"There's No Tomorrow" (documentary on civilization problems)

[Ross Scott]

This video explains almost every single concern I have over the state of society and civilization and its sustainability. To top it off, the whole thing is animated. To the best of my knowledge, all the information in here is completely accurate (though I was confused by one statement on how much of the sun we use). It starts off talking about oil, but later goes into other energy and resources and general, plus food production and long term economic viability. I feel like it covers almost every topic that threatens modern civilization. I really recommend watching it. It is 35 minutes though, I watched it over the span of a couple days while I was eating:

 

VOMWzjrRiBg

[Doom Shepherd]

Well, I only got 5 minutes in before I fond what I believe to be, if not a factual error, then at least misleading rhetoric:

 

"The production from ANWR would last 17 months." I wondered how they arrived that number. I conclude that they're assuming that if the US makes use of ANWR and ONLY ANWR, then ANWR's supply will last 17 months.

 

That's kinda accurate, given the average of the amount of oil believed to be in ANWR (Or more accurately, in Area 1002 of ANWR), and the current and projected rate of US fossil fuel use. Around 10.9 billion barrels, and currently around 20.8 million barrels per day, respectively.

 

Of course, that's not really how oil production and use works - we drill in a number of places, and ANWR would only produce around(assuming the average projection is correct) 780,000 bpd during it's half-decade production peak, while the US is expected to be producing around 5.6 million bpd around the same time frame, so I would still file that under "not exectly honest."

 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

 

I also note that articles are now saying that allowing for more recent discoveries, North American production of oil will peak ini 2016, higher than they did in the 70's.

 

http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php

 

12:37 Fast Breeder Reactors, failures? No, not really. See what I wrote in the Nuclear Power thread. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor for a more detailed look (and the countries they avoided mentioning.)

 

More later when I finish.

[Princess Luna]

The only realistic solution to unlimited growth is reducing the population to pre-industrial revolution levels and ending our use of fossil fuels.

[Vapymid]

Putting aside the question of why would anyone want to do what you suggest your "solution" actually does not offer any method. It's like saying "the solution to your company's poor performance is making more money" without explaining how to achieve it.

 

So, how do you plan to achieve your final solution? Carpet bombing Africa with nukes? Force-sterilising Indonesians? Spraying India with chemical weapons?

 

I'll leave it to you then to explain to your own children why it is that their daddy had PS3 and XBoxes and cars and hospitals and water closets but they have to make do with an abacus, a wheelbarrow, relieve themselves into a hole in the ground and die of dysentery before they reach 30. I don't think they will tolerate that crap for long, especially seeing my offspring flying over their head in nice airliners...

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

The only realistic solution to unlimited growth is reducing the population to pre-industrial revolution levels and ending our use of fossil fuels.

 

And in one fell swoop, you've descended to the level of a Batman villain... Ra's al Ghul.

[Razor235]

The only realistic solution to unlimited growth is reducing the population to pre-industrial revolution levels and ending our use of fossil fuels.

 

 

Realistic??

...

That's about as realistic as blowing up an orphanage is a solution to child hunger.

 

The realistic option is to cut consumption of fuels and products. Even if everybody cut just a little bit, the payoff is enormous (AKA a few more years out of this planet)

[Doom Shepherd]

Cut consumption, and take much more advantage of that giant fusion reactor in the sky. (and mine the asteroids, which people sre finally starting to take seriously.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/mining-asteroids-real-story-planetary-resources-space-startup/t/story?id=16197612

[Princess Luna]

The only realistic solution to unlimited growth is reducing the population to pre-industrial revolution levels and ending our use of fossil fuels.

 

 

Realistic??

...

That's about as realistic as blowing up an orphanage is a solution to child hunger.

 

The realistic option is to cut consumption of fuels and products. Even if everybody cut just a little bit, the payoff is enormous (AKA a few more years out of this planet)

 

No one wants to use less lol Are YOU going to convince 7 billion people to use less? or what about people in other countries like china and India where regulations are hardly existent in protecting the environment. You can't have unlimited growth on a limited planet. And you certainly cannot achive reduced consumption without government intervention and giving up our civil liberties. Just face it the world is screwed.

