Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 4962 times)

Eggtastico · **Reply #30 on:** January 06, 2010, 08:56:34 AM

Global Warming

Reply #30 on: January 06, 2010, 08:56:34 AM

Quote from: neXus

3rd World Countries will be fkced if it hit them, Millions would die

would that really be a bad thing?

Im thinking of ways to spend my tax savings already.

zpyder · **Reply #31 on:** January 06, 2010, 10:51:44 AM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #31 on: January 06, 2010, 10:51:44 AM

I remember reading several different things a few years ago that suggested various radical things that would solve various issues.*

#1 was that at the resource consumption levels of the developed world, the sustainable population was thought to be around 2 billion (were at what, 7-8 billion now?)

#2 was that using the existing solar technology it was estimated that if they covered an area the size of texas (and somewhere sunny like texas) in solar cells it would provide enough energy to power the worlds needs.

I think in one of my environmental law papers I actually suggested that in a way mass genocide of africa would be a good thing in environmental terms if the continent could be turned into a resource farm. Though really you want to get rid of Asia, given the population and resource consumption compared to Africa.

I dont mean the above in a racist manner, it is solely based upon figures, before anyone accuses me of such things.

Eggtastico · **Reply #32 on:** January 06, 2010, 12:28:54 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #32 on: January 06, 2010, 12:28:54 PM

Quote from: zpyder

I dont mean the above in a racist manner, it is solely based upon figures, before anyone accuses me of such things.

why is that racist?

imagine the mess this planet would really be in if everyone had access to anything & everything.

zpyder · **Reply #33 on:** January 06, 2010, 12:44:36 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #33 on: January 06, 2010, 12:44:36 PM

Its not, but you know the way things can be taken out of context in an arguement, best to cover your bases. If someone wanted they could counter argue and say "Why get rid of africa, why not the UK, we consume more, is it because theyre black?" just for the sake of it. My dad would probably agree with it just because he doesnt like Africa (I worry that hed vote BNP).

The breakthroughs you read about life-saving things and increased longevity freak me the hell out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone lived to 80-90, including the people in 3rd world countries? Within 100 years the planet would be like an organism with a terminal bacterial infection in the final stages, with us as the bacteria.

neXus · **Reply #34 on:** January 06, 2010, 13:04:21 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #34 on: January 06, 2010, 13:04:21 PM

Quote from: zpyder

Its not, but you know the way things can be taken out of context in an arguement, best to cover your bases. If someone wanted they could counter argue and say "Why get rid of africa, why not the UK, we consume more, is it because theyre black?" just for the sake of it. My dad would probably agree with it just because he doesnt like Africa (I worry that hed vote BNP).

The breakthroughs you read about life-saving things and increased longevity freak me the hell out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone lived to 80-90, including the people in 3rd world countries? Within 100 years the planet would be like an organism with a terminal bacterial infection in the final stages, with us as the bacteria.

One thing is you can never touch certain subjects or mention things as you get called Racist instantly, so you have to avoid them even if it was true.
India for example, The way they treat their surroundings is not very good, many places stink to high heaven and things are very polluted, litter and sh*t on the streets etc. A lot of it is down to the attitude. When I saw in just one day a few people dropping their draws and taking a dump right where the felt the need - made me heave. To a point Egg is right in the sense certain places wiped clean would not be a bad thing. China being the biggest country causing harm to the earth for example, who also sees fit to prevent any form of unified consensus to help protect the earth from polution because it will make them look worse could do with a kick up the backside from mother nature.

So in a way I can see what Egg is getting at, but there is also a downside, a lot of these 3rd world countries contain or produce a lot of important and essential things to 1st world countries, so if they go under 1st world countries will suffer.

The world and ALL the countries live in an ecosystem from nature to economic. And we are at a point where we need each other, like it or not. Ice Age hits and any part of the world is not set for it we will all feel the ramifications of them being screwed.

