Support NeoGAF

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The efficiency number doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is how much it costs to produce the electricity.

If you raise efficiency, it becomes more cost effective (unless you raise efficiency by using more expensive stuff). More efficient also means it takes up less space for a given amount of power generated, and for this reason can save on maintenance costs (less panels to maintain), as well as allowing for smaller solar collection plants.

But hey, we all know Nuclear is the best anyway

 

[jaxword]

The consumption of resources is something we can and are course correcting.

Are we now? Do explain.

 

[bigboss370]

whats that line from day the earth stood still?

"it's only on the brink [of destruction] that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve."

 

[XMonkey]

whats that line from day the earth stood still?

"it's only on the brink [of destruction] that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve."

Presuming we are able to even recognize that brink in the first place. We could shoot past it and realize it too late.

How to boil a frog and all of that...

 

[jaxword]

Presuming we are able to even recognize that brink in the first place. We could shoot past it and realize it too late.

How to boil a frog and all of that...

We seriously need a benevolent supergenius to take over the world and just force people to stop being idiots.

Unfortunately our supergeniuses are only interested in profit.

 

[OnkelC]

So, 2030 is the new 2012?

 

[greepoman]

Won't this be more of a long slow burn instead of a "disaster"? Prices of natural resources will keep rising and thus decrease consumption? I don't see how there will be some magical date where things suddenly go bad.

Edit: I think you can see it from the smithsonian chart shown earlier that this is already happening to a smaller degree. I think in the end the trends in the chart might be right but it'll just be a lot more stretched out and flatter without all these 'shocking' humps of sudden increase and decline.

 

[cutmeamango]

I just crunched some numbers here in my computer and I can fairly assert that by 2030 a new commodity useful for energy called fart will be the coin of world economy.

 

[maniac-kun]

If it turns our true we will see a World War 3 about the remaining resources around 2020. And the end of the monetary system after that.

 

[B!TCH]

But.

There are a lot of things about human life on Earth that are unsustainable.


One day the sun will explode and none of this nonsense will matter because we will all be dead.

 

[maniac-kun]

That we cant continue the way we have until now is clear when you know this graph:
Our generation and this age will be known as the age of stupidity where we used up most of the important resources in a couple of 100 years in a gigantic global party.

 

[Zaptruder]

That we cant continue the way we have until now is clear when you know this graph:
Our generation and this age will be known as the age of stupidity where we used up most of the important resources in a couple of 100 years in a gigantic global party.

And that graph only deals with metals.

What's much more disconcerting is what we're doing to our arable lands... soil erosion through overuse and climate change... kicking the shit out of our waterways, and completely failing at management of ocean resources.


That said, when we use something, it's not like it disappears - mainly, the materials are just converted into a different form, and have differing levels of extractability/recyclability.

We need to make it a major focus of our tech pathway to improve those factors - both the design of things that allow for better extractability/recyclability, and of the technology of extraction and recycling as well.

Unfortunately, recycling requires a hell of a lot of labour... so even falling short of advanced self-learning AI, we can still work on the modules of AI required for object recognition and manipulation...

Also that requires a lot of energy... so as always, energy remains one of the most critical tech issues... of course, the issue is creating a lot of green energy; because using fossil fuel energy to recycle stuff is just shooting ourselves in one foot, even while trying to bandage up the other.

 

[Mondriaan]

If it turns our true we will see a World War 3 about the remaining resources around 2020. And the end of the monetary system after that.

Look at military budgets around the world. The only way we'll have a WW3 in the next ten to twenty years is if the United States fights against everyone else.

Most likely we will have more wars, but they will all involve coalitions of first world countries fighting for loftier goals than acquiring natural resources.

 

[marrec]

But.

There are a lot of things about human life on Earth that are unsustainable.


One day the sun will explode and none of this nonsense will matter because we will all be dead.

My simulation shows that when the sun explodes, population will have a steep drop off.

This is a warning bell people!

 

[lacinius]

So should we start taking bets on which state will be the first to erect a Thunderdome?!?

 

[1-D_FTW]

My simulation shows that when the sun explodes, population will have a steep drop off.