 

everyone should do their duty and burn everything they can.

[Razor235]

Not eating one more bag of Doritos is cutting our civil liberties? Biking is cutting our civil liberties?

[Doom Shepherd]

 

everyone should do their duty and burn everything they can.

 

So hurry up and set yourself on fire. Then I'll believe you're not a troll.

[Michael Archer]

Not eating one more bag of Doritos is cutting our civil liberties? Biking is cutting our civil liberties?

 

Depends on the context. If the government decrees I can't own a car or limits the production of cars, that's cutting civil liberties. If the government decrees how many Doritos a store can sell to what people on whatever condition, that's cutting civil liberties.

[Princess Luna]

Not eating one more bag of Doritos is cutting our civil liberties? Biking is cutting our civil liberties?

 

Depends on the context. If the government decrees I can't own a car or limits the production of cars, that's cutting civil liberties. If the government decrees how many Doritos a store can sell to what people on whatever condition, that's cutting civil liberties.

 

Exactly. No one is gonna reduce their consumption unless the government forces you to by taking away your civil liberties. Such as they say you HAVE to ride bikes and not cars. Sure its BETTER for everyone but then if the government can get away with making everyone ride bikes then what else can they get away with. The government would have to be huge to even attempt to to something like that. So either we give all power to the government for the good of the planet, or we have no government and we have anarchy.

 

Putting aside the question of why would anyone want to do what you suggest your "solution" actually does not offer any method. It's like saying "the solution to your company's poor performance is making more money" without explaining how to achieve it.

 

So, how do you plan to achieve your final solution? Carpet bombing Africa with nukes? Force-sterilising Indonesians? Spraying India with chemical weapons?

 

I'll leave it to you then to explain to your own children why it is that their daddy had PS3 and XBoxes and cars and hospitals and water closets but they have to make do with an abacus, a wheelbarrow, relieve themselves into a hole in the ground and die of dysentery before they reach 30. I don't think they will tolerate that crap for long, especially seeing my offspring flying over their head in nice airliners...

 

Regards

 

No one is entitled to what we have now. its people who think that they can have what ever they want that is the problem. Just because you have a job doesn't mean shit. Your really only entitled to LIVING. Governments do not come with the build your own planet kit. Thats MAN made. The Amish is a good example of people living in complete suistainment while lacking all the material objects we think we are entitled to because we are american. We are only at this point because of oil. Period. Once it runs out theres no way to EVER come back to this point. So enjoy it while it lasts or make some headway to continue our lifestyle beyond that point but if you solve the energy problem you create a population problem. THen you have to tell people how many kids to have.

 

Also about the Final solution I mentioned, it will pretty much take care of itself through resource wars and huge famines that are sure to come when the demand for cheap energy outweighs supply.

[Ross Scott]

Putting aside the question of why would anyone want to do what you suggest your "solution" actually does not offer any method. It's like saying "the solution to your company's poor performance is making more money" without explaining how to achieve it.

I'd say there's only 2 realistic options:

 

1. Let population continue uncontrolled until it reduces naturally from people dying off from not enough food, water, health care, whatever (like deer do with food when they're overpopulated).

 

2. Enforce child limits, like they do in China.

 

No one is entitled to what we have now. its people who think that they can have what ever they want that is the problem.

I'd say it's the people who GET IT that are the problem. Also a point I see missed in some debates is that there's a big difference between acting entitled versus not wanting a stupid allocation of resources.

 

I like to make up the example of pretend you have an isolated medieval village that has learned invaders are coming to raid them and are a few days out, but they have a big stockpile of wood. A few people want to build a wall around the town. A few other people want to fashion the wood into weapons. But the big debate for most of the townsfolk is whether or not to build a giant wicker man statue in the center of town and which direction he should be facing.

[Princess Luna]

1. Let population continue uncontrolled until it reduces naturally from people dying off from not enough food, water, health care, whatever (like deer do with food when they're overpopulated).

 

But this number could be well into 10-15 billion people before first world countries start to feel the effects of over population, where as the rest of the world, third world countries, are already facing hunger problems and dying off anyway.