I am tired and hot and it is 2am so I am quite cranky at the moment, sorry.

zpyder · **Reply #35 on:** January 06, 2010, 13:11:11 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #35 on: January 06, 2010, 13:11:11 PM

I think the point of the whole "get rid of xxx population" or "build on xxx" isnt to say, wipe out africa and leave it as a wasteland. For instance if we got rid of chinas population itd dramatically lower global human population and reduce various consumption and emissions levels, but it would indeed be stupid to leave the resources there.

In "zpyder world" some placed like africa and/or china would be annexed, people moved out/sent to soylent green factories, and the land used for the resources with a crew of farmers/workers. This would supply the resources needed for the rest of the world.

neXus · **Reply #36 on:** January 06, 2010, 20:47:27 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #36 on: January 06, 2010, 20:47:27 PM

Quote from: zpyder

I think the point of the whole "get rid of xxx population" or "build on xxx" isnt to say, wipe out africa and leave it as a wasteland. For instance if we got rid of chinas population itd dramatically lower global human population and reduce various consumption and emissions levels, but it would indeed be stupid to leave the resources there.

In "zpyder world" some placed like africa and/or china would be annexed, people moved out/sent to soylent green factories, and the land used for the resources with a crew of farmers/workers. This would supply the resources needed for the rest of the world.

With that you have the other side of things.

Cancer 100% cure which is getting there (more and more types now have drugs to cure/prevent them) as well as aids which they probably will cure or prevent permanently in the next 50 years. 3rd world countries are where it will be needed the most of course (aids wise for example) but will be to expensive for them. These need to be cheap as chips to be viable but once they do hit these countries we will run into big problems.
These are horrible things and sad people die from them but they are controlling populations in many parts of the world. A lot of these countries do not mind and do have 3/4//5/6/7 Kids no problem and the population blow out once aides is gone is going to cause a load more problems. China is already getting crazy and they have child family limits already.

Pete · **Reply #37 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:06:27 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #37 on: January 06, 2010, 23:06:27 PM

K lets wipe africa clean. Ok heres what we got:

- No more people dying in africa of easily preventable diseases. Bonus.
- No more retarded charity ads on TV. Bonus.
- So lets plant some crops to feed our growing population. Lets send some people in to do the farming.
- Wait, Africa exports food, diamonds, gold, oil, timber, people, etc. K we better send some people out to take care of that before prices go way way up.
- sh*t. The crops arent growing. Lets bring in some engineers and get them to run some irrigation.
- We best set up some fertiliser factories too.
- Pesticides. We need pesticide factories.
- and food processing plants.
- We need more power. Lets build some solar power stations.
- These people need support. Lets send in some doctors, police, social workers, and geeks.
- Bugger. The farmers know they have a monopoly cos were all hungry and are charging stupid money for Afrifood. Lets send the army in.
- Blah blah.. so we wipe out africa but then industrialise it.

That is complete wank. It aint racist its just dumb.

edit: oh wait actually that is quite bloody racist in a lets wipe out all the black people and gradually replace them with a not-so-black people kinda way, isnt it? Im sure you dont mean it in that way; we all look for the quick n easy solution without thinking too deep huh?

India is sh*t cos people have no money. They arent all like ooh, we could spend £5 a month on sanitary sewer systems but wed rather put £5/m towards a ps3.

edit: if you wiped out china can you imagine how much a laptop or mobile phone would cost?

Pete · **Reply #38 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:11:31 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #38 on: January 06, 2010, 23:11:31 PM

Quote from: zpyder

#2 was that using the existing solar technology it was estimated that if they covered an area the size of texas (and somewhere sunny like texas) in solar cells it would provide enough energy to power the worlds needs.

Get on a plane and fly over texas. Texas is f**king huge. No offence mate but dude.. texas is bigger than france

zpyder · **Reply #39 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:34:54 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #39 on: January 06, 2010, 23:34:54 PM

Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.

