- Welcome to Kevin's Thoughts on the Human Race's Future.
Recent posts
#51
Population / Best guess long term number.
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:55 PMI'm thinking somewhere in the range of a few hundred million to this side of one billion. That is dramatically lower than what we have today, but within the range of where we were just a few hundred years ago.
#52
Self Evident / Petrochemicals
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:49 PMThe current global economy is based on oil.
That is a limited resource. Doesn't matter if you believe we have a 10 year supply, or a 1000 year supply - it remains limited and is being consumed at a rate that is unsustainable.
Personally I think we are going to see a major shortage in the next 15-25 years, but that is just opinion. Its based on the current cost of extracting oil, in terms of energy usage, vs. the quantity of energy extracted in the form of oil. In rough numbers, in the 1950s it cost 1 barrel of oil to pump something like 50 barrels out of the ground. Today's fracking technology cost 1 barrel of oil (you didn't think heating and pumping was free did you?) to pump something like 4 barrels out of the ground. Basically, we have pumped all the easy stuff.
Fortunately, renewables are finally starting to make an impact, and its easy to predict a day when most vehicles will be electric powered.
Unfortunately, cheap oil going away will shutdown the current airline industry, and serious impact transcontinental and ocean based shipping.
In a way, this will be a good thing for us long term: More local food supplies and locally produced products - but less choice and say good-bye to Oranges in February in the mid-west USA.
That is a limited resource. Doesn't matter if you believe we have a 10 year supply, or a 1000 year supply - it remains limited and is being consumed at a rate that is unsustainable.
Personally I think we are going to see a major shortage in the next 15-25 years, but that is just opinion. Its based on the current cost of extracting oil, in terms of energy usage, vs. the quantity of energy extracted in the form of oil. In rough numbers, in the 1950s it cost 1 barrel of oil to pump something like 50 barrels out of the ground. Today's fracking technology cost 1 barrel of oil (you didn't think heating and pumping was free did you?) to pump something like 4 barrels out of the ground. Basically, we have pumped all the easy stuff.
Fortunately, renewables are finally starting to make an impact, and its easy to predict a day when most vehicles will be electric powered.
Unfortunately, cheap oil going away will shutdown the current airline industry, and serious impact transcontinental and ocean based shipping.
In a way, this will be a good thing for us long term: More local food supplies and locally produced products - but less choice and say good-bye to Oranges in February in the mid-west USA.
#53
Governance / Form of Government???
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:36 PMI haven't a clue how we could pull this off, but pull it off we must.
Democracies allow 51% of the people to tell the other 49% what to do. That ratio won't work going forward unless everyone has common goals. This won't work since luck, combined with skill, and opportunity drive the system to income inequality.
Socialism tends to suppress development and wealth for the greater good, but many countries (and USA states) boardline on bankrupcy trying to pull it off - its not sustainable since it tends to become centralized, corrupt, and inefficient.
China has one of our historically oldest civilization, but its has quite the history of uprisings. Todays Communist China only survives because things are getting better, in general, for the people - apparently due to "make work" projects and a disregard for the environment. This has worked in China because the people have an attitude of "1 year of tyranny is better than 1 day of anarchy".
Basically, I think we need a form of global government with a core of local control (lets not repeat the USSR's errors, like telling farmers to plant wheat in areas best used for rye). e.g. Something that hasn't been invented yet.
Democracies allow 51% of the people to tell the other 49% what to do. That ratio won't work going forward unless everyone has common goals. This won't work since luck, combined with skill, and opportunity drive the system to income inequality.
Socialism tends to suppress development and wealth for the greater good, but many countries (and USA states) boardline on bankrupcy trying to pull it off - its not sustainable since it tends to become centralized, corrupt, and inefficient.
China has one of our historically oldest civilization, but its has quite the history of uprisings. Todays Communist China only survives because things are getting better, in general, for the people - apparently due to "make work" projects and a disregard for the environment. This has worked in China because the people have an attitude of "1 year of tyranny is better than 1 day of anarchy".
Basically, I think we need a form of global government with a core of local control (lets not repeat the USSR's errors, like telling farmers to plant wheat in areas best used for rye). e.g. Something that hasn't been invented yet.
#54
Land use / Are we masters of the planet, ...
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:25 PMThere are those that believe we have dominion over the earth and can do whatever we please. I believe that is rather short sighted.
