Google gives up on renewables

[NeilBlanchard]

Factory farming is the root of most of our food problems. We are artificially boosting production - but it kills the natural processes in the soil, and this depletes the soil, instead of building the soil.

It causes erosion. It poisons the water. It also wastes water. It emits a strong greenhouse gas - nitrous oxide. It causes pollution.

Factory farming is extractive, and it is unsustainable.

[P-hack]

the elephant in the room as always is the scale, due to the size of the population, which is estimated to grow by up to %50-%100. And if you figure out a more productive use of the land, then quite possibly more than that.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Current data shows declining growth rate sense the 1970s.

Like this graph? http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ND&hl=en&dl=en

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

We intentionally plant things to feeds the cows and such to get our meat .. it is no accident that those plants are not indented for human consumption ... we can (for fun) look at how meat eaters actually get the meat produced in the real world .. and the massive environmental damage their meat eating is actually doing compared to if they didn't eat meat.

You're still drawing examples from the unsustainable* factory farming model. Consider instead one where most of those 'meat calories' are spending most of their lives out being part of the ecosystem, until they are hunted or herded. Now we know that this is sustainable, since it's the way the world has been operating for many millions of years.


*At least we don't know that it is, or could possibly be made to be, sustainable, and on current evidence have pretty good reason to think that it's probably not.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Like this graph? World Development Indicators - Google Public Data Explorer

Good.

But a bit different from what I was referring to.
Fertility rate is only one factor of the overall total population growth rate ... for example if fertility dropped by 10% but life expectancy increased by 20% .. there would still be a net population increase in growth rate .. even with a reduced fertility rate.

Thankfully ... with all factors included... It is the actual total net population growth rate that has been declining sense the 1970s ... which can be seen just by looking at the total population amounts ... and then running the math to find out what the yearly % increase would have to be to get that ... as if it were number of $ in a bank account with interest instead of number of people... See attached example of that concept.

And the best part about that (to me) ... is that it is not significantly the result of global human intentional efforts ... as if the whole world were a police state on lock down ... nor is it the result of running into resource shortages ... some of the largest reductions in growth rates are happening in some of the countries with the most resources (1st world countries, still wasting lots of resources on luxury items).

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You're still drawing examples from the unsustainable* factory farming model. Consider instead one where most of those 'meat calories' are spending most of their lives out being part of the ecosystem, until they are hunted or herded. Now we know that this is sustainable, since it's the way the world has been operating for many millions of years.

I'd say how we actually do it today ... gives valid numbers (that are not theory) on the unsustainable effects of those who insist on the luxury of meat easting ... just like those who insist on other very wasteful luxury items.

As for some other 'ideal' theoretical state ... sure ... I see three main options:

#1> We can fabricate a more 'natural' sustainable ecosystem where meat eating humans are not as damaging as they are today ... something like what you described .. which is not the max sustainable of all options for the system ... thus we would be trading less humans lives etc , for the luxury of meat eating ... if meat eating is really that important of a luxury item .. I have my doubts about meat eating being that valuable ??

#2> We fabricate a more 'natural' ecosystem ... but we are more net total system efficient than #1 above... because if there is even 1 animal that we would sustainably kill to eat it's meat ... apparently there is at least that 1 surplus animal ... those resources would instead be more efficiently used for feeding humans via plants ... instead of the 20:1 or 80:1 path through the animal for meat eating ... this option keeps the animals alive and in the eco system ... but is still more net total system resource efficient than meat eating humans.

#3> Completely actually maximized system resources for sustainable human population ... the Earth is terraformed and Geo-engineered by us for us .. As if it were a giant sphere shaped multi-generation space ship... humans reduced to virtual lives in a maxtrix like system ... This actually yields the highest possible sustainable number of total human population... as ugly of an option as it is.

- - - - -
Disclaimer (repeat):
As I've written many times previously before ... I do not myself want to ever reach a max sustainable human population ... I myself would prefer a low to zero impact more 'natural' system ... that is my own personal preference ... but I recognize that .. that a low or zero impact option ... is not the actual maximum sustainable system.

[slowmover]

No one person, group or nation is going to willingly give up electricity. Or good food. Consequences be damned, for that is humanity. Hell of a species we turned out to be.

I'm always reminded of lyrics to a favorite from junior high years

". . Ol' Charlie stole the handle,
and the train it won't stop going
No way to slow down . . . . "

The existential threat of irreversible climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation isn't taken seriously. Jumped up monkeys. Tomorrow is always too far away and the aggravations of yesterday loom larger yet.

We ought to be getting short on oil at an auspicious moment in relation to the above. Renewables won't make much difference . . . closing time at the bar will be extended fifteen minutes.

Race, religion and tribal/clan affinities based on marriage & blood are more worthy of study or discussion than hopium. The temporary suspension of history is about to end. It will be back with bells on.

Interesting times, indeed.

.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

As for some other 'ideal' theoretical state ... sure ... I see three main options:

The problem, though, is in demonstrating that your options 2 & 3 actually are sustainable. Given the current state of knowledge of ecosystem engineering, this can't be done (AFAIK, anyway). So it seems extremely likely that any such system would suffer catastrophic failure within a few generations, thus demonstrating - the hard way - that it wasn't sustainable.

Indeed, I think we are experiencing the beginnings of such a catastrophic failure right now. Without major changes, I fully expect most vertebrate life to be extinct within a thousand years or so.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The problem, though, is in demonstrating that your options 2 & 3 actually are sustainable. Given the current state of knowledge of ecosystem engineering, this can't be done (AFAIK, anyway). So it seems extremely likely that any such system would suffer catastrophic failure within a few generations, thus demonstrating - the hard way - that it wasn't sustainable.

That would be a possible problem for #3 ... #2 is only removing the exact same number of animals (even the same animal) as you were going to remove in the #1 type of option .. thus it can not possibly be any less sustainable than your type of #1 option .. but given the known horrible 20:1 or 80:1 crappy low efficiency of the luxury losses that are part of #1 type option ... odds are much better #2 will be more sustainable than #1.

Also .. I will still disagree with you assumption of failure as some kind of guaranteed outcome .. just because we are not 100% all knowing gods... much less the further assumption of it being a catastrophic failure.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Indeed, I think we are experiencing the beginnings of such a catastrophic failure right now. Without major changes, I fully expect most vertebrate life to be extinct within a thousand years or so.

I disagree .. as they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and I have not yet seen sufficient extraordinary evidence that would justify that degree of extraordinary claim.

What is your basis for this rather extreme type of catastrophic extraordinary conclusion/expectation ??

[P-hack]

well the population is still growing, and aside from hockey stick type theories, there isn't much reason to think that it will stop in time for google to make a difference with a few solar panels.

[Frank Lee]

The part that always makes me is the reason given for reproductive excess. Usually it's something lame like having five of one gender already and not giving up until they get one or more of the other gender. Goooooood reason, yessirree.