Yes Texas is huge, thats the point. That is the area required using todays solar tech to provide pretty much the worlds current energy needs. Look at it any way you like, the fact that it is possible, or the fact that it still requires a huge area. And then consider the area covered if all buildings were converted to solar cells. And then consider the resources required to undertake such a feat. Even in countries which had used large government programs to encourage solar energy, leading scientists have turned around and said that in hindsight they should have waited a few years as the benefit from the cells used at the time is minimal compared to what they could have used now.

The fact is the whole issue is hypothetical, you can choose to follow said scenario where africa gets industrialised if you like. Id find a more likely scenario that in the event of a group managing to cull the population to the "sustainable" 2 billion, said group would have the clout and drive to police the areas. Maybe its a dystopian utopia where the people left get along but the route getting there is paved in blood?

If we wiped out china, you might find laptops would cost the same, or less, in the future. Considering the population levels, imagine what will happen when they overtake us in terms of development, and the resource consumption over there when they all have laptops etc. How much will such things cost when the raw materials are scarce?

Pete · **Reply #40 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:37:38 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #40 on: January 06, 2010, 23:37:38 PM

Quote from: neXus

China is already getting crazy and they have child family limits already.

Yes. China has the 53rd highest population density. OMFG.

Pete · **Reply #41 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:40:16 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #41 on: January 06, 2010, 23:40:16 PM

Quote from: zpyder

Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.
...
...

So where is the need to wipe anyone out? The world copes. We grow bigger and bigger and find better ways of doing things. Just let things be imo. Africa aint 4 billion people. Who else is gonna go?

zpyder · **Reply #42 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:42:11 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #42 on: January 06, 2010, 23:42:11 PM

Quote

we all look for the quick n easy solution without thinking too deep huh?

How deep can you realistically get when posting on an internet forum, without ending up writing an essay?

If you want the most PC way of looking at things lets say that you remove all people from the world and reset everything, the continents are still there. You can have 2 billion people, and the population isnt allowed to go above 2 billion. Where do you allocate the manpower for the different tasks? In the case of 2 billion people its entirely feasable to have an area devoted to energy, and a continent devoted to resources.

Pete · **Reply #43 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:46:31 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #43 on: January 06, 2010, 23:46:31 PM

It doesnt work like that.

You have;
- energy required per person.
- food required per person.
- support required per person.

Go back 150 years. If technology hadnt moved forward wed be stuck on 2 billion people. Now go forward 100 years. We get smarter faster than we make babies.

Oops I forgot, you also have energy generated pp, food generated, support generated...

zpyder · **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2010, 23:47:04 PM

Re:Global Warming

Reply #44 on: January 06, 2010, 23:47:04 PM

Quote from: Pete

Quote from: zpyder
Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating any of the stuff Ive posted, only stating the figures and scenarios Ive read. If its got people thinking about the scale of the problem, job done.
...
...

So where is the need to wipe anyone out? The world copes. We grow bigger and bigger and find better ways of doing things. Just let things be imo. Africa aint 4 billion people. Who else is gonna go?

Where is the need? The need is in the rate of population growth and the findings of various scientists which have estimated that with the resource use of the developed world the sustainable population is 2 billion. Sure we can adapt, but well hit a wall at some point where the planet just cant support the population, provided something like a pandemic or massive war doesnt help lower the numbers. Things like this scare the crap out of me:

What would be interesting would be to see the same resource use studies calibrated to resource use of different ages in human history, in the sense of whether technological advancements would increase or decrease the maximum sustainable population figures. Back in the old days a person may have survived off of a small plot of land. Using modern tech their output would be increased, but at the same time the resource footprint of the technology would be much greater.

As to why Africa? fair point, America would be better

Quote from: Pete

Go back 150 years. If technology hadnt moved forward wed be stuck on 2 billion people. Now go forward 100 years. We get smarter faster than we make babies.

No sh*t. I figured seeing as I was talking about removing the global populace and playing god, I might as well go the whole hog and include a means of population control however.

News:

Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 4962 times)