Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11

Author Topic: MIT and the end of the world  (Read 15968 times)

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #105 on: August 11, 2012, 07:14:05 pm »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote
In the 19th century, city transit systems were rail-based, first with Horsecars and later cable railway or trams powered by electricity. Electrically powered Trolleybuses were also common.
At one time, nearly every city in the U.S. with population over 10,000 had at least one streetcar company: nearly all were privately owned and were later dismantled.[1] Author and former U.S. Senate antitrust attorney Bradford Snell estimates that in 1920, 90% of all trips were via rail using 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile

tl;dr: almost every American city used to have electric light rail networks, they were systematically bought up and scrapped by consortiums of car companies.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 07:27:48 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Ancre

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #106 on: August 11, 2012, 07:24:01 pm »

Oh, no, american cities were built before cars were a thing. Atlanta had all sort of fun little historic signs scattered across downtown and midtown, about how the name of the city came to be, or the guy who burned the city during the secession war, or whatnot. Similarly, I read a lot of stories about how american cities had streetcars systems before they were taken apart in the fifties or so. And the downtowns and city centers everywhere have lots of pretty buildings from the thirties and before (well, when they're not put down). Sure, they grew large during the 20th century, but that's true everywhere. The US have more history and cool architecture than they realize. They just don't like living in it.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #107 on: August 11, 2012, 07:36:26 pm »

tl;dr: almost every American city used to have electric light rail networks, they were systematically bought up and scrapped by consortiums of car companies.
That doesn't make any sense. If GM could just buy the rail networks that they saw as a threat to their business, why would they dismantle them? They could just use them and sell cars at the same time. Destroying them would cost them money and using them would make them money.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #108 on: August 11, 2012, 07:38:20 pm »

They replaced the electric rail services with buses and sold the buses. Also, making people more reliant on cars at a point in history where few people had cars lead to big increases in sales.

Most of this is on the public record, with court document spelling out the magnitude and conspiracy convictions.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 07:44:21 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #109 on: August 11, 2012, 07:43:21 pm »

tl;dr: almost every American city used to have electric light rail networks, they were systematically bought up and scrapped by consortiums of car companies.
That doesn't make any sense. If GM could just buy the rail networks that they saw as a threat to their business, why would they dismantle them? They could just use them and sell cars at the same time. Destroying them would cost them money and using them would make them money.
Presumably they'd be able to get a net profit by junking the rail networks and selling the (presumably less efficient, i.e. needing more units to cover the same area/population.) busses and cars.

Basically they, apparently, got more money by spending money to dismantle the lines and then selling something else. Profit uber alles, et al.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #110 on: August 11, 2012, 08:16:01 pm »

run out of resources

...ok, serious question:

What resources are we going to "run out of?"

Here are some things we're not going to run out of:

1) Dirt/water/sunlight/food/plant fibers: these things are obviously replenishable/recyclable.

2) Iron, tin, aluminum, copper, uranium: there's not particularly any shortage of these things. Currently located sources are generally near the 100 year supply mark, and "currently located" does not mean there's no more 100 years from now. It means there's no point prospecting for more when we have 100 years worth already. Some of them, like iron, can be usefully measured in "percentage volume of the planet earth." These are NOT small quantities we're talking about. And, even if they did magically vanish it wouldn't be a huge problem because they're generally recyclable. And even if they weren't, if there were going to be shortages, we'd have decades of advance notice to find alternatives. We've only been using nuclear power for 60 years. Civilization will not end if we're using some other source of power 100 years from now. Civilization will not end if we're using carbon and ceramic instead of steel and wood as building materials.

3) Gold, diamonds, neodymium: things like these may exist is relatively smaller supply than other materials on this list, but even so they're not in particularly short supply relative for our need of them. They're just not that important. Which is why gold and diamonds are used primarily for jewelry rather than industry. And neodymium is not as rare as its "rare earth" status might led you to think. In any case, it would be no more than mildly inconvenient to certain industries if we ran out these things. Even if all of these things were to vanish completely from the planet 10 years from now...life would go on.

4) Empty space: This is SO not an issue. 90% of the human population of planet earth live in only 10% of the space. There's no shortage of space. People just prefer to live next to each other. If you want more people, there's plenty of room to put them, and without any dystopian soylent green overpopulation nonsense.

And that's assuming that we continue doing things the way we do. Everyone here is a Dwarf Fortress player. So I trust you'll all understand that there are three dimensions for us to work with. There's a LOT of available space if you simply go up or down. And incidentally there's nothing stopping us from using that vertical space for things other than storing people. You can grow food in the z-axis and build parks and pools and anything else you want up there too. There's no reason to build exclusively at surface level. Even constrained to the ground, there's easily room for dozens of billions of people and all the constructed farms and amenities that go along with that. Use vertical space and there's room for trillions.

So what is it you guys are worried we're going to run out of?

Spoiler: the real answer (click to show/hide)

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #111 on: August 11, 2012, 08:21:05 pm »

As before, even in a hypothetical post-scarcity society where we are using resources with maximized efficiency, Earth will never be able to hold trillions of people! (Not that it will actually even come up, since population growth is going to level off.)
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #112 on: August 11, 2012, 09:16:42 pm »

Earth will never be able to hold trillions of people

Why do you believe that?

Read my explanation and try to refute it. What's stopping us from simply using the available space?



oil

60 seconds on google will show you more alternatives than you will ever actually take the time to read.

Quote
rare earth metals

As mentioned, these things are just not that important. I don't imagine society collapsing due to a sudden shortage of gadolinite or yttrium.

