How much oil is left?

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by LostCause

I'm confused as to why people want to turn every square inch of the earth into productive land. I don't understand the motivation to turn rural land, into surburban land, into urban land, into a metropolis. Who actually thought that quality of life is increased by maximizing population density?

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to run everything from super capacitors and produce all of our energy from Hydro power, nuclear and solar (wind mills disrupt the look of the landscape). BUT, if I have to choose between strip mining a few hundred square miles for coal for syn gas production OR planting tens of thousands of square miles of the amazon for growing bio-fuels then I'd much prefer strip mining coal.

And that third picture, what can I say, more cushion for the 'pushin (eek!)

And population growth, I don't want to get into that argument, but the problem isn't population growth in first world countries, we'd be dying off if it weren't for immigration. First world populations could be sustainable with proper infrastructure and technology - the problem is not the American woman with 2.1 children, but the Indian, Nigerian or Saudi Arabian woman with 6 or 10. If anything population collapse in the first world might be even worse for the world, since that might mean progressive environmentally conscious cultures are replaced by others. If you're a cultural relativist though your opinion might differ. If we want to discuss that though, it would be better to do it somewhere else

[LostCause]

Great post, but I differ in viewpoint on a few areas.

Originally Posted by hvatum

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to run everything from super capacitors and produce all of our energy from Hydro power, nuclear and solar (wind mills disrupt the look of the landscape). BUT, if I have to choose between strip mining a few hundred square miles for coal for syn gas production OR planting tens of thousands of square miles of the amazon for growing bio-fuels then I'd much prefer strip mining coal.

My logic is that this isn't an either/or decision. I'd prefer to preserve the rainforest and the mountains, even if it means economic depression. So what if a few hundred millionaires lose their motor yachts, Billy loses his lifted truck, and Bob has to convert from a McMansion to a ranch style house. People don't, or at least shouldn't need $50,000/yr to live a fulfilling, happy life. I say spread the wealth, form honest goals, and maintain them.

I'm not against utilizing nature: cutting down trees, mining ore, farming land. I am against blatant exploitation of nature. We see nature as a slave. That was a backwards view in the 1860's and it still is today.

And population growth, I don't want to get into that argument, but the problem isn't population growth in first world countries, we'd be dying off if it weren't for immigration. First world populations could be sustainable with proper infrastructure and technology - the problem is not the American woman with 2.1 children, but the Indian, Nigerian or Saudi Arabian woman with 6 or 10. If anything population collapse in the first world might be even worse for the world, since that might mean progressive environmentally conscious cultures are replaced by others. If you're a cultural relativist though your opinion might differ. If we want to discuss that though, it would be better to do it somewhere else

I agree with you except on two points.

1.) Low birth rates don't exist due to societal/environmental concerns as they should, but rather due to personal/economic concerns. People have less children today because they are expensive and time consuming, not because they actively choose to improve society.

I'm happy birth rates are low in the first world, but I'm not going to consciously believe that it is an indicator of our social responsibility.

2.) First world nations are not progressive, environmentally conscious cultures. If you mean conscious as in changing a light bulb or buying non-cfc hairspray, maybe, but not in any meaningful way. One American probably has the same environmental impact as 30 rural Indians.

If Al Gore had made worthwhile suggestions at the end of an "Inconvenient Truth," people would have completely disregarded him. Imagine if he had said get rid of your car, your refrigerator, your air conditioner, all products imported outside a 25 mile radius, your TV, and your utilities. Very few Americans are going to make a sacrifice beyond extremely minor inconveniences (e.g. recycling) and blaming politicians/businesses.

Don't get me wrong, those rural Indians would be no different in our shoes. I'm most worried about the rise of the Third World. For a world already submerged to her gunwales, I don't think adding weight is a good idea.

If anyone objects to the offtopic nature of my last few posts, feel free to speak up.

- LostCause

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by LostCause

Great post, but I differ in viewpoint on a few areas.

My logic is that this isn't an either/or decision. I'd prefer to preserve the rainforest and the mountains, even if it means economic depression. Sowhat if a few hundred millionaires lose their motor yachts, Billy loses his lifted truck, and Bob has to convert from a McMansion to a ranch style house. People don't, or at least shouldn't need $50,000/yr to live a fulfilling, happy life. I say spread the wealth, form honest goals, and maintain them.

If Al Gore had made worthwhile suggestions at the end of an "Inconvenient Truth," people would have completely disregarded him. Imagine if he had said get rid of your car, your refrigerator, your air conditioner, all products imported outside a 25 mile radius, your TV, and your utilities. Very few Americans are going to make a sacrifice beyond extremely minor inconveniences (e.g. recycling) and blaming politicians/businesses.

That's not really even necessary though. With proper technology and infrastructure we could live a similar lifestyle while vastly lessening our impact on the environment. Well said though, I do agree that given the choice between a acetic lifestyle or an exploitive one then we should give things up as you said. But most people aren't willing to make such sacrifices, so instead of asking them to, which will only lead to them ignoring us, we need to focus on things which will allow them to live a similar lifestyle while reducing their impact. In that sense I think Al Gore is spot on.

Originally Posted by LostCause

2.) First world nations are not progressive, environmentally conscious cultures. If you mean conscious as in changing a light bulb or buying non-cfc hairspray, maybe, but not in any meaningful way. One American probably has the same environmental impact as 30 rural Indians.

Perhaps, but the first world is the one developing the technologies which will allow us to live with much less impact on the environment. The third world populations are quickly going through economic development with little concern for environmental impact - I don't blame them, but that's the reality of it. Also, any geo-engineering project (mirrors in space or some such) would be executed by the first world, for these reasons simply having zero children and having our next generation be imported from Nigeria would likely be worse for the environment (again, not for racial reasons, but cultural - nature vs. nurture). I'm not advocating growth in first world populations, just maintained.