 

I am just saying that this is already going on in Africa and other war ravaged countries but no one here cares at all, unless of course they have major oil deposits where it THEN becomes a human rights issue.

 

I like to make up the example of pretend you have an isolated medieval village that has learned invaders are coming to raid them and are a few days out, but they have a big stockpile of wood. A few people want to build a wall around the town. A few other people want to fashion the wood into weapons. But the big debate for most of the townsfolk is whether or not to build a giant wicker man statue in the center of town and which direction he should be facing.

 

This is exactly why i think the majority of people are stupid lol this is America right here.

[Chuckthe2nd]

@This whole thread:

 

LOL yeah, because the world is SO incredibly overpopulated. Not.

 

If people want their damn space, then just move somewhere that has it. For example, people are like "Hey, look at how incredibly crowded New York City/Tokyo/London is! It's really getting on my nerves how many humans there are here."

 

I've got a solution to that: Just move somewhere isolated that has the space and resources to keep you self-sustainable and happy, and enjoy yourself. It's not as hard as you might think; I personally know people that have done exactly that. There's all the open space in the world (no pun intended) for people to build civilization on; is anyone actually aware of this? There are places in the USA that have such a low population, you're lucky if you spot more than one house every five miles along the interstate. Yes, the INTERSTATE. It's that sparse.

 

And trust me, there are plenty of world resources; that isn't the issue. The issue is that most governments are too damn stupid to actually harvest them. And, coincidentally, the countries that DO in fact harvest their natural resources have way more than they could possibly use, and sell it to countries like America (Which is too lazy to get off it's own ass and utilize it's MILLIONS of gallons of crude oil in areas like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska). Not to mention, the people that actually sell resources are rolling in money, which further proves America's ignorance in regard to the debt issue.

 

Think what you want, that's just my opinion.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Let population continue uncontrolled until it reduces naturally from people dying off from not enough food, water, health care, whatever (like deer do with food when they're overpopulated).

 

It is a common misconception that human population is uncontrolled unless people are dying in droves - that is just not so. There are other factors, which are arguably more important - social and economic (in fact, it's probably all economic and social being a subset of it).

 

I would suggest that the economic factor is the one with the most influence - simply because famines, wars etc are transient events while the economy is a constant ongoing process.

 

To put it simply - in preindustrial and early industrial periods the economic factor was promoting the growth of population (more hands = more work done = better quality of life), while for the modern "developed" economies it suppresses the growth (children are expensive). Look at population dynamics - in many developed countries the growth of the population is due to immigration (i.e. reducing growth elsewhere) and increase of life expectancy, aka "ageing" of the population (i.e. temporary, which will soon lead to decline in numbers).

 

So, beside the biological carrying capacity of the environment, humans are also subject to economic carrying capacity. Therefore, it seems to me that the best way to limit the population growth globally is to upgrade the developing and undeveloped nations' economic systems and *not* to knock down the levels of the developed nations.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

@This whole thread:

 

LOL yeah, because the world is SO incredibly overpopulated. Not.

 

If people want their damn space, then just move somewhere that has it. For example, people are like "Hey, look at how incredibly crowded New York City/Tokyo/London is! It's really getting on my nerves how many humans there are here."

 

I've got a solution to that: Just move somewhere isolated that has the space and resources to keep you self-sustainable and happy, and enjoy yourself. It's not as hard as you might think; I personally know people that have done exactly that. There's all the open space in the world (no pun intended) for people to build civilization on; is anyone actually aware of this? There are places in the USA that have such a low population, you're lucky if you spot more than one house every five miles along the interstate. Yes, the INTERSTATE. It's that sparse.

 

And trust me, there are plenty of world resources; that isn't the issue. The issue is that most governments are too damn stupid to actually harvest them. And, coincidentally, the countries that DO in fact harvest their natural resources have way more than they could possibly use, and sell it to countries like America (Which is too lazy to get off it's own ass and utilize it's MILLIONS of gallons of crude oil in areas like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska). Not to mention, the people that actually sell resources are rolling in money, which further proves America's ignorance in regard to the debt issue.

 

Think what you want, that's just my opinion.

I think you have a very good point. Especially if you come to Norway it might be a small country but we have a LOT of free space for people who don't like being around people.