Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkrider2]

why the hell isn't the Y axis labeled?

Probably because all the things on there have different measurement units and trying to put them all on a comparable scale would be pointless.

Think of it more like different graphs overlayed on top of each other.

[Megaman]

Yes, but with no Y axis you are nothing.

[Eagle_eye]

I assume the y axis isn't labelled because it's a lot of different quantities on the same graph, and the actual quantities aren't as important as the relation between the predicted and observed values.

[G-Flex]

Frankly, the units on the y axis don't matter for the purposes of this graph, especially if you assume the origin is at zero. The entire point is the trend, and perhaps percentages of values, not the absolute value at any given point. That information would be useful in some ways, sure, but the graph is still valuable without it.

[alway]

1980: business as usual
1990: business as usual
2000: business as usual
2010: business as usual
2020: MAGIC HAPPENS
2030: OMG EVERATHANG IS ESPLODING
2040: OH CRAP, SHIT IS EVEN WORSE; but at least we managed to clean up nearly all our pollution!
2050: IT KEEPS HAPPENING D:
2100: Well, we are producing literally nothing, but at least this magically growing food supply will keep us well fed!
ಠ_ಠ

[G-Flex]

What are you talking about? There's nothing "magical" in those graphs; the inflection points are generally well before 2020. Also, the food is per capita; the supply isn't necessarily growing there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The graph appears to be gradually losing accuracy to the real world, and the observational data only goes up to 2000. An update to 2010 would be nice.

[alway]

No, it's basically a Malthusian collapse prediction, with all the flaws inherent in Malthusian collapse predictions.
It's primary prediction is that industrial production will use more resources than available. First of all, that's flawed because of both efficiency improvements and alterations in the types of resources which are needed. Both a qualitative and quantitative error; and that's reflected in the 'actual vs predicted' graph; theirs continues a curve downwards, while the real figure is much less steep, and much less of a curve. Even if we extrapolate the current curve in the same way they extrapolated theirs, the date of 'AND THEN MAGIC HAPPENS' is closer to 2100; and with that much technological change, nearly a full century of it, no simple extrapolation holds true. By then, even with a conservative estimate of how fast commercial spaceflight becomes mainstream, we will be mining asteroids.

[LordBucket]

resource problem.

There is no resource problem. There is a stupidity problem.

Planet Earth could easily accomodate several trillion humans. "Water scarcity" is an illusion. Water doesn't "go away" when used. It is recyclable. "Food scarcity" is similarly stupid. If there's not enough food, grow more. Dirt, water and sunlight are not in particularly short supply, and vat-grown meat is technologically viable already. Oil? Don't use oil. Problem solved. Living space? There's no shortage of space. Only of already developed space. So develop the rest. And when that runs out, there's plenty of room underground, aboveground and on/in the ocean.

This notion that the earth can't handle any more people, or is "running out" of resources is silly. Humans just need to stop being stupid. There are plenty of solutions to all of these problems.

[G-Flex]

You make it sound like all of those things are so easy, and that it would be trivial to implement those changes. Good luck with that.

[Eagle_eye]

Actually, if we tried to feed everyone on earth without oil derived fertilizers, we would probably ruin most of the topsoil pretty quickly. You can't have all the soil constantly in production.

[LordBucket]

If you look for problems, you will tend to find them. If you look for solutions, you will tend to find them.

[G-Flex]

If you pretend that those solutions are easy to find, popularize, and implement, then you will also find problems.

[alway]

Actually, if we tried to feed everyone on earth without oil derived fertilizers, we would probably ruin most of the topsoil pretty quickly. You can't have all the soil constantly in production.

Assuming you even use topsoil. There's also hydroponics as well as algae grown in vats (though the latter is mostly useful as fuel, as making that palatable & nutrient rich enough for a staple food would probably be tricky).

