Why civilization itself is unsustainable

[lionking]

So, a world-wide "pension bomb"?

No. A world-wide impoverished old people crisis. No big deal, er?

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's going to create a demographic dominated by old people for perhaps the first time in human history, and there will be significant social stresses resulting from that.

For instance, no one will be allowed on anyone else's lawn, and everyone's music will be too loud.

 

[Joey McGee]

No. A world-wide impoverished old people crisis. No big deal, er?

I propose an army of iRobots to take care of them. That will also give us time to make more babies. A perfect, risk-free solution.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I propose an army of iRobots to take care of them. That will also give us time to make more babies. A perfect, risk-free solution.

Who is us? I am not sure you were following lionking's line of thought.

 

[Joey McGee]

Who is us? I am not sure you were following lionking's line of thought.

In the context of the line of thought it would be the Japanese. What I'm really saying is, if we invented robots to do literally everything you can imagine them doing, growing food, feeding people, cleaning stuff, making stuff. We could mitigate poverty and have more free-time to take care of other people. We could better take care of elderly family and friends as well as have robots take care of them (in the countries where this will be a problem, I suppose I'm not much of a nationalist so I see the Japanese as "us") The Japanese are actually the people working hardest on this concept right now, obviously. They are robot crazy. Plus I think the goal of humanity is to increase our "free-time" until all of our time is "free" and robots do "work"

Then with all of the free time, hey what else will we be doing more of?

 

[TFian]

Really? This company seems to be involved in oil exploration in the continental US.

So, under what definition of exploration has oil exploration ceased in the continental US?

I suppose oil exploration is still happening in the US. But really, it's such a minor point and really had almost nothing to do with the core points of the article I linked to.

But to get real, Oil prices have gone from $8 (1998 low) to $140 to $120 ish.

What massive technological breakthroughs has this rather substantial and decade long price increase brought?

Hybrids?

As John Micheal Greer notes in his blog, this belief that a mysterious 'they' will come up with a technology at the last moment is pervasive in modern society, but is usually held by people who are doing absolutely nothing to advance said technology.

Reality is; hydro-carbon bonds are not freely available in nature in unlimited quantities.

Sucks I know.

The fact that we've been using it AS IF they were unlimited doesn't make them so, and the fervent hope that this state of affairs continues is hardly a plan.

 

[The_Animus]

What's to discuss? Making soap is a voluntary activity. Anybody who can afford the necessary resources may make a different brand of soap if they want to. Anybody who can afford to buy a different brand of soap may buy one if they want to.

The way I figure, there's only about four ways to stop 150 different brands of soap:

• A natural shortage of resources, such that nobody can afford to make a different kind of soap.
• An artificial shortage of resources, enforced by the State, to the same effect.
• A lack of wanting to make a different brand of soap.
• A lack of wanting to buy a different brand of soap.

So, where would you like to begin the discussion?

My point was that humanity is utterly retarded in the way it uses resources. We have amazing science and technology such that we could easily provide healthy food, durable housing, clean water, and energy for everyone on the planet with rather minimal upkeep needed.

Instead we have millions who starve every year, billions without access to clean water, but we can make 150 different brands of soap, and lipstick, and carpet.

It's not like soap has changed much. There are different scents, and some may lather more than another, or one may contain grains of sand to help scrub, but for the most part it's all BS advertising. We could just have say 20 brands of soap instead and use the resources that would be consumed on the factories, labor, input materials, advertising, testing, and so forth towards solving real problems.

I guess it would fall under the last 2 options. However, I don't have anything against having lots of choices of soap, or someone wanting to make a new brand.

Think of it like this. A man is standing in his yard. He sees a person on fire on the sidewalk. He should use his garden hose to put out the person on fire rather than watering his already green and lively grass. But if no one is on fire, then by all means let the man water his grass.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Reality is; hydro-carbon bonds are not freely available in nature in unlimited quantities.

Sucks I know.