We exist, therefore I believe we have a place on the planet, but I also believe we need to co-exist with other life forms. This is not a trivial statement, since it implies we can not, sustainably, totally dominate over everything else. For instance, as a trivial example: we need trees to recycle our air. Diversity in the workplace has been shown to be good, diversity in our ecosystem is not only better - its required if we hope to be able to survive environmental challenges.
Therefore, to start the discussion, I'd like to propose a "50% rule":
1) 50% of the planets surface should remain totally wild and uncontrolled by man. Oceans don't count, since what we pump into them works its way across them. Think in terms of half of every bio-region being "hands off" to humankind and allowed to proceed as nature dictates. That means forest fires are allowed to burn, wolves are allowed to roam, etc. "allowed" being a bad term, since it implies control, which is exactly what we should NOT have in these areas.
2) 50% of what is left is shared. This allows for woodland crop management, public parks, etc.
3) 50% of what is left after 2) is available for mankind to manage. eg. 25% of the landmass, water surface, etc. We don't get to pick and choose either - per 1) 50% of all coastlines must be left wild. 50% of all prairie. 50% of all forest. 50% of all wetlands... If we decide not to use our 25% (say of Antarctica) that is our choice to ignore, not space counted towards 1) or 2).
Basically this means we would need to reduce land usage dramitically. In the USA, virtually all ariable land is cultivated in crops. Here in the mid-west USA, if you see a patch of trees, you know that ground is too hilly or rocky to farm. After these rules are agreed upon, 75% of the current farmland would need to be returned to native prairie, forest, and desert.
Of course, this will have dramatic impact on the number of people the planet can support food wise. That is not a bad thing.
Implementation timing would need to be sychonized with population decrease to avoid food riots.
We exist, therefore I believe we have a place on the planet, but I also believe we need to co-exist with other life forms. This is not a trivial statement, since it implies we can not, sustainably, totally dominate over everything else. For instance, as a trivial example: we need trees to recycle our air. Diversity in the workplace has been shown to be good, diversity in our ecosystem is not only better - its required if we hope to be able to survive environmental challenges.
Therefore, to start the discussion, I'd like to propose a "50% rule":
1) 50% of the planets surface should remain totally wild and uncontrolled by man. Oceans don't count, since what we pump into them works its way across them. Think in terms of half of every bio-region being "hands off" to humankind and allowed to proceed as nature dictates. That means forest fires are allowed to burn, wolves are allowed to roam, etc. "allowed" being a bad term, since it implies control, which is exactly what we should NOT have in these areas.
2) 50% of what is left is shared. This allows for woodland crop management, public parks, etc.
3) 50% of what is left after 2) is available for mankind to manage. eg. 25% of the landmass, water surface, etc. We don't get to pick and choose either - per 1) 50% of all coastlines must be left wild. 50% of all prairie. 50% of all forest. 50% of all wetlands... If we decide not to use our 25% (say of Antarctica) that is our choice to ignore, not space counted towards 1) or 2).
Basically this means we would need to reduce land usage dramitically. In the USA, virtually all ariable land is cultivated in crops. Here in the mid-west USA, if you see a patch of trees, you know that ground is too hilly or rocky to farm. After these rules are agreed upon, 75% of the current farmland would need to be returned to native prairie, forest, and desert.
Of course, this will have dramatic impact on the number of people the planet can support food wise. That is not a bad thing.
Implementation timing would need to be sychonized with population decrease to avoid food riots.
#55
Population / World Population Balance
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:05 PMLets start with the work done here: https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
#56
Reference Links and Recommended Reading / World Population Count
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 03:02 PM #57
Self Evident / Recycling
Last post by KevinC - Oct 08, 2019, 02:59 PMI believe it is self-evident that humankind will need to 100% recycle everything.
Any bio-degradable products, if not recycled, should be placed in managed bio-degrabable areas. Note early attempts at using corn based "bio-degradable" plastics that degrade when in sunlight, but are historically buried in landfills... Having items that "bio-degrade" in centurys is also unacceptable.
Any bio-degradable products, if not recycled, should be placed in managed bio-degrabable areas. Note early attempts at using corn based "bio-degradable" plastics that degrade when in sunlight, but are historically buried in landfills... Having items that "bio-degrade" in centurys is also unacceptable.