Google gives up on renewables

[NeilBlanchard]

We have hopped up on oil.

Truly sustainable means ZERO WASTE.

Renewable energy is the only way to have zero waste.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by niky

I do agree that switching to a low meat diet will radically increase the amount of food we can put on the tables, giving us a buffer.

Yup... And that's good news.

Originally Posted by niky

mean that while we could farm a lot more, we can't assure that the farmers will make enough money to survive.

Could farm more ... Yup ... And that's good news.

As long as people can afford luxury non-essential items .. there is $ available for necessities (like food).

Originally Posted by niky

More energy efficient appliances. More energy efficient cars. Ever stop to think as to how it'll all work out when all those billions of former third world people get the same things?

Actually yes.

Turns out ... those 3rd world people will be able to .. and are .. skipping past some of the worst parts in the history of the early adopter 1st world countries.

For example .. they aren't entering in when Solar is $20/Watt ... they are coming in ... when solar is going down to $0.60/Watt .. They aren't coming in when vacuum tubes make computer enormously energy intensive .. they are coming in when we have tiny mW computers as powerful as 'supercomputers' used to be... etc.. etc.

This creates a overall less final damage by their growth into a modern society ... compared to the amount of damage the early adopter 1st world countries did in their historical growth into a modern society.

Originally Posted by niky

Who's talking about the first world?

I was

Even the 3rd world has a significantly increasing life expectancy ... even including all their problems and such. (see attached) ... psss it's more good news.

Originally Posted by niky

I suppose we could be chewing this over fifty years from now (those of us who are still ticking, that is), in a world that's not radically different from today's. Mankind has shown remarkable resilience in weathering dramatic change, like two trillion dollar economic collapses.

See you then.

Originally Posted by niky

I don't know. Nobody does.

Originally Posted by niky

I do agree that we can weather the change by adjusting lifestyles. Hell... look at the excesses in first world countries and middle class lifestyles... and we could cut a lot out of that to make adjustments.

It just isn't going to be much fun for those who've gotten used to nice things.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure. It's proof by contradiction (Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):

Nope.
That is not a demonstration.

Your own link says pretty much this much in the beginning sentence (notice the bold):

Originally Posted by YourWikipediaLink

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction.

A "demonstrated fact" ... is not , pointing to a correlation that implies a indirect contradiction... besides , correlation is not causation.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

if the current population level was sustainable, there would be no ongoing degradation of ecosystems.

Nope... false conclusion... but .. instead of my longer explanation of my PoV ... perhaps it will be more constructive to just directly ask you.

2 questions:

#1> What do you think is the maximum sustainable carrying capacity number of humans for this entire planet Earth ?

#2> What is the real world data source that number is based on ?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Perhaps we have different definitions of 'sustainable'.

That seems possible... and would explain some of the disagreement.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I suggest that your #1 and #3 are simply not sustainable, whatever the population level might be.

Do you have evidence to support your suggestion about #1 (no meat eating humans) ?

After all .. Just that one change could allow us to feed the current world's Human population (~7B) on the food producing space .. as if it were only a total population of roughly ~3B .. that's rather huge ... given that there are lots of vegetarian and vegan humans who have actually demonstrated being able to sustain that as a healthy life ... I would like to know what the evidence / facts you based this suggestion on are ??

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As for #2, there basically is no unutilized space on the surface of the planet (with a few small exceptions, such as fresh lava flows).

Surface of the planet restriction .. is not a requirement for total planet sustainability limits ... bellow ground , under sea , in air , etc .. are still space that is part of this planet ... and much of that is not being utilized.

But ... Even the surface is not all being utilized as you claimed.
(Note: I don't want it all to be)

• Every mm of roof that is not harvesting solar energy is not being fully utilized.
• Every mm of road that is not a solar road .. is not being fully utilized.
• Vast stretches of the ocean .. are not being fully utilized.
• Vast areas of arctic North and South are not fully utilized.
• Vast areas of barren deserts are not fully utilized.
• Every vehicle that has an empty seat (5 seat with just 1 driver) is space that is not being fully utilized.
• Etc ... etc...

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Yup... And that's good news.

And that's good news.

psss it's more good news.

No, this is why you are an optimist, that you think enabling the population to bubble further is "good news". That the human animal will not press everything else out of existence, that is the bad news. That you believe every bit of data and turn it into "news". It is completely disingenuous. We just need zero entropy, lol.

[P-hack]

"sustainable" farming is the biggest joke of all.

Lets all become vegan so we can pack the world full of idiots and nothing else, screw that noise.

Imagine you are on a lifeboat, and someone keeps breeding...

[sendler]

From the article linked in the first post:
.
"Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible."
.
"Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear."
.
"The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race."
.
.
.
We need to start now. As a One World Race. And focus the current 200 years of remaining fossil fuel energy wealth immediately toward a complete revamping () of the infrastructure. And go all in with our second primordial energy gift, Nuclear Fission, to buy us another 300 years to bridge the gap to 100% renewables and Fusion when that runs out.
.
We are going to need some mighty long extension cords to power enough electric machinery to replace our fossil fuel powered farming equipment. We have 200 years. Will we do it?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Imagine you are on a lifeboat, and someone keeps breeding...

Preaching to aspire to 4 wives and 30 children is so far beyond antiquated and irresponsible there is no word for it.

[P-hack]

I cannot imagine a more matrix like future than what the bean curd crowd is proposing, here's your tiny space and your food tube.

[sendler]

We have 200 years to multiply this times 500% for emerging nations increased consumption and population growth, and replace all of the fossil fuel and build infrastructure to distribute the new energy.
.
.

