Google gives up on renewables

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

There isn't really anything to discuss if population remains unchecked

Thankfully .. the Population issues shows strong signs of , slowly correcting itself ... The net total rate of population increase has been on a decline for decades.

[P-hack]

yes, we live in a freakishly huge population bubble, bubbles are round at the top.

[redneck]

.

Google gives up on renewables...

They gave up on a system that monitored and helped conserve those renewables "electrical power" years ago...


Why Google's Home-Energy Product PowerMeter Failed - CBS News

Google PowerMeter suffered from two problems. For one, the home-energy management market is overflowing with companies that have developed loads of gadgets, web tools and software all designed to save consumers money. Problem is consumers don't know the industry even exists.

They don't know and probably wouldn't care if they did...


However, on the bright side. I just ordered a TED 5002-C.

The Energy Detective Electricity Monitor




>

[gone-ot]

WWIII should take care of MOST of the population(s)...depending upon whom (winner or loser) they're aligned.

[niky]

That TED looks mighty interesting... though since my household only uses about 258 kw/h a month, I wonder if it would make sense for us.

The other people in the building, though... they might see some benefit. I'm amazed at how some people can use over 1,000 kw/hs when you're typically out of the house eight to nine hours a day. (As opposed to our household, where the wife and baby stay at home!)

Originally Posted by IamIan

Thankfully .. the Population issues shows strong signs of , slowly correcting itself ... The net total rate of population increase has been on a decline for decades.

70+ million a year is still a lot of new mouths to feed. The slowing, however, is perhaps indicative that we're reaching the energy limits of our civilization. The worry is if the decline that follows will be just as precipituous, and how many of us will survive the crash.

EDIT: WW3 will be a whimper... not a bang. Asymmetrical warfare with every man, woman and child out in the streets fighting with Molotovs and Kalashnikovs as the big governments try... and fail... to reassert their moral and authoritative ascendancy in thousands of bushfire revolutions across the globe.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by niky

EDIT: WW3 will be a whimper... not a bang. Asymmetrical warfare with every man, woman and child out in the streets fighting with Molotovs and Kalashnikovs as the big governments try... and fail... to reassert their moral and authoritative ascendancy in thousands of bushfire revolutions across the globe.

Aren't you a bright ray of sunshine?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

The net total rate of population increase has been on a decline for decades.

Not such a thumb up, if you think about it. Even if the rate of increase is slowing, it's still a rate of increase. Has to become a rate of decrease to do any good.

[P-hack]

not really giving a crap about the population as a whole, it runs on instinct and not cognition. You bring someone into the world, they are YOUR responsibility. farming and medicine are like safety improvements, folks will eat up any gains in safety margins without a second thought and put the expectation on "scientists" to produce yet another miracle and on everyone else to cherish every crotchfruit that manages to escape the womb, screw that, I ain't serving a bunch of idiots.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by P-hack

yes, we live in a freakishly huge population bubble, bubbles are round at the top.

.
.
Looks similar to fossil fuel production.
.
.

.
.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

WWIII should take care of MOST of the population(s)...depending upon whom (winner or loser) they're aligned.

War has lost it's teeth ... as far as global human population control goes ... And that's a good thing .. history of war shows a decreasing effect on total population % over time .. and now with unmanned this and unmanned that .. the death tolls are likely to take a nose dive even in raw numbers... if there ever is a WWIII (which I doubt).

End of Han Dynasty ... killed ~40mil People in the year 280 , which was more than 10% of the entire global human population at the time .. at most 85mil people killed in WWII by 1945 , which was less than 3% of the total human global population at that time.

- - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not such a thumb up, if you think about it. Even if the rate of increase is slowing, it's still a rate of increase. Has to become a rate of decrease to do any good.

Bold ---- Only if you assume that current global total population is already actually higher than would be sustainable ... if there is still more sustainable capacity .. than a decrease is not yet needed.

But ... good news for you ... some countries have begun to experience a net negative birth rate .. some are only growing through immigration now... Link.

- - - - - - -

Originally Posted by niky

70+ million a year is still a lot of new mouths to feed.

But that angle just leads us to more good news .. as much as the doom and gloom crowd might hate the sunshine as much as vampires

See attached graph of the decreasing average % of income spent on food... We on average spend about 25% less of our income on food today than we did in 1970s .. while at the same time we have about 75% more total mouths to feed... food has become cheaper at a faster rate than population has increased.

And it gets even better ... we've achieved that %$ decrease on less than 46% of the available land ... ie there is room to grow if we had to .. see attached ... switching to a low meat consumption society would more than double the amount of mouths we could feed (sustainably) on the same amount of land ... All current estimates .. even the worst case ones in P-hack's graph above .. put us leveling off (total global population) well bellow these max sustainable levels.

Originally Posted by niky

The slowing, however, is perhaps indicative that we're reaching the energy limits of our civilization.

Nope .. not even close to the energy limits of our civilization .. Good news there too ... run vampires run

See attached ... Our total energy consumption per person has not been increasing with our increased modern world .. ie more computers .. more TVs .. more cell phones .. Air Conditioning .. etc .. despite our increasing usage of these things ... we peaked in our per person energy usage back in the 1970s.

And we haven't tapped even a tiny fraction yet of the available energy... we have plenty of available energy room to grow if we need to.

Originally Posted by niky

Asymmetrical warfare with every man, woman and child out in the streets fighting with Molotovs and Kalashnikovs as the big governments try... and fail... to reassert their moral and authoritative ascendancy in thousands of bushfire revolutions across the globe.

Sorry to break it to you .. the days of armed revolution in 1st world countries has past... Any such effort today would fail (be put down) miserably.

If we want to change the system today or in the future ... of any 1st world country today ... it now has to be done within the system itself.

Which is a good thing ... run vampires sun from the sunshine