This is a warning bell people!

Just looking at your posts in this thread, you're the reason society is doomed. We're clearly running out of resources at an alarming rate, but policy is made by the general voting public. And the majority of the public sticks their head in the sand and then bitches like crazy when their selfish course of direction has run us straight into the ditch.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Just looking at your posts in this thread, you're the reason society is doomed. We're clearly running out of resources at an alarming rate, but policy is made by the general voting public. And the majority of the public sticks their head in the sand and then bitches like crazy when their selfish course of direction has run us straight into the ditch.

But everything is bound to work out just fine because of singularity, ipad 10, jesus or something.

 

[Zaptruder]

Just looking at your posts in this thread, you're the reason society is doomed. We're clearly running out of resources at an alarming rate, but policy is made by the general voting public. And the majority of the public sticks their head in the sand and then bitches like crazy when their selfish course of direction has run us straight into the ditch.

When the evidence becomes too clear to be obfuscated, the American public will shift gears from denial into resignation.

Nothing is happening > They'll think of something before it happens > We can't do anything about it now > (x_x)

 

[Sutanreyu]

So how does one personally prepare?

Follow the principles of the Bible.

Seriously.

 

[Sutanreyu]

Aliens might come and save us. Computers wouldnt predict that

Only the good ones.

This thread is filled with egoism; I don't think that's gonna fly for them.

Every time there's an End of the World scenario proposed, people go into denial, get angry, and attempt to ridicule the person blowing the whistle. No one wants it to end, but we have to realize that, just in case it does, we should act constructively and make sure that you're prepared to deal with it. The people who are speaking truths get ignored, rejected, mocked because what they're saying doesn't make you feel good. Change yourselves for the better, or else, you won't go to space (i.e. heaven).

 

[Slayven]

"Ha ha Fuck-o I was right all along!"

"I'm also being drafted.... "



Smokeydave's got more swag in his little finger than I have in my whole body.

yeah but 75% of it comes from liquor.

 

[Something Wicked]

Just to let people know, but idiots like those who created the chart above have been "projecting" imminent mineral depletion for decades and, like all Malthusians, have been absolutely wrong with such projections.

Just from looking at the chart, I can see that the percentage of recycled platinum is just flat out wrong, unless the "study" was only looking at recycled materials purified to a near elemental form, which is unnecessary for many industrial processes.

For the very, very rare metals, we'll eventually be able to create them in nuclear reactors- at a high cost though. For most metals, we're is fine for centuries and for other metals, their low supplies of the end of this century and into the next century will provide an economic excuse to go mine Mars.

 

[JzeroT1437]

Cool. I'll be 45. It's a good lifespan.

 

[soldat7]

Hey, at least we get to play Diablo 3 before then. Maybe even Diablo 4. Maybe.

 

[Tzeentch]

For the very, very rare metals, we'll eventually be able to create them in nuclear reactors- at a high cost though.

-- I think you have a shaky grasp of what Malthus said or what "Malthusian" thinking says about agricultural production. That aside, I'm curious as to your source for the above quote.

 

[Puddles]

Economic growth has to end eventually. It's simple math and physics.

Eventually we'll have to move towards a zero-growth society. Hopefully we can completely eliminate poverty and hunger and largely eliminate inequality by then.

 

[HyperionX]

That we cant continue the way we have until now is clear when you know this graph:
Our generation and this age will be known as the age of stupidity where we used up most of the important resources in a couple of 100 years in a gigantic global party.

With the exception of Uranium, all metals are "renewable". No metal is ever destroyed when used, and even when discarded, is still around somewhere on Earth. Probably in a landfill, which is actually somewhat beneficial, because we can mine the landfills sometime in the future. Metal depletion does not work like fossil fuel depletion and doesn't merit the same kind of fearmongering.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Economic growth has to end eventually. It's simple math and physics.

Eventually we'll have to move towards a zero-growth society. Hopefully we can completely eliminate poverty and hunger and largely eliminate inequality by then.

Exactly my argument.