.
.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

#1> What do you think is the maximum sustainable carrying capacity number of humans for this entire planet Earth ?

My guess is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 million.

#2> What is the real world data source that number is based on?

I don't think there are any real world data sources of the sort you want. Unfortunately, ecology is not yet an engineering discipline, so you can't just plug numbers into the equivalent of an FEM program, and get back an exact answer. We have to go by trial & error, and (if we're sensible) allow for a good safety margin.

So, as I noted earlier, ecosystems are gradually failing all over the place, which IMHO strongly suggest that we're well into the error half of trial & error.

Do you have evidence to support your suggestion about #1 (no meat eating humans) ?

Oh, several hundred thousand years of human history, depending on just where you draw the line between human and pre-human. Is there any time in that history when entire populations voluntarily gave up meat-eating? (Note that I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible to feed a population this way, I'm saying that people will not do it. It'd be like multiplying the "War On Drugs" insanity by a hundredfold.)


Surface of the planet restriction .. is not a requirement for total planet sustainability limits ... bellow ground , under sea , in air , etc .. are still space that is part of this planet ... and much of that is not being utilized.

But ... Even the surface is not all being utilized as you claimed.
(Note: I don't want it all to be)

Every mm of roof that is not harvesting solar energy is not being fully utilized.

Every mm^2 of roof (or road, parking lot, etc) displaces the plant & animal life that was fully utilizing that mm^2 before humans built on it.

Vast stretches of the ocean .. are not being fully utilized.

Yes, they are utilized by fish, whales, plankton, etc.

Vast areas of arctic North and South are not fully utilized.

Fully utilized by caribou, musk ox, polar bears, penguins, &c.

Vast areas of barren deserts are not fully utilized.

Fully utilized by sagebrush, cactus, jackrabbits, coyotes, sage grouse, &c.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

you think enabling the population to bubble further is "good news".

Incorrect .. I made no such claim .. and I do not think that.

Originally Posted by P-hack

That the human animal will not press everything else out of existence, that is the bad news.

That we will not is bad news ??
You want the human animal to press everything else out of existence ???

I'll have to disagree with you on that ... I know I don't want that ... that would be good news if we don't press everything else out ... but , if the resulting system were sustainable , it would be relevant to the issue being discussed about maximum sustainable global human population... if the maxtrix style system is sustainable .. no matter how much I may not want it ... that does not prevent it from being a sustainable system.

Originally Posted by P-hack

That you believe every bit of data and turn it into "news". It is completely disingenuous.

Incorrect.
I made no such claim .. I do not believe every bit of data .. and not ever bit of data is 'news'.

Sense none of that applies to me , what I think , or what I've claimed .. I also don't see how 'disingenuous' could be correctly being used either.

- - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

My guess is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 million.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't think there are any real world data sources of the sort you want.

I was asking what evidence the number you come up with is based on .. what evidence did you use to come to the 500 Million number ??? why didn't you go with 500,000 or 5 Billion ... etc ... you picked a number ... what is the data that choice is based on?

FYI ... if those 500Million humans are ~90% calories from meat eaters ... your 500Million are consuming more planetary resources than 13 Billion 100% vegan plant eater humans.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So, as I noted earlier, ecosystems are gradually failing all over the place, which IMHO strongly suggest that we're well into the error half of trial & error.

Under that logic the failing/changing ecosystem of the dinosaurs was the fault of too many humans on the planet ... even though there were ZERO humans on the planet at that time.

The conclusion is not valid based on the listed premise.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Note that I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible to feed a population this way, I'm saying that people will not do it.

Except the word maximum does not carry with it the restriction of ( likely , easy , etc ) ... Maximum is the Maximum .. ie as in there would be no possible way to organize the system in order to achieve anything more than the maximum ... because the maximum is ... the maximum.

I'm not saying we want to go to the maximum ... I'm saying it is useful to be honest with what the actual maximum is .. that doesn't include every possible luxury ... it's the maximum.

If meat carried with it it's actual cost ... ie being 34x the $ of planet calories .. we would be a very low meat eating species ... as the total number of humans continue to grow ... this horribly low efficiency luxury item is not needed for survival.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Every mm^2 of roof (or road, parking lot, etc) displaces the plant & animal life that was fully utilizing that mm^2 before humans built on it.

I agree ... but it is not relevant to the question of utilization for the human population.

Either that roof (and every roof) is being fully utilized ... harvesting solar energy , etc ... or it is not ... and if it is not ... than the space is only partially being utilized... thus the we are not fully utilizing all the space we could be.

Given that there are many roofs that are thus only being partially utilized ... their is still more potential utilization of that space.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes, they are utilized by fish, whales, plankton, etc.

Fully utilized by caribou, musk ox, polar bears, penguins, &c.

Fully utilized by sagebrush, cactus, jackrabbits, coyotes, sage grouse, &c.

I agree with the concept .. and personally I am also an advocate for low/zero impact ... but that is not what is being discussed here.

The question was about utilization of the space for the purpose of maximum sustainable human population... think of a purpose built multi-generation space ship traveling out into the stars ... then scale it up to the size of the entire planet Earth.

I notice you dodged the point about subterranean going lower .. building higher up ... as also not being currently fully utilized space on the planet... those only partially utilized spaces on the planet count.

Unless it is impossible for humans to sustainably survive without the musk ox ... what it needs is not relevant to the issue being discussed... I'm not anti- musk ox .. but zero/low impact is not what the question was.