The breaking of a hydro-carbon bond releases between 3 and 4 electron volts.

The fissioning of a U-233 or Pu-239 nuclei releases 60 million to 80 million electron volts.

Our supplies of Th-232 and U-238 effectively are unlimited.

It sucks, I know (only for you).

 

[Roboramma]

The breaking of a hydro-carbon bond releases between 3 and 4 electron volts.

The fissioning of a U-233 or Pu-239 nuclei releases 60 million to 80 million electron volts.

Our supplies of Th-232 and U-238 effectively are unlimited.

It sucks, I know (only for you).

This.

 

[Roboramma]

I suppose oil exploration is still happening in the US. But really, it's such a minor point and really had almost nothing to do with the core points of the article I linked to.

Thanks.

But to get real, Oil prices have gone from $8 (1998 low) to $140 to $120 ish.

What massive technological breakthroughs has this rather substantial and decade long price increase brought?

Hybrids?[/quote] Sure, and developments in solar, wind, and nuclear technology. Algae and other biofuels. Are any of these technologies mature? Nuclear is. The others are making progress. We have also seen improvements in efficiency in a number of different technologies. We have lighting that is much more efficient now than what we had in 1998, for instance.

I'm also curious if that 1998 low is a typical number for the time period. Rather than look it up, could you simply tell me: was $8 near the average price for that decade?

As John Micheal Greer notes in his blog, this belief that a mysterious 'they' will come up with a technology at the last moment is pervasive in modern society, but is usually held by people who are doing absolutely nothing to advance said technology.

I would suggest that the belief that technology is not progressing is blindness, particularly in the modern world where that progress is visible on the order of years.

 

[mike3]

So then question, then, is, how much have these new developments caused the percent use of oil to change from 1998 to now? Is it changing fast enough, or can it feasibly be made fast enough, to avoid a crunch in about 40-50 years (about the time required to exhaust conventional oil supplies at the current rate of consumption)?

The thing is: why has there been seemingly very little implementation of available technology?

 

[Number Six]

Instead we have millions who starve every year, billions without access to clean water, but we can make 150 different brands of soap, and lipstick, and carpet.

It's not like soap has changed much. There are different scents, and some may lather more than another, or one may contain grains of sand to help scrub, but for the most part it's all BS advertising. We could just have say 20 brands of soap instead and use the resources that would be consumed on the factories, labor, input materials, advertising, testing, and so forth towards solving real problems.

If a soap or shampoo or whatever is advertised as "New and Improved" they have to have the research to back it up and be able to prove if in court in case their competitors challenge them. So those things are getting better and better over time. Of course, someone could just say that all that research into making better soap and all the testing on it and the hiring of lawyers to defend the claims is yet more example of the wasteful use of resources.

But while individual things can look pretty dumb, I can't help but looking at the big picture and noting that on the whole things are getting better and better in the world. Is it in spite of all the things we're talking about or because of them or neither? I don't know.

Consider though that a company doing research into a product in order to make a "New and Improved" version and get more money for themselves in the short term has the permanent term effect of making that product cheaper for everyone everywhere. And when you compound that effect over lots of products it adds up.

 

[Nosi]

I propose an army of iRobots to take care of them. That will also give us time to make more babies. A perfect, risk-free solution.

Japan was working on just such a solution until they were badly shaken up by their big quake. Now they are acutely short on energy to run the robotics.

 

[theprestige]

My point was that humanity is utterly retarded in the way it uses resources. We have amazing science and technology such that we could easily provide healthy food, durable housing, clean water, and energy for everyone on the planet with rather minimal upkeep needed.

Instead we have millions who starve every year, billions without access to clean water, but we can make 150 different brands of soap, and lipstick, and carpet.

It's not like soap has changed much. There are different scents, and some may lather more than another, or one may contain grains of sand to help scrub, but for the most part it's all BS advertising. We could just have say 20 brands of soap instead and use the resources that would be consumed on the factories, labor, input materials, advertising, testing, and so forth towards solving real problems.