Its either:

- The world cannot support X percentage of the world extracting resources
- Robots replace all of the jobs we have
- All of the world become first world and population growth stagnates

1 and 2 may or may not happen, 3 is guaranteed to happen.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Exactly my argument.

Its either:

- The world cannot support X percentage of the world extracting resources
- Robots replace all of the jobs we have
- All of the world become first world and population growth stagnates

1 and 2 may or may not happen, 3 is guaranteed to happen.

all of the world is not becoming first world. that is a pipe dream. the only way that happens is if we forgo the monetary system and just do things cause we want to, not for money. and that's never going to happen.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

all of the world is not becoming first world. that is a pipe dream. the only way that happens is if we forgo the monetary system and just do things cause we want to, not for money. and that's never going to happen.

Then my general point should still hold. Eventually growth will end because there won't be enough people in the first world to sell our products too (which by and large often cater to first world people).

 

[Diablos]

I wonder if this will go down before or after Americans start shooting each other in what will essentially be another civil war? Still confident that I will see it at some point in my lifetime.

Either way, we've basically raped the planet and there's too many people. So it really doesn't surprise me that this is going to happen. I'll be three years shy of 50 in 2030.

Globally speaking, the future seems pretty shitty.

 

[speculawyer]

The times they are A-changin'.

 

[Puddles]

all of the world is not becoming first world. that is a pipe dream. the only way that happens is if we forgo the monetary system and just do things cause we want to, not for money. and that's never going to happen.

I don't see why not.

At its most basic level, a country's wealth comes from being able to produce more things with fewer people, so that those other people can go produce other things.

You get this efficiency through technology, capital (tools, factories, etc), and skills training. Theoretically we can do this for the entire world.

The only reasons we wouldn't be able to give the entire world a high standard of living would be if we absolutely could not overcome some kind of energy/raw materials bottleneck, or if government/financial systems deliberately prevented it.

 

[leroidys]

I don't think we will see a global collapse around 2030, but I do love that there is a camp that dismisses any discussion of resource depletion as Malthusian nonsense.

 

[ViperVisor]

The people who said the resource of the oceans were inexhaustible have been proven right.

What? that didn't happen?

Oh well, there is so much more reality to deny.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I don't think we will see a global collapse around 2030, but I do love that there is a camp that dismisses any discussion of resource depletion as Malthusian nonsense.

My mathematical model allows for exponential growth without any end other than glorious singularity where growth just goes up and up to infinity in a few seconds and if yours doesn't then you are pseudo-scientific Malthusian mouth breather!

 

[Neo C.]

I certainly won't put blind faith in "OMG, future technology!", simply because our government is very conservative with the education finances for the last two decades. And other governments aren't better either, especially now during the economy crisis.

 

[DonMigs85]

Aren't we supposed to be running low on chocolate pretty soon?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I don't think we will see a global collapse around 2030, but I do love that there is a camp that dismisses any discussion of resource depletion as Malthusian nonsense.

In their defense the fall of society has been predicted by many since the mainstream media has existed.

These predictions were always accurate for the time, but they forgot about further investment in human discoveries.

They failed to predict:

• 
  
  - The impact of the discovery of new lands (1700s)
  - The amount of new practices the transfer to the country environment to city environment would bring (1800s)
  - The rise of private industry (early 1900s)
  - The emergence of the global market (mid 1900s)

While I'm positive that we will soon have to change our economic model, I am not so sure about society collapsing:

• 
  - New technologies are being brought to replace our energy (see solar panels, lithium cars, desalination of water, farming on previously inhabitable land, etc..)
  - The benefit of having more and more large first world nations. North America, Western Europe and small parts of East Asia aren't going to be the only places with a high quality of life. South America, the rest of East Asia, and hell possibly even parts of Africa will soon rise to become power players as well.
  - Space travel is still untapped. The moon and Mars alone would be of tremendous aid to the Earth, and then you have all of those other planets in our solar system to extract resources from.
  - As the world grows more first world, population declines. People with money don't want to have babies. Hell in some developed country it is turning into that people don't want to get married or want relationships or even *gasp* sex.

