematic than I anticipated (I didn't eat fish, so it wasn't at the forefront of my mind).

Anyone reading through that discussion of the video should understand I agree with some aspects the video projects, but it just seemed to go about it in a haphazard and generalized way and preaching to an audience which has already heard and most likely already believes the messages it is portraying. Rather than reaching out to new audiences, it only alienates them with it's biases. *sigh* oh well...

[Denny]

Next on the list, they sort of threw aside wind power, even though there are locations where wind could be utilized and have yet to be touched where wind is extremely reliable and consistent.

The problem is not with the wind but with the mechanics used to generate electricity, I can't find the source again but there was an elaborate article on the subject that covered pretty much every reason not to support wind power in its form today. From maintenance issues, uneven frequency through power generation causing stress on our electrical grid, rotors that can't handle too high wind speeds and what not. You also need a whole park with these things to even generate something of worth, it's nothing but a waste. Luckily new projects that are more efficient in the wind power area are appearing so we'll get rid of these old horrendous solutions.

Regarding wind and solar power I was reminded about the Arizona solar power tower. I wonder how well it will turn out?

Then there's also the whole spectacle about Cold Fusion (e-cat, LENR, etc). It could all be a hoax, luckily NASA has confirmed they're researching LENR so it's hopefully one step closer to becoming reality. If Cold Fusion is possible, and if it will be close to what has been claimed, it could very well be a huge breakthrough for this whole debate.

[Ryan Sannar]

Lets not make fun of any religions.

[Stavs]

It obviously depends on a lot of factors. I watched this doc relatively recently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwBgNF_4g7Q&feature=related

it was very interesting. At one point he says at the current rate of resource/food etc consumption in the US, the world could only sustain less than 2billion people. But in areas in Africa with very low consumption the earth could sustain well over 15billion(don't recall exactly).

But it's definitely not an issue that's going to go away.

[Suominatua]

Lets not make fun of any religions.

I wasn't making fun, however I of course, can't speak for others. All I was saying is that even if Mormons have a higher birthrate, it wouldn't matter because the overall birth rate including Mormons is negative, so no population growth could occur.

But yeah, this video is bleh.

And there may indeed be some issues with wind power. But wouldn't it seem they focused on all the wrong issues? They could have cited the environmental problems with putting wind farms in the 'windiest' locations... and similar things.

I've never really considered 'cold fusion' a breakthrough possibility. Regular Fusion could be, but cold fusion is just filled with scams and quasi-science.