I guess it would fall under the last 2 options. However, I don't have anything against having lots of choices of soap, or someone wanting to make a new brand.

Think of it like this. A man is standing in his yard. He sees a person on fire on the sidewalk. He should use his garden hose to put out the person on fire rather than watering his already green and lively grass. But if no one is on fire, then by all means let the man water his grass.

Thanks for clarifying. Your analogy seems interesting, but I struggle with the abstraction it introduces to the discussion. Would you be able to make it more concrete and relevant? Perhaps you could start by identifying a specific people group that lacks access to clean water, and then we could see how your analogy applies to their situation.

 

[The_Animus]

If a soap or shampoo or whatever is advertised as "New and Improved" they have to have the research to back it up and be able to prove if in court in case their competitors challenge them. So those things are getting better and better over time. Of course, someone could just say that all that research into making better soap and all the testing on it and the hiring of lawyers to defend the claims is yet more example of the wasteful use of resources.

But while individual things can look pretty dumb, I can't help but looking at the big picture and noting that on the whole things are getting better and better in the world. Is it in spite of all the things we're talking about or because of them or neither? I don't know.

Consider though that a company doing research into a product in order to make a "New and Improved" version and get more money for themselves in the short term has the permanent term effect of making that product cheaper for everyone everywhere. And when you compound that effect over lots of products it adds up.

I had thought that labels such as "New" and "Improved" had a lot of leeway as to their meaning. For example the exact same product offered in a different color is considered new. If a product has 1% of a certain ingredient and changes the formula so that it now has 2% it could be labeled "new and improved formula". Obviously there are many products where real benefits are added to improve the product, but there are also lots of instances where it is cosmetic or marketing rather than a real increased value.

Thanks for clarifying. Your analogy seems interesting, but I struggle with the abstraction it introduces to the discussion. Would you be able to make it more concrete and relevant? Perhaps you could start by identifying a specific people group that lacks access to clean water, and then we could see how your analogy applies to their situation.

I'll give it a shot. How about Chevron Oil in reference to their operations in Nigeria.

http://intl-news.blogspot.com/2006/05/chevron-oil-spill-destroys-nigerian.html

"It took this same company, Chevron Oil, almost a year to admit that a spillage, which was well reported in the media, occurred last year. And now that they even have admitted, they have refused to clean up the area or pay compensation to the affected individuals and communities on the ground that the quantum was small", Oke noted.

So they spilled oil, contaminated land and water, delay admitting about it, and then refuse to clean up their mess. Meanwhile, Chevron makes massive amounts of profits as can be seen by their income statements.

http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Chevron-Corp/Financial-Statement/Income-Statement

In addition, in 2007, CEO David O'Reilly made $45 million from various compensation and exercising options and stocks.

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/...r-45-million-in-compensation-and-other-perks/

So while this doesn't have to do with a specific product, it does concern poor use of resources. Chevron should use its resources to ensure it's business operations aren't harming other people, such as cleaning up environmental damage caused by its operations, giving back to the people and villages whose land and resources are being utilized (rather than just bribing corrupt governments for use of the land and resources), and helping to protect against armed conflict surrounding the oil resources. Once all this is taken care of, then they can look at grossly overcompensating their CEO. Though I still think it would be better if they gave less, say only $5 mil compensation, and used the rest to build water purification or desalinization plants in areas near their operations which could badly use them.

 

[Number Six]

Maybe they can call something "new" if it's just different but not any better but to use "improved" I'm pretty sure (not positive) they have to be able to show it's better if challenged. The check that stops everyone from just constantly calling their stuff "improved" is that their competitors can take them to court and make them prove it and if they can't prove it they presumably have to pay some kind of penalty.

The way I learned about that is I interviewed with a company once and being involved with testing their products would have been part of the job and they were telling me about how their competitor was suing them for the claims they made in their advertising and how they were ready to go to court because they felt confident they could prove their claim, yada, yada, yada.