I will believe that one day we will have an economic leftist revolution that would involve the focus on growth being replaced with the focus on stability. However due to the above I doubt we will ever have to worry about society's survival until World War III happens.

 

[Onion_Relish]

Considering people thought we would have robot butlers by the 1980s I'm not too worried by these predictions.

 

[Niks]

Aren't we supposed to be running low on chocolate pretty soon?

Vanilla is on its way out too.. doomed indeed.

 

[CiSTM]

Considering people thought we would have robot butlers by the 1980s I'm not too worried by these predictions.

 

[Acheron]

Ain't nobody who made a splash saying, "all is well."

 

[leroidys]

Ain't nobody who made a splash saying, "all is well."

MONORAIL!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The times they are A-changin'.

Fun fact: Oil Speculation wasn't legal prior to 2001. I wonder if that's important...

*looks at graph again*

"yep."

 

[RoH]

I don't see why not.

At its most basic level, a country's wealth comes from being able to produce more things with fewer people, so that those other people can go produce other things.

You get this efficiency through technology, capital (tools, factories, etc), and skills training. Theoretically we can do this for the entire world.

The only reasons we wouldn't be able to give the entire world a high standard of living would be if we absolutely could not overcome some kind of energy/raw materials bottleneck, or if government/financial systems deliberately prevented it.

Sounds a lot like the Venus Project
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

But, I don't see any shift to such an economy any time soon.

 

[Divvy]

Fun fact: Oil Speculation wasn't legal prior to 2001. I wonder if that's important...

*looks at graph again*

"yep."

huh, what happened between 1980 and 1986?

 

[AAequal]

huh, what happened between 1980 and 1986?

Revolutions and embargoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_world_oil_market_events_(1970-2005)#The_1980s

 

[Puddles]

Sounds a lot like the Venus Project
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

But, I don't see any shift to such an economy any time soon.

Probably not, but I do believe it's possible. I've read (although I haven't fact-checked), that we can already produce enough food to give every human being on Earth 2700 calories per day. If that's true, then we already have the ability to eliminate hunger; it's just a distribution problem.

 

[Zaptruder]

Probably not, but I do believe it's possible. I've read (although I haven't fact-checked), that we can already produce enough food to give every human being on Earth 2700 calories per day. If that's true, then we already have the ability to eliminate hunger; it's just a distribution problem.

Food creation and sustainability is probably the biggest environmental ecological issue that we face today.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_foley_the_other_inconvenient_truth.html

Even if we can make that much food now, there's no guarantee that we can continue in the future. At least not as we're doing it today.

I think some of the more promising philosophies of food production that are starting to take root is the idea of permaculture... literally it means permanent agriculture, as in an agricultural pattern that can be sustained indefintely... meaning that the way food stuff is grown doesn't deplete the ground's mineral and water supply.

In practice it means the design and use of micro-ecosystems for food production. The big difference between standard agriculture and permaculture is that standard agriculture goes with the idea of one crop per given area, no ecological interaction. Where as permaculture is based on the idea that the food grown in an area can synergize with each other, with the waste of one food becoming fuel for another food type - plant or animal (both really).

The good thing about permaculture is that a standard suburban backyard can produce more than enough food for the householders - it's great efficiency is derived from the fact that it's producing multiple food stuffs, and that everything is edible.

It could play well off the whole organic food movement that's starting up - I mean organic is kinda dumb, but when paired up with the idea of permaculture, has some real efficacy to it.

Of course, what the idea really needs is some great marketing to go along with it... as it is, it no doubt reeks of a hippy ethos that would simply throw most people off from even considering it, much less exploring the ins and outs of such a thing.


Another idea (although less practical in many ways) is vertical farming - half agricultural/half residential/commercial skyscrapers.

Essentially the big draw back to that is that of energy use - instead of using free sunlight, we have to use energy for climate control and light control. If we ever got around to replacing all our energy with green sources and nuclear... and agriculture was still a considerable issue (I think it would be), this would be the solution in a post-energy-scarcity scenario.

It would also have considerable humanist leanings to it too; it's just nicer to have environments and architecture that can combine the best of the order created by the design of men with the best of nature.