Quote
by run out, I mean 'get to the point of being so low that
it's not viable to extract what little of it there is from the area')

Technology improves. There's no incentive to invest in development of improved refining and extraction technologies for materials we have a 100 years supply of. As mentioned before, it was originally predicted that we'd run out of "usable" uranium in 1976. yet here we are 36 year later using uranium at a much greater rate than we were, but we now have an 85 year supply. And there's 300 times as much uranium of the next lower grade. 85 years is a long time to figure out how to use it.

Quote
I'm talking about economies going to shit, that sort of thing.

That's an artificial problem, and fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things. We had a depression in the US in the 30s. Life went on. Would it really be such a big deal if we have another one 100 years from now because oil gets more expensive?

Quote
we may just be fucked over regardless

Why? What exactly is it you're worried about?

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #113 on: August 11, 2012, 09:21:21 pm »

It's worth noting that China produces the vast majority of the worlds rare earth metals just because they chose to subsidize it's production and other places didn't.  20 years ago they were producing very little.  So if we are running out of our current resources that just means we go back to exploiting the other 93% of the world's landmass.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #114 on: August 11, 2012, 11:25:39 pm »

we may be fucked over regardless because, as stated previously, meteor, some unknown supervolcano (e.g. Siberia (apparently all of Siberia is expected to be a supervolcano. last time it erupted, it is suspected it caused a MAJOR extinction)), zombie apocalypse, aliens that have a desire to fuck up our shit, etc. etc.

And whilst rare earth metals aren't the only things that could cause an economic collapse, it sure as hell wouldn't help. good point on the constant improvement of refining and extraction technologies, though.
It's closely speculated that the eruption in Siberia was caused by a meteroid impact on the other side of the planet.

Rare Earth's are quite important though, and are vital for most Green technologies. (Wind solar tidal.) Several other rare earths are used in the construction of nuclear reactors.
Also, what's stopping from using all the available space is that not all space is equally useable.
Logged

Heron TSG

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Seal Goddess
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #115 on: August 11, 2012, 11:36:24 pm »

You don't strictly need rare earth metals to make a windmill generator. All you need is a magnet. Rare earth metals allow you to make incredibly powerful magnets, but AlNiCo (Aluminum Nickel Cobalt alloys, sometimes with titanium added) make very good magnets as well. You'll just need twice as many windmills. Or better yet, make your own permanent magnets by producing an AlNiCo alloy, melting it, and letting its magnetic domains develop within the field of a rare earth magnet. With one rare earth magnet, you empower tons of somewhat lesser magnets to run the windmills.
Logged

Est Sularus Oth Mithas
The Artist Formerly Known as Barbarossa TSG

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #116 on: August 11, 2012, 11:45:12 pm »

A good limit for population might be gained from looking at the total solar energy received by the Earth.

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html

That site estimates the total Earth's surface receives 20,000 times more energy than consumed by the human race at present. Assume that the average consumption per person is 1/10th the "western" average, and that in the future we will consume the same amount of energy per capita as the west (automation, life support etc). That leaves total solar radiation Earth receives at 2000 times the current levels. Multiply the population of the Earth by 1000 and you'd be using ~50% of EVERY joule of energy which the Earth receives. Wall-to-wall solar panels. Especially since no energy extraction scheme will be 100% efficient.

Even with all the known uranium and thorium for fuel, it'll last a blink of the eye at consumption rates of 10000 times the current world total. So solar would be the only sustainable source.

Ain't going to happen.

Next, we have to consider the oxygen supply.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm
a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen per day (at rest, more if you get out of bed).

So humans are currently consuming about 4 trillion litres of oxygen per day. are we really going to find a sink for 2000 trillion litres (~4 trillion KGs) of carbon dioxide per day? Thats 4 gigatons a day, or ~1200 gigatons per year. And this is just from breathing, not taking into account any other activities we may do that generate carbon.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Humanity currently outputs 29 gigatons of CO2, and nature processes 750 gigatons.

Now, average pop density, assuming we live on land:

510,072,000 sq km. * 29.2% land (assume we want to leave the oceans intact) = 148941024 sq km. Divide 5 trillion people into this gives 33570 people per square kilometre. FOR EVERY INCH OF LAND. Forget EVER walking on the ground again. that's ~30 sq metres of surface per person. So obviously walking on the ground will be against the law. And the population will be far too dense to even consider personal vehicles.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 12:19:04 am by Reelya »
Logged

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #117 on: August 11, 2012, 11:58:46 pm »

That site estimates the total Earth's surface receives 20,000 times more energy than consumed by the human race at present. Assume that the average consumption per person is 1/10th the "western" average, and that in the future we will consume the same amount of energy per capita as the west (automation, life support etc). That leaves total solar radiation Earth receives at 2000 times the current levels. Multiply the population of the Earth by 1000 and you'd be using ~50% of EVERY joule of energy which the Earth receives. Wall-to-wall solar panels. Especially since no energy extraction scheme will be 100% efficient.

Using your figures and assumptions, the population limit of earth would be 7 trillion people.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2012, 12:02:48 am »

See my thing about breathing. And that 7 trillion assumes wall-to-wall global solar panels over the entire planet, at 100% efficiency, thus killing all plant life and the ocean algae.

btw the oxygen-consumption figures are for "at rest" people. So obviously it's LOW
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 12:05:19 am by Reelya »
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: MIT and the end of the world
« Reply #119 on: August 12, 2012, 12:03:57 am »

Or off planet solar panels which could sustain however many people we could physically fit on earth.  But it would make more sense to move people off world at that point.  If you start mining out the moon and building O'Neil cylinders then you are looking at the capability to sustain populations in the tens of trillions without even resorting to high density living.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 12:05:52 am by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11