Also, LordBucket, you are wrong there. There are several types of minerals rare enough that Earth's supply is running out. Recycling and reusing these minerals is sufficient for our expected population peak of ~10-15 billion, but would be entirely insufficient for a population in the trillions. For that, you would need to import materials from space; however, space colonization & mining would be prevalent a long time before you got anywhere near that point. And when it comes down to it, once you get to that point, it's probably just as cheap to terraform a new world or build O'Neill Cylinders or similar structures anyway.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Planet Earth could easily accommodate several trillion humans.

Not really, no. I'm not sure you comprehend how large a number trillions would be. The number of humans that can subsist on what Earth has to offer is directly tied to the global hectare. If the number of hectares appropriated to each human is insufficient an unsustainable collapse follows. Unfortunately, both the global hectare and the individual hectare (assuming equal distribution, not actually the case) are both falling. This isn't even counting species that share resources with humans.

"Water scarcity" is an illusion. Water doesn't "go away" when used. It is recyclable.

You are missing the actual issue. Water can be artificially purified or will self-renew given enough time, but the issue is the distribution of the water. Fresh water is very unevenly distributed across Earth. While there is economic water shortage, physical water shortage (defined as a 25%+ shortfall in total water) does occur in the worst areas of drought.

Food scarcity" is similarly stupid. If there's not enough food, grow more. Dirt, water and sunlight are not in particularly short supply, and vat-grown meat is technologically viable already.

Growing enough food to support a population of our size is not a simple question of "grow more". You need more than dirt, water, and sunlight. You need pesticides to minimize losses to pest species, and more importantly you need the subject of your next point, oil. The oil is needed to run modern farming machines instead of having a hundred slaves to pick the fields for you, and the oil is most importantly used as a critical part of the Haber process, without which industrial fertilizer production is impossible. About 2.5 billion humans are going to starve to death if we cannot continue the mass production of fertilizer, and even more will die overall because people don't starve in silence; they pick up guns and start killing anyone who has food they could use.

Vat-grown meat is not technologically viable yet. It can be done, but doing something in a lab with lots of grant money is different from running a successful business with it. Vat-grown meat is still what we call a black technology, something that can only be done with intense funding, as opposed to white technology, which can survive on a market.

Oil? Don't use oil. Problem solved.

Aside from the Haber process (though that is very important), oil is a vital part of our transportation networks. Transporting food and water to where it needs to go is a vital part of modern living, especially in cities. Cities do not produce much food and don't get enough water on their own to sustain the numbers living there (hence why early cities were on rivers), they must be supported by outlying areas transporting resources to the city so that its people can not die and its industry can thrive, which is why cities are attractive to people in the first place. If you can only sustain people but not industry the city will slowly die. If you can't even sustain people the city will quickly and violently die.

Oil is necessary for a major form of plastic, and bioplastic hasn't replaced it just yet either.

"Just don't use oil" is a ridiculous statement.

Living space? There's no shortage of space. Only of already developed space. So develop the rest.

Developing land for human settlement destroys the local ecosystem. Destroying enough local ecosystem can harm the larger ecosystem and eventually Earth's biosphere. This, in turn, will negatively effect humans by dropping the planet's biodiversity and ruining the natural cycles that are responsible for some of our own resource gathering.

And when that runs out, there's plenty of room underground, above ground and on/in the ocean.

Living on the ocean demands even further transportation needs, and going on your "no oil" plan that isn't going to work out. Living under the ocean requires structures able to withstand massive pressure, the kind we haven't been able to make. Plus there's no benefit to living down there, so people won't much care to go. People wouldn't much like to live underground either, and an area of meaningful size would need massive support to not cave in.

This notion that the earth can't handle any more people, or is "running out" of resources is silly. Humans just need to stop being stupid. There are plenty of solutions to all of these problems.

While I will agree that there are solutions to all of our problems, non-renewable resources can be ran out of, and if that happens we will be in quite the violent fix. Semi-renewable resources like our current food production require that we maintain a cycle that needs us. Renewable resources are limited by transporting them to everyone who needs them.

The issue is not as simple as you think it is, and little of it has to do with people "being stupid".